Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Right vs tax subsidies


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Right vs tax subsidies Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 10:18:13 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
I am not arguing they have the ability to do it Desi.

I am arguing it is not "right" according to a theory of limited government.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 10:20:40 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Since when are the federalist papers part of the constitution?
The earlier post condems govt interference in the private poverty of the citizenry but this post says that it is the govt. job to interfer in the private poverty of the citizenry.
State govt is govt.
Federal govt. is govt.
quote:

Since, um, never.

Then why quote it for validation?


Because there is no definition of the term within the Constitution?

quote:

quote:

But, they were defenses of the US Constitution,

No they were not. The federalist papers were a series of letters to the editor pimping the new constitution and why we sould vote for it. The anti federalist papers were a series of letters countering the claims made in the federalist papers.


So, letters written so people would understand what was in the Constitution (and rebutting Anti-Federalist letters) aren't a defense of the Constitution? Perhaps I should have stated they are an explanation and a defense of the merits of the Constitution, but that's semantics.

quote:

quote:

including reasoning behind what was written therein. If I asked you the definition of "general," would you go to the Constitution for that definition, or would you go to another source for that definition. There is no definition of "general" in the US Constitution, so you will have to get it elsewhere.

Is it possible that the founders had access to a dictionary and knew what general and welfare ment?
quote:

Same goes for "welfare." Mind you, the definition of a word can change over time, but the original intent is what should matter, imo. Changing the authorities and reach of government simply by changing word definitions is not the way to amend the Constitution.

Is there any meaningful evidence that would indicate that the meaning of "promote the general welfare" has changed since 1789?


http://webstersdictionary1828.com/
    quote:

    WELFARE, noun [well and fare, a good faring; G.]

    1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

    2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.


Since the phrase in the US Constitution is the "general Welfare of the United States," definition #2 would apply moreso than #1.

    quote:

    GEN'ERAL, adjective [Latin generalis, from genus, a kind.]

    1. Properly, relating to a whole genus or kind; and hence, relating to a whole class or order. Thus we speak of a general law of the animal or vegetable economy. This word, though from genus, kind, is used to express whatever is common to an order, class, kind, sort or species, or to any company or association of individuals.

    2. Comprehending many species or individuals; not special or particular; as, it is not logical to draw a general inference or conclusion from a particular fact.

    3. Lax in signification; not restrained or limited to a particular import; not specific; as a loose and general expression.

    4. Public; common; relating to or comprehending the whole community; as the general interest or safety of a nation.

    5. Common to many or the greatest number; as a general opinion; a general custom.

    6. Not directed to a single object.

    If the same thing be peculiarly evil, that general aversion will be turned into a particular hatred against it.

    7. Having a relation to all; common to the whole. Adam, our general sire.

    8. Extensive, though not universal; common; usual.

    This word is prefixed or annexed to words, to express the extent of their application. Thus a general assembly is an assembly of a whole body, in fact or by representation. In Scotland, it is the whole church convened by its representatives. In America, a legislature is sometimes called a general assembly.

    In logic, a general term is a term which is the sign of a general idea.

    An attorney general and a solicitor general is an officer who conducts suits and prosecutions for the king or for a nation or state, and whose authority is general in the state or kingdom.

    A vicar general has authority as vicar or substitute over a whole territory or jurisdiction.

    An adjutant general assists the general of an army, distributes orders, receives returns, etc.

    The word general thus annexed to a name of office, denotes chief or superior; as a commissary general quarter-master general

    In the line, a general officer is one who commands an army, a division or a brigade.


Considering the use of the phrase "general welfare" has been taken to mean individual welfare of the citizens, it's obvious there has been a change in definition.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 10:22:31 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Thewy are a defense of the views and compromises of a select few of the framers. And should be seen in the light of day as such.

They speak for themselves, not for the entire country or the group of framers.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 10:23:55 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
So, "general Welfare" would mean that the Welfare of the USA is a reason to form the Federal Government, not individual welfare of the citizens.
How is it that the welfare of the u.s.a. does not include the welfare of the citizens of the u.s.a?


Go back to The Federalist #45 section quoted. The Federal Government's authorities were to be over external things that effected the nation as whole, and to govern to the States among themselves. That is, they would be the authority in issues between the states. The States were left to the internal state of affairs.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 10:24:54 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
and there is nothing wrong with that, and that is what they do.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 10:27:56 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I am not arguing they have the ability to do it Desi.
I am arguing it is not "right" according to a theory of limited government.


Where is that right limited? Obviously, it's not within the purview of the Federal Government, but is there a State/County/City/local Government "constitution" (if that is what frames that level of government's authorities) that prevents it? The funds were being raised by "user fees," rather than direct taxation. No one could completely escape the increased sales tax, but there are benefits to being in and around an area with a local sports franchise, whether you support the system or not.




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 11:49:14 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

So, letters written so people would understand what was in the Constitution (and rebutting Anti-Federalist letters) aren't a defense of the Constitution? Perhaps I should have stated they are an explanation and a defense of the merits of the Constitution, but that's semantics.

