Saturday, November 27, 2010

Limit the GOVERNMENT or Tax Increases?


I got this from Beamish's blog.............SO, what do you think?   Any arguments with this guy?  It's worth a listen......so simple...TOO simple?  Can't we start with 'simple' and go on from there with details, etc.?
geeeeeez

84 comments:

Ducky's here said...

He never mentions defense or Medicare so right away you know this is a scam.

No details on his projected growth rates.

The pure stinky cheese.

Craig said...

Can't we start with 'simple' and go on from there with details, etc.?

Yeah, why bother with details. Ducky's right. When the Tea Partiers find out what this would do to Medicare and S.S., D.C. would be over run with Medicare paid for Rascals.

I also love the Libertarian's take on the Constitution. "Provide for the general welfare", which appears twice, never gets mentioned. I think Hamilton won the enumerated v. implied argument in 1791.

Anonymous said...

Good monrning Madame;

Look at this link please. http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2010/11/meps-want-us-to-remove-iranian-group-from-terror-list/69557.aspx

and I heard that Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen will be charged for the foreign relation committee.

SAM

FrogBurger said...

So what's your solution Ducky and Craig?

About welfare in the constitution, please enlighten me on the definition of the word welfare at the time of writing the Constitution. Seems to me people confuse the word welfare with the "welfare state" meant in a socialist way.

Here is how I would change the system:
- End the income tax
- Change the constitution to change budget rules to make sure if a dollar is put in a bucket (e.g social security) it cannot be used somewhere else.
- Replace it with taxes or fees that match a specific bucket in the federal budget. Those buckets would be defense, justice and anything else the government would create.
- As a result people would know exactly where the money is going and realize how much we're getting scammed. It would therefore put a lot more pressure on politicians to get their act together.

And for morons like Ducky and Craig, maybe we'll get a more sustainable system.

Don't you realize what is currently happening in Europe? Portugal is next.

That's right lefty ideas don't work, fools. Even the Pilgrims realized it after their commune experiment.

Speedy G said...

The phrase, "Provide for the general welfare," doesn't appear 2x, let alone 1x in the US Constitution.

The preamble states,

"provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare"

Now "promoting" and "providing" are two ENTIRELY different things.

...and the Taxation clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) simply authorizes the raising of funds to serve those purposes...

"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"

The government shall PROVIDE the funds necessary to accomplish the goals of the US Constitution set forth in the preamble. Period. And that goal is to "promote" (not provide) the general welfare.

So their role is limited to the encouragement of others to PROVIDE the general welfare. PRIVATIZATION of Social Security, in other words... NOT a government bureaucracy dedicated to the task.

FrogBurger said...

Thanks Speedy. Great reminder for our two clowns up there.

They like being provided. It's easier to suck up the system.

Speedy G said...

More on interpretation from Wiki:

The two primary authors of The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:

* James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[16][17]
* Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[18]

Although The Federalist was not reliably distributed outside of New York,[19] the essays eventually became the dominant reference for interpreting the meaning of the Constitution as they provided the reasoning and justification behind the Framers' intent in setting up the federal government.[19]

While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years.[20] This belief is based on the motivating factor which the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions played upon the electorate; the Kentucky Resolutions, authored by Thomas Jefferson, specifically criticized Hamilton's view. Further, Jefferson himself later described the distinction between the parties over this view was "almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans.

Speedy G said...

...and we all know what happened to Hamilton's "Federalist" Party after Adams. In other words, Craig, he LOST the argument and his party became "extinct".

Z said...

One family is doing very well, the neighbor isn't.
Is it the job of the more successful family to give to his neighbor?
(putting aside dinners delivered to their door, kids driven to school, helping the guy maybe find a job, and paying a babysitter while he's out looking, for examples, as good neighbors will)

Or, is this OUR responsibility to give them a monthly salary per se via government(OUr money)?

OR, and this is my fear: Have we come to a point where faith is so maligned and belittled that our kids are getting less and less of it and don't feel the desire to help (remember my post of a few days ago where people sat and watched one person pass out and another lying in his own blood?...there are studies now that show college kids are much, much less compassionate today) and they, frankly, won't DO the kinds of things neighbors have been doing for years and people will have to go to the gov't for everything when in trouble?
Then we see charities losing tax status, churches could very well have their tax immunity taken away, it's been discussed...
then what?
Is it a shove TOWARD Socialism?

Thanks, FB and Speedy..."provide for the general welfare" :-)

FrogBurger said...

Federalism at that time could have been ok but it's not sustainable, scalable and manageable now with so many people.

Really people who believe big works in government have to get checked at the psychiatrist or go back to school to study civilizations and when they disappear. As far as I know they disappear when they get too big.

That's why the USSR thankfully imploded, and that is why Europe is collapsing as we speak. Greece, Ireland and soon Portugal. Europe has gone increasingly centralized through the EU, adding to countries' statist systems.

So federalism in the US pretty much means death and more importantly tyranny because centralizing the power over 350m people, in order not to fail, means controlling the people.

I'm preaching to the choir here, I know.

