USA - United...

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:59 pm

I'm breaking my political absents to write this thread.

This thread covers two topics. Where to draw the line on what is "needed". And can we draw that line, yet remain united for the common good of all of us ?

I'll start with a quote by Abraham Lincoln, which sums up my ideas of the Federal Government.

"The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves - in their separate and individual capacities."

Abraham Lincoln July 1, 1854

We disagree on spending and where and how much to spend. Money is often the bottom line. But can we argue/discuss the points without dividing our country ? Can the media discuss it without dividing us ?

Divide or Unite? (This is an attempt to recognise our differences between true conservatives and liberals. Recognize being the operative word. Yet make some attempt at uniting us in a realistic way, to make our country strong.) Discuss.

Can we discuss what it will take to unite our country, without bickering, finding common ground ? I don't know. Post your positive ideas.

Does the media go too far in an attempt to put a wedge between us ? I see attacks form both sides going to far. Do you ? Discuss.

We all believe / know pure socialism won't work. Yet the word is thrown out there often. Our strength HAS come from capitalism. Discuss.

If you say we should spend less. Don't waste your time. I already know what you think. While I'm one of the few liberals (but a true conservative on many social subjects like gun control) - If you say spend more on this or that, Don't waste your time please.

We would all disagree on what to spend on social programs. So let's not get into a punching contest about it.

Capitalism with social programs has worked throughout our history.

The USA will not become a socialist country. There are too many rich people with power who won't let this happen.

We have always had social programs within our capitalistic system. Streets / highways, water systems, welfare for the truly needy, police, armed forces, are a few necessary social (taxpayer funded) programs.

"...whatever they NEED to have done..." is where the line needs to be drawn. And each of us, and each political point of view, wants that line drawn in a different place.

Libertarians want it in a place where it takes the least out of our pockets.

True Republicans (too man Republicans espouse conservatism but actually spend our money liberally, they are in fact, Liberals) want the line near the Libertarians.

Democrats want the line leaning to where they can help everyone and anyone who they think needs it. That is a real liberal.

We push and pull at that line constantly - as should be - in a democracy.

The relentless media attacks from both sides has become totally focused on negativity, greatly reducing our faith in rebuilding our country. Discuss.

I seldom ever jumped on Bush for what he wanted to do. I jumped on Bush AFTER what he did would fail.

Our country is in trouble on many fronts. I love politics and I listen to all sides (yes, there are more than two sides). Too many people ONLY listen to ONE side, like Fox, or the opposite side, like MSNBC. One REALLY needs to watch both of those AND MORE to find the truth, as each of them is grossly slanted.

Each of them would have you believe that the other is Satanic. However, if you can filter out the negativism, they both (for the most part) want what they think is best for our country.

So WHY all of the negativism ? Simple. It sells. People like / enjoy hearing attacks against their perceived foes. Discuss.

I am not saying, give Obama a free ride. I don't like everything he does. I'm not saying, stop criticizing him. Our country, and critiquing our elected leaders, is who we are. It is our right.

But in some way, we need to unite for the common good of our country. I would say this no matter what side was in charge. a TRUE conservative or a Liberal Democrat. [I dislike the "I'm a conservative", spend like hell hypocrisy, of some of the Republican persuasion. I'm sure most of you do as well.]

Call Obama an ass AFTER an idea fails. I didn't call Bush an ass until I actually found out he lied about the war. Or until I found out he was outspending most former presidents, even with out the war budget. But I digress.

Our country is in trouble. We have many foe who would like to bring us down. Too many countries with nuclear capabilities. Too many enemies. We need to unite, no matter who is in charge. This is what the country - the people - want. Listen to ALL sides, and ask your representatives to do what you think is best for our country. We are all in this together. We ALL want we think is best for our country.

Be opened minded, listen to all sides, then make choices and get involved in uniting our country for the "need" of each and everyone of us.

[I will not respond to any posts other than those that, in some way, have ideas concerning positive actions for the strength of the USA. I already know where you stand on the liberal / conservative issues. The intention of this thread is not to argue but to look for what we can do to unite.

I know some of you (and who you are) that want NO social programs and NO taxes. That's cool, but it will never happen. The reality is, we have some. The line of what actually IS NEEDED will swing like a pendulum with ideas from all sides.

