Originally Posted by vessbot

Ah, the nightmarish hellscape of first world countries where you can have a health problem without going bankrupt...

Originally Posted by FXLAX

Interstate roads and military, yes (along with other things. But article I section 8 (enumerated powers clause) only lists eighteen things congress has power to do. None of them say ANYTHING about schools or education. Education along with everything not mentioned in the enumerated powers clause and not prohibited by the constitution belongs to the states and the people. (10th amendment)

Originally Posted by contrails12

“General welfare”

Originally Posted by Bluesideup1

You know that every large country that has ever existed has had a military, schools and roads paid for by the taxpayers right? Do you think every country from a dictatorship in the congo that provides all of those services to Communist China that provides all of those services are Socialist countries?

This is just as stupid as saying that because I can buy a loaf of bread from a convenience store in Iran that they are capitalists.

The difference is spelled out in the Constitution that we live under and the beliefs and values that this Country was founded on. We came to an agreement that the government should be limited in its capacity to things like roads, Military and schools.

This comes from being oppressed by a King that tried to control every aspect of our lives so our founders in their great wisdom wanted a limited government so as not to grow so large that the government can once again control every aspect of our lives.

You morons that advocate for socialism have never been to a country that has had socialism or are too stupid to understand what happens when a country becomes a socialist country. People like you were all gaga 15 years over how Venezuela was the best. It had socialized health care, free college, free housing, work programs, etc. All the socialist garbage that the college professors keep prophesying as the perfect utopia. Venezuela had actors and politician swooning over how that country was the perfect model of how a country should be run.

Now these same people just ignore or say that wasn't socialism but everywhere socialism has been tried in large countries it has failed. Yet every 20 years a new crop of people come out saying how much better it would be if we were all equal and that we should give all our money to a government that cares nothing for the people and only for the power.

Originally Posted by FXLAX

General welfare doesn’t mean what the big government types think it means. If you believe it means that Congress can pass any law that they think is in the general welfare of the country or the people, then you are not understanding history correctly or are ignorant of it. The fact that the authors of the constitution explicitly wrote a list of things that congress can do should be proof enough that they meant to restrict the power of the federal government. You have to remember that this was written at a time where the monarchy essentially had limitless powers. They didn’t like that so much.

Plus, the phrase general welfare is in a section that applies to the power of congress to tax the people in order to pay debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare. Just because it says those two words, doesn’t mean that the rest of the constitution, the enumerated powers clause in this instance, doesn’t apply. So yes, congress can provide for the general welfare so far as the rest of the constitution allows them to.

If none of this is true, there wouldn’t be a need for the 10th amendment.

Originally Posted by contrails12

Mr. Hamilton and several Supreme Court rulings would somewhat disagree with you. That’s why, as much as you don’t want it to be so, things like EPA and Dept of Education aren’t ruled unconstitutional

Originally Posted by FXLAX

You do know that if the income tax was made unconstitutional again, no state or municipality would be able to institute it, right? The 16th amendment certainly has EVERYTHING to do with it!

The 16th amendment made it constitutional not just for the federal government, but for all governments to institute it. Supremacy clause

Anyway, there is a vehicle currently being promoted to do just such a thing. Convention of States Action. It’s all in article V.

Originally Posted by ShyGuy

While an unpopular view, I have a problem with SS. The entire premise that you can guarantee social security for me 30+ years from now by making me pay 100% for people retired today is absolutely ridiculous. The math won’t work in the long term. You have to make huge assumptions about the future work force, their population, their salaries, and then be entirely reliant on that. The better way to do it would be to take 50% of your money for current retirees but the other 50% of your money be put in a retirement fund for you, consisting of your choice of mutual funds, bonds, stocks, etc. and let that provide for you. Paying 6.2% of your salary (to $133k) to current retirees and then just assuming you’ll get yours 30+ years from now based on those people working, good luck. I’d MUCH rather hold that 6.2% into a mutual fund that I know will work for me over 30 years. If the idea really is to provide financial security for when we retire, we should be in control of our money. Not the government.

Originally Posted by contrails12

Mr. Hamilton and several Supreme Court rulings would somewhat disagree with you. That’s why, as much as you don’t want it to be so, things like EPA and Dept of Education aren’t ruled unconstitutional

Originally Posted by Baradium

That is patently false. Remember the part of the constitution where powers not granted to the federal government remain with the states? The federal government being allowed to do something does not automatically mean that states only can do it because of the federal government.

https://www.forbes.com/2010/04/14/ta...l#13dbddc01cf8

https://www.history.com/news/why-we-pay-taxes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...tes#Income_tax