• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

To Promote the General Welfare

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,160
22,762
136
Jaskalas we already tried your solution in the Articles of Confederation. It failed miserably. In fact every confederation that has ever existed has failed for similar reasons.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
0
0
I just saw this post by Jaskalas in an OT thread about warning lables on peanuts. Apparently, it wasn't about the comic strip at all! ():)

I typed out the following response, then thought better of it, so I'm posting it here, where I hope (against hope and sad experience) that a productive discussion on political philosophy, which would have semi-sidetracked that thread, might here ensue.

Here's to reckless optimism! :D



To me, putting warning labels on food products is a legitimate function of our government, as described by our Founding Fathers quite explicitly in their detailed explanatory preamble to our Constitution:



It's also why I believe we need a single payer, national health care system as well, as our current one spends twice as much per capita as any other industrialized nation, with some successes but also measurably worse results across a broad range of metrics, for instance.

But with that example, I don't mean to digress from my basic question, which expressed in one way would be, "How do you interpret "promote the general welfare?"

I am not calling out Jaskalas here. I really do tend to respect him far more than many other posters here, both from the left and the right. But I also really do want to know how a self-professed Libertarian can seem to support food warning labels while also presumably being in favor of radically limited government.
promote the general Welfare. Anything that holds people back is not promoting general welfare, I can see were a broken mind might see this but thats really reaching for the stars . Take Welfare for instance . Perfectly healthy people sit on their asses all day long doing nothing productive as working at min. wages is likely worse in there way of thinking . If ya live in the slums of a big city . Leave find a small town and become productive and even a min wage you will be better off and be productive . Let a man starve he will either work or perish. Its that mans choice . Welfare is nothing more than a crouch from them to lean on and a burden to those who are productive
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,057
3,604
126
It doesn't have to do with the source, it has to do with how society has come to view these subjects. Society has come to agree with Jefferson on the issue of separation of church and state but his views of federal power have not been met with such agreement.

As for the whole rights/subjects thing, I think that is histrionics. This clause simply means that the government can spend tax revenues on things it views to contribute to the general welfare, which is a pretty uncontroversial idea.
Is it really?

Tell me, what do you think of Republicans taxing and spending on their pet projects? Oh right... you will object. Apparently your opponent getting what they want is controversial as you don't want that, but since we're all forced together under the same authority we get to impose on you and vice versa.

Imagine for a moment that the founders did not want such a federal government so invasive that the tyranny of the majority ruled with an iron fist. That we didn't have to come to civil war to finally settle our differences. That we could have a Union of government that did not require violence.

You can start to live up to their expectations by not believing you have the authority to impose on others. Impossible isn't it? You see problems and the animal response is to smash that nail with a hammer. To use force, to ensure the supremacy of 'your' centralized government. To ensure tyranny of the majority for that is how you think you solve problems.

It's a matter of ego to internalize the use of that power. To think that it is yours to wield and do with as you please. The Brits thought the same of the colonies as you think of Red states. Render unto Caesar. That is the prominent ideology of the human race.

There is another way, we can be better than that. Live and let live. Cast aside the authority of the Federal government. Make it once again a limited government of enumerated powers, leaving the rest up to the states to decide. Before the turn of the decade Blue states would have such things as UHC.

General welfare could be yours as you never thought possible. You just have to take a step back to take a giant leap forward. To let go of the ego's desire of that one ring to rule them all. Is it within you to do that?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
It's not specious, it's just the method by which we determine the popular will.
No it is not. The popular will is not known in advance of elections on issues which did not exist or the full ramifications weren't known. "Determine the popular will" means that the representatives tell the public what their will must be, else too bad. What you suggest is that we have one chance at the polls to vote in new leadership. Well, representatives who toe the party line and are substantially the same as their predecessors.


I'm also unaware of a better way to do it, considering the fact that direct democracy has been a catastrophe when we've tried it in the US.
So you offer a dichotomy where the only alternative to direct democracy is the acceptance of what we don't want, that we elect temporary masters. That doesn't seem much of a choice.

