Judicial Watch on Hillary

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Does "promote the general welfare" mean that the federal government has the right to tax its citizens and then redistribute that money as it sees fit?

If we take your concept further, then I guess the federal government should be paying to heat and cool our homes (or, for that matter, supply us with homes in which to live), provide clothing for us all to wear, and how about paying for everyone's vacation so we can relieve the stress of work (at least for those of us who do).

Promote does NOT mean to provide. The dictionary defines promote as: "To urge the adoption of; advocate. To attempt to sell or popularize" !

Do you think public schools should be abolished? Yes or no?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[KelliJ 0]

Quote

I think health care and housing at some level should be provided for those who are UNABLE to provide it for themselves

Absolutely! However, historically speaking, the left has been unwilling to differentiate between those who can't and those who won't provide for themselves.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Typical right wing greed syndrome

Blah, blah, blah ...

Quote

take what you can in the way of public education, but begrudge every penny spent on someone else.

Could it be that people don't begrudge every penny spent on someone else but begrudge spending every penny on someone else ...

The biggest waste of resources in the last 6 years has been the $trillion or so pissed away in Iraq.

Glad you had your PUBLIC education. The taxpayers probably got their money's worth.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The biggest waste of resources in the last 6 years has been the $trillion or so pissed away in Iraq.

But but but.. that is patriotic.. in support of the war.....

WAR IS GOOD


GREED IS GOOD

Health care for children.. BAD.... waste of money on those who WONT help themselves.

[billvon 3,132]

> Does "promote the general welfare" mean that the federal government
>has the right to tax its citizens . . . .

The Federal government has the right to tax its citizens both indirectly and directly.

"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."

>and then redistribute that money as it sees fit?

The Federal government has the right to spend that money as it sees fit, including on 'general welfare,' provided the money is legally appropriated by the Congress.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . ."

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

>If we take your concept further, then I guess the federal government
>should be paying to heat and cool our homes . . .

They have not passed such a law - so no, they should not. However, they are currently paying for the rights-of-way and maintenance costs for our roads. So the precedent is definitely there.

> (or, for that matter, supply us with homes in which to live), provide
>clothing for us all to wear, and how about paying for everyone's
>vacation so we can relieve the stress of work (at least for those of us
>who do).

Again, the government that you elected has not passed such laws, so nope.

>Promote does NOT mean to provide. The dictionary defines promote
>as: "To urge the adoption of; advocate. To attempt to sell or
>popularize"

Correct. The US Government is the one who determines what to do to "promote the general welfare." For example, they've decided that providing free roads falls under that definition, but providing free heat does not.

[Butters 0]

Quote

The biggest waste of resources in the last 6 years has been the $trillion or so pissed away in Iraq.

I agree. They could have done what they have done in Irag with a fraction of the resources ...

Quote

Glad you had your PUBLIC education. The taxpayers probably got their money's worth.

Care to elaborate?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Glad you had your PUBLIC education. The taxpayers probably got their money's worth.

Care to elaborate?

Well, you appear to be literate.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The biggest waste of resources in the last 6 years has been the $trillion or so pissed away in Iraq.

I agree. They could have done what they have done in Irag with a fraction of the resources ...

Indeed, could have bailed in 2004 after achieving goals, but the left insisted we had an obligation to stay until order was restored. Oddly, a couple years later that sentiment was gone.

[billvon 3,132]

>Indeed, could have bailed in 2004 after achieving goals, but the
>left insisted . . .

Yep. Expect to see ever more convoluted methods of blaming democrats for the war as time goes on. What was once a source of pride for republicans has become a source of shame, better blamed on someone else.

[piper17 1]

As far as "public education" is concerned, I think we as a society would be better off if everyone was allowed to keep their money and spend it on private schools and for the legitimately poor, vouchers.

As far as taking "public education" - who do you think funds it. NOT the government which produces absolutely nothing (except problems for citizens). It is the private citizens who fund it and the government just screws it up with its incestuous relationship with the NEA, lucratrive contracts for administrators who don't set foot in the classroom and curricula that seem to teach everything but reading, writing and arithmetic.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

As far as "public education" is concerned, I think we as a society would be better off if everyone was allowed to keep their money and spend it on private schools and for the legitimately poor, vouchers.

As far as taking "public education" - who do you think funds it. NOT the government which produces absolutely nothing (except problems for citizens). It is the private citizens who fund it and the government just screws it up with its incestuous relationship with the NEA, lucratrive contracts for administrators who don't set foot in the classroom and curricula that seem to teach everything but reading, writing and arithmetic.

Did you go to a public school or college?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[piper17 1]

Yes. See my other response below.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[piper17 1]

As far as "public education" is concerned, I think we as a society would be better off if everyone was allowed to keep their money and spend it on private schools and for the legitimately poor, vouchers.

As far as taking "public education" - who do you think funds it. NOT the government which produces absolutely nothing (except problems for citizens). It is the private citizens who fund it and the government just screws it up with its incestuous relationship with the NEA, lucratrive contracts for administrators who don't set foot in the classroom and curricula that seem to teach everything but reading, writing and arithmetic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Did you go to a public school or college?



The federal (as well as state and local) governments do not pay for anything. They can't because they do not produce anything to earn money.

Rather, they take money from taxpaying citizens and spend it on an almost infinite variety of things - some good, most not!

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[piper17 1]

What is your point. Yes, I went to public school but to a private college.

