Talk-Polywell.org

WizWom wrote:I am an independent person, I believe in personal liberty, minimal government and personal responsibility.

Being on Disability, which I have drawn out about what I paid in after only 5 years, I feel frustrated. If I didn't have the disability, I'd be homeless again, which is not fun.

I can claim all I want about how libertarian I am, but when push came to shove, I took advantage of the system in place.
Of course, I'm not sitting around on disability, I'm going to college, getting a new skill which might let me work, and have even been accepted into grad school. But that, too, is through a government program.

Would my life end if Disability and vocational training programs were cancelled? Nope.

So, really, I would love to see both cancelled, with some sort of direct service to take care of those who want food and housing: but giving them no opportunity for personal dignity while sponging off the rest of us. My apartment is $365 a month; even a crappy job could cover it. Other people should not be paying for me to have a life with dignity.

No reason that anyone should feel bad about using the benefits that are in place. You contributed, you deserve to use them. I know I would if I needed to.

Skipjack wrote:

Wouldn't you get more bang for the buck if you cut out the middleman?

The problem is that many people would not be doing this, if they were not obligated to do so. This is the whole reason why the government is doing this and is collecting taxes to do so. Most people would not even bother giving their share for all these "enumerated" things the government is accepted to be doing by most, even libertarians.
People usually dont understand the need for these things until they need them themselves. I was once like that.

You get really confused by the term "enumerated" when talking about the US. I really don't think you know what is enumerated and what is not. You seem to get really confused about the term government when talking about the US, failing to distinguish between federal and state and local government. Again, I don't really think you understand that even if the federal government didn't do something, the states could still do it and that they often do. You seem to apply a small country thinking to a very large republic often directly comparing your city sized population to our huge and diverse union of independent states.

It is not surprising that you don't like our form of government to the point of just ignoring it when lecturing us about how to fix ourselves. Lots of our politicians do exactly the same thing.

Regards

You get really confused by the term "enumerated" when talking about the US. I really don't think you know what is enumerated and what is not. You seem to get really confused about the term government when talking about the US, failing to distinguish between federal and state and local government. Again, I don't really think you understand that even if the federal government didn't do something, the states could still do it and that they often do. You seem to apply a small country thinking to a very large republic often directly comparing your city sized population to our huge and diverse union of independent states.

Uhm I do understand what the enumerated powers are. Thanks.
I do understand the difference between federal and state government. We do have that separation here as well. Since this discussion is focusing on the federal government, so was I.

Wow. My experience is that very few people think like that, even evil conservatives. It takes a lot of hate to assume that kind of thinking exists in so many people.

Well, if they dont think that way, they are certainly talking and acting that way.

Skipjack wrote:

You get really confused by the term "enumerated" when talking about the US. I really don't think you know what is enumerated and what is not. You seem to get really confused about the term government when talking about the US, failing to distinguish between federal and state and local government. Again, I don't really think you understand that even if the federal government didn't do something, the states could still do it and that they often do. You seem to apply a small country thinking to a very large republic often directly comparing your city sized population to our huge and diverse union of independent states.

Uhm I do understand what the enumerated powers are. Thanks.
I do understand the difference between federal and state government. We do have that separation here as well. Since this discussion is focusing on the federal government, so was I.

Then you understand that arguing that most federal social programs are in direct conflict with the enumerated powers. These are not enumerated powers. Just calling something enumerated doesn't make it so. This quote was odd in that context.

Most people would not even bother giving their share for all these "enumerated" things the government is accepted to be doing by most ...
People usually dont understand the need for these things until they need them themselves.

That said, I changed my mind. Maybe you do know what is enumerated. You just ignore it. Like I said before, this is a common thing to do.

Then you understand that arguing that most federal social programs are in direct conflict with the enumerated powers.

I dont necessarily see it that way.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

emphasis mine.
Given this is a pretty broad statement and very open to interpretation.

Skipjack wrote:

Then you understand that arguing that most federal social programs are in direct conflict with the enumerated powers.

