More Chat about Originalism, Constitutionalism and German Liberalism

[tufsu1]

thank you for splitting the threads!

[finehoe]

Um...Article I, Section 8.  

Hmm, no mention of federal assistance to disabled veterans, widows and orphans of veterans, the poor in the District of Columbia, subjugated Indians, merchant marines, yet all occurred while the founders were still alive.  What am I missing?

[NotNow]

What I posted was "veterans, widows of veterans, and other Federal matters".  That is authorized by the power to build and maintain a Navy and regulation of land and Naval forces.  That would be retirement and survivors benefits.  The Constitution also grants the Congress the power to legislate "exclusively and in all cases" over what would become Washington D. C. and future Federal reservations.  Indian nations were, to the best of my knowledge, dealt with as a foreign nation and agreements were reduced to treaties. 

It is common knowledge that the modern version of "American welfare" began with the misery of the Great Depression.  What are you missing?

[NotNow]

President Jefferson Authorized and paid for the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon, Notnow.  This was contrary to everything that the antifederalists (of which party he had been a member) believed or preached.

Tell me, NN, do you believe that the Feds have an interest in building the Interstates or the Nations Ports?  You seem to believe in National Security.

Both of these activities, if challenged, could have been found to be unconstitutional, especially the Louisiana purchase.  Heck, even Jefferson thought it was unconstitutional.  But the danger of French influence on the Mississippi and in New Orleans along with Spanish objections prevented any challenge. 

The Interstate system was as much a Defense program as anything else and funding could have been transferred to the Department of Defense if need be.  A case for interstate commerce could also be made for this copy of the German Autobahn system.  Like many questionable actions by our Federal government, the state of the world at the time had a great effect on correct interpretation of our Constitution. 

[uptowngirl]

What I posted was "veterans, widows of veterans, and other Federal matters".  That is authorized by the power to build and maintain a Navy and regulation of land and Naval forces.  That would be retirement and survivors benefits.  The Constitution also grants the Congress the power to legislate "exclusively and in all cases" over what would become Washington D. C. and future Federal reservations.  Indian nations were, to the best of my knowledge, dealt with as a foreign nation and agreements were reduced to treaties. 

It is common knowledge that the modern version of "American welfare" began with the misery of the Great Depression.  What are you missing?

You are correct. And again- the form of welfare was jobs. People went to work, did not sit around and get paid for nothing.

while I am not too happy about corporate welfare either, at least they put people to work (similar to the original idea of welfare). Think about it, in the 30's the government funded public works projects to put put the populace back to work, pay their bills, feed their families all while being productive citizens. With the bail outs we see the same thing, people got to keep their jobs, work, pay their bills, feed their families and be productive citizens. The only two differences were these were publicly traded companies, and they had to pay the money back.

[Garden guy]

There should be no such thing as "corporate welfare"...its a rediculous idea...it's the ass kissing of our government to these monsters that have put us where we are....the money has got to stop

[buckethead]

The solutions you offer involve putting democrats in control of legislative funding.

They won't offer any quarter for big money interests... will they?

A more reasonable solution is to alter the tax code.

A uniform tax on consumption would eliminate the legislated advantage these big money interests currently enjoy.

I have'nt seen a lib here who thinks the middle class and the poor aren't paying all the taxes already (and it's true), so why the fuss? Let's make it transparent.

fairtax.org

[FayeforCure]

The solutions you offer involve putting democrats in control of legislative funding.

They won't offer any quarter for big money interests... will they?

A more reasonable solution is to alter the tax code.

A uniform tax on consumption would eliminate the legislated advantage these big money interests currently enjoy.

I have'nt seen a lib here who thinks the middle class and the poor aren't paying all the taxes already (and it's true), so why the fuss? Let's make it transparent.

fairtax.org

Buckethead, I have enjoyed many of your comments in the past week. I am however sorry to inform you that Reaganite Bruce Bartlett, a strong supporter of supply-side economics, has rejected the mis-named fair tax nonsense that was dreamed up by a radio personality and a dentist.

Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.

BTW, I'm a proud liberal now because I believe in LIBERTY and Justice for all.

Your point about "the middle class and the poor paying all the taxes already" will only become worse, as that mis-named fair tax is highly regressive in nature ie will make the poor and the middle class pay even more than they already are.

What's foul about the FairTax
By Bruce Bartlett | January 5, 2008

FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR Mike Huckabee's rise to the top tier of Republican
presidential candidates is one of the major stories of this election cycle. Although his strong
support among evangelical Christians is a factor in his rise, Huckabee has also benefited from the
backing of a small but intense group of people favoring abolition of the federal tax system and its
replacement by a 23 percent national retail sales tax known as the FairTax.
The states would be required to collect this new tax, thus allowing for abolition of the Internal
Revenue Service. To prevent poor and middle-class people from being overly burdened,
Americans would be sent monthly checks as a partial rebate of the tax.
Unfortunately, like all things in life that are too good to be true, so is this one. Here are a few
problems with the FairTax.

true rate.

