• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support single-payer health care?

Do you support single-payer health care?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 43.7%
  • No

    Votes: 36 50.7%
  • Maybe, if

    Votes: 4 5.6%

  • Total voters
    71
So....
No comment on the general welfare clause? Shocking:shock:
No comment on your apples and oranges argument?
No surprise. You concede the point, and I accept.

In any case, your response, above, is another clear example of dishionesty on your part, as I commented on the 'general welfare clause' in the very first post of mine that YOU responded to:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...ingle-payer-health-care-8.html#post1058373695

Allow me to repeat myself. It's no big deal as copy/paste is pretty easy --almost as easy as paying attention to what you are reading.

-The clause you cite gives the power to tax.
-It does NOT grant the power to create programs that provide for the common defense or the general welfare -- the clauses found in the remainder of the section do this.
-If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.
 
Last edited:
-The clause you cite gives the power to tax.
-It does NOT grant the power to create programs that provide for the common defense or the general welfare -- the clauses found in the remainder of the section do this.
-If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.

Eliminating the opinionated hogwash;

Article 1 section 8 (the part i was citing) grants government the power to tax and spend, not simply to tax.

From wiki:
With the power to tax, implicitly and necessarily, must come the power to spend the revenues raised by such taxation in order to meet the objectives and goals of the government. To what extent this power ought to be utilized by the Congress has been the source of continued dispute and debate since the inception of the federal government, as will be explained below. However, interpretations recognizing an implicit power to spend have been questioned.

Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Eliminating the opinionated hogwash;
Like your diatribe on Military Keynesianism? I'll consider it withdrawn.

No comment on your apples and oranges argument?
No surprise. You concede the point, and I accept.

Article 1 section 8 (the part i was citing) grants government the power to tax and spend, not simply to tax.
Yes. That's what I responded to. Not sure why you feel the need to repeat it, or why you think repeating it changes anything.

I'll copy and paste my ressponse yet again:

-The clause you cite gives the power to tax (and spend)
-It does NOT grant the power to create programs that provide for the common defense or the general welfare -- the clauses found in the remainder of the section do this.
-If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.

You might try addressing these points, especially the 2nd and 3rd.
 
No. People need to earn what they receive, nobody should be paying for anyone else's health care, unless they voluntarily do so.
 
-The clause you cite gives the power to tax.
-It does NOT grant the power to create programs that provide for the common defense or the general welfare -- the clauses found in the remainder of the section do this.
-If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.

First and foremost; apples to oranges argument would apply if i was comparing another country who has a different set of constitutional laws etc.... Since i have done nothing of the sort, i am perplexed at your use of the term.

If anything, you might be able to say i am comparing slices of the apple. This topic is in regard to government funded and managed health care. Yes, health care and military spending are not the same, but they stem from the same source along with the same objective. The US government already insures the majority of the population as it stands, but it in itself is not a single payer system (monopsony). However... the military industrial complex is in fact a monopsony, and i went even further to illustrate various periods of military keynesian policy being implemented.

When it was brought up that such a policy crowds out the private sector and is government intervention (especially from an economic perspective), you go on to the apples and oranges comment. Now i can see why you are afraid to admit that you support military Keynesianism because of the conflict of interest it might encompasses in regards to your recent posting history; but running away screaming "apples to oranges" is... rather embarrassing.

You talk about civil/honest debate, and yet refuse to acknowledge other aspects of this debate because it inconveniences your position. If this is dishonest, than please explain your well documented desire to end a plethora of discussions before they even begin (on this thread and many others; if you would like i can list them for you).

Stating, " i do not wish to comment because it is not the point" cries subjective fear of discussion.

So i ask again, why is government intervention ok in some instances (when mandated by conservatives) and "going to ruin this country" when implemented by liberals?
 
Yes, it is. That's why they were specified in the Constitution.
If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.


And?
All this means is that Congress was not given the power to create them, and that their creation was extra-constitutional.


The USAF was originally part of the army, and was reorganized into it son wervice in 1947. I have argued that it should be re-absorbed back into the army.


Both are directly related to the interstate commerce clause.


Your argument here has been addressed, countered and mooted.


So?
Regulation of health insurance is provided for in the interstae commerce clause; there is absolutely NO power granted to the federal government that allows it to PROVIDE health care.


It is only a cheap cop-out if you arent concerned about the government violating the constitution so it can do something that you thing is a 'good idea', and it is -completely- true.

-The clause you cite gives the power to tax.
-It does NOT grant the power to create programs that provide for the common defense or the general welfare -- the clauses found in the remainder of the section do this.
-If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.

Your assumption that this is a cut and dried issue is either hopelessly naive or simply ignorant.

