07 June 2018

"Wealth redistribution" justified


Via

7 comments:

  1. It would be nice for all citizens to read the Constitution. It would be improbable for all citizens, conservative or liberal or whatever, to agree on what the Constitution says.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In this case, we should at least be able to agree on what...
    the English says.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 2nd Amendment is written in English. Everyone agrees on what that says, no?

      Delete
  3. Bernie (and the Democrats . . . and many Republicans) have expanded that phrase to mean far more than it was intended to mean. You have to take it in the context of the rest of the Constitution. Whatever powers were not given specifically to our federal government were explicitly denied to our federal government. For example, the Constitution does not grant to our federal government the responsibility to be involved in the education of children (or anybody). Therefore, the federal government has no business in education. We could save a whole lot of money in that area alone. The same principle could be applied to our federal government giving billions of dollars in welfare money (to poor, rich, or businesses). These expenses are way outside the scope of general defense and welfare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Timothy, I understand the sentiment you are expressing, but that requires saying that health care, basic housing and other things we call "welfare" are not the components of the "general Welfare" of the country. What else would the "general Welfare" be comprised of?

      I'm saying this with zero knowledge of Constitutional law and only a rudimentary understanding of colonial history etc, but I share that ignorance with a lot of people.

      Delete
  4. What else would the "general Welfare" be comprised of?

    Oops: What else would the "general Welfare" be composed of?

    Or: What else would the "general Welfare" comprise?

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...