When people hear about a 23 percent national sales tax, they naturally equate it to the
state sales taxes they are familiar with. If a state sales tax is 5 percent, then this means that if
someone buys something for $1 they will pay $1.05 at the checkout. Thus they assume that the
FairTax would cause a $1 product to cost $1.23 if it were to be enacted.
In fact, the rate is not 23 percent, but 30 percent. The 23 percent rate is arrived at by treating the
tax as if it were already part of the price instead of being on top. Thus if a product were to sell for
$1 and the FairTax added 30 percent, the 30-cent tax comes to 23 percent of $1.30. This is how
a 30 percent rate is deceptively turned into a 23 percent rate.
Governments must also pay. The FairTax would apply to all government purchases at every
level. Only education spending is exempted.
States would have to pay 30 percent more on every highway and bridge they build, local
governments would have to pay 30 percent more for police and fire protection, and even the
federal government would have to pay the tax to itself when it buys weapons and ammunition for
troops.
Taxes would have to be increased at the state and local level to pay the FairTax to the federal
government. The FairTax rate would also have to be higher to pay for the additional federal
spending it will require. However, FairTax supporters exclude this higher spending from their
calculations. The 23 percent rate is designed only to be revenue-neutral, not spending neutral.
Thus the federal deficit would either rise by more than $200 billion per year or spending would
have to be cut by this much.


Rebate problems.

The FairTax rebate would also add $600 billion to federal spending annually.
Although its supporters say it is just like the one we get when our tax withholding exceeds the
taxes we pay on our tax returns, the FairTax rebate is more like Social Security because it comes
in a monthly check.
Although FairTax supporters tout the generosity of the rebate, it is extremely modest because it is
based on the poverty level income - a figure that bears no relationship to the actual cost of living.
As a consequence of the way the poverty rate is calculated, childless couples would get a
monthly rebate of $391 per month, but a single mother with two children would only get $329 per
month.

Prices will rise.

Finally, FairTax supporters assume away many of the problems with their plan
by asserting that prices will fall by 22 percent once all income taxes are abolished. Prices at the
checkout would be about the same with the FairTax as they are now, they say, but everyone
would come out ahead because their net wage will now equal their gross wage.
If this were so, it's hard to see why the rebate is needed, since there seems to be only winners
and no losers under the FairTax. In reality, for prices to fall by 22 percent, business costs would
also have to fall by 22 percent, which means that all workers would have to take a 22 percent pay
cut.
It's unlikely that workers would agree to this. It is far more likely that the FairTax will raise the
price of everything by 30 percent. This has been the case in every country and every state with a
sales tax. The idea that prices will fall is just a pipe dream.

The FairTax is unworkable. It is a fantasy to think otherwise.


Bruce Bartlett was deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy from 1988 to
1993.

http://people.richland.edu/bhemenwa/article_fairtax.pdf

What do you expect from something that was dreamed up by a radio personality and a dentist.

As you know, the Glenn Becks of this world can accumulate quite a following spouting so many lies that even FOX had to remove him!!!!!

[uptowngirl]

There should be no such thing as "corporate welfare"...its a rediculous idea...it's the ass kissing of our government to these monsters that have put us where we are....the money has got to stop

On the flip side hundreds of thousands jobs would of been lost, and at least these corps paid their loans back. It is not really welfare when the money is paid back. How often does that occur in the social welfare offerred today?

[FayeforCure]

http://www.boisestate.edu/socwork/dhuff/us/chapters/Chapter%203.htm

POLICIES FOR THE INDIGENT

While most Americans struggled to maintain a subsistence standard of living, extreme poverty became more common.  The war of 1812 gave an impetus to industrial development, creating new industries in cities and small towns, but after the war of 1812 and the wars in Europe ended, the American economy suffered a serious downturn.  The first major American depression (1816) brought hard times to most American cities.  Relief programs were swamped and soup kitchens sprang up in all the urban areas.  New York City officials estimated that more than 20 percent of the population was receiving some form of assistance.  Periodic economic depressions became a feature of the nation’s economy.  Not only did thousands of urban Americans find themselves periodically forced to depend of relief, thousands of small businessmen and farmers found themselves in debtors’ prison.   In 1830 there were more than ten thousand people incarcerated in New York City’s debtors’ prison, this at a time when the total population of the city was less than 150 thousand souls.  More than half were there for debts of less than 25 dollars.  