It also ignores the fact that you are claiming that the popular will resists government run medicine, when in fact polls generally show that the popular will demands government run medicine.
Really? Find recent polls that the majority of the public "demands" that the government take over the practice of medicine. Somehow everyone else missed that one. Besides, what the people demand isn't important. It's the will of the politicians that matters. We're sheep to be lead or sheared in the opinion of some. Conform or be cast out.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,160
22,762
136
No it is not. The popular will is not known in advance of elections on issues which did not exist or the full ramifications weren't known. "Determine the popular will" means that the representatives tell the public what their will must be, else too bad. What you suggest is that we have one chance at the polls to vote in new leadership. Well, representatives who toe the party line and are substantially the same as their predecessors.
This is ridiculous. You think the idea of health care reform is something new? It has been debated for literally more than a century. The idea that anyone would think this was a new issue would mean they were so hilariously naive that it would be impossible to take them seriously. "Sorry, I didn't see this coming since 1900 or so!".

So you offer a dichotomy where the only alternative to direct democracy is the acceptance of what we don't want, that we elect temporary masters. That doesn't seem much of a choice.
So give another one.

Really? Find recent polls that the majority of the public "demands" that the government take over the practice of medicine. Somehow everyone else missed that one. Besides, what the people demand isn't important. It's the will of the politicians that matters. We're sheep to be lead or sheared in the opinion of some. Conform or be cast out.
Don't know how to use Google? http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/PollMemo.pdf

I can provide lots of other ones if you want.

The public prefers a universal government run option. What's so funny is that you don't seem to realize that our system is actually saving you from your dreaded government medicine. If the true public will were exerted we would have had universal government health care a long time ago.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
This is ridiculous. You think the idea of health care reform is something new? It has been debated for literally more than a century. The idea that anyone would think this was a new issue would mean they were so hilariously naive that it would be impossible to take them seriously. "Sorry, I didn't see this coming since 1900 or so!".



So give another one.



Don't know how to use Google? http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/PollMemo.pdf

I can provide lots of other ones if you want.

The public prefers a universal government run option. What's so funny is that you don't seem to realize that our system is actually saving you from your dreaded government medicine. If the true public will were exerted we would have had universal government health care a long time ago.
Well lets see here. People have been talking about living on Mars for far more than a century. That makes us ready to go. Works all done. Nice.

Then you demand temporary dictators since that's the alternative to direct democracy. Well those Europeans you look up to have a mechanism of accountability while in office. It's called a vote of no confidence.

Then you make a claim you can't back up about people wanting government run healthcare, to which say I don't see a strong sentiment for government taking over the practice of medicine then you bring up the expansion of medicare from three years ago, before Obama went against the will of the majority of people (which you state is unimportant since the people must obey the will of the government) and not even realize that medicare is a funding mechanism, not the seizing of the system forcing doctors to obey like the good little soldiers. It's not the same and apparently you don't know the difference between payment and telling people how to go about caring for patients. Find where the majority think Obama and congress ought to be able to order their docs about since they are far better at, well, everything.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,160
22,762
136
Well lets see here. People have been talking about living on Mars for far more than a century. That makes us ready to go. Works all done. Nice.
Absurdity. You tried to argue that health care issues weren't known about before the election. Those issues have been debated for a century if not more. Attempting to relate an issue that has been extensively debated for a century to living on Mars is fundamentally dishonest and you know it.

Then you demand temporary dictators since that's the alternative to direct democracy. Well those Europeans you look up to have a mechanism of accountability while in office. It's called a vote of no confidence.
I don't demand anything. We have accountability through new elections every 2 years. If you look into European systems you will see that votes of no confidence come from already elected members. (the temporary dictators you so revile) Regardless, they infrequently come before about two years.

Then you make a claim you can't back up about people wanting government run healthcare, to which say I don't see a strong sentiment for government taking over the practice of medicine then you bring up the expansion of medicare from three years ago, before Obama went against the will of the majority of people (which you state is unimportant since the people must obey the will of the government) and not even realize that medicare is a funding mechanism, not the seizing of the system forcing doctors to obey like the good little soldiers. It's not the same and apparently you don't know the difference between payment and telling people how to go about caring for patients. Find where the majority think Obama and congress ought to be able to order their docs about since they are far better at, well, everything.
As for my claim that I can't back up, I just explicitly backed it up. You are complaining that people didn't want government mandated health care. I just showed you a poll that showed they wanted far more government involvement than any individual mandate.