Z said...

by the way, Ducky?
It's a minutes-long video. "projected growth rate details?"
"a SCAM?" :-)

Obama has had almost 2 years and he still can't explain what the hell HE'S doing to us.

FrogBurger said...

Z, I believe the moral thing to do is help yourself first. The most noble thing to do is to be self reliant first so you can then help others. And not the opposite. That's why I have some major issues with the teachings of the Catholic church.

If people who have health and abilities would think that way instead of waiting for the handouts like it is in Europe, we'd be better off.

Instead lefties like Ducky and Craig want to teach people they deserve to be helped first. Then they lecture us that we are not noble and are selfish because we want people to be self reliant.

It's their vision of society that is a pathetic and miserable one. One that can not survive like Europe is showing us right now.

Their vision of society shows an utter lack of courage, strength and imagination. And an abysmal lack of knowledge or a total denial of what happened before 2010 in world history, from the Roman Empire, to the collapse of French and British colonies, to the Soviet Union and to, again, the current collapse of Europe.

beamish said...

I also love the Libertarian's take on the Constitution. "Provide for the general welfare", which appears twice, never gets mentioned

The lack of Constitutional reading comprehension skills from the left never ceases to entertain me.

"Provide for the general welfare" doesn't appear twice. It doesn't appear at all.

"Promote the general welfare" does.

Always On Watch said...

As we the taxpayers are taxed more and more, we as individuals are less able to help our neighbors.

Socialism is such a vicious cycle.

FrogBurger said...

Socialism is such a vicious cycle.

Yes. AOW. Can you believe the French socialists thought that sharing working hours i.e. the 39 the 35 hour work week would reduce unemployment?

That's the kind of shallow comprehension of economics those people have.

If one guy works 70 hours and one sits on his butt, let's make the first guy work 35 so 35 hours will be available for the other one.

Economics for Dummies.

beamish said...

You can play around with the spending budget (reciepts and outlays) here.

By eliminating every outlayed penny from the federal budget not specific to the 18 duties of Congress enumerated in the Constitution, I came up with a budget that allowed for the cutting of personal and corporate income taxes in half while eliminating Social Security taxes, estate and gift taxes, and raised payments upon the national debt (and interest) enough to have the national debt zeroed out in 20 years and still pocketed a $300 Billion annual surplus, with which I cut taxes on personal and corporate income in half again.

Seems easy to me. And in 20 years, we'd get to cut another $500 billion out of the budget as there would be no national debt to pay on.

beamish said...

Of course, I didn't account for the revenue increases that would natuarally stem from less taxation on individuals and corporations as people with more of their own money in their pocket were able to hire and put to work at a profit most of the people put out of work when I eliminated the Departments of Labor, Transportation, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Social Security Administration, EPA, NASA, etc.

So, 20 years to pay off the national debt might be too long. Let's be modest and say the economic boom to be had from bringing the Federal government back into compliance with the Constitution really ignites a skyrocket of economic growth across all sectors (it would). We might even have our national debt paid off in 15 years.

There is a downside.

With that 75% reduction in your personal income taxes, your kids may want you to buy them a nice car and send them off to college.

beamish said...

You know, "promote the general welfare" so a man works, sees the fruits of his labor enough to take care of his family, leave them something to build upon, and maybe even spoil his wife with a diamond encrusted somethinuther every once in a while.

Anonymous said...

I like the idea of cutting the bureaucracy, thereby cutting the special interests, government pensions, and supporting make work jobs, for the sake of public employment. Public employee unions should be disallowed as well.

The deadwood (laziness and incompetence)is enormous.

Really, take the Dept of Education. Exactly what service do they provide to public education? It's a waste of money.

Public schools are a local issue, not a national issue. There are local boards of education, and even the states are involved.

Eliminating it, and others like DHS, the DIA, the NEA, HHS, are all added layers of bureaucracy, over smaller federal agencies dealing with those same services, which in themselves are bloated and duplicated.

I don't know the overall sum of the costs of these bloated Depts, but I do know we're talking here about unnecessary entities, if we look at the big picture.

When you look at it, the federal government is so big, as is our state government btw, and so unwieldly is it any wonder, given the thousands of regulations spread throughout the federal govt. that incompetence reigns supreme?


"I believe the moral thing to do is help yourself first."

FB, I couldn't agree with you more. If everyone raised their children to be responsible citizens, and that they have to earn what they get, we wouldn't be in this position today.

It really is that simple. The less we depend on others and the government, the more our incentive to succeed.

Pris

beamish said...

You might even be able to afford gold teeth, a fly ride, money for boozing and whoring, AND not live in government housing.

Controlling spending is the solution.

FrogBurger said...

Beamish I think you should run for office. The last pitch would get you many votes.

Z said...

AOW said "As we the taxpayers are taxed more and more, we as individuals are less able to help our neighbors."
And we're facing cuts in tax exemptions for charity giving and who knows how long churches will have exemption?
Is this a plan? I don't know. But, I'm tired of denying conspiracies anymore.

All of your comments are so good and so important, thanks a lot.

I have to say, however, there ARE times we cannot help ourselves and then we must rely on help....hopefully from friends and family, if possible

beamish said...

I don't want to be President, but I'll do it if I have to.

