Political Roundtable Part XXVI

[Zonkerbl]

Doclinkin is way more idealistic than I am. Sharing your wealth with the poor is something you can do voluntarily or at the point of a gun. Trump is accelerating us towards the second option. Better to capitulate now when the blood you lose is less.

Not a threat. A historical observation.

[popper]

Helvering v. Davis was the beginning of the end for fiscal responsibility. Because of this decision we are destined to spend our way into oblivion. I see no other path. I’m sure you can see it too if you try.

$21 Trillion in debt
Trillion dollar deficits
Medicare and Social Security facing significant shortfalls
Many other unfunded govt promises
Indenturing of future generations so we can live better today

We’ll never go back so I simply advise my children of the inevitable fiscal calamities ahead and try to help them develop a financial strategy to survive and endure when the bills come due.

So you are talking about social security.

We can have a conversation about social security, and spending in general but:

1) don't blame that decision (or spending in general) on partisan judicial activism
2) don't characterize social safety nets as buying votes
3) don't characterize unchecked spending as a systemic flaw of the government that makes it "unworkable"

there are many feasible ways to increase SS funding like getting rid of the earnings cap, raising the age, privatization, means-test eligibility, etc.

but yeah, "we'll never go back" but i think it's weird for you to characterize it as "back" seeing as how you never lived in the time when it "was." like, these social programs were put in place because old people and poor people were dying en masse during the great depression. it was an international emergency. not some liberal conspiracy to get their fingers into your pockets.

but to reiterate, i am a conservative and i believe in fiscal responsibility but i also live in the real world and recognize that not everything was done to screw over rich people. there are sensible ways to achieve fiscal responsibility on a federal level, and it has nothing to do with curbing the liberal agenda, and we can accomplish it without f*cking over poor people. and i think it's a bad look for conservatives pretend that they're the only financially literate people in the room when it comes to spending, especially since the recent track record shows R's as being more reckless with the budget (military).

I wish it was just SS we were talking about. It’s not.

You tell me who not to blame and what not to characterize. How about I determine that for myself and you do the same. Following is my opinion. I look forward to your feedback.

I agree there are many ways to extend the funding of SS. That’s a symptom of the problem that I identified in my previous post (Helvering v. Davis).

That 1937 decision opened the floodgates of spending by congress because it found new spending powers, not previously understood to confer such authority. Namely it reinterpreted the “The General Welfare” clause to mean that congress could define the general welfare and then spend public money on any program they wanted to, above and beyond what was previously understood as their limited spending authority. Because of this decision, congress has an incentive to invent hundreds of programs to spend money on in order to placate voters (one might say buy votes.)

I’m not taking any positions here on whether those hundreds of programs are worthwhile public expenditures or not. I do say though that the Helvering v. Davis decision is the single most influential cause of our profligate spending.

If we’re ever going to solve problems in this country we better be able to accurately identify causes and then define them. So yes, we have to go back to uncover root causes. At least that’s what I spent decades doing with some success in the business world. Do I think most people on this thread care about any of this? No, I hope you do though.

Nothing I posted had anything to say or do with “f#cking over poor people” nor did I insinuate that “everything was done to screw over rich people.” Not sure where this came from.

Last, it’s crystal clear to me that the “General Welfare” clause was not understood at the time of ratification, nor for the ensuing 160 years, to confer spending powers above and beyond those enumerated in other sections of the constitution. This is because if there were, there would have been no need for the long drawn out negotiations leading up to ratification. The spending powers of the constitution would have simply read “congress can invent and spend money on any program they choose.”

Again, this is just my opinion and I look forward to anything you or others might think/post that would add to the discussion.

[Pointgod]

How would a flat tax screw over poor ppl? They pay the same percentage everyone else does, but still less in total since its a % of their income.

A fiat tax is regressive because the less income you have the greater % of it you spend on necessities.

If you’re making 10 bucks an hour and a gallon of milk cost four bucks, then basic food needs are a huge chunk of what your work day pays for. The same is not true as you go up in income levels. Now If milk cost proportionately expensive for rich people, well sure then a flat tax would be fair. But it doesn’t. So a flat tax means the people who have the least feel the hit the hardest.

If a rich person loses 30% of a billion dollars it sounds like a lot of money. And it is. But they literally can afford it. Their light bill is not in danger of going unpaid just so they can buy gas for their car and get to work. Choices like that are made every day by everyday working folks.

