Hottest Year Ever????

You said the founders put it into the constitution....I asked which article....I can't help but notice that you did not link to the constitution.


Sorry. I should know better the to expect people to actually read the articles I post, and thus gain some understanding.

While there is no direct reference to education in the Constitution the Federal government established the education system under the General Welfare clause:

"During the first century of our new nation, Congress granted more than 77 million acres of the public domain as an endowment for the support of public schools through tracts ceded to the states. In 1841, Congress passed an act that granted 500,000 acres to eight states and later increased land grants to a total of 19 states. The federal government also granted money, such as distributions of surplus federal revenue and reimbursements for war expenses, to states. Though Congress rarely prescribed that such funds be used only for schools, education continued to be one of the largest expenses of state and local governments so the states used federal funds whenever possible for education"
 
Werbung:
So they didn't put government schools in the constitution....that's what I thought...they made some land grants, and didn't say that federal monies be earmarked for government schools.

What you should know better than is to make statements that you can't support....

As I said, education was a state issue....and began failing when the fed took over....and the founders did not put government schools in the constitution. I don't see where anything in your link that supports your claim that " Founding Father thought important enough that it should be thus they even put it into the Constitution."

And the mention of "general welfare" in no way suggested government schools....state or federal. The constitution clearly defines the two major functions of government...ie the general welfare...they were....ensuring justice, personal freedom, and a free society where individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers and criminals, and; (2) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.

James Madison stated that the general welfare clause was not intended to give Congress a free hand to “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If the general welfare clause had been intended to be an open purse for congress to spend on whatever crackpot scheme they could concoct, then the founders would have had no need to list the specific powers of congress, which, by the way also don't mention education...they do mention establishing courts, and maintaining armed forces....nor is government funded education mentioned anywhere in the federalist papers which were an explanation to the people of what the constitution was, and was not, what it included, and its purpose, scope and jurisdiction.
 
So they didn't put government schools in the constitution....that's what I thought...they made some land grants, and didn't say that federal monies be earmarked for government schools.

What you should know better than is to make statements that you can't support....

As I said, education was a state issue....and began failing when the fed took over....and the founders did not put government schools in the constitution. I don't see where anything in your link that supports your claim that " Founding Father thought important enough that it should be thus they even put it into the Constitution."

And the mention of "general welfare" in no way suggested government schools....state or federal. The constitution clearly defines the two major functions of government...ie the general welfare...they were....ensuring justice, personal freedom, and a free society where individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers and criminals, and; (2) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.

James Madison stated that the general welfare clause was not intended to give Congress a free hand to “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If the general welfare clause had been intended to be an open purse for congress to spend on whatever crackpot scheme they could concoct, then the founders would have had no need to list the specific powers of congress, which, by the way also don't mention education...they do mention establishing courts, and maintaining armed forces....nor is government funded education mentioned anywhere in the federalist papers which were an explanation to the people of what the constitution was, and was not, what it included, and its purpose, scope and jurisdiction.

While you are correct in that the Constitution does not directly address public education, and that the General Welfare clause is limited, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, Webster, among others, believed that a basic education was instrumental to securing “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” and it enabled the American individual to “understand his duties” and “know his rights.” When the people are taught reading and history, they can then follow the news, and judge the best way to vote. An educated citizenry is best equipped to express themselves adequately to fight the tyranny of government. By providing equal access to primary schools, Jefferson hoped to teach children “to work out their own greatest happiness".

Jefferson supported the idea of public education, however, as you say, he would not have placed schools under direct government supervision. And while the government of Jefferson did provide support for the fledgling school system, he argued for the placement of “each school at once under the care of those most interested in its conduct.” He would put parents in charge:

"But if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by…[any] general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience.… No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to."

Taxpayers were to provide the resources for public education (general welfare clause), and the community, and parents, would arrange the schooling. Unfortuantely the parents of today have acquiesced that authority, just as the people have given much of their authority to the government, and to fill the void left parties that have little interest in the good of the country as a whole have taken their place.
 
While you are correct in that the Constitution does not directly address public education, and that the General Welfare clause is limited, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, Webster, among others, believed that a basic education was instrumental to securing “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” and it enabled the American individual to “understand his duties” and “know his rights.” When the people are taught reading and history, they can then follow the news, and judge the best way to vote. An educated citizenry is best equipped to express themselves adequately to fight the tyranny of government. By providing equal access to primary schools, Jefferson hoped to teach children “to work out their own greatest happiness".

