# Spending and Morality



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

An interesting article by Walter Williams. Emphasis mine.


> During last year&#8217;s budget negotiation meetings, President Barack Obama told House Speaker John Boehner, &#8220;We don&#8217;t have a spending problem.&#8221; When Boehner responded with &#8220;But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem,&#8221; Obama replied, &#8220;I&#8217;m getting tired of hearing you say that.&#8221; In one sense, the president is right. What&#8217;s being called a spending problem is really a symptom of an unappreciated deep-seated national moral rot. Let&#8217;s examine it with a few questions.
> 
> Is it moral for Congress to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another? I believe that most Americans would pretend that to do so is offensive. Think about it this way. Suppose I saw a homeless, hungry elderly woman huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. To help the woman, I ask somebody for a $200 donation to help her out. If the person refuses, I then use intimidation, threats and coercion to take the person's money. I then purchase food and shelter for the needy woman. My question to you: Have I committed a crime? I hope that most people would answer yes. It&#8217;s theft to take the property of one person to give to another.
> 
> Now comes the hard part. Would it be theft if I managed to get three people to agree that I should take the person&#8217;s money to help the woman? What if I got 100, 1 million or 300 million people to agree to take the person&#8217;s $200? Would it be theft then? What if instead of personally taking the person&#8217;s $200, I got together with other Americans and asked Congress to use Internal Revenue Service agents to take the person&#8217;s $200? The bottom-line question is: _*Does an act that&#8217;s clearly immoral when done privately become moral when it is done collectively and under the color of law? Put another way, does legality establish morality?*_


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Theft is theft... regardless of the reason, this is probably why the founding fathers made no provision for charitable giving by the government when they designed it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Williams does what many do not. He thinks rationally. He has a discerning intellect that doesn't accept BS. Why does AGW come to mind?

Babies/kids unknowingly modify some parents' behavior by screaming for what they want. When you think about it, the media and politicians metaphorically do they same thing when the try to get us to bend over and grab our ankles for AGW. 

Williams will never assume the position.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Of course it's theft, unless your a socialist. Then the $200 belongs to the State in the first place.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

And the irony of Dr Williams' analogy is the woman will end up with $50 when the government gets done with the $200. It's the bureaucrats and political cronies that benefit most from our taxation system.

Sort of the same reason I won't pledge $19 per month to Wounded Warriors. As much as I want the best for our wounded veterans, an organization that can afford ads on national TV, and refuses money from any organization associated with firearms, is pulling too much out of the pot for themselves.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

No liberal can disagree with the great Walter Williams. They simply change the argument.

I love Mr. Williams' writings... He defines lucid man..


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

This analogy works well if you ignore how government works. Government is made up of our elected officials that were put into office to make decisions on our behalf. Those decisions include budget decisions. Is it in the best interest of the country to help people when they need help? If they decide yes then they have the legal authority to tax us for that purpose. This power comes from Article 1 section 8 of the constitution. 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Specifically general welfare another way of saying this would be the common good. 

Jim


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

See what davey crocket had to say so clearly on this subject.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Sort of depends on your definition of what's moral. I'd rather live in a society where the least of us are guaranteed food, shelter and healthcare than one where generals are guaranteed gourmet meals and string quartets. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/generals-live-like-kings/


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Jim Bunton said:


> This analogy works well if you ignore how government works. Government is made up of our elected officials that were put into office to make decisions on our behalf. Those decisions include budget decisions. Is it in the best interest of the country to help people when they need help? If they decide yes then they have the legal authority to tax us for that purpose.


Repeating a line from the quote in the OP:


> Put another way, does legality establish morality?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Ozarks Tom said:


> And the irony of Dr Williams' analogy is the woman will end up with $50 when the government gets done with the $200. It's the bureaucrats and political cronies that benefit most from our taxation system.
> 
> Sort of the same reason I won't pledge $19 per month to Wounded Warriors. As much as I want the best for our wounded veterans, an organization that can afford ads on national TV, and refuses money from any organization associated with firearms, is pulling too much out of the pot for themselves.


I too totally support the mission of Wounded Warrior Project, but I quit giving them $$$. According to the papers they filed with Charity Navigator and the IRS, WWP spends 36+% of every dollar on fund raising and the CEO of WWP pays himself a salary of $375K / year plus other unspecified benefits and he lives in Jacksonville, FL where the cost of living is fairly low. So it takes almost 1,645 people paying $19/month just to pay his salary. He is getting rich off the pain of our soldiers. Disgusting.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Jim Bunton said:


> This analogy works well if you ignore how government works. Government is made up of our elected officials that were put into office to make decisions on our behalf. Those decisions include budget decisions. Is it in the best interest of the country to help people when they need help? If they decide yes then they have the legal authority to tax us *[fairly and reasonably, and equally]* for that purpose. This power comes from Article 1 section 8 of the constitution.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
> 
> ...


Do not disagree in the slightest.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Thank you feel for the info. Money should be spent wisely


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Sort of depends on your definition of what's moral. I'd rather live in a society where the least of us are guaranteed food, shelter and healthcare than one where generals *[and elected officials]* are guaranteed gourmet meals and string quartets. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/generals-live-like-kings/


Do not disagree in the slightest.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Sort of depends on your definition of what's moral. I'd rather live in a society where the least of us are guaranteed food, shelter and healthcare than one where generals are guaranteed gourmet meals and string quartets. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/generals-live-like-kings/


So since you like guaranteed subsidization of the poor, you are OK with the theft of funds from workers in order to give a portion of the stolen funds to non workers. Remember, if I do not go along with your gov't initiated "charity", I can lose my job, home, and freedom. That is the choice you are making. 

And you've set up a false choice. The fact that there is waste and abuse in one area of gov't does not justify waste, abuse, and theft from the taxpayers in another area of gov't. If I were to accept your logic, then virtually any gov't expense, in any amount, for any reason is OK.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

"_*Does an act that&#8217;s clearly immoral when done privately become moral when it is done collectively and under the color of law? Put another way, does legality establish morality?"

*_The statement is deceptive. It is prefaced with "Suppose I saw a homeless, hungry elderly woman huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. _To help the woman, I ask somebody_ (else) for a $200 donation to help her out."

Is there a morality to knowingly allowing a homeless, hungry elderly woman to be forced to survive by sitting on a heating grate in the middle of winter? Christian and most advanced moral systems would question that stance.

The statement also has a presupposition of the person doing the asking for help is in the same financial state as the potential donor. The color of the statement changes if the person asking is a cripple with only means of sustenance income or a powerful and wealthy individual who uses money frivolously on a regular basis.

There will undoubtedly be responses like "she got there through her own failings." That type of response is unreasoned blame shifting. The woman could have just as well been a savior of children, who had fallen upon hard times through spending her resources saving them. Without further knowledge, no such claim can be made.

The second failing is in failing to recognize that we live in societies. The gathering of currency of the realm by any individual only comes from INTERACTION with society. Wealth is not wealth except through comparison and within context. An individual who becomes an adult WITHOUT the benefits of society, the educational knowledge of that society, the nurturing of that society through sickness, and the interactions with the people of that society is doomed to become a stone throwing, illiterate unsocialized beast of the jungle. Like it or not, society is not a one way street, where wealth can be amassed without having any corresponding responsibility and fair recompense for knowledge and values given that worked to create that wealth.

If the woman and donor were from different societies that had zero interaction and zero connections, and there was a lack of resources, a lack of response might be appropriate.