You are grasping at straws.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
This is ridiculous. You think the idea of health care reform is something new? It has been debated for literally more than a century. The idea that anyone would think this was a new issue would mean they were so hilariously naive that it would be impossible to take them seriously. "Sorry, I didn't see this coming since 1900 or so!".



So give another one.



Don't know how to use Google? http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/PollMemo.pdf

I can provide lots of other ones if you want.

The public prefers a universal government run option. What's so funny is that you don't seem to realize that our system is actually saving you from your dreaded government medicine. If the true public will were exerted we would have had universal government health care a long time ago.
I thought that polls about Obamacare showed that they wanted all the benefits of Obamacare, but did not want to pay for it.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
Absurdity. You tried to argue that health care issues weren't known about before the election. Those issues have been debated for a century if not more. Attempting to relate an issue that has been extensively debated for a century to living on Mars is fundamentally dishonest and you know it.



I don't demand anything. We have accountability through new elections every 2 years. If you look into European systems you will see that votes of no confidence come from already elected members. (the temporary dictators you so revile) Regardless, they infrequently come before about two years.I



As for my claim that I can't back up, I just explicitly backed it up. You are complaining that people didn't want government mandated health care. I just showed you a poll that showed they wanted far more government involvement than any individual mandate.

You are grasping at straws.
You don't know enough to argue the issues. You don't know the difference between insurance and health care. You don't know the difference between talking and serious planning with the intent to actually impliment, and votes of no confidence and multiple parties give some accountability or at least motivation to office holders. You resist changes to the power structure, protecting a system which makes us like assembly line workers compared to the CEOs who also enjoy a similar level of immunity. Oh they may get removed, but government is a "family" owned business. The next to come in will be vetted by the "Grandfather".

The enormity of the issue is beyond you. The consequences of failure and the inherent complexity of many interrelated disciplines makes this very much like the relativity simple task of going to Mars. Only recently did the politicians figure out that Alzheimer's care can be provided less expensively outside an institutional setting and are allowing that to be more freely done. I don't know if the paperwork will be more or less onerous than now.

Yes, providers have been saying whats needed for years, but your "general welfare" masters don't listen, don't want to, indeed don't have to and neither do their thralls. We, the lower caste of citizens will simply do what we're told. We still don't have to embrace their arrogance and willful ignorance with adoration, at least not yet.

But I ought to let this go because you are arguing out of the lack of knowledge and experience with the system. I want more, not less reform, but with emphasis on results allowing for better care. People in the workplace encounter the difficulties that neither corporate nor office holder understand because they are too removed. New grads are canon fodder and are burning out more quickly. Nurses? Thats getting worse. Pharmacists die sooner than other health care workers, in fact we're all nailed to the wall. Yes, some are thrilled thats the case, but what happens to us eventually effects you and not in a good way. Well intentioned ignorance in the form of regulatory fluff is a stumbling block to quality care and the time required to deal with this in both the private and government sides is increasing. The solution? Lets make it worse. The patients will just have to wait.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
Absurdity. You tried to argue that health care issues weren't known about before the election. Those issues have been debated for a century if not more. Attempting to relate an issue that has been extensively debated for a century to living on Mars is fundamentally dishonest and you know it.

I don't demand anything. We have accountability through new elections every 2 years. If you look into European systems you will see that votes of no confidence come from already elected members. (the temporary dictators you so revile) Regardless, they infrequently come before about two years.

As for my claim that I can't back up, I just explicitly backed it up. You are complaining that people didn't want government mandated health care. I just showed you a poll that showed they wanted far more government involvement than any individual mandate.

You are grasping at straws.
Evidently health care issues weren't known even when Obamacare was crafted, as most of it is merely empowering a bureaucracy to do as it thinks best.

