Christian Dems take on debt ceiling in new ads

[jgarden]

The only problem is that Christ's call to help the needy was made to the individual, not to the government. The Democratically aligned Christian leaders are off the mark in pushing the idea that caring for the poor is primarily a government function.

]U.S. Constitution
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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 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 only is to prmote the general Welfare" in the Preamble but "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" is also included under the "Powers of Congress.

 

[MachZer0]

Not only is to prmote the general Welfare" in the Preamble but "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" is also included under the "Powers of Congress.

I believe I explained earlier that those are not powers, but rather purposes and thus have to be achieved within the scope of the actual enumerated powers

 

[jgarden]

I believe I explained earlier that those are not powers, but rather purposes and thus have to be achieved within the scope of the actual enumerated powers

***************************************************************************************************

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.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause[/

"MachZero" would have us believe that there is only one interpretation, the James Madison one that the "General Welfare" spending must be "at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers"

In fact, it was Hamilton's broader interpretation that was adopted under the Washington and Adams Administrations, but was later replaced by the narrower Madison version after the 1800 federal election. This narrower interpretation prevailed until "United States v. Butler" in 1936, when the Supreme Court agreed with Justice Story's determination that "the power to tax and spend is an independent power; that is, the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else."

The Court found that “[T]he [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … 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. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

"Helvering v. Davis" further granted Congress the power to "impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion" while "South Dakota v. Dole" gave it the power to withhold federal funds to develop and maintain national standards.

Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

 

[MachZer0]

***************************************************************************************************


"MachZero" would have us believe that there is only one interpretation, the James Madison one that the "General Welfare" spending must be "at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers"

In fact, it was Hamilton's broader interpretation that was adopted under the Washington and Adams Administrations, but was later replaced by the narrower Madison version after the 1800 federal election. This narrower interpretation prevailed until "United States v. Butler" in 1936, when the Supreme Court agreed with Justice Story's determination that "the power to tax and spend is an independent power; that is, the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else."



"Helvering v. Davis" further granted Congress the power to "impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion" while "South Dakota v. Dole" gave it the power to withhold federal funds to develop and maintain national standards.

I believe Madison was not the only source I provided, but borrowing from Madison, if you interpret the general welfare clause as an enumerated power, you might as well erase the actual enumerated powers. All things become permissible for the federal government by means of the sitting governments determination of what the general welfare requires

 

[KarateCowboy]

***************************************************************************************************


"Helvering v. Davis" further granted Congress the power

When the Court 'grants a power' to Congress that is an abuse of the judiciary powers. "Legislating from the bench", to be precise. As they say on the Information SuperHighway:

 

[jgarden]

I believe Madison was not the only source I provided, but borrowing from Madison, if you interpret the general welfare clause as an enumerated power, you might as well erase the actual enumerated powers. All things become permissible for the federal government by means of the sitting governments determination of what the general welfare requires

Its not my position, but the position of the US Supreme Court since 1936, that "the General Welfare" is not only an enumerated power" BUT that Congress also has the right not only to determine its meaning, and can use its influence to determine national standards.

This interpretation is now consistent with the list of 5 enumerated powers listed in the Preamble, which the "courts have referred to as "reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution

When the Court 'grants a power' to Congress that is an abuse of the judiciary powers. "Legislating from the bench", to be precise. As they say on the Information SuperHighway:

Was it an abuse of power when the "General Welfare" clause was given a "broad" (Alexander Hamilton) interpretation by Congress under the adminstrations of Washington and Adams or did that occur during the 1800 federal election when the "pendulem" swang to a "narrower" interpretation favored by Jefferson and then Madison?

In 1936, it began to swing back again to a "broader" interpretation, which is more consistent with the Constitutions of other modern democracies throughout the world.

 

[Umaro]

Those are estimates. Your Social Security and Medicare are taxed specifically for Social Security and Medicare

They're only estimated in the sense I punched in 40k even instead of the exact dollar amount I made. That is how much of my paycheck went to welfare and unemployment.

Why does it matter if SS and medicare have names on theirs? Either way it's coming out of my income and going to that program. I mean, I get a bill for my gas, but my water is tacked onto my rent bill. Does that mean I'm not paying for my water?

 

[MachZer0]

They're only estimated in the sense I punched in 40k even instead of the exact dollar amount I made. That is how much of my paycheck went to welfare and unemployment.

Ignoring whatever deductions you might have which means the numbers your provided are inflated. Unlike what you could easily provide for what you paid into Social Security and Medicare.

Why does it matter if SS and medicare have names on theirs? Either way it's coming out of my income and going to that program. I mean, I get a bill for my gas, but my water is tacked onto my rent bill. Does that mean I'm not paying for my water?

The difference is that the taxes you pay into Social Security are paid to make you eligible for Social Security, specifically. If you never pay taxes, you could become eligible for welfare. If you never pay Social Security taxes, you won't become eligible for Social Security

 

[Umaro]

Ignoring whatever deductions you might have which means the numbers your provided are inflated. Unlike what you could easily provide for what you paid into Social Security and Medicare.

So I'm spending even less than $65.75/month to make sure millions can eat? That sounds so much worse than skipping one dinner at Carrabba's with my 3 family members. Of course, I would have to pass a few dozen homeless people just to get there.

The difference is that the taxes you pay into Social Security are paid to make you eligible for Social Security, specifically. If you never pay taxes, you could become eligible for welfare. If you never pay Social Security taxes, you won't become eligible for Social Security

A number of states require you to be working at least 35 hours a week to receive welfare. Many others have a cap of two years before you become ineligible for the program. You also have to provide your tax return from the previous year during the application interview.

 

[Fantine]

It seems specious to say, "God would rather that the poor stay poor, the hungry stay hungry, and the homeless stay homeless while humans pass the buck and reject the only solution we have come up with in the past 6,000 years that has put a sizeable dent in any of these problems--government programs."

Rejecting the only solution that has a chance of succeeding is condemning the hungry to hunger and the poor to poverty.

 

[MachZer0]

So I'm spending even less than $65.75/month to make sure millions can eat? That sounds so much worse than skipping one dinner at Carrabba's with my 3 family members. Of course, I would have to pass a few dozen homeless people just to get there.



A number of states require you to be working at least 35 hours a week to receive welfare. Many others have a cap of two years before you become ineligible for the program. You also have to provide your tax return from the previous year during the application interview.

And yet the best you can do is an estimate. Social Security however is a program you pay into directly.