"Spreading the wealth" Who exactly is this suppose to offend?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

was that not the intent of art. 1 sec 8 "enumerated powers"? Why would a power be enumerated specifically if these so called "clauses" can be taken as an open ended option?

The intent of art. 1 sec. 8 was to list powers conferred to the federal government. However, arguing that those are the only powers Congress has, therefore, is a fallacy.

Honestly, there is 200 years of decisions that parse this out, so its not like I can post it in one paragraph. Ultimately though, what you are doing is taking a position that would make the Constitution unworkable in many respects.

Let me ask you this, what power says Congress can build roads? What power says we can have a city that is not in a state? What power says that we can require citizens to have passports? What power says we can have border patrol? What power says we can have marines?

There are other clauses in the Constitution that imply these powers and more. The Constitution is meant to be read as a complete "living" document. You don't pick one section and say "that's it."

[SnyderShrugged]

The intent of art. 1 sec. 8 was to list powers conferred to the federal government. However, arguing that those are the only powers Congress has, therefore, is a fallacy.

Honestly, there is 200 years of decisions that parse this out, so its not like I can post it in one paragraph. Ultimately though, what you are doing is taking a position that would make the Constitution unworkable in many respects.

Let me ask you this, what power says Congress can build roads? What power says we can have a city that is not in a state? What power says that we can require citizens to have passports? What power says we can have border patrol? What power says we can have marines? What power says

The power to have federal post roads is specific in the enumerated powers. Defense is pretty much covered as well as specific enumerated powers.

There was a reason to have specific enumerated powers for the federal government, they wouldnt have specified if the generic clauses were meant to be opened ended (and I have already posted where many of the founders specifically spoke against such an open ended interpretation.)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The power to have federal post roads is specific in the enumerated powers. Defense is pretty much covered as well as specific enumerated powers.

There was a reason to have specific enumerated powers for the federal government, they wouldnt have specified if the generic clauses were meant to be opened ended (and I have already posted where many of the founders specifically spoke against such an open ended interpretation.)

Whoa... what you just did was "interpret" more powers in the Constitution. Defense is covered? That means we can have border patrol? It doesn't say border patrol or marines in the Constitution. Federal "post" roads is equivalent to the interstate system we have developed?

There also clauses like "necessary and proper" which show that the Constitution was not supposed to be as limiting as you contend. And if you want to say there needs to be something that says "the government can provide health care," then you have to apply that logic to all those other things I listed.

[rebornempowered]

Before you get too excited about the merits of capitalism with your signature that quotes scripture it might be good to keep in mind that the early church didn't necessarily share your economic ideals.

Acts 2:44-45 All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.

Damn bunch of commies!

There is record of one church doing this.

Also, it was voluntary, not the work of the state. To imply that the Bible implies that the civil magistrate should do this, is at best, a stretch.

[AsburySkinsFan]

There is record of one church doing this.

There is also only one record of a burning bush, one record of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son Isaac, one record of Paul's ship wreck...so what's your point. Wait, I know what your point is, it only is recorded once so it can't be the way things are supposed to be. The only problem is that this is the record of the church just after Pentecost, and it is illustrated in such a way as to show that this is the way things should be.

Also, it was voluntary, not the work of the state. To imply that the Bible implies that the civil magistrate should do this, is at best, a stretch.

Here's the funny bit, Christians all over the place call America a "Christian" nation and yet they want to remove the nation from everything but the image of being a Christian, i.e. all the substance. If I as a Christian am called to love my neighbor as myself and I can do that through the taxes that I pay my government that I can help direct the way that those funds are used then would it not be a Christian value to influence that magistrate to help those in need with the tax dollars that I pay? Does the Bible say that the civil magistrate should do this, no but it certainly does not preclude it, and IMO it seems to indicate strongly that if we are in a position to help/love others and don't then we are in sin, and right now one of the best ways to help those in need is through social programs that we as a people provide to those in need. For some reason whenever I discuss this with Christians they always want to make the "government" something else and they forget that it is OUR government, and OUR money, and as such WE get to choose how it is spent and to whom it is spent on.