I prefer limited government, but I do think that requiring food labels (and thus, verifying their accuracy) is a legitimate government function. In general, "provide for" or "promote" the general welfare is very broad, and (I think) covers most anything Congress wants to do except for transfer payments. Whether or not I agree with a particular spending program or line item, I think Constitutionally Congress only runs aground when it seeks to give one person or one group something. When funding common infrastructure, no matter whether it's a sound investment or wildly specious reasoning apparently implemented by drunken yaks, Congress is within its authority. Of course, sometimes infrastructure projects so closely resemble wealth transfer that it's hard to keep them separate.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,160
22,762
136
You don't know enough to argue the issues. You don't know the difference between insurance and health care. You don't know the difference between talking and serious planning with the intent to actually impliment, and votes of no confidence and multiple parties give some accountability or at least motivation to office holders. You resist changes to the power structure, protecting a system which makes us like assembly line workers compared to the CEOs who also enjoy a similar level of immunity. Oh they may get removed, but government is a "family" owned business. The next to come in will be vetted by the "Grandfather".

The enormity of the issue is beyond you. The consequences of failure and the inherent complexity of many interrelated disciplines makes this very much like the relativity simple task of going to Mars. Only recently did the politicians figure out that Alzheimer's care can be provided less expensively outside an institutional setting and are allowing that to be more freely done. I don't know if the paperwork will be more or less onerous than now.

Yes, providers have been saying whats needed for years, but your "general welfare" masters don't listen, don't want to, indeed don't have to and neither do their thralls. We, the lower caste of citizens will simply do what we're told. We still don't have to embrace their arrogance and willful ignorance with adoration, at least not yet.

But I ought to let this go because you are arguing out of the lack of knowledge and experience with the system. I want more, not less reform, but with emphasis on results allowing for better care. People in the workplace encounter the difficulties that neither corporate nor office holder understand because they are too removed. New grads are canon fodder and are burning out more quickly. Nurses? Thats getting worse. Pharmacists die sooner than other health care workers, in fact we're all nailed to the wall. Yes, some are thrilled thats the case, but what happens to us eventually effects you and not in a good way. Well intentioned ignorance in the form of regulatory fluff is a stumbling block to quality care and the time required to deal with this in both the private and government sides is increasing. The solution? Lets make it worse. The patients will just have to wait.
This entire post is just emotional, fact free raving, not to mention almost entirely off topic. I made the mistake of indulging your first foray because the issues were at least tangentially related to the general welfare clause. Yet another poorly informed health care rant by you? Not interested.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,160
22,762
136
Evidently health care issues weren't known even when Obamacare was crafted, as most of it is merely empowering a bureaucracy to do as it thinks best.

I prefer limited government, but I do think that requiring food labels (and thus, verifying their accuracy) is a legitimate government function. In general, "provide for" or "promote" the general welfare is very broad, and (I think) covers most anything Congress wants to do except for transfer payments. Whether or not I agree with a particular spending program or line item, I think Constitutionally Congress only runs aground when it seeks to give one person or one group something. When funding common infrastructure, no matter whether it's a sound investment or wildly specious reasoning apparently implemented by drunken yaks, Congress is within its authority. Of course, sometimes infrastructure projects so closely resemble wealth transfer that it's hard to keep them separate.
It most definitely covers transfer payments too. As for how the ACA works, of course you resolve issues at the bureaucratic level instead of the congressional one. It adds flexibility to a complex equation. That's just legislation 101.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
It most definitely covers transfer payments too. As for how the ACA works, of course you resolve issues at the bureaucratic level instead of the congressional one. It adds flexibility to a complex equation. That's just legislation 101.
So you believe that a statement in the constitution that addresses taxation also "accidently" give Congress unlimited power o_O
 

rayfieldclement

Senior member
Apr 12, 2012
514
0
0
Don't forget the necessary and proper clause, which pretty much clarifies "promote". The Supreme Court has ruled that way, and their interpretation of the Constitution is what it means, not whatever you want it to mean.

Those who want liberty need to think outside the box and ditch the statist U.S. Articles of Federal Republic.

As Lysander Spooner said, "The Constitution has either empowered the government to take away our liberty or has been powerless to prevent it from doing so. Either way, it is unfit to exist."... and that's as close to the truth on this matter as possible.
Question: Who or Where does it say that the Supreme Court is the only branch that interpretes the Constitution.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,160
22,762
136
So you believe that a statement in the constitution that addresses taxation also "accidently" give Congress unlimited power o_O
Of course not, what a silly idea. Then again you thought that extending the tax cuts for only certain income segments violated the equal protection clause, so you're not exactly a Constitutional scholar.