The point of society is what? The point of civilization. Of government. To me I think the founding documents state it pretty clearly. Government exists to promote the general welfare. Meaning to make sure in general people aren’t fighting a losing battle just to make it thru day to day.

Rich people have tax loopholes and largesse and pork and benefits and lawyers and politicians bought and sold who protect their interests. Poor people are too stressed and busy to pay attention to all that. They can’t pay someone to pay attention to it for them. By accident of birth or bad luck or opportunities they were not gifted with the advantages that let them turn hard work into generational wealth. Like Trump inherited. The ability to go bankrupt multiple times and be rescued by his daddy’s money. Society has already looked out for wealthy folk and they have benefited. It’s not wrong for there to be a guiding hand that says: good, yes, America has given you wealth and reward for your work, but in doing so we ask you to give back a portion in thanks. To support the country that disproportionately rewarded you. No child should starve to death. No family should have to choose between food and electricity.

So. The bargain between governance and capitalism is the idea that ambition is the horse that pulls. To whom much is given much is expected. Wealthy people literally can afford to give more. Without it harming them. The point is not to make sure all people have the same stuff. But to make sure there is a baseline level below which people do not fall. So that hard times do not mean mass death and unrest and revolt. Violent redistribution of wealth. That we agree instead to be civilized and look out for people. Even sometimes people who have hit hard times or made mistakes. In America we sell the redemption story. People can learn and improve and make better choices. If they’re only given a little bit of hope. A chance. And so we try to create institutions that help give people that second chance. Or as many chances as us needed to keep striving. Or for their kids to at least.

Otherwise, what is a country for? Why have roads and police and schools and libraries. And not revolution and revolt and anarchy and private armies and strongmen and all the bullshxt you’d see from those ”shxthole countries” who have not been able to look out for the least among them. From whose streets you get people with the drive to travel thousands of miles overseas from India. Mexico. Salvador. Haiti. To show up here and work menial jobs just so that their children can get free education and hospital care and all of the advantages this country has earned and been able to share with the least of us. To institutionalize the concept that sees a man struggling and says “there, but for the grace of God, go I”, and understands you have to tax selfishness sometimes, even if it complains about it, in order to form that more perfect union. Establish justice. And all those high ideals upon which our country was founded.

“But have you ever considered just letting poor people die and driving the income inequality so high that parts of the US become a 3rd world country?” - Probably some Republican somewhere

[doclinkin]

“But have you ever considered just letting poor people die ... [so that] parts of the US become a 3rd world country?” - Probably some Republican somewhere

You mean Puerto Rico? Yeah Trump tried that already.

[pancakes3]

You tell me who not to blame and what not to characterize. How about I determine that for myself and you do the same. Following is my opinion. I look forward to your feedback.

Characterizing Helvering v. Davis as (1) a politically motivated play by the justices, (2) in an effort to buy votes, and (3) resulting in the government being unworkable are objectively wrong though. It's not an agree-to-disagree situation. It was a decision made during the depression that was (a) necessary and (b) constitutionally sound.

If we can't find common ground on this, it's really an uphill battle conversationally from there.

Namely it reinterpreted the “The General Welfare” clause to mean that congress could define the general welfare and then spend public money on any program they wanted to, above and beyond what was previously understood as their limited spending authority. Because of this decision, congress has an incentive to invent hundreds of programs to spend money on in order to placate voters (one might say buy votes.)

It didn't "reinterpret" but rather "interpret" the meaning. It's a key distinction. And I think it's weird that you're framing "Government trying to do right by its people" as "placating voters" which is effectively "buying votes." Then by definition, every democratic regime there ever was is constantly buying votes by "trying to do a good job" by making sure "its people aren't needlessly dying."

I’m not taking any positions here on whether those hundreds of programs are worthwhile public expenditures or not. I do say though that the Helvering v. Davis decision is the single most influential cause of our profligate spending.

If we’re ever going to solve problems in this country we better be able to accurately identify causes and then define them. So yes, we have to go back to uncover root causes. At least that’s what I spent decades doing with some success in the business world. Do I think most people on this thread care about any of this? No, I hope you do though.

