• 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!

Out of curiosity.... (1 Viewer)

Good article and I agree. Most people would also agree but you have a few that are holding out that the rich guy is going to trickle down his wealth on them or so they have been told.

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
-- John Steinbeck
 
in reading the founders..the general welfare is the 18 powers of congress.

In that case, the federal government had no business buying the Louisiana purchase, or Alaska, or building the interstates, and certainly has no business running a department of education or a war on drugs, or NASA, or a whole lot of things that they do that aren't mentioned in the Constitution.
 
your incorrect, i and others are not looking at the rich, we want law applied how it is written, and government to do only its delegated powers.

government has no authority to redistribute wealth, thru spending by giving to corporations, individuals.

government was not put in charge of the economy per the constitituion, and that is why it is messed up.

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives... "
-- Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 7

So, yes, the government WAS put in charge of the economy, as per the Constitution.
 
Progressive taxes were even championed by our founders. You should remember that Thomas Jefferson advocated progressive taxes, as did the father of capitalism, Adam Smith. John Adams wrote, during the revolutionary war, of his agreement with taxes that were “heaviest upon the rich and the higher Classes of People.”
Sorry but you are in the wrong country if you don't believe in progressive taxation. Actually the wrong time period too. Most every Western nation is committed to progressive taxes.
Also, we did pretty well as a nation and as an economy when the top tax rate was 70 percent or higher.
 
wrong again....i did not question the power to TAX, i questioned the power to redistribute.

by the way you will see Hamilton states the federal government has only delegated powers, federalist 84

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes for the general Welfare. It's been challenged.
 
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
-- John Steinbeck

Ah yes, John Steinbeck, a great American author! One of his best novels publicly banned and burned by the powerful.
 
Last edited:
Here is the history:

When the book came out, some of the powers that be in the county thought that they had been portrayed unfairly; they felt that Steinbeck hadn't given them credit for the effort they were making to help the migrants. One member of the county board of supervisors denounced the book as a "libel and lie." In August 1939, by a vote of 4 to 1, the board approved a resolution banning The Grapes Of Wrath from county libraries and schools.

Rick Wartzman, author of the new book Obscene In The Extreme, says what happened in Kern County illustrates the deep divide between left and right in California in the 1930s.

One powerful local player who pushed for the ban was Bill Camp, head of the local Associated Farmers, a group of big landowners who were avid opponents of organized labor. Camp and his colleagues knew how to get a bill passed in the state Legislature — and they also knew how to be physical. 'Grapes Of Wrath' And The Politics of Book Burning : NPR
 
Greece sold a ton of bonds...

I bet the owners of those bonds don't consider the junk paper they now own as an " asset".

Same with the GM bond holders. They're not exactly "assets" if the bond holder recieves pennies on the dollar for his investment.

A bond is an INVESTMENT, and its value as an "asset" is subjective and based on the issuer.

I'm not sure if you were refuting the point I made, or just commenting on it. I was refuting the OP's unspoken assertion that you can only borrow money from countries with reserves of cash on hand. Which clearly isn't the case as I demonstrated. Now, as you point out, that Greece was selling bonds even though it was by any private standard, insolvent.

Sure all investments have risk, but as long as the source of the paper is solvent, then the paper can be counted as an asset.
 
Progressive taxes were even championed by our founders. You should remember that Thomas Jefferson advocated progressive taxes, as did the father of capitalism, Adam Smith. John Adams wrote, during the revolutionary war, of his agreement with taxes that were “heaviest upon the rich and the higher Classes of People.”
Sorry but you are in the wrong country if you don't believe in progressive taxation. Actually the wrong time period too. Most every Western nation is committed to progressive taxes.

you are making a statement to something, ok fine, then please provide it for me to read myself.
 
In that case, the federal government had no business buying the Louisiana purchase, or Alaska, or building the interstates, and certainly has no business running a department of education or a war on drugs, or NASA, or a whole lot of things that they do that aren't mentioned in the Constitution.

this was stated before, the federal government has total authority over international affairs and they can negotiate with other nations, also the government has the power to borrow on the credit of the u.s.

but government has no authority in those other areas, and you are correct.
 
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives... "
-- Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 7

So, yes, the government WAS put in charge of the economy, as per the Constitution.

sorry no, that means that only the house can create bills which create new revenue....the senate cannot
 
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes for the general Welfare. It's been challenged.

the general welfare in the 18 powers of congress.

welfare as we know it today was created under FDR and called "relief" it ended during WWII, and it brought back in the early 60's and called welfare.

the founders are clear government is limited.

the government has the power to tax, it does not have the power to redistribute that money to other people or business




“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 in letter to James Robertson

“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

“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, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
you are making a statement to something, ok fine, then please provide it for me to read myself.