I truly believe undercoverjoe and I each have the same bottom line. We love our country and we want what's best for it. We totally disagree what is the best way to make that happen. But we would agree we want a great country.

The liberals and the true conservatives BOTH want what each believes is best for our country. Should we bicker and fight, or should we work to find common ground to unite ?

The true conservative will spend less - tell us where he will cut spending first, and we will be better for it. A liberal will spend, but if it's done responsibly, we will be better for it. Two basic ideas that should not divide our country. ]

So AGAIN, this thread covers two topics. Where to draw the line on what is needed. And,more importantly, can we draw that line yet keep a united front for the better of all of us ?

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:26 pm

I don't think you have to wait until the country collapses. When B. Hussein is using purely socialistic solutions, it does not take real genius to see that they will not work in a democratic-republic-capitalist system. His economic moves are going to devalue the dollar to pennies, and inflation will skyrocket. Great, just as I am contemplating retirement in some near future.

I do not need to wait to criticize this socialist liberal with his marxist world view..

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:52 pm

undercoverjoe wrote:I don't think you have to wait until the country collapses. When B. Hussein is using purely socialistic solutions, it does not take real genius to see that they will not work in a democratic-republic-capitalist system. His economic moves are going to devalue the dollar to pennies, and inflation will skyrocket. Great, just as I am contemplating retirement in some near future.

I do not need to wait to criticize this socialist liberal with his marxist world view..

This is my point. While there has always been hate mongering and name calling, (this post dovetails into my thread very well) do we want / need it ?

Do we need the media to incite hate ? Which is exactly what they do to increase viewership / ratings. Is there a way to be above these juvenile (yes I am a former user of the most juvenile attacks) attacks ? Can we disagree in a civil way to from a united front for the good of our country?

I will not defend or attack individual politicians in a pissing contest in this thread.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:57 pm

Lincoln's definition is a fairly comprehensive and accurate (if not blunt) view of government. He did not in that statement, however, specify which government was for which purposes. Therein lies the rub. Unfortunately, there are too many people that, when they hear "government," all they think of is Washington, DC.

Since FDR, we recent American generations have been brought up to believe that the federal government is the final authority, be all, end all solution to societal problems. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is, the federal government was not intended nor structured to take on these kinds of problems. It was the full intent of the framers of the Constitution that these societal matters be left to the states or the local governments.

This is not an opinion, it is documented fact. Once again, I will bring up the Federalist Papers. In case you are not familiar with them, they are essays written by the primary framers of the Constitution and were essentially the first political PR campaign in US history. These were published as a means to explain the proposed Constitution to the several states (thru New York publications) and persuade them to ratify it--which they did. I believe the Federalist Papers should be required reading in every school district.

For your thread subject, I recommend that you read Federalist 41 thru 46. written by James Madison (you know, the "Father of the Constitution"). They are not much longer than your post. They explain in detail the "General View of the Powers proposed to be vested in the Union" and "A further Discussion of the Supposed Danger from the Powers of the Union to the State Governments."

http://www.law.emory.edu/index.php?id=3130

Here is a very important excerpt from #45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised
principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Things are now bass-ackwards, upside down and on the brink of bankruptcy because of the people's ignorance of these words. Since I fully agree with them, if you want to argue about this, please debate with the writings of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. They are my Rush Limbaugh and/or Keith Olbermann.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:06 pm

Hawk wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:I don't think you have to wait until the country collapses. When B. Hussein is using purely socialistic solutions, it does not take real genius to see that they will not work in a democratic-republic-capitalist system. His economic moves are going to devalue the dollar to pennies, and inflation will skyrocket. Great, just as I am contemplating retirement in some near future.

I do not need to wait to criticize this socialist liberal with his marxist world view..
This is my point. While there has always been hate mongering and name calling, (this post dovetails into my thread very well) do we want / need it ?

Do we need the media to incite hate ? Which is exactly what they do to increase viewership / ratings. Is there a way to be above these juvenile (yes I am a former user of the most juvenile attacks) attacks ? Can we disagree in a civil way to from a united front for the good of our country?

I will not defend or attack individual politicians in a pissing contest in this thread.