We could make significant cuts in our nuclear weapons maintenance and readiness budget by using those weapons to cut costs in foreign military deployments.

;)

beamish said...

I have to say, however, there ARE times we cannot help ourselves and then we must rely on help....hopefully from friends and family, if possible

And there it is in a nutshell.

If welfare = money (as the left believes) then cut taxes and let people keep more of their own "welfare."

Simple, eh?

Brooke said...

What great comments!

The bottom line is that taxes are enslavement, and that's exactly what the left wants: Slaves.

The dumb ones will go willingly, and the rest of us will be compelled.

Z said...

Beamish "We could make significant cuts in our nuclear weapons maintenance and readiness budget by using those weapons to cut costs in foreign military deployments" As Lucy used to say to Desi "splain!" :-)

"If welfare = money (as the left believes) then cut taxes and let people keep more of their own "welfare."
Simple, eh?"
Not simple as much as BRILLIANT!

FB...you're getting smarter by the nanosecond! And you started pretty darned smart already!

Brooke, good point.

beamish said...

Beamish "We could make significant cuts in our nuclear weapons maintenance and readiness budget by using those weapons to cut costs in foreign military deployments" As Lucy used to say to Desi "splain!" :-)

34 million Iranians of military age minus 50 million dead from nuclear attack equals one threat to America eliminated while saving a few hundred million on each used nuclear warhead that no longer has to be maintained and ready to use because we used it.

;)

FrogBurger said...

I have to say, however, there ARE times we cannot help ourselves and then we must rely on help....hopefully from friends and family, if possible

You're right Z. I'm not saying people should not ask for help but it is important to create a culture where people help themselves first. And yes, family and close communities are the best at helping people, not the anonymous government.

Look at the heat wave that killed 10,000 people in France several years ago. In a country where everything comes from the State, people were blaming the authorities for the deaths instead of blaming themselves for not worrying about their old family members.

That's what I mean by self reliance: take care of oneself and your close ones. That's the most noble and responsible thing to do.

Anonymous said...

"I have to say, however, there ARE times we cannot help ourselves and then we must rely on help....hopefully from friends and family, if possible"

And that's what neighbor helping neighbor is all about. The more self reliant people there are, the more help is available to those genuinely in need, and the less really needy people there are.

Pris

Craig said...

The phrase, "Provide for the general welfare," doesn't appear 2x, let alone 1x in the US Constitution.

provide for the common defense, and general welfare of the United States;

The way I read English, that sentence says Congress has the power to provide for both. So, your right, it doesn't say provide twice but it certainly does once.

I've been reading Joseph Story's commentaries on the Constitution from the early 19th century. It was cited in U.S. v. Butler from 1933, which affirmed Hamilton's take on the general welfare clause.

We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

The bottom line is that taxes are enslavement, and that's exactly what the left wants: Slaves.

So, one of the enumerated powers in the Constitution is to enslave the citizens?

beamish said...

provide for the common defense, and general welfare of the United States;

The way I read English, that sentence says Congress has the power to provide for both.

Which is why I refered to the leftist lack of reading comprehension skills earlier.

Providing for the general welfare is NOT an enumerated power of Congress.

FrogBurger said...

I'm not a Constitution expert, nor an English one but I find intriguing that the sentence states

"provide for the common defense, and general welfare of the United States;"

It doesn't states citizens but United States as a country. So that eliminates the socialist concept of welfare i.e the nanny state.

Clearly section 8 aims at creating the means to run the government. But that doesn't necessarily mean the means to run a BIG government.

Also, Mr Craig, nice gotcha on taxes being enslavements. If I remember my American history correctly, the founders fought taxes. So I doubt they would have considered current levels of taxation like a normal and good thing.

Beamish, it's not that they can't read. Their intellect can't scrape the surface. And they're unable to think by themselves.

Z said...

now, now, now...let's stay nice :-)

Argue, educate, inform...you don't need to slam. I know, sometimes I'm provoked, too, and let's face it, some's humorously done (that's for sure!) but......

I want conversation here..let's DO IT. SO far, pretty good, thanks, everybody!

Ticker said...

http://afticker.blogspot.com/2009/08/for-general-welfare.html

Perhaps Craig needs to read this blog post first, then comment.

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

I am not constitutional expert but have spent more than a few years studying it and what the founding fathers had to say about it. I have provide a link to a blog that I did many moons ago(August 4 to be exact) It should provide some interesting details and discussion to the subject at hand.

The Vegas Art Guy said...

Less government is usually preferable to more government. And remember that if congress is not specifically given a power then it's supposed to be hands off. Maybe someone should tell the TSA that...

Z said...

Vegas Guy...well said!

Hi Ticker, thanks, I'll look into that and hope the others do, too. I appreciate your linking that very much.

Z said...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/human-rights-and-the-media-how-the-gop-can-help-iran/?singlepage=true

SAM, tell me if you see this and read it, please. merci..moi

beamish said...

Beamish, it's not that they can't read. Their intellect can't scrape the surface. And they're unable to think by themselves.