Don't even get me started on the role of the Holy Roman Empire and the fact that it was that "government" that took over the hospitals, and orphanages that were run by the church, and no one then complained.

Until such a time as the Church (universal) can come together to face the overwhelming need that surrounds us as one body, then we must find some way to meet the needs of the people, and I'm not unconvinced that God cannot use the government influenced by His people to meet this end.

[Johnny Punani]

Your reply my characterize some but not me. I pay my taxes proudly and believe that we as Americans must contribute to those things that are constitutionally provided to us via our Federal and State governments and which benefit ALL Americans.

Healthcare is a privledge NOT a right and I don't want one cent of my tax dollars going to socialize healthcare.

I'm pretty conservative on most things but I think Healthcare is a human right. Every human deserves equal access and quality of healthcare services. The current system does not provide for this and is progressively getting worse.

[SnyderShrugged]

Whoa... what you just did was "interpret" more powers in the Constitution. Defense is covered? That means we can have border patrol? It doesn't say border patrol or marines in the Constitution. Federal "post" roads is equivalent to the interstate system we have developed?

There also clauses like "necessary and proper" which show that the Constitution was not supposed to be as limiting as you contend. And if you want to say there needs to be something that says "the government can provide health care," then you have to apply that logic to all those other things I listed.

Why are you intentionally not addressing the statements of Madison and Hamilton that I posted earlier? They very clearly, and on the record stated that clauses such as General welfare and such were not intended to be open ended in their interpretation?

I am not interpreting at all in what I said...

Article I, 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;

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 an 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; specific to cover roads (yes, the interstate does qualify as a post road)

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 Offences 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; Here we have border protection

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, dock-Yards, 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.

not really sure what your argument is.

We have many of the founders specifc words on how those clauses were meant to be interpreted, we have enumerated powers that were intended to limit federal roles, and we have specific powers outlined that are meant for Federal jurisdiction. No brainer

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm pretty conservative on most things but I think Healthcare is a human right. Every human deserves equal access and quality of healthcare services. The current system does not provide for this and is progressively getting worse.

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm pretty conservative on most things but I think Healthcare is a human right. Every human deserves equal access and quality of healthcare services. The current system does not provide for this and is progressively getting worse.

I thin k that this is where we may part ways a bit in our thinking. I dont know of anyone, whatsoever, who can or will be legally denied healthcare if they need it. This is the perplexing thing to me as to why many feel that this "crisis" is present. I honestly dont understand it. If you have no insurence, the hospitals will still give you care.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I thin k that this is where we may part ways a bit in our thinking. I dont know of anyone, whatsoever, who can or will be legally denied healthcare if they need it. This is the perplexing thing to me as to why many feel that this "crisis" is present. I honestly dont understand it. If you have no insurence, the hospitals will still give you care.

I brought this up earlier, and this instance while anecdotal is by no means unique.

My cousin's wife was diagnosed with breast cancer last summer and has spent the last year fighting cancer, they are not well off at all and through this year they have built up quite a substantial debt due to the healthcare bills to the point that they are being forced to declare bankruptcy. Sure she got treatment, but economically they have simply been crippled. My question is this, why does this have to happen? What's more is why does something as essential as healthcare have to be such burden to so many people across this country?

[shk75]

I thin k that this is where we may part ways a bit in our thinking. I dont know of anyone, whatsoever, who can or will be legally denied healthcare if they need it. This is the perplexing thing to me as to why many feel that this "crisis" is present. I honestly dont understand it. If you have no insurence, the hospitals will still give you care.

What you are stating is a little different than what other people are stating. Yes if you have NO money at all and are broke and arrive in an emergency room they will help you and take care of you without you paying since you have NO money. But if you have SOME money they will bill you and keep billing you until you have NO money and nothing else and have to declare bankruptcy. Medical issues are the number one causers of bankruptcy for American families. So although they might not just let you die right there in the long run you are screwed.