Well, identifying Hellering v. Davis as a "root cause" is an exercise in futility because it's not a "root cause" so much as a parameter. Hellering is part of the world you live in. There's no overturning Hellering, and there's no getting around it. Congress has the power to spend on the general welfare, and that's the universe in which you operate. B*tching about it is about as effective as b*tching about your height - it is what it is.

If your problem is with profligate spending, the real "root causes" are military, and the three specific programs of social security, medicare, and medicaid that under the welfare clause. however, the THOUSANDS of other programs ranging from after-school care, NPR, national parks, etc. are drops in the bucket, and has nothing to do with profligate spending. They're just programs that provide for the general welfare, and do not affect the governmental bottom line in any meaningful way.

Basically you're saying eBay is the root cause of my profligate spending because prior to eBay I didn't have access to all this weird, niche, one-of-a-kind marketplace; When in fact, my personal decision to spend as much money as I do is the root cause of my profligate spending. eBay sure does make it easier, and without it, my spending would be curbed for sure, but it's wrong to say that eBay is the root cause.

Nothing I posted had anything to say or do with “f#cking over poor people” nor did I insinuate that “everything was done to screw over rich people.” Not sure where this came from.

gee i wonder

Last, it’s crystal clear to me that the “General Welfare” clause was not understood at the time of ratification, nor for the ensuing 160 years, to confer spending powers above and beyond those enumerated in other sections of the constitution. This is because if there were, there would have been no need for the long drawn out negotiations leading up to ratification. The spending powers of the constitution would have simply read “congress can invent and spend money on any program they choose.”

It's not. General Welfare is still a limiting term. For instance, the government can't set up its own companies for private profits.

[Pointgod]

“But have you ever considered just letting poor people die ... [so that] parts of the US become a 3rd world country?” - Probably some Republican somewhere

You mean Puerto Rico? Yeah Trump tried that already.

Oh I forgot about that. Funny how Trumps hate hardon for brown people extends to citizens as well.

[pancakes3]

Just a PSA for hard-headed reductionists out there who think the citizenship question is another case of liberal judges running amok:

It's perfectly fine to add the citizenship question onto the census in a vacuum. however, as with every other agency action, the Dept. of Commerce, when challenged, must come up with a reasonable basis for why it's being added. give us a reason why.

when challenged on this, wilbur ross said it was to better enforce the voting rights act.

that begged the question of why ross thought the voting rights act wasn't being properly enforced

ross had no answer, therefor no reasonable basis for this decision.

the court then said - "well then no, you can't do it. it's not blocked forever - just until you're able to provide a reason. but, seeing as how you clearly lied about this, whatever benefit of the doubt that was originally afforded you for this decision is gone. if you really want to get this question on, you better give us a good reason, and show your work"

to which Trump, instead of just saying why, or even coming up with a convincing lie as to why, is saying "f*ck you, because i want to, that's why" which is just shy of coming out and say "because i want to suppress responses from minorities for gerrymandering and other politically motivated and/or racist reasons"

[daoneandonly]

How would a flat tax screw over poor ppl? They pay the same percentage everyone else does, but still less in total since its a % of their income.

A flat tax is regressive because the less income you have the greater % of it you spend on necessities.

If you’re making 10 bucks an hour and a gallon of milk cost four bucks, then basic food needs are a huge chunk of what your work day pays for. The same is not true as you go up in income levels. Now If milk cost proportionately expensive for rich people, well sure then a flat tax would be fair. But it doesn’t. So a flat tax means the people who have the least feel the hit the hardest.

If a rich person loses 30% of a billion dollars it sounds like a lot of money. And it is. But they literally can afford it. Their light bill is not in danger of going unpaid just so they can buy gas for their car and get to work. Choices like that are made every day by everyday working folks.

The point of society is what? The point of civilization. Of government. To me I think the founding documents state it pretty clearly. Government exists to promote the general welfare. Meaning to make sure in general people aren’t fighting a losing battle just to make it thru day to day.

Rich people have tax loopholes and largesse and pork and benefits and lawyers and politicians bought and sold who protect their interests. Poor people are too stressed and busy to pay attention to all that. They can’t pay someone to pay attention to it for them. By accident of birth or bad luck or opportunities they were not gifted with the advantages that let them turn hard work into generational wealth. Like Trump inherited. The ability to go bankrupt multiple times and be rescued by his daddy’s money. Society has already looked out for wealthy folk and they have benefited. It’s not wrong for there to be a guiding hand that says: good, yes, America has given you wealth and reward for your work, but in doing so we ask you to give back a portion in thanks. To support the country that disproportionately rewarded you. No child should starve to death. No family should have to choose between food and electricity.