Hawk, how can two people with polar opposite political views agree? I am against a large centrally controlled government doing "things" for the"good of all". There is no interpretation in the Constitution for the federal gov. to take this role.

You like B. Hussien, you like big government, you like socialism in the name of doing good for all. You like taxing rich people.

I am against everything you like in government. But I do not hate you, if that's what you mean. But I will do everything to stop your form of governmental power.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:08 pm

I know your opinion on states vs. the Federal Government. The argument is a good one. And I know you to be correct in all that you state.

However, for better or worse, we have evolved away from that. Can we go back ? I doubt it. We, including states, counties and cities, look to the Fed. for help. So I can't see us changing that. The water has passed the bridge and I doubt it will flow backwards.

So how can we work best, with what we have ?

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:18 pm

undercoverjoe wrote:
Hawk wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:I don't think you have to wait until the country collapses. When B. Hussein is using purely socialistic solutions, it does not take real genius to see that they will not work in a democratic-republic-capitalist system. His economic moves are going to devalue the dollar to pennies, and inflation will skyrocket. Great, just as I am contemplating retirement in some near future.

I do not need to wait to criticize this socialist liberal with his marxist world view..
This is my point. While there has always been hate mongering and name calling, (this post dovetails into my thread very well) do we want / need it ?

Do we need the media to incite hate ? Which is exactly what they do to increase viewership / ratings. Is there a way to be above these juvenile (yes I am a former user of the most juvenile attacks) attacks ? Can we disagree in a civil way to from a united front for the good of our country?

I will not defend or attack individual politicians in a pissing contest in this thread.
Hawk, how can two people with polar opposite political views agree? I am against a large centrally controlled government doing "things" for the"good of all". There is no interpretation in the Constitution for the federal gov. to take this role.

You like B. Hussien, you like big government, you like socialism in the name of doing good for all. You like taxing rich people.

I am against everything you like in government. But I do not hate you, if that's what you mean. But I will do everything to stop your form of governmental power.

I did not mean to imply that you hate me. I'm talking about the media. Fox, MSNBC etc.. They seem to incite hate. Should we hate our political leaders or should we hate their ideology ?

We agree on many fronts. Less wasteful spending. Less hypocrisy from our elected officials. Less increases on our deficit. Keep our military strong. Get out of countries we don't belong in. I can go on. (You will say, no spending, no hypocrisy, no budget over runs, no deficit spending - but we need to start somewhere.)

So Joe, in a united front, using these examples, can we scrutinise our elected officials without hate and name calling ? I think we can, together.

slackin@dabass · Post by **slackin@dabass** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:21 pm

Hawk wrote:I know your opinion on states vs. the Federal Government. The argument is a good one. And I know you to be correct in all that you state.

However, for better or worse, we have evolved away from that. Can we go back ? I doubt it. We, including states, counties and cities, look to the Fed. for help. So I can't see us changing that. The water has passed the bridge and I doubt it will flow backwards.

So how can we work best, with what we have ?

revolution. time to get the corrupt people out of congress... sorry, i just stopped by from the "we the people thread"

about water flowing backwards... it shouldn't have gotten to this point. people are stupid. not all, but apparently most. i'd like to see the government quit giving failing businesses money. the only reason the votes pass is because of who has their thumb in the pie. it's crap. it all needs rebuilt with new people that will do better and not become corrupt. i wouldn't. i would never sell out what this country means to me to make some money. fuck money. i don't have any right now and i'm happy.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:32 pm

Calling B. Hussien a liberal socialist is fact, not hate speak.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:42 pm

Hawk wrote:However, for better or worse, we have evolved away from that.

Devolved is the more appropriate word. I love being dissed by big federal government proponents on my Constitutional points, especially you Bill.

Don't worry. I don't expect it to last much longer. For the federal government, there is no longer any path but bankruptcy. The recent federal spending spree (kindled by Bush and napalmed by Obama) will increase the debt to the point where interest on the debt is nearly the largest item on the budget. At that point, the feds will no longer be capable of a balanced budget. They will spend so much on interest payments, that there will be little money left over for anything but basics, but they will borrow and print money anyway. Interest rates (and therefore, payments) will skyrocket as the dollar devalues to a peso. At that point, China will stop lending us money.

