|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 5, 2010 8:33:41 GMT -8
Well, for what it is worth, Defense is one of the few legit functions of the government. I think we all know it could be more focused and better run. I recognize this as a troll, but could not help myself. What does "provide for the general welfare" mean to you? It does not mean cradle to grave care without any effort on the part of the recipient. it does not mean eating up the seed corn. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Dec 5, 2010 8:41:18 GMT -8
What does "provide for the general welfare" mean to you? Dunno what "Win" thinks, but Madison said in Federalist 41: "It has been urged and echoed that the power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to execise every power which may be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such misconstruction. "Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form for describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases." IOW, both the general welfare and common defense clauses have to be supported by the specific grants of power in Article I, section 8. I can find clauses about providing for a navy, providing for an army, providing for a postal service, among other powers. Nothing about food stamps, mortgage buyouts, bank bailouts, corporation takeovers, or countless other blatant usurpations too many to number. In a time when the discussion consisted of who was one half a human being, going into the wilderness and homesteading a couple of thousand acres, tailoring your breeches and heading into the forest to kill a wild boar. Contact Antonin Scalia. He channels the ghost of literal interpretations past.  |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Dec 5, 2010 8:51:27 GMT -8
What does "provide for the general welfare" mean to you? It does not mean cradle to grave care without any effort on the part of the recipient. it does not mean eating up the seed corn. Please give me a reliable accounting of how many people fit this category. Does general welfare mean helping people who are making an effort but cannot find traction in a tough economy? I think conservatives greatly exaggerate the number of useless people that they are forced to coddle. Gee, I wish I was a productive person, in a position to make judgments about who has put forth a worthy effort and who has not, like a conservative, but I am a liberal.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 5, 2010 8:57:21 GMT -8
It does not mean cradle to grave care without any effort on the part of the recipient. it does not mean eating up the seed corn. Please give me a reliable accounting of how many people fit this category. Does general welfare mean helping people who are making an effort but cannot find traction in a tough economy? I think conservatives greatly exaggerate the number of useless people that they are forced to coddle. Gee, I wish I was a productive person, in a position to make judgments about who has put forth a worthy effort and who has not, like a conservative, but I am a liberal. General welfare is too broad a term to define. You need not worry about being a liberal since I have pledged to take care of you. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Dec 5, 2010 9:11:37 GMT -8
Please give me a reliable accounting of how many people fit this category. Does general welfare mean helping people who are making an effort but cannot find traction in a tough economy? I think conservatives greatly exaggerate the number of useless people that they are forced to coddle. Gee, I wish I was a productive person, in a position to make judgments about who has put forth a worthy effort and who has not, like a conservative, but I am a liberal. General welfare is too broad a term to define. You need not worry about being a liberal since I have pledged to take care of you. Thanks Win. My wife will sleep soundly tonight knowing that. Who says conservatives have no heart? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Dec 5, 2010 11:18:15 GMT -8
What does "provide for the general welfare" mean to you? It does not mean cradle to grave care without any effort on the part of the recipient. it does not mean eating up the seed corn. Who says it does? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Dec 5, 2010 11:28:42 GMT -8
What does "provide for the general welfare" mean to you? Dunno what "Win" thinks, but Madison said in Federalist 41: "It has been urged and echoed that the power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to execise every power which may be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such misconstruction. "Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form for describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases." IOW, both the general welfare and common defense clauses have to be supported by the specific grants of power in Article I, section 8. I can find clauses about providing for a navy, providing for an army, providing for a postal service, among other powers. Nothing about food stamps, mortgage buyouts, bank bailouts, corporation takeovers, or countless other blatant usurpations too many to number. Thank your for that. Now what did Hamilton think? He was all for a national bank. Jefferson, who may be thought of as Madison's mentor, was dead set against it. I think we need to recognize that this question has bedeviled the country from the start. I bring the issue up in hopes that we can all recognize that. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Dec 6, 2010 17:14:18 GMT -8
