You give my boys a turn with your wife and we’ll see about getting your kids out of the burning attic.
But that would never happen I’m sure.
-Joe
No, I didn’t. There are powers, enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, that Congress has in order to promote US well-being. “Provide for general welfare” is not one of those powers.
Do you believe that it follows from this, therefore, that the federal government should stop any social programs that help those in poverty deal with hunger, shelter or medical needs? And merely let them fend for themselves, rely on charity or die? Because it’s not in the constitution?
And on topic, do you believe that this would NOT constitute “class warfare”, however a small tax hike on the very wealthy WOULD constitute “class warfare”?
Y’know, if a class war involved the Low and the Middle united against the High . . . they could win.
But, for some reason, that almost never happens.
The federal government is not allowed to run such programs. State governments do.
Has nothing to do with “class warfare”. Has to do with the Constitution.
Do you believe that if something is a “good idea” but is prohibited by the Constitution, it should be done anyway?
There’s nothing in the Constitution against “a small tax hike on the very wealthy.”
(You do accept the validity of the 16th Amendment, don’t you?)
No, there isn’t. There is nothing in the Constitution about “class warfare” either.
But there is something about it in a lot of Republican/RW rhetoric these days. Why is that?
Non-sequitur?
No, actually, that’s the OP.
Terr, if you’re interested in talking about the constitutionality of federal social programs, that’s terrific. Please do so in another thread. You could even start one yourself.
This thread is about the wisdom of the Republican leaders stance when they start calling a small tax hike on the wealthy “class warfare”.
Thank you.
Indeed. The Koch brothers, who give millions to a large number of right-wing groups, are the sons of Fred C. Koch who was one of the founding members of the John Birch Society.
Per the Declaration of Independence:
I believe it was you, in this thread, who stated that “I think that they [Republicans] can then fairly be accused of “Class warfare” when they want to cut taxes and then eliminate social programs for the poor.”
You were then told (correctly) that the desire to eliminate federal “social programs” is not “class warfare” but adherence to the Constitution. If you think the discussion was derailed, you should not have opened the derailment with your comment.
Where is that in the Constitution? Thanks in advance.
Article 1, Section 8, in conjunction with the 10th amendment.
Oh pffft. That’s not what I mean at all. For one thing, a lot of White males in positions of influence and public opinion-making are floundering badly in assessing the state of society. Either they’re too caught up in the recent past to learn from history, or they’re too snarled up in all the framing and spin that goes on to ever get at the reality - that a lot of it really is just words and overtones and subtleties.
To get past all that, you need a cultural outlook where a few basic assumptions prevail. That words matter, and that speech is an act. That history matters, and that today is not everything. And that we should expect to be lied to - by anyone at any time - yet that that’s no excuse for cynicism or giving up, but instead to go in deeper and really engage. All those assumptions, to me, are more culturally Jewish than they are anything else. And I think that helps explain why I find Jews have more to say and say it better.
They don’t necessarily care more than anyone else, and it isn’t as though others couldn’t learn from their ways. It’s just that there is a lot of unspoken cultural baggage in the way of doing that.
“Well-being” appears no where in the Constitution.
Why would they be empowered to tax, but not to spend? That doesn’t even make sense.
In the strictest sense, sure. But even in the 19th Century, the US Government created agencies that did not fall under the interpretation you call out above. For example, Congress created the US Geological Survey (1879). This is long before the creation of “big” government. As far as my Google-fu can tell me, there was no debate concerning the constitutional legitimacy of this agency. As far a everyone was concerned, this was a legitimately sanctioned expression of Congress power’s under Article One.
Note that most states have a geological agency. So why don’t states argue that the USGS is violating the Xth Amendment?
Under your interpretation, the USGS is unconstitutional.