End game.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:55 pm

Here is an example of B. Hussien acting as a Communist dictator:

B. Hussien now wants to regulate executive pay at banks and other private (non government) institutions. Where is this power given to the federal government in the Constitution? How come they do not have to pay attention to the laws that govern them?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/22/ ... gulate.php

If anyone liked Communism, just wait, the US will be fully Communist in a short while with this socialist laying waste to the Constitution.

I do not think these CEO's deserve the huge salaries and bonuses they give themselves, but this is absolutely no role for the Federal Government.

*The above post was not made with hate, Bill, just disgust.

DirtySanchez · Post by **DirtySanchez** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:55 pm

to long no read

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 6:41 pm

undercoverjoe wrote:Calling B. Hussien a liberal socialist is fact, not hate speak.

In a way it is. Socialism is used to make people think Nazi Socialism. A definite scare tatic. To have a few social programs (as mentioned) will not lead us down the path to total socialism. There is too much power in (privately owned) wealth to let that happen.

I agree, we are all pissed about our money being used (from the poor to the rich) to pay bonuses. I believe the media blitz to demonize the bonuses forced the Democrats hand. And forced Obama to speak negatively about it. Republicans who are on record for NOT getting involved in how the money was spent for paying management, have now (after the media blitz) come out against the bonuses, hypocrites they are.

To me, the bonuses are so minuscule to the overall picture, I say move on.

Regardless of Obama's perceived (by you) agenda, the private sector will benefit. Many private industries and small companies are standing by, waiting to bid on projects. Hopefully, the money,via these companies, will reinvigorate our economy.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 6:44 pm

lonewolf wrote:
Hawk wrote:However, for better or worse, we have evolved away from that.
Devolved is the more appropriate word. I love being dissed by big federal government proponents on my Constitutional points, especially you Bill.

Don't worry. I don't expect it to last much longer. For the federal government, there is no longer any path but bankruptcy. The recent federal spending spree (kindled by Bush and napalmed by Obama) will increase the debt to the point where interest on the debt is nearly the largest item on the budget. At that point, the feds will no longer be capable of a balanced budget. They will spend so much on interest payments, that there will be little money left over for anything but basics, but they will borrow and print money anyway. Interest rates (and therefore, payments) will skyrocket as the dollar devalues to a peso. At that point, China will stop lending us money.

End game.

I think about this scenario too. China. But what else can we do to clean up the mess ?

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 6:48 pm

slackin@dabass wrote:
Hawk wrote:I know your opinion on states vs. the Federal Government. The argument is a good one. And I know you to be correct in all that you state.

However, for better or worse, we have evolved away from that. Can we go back ? I doubt it. We, including states, counties and cities, look to the Fed. for help. So I can't see us changing that. The water has passed the bridge and I doubt it will flow backwards.

So how can we work best, with what we have ?

revolution. time to get the corrupt people out of congress... sorry, i just stopped by from the "we the people thread"

about water flowing backwards... it shouldn't have gotten to this point. people are stupid. not all, but apparently most. i'd like to see the government quit giving failing businesses money. the only reason the votes pass is because of who has their thumb in the pie. it's crap. it all needs rebuilt with new people that will do better and not become corrupt. i wouldn't. i would never sell out what this country means to me to make some money. fuck money. i don't have any right now and i'm happy.

A revolution incrementally. Like term limits to start with.

Unfortunately but true - People WILL vote for a corrupt politician as long as he takes care of his constituents !

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 6:50 pm

Hawk wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:Calling B. Hussien a liberal socialist is fact, not hate speak.

In a way it is. Socialism is used to make people think Nazi Socialism. A definite scare tatic. To have a few social programs (as mentioned) will not lead us down the path to total socialism. There is too much power in (privately owned) wealth to let that happen.

I agree, we are all pissed about our money being used (from the poor to the rich) to pay bonuses. I believe the media blitz to demonize the bonuses forced the Democrats hand. And forced Obama to speak negatively about it. Republicans who are on record for NOT getting involved in how the money was spent for paying management, have now (after the media blitz) come out against the bonuses, hypocrites they are.

To me, the bonuses are so minuscule to the overall picture, I say move on.