What does "provide for the general welfare" mean to you? Dunno what "Win" thinks, but Madison said in Federalist 41: "It has been urged and echoed that the power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to execise every power which may be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such misconstruction. "Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form for describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases." IOW, both the general welfare and common defense clauses have to be supported by the specific grants of power in Article I, section 8. I can find clauses about providing for a navy, providing for an army, providing for a postal service, among other powers. Nothing about food stamps, mortgage buyouts, bank bailouts, corporation takeovers, or countless other blatant usurpations too many to number. The Federalist Papers are old, just as you are. IOW, you offer arguments that rely upon things written 250 years ago as being "gospel" and you assume that the Constitution is a static document when there is no proof that the Founding Fathers believed it should be. I'm sorry, but there is a simple fact here - if you had lived during that time you would have been a Tory. What's really sad is that you don't recognize that to be the case. You would have kissed the King's ass up one side and down the other simply because it's easier to kiss ass than to engage in revolution. And what's more sad is you don't understand how counter-revolutionary your right-wing belief system is. From Federalist Papers # 44: A FIFTH class of provisions in favor of the federal authority consists of the following restrictions on the authority of the several States:1. "No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex-post-facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility. "The prohibition against treaties, alliances, and confederations makes a part of the existing articles of Union; and for reasons which need no explanation, is copied into the new Constitution. The prohibition of letters of marque is another part of the old system, but is somewhat extended in the new. According to the former, letters of marque could be granted by the States after a declaration of war; according to the latter, these licenses must be obtained, as well during war as previous to its declaration, from the government of the United States. This alteration is fully justified by the advantage of uniformity in all points which relate to foreign powers; and of immediate responsibility to the nation in all those for whose conduct the nation itself is to be responsible. To make a long story short, Hamilton was writing about "grant letters of marque". Please explain to us how such things have any relevance in today's world. Please explain to us why we should bother to accept your bullshiit arguments that we should still be living by standards set up in the 18th century and why the Constitution isn't a "living document". It truly is amazing how much of a fool you are and it's sad that someone who is apparently as intelligent as you are could offer such ridiculous arguments. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Dec 6, 2010 17:15:23 GMT -8
What does "provide for the general welfare" mean to you? It does not mean cradle to grave care without any effort on the part of the recipient. it does not mean eating up the seed corn. As opposed to the Nav, where it's 18 to grave care? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Dec 6, 2010 17:16:40 GMT -8
Please give me a reliable accounting of how many people fit this category. Does general welfare mean helping people who are making an effort but cannot find traction in a tough economy? I think conservatives greatly exaggerate the number of useless people that they are forced to coddle. Gee, I wish I was a productive person, in a position to make judgments about who has put forth a worthy effort and who has not, like a conservative, but I am a liberal. General welfare is too broad a term to define. You need not worry about being a liberal since I have pledged to take care of you. Um no. Actually, we've been taking care of you, your wife and your kids since you retired at age 38. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 6, 2010 17:22:12 GMT -8
It does not mean cradle to grave care without any effort on the part of the recipient. it does not mean eating up the seed corn. As opposed to the Nav, where it's 18 to grave care? =Bob Make that 17. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Dec 6, 2010 17:46:43 GMT -8
Dunno what "Win" thinks, but Madison said in Federalist 41: "It has been urged and echoed that the power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to execise every power which may be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such misconstruction. "Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form for describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases." IOW, both the general welfare and common defense clauses have to be supported by the specific grants of power in Article I, section 8. I can find clauses about providing for a navy, providing for an army, providing for a postal service, among other powers. Nothing about food stamps, mortgage buyouts, bank bailouts, corporation takeovers, or countless other blatant usurpations too many to number. The Federalist Papers are old, just as you are. IOW, you offer arguments that rely upon things written 250 