No argument from me here. Frankly I find it absurd to subscribe to views that consider it actually possible for a leftist to think rationally. It's like trying to milk a glass of champagne out of a cow. Even going through the motions looks comical. Certainly a waste of time.

If "providing for the general welfare" were an enumerated power of the Congress, there would be no need to enumerate the specifics and leave all else to the states and the people.

The context of the Constitution (and the Federalist Papers defending its wording) proves Craig's argument to barely be worth more than making fun of its absurdity.

Even the case he cited (US vs. Butler) refutes the main thrust of his argument, as it struck down one of the major violations of the Constitution that FDR's New Deal attempted. We're talking loopy stupid.

No, the "general welfare" is not Congress' to provide.

I know Z doesn't want any slams, but calling leftists stupid is no more of a slam than calling chairs furniture.

Z said...

beamish, you say "If "providing for the general welfare" were an enumerated power of the Congress, there would be no need to enumerate the specifics...."

That is exactly why leftwingers DO wish this was a power of Congress, a tenet of the Constitution...exactly that. They use it all the time, incorrectly, in arguments about entitlements, you know that....
It would make everyone constantly dependent, Socialism would, by definition, have to reign.....done. They win. Then they accuse the Right of not having a heart.
If we're against gay marriage, we hate gays,
If we're against abortion, we hate women,
if we don't want entitlements, we hate the poor.....
And all of that can't be further from the truth....but, apparently, not accepting everything is bad. go figure.

beamish said...

Imagine the left-winger's mind in other venues. Say, baking a cherry pie.

Many of them would grab a can of Crisco off the shelf, go home, and be shocked that there's no cherry pie inside despite the picture of one on the label.

Their first assumption would be that they bought a bad can and go buy another one.

Reading the recipe would never occur to them.

Joe said...

Craig: In typical liberal/progressive fassion you have MISQUOTED the Preamble and couldn't care less.

You said that the Constitution says: "provide for the common defense, and general welfare of the United States."

It does not say that (which you would already know if you had bothered to read the previous comments.)

It says: "...provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare..."

Those are two different phrases not connected by the conjunction, "and."

The Preamble provides us with a list of things the Constitution was written for.

In case you have never really read the real thing, here it is:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

See. It tells us WHY the Constitution was written (...in order to...

Craig said...

Also, Mr Craig, nice gotcha on taxes being enslavements. If I remember my American history correctly, the founders fought taxes. So I doubt they would have considered current levels of taxation like a normal and good thing.

The founders fought taxation without representation. It was the Stamp Act, a requirement that many printed materials had to be printed on stamped (at a cost) paper, that kind of touched things off. The tax was to go directly to England to pay off their debt incurred from the French/Indian war. The colonists rebelled since they had no representatives in Parliament and no say in the tax.

Revisionist history tells us the Boston Tea Party was a tax revolt. It was actually a rebellion against a tax cut given to the East India Co. who were under cutting local tea merchants. The Royal Gov. of Boston allowed the East India Co. ship to dock in Boston Harbor and you know the rest.

If you think the founders were anti-tax, I refer you to the Whiskey Rebellion. Even though the tax may have been unfair to some and was later repealed, Washington's actions established National authority and Congress' power to tax.

Z said...

the tax on the Chinese tea from the E India Co by the Brits raised the prices of tea on the Bostonians........not a happy bunch.

Craig said...

Perhaps Craig needs to read this blog post first, then comment.

I read your post. Okay, I a big fan of Madison and I'm aware of the quote. Your assertion that Madison's interpretation was one accepted during the first 150 years of the nation aren't true. It was Hamilton's that prevailed when he argued for a National bank. Madison came around after the War of 1812. At least he softened his stance.

" 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. -Hamilton

I would also refer you to Justice Joseph Story's commentaries. He was around when these things were being hammered out and his writings carry a lot of weight. He doesn't argue for unlimited powers but makes the case for a broader interpretation of 'common defense and general welfare'. He's thorough and exhaustively represents both sides of the argument.

Craig said...

It is no sufficient answer to say, that the clause ought to be regarded, merely as containing "general terms, explained and limited, by the subjoined specifications, and therefore requiring no critical attention, or studied precaution;"3 because it is assuming the very point in controversy, to assert, that the clause is connected with any subsequent specifications. It is not said, to "provide for the common defence, and general welfare, in manner following, viz.," which would be the natural expression, to indicate such an intention. But it stands entirely disconnected from every subsequent clause, both in sense and punctuation; and is no more a part of them, than they are of the power to lay taxes. Besides; what suitable application, in such a sense, would there be of the last clause in the enumeration, viz., the clause "to make all laws, necessary and proper for carrying into execution the fore-
going powers, &c.?" Surely, this clause is as applicable to the power to lay taxes, as to any other; and no one would dream of its being a mere specification, under the power to provide for the common defence, and general welfare.


The whole thing is worth a read

One more thing. You wrote,

Our elected leaders need to be reminded as well of this quote from Thomas Jefferson: "[An] act of the Congress of the United States... which assumes powers... not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force." I would speculate that the majority of the laws now on the books would have to be stricken there from especially those passed within the last 65 years and of course to include the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which was ratified in 1913.

