Allowing someone to keep something they have so they can spend it -promotes- that something.
Giving someone money so they can spend it on something -provides- that something.
Conceptually, these are significantly different ideas.
Except that it isn't. as the weath stays with the person that earned it, and then spent by him. Its not taken from anyone nor redistributed to anyone.Well...the government has less money to spend, and the targeted beneficiaries (in this case homeowners) have more money to spend. That's basically the same as any other wealth redistribution programs...
That doesnt at all follow from what I said.That's a perfect example of using the tax code for social engineering, which I thought you were against.
NOT taxing to promote the general welfare is an entirely different animal than taxing tp provide for the general welfare.
Artificially upporting the 'weak, slow, sick, and stupid' - that is, providing direct welfare - is conceptually completely different than promoting the general welfare.So then, would it be accurate to say that your opposition to "artificially supporting the weak, slow, sick, and stupid" is merely based on the fact that you don't think it successfully promotes the general welfare, rather than any opposition to the government power itself?
Promoting the general welfare has to do with people using their own means as opposed ot being given the means to do something by someone else.
This makes no sense whatsoever.They don't have to, they could just do the same type of wealth redistribution that the feds currently do. For example, let's say that in a certain city, the average homeowner saves $4,000 per year due to the mortgage interest deduction. If it was abolished, the city could just tax the renters enough to give all the homeowners a $4,000 subsidy (or "tax cut" if you like).