years ago as being "gospel" and you assume that the Constitution is a static document when there is no proof that the Founding Fathers believed it should be. I'm sorry, but there is a simple fact here - if you had lived during that time you would have been a Tory. What's really sad is that you don't recognize that to be the case. You would have kissed the King's ass up one side and down the other simply because it's easier to kiss ass than to engage in revolution. And what's more sad is you don't understand how counter-revolutionary your right-wing belief system is. From Federalist Papers # 44: A FIFTH class of provisions in favor of the federal authority consists of the following restrictions on the authority of the several States:1. "No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex-post-facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility. "The prohibition against treaties, alliances, and confederations makes a part of the existing articles of Union; and for reasons which need no explanation, is copied into the new Constitution. The prohibition of letters of marque is another part of the old system, but is somewhat extended in the new. According to the former, letters of marque could be granted by the States after a declaration of war; according to the latter, these licenses must be obtained, as well during war as previous to its declaration, from the government of the United States. This alteration is fully justified by the advantage of uniformity in all points which relate to foreign powers; and of immediate responsibility to the nation in all those for whose conduct the nation itself is to be responsible. To make a long story short, Hamilton was writing about "grant letters of marque". Please explain to us how such things have any relevance in today's world. Please explain to us why we should bother to accept your bullshiit arguments that we should still be living by standards set up in the 18th century and why the Constitution isn't a "living document". It truly is amazing how much of a fool you are and it's sad that someone who is apparently as intelligent as you are could offer such ridiculous arguments. =Bob I didn't quote Hamilton.  If there be a fool posting here, it is YOU... ...probably in a Tecate beer induced stupor. Now put down your alcohol, sober up, and tell us all how the Constitution is a "living" document. I can't seem to find that provision anywhere in it. Oh. You can't? Fool. |
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Dec 10, 2010 22:27:35 GMT -8
Michelle just voted for the largest stimulus package in USA history. And it was not paid for by any cuts to any programs!
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 11, 2010 22:00:23 GMT -8
Michelle just voted for the largest stimulus package in USA history. And it was not paid for by any cuts to any programs! This fool troll shows up again. |
|
|
|
Post by theman on Dec 15, 2010 19:00:01 GMT -8
So far Ms. Bachmann has shown me that she talks a good game, but when it comes to making the tough calls on reducing spending and entitlements, she is as spineless as the rest of Congress. All talk, no action.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 16, 2010 8:10:53 GMT -8
So far Ms. Bachmann has shown me that she talks a good game, but when it comes to making the tough calls on reducing spending and entitlements, she is as spineless as the rest of Congress. All talk, no action. Do you have some specific examples of what you claim? |
|
|
|
Post by theman on Dec 16, 2010 22:54:16 GMT -8
I believe she has been in Congress 3 or 4 years and has not introduced one bill that addresses a reduction in spending. In the meantime the Country is going broke!
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Dec 17, 2010 12:16:46 GMT -8
I believe she has been in Congress 3 or 4 years and has not introduced one bill that addresses a reduction in spending. In the meantime the Country is going broke! She has sponsored and/or co-sponsored many bills that reduce spending and reduce taxes. She has not introduced any as you say, but votes 97% of the time with her party. She even voted last night for the continuation of the Bush Tax Rates. I would say you make some sort of issue out of nothing. I would offer up the idea that simply voting for things that are good for the country is a much better record than the destructive legislation offered by any liberal. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Dec 17, 2010 14:55:48 GMT -8
The World Health Organization ranks our health system 37th. What criteria does the world health organization use? Not things that really address how good the health systems is. The US rating is down that far only because it cost so much and the US population is unhealthy due to eating habits. The US is #1 in the world in Responsiveness Rating. Which is one of the ratings WHO uses. We are very low in "Fairness in financial contribution". In other words we are the most Responsive but it is bad because we cost the most. |
|
|
|
Post by theman on Dec 17, 2010 17:13:36 GMT -8
aztecwin, I stand by my statement "when it comes to making the tough calls of reducing spending and entitlements she is spineless". Its easy to vote for lower taxes or the continuation of the Bush tax cuts. Even the Democrats did that. The bills she has introduced are all fluff and do not tackle spending cuts, entitlements or govenment waste. I still think she's more into self-promotion and talking the talk instead of walking the walk.
|
|