Regardless of Obama's perceived (by you) agenda, the private sector will benefit. Many private industries and small companies are standing by, waiting to bid on projects. Hopefully, the money,via these companies, will reinvigorate our economy.

The BIG hypocrite in the AIG bonus scandal is Dem. Senator Chris Dodd, who put into the bailout bill the ability for AIG to pay the bonuses. He put this in the bill, not Republicans. Do a little research before you start throwing blame. That is hateful.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 6:56 pm

undercoverjoe wrote:
Hawk wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:Calling B. Hussien a liberal socialist is fact, not hate speak.

In a way it is. Socialism is used to make people think Nazi Socialism. A definite scare tatic. To have a few social programs (as mentioned) will not lead us down the path to total socialism. There is too much power in (privately owned) wealth to let that happen.

I agree, we are all pissed about our money being used (from the poor to the rich) to pay bonuses. I believe the media blitz to demonize the bonuses forced the Democrats hand. And forced Obama to speak negatively about it. Republicans who are on record for NOT getting involved in how the money was spent for paying management, have now (after the media blitz) come out against the bonuses, hypocrites they are.

To me, the bonuses are so minuscule to the overall picture, I say move on.

Regardless of Obama's perceived (by you) agenda, the private sector will benefit. Many private industries and small companies are standing by, waiting to bid on projects. Hopefully, the money,via these companies, will reinvigorate our economy.
The BIG hypocrite in the AIG bonus scandal is Dem. Senator Chris Dodd, who put into the bailout bill the ability for AIG to pay the bonuses. He put this in the bill, not Republicans. Do a little research before you start throwing blame. That is hateful.

I blamed no one. Did I ?

I only reported the hypocrisy of those who said we have no business dictating how payment is made to management. It is on tape and is a fact. Those SAME individuals are now saying the Dems screwed up by allowing AIG to decide how it can pay management. That is on tape as well. That is hypocrisy.
Yeah, I do hate hypocrisy. It should be pointed out IMO.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 6:58 pm

Hawk wrote:
lonewolf wrote:
Hawk wrote:However, for better or worse, we have evolved away from that.
Devolved is the more appropriate word. I love being dissed by big federal government proponents on my Constitutional points, especially you Bill.

Don't worry. I don't expect it to last much longer. For the federal government, there is no longer any path but bankruptcy. The recent federal spending spree (kindled by Bush and napalmed by Obama) will increase the debt to the point where interest on the debt is nearly the largest item on the budget. At that point, the feds will no longer be capable of a balanced budget. They will spend so much on interest payments, that there will be little money left over for anything but basics, but they will borrow and print money anyway. Interest rates (and therefore, payments) will skyrocket as the dollar devalues to a peso. At that point, China will stop lending us money.

End game.
I think about this scenario too. China. But what else can we do to clean up the mess ?

Which mess?

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:00 pm

The financial mess.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:17 pm

lonewolf wrote: Since I fully agree with them, if you want to argue about this, please debate with the writings of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. They are my Rush Limbaugh and/or Keith Olbermann.

Ahh yes ! Alexander Hamilton, my hero. A good friend of George Washington. I'm so happy you agree with him. I knew he was in near constant disagreement with Jefferson. And I knew they disagreed about the role of the Federal Government.

So please read this please. Hamilton's opinion (from a request of George Washington) on "implied powers". And Federal "implied powers" ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers

edit: Everyone should read it. Especially everyone who constantly says "It's not in the constitution".

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:55 pm

Hawk wrote:We, including states, counties and cities, look to the Fed. for help.

This is a condition created by the federal government over the years that could have been easily remedied.

When we had moderate federal debt, this would have been a difficult, but doable proposition. Both the programs and taxes would be shifted to the state & local governments. There would be significant tax savings because these governments would get 100 cents on the dollar from revenues instead of 50 cents back after the money was laundered thru the DC money pit.

There would also be operational savings because it would eliminate the need for both federal & state management (as with welfare) as well as put the programs and/or politicians under more public scrutiny. Ask Mr. Jubilerer about that.

Bill Clinton & Newt Gingrich actually started the ball rolling in this direction with welfare reform. That was about as far as it got, since most of the true conservative republicans behind the movement were replaced with imbecile neocons by the time Bush took office.