Just think about all those women getting a tax cut. Think about how much they might enjoy that money. Isn't your blood boiling?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Of course not, what a silly idea. Then again you thought that extending the tax cuts for only certain income segments violated the equal protection clause, so you're not exactly a Constitutional scholar.

Just think about all those women getting a tax cut. Think about how much they might enjoy that money. Isn't your blood boiling?
No I said that tax cuts that statistically benefit women over men would be a violation of the equal protection clause in the same way the voted id laws were a violation because they statistically effected minorities.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,160
22,762
136
No I said that tax cuts that statistically benefit women over men would be a violation of the equal protection clause in the same way the voted id laws were a violation because they statistically effected minorities.
And I'm telling you that you're wrong. Every law that has an unequal outcome is not an equal protection violation. It's embarrassing that you don't know that.

Do you think that women will use that money to go out on dates? Think about how much fun they will have.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
And I'm telling you that you're wrong. Every law that has an unequal outcome is not an equal protection violation. It's embarrassing that you don't know that.
I am using the same logic that the Obama administration is using. Perhaps you should tell him that.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
It most definitely covers transfer payments too. As for how the ACA works, of course you resolve issues at the bureaucratic level instead of the congressional one. It adds flexibility to a complex equation. That's just legislation 101.
So under that interpretation, perhaps a better question would be "Do you believe there is anything prohibited to the federal government under its powers to "promote the general welfare"? If so, what?

And if not, explain why a large number of very smart men would write such a lengthy Constitution when they only meant the federal government can do anything it wishes.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,160
22,762
136
So under that interpretation, perhaps a better question would be "Do you believe there is anything prohibited to the federal government under its powers to "promote the general welfare"? If so, what?

And if not, explain why a large number of very smart men would write such a lengthy Constitution when they only meant the federal government can do anything it wishes.
Of course I believe things are prohibited. Why does everything have to be a straw man on here?

Current understanding of 'provide for the general welfare' is that it relates to objects of government expenditures. The government can basically spend tax dollars on whatever it wants so long as those are related to the general welfare and don't conflict with other constitutional rights. In spending discretion yes, Congressional authority is extremely broad.

Congress is limited in spending money on things that would infringe on the powers of other branches or guaranteed rights of the state or people. They couldn't spend money on creating the Center for Repression Religion, all sorts of other things like that. There is in fact no Constitutional right to not be taxed more than other people and there is of course no Constitutional right to not be given a refundable tax credit. I really have no idea under what part of the Constitution transfer payments would somehow be disallowed.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
Of course I believe things are prohibited. Why does everything have to be a straw man on here?

Current understanding of 'provide for the general welfare' is that it relates to objects of government expenditures. The government can basically spend tax dollars on whatever it wants so long as those are related to the general welfare and don't conflict with other constitutional rights. In spending discretion yes, Congressional authority is extremely broad.

Congress is limited in spending money on things that would infringe on the powers of other branches or guaranteed rights of the state or people. They couldn't spend money on creating the Center for Repression Religion, all sorts of other things like that. There is in fact no Constitutional right to not be taxed more than other people and there is of course no Constitutional right to not be given a refundable tax credit. I really have no idea under what part of the Constitution transfer payments would somehow be disallowed.
So your explanation of the purpose of the Tenth Amendment would be what, exactly?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
This entire post is just emotional, fact free raving, not to mention almost entirely off topic. I made the mistake of indulging your first foray because the issues were at least tangentially related to the general welfare clause. Yet another poorly informed health care rant by you? Not interested.
No, it's fact filled with truth, but you are a Creationist. Government said it, you believe out and that settles it. Yours is the tale of an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying stupidity. You oppose good choices as much as the right because to do so shakes your faith.

A clear demonstration of disconnect. Note the OP explicitly mentioned health care, and you mentioned that the public will demanded government control of medicine. No, and you still don't know the difference between the practice of medicine and a government program, apparently because you believe that whatever government desires is it's right. Our Lord and Master. I'm replying to your post not because I still believe understanding is possible, but to demonstrate what a danger mindless faith is. I won't confuse you with truth any further. Keep telling yourself that all rights and wisdom belong to your secular deity. I have not seen such great faith, no, not in all Israel.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY