Summer Money :D

[Auspicious]

Rapunzel, what part of the Constitution are you referring to?

[Rapunzel]

Article 1 Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

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.


Ammendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Auspicious]

Social programs should be run by the individual states

This seems to lead to so much inequality, though . . . so some impoverished four-year-old in Mississippi would get to be part of a crappy Head Start program and some impoverished four-year-old in Connecticut would get to be part of a fabulous one just because the CT kid was lucky enough to be born in a state with a high per-capita tax base? Don't both kids deserve the same chance and don't both kids deserve the best we all can manage to give them? Is that interfering? Can't the government be a force of good in people's lives if it's properly used?

[Rapunzel]

The leaders and citizens of the American colonies were well aware of the problems caused by over-taxation of a large central government. They were wary of the many problems taxes could cause in the lives of average citizens and thus made it very clear in the ratified Constitution the explicit reasons the federal government could tax its citizenry. The 10th ammendment then delegates to the individual states all other powers - including the power to tax for any other purposes outside of those the federal government taxes for. Therefore federal taxes for "social" programs openly defy the intent and purpose of the US Constitution both in Article 1 Section 8 and the 10th Ammendment.

[Rapunzel]

Social programs should be run by the individual states

This seems to lead to so much inequality, though . . . so some impoverished four-year-old in Mississippi would get to be part of a crappy Head Start program and some impoverished four-year-old in Connecticut would get to be part of a fabulous one just because the CT kid was lucky enough to be born in a state with a high per-capita tax base? Don't both kids deserve the same chance and don't both kids deserve the best we all can manage to give them? Is that interfering? Can't the government be a force of good in people's lives if it's properly used?

That's a good point. Luckily it is easy to change political borders and move to another state. It's the law of demand. And, thus all of the states must accept as US citizens those coming from other states.

The government can be a force of good in people's lives if properly used. Unfortunately socialism has proven to be an effective means of destroying people's lives. Simply look to historical examples for this.

[Auspicious]

Thanks. I'm no Constitutional scholar, I will be the first to admit.

I get the whole idea that "if it doesn't say here that congress can do it, then that means they can't" and I agree it was smart of them to put that in there . . . but what about this part:

Article 1 Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Don't social programs fall under "general welfare"?

and how does this fit in?

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

[Rapunzel]

Thanks. I'm no Constitutional scholar, I will be the first to admit.

I get the whole idea that "if it doesn't say here that congress can do it, then that means they can't" and I agree it was smart of them to put that in there . . . but what about this part:

Article 1 Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Don't social programs fall under "general welfare"?

and how does this fit in?

First, Julie, I want to sincerely thank you for making me think beyond laundry and dinner tonight. I haven't cracked open my copy of the Federalist papers in months!

Now, pertaining to the matter at large:

Federalist No. 45, James Madison, January 26, 1788:

"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 will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiations, 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.

The operations of the Federal Government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State Governments, in times of peace and security."

[Rapunzel]

Now, I will touch on the subject of the "general welfare".

First, let us note the context of this phrase:

"...and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;"

With this context of linking the general welfare to the nation's defenses I will add that Federalist paper no. 41 also by Madison which explicitly states that this portion of the Constitution originated from the Articles of Confederation in article 3d: "the common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare...". Again with general welfare being linked to "common defense" and "security of (their) liberties."

Federalist paper No. 45 also discusses "general welfare" in conjunction with national defense in the last paragraph.

It is clear from the language used that general welfare is used in conjunction with national defense in that all benefit from a strong defense - thus it is within the "general welfare" to have a strong defense. James Madison's Federalist papers in regard to this matter were meant to persuade those states who had a strong distrust and distaste for any taxation in support of a federally controlled military. Given the abuses committed by the British military it was understanding. Madison was explicity attempting to persuade his fellow convention members that a national defense was in everyone's best interest.

No mention is made of taxation for social programs in this regard. Indeed, the Constitution does not specifically give those powers to the Federal Government, but rather implicity guarantees them to the States.

[Rapunzel]

and how does this fit in?

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Now, with your second question:

Simply put the above states that Congress shall levy and collect income taxes no matter the source of the income DIRECTLY from individual citizens and not through the middle men of the States. The latter part of this was to appease the Southern States where slavery was much more common than in the North. The Southern states were concerned that their slaves would be taxed accordingly. Thus the concern was that a Southern land owner with 100 slaves would be taxed the same as 101 free men. Now, we can argue if that would've been OK considering how horrible slavery was (Yay Ammendment 13!!). Anyway, that is where the latter portion of that statement originates. The first portion once again simply states that the Federal government may directly tax every individual citizen and not the States in a nutshell.

Applicable Federalist papers: No. 54 James Madison, No. 7 Alexander Hamilton

[Auspicious]

Hmmm. I'll have to mull over Madison's interpretation a bit.

I like this thread, too. 8) Opinions among my crowd in NY tend to range from liberal to ultra-liberal, so it can be hard to find a cogent argument from someone on the other side of the aisle. And of course you don't learn much if you're only talking to people you already agree with.

[Rapunzel]

I have been researching the term "general welfare" a bit more. There is also a theory (a rather strong one) that the term according to Alexander Hamilton was for the Federal government to promote enterprise and commerce. Thus we have the trifold mission of the Federal governement by which they may tax : protect liberties through the balance of powers and voting (and presumably paying the salaries of the representatives of the citizenry, the judges, etc.), promote enterprise and business among the citizenry (general welfare fits in here), and physically protect the United States' assets (military). Ahhhh, Hamilton! Ever the financial advisor! See Federalist No 12 for example.

[Rapunzel]

Hmmm. I'll have to mull over Madison's interpretation a bit.

I like this thread, too. 8) Opinions among my crowd in NY tend to range from liberal to ultra-liberal, so it can be hard to find a cogent argument from someone on the other side of the aisle. And of course you don't learn much if you're only talking to people you already agree with.

Actually, I encourage you to pick up a copy of "The Federalist" by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. To quote the cover it is "A Collection of Essays Written in Favor of the New Constitution As Agreed Upon By the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787." They are, in sum, the arguments in favor of the final draft of the Constitution and explanations for the rationale used by the conventioneers in writing the various portions of the Constitution. It is a really great document that very few Americans read unfortunately.

[Auspicious]

My university offered an entire course on the Federalist Papers (we are talking about the same thing, right?) that unfortunately, I never took. It does seem like a worthwhile addition to the ol' home library.

[PrincessFiona]

life in America

This discussion has progress so far that it will be hard for me to jump in...but I'll try

First, Jennifer, in answer to some of your thoughts:

Kris, your candor in admitting your support of a socialist form of government is refreshing but it leaves me wondering why you live in a democratic country then?

Let me just say, that we DONT live in a democracy..and we haven't for quite some time. Let's face it, our president currently in office was not elected by the majority of the people, but by the majority of electoral college votes this time around. Our country is not run by the people's vote, and anyone who believes that is just not paying attention. Sure, we vote for politicians who profess to support the policies that we believe in and we hope that they will follow through with it. But in your own words, you have stated:

However, it is common knowledge that currently the politician with the most financial backers is the one who generally wins. So, your money ultimately does not go where you want it to go necessarily - your money is subject to the whims of politicians wooed by special interest groups, professional lobbyists, and corporate interests.

and this is NOT democracy..see, you've said it yourself..it is a country being run by the big corporations who have their fingers in the pockets of politicians willing to open them. A country where the CEO of Tyco earns 86 MILLION dollars a year and where the CEO of Target can earn 19.5 million a year and is cutting health benefits for its hard-working (not scum of the earth, refuse to work) american citizens.

You're quote: "I have a lot of problems with the way our govt spends the tax money that it gets..." says worlds.

Yes, it does say a lot..because I don't trust the government...plain and simple.

Lets face a few painful facts here:

1. the richest 1/5 in America earns 11 times as much as the poor, and the 40% of the 38 million poor in our country live like members of a third world country. This is the supposed "greatest nation in the world". We have poor people in this country without running water, without potable water, who do not have the ability to buy basic necessities like food. I disagree with a constitution that provides unlimited funds for military expenditures, that supports an economy driven by greedy CEOs who continue to raise their salaries and hide millions of dollars before filing bankruptcy, but won't support its working poor. I don't support a govt. that sticks its nose into international affairs and doesn't report all of the facts back to its people...Do you know that we killed more civilians in Afghanistan that were killed on 9/11 in the twin towers? We complained that Germany didn't join our fight in Iraq, but the major military and peace-keeping force in Afghanistan right now is German..and without them there, we could not have moved on to our next great conquest.

2. The fact that we are NOT the most generous nation in the world: European and arab nations give much more of their GDP in foreing aid than the US.

3. The fact that we have in the recent past avoided going into conflict or gone into conflict purely based on pressure from big companies like Gulf Oil and ITT.

4. OH...our repeated assasination attempts against Fidel Cstro...the US cops to 8 attempts....if someone attempted to assasinate our president 8 times because we didn't like him or his policies...ummm..it would be a reason for war....

5. Lets see...we RIGGED (ahhh, democracy) the 1957 election in Lebanon which led to civil war there...eventually, we "had" to send in our marines to fight against the very people we had cheated out of a fair election.

6. Lets not forget Guatemala....when the govt decided to plan a highway and railroad to help themselves out economically we got up in arms because it went through the middle of land that United Fruit Company was using...they didn't want to lose their monopoly and so our CIA threatened their president with an armed invasion and eventually overthrew his govt...and found a replacement that we handpicked.


Here's a great quote by George Kennan from 1948 (he was our head of policy planning staff at the state department)

quote
We have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real test in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction-unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization. :

Or here:

We blocked loans to chile, subsidized opposition newspapers and political parties, denied spare parts to their industires and actually PAID for a trucker's strike that paralyzed their government...In addition, we trained and financed the military that staged a coup against their president, Allende. Why on earth would we do this? Did he have weapons of mass destruction? Was he threatening our governtment? No...he was a socialist....that to us meant communist. But he was elected by the people in a democratic vote and was not a horrible dictator or murderer...We just didn't...like him. Kissinger actually said "the united states should not and will not respect the electoral process or sovereignty of another country if the results do not please us" Ah...there we go spreading democracy



These are things that you absolutely will not hear about in a "hoo-ha, aren't we #1" high school history course...and are likely not to hear at the college level as well...depending on your teacher. I don't think we need to know every dirty deed...but come on...a little critical thinking as opposed to blind patriotism would be refreshing....Blind patriotism, btw is not something that is good for a democracy. A true democracy would have educated voters who are told the truth by their media (not they hyper-spin, half truths that we are spoon fed in little soundbites). At this point in our country, many people are apathetic and are so stressed out and busy with their lives that they don't have time to check up on the politicians that they have voted into office and see how they have voted on key issues. They don't have the time or ability to fight against corporate greed and fraud. They feel that they have few choices...and they do. Until we have a massive overhall of our political system, change will not come...and until people are educated about the truth behind many of our actions, the outrage will not happen...and our choices will be limited. NO wonder the govt. continues to support our military and our schools continue to get less and less money. The less we know, the better off our "democratic" leaders are

I'm not going to pick apart every article of the Constitution...because I think that things have changed so much in the last 200+ years and because I think things are written in such a way as to be open to interpretation. Lets just focus simply on the preamble for a second...the very reason that our constitution was written:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So do we have justice in this country? Is it justice that our poor live in abject poverty, that hard working americans often can not get health coverage? Is it justice that the rich continue to get richer and take from the poor....and that nothing is done about it? I still have yet to see an Enron exec in jail...but let me tell you that if you or I had done it, the poop would have hit the fan! The constitution wanted to provide for common defense, but it also wanted to promote general welfare. Does that mean healthcare for hardworking americans. ?

If we are going to mince words and start throwing around the constitution, then how about The Declaration of Independence that guarantees Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness:
Life: Does this mean that the consititution would require mandatory healthcare to protect the health of all citizens? Would ban abortion (hey, I'm all for it) because it would take the life of a citizen?

Does right to liberty mean that we should be free from servitude..so the minimum wage would have to become a living wage and that employers should be required to provide health insurance..I mean...what IS servitude if not working for barely livable wages for no benefits...Does it mean that we should not only have the freedom to say what we want...but the freedom to education so that we can make wise choices?

Does the pursuit of happiness include things like having food and running water and access to quality education...or is it only a term meant for the lucky few?

So do our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness only apply to military protection? Are basically just a military state...

Why not move to the Netherlands or another nation steeped in socialism?

Because even though I don't agree with our government, I believe in the American people...I believe in the spirit of the people in this country and I think that change is imminent . I don't see myself as a socialist either. I stated before that I do not think that the govt needs to be involved in every aspect of our lives...I also think that saying that socialism is basically the downfall of other governments is a bit out there...there were many historical factors that figured into the downfall of these countries. It's easy to blame socialism, but it isn't the source.

the Constitution is the cornerstone of our government social programs on the federal level are antithetical to US democracy.

Oh Please...the constitution is the cornerstone of our government? Big business interests are the cornerstones of our government now! WE the people have no control over our government.

The fact is when the federal government taxes you, you no longer control where that money goes.

Well, if this was a democracy, I would!

No apoligies needed.

I know..I think the only reason that I apologize is that my views can be seen as being offensive...and I get excited when I argue them...When you and I battle issues, things can become heated and people tend to get a tad...upset So here is the disclaimer...Jennifer and I tend to have big political/social arguments and we are doing this all in fun and for the sport of it. Please don't take offense and know that we aren't attacking each other really...we're learning from each other

Anyway...I've written enough as it is....I'm curious about your thoughts.

kris

[Meenah]

I would send mine to the local pro-choice group, but I'll probably have to pay a tuition bill with it!
Luanne