Taxes soared.  Cities found it difficult to maintain programs for both the indigent and for the unemployed workers.  Critics of charity claimed that the benevolent impulses of do-gooders were creating a permanent class of paupers, and officials began making a distinction between “the poor” and “paupers”.  The poor included the majority of city dwellers whenever times turned bad; paupers were people who had descended into a lifestyle of poverty and were permanently dependent on charity.  City leaders, who were mostly responsible for the very poor, searched for ways to control their growth.  Committees were created to investigate.

By the 1820s two schools of thought had emerged.  One school pointed the finger of blame at the individual behaviors of the very poor.   One committee claimed to have found that a majority of the poor had “fallen on evil ways”.  A second school viewed economic conditions as the root of the problem.  This systemic theory enjoyed enough popularity that, in 1817, the U.S. congress passed a bill creating funds for public works projects.

Well yeah, of course all those people that have been laid off since 2007 "have fallen on evil ways."  

You would think that a recession would snap people out of their "sitting in judgement of others," like it did in the 1930, when we were smart enough to help create demand in our economy, by helping the needy.

We also instituted the Glass-Steagall act to prevent the banking abuses of that depression from occuring again. Unfortunately Clinton did not veto the Republican dreamed up idea of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act and that set in motion the very questionable derivatives, CDO speculative bubble that caused our current crash.

It's the bankers that caused our crash, but they were too big to fail, so the tax payer had to bail them out.

The tax payer was docked twice for the failures of our banking system: once through the real estate crash, and again for the bank bail-outs.

The only reason the banks paid back the bail-outs is they didn't want the government to tell them they couldn't give out bonuses anymore.

It's the LAZY bankers who don't want to make money the old fashioned way: hard work!!!

Speculation is so much easier than traditional banking: taking in deposits and using bonafide lending practices to make some money off the deposits.

It is speculation too that is driving our current $4 per gallon gas prices.

But Republicans rather get fixated on the small stuff...........the few LAZY people who might be abusing a "welfare" system that doesn't even exist but in the imagination of Republicans themselves.

Of course someone like uptowngirl thinks her neighbor is abusing the system (as if she lives in a lower class neighborhood)...........it's that paranoia that drives the Glenn Beck types.

[BridgeTroll]

Blah blah blah...

We also instituted the Glass-Steagall act to prevent the banking abuses of that depression from occuring again. Unfortunately Clinton did not veto the Republican dreamed up idea of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act and that set in motion the very questionable derivatives, CDO speculative bubble that caused our current crash.

The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90â€"8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362â€"57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

[uptowngirl]

Faye do you know my neighbor? Nope. And that is just one of them, I have several other examples up and down the street. I don't live in St, Johns county LOL. Perhaps because I am surrounded by it daily I have a different perspective than someone sitting down in St, Johns county whining about why the tax payers will not pay for her daughters' $500 IUD. I think if you brought that complaint up here into my neighborhood, you would have to be pretty careful- I mean I have a neighbor down the street that is 87 yrs old and disabled, she cannot work (for real) and had been eating just beans for two months, but now gets fresh veggies, fruit, and eggs from my own yard. Yet my other neighbor collects welfare, which feeds an entire family (including her adult brother and children who do not work) for years and years all the while cleaning houses for cash. I have another neighbor down from me who also collects welfare and feeds and houses her grown brothers and nephews who also do not work (well, they sell drugs for cash). You extreme libs crack me up sitting out in the burbs lecturing everyone about topics they do not understand nor deal with on a day to day basis.

[FayeforCure]

There should be no such thing as "corporate welfare"...its a rediculous idea...it's the ass kissing of our government to these monsters that have put us where we are....the money has got to stop

On the flip side hundreds of thousands jobs would of been lost, and at least these corps paid their loans back. It is not really welfare when the money is paid back. How often does that occur in the social welfare offerred today?

Well Rick Scott paying back his social welfare would be absolutely peanuts to him paying back the money he stole from our senior citizens through corporate welfare, now wouldn't it!

THAT has been the whole point of this thread.

It's BAD when a person falling on hard times gets some government assistence, but it is A OK for corporations to get government welfare and then dodge paying their taxes when they are profitable again!!

Please look at this from a cost/benefit point of view.

Our current deficit is due to the fact that the middle class has been bled to death.............we cannot squeezet any more revenue out of people that have been laid off.

