Why do you feel socialism is bad?

[tjm190]

No. I did not make up the Constitution of the United States. It specifically states that a purpose of government is to promote the general welfare. You can easily check this by asking anyone who has had a course in American history in grammar school.

Those who wrote the constitution clearly disagree with your definition of ‘welfare.’

 

[sidbrown]

Did the founding fathers establish any such programs? No?

Then clearly that is not what they meant when they said ‘welfare.’

Actually, they did not say welfare as a word by itself. They said that the Caonstitution of the United States of America was established to promote the general welfare. This obviously means that government has a duty and obligation to provide social welfare programs for those who are less fortunate.

 

[tjm190]

The fallacy here is that taxation is theft. This is contrary to what I read in the CCC, that it is morally obligatory to pay taxes. Further, I read that Our Divine Savior said to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.thereby implying that taxation is not theft.

Taking from another against their will is theft, unless debt is present. The English language really isn’t that hard to master.

Yes, we are obliged to pay taxes- your point?

 

[tjm190]

Actually, they did not say welfare as a word by itself. They said that the Caonstitution of the United States of America was established to promote the general welfare. This obviously means that government has a duty and obligation to provide social welfare programs for those who are less fortunate.

If that is what those writing the constitution thought, why didn’t they do it?

 

[Nec5]

The fallacy here is that taxation is theft. This is contrary to what I read in the CCC, that it is morally obligatory to pay taxes. Further, I read that Our Divine Savior said to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.thereby implying that taxation is not theft.

It is important to note here, that Christ never articulated precisely what should be rendered to Caesar. He was avoiding and exposing the insincerity of his critics. Our modern form of taxation has become a classic demonstration of “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul”.

 

[sidbrown]

Taking from another against their will is theft, unless debt is present. The English language really isn’t that hard to master.

Yes, we are obliged to pay taxes- your point?

It is a moral obligation.

 

[sidbrown]

It is important to note here, that Christ never articulated precisely what should be rendered to Caesar. He was avoiding and exposing the insincerity of his critics. Our modern form of taxation has become a classic demonstration of “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul”.

The founding Fathers were in favor of taxation and in favor of promoting the general welfare.
Americans have a moral obligation to pay our taxes and to promote the general welfare.

 

[tjm190]

The founding Fathers were in favor of taxation and in favor of promoting the general welfare.
Americans have a moral obligation to pay our taxes and to promote the general welfare.

Care to give an example of a social program they established to promote the general welfare?

 

[tjm190]

It is a moral obligation.

Yes it is. However, we are not morally obliged to force others to do our job for us. Quite the opposite.

 

[sidbrown]

Here is an excerpt for the Federalist Papers No. 45 of James Madison:
“It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object.”
Here again we see that the supreme object and purpose of government is to promote the general welfare as we have already seen to be true from the preamble to the Constitution.

 

[tjm190]

Here is an excerpt for the Federalist Papers No. 45 of James Madison:
“It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object.”
Here again we see that the supreme object and purpose of government is to promote the general welfare as we have already seen to be true from the preamble to the Constitution.

Did James Madison establish any social programs?

 

[sidbrown]

Then clearly that is not what they meant when they said ‘welfare.’

This is not true, becasue according to Alexander Hamilton the phrase General Welfare is as comprehensive as any which could be used and embraces a whole vast variety of particulars:
Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

5 Dec. 1791Papers 10:302–4
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority “To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare” with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that “no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.” These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and “general Welfare.” The terms “general Welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou’d have been restricted within narrower limits than the “General Welfare” and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

 

[tjm190]

This is not true, becasue according to Alexander Hamilton the phrase General Welfare is as comprehensive as any which could be used and embraces a whole vast variety of particulars:
Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

5 Dec. 1791Papers 10:302–4
A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority “To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare” with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that “no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.” These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and “general Welfare.” The terms “general Welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou’d have been restricted within narrower limits than the “General Welfare” and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

I’m still waiting for an explanation here-

You claim the authors of the constitution were in favor of social programs. Why didn’t they even attempt to make any?