[SnyderShrugged]

But from what I am seeing you guys say, it seems as thoughyou are not only saying healthcare is a right, but now it must be a free right for some and a not free right for others. This is my reason for not agreeing with you.

at least we have established that no one will get denied healthcare, but those who chose to not maintain insurance and dont qualify for medicare or medicaid may ultimately be uncomfortable after they are treated.

[AsburySkinsFan]

But from what I am seeing you guys say, it seems as thoughyou are not only saying healthcare is a right, but now it must be a free right for some and a not free right for others. This is my reason for not agreeing with you.

Universal Healthcare for all is the ideal, the problem is that the health care institution is established to the point that it has become integral to our economy. The compromise that I hear Obama suggesting is a coverage for those people caught in the middle and insurance being a suplement to the base healthcare. If I could wave my magic wand and create a world were everyone could afford healthcare I certainly would, but here is the problem...1) I don't have a magic wand and 2) the healthcare institution isn't going anywhere, so how can we work both realities into a compromise that brings healthcare to all?

at least we have established that no one will get denied healthcare, but those who chose to not maintain insurance and dont qualify for medicare or medicaid may ultimately be uncomfortable after they are treated.

Uncomfortable? I'll be sure to let my cousin, his wife, and their year old son know that they can expect to be "uncomfortable" because of her cancer. I'm sorry but that sounds more than a bit detached and brutal.

[Larry]

The intent of art. 1 sec. 8 was to list powers conferred to the federal government. However, arguing that those are the only powers Congress has, therefore, is a fallacy.

Amendment 10

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.

Let me ask you this, what power says Congress can build roads?

They don't.

It's a technicality that the feds use to get around the Constitution, but the Interstate Highway System is built by the states. The Feds go to, say, Florida, and tell Florida "If you build a highway right here, and if you follow these specs in this book, then for every dollar Florida spends, the Feds will pay 9 more."

What power says we can have a city that is not in a state?

Clause 17:

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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

What power says that we can require citizens to have passports?

We don't. Other countries require passports, or else they won't let our citizens into their countries.

What power says we can have border patrol?

Can't find one right now. However, it has been ruled that there are certain powers that are inherent in simply being a government. (For example, there's no clause that specifically states that the Judicial Branch has the authority to try, convict, and sentence criminals.) Some powers have simply been assumed on the basis of "that's just the way things are done". I'd assert that securing a nation's borders is one of those powers that's simply implied.

What power says we can have marines?

The Marines are a branch of the Navy. (As the Navy continually reminds them.)

[SnyderShrugged]

Universal Healthcare for all is the ideal, the problem is that the health care institution is established to the point that it has become integral to our economy. The compromise that I hear Obama suggesting is a coverage for those people caught in the middle and insurance being a suplement to the base healthcare. If I could wave my magic wand and create a world were everyone could afford healthcare I certainly would, but here is the problem...1) I don't have a magic wand and 2) the healthcare institution isn't going anywhere, so how can we work both realities into a compromise that brings healthcare to all?

Uncomfortable? I'll be sure to let my cousin, his wife, and their year old son know that they can expect to be "uncomfortable" because of her cancer. I'm sorry but that sounds more than a bit detached and brutal.

as you know, I am not at all unsensitive to the horrors of cancer, and my own Mom is wading through the beurocracy of medicare throughout it all. I hope you dont feel I am not compassionate about the issues that come with that awful disease.

However, I cannot warrant how federal healthcare above and beyond what already exists is the right way to go either. If there were a way to address this situation within the boundaries of the constitution and still promise that everyone would have the same level of comfort economically, then I would jump on it. As it stands, we all, as individuals and members of our society, have the option to accept a job that provides health insurance. We do not have to take jobs that dont. Those that do, pay for it, and at fairly high levels. Those that dont take the risk that comes with making that decision. It sucks but its real life.