So. The bargain between governance and capitalism is the idea that ambition is the horse that pulls. To whom much is given much is expected. Wealthy people literally can afford to give more. Without it harming them. The point is not to make sure all people have the same stuff. But to make sure there is a baseline level below which people do not fall. So that hard times do not mean mass death and unrest and revolt. Violent redistribution of wealth. That we agree instead to be civilized and look out for people. Even sometimes people who have hit hard times or made mistakes. In America we sell the redemption story. People can learn and improve and make better choices. If they’re only given a little bit of hope. A chance. And so we try to create institutions that help give people that second chance. Or as many chances as us needed to keep striving. Or for their kids to at least.

Otherwise, what is a country for? Why have roads and police and schools and libraries. And not revolution and revolt and anarchy and private armies and strongmen and all the bullshxt you’d see from those ”shxthole countries” who have not been able to look out for the least among them. From whose streets you get people with the drive to travel thousands of miles overseas from India. Mexico. Salvador. Haiti. To show up here and work menial jobs just so that their children can get free education and hospital care and all of the advantages this country has earned and been able to share with the least of us. To institutionalize the concept that sees a man struggling and says “there, but for the grace of God, go I”, and understands you have to tax selfishness sometimes, even if it complains about it, in order to form that more perfect union. Establish justice. And all those high ideals upon which our country was founded.

So the party that yells to the hills about separation of church & state references Luke 12:48, once again lets use religious beliefs when it behooves us.

Do something about the loopholes yes, that needs to be addressed, but there's no rationale for someone who makes more to have to pay 32% of their salary when someone else only has to pay 15 or 22. Is the person paying the higher percentage getting more services? No, in fact an easy and factual argument can be made that they are using less of the services tax dollars goes to.

Again we dont live in a commune, people shouldn't have some automatic right to someone else's money just because

[queridiculo]

So the party that yells to the hills about separation of church & state references Luke 12:48, once again lets use religious beliefs when it behooves us.

Where on earth did doclinkin invoke religion to make any of his points?

Again we dont live in a commune, people shouldn't have some automatic right to someone else's money just because

Well, but we do.

The difference between a commune and society is basically scale.

To put it simply, people that make a lot of money receive a disproportionate amount of benefits from a society.

We are talking about a society that enables those people to safely pursue their goals without fear of being robbed and maimed in the first place.

As long as this disproportionate distribution of resources doesn't interfere with the general good they're free to do what they want, but when that changes it's only natural that steps are taken to correct the imbalance that threatens to break the structure.

Systems tend to self correct, and it's in everybody's interest to take steps to preempt organic changes if history has taught us anything.

"Let them eat cake."

[daoneandonly]

So the party that yells to the hills about separation of church & state references Luke 12:48, once again lets use religious beliefs when it behooves us.

Where on earth did doclinkin invoke religion to make any of his points?

Again we dont live in a commune, people shouldn't have some automatic right to someone else's money just because

Well, but we do.

The difference between a commune and society is basically scale.

To put it simply, people that make a lot of money receive a disproportionate amount of benefits from a society.

We are talking about a society that enables those people to safely pursue their goals without fear of being robbed and maimed in the first place.

As long as this disproportionate distribution of resources doesn't interfere with the general good they're free to do what they want, but when that changes it's only natural that steps are taken to correct the imbalance that threatens to break the structure.

Systems tend to self correct, and it's in everybody's interest to take steps to preempt organic changes if history has taught us anything.

"Let them eat cake."

Luke 12:48: For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required; and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.. Essentially words doc quoted

Where and how do people who make more receive a disproportionate amount of benefits? In a fixed tax rate people who make more will still pay more because they are taxed at a higher net income amount. In the progressive system, they are taxed a far higher percentage than others, why? Simply because they make more and the liberal politicians feel they can afford to do so? How is that even remotely fair?

As mentioned, an argument can easily be made that those in those lower brackets use far more services funded by tax payer dollars than the higher folks do, so why in turn must the latter pay such a far uneven, unfair higher amount?