There are problems with excessive use of taxation, and particularly with the perversion of income tax, which superseded trade tariffs as a primary income source for government. That does not translate to a statement that all social responsibility is evil, or that someone forced into responsibility is being mistreated. The child who doesn't do his chores and gets a lickin' is being taxed against his will. The young adult who reaps the benefits of a society through theft and is jailed is taxed against his will. The businessman who values a $500,000 yacht more than paying employees a living wage gets taxed against his will.

A decent society treats its members fairly and justly. A decent individual treats society fairly and justly.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> This analogy works well if you ignore how government works. Government is made up of our elected officials that were put into office to make decisions on our behalf. Those decisions include budget decisions. Is it in the best interest of the country to help people when they need help? If they decide yes then they have the legal authority to tax us for that purpose. This power comes from Article 1 section 8 of the constitution.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
> 
> ...


 This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.
Not in the constitution it means 
*Welfare*
welfare _n._ 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME _wel faren,_ to fare well] _Source: AHD_
Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Sort of depends on your definition of what's moral. I'd rather live in a society where the least of us are guaranteed food, shelter and healthcare than one where generals are guaranteed gourmet meals and string quartets. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/generals-live-like-kings/


There are people in the middle east with vast amounts of wealth while some here in the US cannot afford gas in order to drive to work. Should our government forcibly make those wealthy share their oil?


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Harry Chickpea said:


> "_*Does an act thatâs clearly immoral when done privately become moral when it is done collectively and under the color of law? Put another way, does legality establish morality?"
> 
> *_The statement is deceptive. It is prefaced with "Suppose I saw a homeless, hungry elderly woman huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. _To help the woman, I ask somebody_ (else) for a $200 donation to help her out."
> 
> ...


No doubt there are social obligations to help the poor. But societies obligations are not the charges of the government.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

kasilofhome said:


> See what davey crocket had to say so clearly on this subject.


Good story, boils down to this line:



> We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.


http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Constitution_Issues/davy_crockett_and_charity.htm


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nate_in_IN said:


> There are people in the middle east with vast amounts of wealth while some here in the US cannot afford gas in order to drive to work. Should our government forcibly make those wealthy share their oil?


We've tried. Remember Iraq?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> We've tried. Remember Iraq?


The question Nate asked was "should we?" Do you support war for oil?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

jtbrandt said:


> The question Nate asked was "should we?" Do you support war for oil?


Nope.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

[FONT=&quot]From Williams' article, re: the interpretation of the general welfare clause:


> Madison had that covered, explaining in a letter, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one." Thomas Jefferson agreed, writing: Members of Congress "are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare. ... It would reduce the (Constitution) to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."


[FONT=&quot]The 'modern' interpretation of the general welfare clause would seem to go against the basic concept [FONT=&quot](and original intent of the founders) of [/FONT]limited federal power.[/FONT]
[/FONT]


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Who ever said our laws are moral? Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is moral. Throwing a widow out of her home and making her homeless because her husband died and she is too poor to pay property tax on something she is supposed to own, is legal, it is really extortion (pay up or we harm you) but it isn't moral. It is legal to steal money from honest people because they make bank deposits continually under 10,000 (because the little store's insurance company doesn't insure a cash drawer over 10,000) but it isn't moral. Our legislators don't care about what is moral, they only care about making crimes that suits them legal. After all insider trading is illegal for us but not for them, they can make investments concerning legislation they know about before it passes. Our government's laws (actually most governments) and morality have nothing to do with each other. To have morality in law, requires some sort of belief in a higher authority who defines morality. Left to themselves without a higher power, government says what is legal is moral according to their self imposed standards. If those standards become a problem later, they can just change them. (Situational ethics). (This is what the whole story of Adam and Eve and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was about. Man flipped his finger at God and said we can know good and evil, we can figure it out for ourselves, we don't need you telling us what to do. Governments are just an extension of that, deciding good and evil for themselves. Of course doing so to the benefit them or their buddies.)


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Liberals who believe the Constitution is a "living" document will find ways to interpret words and phrases to their liking, no matter the original intent.

Much like the decision finding growing wheat for your own consumption affects "interstate commerce", the words "general welfare" are contorted to mean individual welfare and not the welfare of the people in general. The irony of that definition is the destruction of personal responsibility it's brought about in so many, to the detriment of the very people liberals claim to champion.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Nate_in_IN said:


> No doubt there are social obligations to help the poor. But societies obligations are not the charges of the government.


The government is society, in that it is an expression of the values of that society. That the general populace does not take enough interest or effort to effectively influence government is a societal ill. 

The general topic of social reform is part of dealing with "threats from within."

http://harrychickpea.blogspot.com/2011/03/difficulty-in-determining-role-of.html


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

[FONT=&quot]"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one." Madison did [FONT=&quot]say this yet that isn't what they put into the constitution. If it [FONT=&quot]ha[/FONT]d been ther[FONT=&quot]e would have been no reason for him to try and [FONT=&quot]clarify[/FONT] it. 


[FONT=&quot]Jim[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> The question Nate asked was "should we?" Do you support war for oil?


It is much cheaper to buy oil. 
Jim


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Ask the question a different way. "Is it moral to sit on your butt and take other people's money? Is sit moral to become a drunk, to sit on your butt and snort cocaine, suck on a bottle or a toke, lie around on the beach claiming a fake disability and take other people's money?"

I say hell no. To tax ourselves for the care of the crippled, the wounded soldier, the mentally ill, the old, is moral. To take our money and hand it out to perfectly healthy, even fat, people who disdain work, education and law is scandalously immoral.
Oxankle


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Harry Chickpea said:


> The government is society, in that it is an expression of the values of that society. That the general populace does not take enough interest or effort to effectively influence government is a societal ill.


I reject that idea. Government is NOT society. Government and society are two different entities.

You do not need a government to express social values at all. Indeed government is a horribly inefficient beast to use to express values.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nate_in_IN said:


> I reject that idea. Government is NOT society. Government and society are two different entities.
> 
> You do not need a government to express social values at all. Indeed government is a horribly inefficient beast to use to express values.


But it can be highly efficient at reflecting social values.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> But it can be highly efficient at reflecting social values.


How so? Do you think your government is highly reflective of your culture? I sure don't think it is of mine.

In truth government should not interfere with society. There are tons of examples where government has tried to implement social rules and failed, look at prohibition, abortion laws, marriage laws, etc.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Nope.


On what grounds do you not support war for oil? Because it is wrong to take from others, or because the opposition is armed and resistant?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nate_in_IN said:


> On what grounds do you not support war for oil? Because it is wrong to take from others, or because the opposition is armed and resistant?


I'll clarify. If, say, China decided to invade Texas or North Dakota with the express purpose of taking over the oil fields I would willingly join in fighting back and going to war. To travel across the globe to take forcibly take oil from others is quite a different thing. Now, I know you're trying to back me into the corner of telling you why the Chinese taking oil are no different than your own government taking your money. The answer is quite simple. We, as a country, don't live under Chinese rule of law. You, as a US citizen choose to live under our rule of law. You're perfectly able, allowed and encouraged to engage in shaping and changing those laws to fit your vision. Others can freely do the same. As a society we agree to abide by the outcome even while working for change. If you don't like the laws in place break them and face the penalties. Work to change them. Leave and go somewhere more to your liking.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nate_in_IN said:


> How so? Do you think your government is highly reflective of your culture? I sure don't think it is of mine.
> 
> In truth government should not interfere with society. There are tons of examples where government has tried to implement social rules and failed, look at prohibition, abortion laws, marriage laws, etc.