Now, I'm afraid this scenario would not be acceptable to the public. The interest on the federal debt has grown so large that it would be difficult to cut taxes to the extent that would be necessary to offset state & local increases. In 2008, interest was $451.2 Billion, the 3rd largest budget item behind #1 Health & Human Services and #2 Defense.

Oh well, ya never know. A fiscal brick wall may be what is needed to force the feds back into constitutional fiscal responsibility, but the gravy train will be over.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:50 pm

Hawk wrote:So please read this please. Hamilton's opinion (from a request of George Washington) on "implied powers". And Federal "implied powers" ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Ah yes, implied powers. That little nugget with which aid to the poor was so conveniently named "welfare".

Implied powers is not a blanket power that Congress can use willy nilly for any issue they deem fit at the time. It was included specifically for the scope of the enumerated powers, but for developments that were nonexistant at their time. For instance, section 8 provides specifically for an army and navy. The need for an air force was not apparent to them. Implied powers gave Congress the authority to create the air force.

What implied powers does not do is give Congress power over things known to them at that time, but are not specifically enumerated. For example, I am willing to bet that in 1789, America had:

poverty (Health & Human Services)
medical bills (Health & Human Services)
schools (Education)
furnaces (Energy)
farms (Agriculture)
workers (Labor)
houses (HUD)
cities (HUD)
wildlife (Interior)

I could go on and on, but if they had it in 1789 and it didn't specifically appear in the Constitution, it is not implied with implied powers. The associated unconstitutional departments are in parens.

There are some regulatory agencies within these departments that are constitutional, such as the FDA & the AEC and many others.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:59 pm

Implied Powers also single-handedly debunks the argument that the Constitution is outdated and no longer applies to modern society.

It allows the Constitution to encompass the previously unknown, as long as its within the specifically enumerated scope of the document.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:20 pm

Most importantly, this amendment trumps implied powers:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:26 pm

lonewolf wrote: What implied powers does not do is give Congress power over things known to them at that time, but are not specifically enumerated. For example, I am willing to bet that in 1789, America had:

poverty (Health & Human Services)
medical bills (Health & Human Services)
schools (Education)
furnaces (Energy)
farms (Agriculture)
workers (Labor)
houses (HUD)
cities (HUD)
wildlife (Interior)

There are some regulatory agencies within these departments that are constitutional, such as the FDA & the AEC and many others.

All is relative as to a need to be addressed. Relative to the percentage and relative to the total number.

Poverty
If 10% of 1000 people are poor in a civilized society, it's likely the other 90% would help them in some way. (Like 1000 people living in a small town in the 1700s) But if you have 10% of millions of people, the other 90% don't help enough.

So do you let them starve and go without shelter. No ? Then it becomes a necessary function of a representative of the people (the government) to help in our name. Implied power gives the government the right to help the poor .

I doubt the writers envisioned a population in the millions and the poor at 10% of that.

Medical bills. They paid doctors with a chicken . Try that today. I doubt they envisioned health insurance. Or insurance at a cost of $6,000, $10,000 or more a year. And again, the number of people who are without health care. Implied power gives the government the right help to find a solution. The writers could never have envisioned this.

Schools
Don't give a man a fish, teach him to fish. A community can't always afford schools. It IS necessary for the government to help. Otherwise only the rich communities would have schools.

Energy
We are addicted to oil. Unless we the people (the feds) get involved, it will stay that way. A necessity. No way did the writers of the constitution see this coming.

Farms
I don't know a lot about farming. But some regulation is needed to prevent everyone from growing the same crop.

Labor
Labor laws are needed and oversight is needed. Otherwise we would be like China. They had slaves. I doubt they envisioned a society of millions without slaves.

HUD
People built their own houses, sometimes with the help of friends and relatives. The homes were simple. Unless you were rich. I doubt they envisioned homes with running water and electricity and heat to be so common that we can't do without it. Implied power gives the government the right to help people who "do whatever they need done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do for themselves". Abraham Lincoln

Cities
Cities like Altoona would die off without the help of the federal government. Then all the people, from all of the poor towns, would move to the big cities that have money. This is a big part of why Rome fell. So would our big cities. The writers, never would have guessed that small cities comprised such a large portion of the population.

I could go on too. In each scenario.