What we have are the competing claims of two different used car salesmen. In a word yes the meaning of te words is quite important.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 11:52:00 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

Since when are the federalist papers part of the constitution?
The earlier post condems govt interference in the private poverty of the citizenry but this post says that it is the govt. job to interfer in the private poverty of the citizenry.
State govt is govt.
Federal govt. is govt.
quote:


quote:

Since, um, never.

Then why quote it for validation?

quote:

Because there is no definition of the term within the Constitution?


So we rely on an op ed piece from an old newspaper(which is what the federalist papers are)as evidence of the meaning of the constitution.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 11:56:32 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
Since the phrase in the US Constitution is the "general Welfare of the United States," definition #2 would apply moreso than #1

First it is not in the constitution. It is in the preamble.
I remember it saying "we the people". Is your copy different?
So the conclusion based on a false premis would necessarily be false also...both fucking definitions apply.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 12:01:19 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
Considering the use of the phrase "general welfare" has been taken to mean individual welfare of the citizens, it's obvious there has been a change in definition.
A definition I believe you have disagreed with on these boards...is that not so?
If it is settled business now then if we were to find any such actiions on the part of the federal govt around the time of the founding then that would be prima facia evidence of an individual entitlement to welfare from the state from the beginning.
Whaddya think the chances are of finding some?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 12:02:23 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
The chances are whatever we want them to be, as we all know.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 12:05:11 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
So, "general Welfare" would mean that the Welfare of the USA is a reason to form the Federal Government, not individual welfare of the citizens.
How is it that the welfare of the u.s.a. does not include the welfare of the citizens of the u.s.a?


Go back to The Federalist #45 section quoted. The Federal Government's authorities were to be over external things that effected the nation as whole, and to govern to the States among themselves. That is, they would be the authority in issues between the states. The States were left to the internal state of affairs.


There was a rather violent expression of the feds supremacy in internal affairs in the early 1860's.
The constitution gives congress the power to make laws...how does that limit the feds power over the individual and the states?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 12:14:30 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

There was a rather violent expression of the feds supremacy in internal affairs in the early 1860's.



Probably couched in pertaining to the 'among the several' phrase of the old sheepskin, eh?



< Message edited by mnottertail -- 9/24/2013 12:20:26 PM >


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 12:16:44 PM   
hlen5


Posts: 5890
Joined: 3/2/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Are you making a claim that hosting a pro sports franchise doesn't aid the local economy?



I'll take a piece of this......

.......Fuck sports teams. They're a private business and should get no more consideration than the local print shop.






DeS: Are you making a claim that this isn't ripping off the taxpayer?

DaS: Dingdingding!! We have a winner!!




_____________________________



My fave Thread: http://www.collarchat.com/m_2626198/mpage_1/tm.htm

One time "Phallus Expert Extraordinaire"

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 1:49:50 PM   
sloguy02246


Posts: 534
Joined: 11/5/2011
Status: offline
Simple point of reference: Check out all the available info on the Marlins new stadium, including who ultimately ended up footing the bill.
Fairly good example of why taxpayers might be somewhat leery about the supposed advantages in helping to build a new professional sports stadium.

Here's a start:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-passan_marlins_sec_stadium_malfeasance_120211
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/sports/football/miami-dolphins-stadium-refurbishment-plan-is-threatened.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

(in reply to hlen5)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 3:51:14 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I am not arguing they have the ability to do it Desi.
I am arguing it is not "right" according to a theory of limited government.


Where is that right limited? Obviously, it's not within the purview of the Federal Government, but is there a State/County/City/local Government "constitution" (if that is what frames that level of government's authorities) that prevents it? The funds were being raised by "user fees," rather than direct taxation. No one could completely escape the increased sales tax, but there are benefits to being in and around an area with a local sports franchise, whether you support the system or not.






I think you forget my original post Desi.

I object to a federal anti-trust exemption for NFL owners.
I object to the NFL being treated as the same as a charity for tax purposes.
In general, I vehemently object that billionaires (by and large) are receiving tax preferred status.

Regarding local issues, you are correct. Each communicty can do as they wish. But I would still advance that good governance suggests a LONG hard look at any stadium deal.

I don't think there is one in the last 10 years that meets any kind of reasonable scrutiny.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 3:52:46 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
The federalist papers were and are brilliant. I wish they were required reading in elementary school.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 6:41:57 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

The federalist papers were and are brilliant. I wish they were required reading in elementary school.

And again in High school where a new level of understanding will be attained and a third time in the second or third year of college for the same reason.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 7:37:38 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, you, too, think that a sports franchise doesn't aid the local economy?

So you think our country should go broke and that everyone should starve to death?

I didn't need any examples, but thanks. I can, quite easily, recognize those questions.

than why do you keep using those dishonest questions?


I don't.


So you think discussions shouldn't be intellectually honest?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Right vs tax subsidies - 9/24/2013 7:55:20 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

The federalist papers were and are brilliant. I wish they were required reading in elementary school.

And again in High school where a new level of understanding will be attained and a third time in the second or third year of college for the same reason.


Amen. There are times in the reading they literally take my breath away - for the brilliance of the ideas, or the power of the prose.

I do not understand how people denigrate the constitution or the thinking of the founders. And it is, imo all the more remarkable as we were considered a backwards colony.



(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Right vs tax subsidies Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094