But I don't believe my culture is totally reflective of yours. Our society is an amalgam of many cultures and our laws reflect that amalgamation. You'll note that all the things you mention have changed as society has changed. That's how societies work. That is how man has gone from stone tools and living in caves to being able to travel halfway across the globe in hours.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> But it can be highly efficient at reflecting social values.


No, it's highly efficient at pandering for the votes of disparate groups, each wanting something for nothing. It's also highly efficient at inefficiency. There's not one thing the government does efficiently, wasting citizen's money at every turn. 

We can't even fight a war efficiently, instituting Rules of Engagement that get our soldiers killed.

By the way, just what "social values" do you think the government reflects? Did I miss the meeting where every social question was agreed upon unanimously?


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I'll clarify. If, say, China decided to invade Texas or North Dakota with the express purpose of taking over the oil fields I would willingly join in fighting back and going to war. To travel across the globe to take forcibly take oil from others is quite a different thing. Now, I know you're trying to back me into the corner of telling you why the Chinese taking oil are no different than your own government taking your money. The answer is quite simple. We, as a country, don't live under Chinese rule of law. You, as a US citizen choose to live under our rule of law. You're perfectly able, allowed and encouraged to engage in shaping and changing those laws to fit your vision. Others can freely do the same. As a society we agree to abide by the outcome even while working for change. If you don't like the laws in place break them and face the penalties. Work to change them. Leave and go somewhere more to your liking.


Not trying to back you into a corner at all. Just trying to bring forth the discussion from an otherwise terse response.

I understand what you are saying, that currently we are legally obligated to help the poor, because that is what the government, through passage of law, has said we are obligated to do. What needs to be discussed is, does the government have the ability, and the right, to pass such a law. Because frankly we have now come full circle to the OP where if the vote is 300-1 then someone is stripped of their money.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Ozarks Tom said:


> No, it's highly efficient at pandering for the votes of disparate groups, each wanting something for nothing. It's also highly efficient at inefficiency. There's not one thing the government does efficiently, wasting citizen's money at every turn.
> 
> We can't even fight a war efficiently, instituting Rules of Engagement that get our soldiers killed.
> 
> By the way, just what "social values" do you think the government reflects? Did I miss the meeting where every social question was agreed upon unanimously?


Since this started as an attack on government largesse I'll point out that one value we hold is honoring the service of those who serve our country. We promise to take care of them if they become injured or disabled in that service. For the most part we, as a society, do a pretty good job of honoring that promise. There are issues but any endeavor overseen by man is imperfect. It's a good societal value to do so. But I'd bet that even this value is not unanimous.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> But I don't believe my culture is totally reflective of yours. Our society is an amalgam of many cultures and our laws reflect that amalgamation. You'll note that all the things you mention have changed as society has changed. That's how societies work. That is how man has gone from stone tools and living in caves to being able to travel halfway across the globe in hours.


Exactly. Government cannot be reflective of society because by definition everyone under the jurisdiction of that government would have to have the same societal values. This is a great argument for a minimal government; less government allows for more personal freedom!

Society, people, possess great ability for industry. Government is created by those people in order to protect them and provide a minimal structure to interactions between them. Societies certainly do change, when they are under a government which allows them to do such.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Not trying to back you into a corner at all. Just trying to bring forth the discussion from an otherwise terse response.
> 
> I understand what you are saying, that currently we are legally obligated to help the poor, because that is what the government, through passage of law, has said we are obligated to do. What needs to be discussed is, does the government have the ability, and the right, to pass such a law. Because frankly we have now come full circle to the OP where if the vote is 300-1 then someone is stripped of their money.


The Constitution is quite explicit in spelling out exactly what government cannot do. It is slightly more vague in outlining how those things government can do are to be done. This shows much foresight by those who wrote it. They recognized that there would be challenges to the country and issues they could not foresee. They left flexibility in how to deal with these things while very directly pointing out what government cannot do. If you care to show me where in the Constitution it says that the government cannot tax someone and provide support to another I'd be curious to see it.

That being said, our system of doing this isn't perfect or even close to perfect. Discussion of how it can be changed to make it better and reflect modern realities is productive. Talk of it being immoral and somehow wrong or not legally allowed to use the government to help people is in my opinion totally counterproductive.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Exactly. Government cannot be reflective of society because by definition everyone under the jurisdiction of that government would have to have the same societal values. This is a great argument for a minimal government; less government allows for more personal freedom!
> 
> Society, people, possess great ability for industry. Government is created by those people in order to protect them and provide a minimal structure to interactions between them. Societies certainly do change, when they are under a government which allows them to do such.


If everyone had to agree it would be very hard to have any rule of law. Government's reflection of values doesn't mean that everyone has to agree on those values, just that everyone has to agree to abide by the laws that are brought about by those values. Some people undoubtedly believe that pre teen girls should be allowed to be married off. Society as a whole has decided otherwise and government has enacted laws to that effect. Should those laws based on those values be invalidated because the values aren't unanimous?


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> The Constitution is quite explicit in spelling out exactly what government cannot do. It us slightly more vague in outlining how those things government can do are to be done. This shows much foresight by those who wrote it. They recognized that there would be challenges to the country and issues they could not foresee. They left flexibility in how to deal with these things while very directly pointing out what government cannot do. If you care to show me where in the Constitution it says that the government cannot tax someone and provide support to another I'd be curious to see it.


Hmm, not from what I understood in my federal government class back in high school. The Constitution specifically enumerates the powers given the Federal government and contains a clause stating any power not enumerated shall be the jurisdiction of the States. I will agree that a State may Constitutionally setup welfare programs, indeed the oldest welfare programs were implemented by State governments.



mmoetc said:


> That being said, our system of doing this isn't perfect or even close to perfect. Discussion of how it can be changed to make it better and reflect modern realities is productive. Talk of it being immoral and somehow wrong or not legally allowed to use the government to help people is in my opinion totally counterproductive.


Let's see if I can provide an analogy. One of my neighbors is a member of the local high-school wrestling team. As a fund raiser he asked if I wished to purchase candy bars. He indicated the funds raised were for equipment they required, and to offset the cost of travel to matches. Digging deeper we found that I would pay $1 for a candy bar. Of that $1 the wrestling program would receive $.45, less than half.

The Federal governments welfare system is the very same. It is horribly inefficient at distributing the funds it collects, quite often with less than 50% actually going toward the intended use. Arguing that individuals should have control of their possessions in order to increase this efficiency is far from counter-productive. Getting government out of the system would be the biggest boon for the welfare system.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Hmm, not from what I understood in my federal government class back in high school. The Constitution specifically enumerates the powers given the Federal government and contains a clause stating any power not enumerated shall be the jurisdiction of the States. I will agree that a State may Constitutionally setup welfare programs, indeed the oldest welfare programs were implemented by State governments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I simply asked for the clause that spells out that government cannot do what you say it cannot do. I see language saying the government cannot write laws that infringe on the right to do any number of things. I see no language that says the government cannot tax you and spend the money as they see fit. Care to show me that language?

We agree that the government might not be optimally efficient. But neither are many of those charities many give to everyday. I'm open to discussions about how to make the system better but I don't think doing away with it is one worth discussing.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I simply asked for the clause that spells out that government cannot do what you say it cannot do. I see language saying the government cannot write laws that infringe on the right to do any number of things. I see no language that says the government cannot tax you and spend the money as they see fit. Care to show me that language?


