I must have missed that. They discussed THE intended purpose of granting the power? Or were they simply discussing the pressing need at the time?
Again, if that was THE purpose, they would have written it differently.
What kind of nonsense is that? They discussed the objectives they wished to accomplish by granting the power.
They also discussed the possibilities that the powers initially granted to the national government might require modification to meet future needs. They included the provisions for amendment to allow for that contingency. If they had granted the national government open ended power to assume as it deemed necessary to enable whatever the current political will of the people was, there would have been no need to make any provisions to amend the Constitution.
Again, if that was THE purpose, they would have written it differently.
That your personal opinion, and nothing more than idle speculation. There is absolutely nothing of any substance in the assertion to base a decision on.