First of all, Jefferson was anti-Federalist and not present at the Convention. Second, I'm suspect of quotes loaded with ellipsis. Third, I don't think you grasp the meaning of Constitutional Amendment. By definition, it's Constitutional.

Craig said...

Even the case he cited (US vs. Butler) refutes the main thrust of his argument, as it struck down one of the major violations of the Constitution that FDR's New Deal attempted. We're talking loopy stupid.

If it makes you feel better to call me stupid, knock yourself out. I'm just following the legal trail and it leads to Butler. You can follow the trail back to Marbury v. Madison or Sir Edwin Coke if you like. If you have an argument, it's not with me, it's with the loopy stupid legal scholars.

Finally, in United States v. Butler,593 the Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton’s views on the taxing power.

Craig said...

Craig: In typical liberal/progressive fassion you have MISQUOTED the Preamble and couldn't care less.

Oy.

Article 1; 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;

beamish said...

If it makes you feel better to call me stupid, knock yourself out. I'm just following the legal trail and it leads to Butler. You can follow the trail back to Marbury v. Madison or Sir Edwin Coke if you like. If you have an argument, it's not with me, it's with the loopy stupid legal scholars.

Actually my argument is with you, because of the bait and switch you're trying to pull. Your "legal trail" doesn't lead to the case itself, but rather a broad commentary about it.

The Court has never specifically addressed the meaning of "general welfare" whether it is a seperate enumerated power or a justification of taxation to support the enumerated duties of Congress in Article I, Section 8. But in nearly every case the Court has had to consider the limits of Congressional power, "providing for the general welfare" has been a sentiment, not a power in and of itself.

Simply put, the Congress doesn't have a stockpile of "general welfare" to provide.

FrogBurger said...

If you think the founders were anti-tax

No I don't think so. I think they were against abusive taxation as you're suggesting.

And I keep reading this section 8 and it is clearly aimed at organizing the United States as a country and build a central authority with financial means.

In no way does this section mean making people happy and subsidize their life through a tax system that promotes redistribution of wealth.

But lefties, including activist judges, like to twist anything, redefine words and concepts and see if it sticks.

Craig said...

Actually my argument is with you, because of the bait and switch you're trying to pull. Your "legal trail" doesn't lead to the case itself, but rather a broad commentary about it.

I'll post this again. It's directly from Justice Owen Roberts opinion for the majority in Butler. It's real life legal precedent.

We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution

And, beamish, you're a smart guy. At least according to you. There are so many scholarly recitations by libertarians (Crosskey, Sorenson) and 'strict constructionists' on the general welfare clause. Then there's Federalist 41. Yet, you link to a blogging electrician for Constitutional commentary. What?

Craig said...

In no way does this section mean making people happy and subsidize their life through a tax system that promotes redistribution of wealth.

I couldn't agree more. It's time to end corporate subsidies. Stop subsidizing the oil co.s, agribusiness, military industrial complex, pharma, etc. And end the tax breaks for off shoring jobs. Wealth has been redistributed upward for the last 30 years. It ain't working.boole

Z said...

Craig, will you be happy when corporations have been so maligned and belittled because of the doings of a few that we have none employing Americans anymore?
Happy when we're all making the same 'salary', wearing metaphorical little Mao suits?
Will you be happy when your daughter can't get into the college of her dreams, even with a straight A average and a 2250 SAT (like my own nephew and other kids I know) because minorities who haven't earned the grades are needed to fit that college's quota?

I could go on and on...
is there ANY fairness to non-minority Americans who make good in their lives..ANY? Is it fair my girlfriend's worked her @#(&* off to pay for college for her 3 kids but she's gone from lib to Conservative because "I can't believe I paid ALL that money and those kids don't have to!"??

How about A famous Conservative's (whom I can't name) bro-in-law who's French and a Trotskyite who's a naturalized American citizen and has registered Republican because of the estate tax "If I wanted the state to get all I've worked so hard for more than my children getting it, I'd have stayed in France" Is he just a mean guy because he wants his children to benefit from HIS hard work?
Again, I could go on and on.

I'm so eager to see where people like you expect to get jobs when corporations are smashed; is it REALLY a conscious desire to see America lessened because, as I've seen some libs say "America's been the world power long enough...who are we to deserve this?"

REALLY?

FrogBurger said...

I couldn't agree more. It's time to end corporate subsidies. Stop subsidizing the oil co.s, agribusiness, military industrial complex, pharma, etc. And end the tax breaks for off shoring jobs. Wealth has been redistributed upward for the last 30 years. It ain't working.boole

Nice try again. Deflect the issue onto a different entity and you think you address the answer? Nope.

And I agree with you. Let's stop all subsidies, including to farmers, GMs and therefore unions. Let's stop benefits for some gov workers and teachers who don't have to pay Social Security. Let's not bail out the banks (I was against Tarp).

Let's make everybody equal by having the gov not give at all. Then there's no problem of fairness or redistribution downward or upward.

And that's the job of a gov to make life fair by the way.
Only girly men ask for it.

FrogBurger said...