Letter to James Madison - October 28, 1785 - Wikisource, the free online library

It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.
 


tell me......do you even read the letter you post?

Jefferson is in France in 1785 at Fontainebleau.

what you posted is Jefferson, commenting on the monarchy of France, King Louie, and about aristocrats who control most of the land there for game. he thinks it is wrong for the unequal proportion of lands as compared with the many poor who have no land for their own.

this letter is about 3 1/2 years from the French revolution, which was caused by the polices of the French king, and the slow starvation of the poor .

this letter has nothing to do with America, in fact Jefferson states in the letter this: "It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state."

this letter is a false attempt to pass off, what Jefferson is saying about France for America!
 
Welfare has been around a lot longer than FDR. Yes, it has changed over the years but has been apart of the American landscape for quite some time. I bet some would like to bring back the poor houses or better yet indentured slaves.
 
Welfare has been around a lot longer than FDR. Yes, it has changed over the years but has been apart of the American landscape for quite some time. I bet some would like to bring back the poor houses or better yet indentured slaves.

ok fine, show me where the federal government has been handing out money to the people before FDR.

as to the last part ,it is just to demonize people you do not agree with.
 
ok fine, show me where the federal government has been handing out money to the people before FDR.

as to the last part ,it is just to demonize people you do not agree with.

Prior to FDR we had the poor house. Many states had limited money to help the poor and resorted to more dire ways to deal with the poor when charity was not enough. It's not demonizing. Does the truth hurt?
 
tell me......do you even read the letter you post?

Jefferson is in France in 1785 at Fontainebleau.

what you posted is Jefferson, commenting on the monarchy of France, King Louie, and about aristocrats who control most of the land there for game. he thinks it is wrong for the unequal proportion of lands as compared with the many poor who have no land for their own.

Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

this letter is about 3 1/2 years from the French revolution, which was caused by the polices of the French king, and the slow starvation of the poor .

this letter has nothing to do with America, in fact Jefferson states in the letter this: "It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state."

this letter is a false attempt to pass off, what Jefferson is saying about France for America!

Nonsense. It is clear that TJ stated a general principle:

Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

How could anyone familar with the english language think a comment that applies to "any country" is limited to France?
 
Nonsense. It is clear that TJ stated a general principle:



How could anyone familar with the english language think a comment that applies to "any country" is limited to France?

general principle?

"Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor"

excuse but where are these uncultivated lands Jefferson speaks...........which are supposed to be in America, and you are trying to attach this letter to?

and as I noted from Jefferson: "It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it
 
Prior to FDR we had the poor house. Many states had limited money to help the poor and resorted to more dire ways to deal with the poor when charity was not enough. It's not demonizing. Does the truth hurt?


that is nothing, show me what backs up what you said, that before FDR the government gave people money.

and to remind you states can do things the federal government cannot.
 
general principle?

"Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor"

excuse but where are these uncultivated lands Jefferson speaks...........which are supposed to be in America, and you are trying to attach this letter to?

How could anyone familiar with the country think there are no uncultivated lands in the US which belong to the rich?

Or do you believe that there are no unemployed?
 
that is nothing, show me what backs up what you said, that before FDR the government gave people money.

and to remind you states can do things the federal government cannot.

The point is states had limited money. They had poor houses in some instances. For states that couldn't afford to help the poor, and there was not enough charity to help, they resorted to more dire things. The federal government currently helps fund state welfare through bloc grants and the state decides how to best use the money.
 
How could anyone familiar with the country think there are no uncultivated lands in the US which belong to the rich?

Or do you believe that there are no unemployed?

excuse you....you need to put words in context.

Jefferson did not see equally in France's system of government, because the nobles with the king own and controlled most of the land which was not developed.

in America you have the opportunity to own land, it is not being kept from you, to try to equate, France 0f 1785 and its system, with America today is ridicules.

your usual attempt ,with your "commons" idea does not work here.
 
Last edited:
The point is states had limited money. They had poor houses in some instances. For states that couldn't afford to help the poor, and there was not enough charity to help, they resorted to more dire things. The federal government currently helps fund state welfare through bloc grants and the state decides how to best use the money.

but the federal government has no authority to do such things, states governments can.

if congress wants the power to engage in such activity they must create and amendment to the constitution,...because that is the law


federalist 45--The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former [federal government] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State
 
but the federal government has no authority to do such things, states governments can.

if congress wants the power to engage in such activity they must create and amendment to the constitution,...because that is the law


federalist 45--The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former [federal government] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State

It's perfectly legal.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom