# A Modern Emancipation Proclamation



## Foxfyre

*A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION*​
WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and 

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.

*    *    *    *    *   *​Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .


----------



## P@triot

Foxfyre said:


> *A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION*​
> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and
> 
> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and
> 
> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.
> 
> *    *    *    *    *   *​Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .



Outstanding (as always) Fox!  We need to reform the corruption in Washington and stuff like this is the first step in doing that.


----------



## Moonglow

> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and



To generalized


----------



## Moonglow

> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,



other countries do it also even China.It is not a corrupting influence if managed correctly


----------



## P@triot

There is a reason the framers did not add ANY entitlements to the Constitution. They didn't add healthcare, despite the fact that people got sick and they had doctors back then. They didn't add Social Security, despite the fact that they had people hungry back then. They didn't add government subsidized housing, despite the fact that they had homeless back then.

Sadly, we've allowed the Communism/Marxism/Socialism movements of the late 1800's / early 1900's to hijack a good portion of our government and we're seeing the results of that now. $16 trillion in debt, high unemployment, and catastrophic failure every where. We have to take it back (we made a great first step in doing so during the November 2010 elections, we need to take another huge step this November). We need more Rand Paul's and Paul Ryan's and we need to "drain the swamp" of the radicals like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama.


----------



## Moonglow

> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.



Then we can stop calling ourselves a Christian nation? When Muslims are feeding their poor and hungry from govt funds, we should be ashamed to pass this.


----------



## saveliberty

Your still subject to Supreme Court review of what the amendment means.  I think enumerating what the federal government is limited to spending funds on and excluding all others might be a better course.


----------



## P@triot

Moonglow said:


> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> other countries do it also even China.It is not a corrupting influence if managed correctly
Click to expand...


I find it terribly disturbing that the left keeps pointing to China as an example of what to be like. They are a true Communist nation, complete with oppression and misery.

Every liberal on USMB points to China and not too long ago, psycho Elizabeth Warren stated that China spends 9% of their GDP on infrastructure while we spend 1%, as if China is a nation we should admire and model ourselves after.

Can you help me understand MG why you guys keep point to China? The people in China would literally committ murder to get away from their oppressive Communist regime and come here to America. China has massive ghost towns, complete with malls, rails, etc. that are completely empty because they spend money developing "infrastructure" that is not needed. Not exactly something to model yourself after.


----------



## Moonglow

Rottweiler said:


> There is a reason the framers did not add ANY entitlements to the Constitution. They didn't add healthcare, despite the fact that people got sick and they had doctors back then. They didn't add Social Security, despite the fact that they had people hungry back then. They didn't add government subsidized housing, despite the fact that they had homeless back then.
> 
> Sadly, we've allowed the Communism/Marxism/Socialism movements of the late 1800's / early 1900's to hijack a good portion of our government and we're seeing the results of that now. $16 trillion in debt, high unemployment, and catastrophic failure every where. We have to take it back (we made a great first step in doing so during the November 2010 elections, we need to take another huge step this November). We need more Rand Paul's and Paul Ryan's and we need to "drain the swamp" of the radicals like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama.



Not true. The govt. bough Jeffersons library beause he was old and poor.
There were other instances where petitioning Congress brought govt. relief.
Free land from the US govt. was given to all that would settle and work the land.
The Indians recieved welfare only to have greedy whites steal the materials given, the Wild West was given fed troop protection when petitioned, even if it was not a state.
The railroads recieved govt. help to build the TCR. That helped people move west and ease the long journey by boat around the southern coast of South America.
The Freedmans office which help blacks to vote and to receive their 40 acres and a mule for compen\sation of being enslaved.
lincoln wanted 40 million in 6% bonds to pay for emancipation by payment of slaves to slave owners.


----------



## saveliberty

Moonglow said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason the framers did not add ANY entitlements to the Constitution. They didn't add healthcare, despite the fact that people got sick and they had doctors back then. They didn't add Social Security, despite the fact that they had people hungry back then. They didn't add government subsidized housing, despite the fact that they had homeless back then.
> 
> Sadly, we've allowed the Communism/Marxism/Socialism movements of the late 1800's / early 1900's to hijack a good portion of our government and we're seeing the results of that now. $16 trillion in debt, high unemployment, and catastrophic failure every where. We have to take it back (we made a great first step in doing so during the November 2010 elections, we need to take another huge step this November). We need more Rand Paul's and Paul Ryan's and we need to "drain the swamp" of the radicals like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The govt. bough Jeffersons library beause he was old and poor.
> There were other instances where petitioning Congress brought govt. relief.
> Free land from the US govt. was given to all that would setle and work the land.
> The Indians recieved welfare only to have greedy whites steal the materials given, the Wild West was given fed troop protection when petitioned, even if it was not a state.
Click to expand...



The operative words in the post were, "not in the Constitution".  It still stands that none of what you wrote is in the Constitution.


----------



## Foxfyre

Moonglow said:


> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we can stop calling ourselves a Christian nation? When Muslims are feeding their poor and hungry from govt funds, we should be ashamed to pass this.
Click to expand...


There is nothing in the resolution to prevent Christians at any level other than the federal level from being benevolent to anybody they wish.  And with the exception of Kuwait where there really are more millions than there are people, but in which class status still strongly prevails, there are almost no Muslim countries that do not have many people living in crushing poverty.

The purpose of the resolution is to eliminate what I believe is the rampant abuse resulting from the ability of those in the federal government to use our money for their own benefit, the widespread corruption resulting from that, and in a manner from which we the people are so removed that we are powerless to stop it without a new law.


----------



## Moonglow

It will never stop until those in power have the ability to want to stop it.


----------



## Foxfyre

Moonglow said:


> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To generalized
Click to expand...


How would you write it so that it was more specific?


----------



## Foxfyre

Moonglow said:


> It will never stop until those in power have the ability to want to stop it.



How would the resolution as written not give them the power to stop it?


----------



## Vast LWC

Foxfyre said:


> *A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION*​
> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and
> 
> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and
> 
> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.
> 
> *    *    *    *    *   *​Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .



OK,

I like it.  Since all federal funds will be distributed on a per capita basis, red states will finally be forced to stop living off the welfare of blue states.

The extra money can be distributed on a state level, and big population states like New York will finally not only not have to pay for all the extra funding enjoyed by Montana and Alaska, but can distribute it to whomever they wish.

However, I would insist the following addendum be added, since we're going to have a Constitutional Convention and all:

1.  The practice of usury or "loan sharking", defined as "lending money to anyone with said loan having an interest rate exceeding 10%, is hereby made illegal in the United States.

Any debt that is currently held wherein the bearer is being charged interest of more than 10% shall immediately have their interest lowered below the legal rate.

Creditors can, of course, feel free to stop extending new credit to whomever they wish, if they feel this law to be too much of a burden.


----------



## Wiseacre

Would this proposal mean that the federal gov't could not declare certain areas as disasters, and no federal support could be provided?   Floods , fires, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes, we couldn't help those specific affected people?


----------



## Wiseacre

Vast LWC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION*​
> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and
> 
> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and
> 
> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.
> 
> *    *    *    *    *   *​Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK,
> 
> I like it. * Since all federal funds will be distributed on a per capita basis, red states will finally be forced to stop living off the welfare of blue states.*
> 
> Musta missed it, where does it say that?
> 
> The extra money can be distributed on a state level, and big population states like New York will finally not only not have to pay for all the extra funding enjoyed by Montana and Alaska, but can distribute it to whomever they wish.
> 
> However, I would insist the following addendum be added, since we're going to have a Constitutional Convention and all:
> 
> 1.  The practice of usury or "loan sharking", defined as "lending money to anyone with said loan having an interest rate exceeding 10%, is hereby made illegal in the United States.
> 
> Any debt that is currently held wherein the bearer is being charged interest of more than 10% shall immediately have their interest lowered below the legal rate.
> 
> Creditors can, of course, feel free to stop extending new credit to whomever they wish, if they feel this law to be too much of a burden.
Click to expand...



????   Why the emphasis on interest rates?   That's a big tool used to fight inflation, why are you putting limits on it?


----------



## thanatos144

How about we just actually follow the constitution we have now????????????


----------



## Vast LWC

Wiseacre said:


> ????   Why the emphasis on interest rates?   That's a big tool used to fight inflation, why are you putting limits on it?



Because, by far, the largest current method of transferring money directly from the poor to the rich in this country is interest on debt.

Specifically, interest rates of about 30% that can be found on credit cards and other forms of credit generally used by poorer folks.

If one wants to make sure there is no need for federal funding to be extended to the poor, (and cutting off funding for poor folks is surely what this amendment is aimed to do) then stopping creditors from charging outrageous usury fees would be an excellent first step.

And don't tell me people need to be smarter about borrowing money.  If the circumstances are dire enough, anyone will try to get credit, no matter what the interest rate, and that's when they get trapped.

Especially in the rather common circumstance where a payment is missed, and the interest rates on a credit card suddenly go up from 8% to 29.9%.

A top interest rate of 10% will leave plenty of room to fight inflation.


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> Your still subject to Supreme Court review of what the amendment means.  I think enumerating what the federal government is limited to spending funds on and excluding all others might be a better course.



But how could we ever be wise enough to include every possibility that might come up?  No, I think restriting government from using our money to choose winners and losers to the advantage of those dispensing the money is the way to go.

I can see the ultimate law being written to ensure that constitutionally necessary government contracts are evenly distributed among the various states on a per electoral district basis as much as possible and otherwise let contracts to the lowest qualified bidder.  But it will be illegal for federal government can't use our money to buy our votes or to use against us.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wiseacre said:


> Would this proposal mean that the federal gov't could not declare certain areas as disasters, and no federal support could be provided?   Floods , fires, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes, we couldn't help those specific affected people?



I can see a very very limited role for FEMA using taxpayer dollars.  Certainly the government should have ability to dispatch a Coast Guard chopper to pull people off a sinking ship or for other such immediate humanitarian emergencies.  I can see the federal government furnishing trucks and other equipment to help clear roads or otherwise open up emergency routes after a major disaster such as a hurricane or earthquake.   When state and local facilities are overwhelmed, certainly set up emergency field hospitals or whatever could be absolutely essential for human life.

But as for compensating those who suffer loss and providing on going maintenance during the rebuilding process or conducting rebuilding of anything that the federal government didn't put there in the first place, that should not be a function of the federal government.  They can declare the emergency and, if practical, can even receive and distribute donations for the relief effort, but that should be the limit.


----------



## Wiseacre

Vast LWC said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ????   Why the emphasis on interest rates?   That's a big tool used to fight inflation, why are you putting limits on it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, by far, the largest current method of transferring money directly from the poor to the rich in this country is interest on debt.
> 
> Specifically, interest rates of about 30% that can be found on credit cards and other forms of credit generally used by poorer folks.
> 
> If one wants to make sure there is no need for federal funding to be extended to the poor, (and cutting off funding for poor folks is surely what this amendment is aimed to do) then stopping creditors from charging outrageous usury fees would be an excellent first step.
> 
> And don't tell me people need to be smarter about borrowing money.  If the circumstances are dire enough, anyone will try to get credit, no matter what the interest rate, and that's when they get trapped.
> 
> Especially in the rather common circumstance where a payment is missed, and the interest rates on a credit card suddenly go up from 8% to 29.9%.
> 
> A top interest rate of 10% will leave plenty of room to fight inflation.
Click to expand...



I would suggest that a top rate of 10% would result in much fewer loans to the lowest income people.   Fewer credit cards issues too, which maybe isn't a bad idea.   So, instead of getting lower interest credit they'll get no credit at all, or much less.


----------



## Amelia

How does one measure benefits?  Making sure that something equally benefits 300 million people seems to me an impossible hurdle.


----------



## Sky Dancer

The Founders could not have envisioned how our country would change.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vast LWC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION*​
> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and
> 
> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and
> 
> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.
> 
> *    *    *    *    *   *​Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK,
> 
> I like it.  Since all federal funds will be distributed on a per capita basis, red states will finally be forced to stop living off the welfare of blue states.
> 
> The extra money can be distributed on a state level, and big population states like New York will finally not only not have to pay for all the extra funding enjoyed by Montana and Alaska, but can distribute it to whomever they wish.
> 
> However, I would insist the following addendum be added, since we're going to have a Constitutional Convention and all:
> 
> 1.  The practice of usury or "loan sharking", defined as "lending money to anyone with said loan having an interest rate exceeding 10%, is hereby made illegal in the United States.
> 
> Any debt that is currently held wherein the bearer is being charged interest of more than 10% shall immediately have their interest lowered below the legal rate.
> 
> Creditors can, of course, feel free to stop extending new credit to whomever they wish, if they feel this law to be too much of a burden.
Click to expand...