Z, Craig hasn't realized what the left and the statist do:

1. They make business so tough they have to leave the state or the country through strong regulations or heavy taxation.
2. Then they blame the rich for leaving or capitalism or globalization
3. They create tax loopholes so business can stay.
4. They blame businesses for evading taxes.
5. They propose taxing businesses that go overseas.

Never EVER do they blame their inability to foresee unintended consequences or their utter lack of competence.

No it's always somebody else's fault. And when they know they're wrong, they change the subject.

FrogBurger said...

And that's the job of a gov to make life fair by the way.

Missed my punctuation. Forgot to add a ???

Speedy G said...

It's real life legal precedent.

...and the great thing about the law is that just like Administration's getting voted out of office, judicial precedents get overturned. All it takes is the right Court and the right case.

So as they say in law school, "We'll see ya in Court!" But even better, we'll see you at the ballot box in '12! :)

Speedy G said...

...after all, we've already got the right Court. All we need now is the "right case". And perhaps Obamacare is that case...

Thanks liberal over-reach. We couldn't do it without ya.

Speedy G said...

...First we limit the Commerce Clause, then we close the "taxation loophole".

Sounds like a plan, folks.

Z said...

Speedy, let's ROLL!

beamish said...

And, beamish, you're a smart guy. At least according to you. There are so many scholarly recitations by libertarians (Crosskey, Sorenson) and 'strict constructionists' on the general welfare clause. Then there's Federalist 41. Yet, you link to a blogging electrician for Constitutional commentary. What?

That "blogging electrician" happened to be correct.

At question in US vs. Butler was not whether or not "providing general welfare" was an enumerated power, but whether or not a tax levied by provisions in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 was Constitutional.

In the Act, a tax was imposed on processors of farm products, the proceeds to be paid to farmers who would reduce their area and crops. The intent of the act was to increase the prices of certain farm products by decreasing the quantities produced.

The Court held that the so-called tax was not a true tax, because the payments to farmers were coupled with unlawful and oppressive coercive contracts and the proceeds were earmarked for the benefit of farmers complying with the prescribed conditions. Making the payment of a government subsidy to a farmer conditional on the reduction of his planned crops went beyond the powers of the national government. Specifically, Mr. Justice Roberts said:

"The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement, are but parts of the plan. They are but means to an unconstitutional end."


The court struck down this unconstitutional tax (One of many cases which prompted FDR to try to stack the court in 1937 by increasing the number of justices so he court appoint himself a favorable body, as he himself knew beforehand much of his "New Deal" agenda couldn't pass Constitutional muster on its own merits)

To me it's hysterically hilarious that you take "We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice" followed by endorsement of a commentator to be the meat of US v. Butler. It wasn't.

But go ahead and defend the nebulous definition of the power to tax with a court ruling that slapped that notion down if it makes you feel better.

I still exercise my right to laugh at your dumb ass.

beamish said...

I made a long-ish comment in reply to Craig, and Blogger said it was published, but it isn't showing up.

I'll come back later to see if it arrives.

beamish said...

Well, that's bullshit.

I'd retype my comment, but now I'm in the mood to boycott Blogger altogether.

grrrrr.

Z said...

beamish, I'm so sorry.......this is starting to happen again to FrogBurger, too.
I don't know how to handle it; it straightens itself out after a while and doesn't happen again, but I can only imagine how much you'd written and how much I'd like to have read it.
I guess the only thing we can do for a while is save it first, just in case.

beamish said...

[one more try]

And, beamish, you're a smart guy. At least according to you. There are so many scholarly recitations by libertarians (Crosskey, Sorenson) and 'strict constructionists' on the general welfare clause. Then there's Federalist 41. Yet, you link to a blogging electrician for Constitutional commentary. What?

Well that "blogging electrician" happens to be correct. And he'd be correct if he wrote the same thing as a "blogging lawyer" or a "blogging strip dancer."

Nothing that "blogging electrician" wrote conflicts with Federalist #41, and the key refutation of your idiotic view that comes from Federalist #41 was linked and quoted above by Ticker.

You have nothing to answer either Federalist #41, me, the "blogging electrician," or Ticker. The reason you don't have an answer for us is because you're across the board dead wrong.

To me, it's hilariously pathetic that you've latched onto "We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice" followed by an endorsement of a commentator in an opinion in a Supreme Court as the "meat" of a decision that ruled entirely against your point of view. Hence why I correctly identified you as "loopy stupid."

US v. Butler ruled unconstitutional the tax provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. That act imposed a tax on processors of farm products, the proceeds to be paid to farmers who would reduce their area and crops. The intent of the act was to increase the prices of certain farm products by decreasing the quantities produced.

The "meat" of the ruling in US v. Butler is this:

"The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement, are but parts of the plan. They are but means to an unconstitutional end."

You can try to argue that a Supreme Court decision that slapped down an over-reach of Congressional taxation power in fact reaffirms "providing for the general welfare" is an enumerated power of Congress, but it doesn't make you seem less stupid.

You don't even get into how this decision (and others) prompted FDR to try to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court so that he could appoint himself a more favoirable body for the more obvious Constitutional abuses of his New Deal agenda.

That is, if you actually knew a damned thing about what you're talking about.

Ticker said...

