Originally Posted by
SteamJet
What 7-2 supreme court decision are you refering to?
If all your eggs are in the general welfare clause basket, what exactly constitutes the "general welfare of the United States"? Does it mean some citizens are entitled to live off the labor of others? If so, who, under what circumstances and to what extent? Just when did this "right" become effective? Were the politicians a hundred years ago just more "stingy" than those today? Where does the general welfare clause end? When we come to the point where "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need" is the law of the land?
You are dead wrong when you say giving to churches does not benefit non-church goers. Most churches I know do not restrict their giving to church-goers.
If you want to give all your money to PETA or whatever, fine with me. You are free to do so. I have NO RIGHT to dicate to you what you do with the fruit of YOUR labor and you have NO RIGHT to dictate what I do with MINE.
We used to have a saying in the US of A: "it's a FREE country" Sadly, that is being threatened by those who wish to exercise dominion over their fellow citizens through extra-constitutional taxation, instrusive, burdensome regulation and the naivete of its ever-growing population of well-meaning, but sadly misguided do-gooders.
You say you're not a Constitutional scholar. May I suggest a good book for you to read? Liberty and Tyrrany by Mark Levin. Maybe the most important book you'll ever read.
Helvering v. Davis is the 7-2 decision to which I was referring. And your questions about 'what exactly constitutes the "general welfare of the United States"?' and 'under what circumstances and to what extent? Just when did this "right" become effective?' are addressed therein. You and I are just going to disagree. I think you are wrong, and your referral of Mark Levin cements that for me, because he is, in my opinion, a Grade A Nutbar. I'm not dictating what you do with the 'fruit of your labor', and I'm not a 'do-gooder' (but thanks for the label).
Your point about churches is well taken. I was wrong to say that giving to churches doesn't benefit non church-goers 'at all'. But I do think that the great majority of monies given to churches goes to the churches congregation (as it should).
I just honestly hope you don't get what you want, because I truly believe if you were to get it, you wouldn't like it.