Could Obama's plan be enacted equitably for every single taxpayer regardless of income level while keeping care free of the red tape and beurocracy that inevitably comes with a Federal program? If it could I would be first in line to explore and consider it as an option.

[81artmonk]

Acts 2:44-45 All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.

Damn bunch of commies!

That would be a cool thing but that verse had to do with the early church and it was the members who were taking care of other church members. It didn't have to do with taking from the rich to help the poor. It was church members helping other church members.

and yes there is a difference

[Veretax]

Oy vey. Another thing is that they want to you to forget who pays a greater percentage of their salaries in taxes (i.e. the middle class), and they want you to forget that the $700 billion is going to directly benefit the millionaires on Wall Street not "Joe the Plumber". Enough of the lies and mischaracterizations please.

Sad that both candidates voted for that crap sandwich.

Yeah, conservatives see it as a necessity. Only they call it different things, like bailouts.

Bah I'm against bailouts. I"m against what the Fed has been doing, but there isn't much I can do to stop it unfortunately :/

[AsburySkinsFan]

That would be a cool thing but that verse had to do with the early church and it was the members who were taking care of other church members. It didn't have to do with taking from the rich to help the poor. It was church members helping other church members.

and yes there is a difference

So me asking the representatives that I helped elect to direct my tax dollars to help those in need is not Christian? If Christians are directing their government in such ways then what is the difference? Can God's grace not be worked through a government social program that was developed by Christians who wanted a way to love their neighbors, or can God only work through the church?

[Veretax]

God truly does love a Cheerful Giver... there's just one problem with this spreading the wealth to help others via taxes... I don't know many people that are happy to have to pay taxes by April 15th every year.

[twist]

I just think it'll be much easier for me to stop working and running my business

I like the idea of being on the recieving end of "wealth spreading"

Now imagine if another 500,000 business owners like me thought the same thing

I hope you do.

If a 3% increase in your taxes after the first 250,000 you make in profit is too burdensome for you, there are plenty of people in this country, like me, who would be happy to step in and run businesses.

With you out of the way there will be much less competition. You can go work for 30k a year and be happy that you are on the 'receiving end'.

[81artmonk]

So me asking the representatives that I helped elect to direct my tax dollars to help those in need is not Christian?

I never said that it wasn't chrisitian

If Christians are directing their government in such ways then what is the difference? Can God's grace not be worked through a government social program that was developed by Christians who wanted a way to love their neighbors, or can God only work through the church?

Not really the point. The verse you used was talking about church members helping other church members within the church not as a social program. Huge difference.

Charity isn't charity if I am forced to do it. This issue has nothing to do with good christian values, but rather taking from americans and giving it to the undeserving.

Issue one, it's my money. The govt has no right to strip it from me and give it to someone else. If I want to engage in charity I will. I don't need the govt doing it for me.

[81artmonk]

If a 3% increase in your taxes after the first 250,000 you make in profit is too burdensome for you, there are plenty of people in this country, like me, who would be happy to step in and run businesses.

That's really not the point. Why is it ok for the govt to punish achievement??

I've said it over and over again, life isn't fair and you can't legislate fairness, which is what Obama wants to do.

So let me lay this out. guy #1 works hard and builds his own business and is successful making lets say 2mil a year.

Guy #2 made some really poor choices in life, like dropping out of school. Not learning any kind of skill. trouble with the law, having too many kids he can't pay for etc...

Is just getting by.

So Obama comes along and says, it isn't fair that Guy #2 isn't making it(regardless of his poor life choices) and we are going to take away the hard earned money from Guy #1 so that guy #2 can have a better life.

I don't see that as fair, I see that as insanely stupid policy!

[twist]

That's really not the point. Why is it ok for the govt to punish achievement??

I've said it over and over again, life isn't fair and you can't legislate fairness, which is what Obama wants to do.