I dont necessarily see it that way.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

emphasis mine.
Given this is a pretty broad statement and very open to interpretation.

so one could asume it should be applied with the context of the times. An at that time states rights were paramont. IMHO

so one could asume it should be applied with the context of the times. An at that time states rights were paramont. IMHO

That is one possible interpretation.

Skipjack wrote:

so one could asume it should be applied with the context of the times. An at that time states rights were paramont. IMHO

That is one possible interpretation.

The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.

But of course the Commerce Clause is very important in determining the allowable scope of federal government. IMHO overused and abused to prevent states rights in many cases. dmn I forgot the point I was going to make. Never mind

Well one of the biggest problems of the healthcare system (even after the reforms) is that insurance still does not cross state lines... In this case the split into states is not helping at all.

There are states where clubs and fraternal organizations are not allowed to be an intermediary in their members buying healthcare insurance, correct?

Skipjack wrote:Well one of the biggest problems of the healthcare system (even after the reforms) is that insurance still does not cross state lines... In this case the split into states is not helping at all.

That actually is a point where the actual meaning and intent of the commerce clause has application. The restrictions states (and I believe the fedgov) have placed on healthcare act in restraint of interstate trade, the point of the CC is that there be no such restraints.

Respect for the constitution solves as opposed to produces the problem.

That actually is a point where the actual meaning and intent of the commerce clause has application. The restrictions states (and I believe the fedgov) have placed on healthcare act in restraint of interstate trade, the point of the CC is that there be no such restraints.

Here we are completely on the same page.

TDPerk wrote:There are states where clubs and fraternal organizations are not allowed to be an intermediary in their members buying healthcare insurance, correct?

I understand that to be the case. Allowing such organizations to provide health plans for their members would be a step in the right direction. Putting individual and such group plans on equal tax footing with employer provided plans would be a major step in the right direction.

paperburn1 wrote:

Skipjack wrote:

Then you understand that arguing that most federal social programs are in direct conflict with the enumerated powers.

I dont necessarily see it that way.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

emphasis mine.
Given this is a pretty broad statement and very open to interpretation.

so one could asume it should be applied with the context of the times. An at that time states rights were paramont. IMHO

Discussions of the era make it clear General Welfare was concerned only with national security; it was by no means meant to encompass being a nanny for every man, woman and child in the country.

The convolutions of the Warren court notwithstanding, Social Security, Medicare, etc, are all manifestly unconstitutional. Politics, however, forced the court to accept such programs under the "General Welfare" clause.

Skipjack wrote:

Then you understand that arguing that most federal social programs are in direct conflict with the enumerated powers.

I dont necessarily see it that way.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

emphasis mine.
Given this is a pretty broad statement and very open to interpretation.

1) The power granted was the power to tax.
2) The language you quote is indeed general because it wasn't an enumerated power - it was an introduction to what you can tax for with greater clarity of the general meaning enumerated below.
3) Read your way, the first enumerated power is the power to do anything.
4) Read your way, once the power to do anything is granted, it wouldn't have made much sense to enumerate the things that follow.
5) Reading the entire section, the first clause gives the power to tax - for defense in general - with the meaning of defense clearly enumerated below. Raise armies, create a navy, declare war, etc. Why enumerate what is to granted in terms of defense if the "defense" in the first clause means anything related to defense?
6) Reading the entire section, the first clause gives the power to tax - for welfare in general - with the meaning of general welfare clearly enumerated below. Control interstate commerce, enact tarriffs, coin money, establish the post office, intellectual property rights, naturalization, etc. Why enumerate what general welfare means if general welfare in the first clause means anything related to the general welfare?
7) Finally, how can all powers not reserved to the federal government be granted to the states if this is to be interpreted your way, that taxing for general welfare gives the federal government the right to do anything? Doesn't make a lick of sense.

Only someone wanting to skirt the enumerated powers would read general welfare that way, rename it to be the "general welfare clause" when it is clearly a tax clause, and then call their programs "Welfare" as an effort to legitimize their programs and simultaneously change the meaning of welfare as interpreted by future generations.

Regards