I'm assuming by "government" you mean the Federal government. If so, then there is no reason to provide an example which says it cannot do something. The cannot do it is assumed, The Constitution declares what the Federal government can do and if it's not listed it cannot.



mmoetc said:


> We agree that the government might not be optimally efficient. But neither are many of those charities many give to everyday. I'm open to discussions about how to make the system better but I don't think doing away with it is one worth discussing.


The very discussion I wish to have is for the government to allow individuals the freedom to provide charity. Since you are not open to discussing this we may retire this conversation.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nate_in_IN said:


> I'm assuming by "government" you mean the Federal government. If so, then there is no reason to provide an example which says it cannot do something. The cannot do it is assumed, The Constitution declares what the Federal government can do and if it's not listed it cannot.
> 
> 
> The very discussion I wish to have is for the government to allow individuals the freedom to provide charity. Since you are not open to discussing this we may retire this conversation.


Language such as this http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment seems fairly clear in explaining what the government cannot do. It has already been shown earlier that there is language that allows the governments to levy taxes and spend the money. You claim otherwise. I simply ask for something to back up that claim.

Now, show me the law that says you cannot give money to any charity you wish. In fact, the tax code is written to give you an advantage if you do so. Many people and companies take advantage of this every day.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

The govt. not only will take money from a person by force for what ever they decide to, they will take their share right off the top.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Language such as this http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment seems fairly clear in explaining what the government cannot do. It has already been shown earlier that there is language that allows the governments to levy taxes and spend the money. You claim otherwise. I simply ask for something to back up that claim.


Amendment X 


> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.





mmoetc said:


> Now, show me the law that says you cannot give money to any charity you wish. In fact, the tax code is written to give you an advantage if you do so. Many people and companies take advantage of this every day.


I believe you mean to say "show me the law that says you cannot give additional money to any charity you wish." I am required by law to provide SS and Medicare charity. And, as Nevada always points out, I'm now bound by law to provide health insurance subsidies to others. But you are correct and I misspoke before. I am free to contribute any sums, after those charities and many others are already provided, as I see best fit.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Amendment X
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And as has been pointed out taxing and spending authority are ensconced in the original document making your argument moot.


I said what I meant to say. Feel free to work against continuing programs like SS and Medicare. Just don't threaten to take it way from those already benefiting. You'll likely find that what society wants differs from what you want.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> And as has been pointed out taxing and spending authority are ensconced in the original document making your argument moot.
> 
> 
> I said what I meant to say. Feel free to work against continuing programs like SS and Medicare. Just don't threaten to take it way from those already benefiting. You'll likely find that what society wants differs from what you want.


I have never argued that the Federal government doesn't have the power to collect taxes, only that it isn't allowed to spend on specialized welfare.

I'm not sure how to interpret your second paragraph. I do indeed work to eliminate waste. I guess it's a big part of my profession and I can see the benefit of eliminating waste in our political system. I do believe charity should come from individuals and not governments. It sounds as it you feel that mob rule should determine the law. If society will riot and destroy property if a cop shoots an african-american should there be a law against cops shooting african-americans? This notion is absurd. In fact laws are drafted and agreed to to counter the effect of mob rule.

The part which saddens me greatly is that people don't realize there are legitimate actions the Federal government could take which would help the problems SS and the ACA are trying to solve. But these are over-shadowed by the fact the government just pays for these things.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Yesterday one of "corner entrepreneurs" was standing side near the entrance to parking lot of a grocery store with his typical cardboard sign asking for money. Normally I simply ignore these, as they are everywhere and frequently a scam. But this guy was more active than most, so rolling my eyes at my own stupidity, I thought this one might actually need something and walked over.
His sign said he needed money for a tent. I gave him $5 dollars and he told me that he needed the tent as the police had taken his. This guy was camping out by the bay on public land and the police, when they get called to a fight in one of these camps, do confiscate tents if they have previously warned the tresspassers.
So there is a microcosm of the whole problem- I gave money to a man so he could continue to live homeless when he appeared perfectly able both physically and mentally to work. After he had apparently been in trouble routinely. Now I had trained him to panhandle more aggressively and have help provide him with the means to keep at his poor behavior. 
And another thing to consider is that I routinely stop by the Boys and Girls Club on the way home and give them left over money on my shopping day, so they were short the $5.

Institutionalizing charity also institutionalizes this problem.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Have you heard of Davie Crockett...he clearing has the constitutional understanding ...can it be linked ...I device can't link....so much knowledge is forgotten


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Remember, federal social programs did not exist @ the time the Constitution was written nor up until the time of Theodore Roosevelt, who made the first proposal. The general welfare of the people was interpreted to mean the _overall_ (general) welfare of the country.

It wasn't until around 1937 (during FDRs administration & court-packing era, imagine that), that SCOTUS' interpretation said that Congress can tax & spend pretty much at their own discretion. 

Question: is it in the best interest of the country for Congress to have the ability to tax and spend at their own discretion, under the modern interpretation of the general welfare clause?


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> I have never argued that the Federal government doesn't have the power to collect taxes, only that it isn't allowed to spend on specialized welfare.
> 
> I'm not sure how to interpret your second paragraph. I do indeed work to eliminate waste. I guess it's a big part of my profession and I can see the benefit of eliminating waste in our political system. I do believe charity should come from individuals and not governments. It sounds as it you feel that mob rule should determine the law. If society will riot and destroy property if a cop shoots an african-american should there be a law against cops shooting african-americans? This notion is absurd. In fact laws are drafted and agreed to to counter the effect of mob rule.
> 
> The part which saddens me greatly is that people don't realize there are legitimate actions the Federal government could take which would help the problems SS and the ACA are trying to solve. But these are over-shadowed by the fact the government just pays for these things.


There is already a law against police shooting African Americans,all other Americans, and even aliens. 
Jim


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Remember, federal social programs did not exist @ the time the Constitution was written nor up until the time of Theodore Roosevelt, who made the first proposal. The general welfare of the people was interpreted to mean the _overall_ (general) welfare of the country.
> 
> It wasn't until around 1937 (during FDRs administration & court-packing era, imagine that), that SCOTUS' interpretation said that Congress can tax & spend pretty much at their own discretion.
> 
> Question: is it in the best interest of the country for Congress to have the ability to tax and spend at their own discretion, under the modern interpretation of the general welfare clause?


Many believe that a safety net put in place for those that need help when they need it is in the best interest for the _overall_ (general) welfare. If you can keep a person from losing his house it is much more likely that he will find productive work and be a benefit to the country. Add a training program odds go up even more. What is the advantage to society of having a larger homeless population?

Jim


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Jim Bunton said:


> Many believe that a safety net put in place for those that need help when they need it is in the best interest for the _overall_ (general) welfare. If you can keep a person from losing his house it is much more likely that he will find productive work and be a benefit to the country. Add a training program odds go up even more. What is the advantage to society of having a larger homeless population?
> 
> Jim


So many assumptions, so little time. 
If you can keep some people from losing their house, some people will find productive work. However some people will take the assistance, keep screwing up, never find productive work and demand more and more assistance.
What is the advantage of society making not working acceptably a subsitute for working?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Jim Bunton said:


> Many believe that a safety net put in place for those that need help when they need it is in the best interest for the _overall_ (general) welfare. If you can keep a person from losing his house it is much more likely that he will find productive work and be a benefit to the country. Add a training program odds go up even more. What is the advantage to society of having a larger homeless population?
> 
> Jim


Perhaps Congress should focus more on economic policies that would promote jobs; i.e. a healthy economy, rather than providing a safety net. 