You seem to think because people go to public schools that this is something that is free. It was the tax dollars of my parents and other taxpayers that fund the cost of public schools - NOT the government.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

What is your point. Yes, I went to public school but to a private college.

You seem to think because people go to public schools that this is something that is free. It was the tax dollars of my parents and other taxpayers that fund the cost of public schools - NOT the government.

Clever of you to know what I think. However, you flatter yourself.

What I DO think is that benefitting from a taxpayer funded education and then whining about having to pay taxes to provide benefits for others has the distinctly nasty odor of a double standard.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[piper17 1]

I don't "know" what you think. You seem to assume I think that you do....while I really think you just mostly spout the Democrat line without any real, original thought.

If I am forced to pay for something, I will take take it. My parents paid their property taxes which funded the public schools while I was in school. I am old enough to pre-date most of the federal government's involvement in education which is supposed to be a matter for the states.

The US Dept of Education is a relatively new creation. See below:

ED was created in 1980 by combining offices from several federal agencies. ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. ED's 4,500 employees and $71.5 billion budget are dedicated to:

• Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds.
• Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research.
• Focusing national attention on key educational issues.
• Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.

They seem to do a pretty piss-poor job of it.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[KelliJ 0]

Quote

Quote

What is your point. Yes, I went to public school but to a private college.

You seem to think because people go to public schools that this is something that is free. It was the tax dollars of my parents and other taxpayers that fund the cost of public schools - NOT the government.

Clever of you to know what I think. However, you flatter yourself.

What I DO think is that benefitting from a taxpayer funded education and then whining about having to pay taxes to provide benefits for others has the distinctly nasty odor of a double standard.

Not to disagree, since I would love to see a FAIR government health care plan, but what would you do to address the following situation...
Two children of the same age and social status attend public schools, something paid for by the taxpayers and available to every person to get an equal education.
One of those children studies hard, gets good grades, and only needs to see a doctor once a year for a checkup.
The other child gets poor grades, never studies, is in constant trouble with the law, and makes several trips to the ER for injuries incurred while fighting, being a show-off, etc.
Why should the good student's family pay for the trouble-makers health care when that child makes no attempt to make something of himself?

[billvon 3,132]

>Rather, they take money from taxpaying citizens and spend it on
>an almost infinite variety of things - some good, most not!

Did you really mean to answer me?

You are correct. Everyone draws the line in a different place. Most people think socialized roads are a good idea, fully socialized medicine is not. In between you have the stuff everyone argues about.

[Amazon 7]

As Robin Williams once said in the movie " Good Morning Vietnam"....

"You know, you're more in need of a blow job than any other white man in the history of the human race."

That so applies to so many here

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Indeed, could have bailed in 2004 after achieving goals, but the
>left insisted . . .

Yep. Expect to see ever more convoluted methods of blaming democrats for the war as time goes on. What was once a source of pride for republicans has become a source of shame, better blamed on someone else.

The White House can't play this game, because they (and they alone it seems) still wants to be there.

But I do hold you and others responsible for a nearly equal share, along with the Democrats who voted for it in Congress (nearly all of them). You were for the occupation. But let me be more direct - what changed between 2004 and now? Or do you still believe the US has an obligation?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

But I do hold you and others responsible for a nearly equal share, along with the Democrats who voted for it in Congress (nearly all of them). You were for the occupation. But let me be more direct - what changed between 2004 and now? Or do you still believe the US has an obligation?

I thought it was a stupid move from the very beginning. The people who attacked us were in Afghanistan.. and across the border in Pakistan. I would have supported continued action agains the Taliban and AQ there till the job was finished.

Instead the PNAC fools set the stage for greed in going after the OIL.


The smartest thing to do would have not to have played the game in the first place ...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If I am forced to pay for something, I will take take it. My parents paid their property taxes which funded the public schools while I was in school. I am old enough to pre-date most of the federal government's involvement in education which is supposed to be a matter for the states.

That was true then, but property taxes do not directly support schools anymore. The money goes into the general fund, then comes back out.

Health care provided by taxpayers really isn't different from roads provided by taxpayers. You have people who barely use roads, and you have people who abuse roads badly. They aren't charged differently. There is a tax on gasoline that also tends to go to the general fund, but it's only a piece of the pie that supports our transportation infrastructure.

I'd be far more worried about the quality of service than of the fairness of it. You pay for a lot of government services you don't use. And there may be a few you get more than your share of. The alternative - to bill for direct utilization - is often far more expensive to implement. The current health insurance system appears to be a good example.

[rushmc 23]

Why is it that once you polute a thread it is not worth reading anymore?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Royd 0]

Quote

Instead the PNAC fools set the stage for greed in going after the OIL.

Yea, they're shipping all of the free oil home by the barrel load.

[livendive 8]

Quote

The federal (as well as state and local) governments do not pay for anything. They can't because they do not produce anything to earn money.

Rather, they take money from taxpaying citizens and spend it on an almost infinite variety of things - some good, most not!

That's what I find so sad about the current tax rebate thingamajigs being bantered around by the President and Congress. It won't be the government "giving us money." It'll be the government taking our money and then redistributing it, minus the portion they spend on administering the program. Of course they won't be taking it from just us, they'll also be "borrowing" it from our kids and grandkids...and everyone will have to pay "interest" at least equal to inflation until we have repaid the total sum *collected* (versus distributed).

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)