But we can definitely get money out of companies that are sitting on a ton of cash, that they still owe our treasury in current and back taxes through their practice of tax dodging that european countries don't tolerate:

Companies Sitting on Cash, But Not Hiring
By Annie Lowrey | 07.15.10 | 1:04 pm View Comments Share37Companies are back to profitability â€" in part because of the massive layoffs of the past two years. But they are not back to hiring yet, instead holding onto cash and waiting for a stronger recovery, Jia Lynn Yang writes in today’s Washington Post:

Nonfinancial companies are sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash, roughly one-quarter more than at the beginning of the recession. And as several major firms report impressive earnings this week, the money continues to flow into firms’ coffers.
Yet all the good news from big business hasn’t translated into much promise for jobless Americans, leading many to wonder: If corporations are sitting on so much money, why aren’t they hiring more workers?

The answer to that question has become a political flash point between the White House and big business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which held a jobs summit Wednesday and accused the Obama administration of dumping onerous regulations on businesses. That has created an environment of “uncertainty,” which is causing firms to hold back on hiring as the unemployment rate has hovered near 10 percent, the Chamber said.

I’ll have more on the debate over whether the jobless recovery is due to regulations, lack of demand or an uncertain business outlook later. But for now, I think this chart from Larry Mishel at the Economic Policy Institute shows the rising tide for businesses but the continued hard times for workers better than any other I have seen:

This is where Republicans will shrug their shoulders and say "well, so what?..........what can we do about it?"

Yet they will continue their knee jerk bickering about their neighbor who supposedly gets government assistance whether it is true or not.

More Profits, Fewer Jobs
Why record corporate profits aren't necessarily good for the economy.
By Annie Lowrey
Posted Monday, March 28, 2011, at 6:58 PM ET
On Friday the federal government released the latest chapter of a year-old economic mystery: If you're a corporation, the economy is great. If you're a worker, the economy is still pretty horrible. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, real corporate profits neared an all-time high in the last three months of 2010, with companies raking in an annualized $1.68 trillion in pre-tax operating profits. (After tax, that comes to $1.25 trillion, about equal to the GDP of India.) The Federal Reserve estimates that companies are sitting on about $1.9 trillion. At the same time, unemployment remains at 8.9 percent, and job growth is still anemic.

How can the corporate economy be so profitable while the jobs economy remains so weak? Part of the answer lies in improved productivity. When the recession hit, businesses fired millions of workers then asked the rest to make up the differenceâ€"and, in many cases, they did. Productivity increased 3.9 percent in 2010, while labor costs fell. To simplify: Businesses paid fewer workers to do more. In addition, big corporations found customers overseas. Americans might not be ready to spend just yet, but consumers in Asia and elsewhere areâ€"exports climbed 21 percent to $1.28 trillion in 2010.

It also helps to look at which companies are really raking it in. For most of 2009 and 2010, a range of U.S. corporations saw post-recession rebounds in profits. The manufacturing sector, for instance, made about $140 billion in annualized profits in the second quarter of 2009, a recession-era low. Last quarter, it made about $241 billion. Similarly, auto manufacturers lost about $50 billion in the last quarter of 2008. Today, the sector is breaking even.

Advertisement

But in the last quarter of 2010, the story was all about Wall Street. Profits actually decreased a bit at nonfinancial firms. But companies like investment banks and insurers saw profits climb to an annualized $426.5 billion. The financial sector now accounts for about 30 percent of the economy's overall operating profits.

But they won't pay their TAXES!!!!

[FayeforCure]

Faye do you know my neighbor? Nope. And that is just one of them, I have several other examples up and down the street. I don't live in St, Johns county LOL. Perhaps because I am surrounded by it daily I have a different perspective than someone sitting down in St, Johns county whining about why the tax payers will not pay for her daughters' $500 IUD. I think if you brought that complaint up here into my neighborhood, you would have to be pretty careful- I mean I have a neighbor down the street that is 87 yrs old and disabled, she cannot work (for real) and had been eating just beans for two months, but now gets fresh veggies, fruit, and eggs from my own yard. Yet my other neighbor collects welfare, which feeds an entire family (including her adult brother and children who do not work) for years and years all the while cleaning houses for cash. I have another neighbor down from me who also collects welfare and feeds and houses her grown brothers and nephews who also do not work (well, they sell drugs for cash). You extreme libs crack me up sitting out in the burbs lecturing everyone about topics they do not understand nor deal with on a day to day basis.

Which one of your houses are you talking about uptowngirl?

And who babysat your baby when you became a teenage single mother? How did you pay for living expenses and go to school on minimim wage then?

[FayeforCure]

Blah blah blah...

We also instituted the Glass-Steagall act to prevent the banking abuses of that depression from occuring again. Unfortunately Clinton did not veto the Republican dreamed up idea of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act and that set in motion the very questionable derivatives, CDO speculative bubble that caused our current crash.

The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90â€"8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362â€"57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

Do do you realize you just confirmed what I said? It is also unfortunate that we have so many Blue Dog Dems that go along with whatever the Republicans dream up.