If we did indeed have a robust economy, there would be no need for *federal* safety nets, but those in need could be handled by the states and private charity.

And when I say economic policies that would promote jobs, the best way they could do that is with _fewer_ regulations and _less_ taxation.

Consider, since the advent of the federal reserve and welfare spending, our country has grown weaker and more unstable economically.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Big difference between a safety net and a hammock....


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

jtbrandt said:


> Big difference between a safety net and a hammock....


Precisely why those needs are best left to states rather than the federal government......who has the authority to tax & can define most anything as being for the 'general welfare'.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Perhaps Congress should focus more on economic policies that would promote jobs; i.e. a healthy economy, rather than providing a safety net.
> 
> If we did indeed have a robust economy, there would be no need for *federal* safety nets, but those in need could be handled by the states and private charity.
> 
> ...


Do you have any example that supports your belief that lower taxes promote more jobs? Perhaps with lower state taxes jobs will move from state to state, but these companies are still receiving the benefits of the federal government regardless of which state they reside in. What regulations are you suggesting we get rid of? 

Jim


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Precisely why those needs are best left to states rather than the federal government......who has the authority to tax & can define most anything as being for the 'general welfare'.


How is it different if the state does it or the federal government? 

Jim


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> How is it different if the state does it or the federal government?
> 
> Jim


Not as many politicians as federal. That should save quite a bit of money stolen at least.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Language such as this http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment seems fairly clear in explaining what the government cannot do. It has already been shown earlier that there is language that allows the governments to levy taxes and spend the money. You claim otherwise. I simply ask for something to back up that claim.
> 
> Now, show me the law that says you cannot give money to any charity you wish. In fact, the tax code is written to give you an advantage if you do so. Many people and companies take advantage of this every day.


Read the section 8 of the constitution it says *Section. 8.* The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Jim Bunton said:


> How is it different if the state does it or the federal government?
> 
> Jim


you mean other than that pesky constitutional authority? How about what is right for Mississippians may not be the best plan for New Yorkers.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Old Vet said:


> Read the section 8 of the constitution it says *Section. 8.* The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


exactly. and the framers were very clear, they said, "the people" when they meant individual citizens. As in the second amendment, the right of the people shall not be infringed. In Sec 8, it does not say the general welfare of the people, it says general Welfare of the United States;


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

pancho said:


> Not as many politicians as federal. That should save quite a bit of money stolen at least.


You would have to multiply by fifty if you did it on a state basis. Are you sure there are fewer politicians?
Jim


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> exactly. and the framers were very clear, they said, "the people" when they meant individual citizens. As in the second amendment, the right of the people shall not be infringed. In Sec 8, it does not say the general welfare of the people, it says general Welfare of the United States;


 If law makers decide that having a safety net available to the population when needed improves the general welfare of the United States then it is constitutional. General welfare is a very vague term and was meant to give congress fairly wide latitude to interpret as they see fit as long as it was applied to the general population as opposed to select individuals. This does not mean every person must receive welfare equally just that if they qualify they are treated equally.

Jim


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> If law makers decide that having a safety net available to the population when needed improves the general welfare of the United States then it is constitutional. General welfare is a very vague term and was meant to give congress fairly wide latitude to interpret as they see fit as long as it was applied to the general population as opposed to select individuals. This does not mean every person must receive welfare equally just that if they qualify they are treated equally.
> 
> Jim


Only is some minds the constitution says general Welfare of the United States; not individuals.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

It's interesting to note the definition of 'welfare' in Webster's 1828 dictionary:



> *WELFARE*, _noun_ [well and fare, a good faring; G.]
> *1.* Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
> *2.* Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.


Obviously the government cannot exempt everyone from all misfortune, sickness or evil as in the first definition, so it would seem that the 2nd definition would be more applicable to the general welfare clause.

Now, note the modern definition: 


> : a government program for poor or unemployed people that helps pay for their food, housing, medical costs, etc.
> : the state of being happy, healthy, or successful


Quite a difference, no?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Jim Bunton said:


> General welfare is a very vague term and was meant to give congress fairly wide latitude to interpret as they see fit as long as it was applied to the general population as opposed to select individuals. This does not mean every person must receive welfare equally just that if they qualify they are treated equally.
> 
> Jim


Again, I remind you that there were NO federal social programs or safety nets when the Constitution was written/ratified, nor did they exist for the next 150 years. So how could the modern interpretation apply back then?


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Jim Bunton said:


> How is it different if the state does it or the federal government?
> 
> Jim


There is a huge difference.

The primary reason for me is states are not allowed to print money. They have much less ability to carry a negative budget for very long versus the federal. This gives voters to reconcile what they are voting for and makes the voter more budget conscious.

The second reason is it allows for variation, exploration and comparison as well as regional differences. The advantage of a republic is such that Nate_in_IN can have government which sits his area while Kalisofhome can have different rules to suit her area.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Jim Bunton said:


> If law makers decide that having a safety net available to the population when needed improves the general welfare of the United States then it is constitutional. General welfare is a very vague term and was meant to give congress fairly wide latitude to interpret as they see fit as long as it was applied to the general population as opposed to select individuals. This does not mean every person must receive welfare equally just that if they qualify they are treated equally.
> 
> Jim


But people are not qualified and treated equally.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> Only is some minds the constitution says general Welfare of the United States; not individuals.


How is a food stamp program for individuals any more then defending the country is for individuals? All laws involve individuals. Anything that improves the general welfare of the nation improves the welfare of it's individual citizens. 

Jim


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Txsteader said:


> Again, I remind you that there were NO federal social programs or safety nets when the Constitution was written/ratified, nor did they exist for the next 150 years. So how could the modern interpretation apply back then?


because in the minds of liberals, if it feels good, it must be OK. But they forget the many horrors perpetuated by unrestrained gov'ts, including our own. Based on JB's reasoning, "If law makers decide that having a safety net available to the population when needed improves the general welfare of the United States then it is constitutional," the next Congress could just as easily vote to confiscate the first $50K of everyone's earnings and place anyone who couldn't afford to live in a group home. Hey, it's his version of general welfare and all that gov't guaranteed housing makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Two camps. The big government camp and the small government camp.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Some men you just can't reach.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Jim Bunton said:


> How is a food stamp program for individuals any more then defending the country is for individuals? All laws involve individuals. Anything that improves he general welfare of the nation improves the welfare of it's individual citizens.
> 
> Jim


Perhaps you are not familiar with the US Constitution. It specifies that defending the country is one of the authorized powers of the federal gov't. That's why it is different.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Look to Texas....Look to history.....money earned should profit those that work first and in those that earn their spending creates a reason for more product creating more need for workers.

Taxing takes from. The workers and unearned money is easier to waste.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Jim Bunton said:


> How is it different if the state does it or the federal government?
> 
> Jim


Because the federal government was never given that authority or mandate.

The general welfare clause, in spite of modern arguments, implied that the government was responsible for maintaining the peace and safety of the United States, and to *protect citizens' inalienable rights* of life, _liberty_ and the pursuit of happiness. 