And Jefferson knew that the greatest happiness came from doing for yourself...making your own way.....putting your freedom to use and being free...not being a slave to, or dependent in any way on government largess....if those founders could see the US today, they would be disgusted....the transgressions of king george would have been mere inconveniences compared to the intrusion into our lives that government now represents.

Taxpayers were to provide the resources for public education (general welfare clause), and the community, and parents, would arrange the schooling. Unfortuantely the parents of today have acquiesced that authority, just as the people have given much of their authority to the government, and to fill the void left parties that have little interest in the good of the country as a whole have taken their place.

Again, state taxes...not federal....if you wonder what to do about parents acquiescing authority...simply ask yourself what Jefferson, or any of the founders might have suggested....all one need do is look at the attitude towards crime and punishment, and personal responsibility at that time to see what the founders would recommend. Draconian, yes...but some times it takes such measures to wake people up.
 
And Jefferson knew that the greatest happiness came from doing for yourself...making your own way.....putting your freedom to use and being free...not being a slave to, or dependent in any way on government largess....if those founders could see the US today, they would be disgusted....the transgressions of king george would have been mere inconveniences compared to the intrusion into our lives that government now represents.

On that I agree.

Again, state taxes...not federal....if you wonder what to do about parents acquiescing authority...simply ask yourself what Jefferson, or any of the founders might have suggested....all one need do is look at the attitude towards crime and punishment, and personal responsibility at that time to see what the founders would recommend. Draconian, yes...but some times it takes such measures to wake people up.

Not State taxes since most States had an inadequate tax system in place. The millions of acres given by the Fed helped to establish a base for property taxes to support the school system. And local funds provided for the rest.

The parents turning over control to the government is not a crime, and thus even Jefferson would have done nothing to prevent the transfer save for chastising the people.
 
Not State taxes since most States had an inadequate tax system in place. The millions of acres given by the Fed helped to establish a base for property taxes to support the school system. And local funds provided for the rest.

The fed gave states land that they already owned? The fed only owned three types of land...territories, enclaves, and something called other property...Territories were lands held by the fed but not yet states...enclaves were land that where within a state used for forts, magazines, arsenals and dock yards....other property was land held for enumerated purposes which placed tight restrictions and limited discretion in the possession of land.

The parents turning over control to the government is not a crime, and thus even Jefferson would have done nothing to prevent the transfer save for chastising the people.

Part of freedom is the freedom to be an abject failure and to let your children become abject failures....the welfare system in the days of our founders amounted to whatever your neighbors were willing to give you as they believed they had no authority to confiscate the fruits of your labor to give to someone else.....and refusing to be responsible for one's children can be termed neglect....which is a punishable crime.
 
The fed gave states land that they already owned? The fed only owned three types of land...territories, enclaves, and something called other property...Territories were lands held by the fed but not yet states...enclaves were land that where within a state used for forts, magazines, arsenals and dock yards....other property was land held for enumerated purposes which placed tight restrictions and limited discretion in the possession of land.

What land did the States own prior to the federal government establishing the boundaries for the States? Are you trying to say that the Fed did not own the forts, the garrisons, etc., established by the Fed? National Parks are not owned by the Fed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Ordinance_of_1785

Part of freedom is the freedom to be an abject failure and to let your children become abject failures....the welfare system in the days of our founders amounted to whatever your neighbors were willing to give you as they believed they had no authority to confiscate the fruits of your labor to give to someone else.....and refusing to be responsible for one's children can be termed neglect....which is a punishable crime.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.
 
What land did the States own prior to the federal government establishing the boundaries for the States? Are you trying to say that the Fed did not own the forts, the garrisons, etc., established by the Fed? National Parks are not owned by the Fed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Ordinance_of_1785

Did you ever look at a map of the original 13 colonies? Tell me, how did the boundaries change when they became states instead of colonies? Other than the state of Georgia, they remained identical. The boundaries of the colonies had long been established and there were no significant changes when the war was over and the business of building the nation began.

And I said that the fed did own enclaves which included federal forts, arsenals, magazines, etc.

And yes, national parks are owned by the fed, but the poor state in which they sit, and the restrictions of commerce within their boundaries speaks nearly precisely to the complain that Jefferson had to Madison in the letter you reference...how many jobs has the fed killed over the years...how many people have been put out of work by the fed refusing to allow any commerce on those lands?



http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.[/QUOTE]

So which part of that do you want to claim was enacted into law by the constitution? He was talking about property being held by royalty and petit royalty....we have no such arrangement here....the bulk of property is held in private hands which is precisely what he was saying should happen...it is no reflection on the state of property ownership in this country today....if anything, the laws which restrict commerce on federal lands are a call back to the state of affairs that Jefferson was describing in europe. How many jobs would the simple cleanup of national forests provide and how many acres of timber would be saved from fire every year if national forest land were not choked with underbrush?