So let me lay this out. guy #1 works hard and builds his own business and is successful making lets say 2mil a year.

Guy #2 made some really poor choices in life, like dropping out of school. Not learning any kind of skill. trouble with the law, having too many kids he can't pay for etc...

Is just getting by.

So Obama comes along and says, it isn't fair that Guy #2 isn't making it(regardless of his poor life choices) and we are going to take away the hard earned money from Guy #1 so that guy #2 can have a better life.

I don't see that as fair, I see that as insanely stupid policy!

That’s a false dichotomy. There are plenty of very hard working people out there that struggle to make ends meet. We aren't all intelligent, talented, or lucky enough to work ourselves into highly equitable jobs.

It is in no way punishment for the people with more money to pay more taxes, they simply have more disposable income (income that doesn’t have to go to necessities), so taxing them hurts them less than taxing someone who just makes a little more than they need to get by.

The people who benefit the most from the government are those at the top. It is most of what makes their wealth possible through introduction of stability to the system. Tax breaks to people make less means they will have more customers because people who make less money than them will have more money to spend.

This is what you call Demand side economics and it works. Supply side economics has never been shown to work and has done nothing but produce massive government debt and instability.

It doesn’t work because the owners of large businesses do the same thing when they get a tax cut as they do when they don’t get one. Pay out as little as possible to get the job done whether it means shipping jobs over seas, hiring illegal immigrants, laying people off and expecting the rest to pick up the slack, cutting health care or reducing wages to the minimum that people will work for before quitting or bribing congress for favorable legislation.

The only thing that trickles down is pain. The current market problems are because people’s means in the United States have not grown while everything has become more expensive. Something had to give and it was the debt owed to mortgage banks. Where are all the high paying jobs that these captains of industry are supposed to create when you give them tax breaks?

I'll tell you where it all went. The wealthiest people in this country have fleeced it until it got sick, and now we all get to suffer.

[dreamingwolf]

"I'm rich ****es" toot toot

that is the problem with wealth redistribution.

If you just give money freely to people they will spend it wildly, I know I would. Hell I earn every dollar and I still spend it stupidly, I can only imagine what I would do if it was just given to me freely.

Now if you were to do wealth distribution through a socialist systemt that would be different, but you would have to take on their full models. For instance the USSR in its hay day, if you didnt hold a job you went to jail. They didnt let you just feed off the system, they told you that you were going to do this whether you liked it or not or you went to prision.

Germanys system is that if you go unemployed(and you are not a leach asylum group) you have 2 months to find an infield job or you will be forced to be retrained into a new field that is indemand.

There should not be a wellfare culture, that should not be something people can opt to do for a living or to use to cover their over head for criminal enterprises. It should only be something to redirect you.

The state should not allow its citizens to forever suck from its teet, I would rather the state educate people into jobs to make them hirable to needed jobs. Some prisions edcuate their prisoners and that offends me that prisioners can obtain skills but the poor can not. Take the money from the prisions and put that into unemployement office. When the douche gets out of prision he can apply to the unemployement office, and if he goes back to prision destroy him.

Most people are ok with killing babies, lets get ok with killing adults who repeatedly show they cant exist without being douchely. If we are going to be a management society, lets aknowledge it and do it correctly and fully. There is nothing more pathetic than a half ass manager.

[PortisFan123]

Add me onto "work" for what you earn. Wealth redistribution is Marxist, and lets call Obama and his folks what they are: Socialists. Limo Liberals. Try getting a piece of their pie. It will never happen.

This is the potpourri of special interest groups. The want to tell you what tissue paper to buy and then how to wipe your ass with it.

And the biggest hypocrite is Michelle Obama herself who is on a hospital board folks making over $300,000 a year yet she tells everyone else NOT to join corporate america, but go out and 'serve'. Give me a break. This country is not an ashram and Obama is not a guru, who will deliver you into bliss abolute.

Am I the only one that finds Obama and his principles down right communist???