That, my friend, IS the general welfare of the nation.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Jim Bunton said:


> If law makers decide that having a safety net available to the population when needed improves the general welfare of the United States then it is constitutional. General welfare is a very vague term and was meant to give congress fairly wide latitude to interpret as they see fit as long as it was applied to the general population as opposed to select individuals. This does not mean every person must receive welfare equally just that if they qualify they are treated equally.
> 
> Jim


To put it another way, if the general welfare clause indeed meant a social safety net for the less fortunate, then why didn't those early lawmakers create the program back then. No doubt there was a great need in those early years. Why did it take 150 years for it to be put into place?

I'll tell you why; because up until 1937, the SCOTUS held to the more 'strict and limited' view of the general welfare clause.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

We could have a lot of fun dreaming up things that serve the general welfare if we read it the way liberals do....

Everybody should be careful about what powers we allow the federal government to take...because someday the other side is going to have control, and they are going to use those powers your side took...Patriot Act ring any bells? If the law is so broad as to allow the government to do anything they claim is in the interest of the general welfare, then there is essentially no law.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Frankly Obama has taken a giant leap over Consitutionality when he codified the exclusion of resources in handing out freebies. That means that a person who owns hundreds of acres of land or a huge Roth IRA or any valuable like art or jewelry can get welfare without disposing of it while a person having wages of just above a livelihood can not, even if they own nothing.
He did this with subsidies in Obamacare and Medicaid expansion. 
Also a 'safety net' has come to include many things that are not neccessary for survival. And it puts a two class society into law- those who get and those who don't based on arbitrary rules for the government's convenience.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

All of the means tested programs are unconstitutional. The Federial government is suposed to take care of the states not individuals.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> because in the minds of liberals, if it feels good, it must be OK. But they forget the many horrors perpetuated by unrestrained gov'ts, including our own. Based on JB's reasoning, "If law makers decide that having a safety net available to the population when needed improves the general welfare of the United States then it is constitutional," the next Congress could just as easily vote to confiscate the first $50K of everyone's earnings and place anyone who couldn't afford to live in a group home. Hey, it's his version of general welfare and all that gov't guaranteed housing makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.


That would be up to the voter to correct. The government is only unrestrained when the people do not do their part. Since 1964 the reelection rate for house members has not fallen below 80% most years above 90% 95% in 2014.
The senate dipped to 55% in 1980, but since then has stayed close to or above 80%. 82% in 2014.
If congress does not represent the will of the people only the people can be blamed. The founders set up a representative form of government. 

Jim


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> That would be up to the voter to correct. The government is only unrestrained when the people do not do their part. Since 1964 the reelection rate for house members has not fallen below 80% most years above 90% 95% in 2014.
> The senate dipped to 55% in 1980, but since then has stayed close to or above 80%. 82% in 2014.
> If congress does not represent the will of the people only the people can be blamed. The founders set up a representative form of government.
> 
> Jim


Yes it was legal for you too have slaves and no boose and seprate living conditions for minority until the voters payed enough attention also. Wait it took a war and several years to get the other changes but don't let the facts blind you.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Again, I remind you that there were NO federal social programs or safety nets when the Constitution was written/ratified, nor did they exist for the next 150 years. So how could the modern interpretation apply back then?


I interpret the general welfare the same as the founding fathers. To mean for the general welfare of the nation. It only shares the name with the welfare system. If you did not look at abuse would you agree it is good for the nation not to have sick people living on the streets spreading disease and dying? 

Jim


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> There is a huge difference.
> 
> The primary reason for me is states are not allowed to print money. They have much less ability to carry a negative budget for very long versus the federal. This gives voters to reconcile what they are voting for and makes the voter more budget conscious.
> 
> The second reason is it allows for variation, exploration and comparison as well as regional differences. The advantage of a republic is such that Nate_in_IN can have government which sits his area while Kalisofhome can have different rules to suit her area.


 So all of you that liked this post are ok with the state taking your money at gun point and giving it to some one else, but not the federal government? How is one immoral theft and the other is not?

Jim


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Txsteader said:


> *Put another way, does legality establish morality?"*


Rarely if ever.
Examples are too numerous to list, but we all know of old laws that were clearly immoral, yet stood for years like slavery.
We also know laws that have been overturned to allow immorality, so the answer to the question is obvious........NO.









Jim Bunton said:


> This analogy works well if you ignore how government works.
> 
> 
> Government is made up of our elected officials that were put into office to make decisions on our behalf. Those decisions include budget decisions. Is it in the best interest of the country to help people when they need help? If they decide yes then they have the legal authority to tax us for that purpose. This power comes from Article 1 section 8 of the constitution.
> ...



And THAT works well, until those elected officials IGNORE the will of those they represent.







mmoetc said:


> Sort of depends on your definition of what's moral. I'd rather live in a society where the least of us are guaranteed food, shelter and healthcare than one where generals are guaranteed gourmet meals and string quartets. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/generals-live-like-kings/



Indeed, most everyone would agree that would be nice.
However there is an unfortunate consequence to guaranteeing basic needs for all without regard to how those needs are paid for, and by whom and whether anyone will be left in the society to do so.

IOW, I'd love it if *I* didn't have to work and could stay home, eat and be merry everyday. Where do I sign up?:buds:

As someone already observed...........
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv


DEKE01 said:


> So since you like guaranteed subsidization of the poor, you are OK with the theft of funds from workers in order to give a portion of the stolen funds to non workers. Remember, if I do not go along with your gov't initiated "charity", I can lose my job, home, and freedom. That is the choice you are making.
> 
> And you've set up a false choice. The fact that there is waste and abuse in one area of gov't does not justify waste, abuse, and theft from the taxpayers in another area of gov't. If I were to accept your logic, then virtually any gov't expense, in any amount, for any reason is OK.






Harry Chickpea said:


> "_*Does an act thatâs clearly immoral when done privately become moral when it is done collectively and under the color of law? Put another way, does legality establish morality?"
> 
> *_The statement is deceptive. It is prefaced with "Suppose I saw a homeless, hungry elderly woman huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. _To help the woman, I ask somebody_ (else) for a $200 donation to help her out."
> 
> ...


Very true.
And if we could just pass a law telling people to "be nice" like on this forum, all would go right in the world.
But it's not possible.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Jim Bunton said:


> So all of you that liked this post are ok with the state taking your money at gun point and giving it to some one else, but not the federal government? How is one immoral theft and the other is not?
> 
> Jim


Let's just say The Constitution wouldn't necessarily forbid it.

So with that in mind, why have States not enacted the massive welfare programs which the Federal government has? If single payer health care is the right thing to do why doesn't California do it?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Jim Bunton said:


> If you did not look at abuse would you agree *it is good for the nation not to have sick people living on the streets spreading disease and dying? *
> 
> Jim


Of course, but giving the federal government that responsibility ONLY if the situation posed a threat to the *nation*, as in the case of an epidemic/pandemic. And, that authority would be temporary, until said threat were contained/resolved.

Also, pay attention exactly to how the clause is written:
_The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. â Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8_

Note that it says 'provide for the common defense and general welfare....'. *General* welfare. A sample of definitions of 'general', per Merriam-Webster are (emphasis mine):


> 1
> *:* involving, applicable to, or *affecting the whole*
> 
> 2
> ...