CRAIG:

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument 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 sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please." Thomas Jefferson (this should make it a bit clearer since you don't seem to approve of the other because it contains too many ....Best thing to do when you find those, look up the entire quote, I do!

"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, subject to particular exceptions." James Madison (exactly what the Leftist wish to occur, making "exceptions" when the whim hits them in order to keep the people enslaved to the government.)

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." James Madison (certainly no endorsement of your definition of General Welfare. )

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." James Madison

And that last one Craig is exactly what has occurred in this country under the guise of "for the general welfare".

My statement in regard to the 16th Amendment. IMO the founders would not have approved of such and Amendment. I am well aware of what an Amendment is and aware that Jefferson was not present during the convention but you failed to mention that he was able to influence the development of the Constitution through his correspondence. Thomas Jefferson's December 20, 1787, letter to James Madison contains objections to key parts of the new Federal Constitution. Jefferson noted the absence of a bill of rights and the failure to provide for rotation in office or term limits, particularly for the chief executive. During the writing and ratification of the constitution, in an effort to influence the formation of the new governmental structure, Jefferson wrote many similar letters to friends and political acquaintances in America. So even though he was in France serving as a US Minister his influence in the Constitution development is very plain to those who know history. His "hand print" is all over the document.

Z said...

You know, Ticker, I believe Jefferson wrote something like 15,000 letters in his time.....have you heard that?

Beamish, how the H do you know all of this stuff? :-)

beamish said...

BRAVO, TICKER!

Craig's argument doesn't even have legs to stand on, much less to kick out from under it.

beamish said...

Beamish, how the H do you know all of this stuff? :-)

I'm a 3rd generation curmudgeon. :)

Context is everything. US v. Butler was one instance where FDR's New Deal went up against the Constitution, and LOST.

Speedy G said...

...but let's face the facts people. FDR packed the Court and put us on the Road to Hell (paved with Good "Congressional" intentions). We need to get OFF THAT ROAD and back on one with a "limited" small g (g)overnment. And the only way to do that is the way FDR did it. At the ballot box with a more "reasonable" group of juriprudentially inclined Constitutional haruspice takers.

Craig said...

Craig's argument doesn't even have legs to stand on, much less to kick out from under it.

My argument is, there were differing interpretations of the general welfare clause. Hamilton's and Madison/Jefferson's. Like it or not, Hamilton's prevailed.

beamish, I know how AAA turned out. Robert's opinion regarding the Hamiltonian interpretation was the legal precedent cited in Helvering vs. Davis. and the Steward Machine Company case (and countless cases since). They upheld Social Security and unemployment ins. It was a big deal.

I know you think it's a perversion of the Constitution and I'm an idiot, but facts is facts.

Craig said...

Will you be happy when your daughter can't get into the college of her dreams, even with a straight A average and a 2250 SAT (like my own nephew and other kids I know) because minorities who haven't earned the grades are needed to fit that college's quota?

Z, This is awesome news. Our daughter is adopted. Her biological parents are Mexican. That makes her one of them thar minorities. She don't have to study no more. We's gonna ride this gravy train all the way to one a them lefty colleges like Harvard or Stanford or Bob Jones.

Craig, will you be happy when corporations have been so maligned and belittled because of the doings of a few that we have none employing Americans anymore?

You mean the ones not employing Americans now? The ones employing Chinese? I'm only maligning the greedy multi-national conglomerates who exploit workers and resources for their only true allegiance, maximum profit.

Since you all here are 'originalists', what did the framers think of corporate power. They actually let the states handle corporate charters. Here's what they did,

Cont.

Craig said...

Limited Duration: Charters were granted only for a period of 10, 20 or 30 years after which the corporation had to be liquidated and the proceeds distributed among the shareholders.

Limited Land Holdings: Many states imposed limitations on the amount of land a corporation could own. Most often, the amount of land was limited to that required for the factory or mill site.

Limited Capital Holdings: Once again, many states limited the amount of money or financial assets a corporation could possess. Some states banned corporations from owning other corporations or stock in them. Once a corporation exceeded the limit, it had to be either dissolved or split.

Specific Purpose Charters: This was perhaps the most common of all restrictions in the early years of this country. Corporations were chartered only for a specific purpose such as the building of a canal or road. Once the stated purpose was completed, the corporation was dissolved. Now charters are issued that enable a corporation to engage in any type of business.

No Limitations on Liability: Directors, managers and shareholders were held to be fully liable for any debts or damages. In some cases, the lender or injured party was entitled to double or triple the damages. Other states imposed extremely high interest rates until the debt was fully paid.

Restrictive Shareholder Rights: The internal governance of corporations was much more restrictive than it is today. Shareholders had more rights. In case of mergers, some states required a unanimous vote of shareholders.

Restrictions on Pricing: Some states maintained the right to set prices on corporate products. Wisconsin, for one, gave the state legislature the power to set prices on products after reviewing the corporations' expenses.

Revocable Charters: States maintained the right to revoke or change a charter at the will of the its legislature. Almost all of the states adopted this clause after 1820.

cont.

Craig said...

Or, what did that Socialist, commie, Abe Lincoln think,

The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.