[queridiculo]

So the party that yells to the hills about separation of church & state references Luke 12:48, once again lets use religious beliefs when it behooves us.

Where on earth did doclinkin invoke religion to make any of his points?

Again we dont live in a commune, people shouldn't have some automatic right to someone else's money just because

Well, but we do.

The difference between a commune and society is basically scale.

To put it simply, people that make a lot of money receive a disproportionate amount of benefits from a society.

We are talking about a society that enables those people to safely pursue their goals without fear of being robbed and maimed in the first place.

As long as this disproportionate distribution of resources doesn't interfere with the general good they're free to do what they want, but when that changes it's only natural that steps are taken to correct the imbalance that threatens to break the structure.

Systems tend to self correct, and it's in everybody's interest to take steps to preempt organic changes if history has taught us anything.

"Let them eat cake."

Luke 12:48: For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required; and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.. Essentially words doc quoted

Where and how do people who make more receive a disproportionate amount of benefits? In a fixed tax rate people who make more will still pay more because they are taxed at a higher net income amount. In the progressive system, they are taxed a far higher percentage than others, why? Simply because they make more and the liberal politicians feel they can afford to do so? How is that even remotely fair?

As mentioned, an argument can easily be made that those in those lower brackets use far more services funded by tax payer dollars than the higher folks do, so why in turn must the latter pay such a far uneven, unfair higher amount?

I'm mentioning benefits in the context of opportunities individuals have as a direct consequence of being part of this society.

[daoneandonly]

Where on earth did doclinkin invoke religion to make any of his points?



Well, but we do.

The difference between a commune and society is basically scale.

To put it simply, people that make a lot of money receive a disproportionate amount of benefits from a society.

We are talking about a society that enables those people to safely pursue their goals without fear of being robbed and maimed in the first place.

As long as this disproportionate distribution of resources doesn't interfere with the general good they're free to do what they want, but when that changes it's only natural that steps are taken to correct the imbalance that threatens to break the structure.

Systems tend to self correct, and it's in everybody's interest to take steps to preempt organic changes if history has taught us anything.

"Let them eat cake."

Luke 12:48: For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required; and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.. Essentially words doc quoted

Where and how do people who make more receive a disproportionate amount of benefits? In a fixed tax rate people who make more will still pay more because they are taxed at a higher net income amount. In the progressive system, they are taxed a far higher percentage than others, why? Simply because they make more and the liberal politicians feel they can afford to do so? How is that even remotely fair?

As mentioned, an argument can easily be made that those in those lower brackets use far more services funded by tax payer dollars than the higher folks do, so why in turn must the latter pay such a far uneven, unfair higher amount?

I'm mentioning benefits in the context of resources/money individuals are able to earn as a direct consequence of being part of this society.

Big difference between power and money/resources/gifts. The reference in which it was used in the argument was that people who have more should share it with those who don't, which is a fundamental religious belief. When you use that argument but then go to church/state separation when it comes to other issues, it just smells rotten. Im not calling doc out specifically on that but I've seen the reference and thought process he used spoken by various others on the left.

Everyone has access to those resources funded by the government, regardless of socioeconomic status, race, religion, sexual orientation, football team, basketball team, etc. What tax dollars goes to, we all can have, which is why we should all pay the same percentage of our income for. It's not like I'm saying it should be a fixed net amount, that would not work obviously given the differences in how much people make. But to ask people to set aside the same % for what we all use as a society, its fair and it's equal. You're not punishing anyone for making more, and those who make less are simply paying the same % of their money as anyone else.

[queridiculo]

I give up, it's pointless, I'm getting children at the grownup table vibes here.

[daoneandonly]

Again with insults, that's your MO each and every time

Funny because we teach children to treat people equally and fairly, but your side contradicts that with how they want the tax system to be. People who make more are evil, they should carry the weight of those that don't on their backs. Let's give people even less incentive to try and work their way up, that's what the progressive system is, both hands out.

[dckingsfan]

I would be all for a flat tax to start. Add to that no cap on payroll taxes. Same tax rate for earned and investment income. Then remove all deductions. If you did that - the top quintile would be paying a good deal more (and the IRS could actually enforce and audit). Then just increase federal transfers and you would be done.

The problem is folks are arguing over tax rates. It isn't about tax rates any longer it is about a fair tax code.