IOW, the federal government is charged with overseeing the _general_ welfare of the *nation*, not simply a portion of the nation & certainly not each individual. To go beyond that limitation is socialism and _that_ is about as unconstitutional as it can get.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Jim Bunton said:


> I interpret the general welfare the same as the founding fathers. To mean for the general welfare of the nation. It only shares the name with the welfare system. If you did not look at abuse would you agree it is good for the nation not to have sick people living on the streets spreading disease and dying?
> 
> Jim


Maybe the 18th century idea of caring for the population meant dragging them off to some place and locking them up to keep them from getting others sick- if they frankly were clear that the disease was spread by sick people and not just a miasma disarranging the humors of the body. Maybe to the founding fathers, welfare of the healthy, productive citizenry meant leaving them the freedom to make their own choices as to their health care and that is why there is no mention of providing services for individuals at all. Just what the government can and can't do to them.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Jim Bunton said:


> So all of you that liked this post are ok with the state taking your money at gun point and giving it to some one else, but not the federal government? How is one immoral theft and the other is not?
> 
> Jim



I wasn't one who "liked" that post, but I rather like the way you described it.....:heh:
That's actually the way our gov't sees it and the attitude that it has assumed, that they have every right to take your money by force should you disagree with the amount or the things they have decided to spend it on.

I would simply point out that taking money by force usually doesn't end well and should be avoided by both parties at all cost.:duel:



Nate_in_IN said:


> Let's just say The Constitution wouldn't necessarily forbid it.
> 
> So with that in mind, why have States not enacted the massive welfare programs which the Federal government has? If single payer health care is the right thing to do why doesn't California do it?


I would have to disagree.
When the Constitution is read as it is written, there are things clearly not allowed by federal or state gov'ts.
Taking money or property without warrant, reason, due process or compensation is prohibited.
While the 10th amendment allows states to act where the federal has no standing or jurisdiction, the states cannot ignore the limits that ARE established.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Jim Bunton said:


> So all of you that liked this post are ok with the state taking your money at gun point and giving it to some one else, but not the federal government? How is one immoral theft and the other is not?
> 
> Jim


Nope, not OK with a state taking my money and giving it to another either, but yes it is LESS objectionable because it only violates common sense philosophy, but not the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Ask the question a different way. "Is it moral to sit on your butt and take other people's money? Is sit moral to become a drunk, to sit on your butt and snort cocaine, suck on a bottle or a toke, lie around on the beach claiming a fake disability and take other people's money?"
> 
> I say hell no. To tax ourselves for the care of the crippled, the wounded soldier, the mentally ill, the old, is moral. To take our money and hand it out to perfectly healthy, even fat, people who disdain work, education and law is scandalously immoral.


Unfortunately, the Democratic party has figured out that it can count on the votes of most of the people who are dependent upon government, and thus its best shot at winning elections is to coerce as many people into dependency as possible. 

Coming soon: Welfare for the middle class! :facepalm:

Mark my words ...


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> Coming soon: Welfare for the middle class!


Isn't that what Obamacare is? Too poor...sorry, not for you...but some people making well over the median income qualify.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> Yes it was legal for you too have slaves and no boose and seprate living conditions for minority until the voters payed enough attention also. Wait it took a war and several years to get the other changes but don't let the facts blind you.


The prohibition on booze (18th amendment and the subsequent end to prohibition (21st amendment) are examples of the system working. When the people push congress to pass the 18th amendment by backing candidates that supported the amendment and working against those that opposed it prohibition was passed. When it lost the support of the public it was repealed. The civil war was a reaction by several states to government over reach. Slavery was end with the passage of the 13th amendment. As far as taking several years change should be slow that is why it is a high hurdle to change the constitution.

Jim


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> The prohibition on booze (18th amendment and the subsequent end to prohibition (21st amendment) are examples of the system working. When the people push congress to pass the 18th amendment by backing candidates that supported the amendment and working against those that opposed it prohibition was passed. When it lost the support of the public it was repealed. The civil war was a reaction by several states to government over reach. Slavery was end with the passage of the 13th amendment. As far as taking several years change should be slow that is why it is a high hurdle to change the constitution.
> 
> Jim


Now days people do not back a candidate because of what they support. They vote for a candidate because of the R or D following their name. They then change their minds to accept what ever the R or D says. Nothing else is important.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

pancho said:


> Now days people do not back a candidate because of what they support. They vote for a candidate because of the R or D following their name.


Or, worse yet, for the color of their skin. :facepalm:


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sort of strange there is a thread about spending and morality when the people of the U.S. will put their great grand children in debt for money to spend now.
Sort of like stealing the identity of your child to obtain a credit card then hitting the limits on that one and getting another on the other kid.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

pancho said:


> Sort of strange there is a thread about spending and morality when the people of the U.S. will put their great grand children in debt for money to spend now.
> Sort of like stealing the identity of your child to obtain a credit card then hitting the limits on that one and getting another on the other kid.


A natural position for a people that treat the values of the next generation as the responsibility of the school system while the adults emphasize what is owed them personally.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

pancho said:


> Now days people do not back a candidate because of what they support. They vote for a candidate because of the R or D following their name. They then change their minds to accept what ever the R or D says. Nothing else is important.


If the country was in as bad of shape as many would have us believe and Obama was trampling the constitution so much worse then many of his predecessors I am confident we the people would do our part. As it is most are not all that upset with the direction the country is heading.
Jim


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Values have changed ......pleasure and entertainment takes president over work and responsibility.

Look there are for more childish persons over 18 than under...their person lack of involvement does not negate the reality.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jim Bunton said:


> As it is most are not all that upset with the direction the country is heading.
> Jim


I would say most are clueless as to the danger our nation is in... and care not even if they do know... its their free ice cream at stake!


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would say most are clueless as to the danger our nation is in... and care not even if they do know... its their free ice cream at stake!


What real danger do you see on the horizon? Too many people screaming the sky is falling constantly just adds to the complacency.

Jim


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yep....it is so annoying when your house is on fire and the darn alarm is blaring...I mean really does it have to be that loud....


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Yep....it is so annoying when your house is on fire and the darn alarm is blaring...I mean really does it have to be that loud....


What's annoying is when the alarm keeps going off when there is no fire.

Jim


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Over 18 trillion flames puts out a check of a lot of BTUs
It might be Greek to you but....
I do not speak Greek so I might be missing your point.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Jim Bunton said:


> If the country was in as bad of shape as many would have us believe and Obama was trampling the constitution so much worse then many of his predecessors I am confident we the people would do our part. As it is most are not all that upset with the direction the country is heading.
> Jim



I wonder what poll you've been looking at?

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/us-right-direction-wrong-track






Jim Bunton said:


> What real danger do you see on the horizon? Too many people screaming the sky is falling constantly just adds to the complacency.
> 
> Jim





I'm not sure if I didn't see your tagline in red before, or you just added it, but that disputed opinion is probably the main reason for concern.
A fundamental disagreement on what taxes are, what they are for, when they should collected and on what, how and what they are spent on.

In the strictest terms of definition, you are correct. 
_Technically_ taxes are not theft. We voluntarily elect officials who in turn tax us, we voluntarily pay those taxes in order to fund the things that we as a society collectively agree upon.
The problem is, Uncle Sam thinks this volunteer army has unlimited resources.
Furthermore, while taxes aren't technically theft, they have become fraud.
When some of us feel that our hard earned money is being deceitfully and recklessly spent, we want the fraud stopped.
At THAT point, if we decide to stop "volunteering" to be victims of fraud, the gov't does indeed commit armed robbery and takes what it deems is theirs, rather than acknowledging that the money is only given as long as we consent to give.
Some will say, "But that's the law!" forgetting of course who made the law on whose authority and that authority can be rescinded just as easily as it was given at any time.