 

[sidbrown]

I’m still waiting for an explanation here-

You claim the authors of the constitution were in favor of social programs. Why didn’t they even attempt to make any?

Obviously, if you read the US Constitution or the papers of Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, you would see that these matters concern the authority and power of the US Congress. Congress appropriates money for a number of national interests, ranging from federal courts, policing, imprisonment, and national security to social programs, environmental protection, and education. No federal court has ever struck down a spending program on the ground that it was wrong to promote the general welfare.

 

[tjm190]

Obviously, if you read the US Constitution or the papers of Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, you would see that these matters concern the authority and power of the US Congress. Congress appropriates money for a number of national interests, ranging from federal courts, policing, imprisonment, and national security to social programs, environmental protection, and education. No federal court has ever struck down a spending program on the ground that it was wrong to promote the general welfare.

So you would admit that those who wrote the constitution did not feel obligated to provide social programs?

 

[sidbrown]

So you would admit that those who wrote the constitution did not feel obligated to provide social programs?

Of course not. The fact is that it is the duty and prerogative of the Congress of the United States of America to enact the programs which will promote the general welfare. Specifically, Congress is granted authority under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution to “pay the debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” And the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), adopted Hamilton’s interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

I guess we have a little private little war here.

Any other socialists care to comment on this:

Promote does not mean “own”.

Welfare does not mean “own”.

No one is advocating that anyone abandon the sick, poor, tortured, homeless, starving, oppressed, etc. Instead, some believe that by leveraging certain social ills and perceptions (those with an agenda to destroy the Constitution) government can ram through total government ownership in the name of “general welfare”, “help”, etc. Governmental suicide. Own the money, own the health, own the charity, own the banks, own the automobile manufacturers, what’s next? Own the religion? Own the race? Own life and death? All false and evil. A certain socialist party in mid-Europe had that idea during the 30’s and 40’s.

It wasn’t charity that was desired.

The government as stated in the constitution should promote the general welfare. How?

1. Encourage people to give freely of their time or charity of choice.
2. Tax breaks for those who give freely beyond a certain percentage of their total wealth or income. (tax breaks are already available for personal donations)
3. By not overtaxing the people to the point where they can no longer afford to feed themselves let alone others. When that happens, the private charitable sector will be decimated.
4. By not creating and using inefficient bureaucracy to trap the money within the government which then decides when and what, if any, can be given to the unfortunate.
5. By encouraging people to do their own research and find those efficient charities which have a very high “direct to the people” cents per dollar. This action will introduce people to taking an active (charity), rather than a passive (taxes) role in charity. People will be giving to Jesus rather than a socialist government.

 

[sidbrown]

The government as stated in the constitution should promote the general welfare. How?.

In case anyone is not familiar with the duties and authority of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, let me review what they encompass. The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States. Section 2 of Article Three of the United States Constitution outlines the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States:
“ The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
The decisions of the United States Supreme Court are mandatory authority in all courts, federal and state, when the decisions cover points of federal law. The decision of the Spureme Court is final and is the law of the land.
And what does the Unites States Supreme Court say is the correct interpretation of the General Welfare Clause? This has been decided in United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936). The Court has decided that the General Welfare clause gives Congress broad powers to spend federal money to promote the general welfare.
So it has already been decided what this means by the highest Court in the United States.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

And what does the Unites States Supreme Court say is the correct interpretation of the General Welfare Clause? This has been decided in United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936). The Court has decided that the General Welfare clause gives Congress broad powers to spend federal money to promote the general welfare.
So it has already been decided what this means by the highest Court in the United States.

Promote does not mean own.

 

[sidbrown]

Promote does not mean own.

The US Congress has the authority and all rights to levy taxes and to provide for the general welfare.