Also, we are approaching a historical low tax receipts as a percentage of GDP. The deficit is effectively a tax as well - but disproportionately hits the bottom two quintiles. Hence why Trump's tax stimulus was so counter productive.

Everyone should care about the deficits. Eventually that will reduce our military and defense of the boarder and social services spending and keeping our government running. You don't know it - but you are all on the same side.

And regardless of who you poll in whatever category, R, D, I - all of them have parts of the government the don't want shut down. Do Ds want to see SS go away? Do Rs want to see border enforcement disappear?

[pancakes3]

Again with insults, that's your MO each and every time

Funny because we teach children to treat people equally and fairly, but your side contradicts that with how they want the tax system to be. People who make more are evil, they should carry the weight of those that don't on their backs. Let's give people even less incentive to try and work their way up, that's what the progressive system is, both hands out.

he tried to respond to you twice substantively but you keep hitting the ball back in a dumb, pig-headed way.

ad hominem attacks are bad in the context of winning a debate. however, it does not justify, or absolve the hominem from their misdeeds.

like, maybe when the inevitable conclusion of every argument you partake results in multiple people telling you that you're being overly simplistic, almost childlike (read: dumb) about the issue, it's not a non-sequitur insult? especially since it's every time?

sure, devolving into insults might be ridiculo's MO but it's the same insult every time. he's not calling you callous, heartless, smelly, or ugly. it's always dumb. so he's not picking insults out of the air - he's keying in on a very specific aspect of your being each and every time.

so, maybe, if you want to continue to engage, and don't want people to call you dumb, each and every time... the burden is on you to stop being dumb?

like, generosity is not an inherently religious belief. nor is the implementation of religious tenets in governmental action a violation of separation of church and state. those are two extremely dumb things to say. where can the conversation even go from there? either ridiculo (or some other board member) takes it upon himself to explain that you're chicken/egg-ing basic concepts of morality with religious codification, then go on to give you a civics lesson on Church/State, which you'll inevitably ignore or at least gloss over, wasting everybody's time in the process (EVERYBODY, including other board members that have to read the explanatory post).

no offense.

[Zonkerbl]

So what are your guyses' opinion on Trump basically shutting down the USDA's Economic Research Service by moving it to Bumfukt Kansas?

I used to work at ERS and basically it is a big useless pile of crap. 300 economists devoted to studying 0.5% of the economy. When I worked at Commerce is was in an office of 17 people whose job it was to basically cover the other 99.5%. On the other hand I really feel for the economists who are basically getting shafted because it didn't occur to them to unionize (assuming a union is allowed to insist they get veto power over relocation decisions). Good for my organization I guess, we managed to poach one of the fleeing economists.

I dunno. There's an awful lot of government that, from my view on the inside, could easily be eliminated and it wouldn't affect much of anything. But it's such a small percentage of overall government spending also, I feel it's being penny wise and pound foolish to pursue petty little spending reductions like this.

[daoneandonly]

Again with insults, that's your MO each and every time

Funny because we teach children to treat people equally and fairly, but your side contradicts that with how they want the tax system to be. People who make more are evil, they should carry the weight of those that don't on their backs. Let's give people even less incentive to try and work their way up, that's what the progressive system is, both hands out.

he tried to respond to you twice substantively but you keep hitting the ball back in a dumb, pig-headed way.

ad hominem attacks are bad in the context of winning a debate. however, it does not justify, or absolve the hominem from their misdeeds.

like, maybe when the inevitable conclusion of every argument you partake results in multiple people telling you that you're being overly simplistic, almost childlike (read: dumb) about the issue, it's not a non-sequitur insult? especially since it's every time?

sure, devolving into insults might be ridiculo's MO but it's the same insult every time. he's not calling you callous, heartless, smelly, or ugly. it's always dumb. so he's not picking insults out of the air - he's keying in on a very specific aspect of your being each and every time.

so, maybe, if you want to continue to engage, and don't want people to call you dumb, each and every time... the burden is on you to stop being dumb?

like, generosity is not an inherently religious belief. nor is the implementation of religious tenets in governmental action a violation of separation of church and state. those are two extremely dumb things to say. where can the conversation even go from there? either ridiculo (or some other board member) takes it upon himself to explain that you're chicken/egg-ing basic concepts of morality with religious codification, then go on to give you a civics lesson on Church/State, which you'll inevitably ignore or at least gloss over, wasting everybody's time in the process (EVERYBODY, including other board members that have to read the explanatory post).

no offense.