None of that statement above was directed towards taxation...or the redistribution of the earnings of one individual to another individual who earned less...The conversation was restricted to the state of ownership of near entire nations by the sovereign, his family, and those he saw fit to benefit with title and land. It certainly didn't speak to a free people...and the freedom to succeed or fail without the benefit of largess from the government.....or the very real neglect that could be charged by relinquishing one's responsibility to one's children to government.
 
Last edited:
Did you ever look at a map of the original 13 colonies? Tell me, how did the boundaries change when they became states instead of colonies? Other than the state of Georgia, they remained identical. The boundaries of the colonies had long been established and there were no significant changes when the war was over and the business of building the nation began.

Didn't know that was part of the discussion. Priot to the land being declared a State, it was owned, and controlled, by the fed.

And yes, national parks are owned by the fed, but the poor state in which they sit, and the restrictions of commerce within their boundaries speaks nearly precisely to the complain that Jefferson had to Madison in the letter you reference...how many jobs has the fed killed over the years...how many people have been put out of work by the fed refusing to allow any commerce on those lands?

The purpose of the National Parks is to preserve some land in its original condition. No jobs have been lost because the land is held in reserve. The question you need to ask yourself is how many jobs have been lost because of the hoarding of massive acres by the few. That was what Jefferson was referring to if you had read the entirety of the letter.

"This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe. The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards."

So which part of that do you want to claim was enacted into law by the constitution? He was talking about property being held by royalty and petit royalty....we have no such arrangement here....the bulk of property is held in private hands which is precisely what he was saying should happen...it is no reflection on the state of property ownership in this country today....if anything, the laws which restrict commerce on federal lands are a call back to the state of affairs that Jefferson was describing in europe. How many jobs would the simple cleanup of national forests provide and how many acres of timber would be saved from fire every year if national forest land were not choked with underbrush?

The bulk of the land is held in the hands of the few, not the many. I agree with you that the management of the forests makes no sense just as I would argue that the selling of our timber to China while shutting down sawmills here makes no sense. Very little of what government does makes any sense, and even less sense can be made of private industry that ships the jobs out of country, along with the profits from such industries, strictly to support other economies while they destroy the American economy. China now has more billionaires then the US, has trillions of dollars in reserve, and is enlarging its military to challenge ours. And yet private industry continues to fund this actions, and the so-called "government" we have allows it to occur.

None of that statement above was directed towards taxation...or the redistribution of the earnings of one individual to another individual who earned less...The conversation was restricted to the state of ownership of near entire nations by the sovereign, his family, and those he saw fit to benefit with title and land. It certainly didn't speak to a free people...and the freedom to succeed or fail without the benefit of largess from the government.....or the very real neglect that could be charged by relinquishing one's responsibility to one's children to government.

Again, you did not actually read the letter.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state."

In yet another letter you might want to read, Jefferson said this:

"We are all the more reconciled to the tax on importations, because it falls exclusively on the rich, and with the equal partition of intestate's estates, constitutes the best agrarian law.. Our revenues once liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., and the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spare a cent from his earnings."
--Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. ME 13:41

As I have said before, people really have no concept of what the Founders expected from what they had created.
 
As I have said before, people really have no concept of what the Founders expected from what they had created.

You should include yourself in that number...if you really want to know what the founders expected from what they created, they went into great detail with their writing of the federalist papers....actual descriptions of what they wanted, and hoped rather than private conversations between individuals as you are want to post....try finding any of the sentiments your letters express in either the Constitution or the Federalist Papers....not there. Private letters are one thing...public writings and the constitution itself are quite another. They are what the founders hoped for incarnate....as their hopes were actually translated into law.
 
You should include yourself in that number...if you really want to know what the founders expected from what they created, they went into great detail with their writing of the federalist papers....actual descriptions of what they wanted, and hoped rather than private conversations between individuals as you are want to post....try finding any of the sentiments your letters express in either the Constitution or the Federalist Papers....not there. Private letters are one thing...public writings and the constitution itself are quite another. They are what the founders hoped for incarnate....as their hopes were actually translated into law.