The thing about taxes is, you need to keep the structure so that the individual is always offered a _choice_ on whether he/she is going to be taxed.
IOW, a sales tax is collected when someone chooses to buy something. If they choose not to buy, no tax collected, per their choice.
If you _want_ to buy a car, well there's a sales tax. Of course you can choose to park it on blocks, but if you choose to drive it, prepare to shell out some money to keep up the roads - fuel tax, tag fee, DL fee, etc.
No drive or no car = no tax. 
That's fair, right?

You want to hire firemen to put out your burning house or business and police to catch the burglars?
Then you pony up when you buy your property and those taxes.
As long as the tax money is spent frugally and wisely, we have no problem voluntarily paying what we asked for............
But we all know how THAT story goes.

From the beginning, in 1789, there was a tax that was considered immoral and outlawed specifically in Article I section 8 of the Constitution.
The income tax.
To tax a man (or woman) on what they worked for and chose not to spend was off limits and with good reason. 
Everything that is taxed is a deterrent and discouragement. The last thing a society needs is a reason for everyone to stay home and NOT work.
That changed in 1913 and the downhill descent has been apparent ever since.
So much, that now in 2015, we have on this thread, support for the idea that it is morally OK to forcibly take a man's earned labor and give the proceeds to someone who isn't working for a living.
The obvious immorality of that was why it was prohibited by the Constitution from the beginning.

Note, that I never mentioned the free choice of charitable giving.
That falls under the category of voluntary.

Each of us would have to answer to our own conscience and morals in that regard.
A hard choice, made voluntarily, is often far wiser than one made by force or without any thought at all.
(Think payroll tax)

Our gov't has grown so large, so powerful and so insatiable, that the longer we feed this beast, the harder it will be when the time comes to regain control.
The "danger on the horizon" is, what happens when we can't anymore?


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

The tag line has been there for a long time. You seem to know that the government needs the power to tax in order for it to function. Without the ability to enforce the tax code there is no power to tax. 


There is nothing in the constitution that speaks of morality, or outlaws the income tax. Article 1 section 8 Gives congress the power to lay and collect taxes. It does not limit this power except to say Duties, Imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; These three taxes have to do with Manufacture import and export of goods. The requirement for uniformity was so one state would not be given a trade advantage over other states. This uniformity does not apply to other taxes. If it did there would have been no reason to only specify the three when calling for uniformity. 

Do you really think a voluntary tax system could work? How would we pay for the military?

Jim


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Jim Bunton said:


> The tag line has been there for a long time. You seem to know that the government needs the power to tax in order for it to function. Without the ability to enforce the tax code there is no power to tax.
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the constitution that speaks of morality, or outlaws the income tax. Article 1 section 8 Gives congress the power to lay and collect taxes. It does not limit this power except to say Duties, Imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; These three taxes have to do with Manufacture import and export of goods. The requirement for uniformity was so one state would not be given a trade advantage over other states. This uniformity does not apply to other taxes. If it did there would have been no reason to only specify the three when calling for uniformity.
> ...


Oh boy, buckle up y'all, we've been down this road before, lol...........

OK, first I need to explain to you about the words in Article I section 8.
It is those very words that caused the necessity of the 16th amendment.
I won't bother linking the famous SCOTUS cases striking down the income tax over history, one of the most famous was Lincoln's during and after the Civil War. Consider that a homework assignment.


As to your second question, "How do we pay for the military?"
That's the first one I always get when I ask my congressman to repeal the 16th.
Every single time.

You would think that these educated people in charge of our government might have had a history, civics or economics class in those 4 years, but maybe they just weren't paying attention.
I'll have to make another post or update this one in a few minutes..........


First, my apologies and correction.
Section 8 gives the power to tax, the prohibition on income taxes is in section 9.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei


Here we go.......




Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

*To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;*

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Section 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

*No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.*

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.




..................................................................


Note the last bolded quote in red.
There's your prohibition on income taxes. As I said the SCOTUS cases are documented in case law, every single one refers to that section.
A capitation tax is a head tax, meaning a tax on every head, every person pays the exact same amount.
The ONLY authorization for a head tax was based on a census.
You therefore cannot have a sliding scale tax based on the amount of your income according to the U.S. Constitution as it stood for 137 years.
For 137 years we financed 75% of the federal gov't's budget by taxing alcohol.
That's right, I'll allow some time for that incredible statement to be disputed, researched and then grudgingly allowed as a fact in order to proceed with the rest of the lesson.

To shorten the time, also do a quick check of the timeline of the Prohibition amendments, outlawing alcohol and then repealing Prohibition.
The timeline of the dates in history should give sufficient evidence of how our money used to be collected and what has taken place following the income tax in the 20th century.
IOW, the beast is now a glutton.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Jim Bunton said:


> The tag line has been there for a long time. You seem to know that the government needs the power to tax in order for it to function. Without the ability to enforce the tax code there is no power to tax.



Noted.



Jim Bunton said:


> There is nothing in the constitution that speaks of morality, or outlaws the income tax. Article 1 section 8 Gives congress the power to lay and collect taxes. It does not limit this power except to say Duties, Imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; These three taxes have to do with Manufacture import and export of goods. The requirement for uniformity was so one state would not be given a trade advantage over other states. This uniformity does not apply to other taxes. If it did there would have been no reason to only specify the three when calling for uniformity.


The Constitution's text on powers and limits does not discuss morality anywhere. That will only be found in the debate notes.

It doesn't tell you it's wrong to post soldiers in your home, they assumed you already knew that.
It doesn't tell you it's wrong to be held without charges, to be convicted without facing your accusers, to be tried without representation, to have property seized without warrant or due process, to be denied the right to speak freely or own the means of self defense.
All of these are simply stated as prohibitions in the Bill of Rights.

If we have to go back to explaining *why* it is wrong, then we have way bigger problems than I was hoping for, thus the answer to your previous question as to the impending doom that some of us see coming.......




Jim Bunton said:


> Do you really think a voluntary tax system could work? How would we pay for the military?
> 
> Jim



I don't think it will work.....I absolutely know it as a fact.
It works in this country every single day and twice on Sundays, lol.

Now, if you'll excuse me for a while, I have to bring in some firewood in order to limit my volutary contribution to Duke Power today.
It's 20 degrees outside and I like it nice and warm in the house......more importantly, my wife does too.........:teehee:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Note that I bolded the part about military being funded for 2 years max.
They knew what they were doing and had good reason for doing it.

One of the worst mistakes we have made is an ever present military resulting in never ending wars being funded by never ending income taxes.
The circle is complete.

Now to the tiresome question I always get.
"But, but, but how are we going to PAY for all this?"
......................
............
.....

We aren't.

See, wasn't that simple?


OK, OK, the right wing warmongers are already sharpening their knives to cut up this Libertarian, so let me make a foot note.

You want to fund a $1 billion a year military to make war all over the planet?
Go ahead, just do it without my contribution. I decline unless you can show me a darn good reason for it and give me a date when we're done.
Otherwise, kiss off.
But I get it that the fearful live in fear and need their security blanket so here's my alternative funding plan for that exorbitant amount you claim you need.
(Notice I never said "I" in that last part of the sentence.)

We have 1,000 off shore bases.
You charge each country $1 million per base to be their policeman.
That = $1 billion dollars and y'all can go play army and leave me out of it.

No pay, no play.
I know, too simple to be grasped or implemented.
We'll just keep on doing it the stupid way........

Now that I've solved the military funding problem and the domestic funding problem, and the resulting one that has caused us to overspend.........anything else I can do for ya?


----------