FrogBurger said...

I'm only maligning the greedy multi-national conglomerates who exploit workers and resources for their only true allegiance, maximum profit.

Laughing out loud. Sounds like a page of a French Communist Party pamphlets.

I hope you do not own stocks. Because that would mean you're looking for a profit too, and therefore you put pressure on corporations to give you that profit. Therefore you are part of exploiting workers.

Z said...

Craig, you said "Z, This is awesome news. Our daughter is adopted. Her biological parents are Mexican. That makes her one of them thar minorities. She don't have to study no more. We's gonna ride this gravy train all the way to one a them lefty colleges like Harvard or Stanford or Bob Jones."

Well, absolutely true! I like to think you're not the types of parents who won't encourage her to do well ON HER OWN MERITS, though..I can hope?
Does this story negate the pain that my nephew could not get into Berkeley because of minorities taking his slots who haven't earned his grades he worked his bum off for? Or does it diminish the pain in my white girlfriends' heart that she's had to pay and pay and pay for Berkeley and Brown and Cal State Northridge because her kids are white and got no considerations?
You so perfectly made my point, Craig: YOU COULD take advantage of them, they CAN'T of YOU. The TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY as I call it.......I'd have thought leftwingers would think that's so mean it's wrong..apparently not.
(Not Bob Jones U....you'd have too many fights at home and she might grow up with a strong faith that guides a wonderful life.......tho I don't know much about this school)
Congratulations on her adoption! THat's a wonderful thing...you did good.

and no, Craig, there are still corporations here which hire plenty of people and you know it....we just make it so hard on them now they will have to go to China.
California, too, our taxes are so high I can't tell you how many people I know who are contemplating leaving the state, and doctors who voted for Obama are contemplating getting out of their field.
GOOD JOBS, LIBERALS...mY GOD

FrogBurger said...

Craig doesn't realize that globalization, even when corporations seek to drastically reduce costs, have helped poor countries.

That's typical from the lefty idiots. They criticize the Western world for supposedly creating third world countries yet when we western corporations go overseas and therefore hire people with wages that keep increasing, they blame them for not hiring American workers.

So I ask them? What do you want contradictory and illogical lefties? YOu gotta explain to me your logic at some point because I really don't get it.

Oh you want life to be perfect, that's right?

Well deal with it and get over it. It ain't gonna happen. Never happened since the human kind has been on this planet and it won't happen.

God they're infantile.

FrogBurger said...

By the way, Mr Craig, my cousin works in China and the French company that hires him had to leave b/c it's impossible to do be competitive if you stay in France b/c of socialist policies that started in the 80s.

I don't know if you realize how much your policies that aimed at fighting the enemy called profit increased the speed of globalization and outsourcing. I'm not saying it would not have happened as very old economics theories (Adam Smith) shows that it is a natural process related to trade.

But by passing laws and regulations, like in France where an employee costs its company 3 times his/her salary because of all the taxes and fees required to support the socialist welfare state, companies had to go hire cheaper people.

It's like this in California right now. We're getting close to French numbers. Thank god there still is job market flexibility as far as laying off people if things go down. But that explains why companies, including Hollywood, are leaving.

See socialism is never social where the policies are implemented. The inability of your kind to take into account the long term and unintended consequences in your fight against profit leads to all kinds of issues.

But it does make the Chinese happy. It certainly is better to have those corporations instead of all communist state. I'm sure the workers rather be exploited as you describe it instead of being sent to re-education camps.

FrogBurger said...

Also hopefully Mr Craig doesn't buy Chinese products or products that are the result of exploiting workers, in addition to not own stocks.

See you lefties really need to apply the principles and this pseudo morality to yourselves first. Then come see me with your recommendations.

Before you show the example, I won't listen. Otherwise you're being a fool and are only behaving like teenagers.

Speedy G said...

Sounds like the founders followed Jonathan Swift's "No Struldbrug's" advice. It's just a shame we can't get you Academy Projectors to refocus your telescopes, any more than we can get our own boys to have their threepence size carcinogenic moles attended to.

Speedy G said...

...but then, The Grand Academy of Lagado certainly has her reputation to consider. Imagine if ever the adamantine stones on Laputa were reversed and the floating island were allowed to settle to earth! I've a feeling the inhabitants of Balnibarbi proper would drag the Projectors off into the bushes and make short work of them.

Speedy G said...

Best beware Craig lest the inhabitants of Lindalino manage to tie your "floating island" of Constitutional interpretation down like the Liliputians did Gulliver.

:)

Speedy G said...

btw - If you liked that particular tale of a tub, I've plenty more from whence it came.

beamish said...

My argument is, there were differing interpretations of the general welfare clause. Hamilton's and Madison/Jefferson's. Like it or not, Hamilton's prevailed.

It did not prevail in the case you cited (US v. Butler).

But you'd have known that if you actually knew what you're talking about.

MK said...

You know between the useless parasites, err sorry... democrat voters, the special interest groups and politicians, the poor ol' taxpayer is getting screwed from all sides.

Rock on Tea Partiers, seems like them folks is the only ones giving a damn about the hard-working decent people out there.