Actually you are wrong again. The Constitution, prior to the passing of the 16th. Amendment, limited the taxing to “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”. These "taxes, duties, imposts, and excises" were imposed mainly on the wealthy as Jefferson, and others, desired as their "private letters" suggested. Even after the 16th. was passed this tradition continued with a 90% tax on the wealthy until Kennedy, and later Reagan, and Bush 43, changed that pattern. Then too, do you know what a "war tax" is, or one could say was? The major source of revenue for the Federal Government were tariffs (imposed on the wealthy, and their imports) from about 1790 to 1913, or until it was surpassed by income taxes.
 
Actually you are wrong again. The Constitution, prior to the passing of the 16th. Amendment, limited the taxing to “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”. These "taxes, duties, imposts, and excises" were imposed mainly on the wealthy as Jefferson, and others, desired as their "private letters" suggested. Even after the 16th. was passed this tradition continued with a 90% tax on the wealthy until Kennedy, and later Reagan, and Bush 43, changed that pattern. Then too, do you know what a "war tax" is, or one could say was? The major source of revenue for the Federal Government were tariffs (imposed on the wealthy, and their imports) from about 1790 to 1913, or until it was surpassed by income taxes.


Sorry guy, but your history seems to be mostly fantasy...prior to the 16th amendment, the money the fed used came almost entirely from tariffs on imported goods...after the civil war, tariffs were supplemented by excises on alcohol, tobacco, and to a small degree taxes on inheritances, but nothing like the soak the rich mentality you seem to think existed at that time.
 
Sorry guy, but your history seems to be mostly fantasy...prior to the 16th amendment, the money the fed used came almost entirely from tariffs on imported goods...after the civil war, tariffs were supplemented by excises on alcohol, tobacco, and to a small degree taxes on inheritances, but nothing like the soak the rich mentality you seem to think existed at that time.
I find it interesting that folks who bring up 90% tax rates seem to ignore the far mIre numerous deductions that offset the tax. Similarly no mention of vanishing deductions to offset lower marginal tax rates. And at the end of the day effective taxation stays about the same.
Not sure what this has to do with climate but you boys are having fun so carry on. : )
 
I find it interesting that folks who bring up 90% tax rates seem to ignore the far mIre numerous deductions that offset the tax. Similarly no mention of vanishing deductions to offset lower marginal tax rates. And at the end of the day effective taxation stays about the same.
Not sure what this has to do with climate but you boys are having fun so carry on. : )

Well, you said - "As with medicine science is corrupted once politicized. Government has no business being involved with most anything but particularly science and education & business."

To which old trapper replied - "And yet the Founding Father thought important enough that it should be thus they even put it into the Constitution."

To which I asked which article in the Constitution one might find the founders wishes that government be involved in science, education, and business.....

Then rather than simply admit that he misspoke, he went on to provide some private letters between individuals which he has construed to mean that the founders must have put such thoughts into the constitution....and from there it went into a whole "founders wanted to soak the rich" tangent.... Of course people who want to soak the rich will never mention all of the ways congress provided to prevent the rich from actually being soaked because the congress itself is mostly made up of the rich, but the do like to have their marxist dreams...don't they?

Guess they also don't like to mention the fact that over half of the country pays no taxes now as a result of that marxist thinking...and they certainly don't want to talk about the problems that have naturally arisen from that sort of thinking.
 
Werbung:
Well, you said - "As with medicine science is corrupted once politicized. Government has no business being involved with most anything but particularly science and education & business."

To which old trapper replied - "And yet the Founding Father thought important enough that it should be thus they even put it into the Constitution."

To which I asked which article in the Constitution one might find the founders wishes that government be involved in science, education, and business.....

Then rather than simply admit that he misspoke, he went on to provide some private letters between individuals which he has construed to mean that the founders must have put such thoughts into the constitution....and from there it went into a whole "founders wanted to soak the rich" tangent.... Of course people who want to soak the rich will never mention all of the ways congress provided to prevent the rich from actually being soaked because the congress itself is mostly made up of the rich, but the do like to have their marxist dreams...don't they?

Guess they also don't like to mention the fact that over half of the country pays no taxes now as a result of that marxist thinking...and they certainly don't want to talk about the problems that have naturally arisen from that sort of thinking.
Our friend Trap does have a curious perspective on things. I can't understand why he would think that a bunch of wealthy guys would be interested in "soaking" themselves. But they did know enough to not tax people directly.
Wonder what they would think about the constant discussion of their work ?
Can't help but think they would note the constitution is only a few pages long and pretty straightforward.
 
Back
Top