Yeah no offense

Why don't you do you, and I'll do me. My dumb, simplistic ass can stay in my tax bracket and keep the money i earn instead of being responsible for people I dont know nor care about, such as yourself. I can then choose to spend my money on outreaches and charities under my discretion, again you guys are the party about choice right? Only when that choice benefits you.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[popper]

You tell me who not to blame and what not to characterize. How about I determine that for myself and you do the same. Following is my opinion. I look forward to your feedback.

Characterizing Helvering v. Davis as (1) a politically motivated play by the justices, (2) in an effort to buy votes, and (3) resulting in the government being unworkable are objectively wrong though. It's not an agree-to-disagree situation. It was a decision made during the depression that was (a) necessary and (b) constitutionally sound.

If we can't find common ground on this, it's really an uphill battle conversationally from there.

Namely it reinterpreted the “The General Welfare” clause to mean that congress could define the general welfare and then spend public money on any program they wanted to, above and beyond what was previously understood as their limited spending authority. Because of this decision, congress has an incentive to invent hundreds of programs to spend money on in order to placate voters (one might say buy votes.)

It didn't "reinterpret" but rather "interpret" the meaning. It's a key distinction. And I think it's weird that you're framing "Government trying to do right by its people" as "placating voters" which is effectively "buying votes." Then by definition, every democratic regime there ever was is constantly buying votes by "trying to do a good job" by making sure "its people aren't needlessly dying."

I’m not taking any positions here on whether those hundreds of programs are worthwhile public expenditures or not. I do say though that the Helvering v. Davis decision is the single most influential cause of our profligate spending.

If we’re ever going to solve problems in this country we better be able to accurately identify causes and then define them. So yes, we have to go back to uncover root causes. At least that’s what I spent decades doing with some success in the business world. Do I think most people on this thread care about any of this? No, I hope you do though.

Well, identifying Hellering v. Davis as a "root cause" is an exercise in futility because it's not a "root cause" so much as a parameter. Hellering is part of the world you live in. There's no overturning Hellering, and there's no getting around it. Congress has the power to spend on the general welfare, and that's the universe in which you operate. B*tching about it is about as effective as b*tching about your height - it is what it is.

If your problem is with profligate spending, the real "root causes" are military, and the three specific programs of social security, medicare, and medicaid that under the welfare clause. however, the THOUSANDS of other programs ranging from after-school care, NPR, national parks, etc. are drops in the bucket, and has nothing to do with profligate spending. They're just programs that provide for the general welfare, and do not affect the governmental bottom line in any meaningful way.

Basically you're saying eBay is the root cause of my profligate spending because prior to eBay I didn't have access to all this weird, niche, one-of-a-kind marketplace; When in fact, my personal decision to spend as much money as I do is the root cause of my profligate spending. eBay sure does make it easier, and without it, my spending would be curbed for sure, but it's wrong to say that eBay is the root cause.

Nothing I posted had anything to say or do with “f#cking over poor people” nor did I insinuate that “everything was done to screw over rich people.” Not sure where this came from.

gee i wonder

Last, it’s crystal clear to me that the “General Welfare” clause was not understood at the time of ratification, nor for the ensuing 160 years, to confer spending powers above and beyond those enumerated in other sections of the constitution. This is because if there were, there would have been no need for the long drawn out negotiations leading up to ratification. The spending powers of the constitution would have simply read “congress can invent and spend money on any program they choose.”

It's not. General Welfare is still a limiting term. For instance, the government can't set up its own companies for private profits.

Although SC decisions have been overturned approx 300 times in our history, we agree Helvering v. Davis will not be added to the list. I disagree with many (but not all) of your assertions above, and you invented positions I never took, so in the interest of concluding the discussion and moving on, I'll leave you with the following:

Jefferson rephrasing of the clause to emphasize its intended meaning.

“‘To lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.’ For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised.”

Jefferson points out that the authority to tax does not assume the authority to spend.

“…they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.”


James Madison made this same point in a letter to James Robertson in 1831.

“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.”

Hamilton and then later, the Supremes of the 1930's, had a different viewpoint.