There has been debate on the general welfare clause and what it allows since the day our constitution was written. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton expressed differing opinions on what it allowed in The Federalist Papers, and they helped write the constitution.

You're more than welcome to your opinion on the issue of course, but don't pretend that it's anything more than an opinion.
 
Last edited:
I cannot possible see how a largely monolithic entity like the Government can possibly take over an additional 17% of the economy, especially when it is so personal varies from person to person to such a degree without making it far more expensive or inefficent
 
I cannot possible see how a largely monolithic entity like the Government can possibly take over an additional 17% of the economy, especially when it is so personal varies from person to person to such a degree without making it far more expensive or inefficent

I don't see how you can conclude that a little reasonable regulation constitutes a total takeover. Unless of course, you're one of them right wing tea bag whack-o-loons.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how you can conclude that a little reasonable regulation constitutes a total takeover. Unless of course, you're one of them right wing tea bag whack-o-loons.

A single payer system isn't a takeover?
 
No. People need to earn what they receive, nobody should be paying for anyone else's health care, unless they voluntarily do so.

A simple and poor society can exist as a democracy on a basis of sheer individualism. But a rich and complex industrial society cannot.

--Theodore Roosevelt
 
Yes. That's what I responded to. Not sure why you feel the need to repeat it, or why you think repeating it changes anything.

I'll copy and paste my ressponse yet again:

-The clause you cite gives the power to tax (and spend)
-It does NOT grant the power to create programs that provide for the common defense or the general welfare -- the clauses found in the remainder of the section do this.

actually it seems it does grant the power to create programs that provide for the common defense or the general welfare...
The two primary authors of the Federalist Papers essays set forth two separate, conflicting theories:

the narrower view of James Madison 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; and

the broader view of Alexander Hamilton that spending is an enumerated power that Congress may 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.

at least under the Hamiltonian view:

To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

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.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
 
Last edited:
Article 1 Section 8 grants Congress the authority to spend on the enumerated powers only.

Health care, socialist security, education, energy, farm subsidies, baseball,....none of those are enumerated in Art. 1 Sect. 8.

This is not true, as I show in my post above (http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...ngle-payer-health-care-12.html#post1058374255).

It is not enumerated, it is up to the legislature to decide. The way this will work is that the legislature will pass legislation spending tax dollars. People that don't like this will bring a suit against and try to get it to the Supreme Court. If the SC hears the case, this argument will be attempted, that it is not an enumerated power. The SC will reject this argument based on prior case law and their interpretation of the "General Welfare" being met by the legislation. So sorry.
 
No comment on your apples and oranges argument?
No surprise. You concede the point, and I accept.

In any case, your response, above, is another clear example of dishionesty on your part, as I commented on the 'general welfare clause' in the very first post of mine that YOU responded to:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...ingle-payer-health-care-8.html#post1058373695

Allow me to repeat myself. It's no big deal as copy/paste is pretty easy --almost as easy as paying attention to what you are reading.

-The clause you cite gives the power to tax.
-It does NOT grant the power to create programs that provide for the common defense or the general welfare -- the clauses found in the remainder of the section do this.
-If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.

Unfortunately SCOTUS has ruled otherwise.
 
First and foremost; apples to oranges argument would apply if i was comparing another country who has a different set of constitutional laws etc.... Since i have done nothing of the sort, i am perplexed at your use of the term.
I cannot explain your failure to understand something so plain, obvious and simple. Given that, it must be a willful refusal on your part.
 
Last edited:
You're more than welcome to your opinion on the issue of course, but don't pretend that it's anything more than an opinion.
Rather that stating the obvious., why don't you try to explain how my opinion is in error.
 
actually it seems it does grant the power to create programs that provide for the common defense or the general welfare...
at least under the Hamiltonian view:
Thus, my final point, that you did not address:

If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.

If you believe this interpretation is correct, then explain the inclusion of the other 16 clauses in the article, as the interpretation you describe eliminates the need for same.

This is why the Hamiltonian view fails and the Madisonian view prevails.
 
If you believe this interpretation is correct, then explain the inclusion of the other 16 clauses in the article, as the interpretation you describe eliminates the need for same.
The law makers were intentionally ambiguous, grasshopper. You could solve the problem if you knew what the well established common law rules for resolving ambiguity in a Constitution were in the late 1700.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately SCOTUS has ruled otherwise.
Indeed. But then, anyone can argue 'because I said so', and if they have the power to make it stick, it does.

That des not, however, mean their argument is sound.

I would have them address the issue I just raised, and I would be interested in their response.
 
Last edited:
The law makers were intentionally ambiguous, grasshopper. You could solve the problem if you knew what the well established common law rules for resolving ambiguity in a Constitution were in the late 1700.
I do, peanut - and they do nothing to support the noted interpretation.
 
Back
Top Bottom