Kudos for giving this some intelligent thought.  And I believe there are laws  in all 50 states regulating/forbidding usurous interest rates.

But how do interest rates tie into a resultuion restricting what government can spend our money on?  Am I missing something there?

Otherwise, you are right that the savvyest or most favored legislators would not be able to drag a disproportionate amount of pork into their respective states.  But there wouldn't be any 'extra money' to distribute.  The federal government would simply be taxing much less so that the states would keep much more of the money generated in their respective states.  And without federal money to cover their ineptness and irresponsibility in governing, a whole bunch of state governments would be inspired to clean up their acts to facilitate more prosperity within their respective states.   Could be a win win for everybody except for those who profit from the corruption.


----------



## dblack

I support it as written, though I'd probably make some minor changes if I had my druthers. I particularly don't see why it shouldn't extend to states as well. Equal protection is really what we're talking about. The fourteenth - if interpreted by a sane court, would already cover most of this.


----------



## dblack

Wiseacre said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ????   Why the emphasis on interest rates?   That's a big tool used to fight inflation, why are you putting limits on it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, by far, the largest current method of transferring money directly from the poor to the rich in this country is interest on debt.
> 
> Specifically, interest rates of about 30% that can be found on credit cards and other forms of credit generally used by poorer folks.
> 
> If one wants to make sure there is no need for federal funding to be extended to the poor, (and cutting off funding for poor folks is surely what this amendment is aimed to do) then stopping creditors from charging outrageous usury fees would be an excellent first step.
> 
> And don't tell me people need to be smarter about borrowing money.  If the circumstances are dire enough, anyone will try to get credit, no matter what the interest rate, and that's when they get trapped.
> 
> Especially in the rather common circumstance where a payment is missed, and the interest rates on a credit card suddenly go up from 8% to 29.9%.
> 
> A top interest rate of 10% will leave plenty of room to fight inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest that a top rate of 10% would result in much fewer loans to the lowest income people.   Fewer credit cards issues too, which maybe isn't a bad idea.   So, instead of getting lower interest credit they'll get no credit at all, or much less.
Click to expand...


One man's loan shark is another's savior. I hardly see how we justify telling loan applicants how much interest they can pay on a loan. It should be up to them.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> I support it as written, though I'd probably make some minor changes if I had my druthers. I particularly don't see why it shouldn't extend to states as well. Equal protection is really what we're talking about. The fourteenth - if interpreted by a sane court, would already cover most of this.



I wouldn't want to include that provision because 'equal protection', other than regarding unalienable rights, was never considered to apply to anybody other than the federal govenrment.  To me it turns the intent of the Constitution on its head for the federal government to dictate to ANYBODY the sort of society they are required to organize and maintain.


----------



## Foxfyre

Gentle aside to those just now entering the thread:  do note that this thread is in the CDZ and therefore subject to specific civility rules.  You're all doing that really well already, but just want everybody to be aware where we are so we don't inadvertently lose anybody.  I'm enjoying everybody's input.


----------



## Foxfyre

And what do you think.  Would the resolution as written, should it be adopted as a Constitutional amendment, help the Supreme Court in some of its rulings?  Or further confuse it?


----------



## Vast LWC

Wiseacre said:


> I would suggest that a top rate of 10% would result in much fewer loans to the lowest income people.   Fewer credit cards issues too, which maybe isn't a bad idea.   So, instead of getting lower interest credit they'll get no credit at all, or much less.



Which would be a good thing, altogether.


----------



## Vast LWC

Foxfyre said:


> Kudos for giving this some intelligent thought.  And I believe there are laws  in all 50 states regulating/forbidding usurous interest rates.



Individual state laws on usury were effectively done away with 20 years ago.



> Two court cases effectively invalidated state usury laws, Marquette vs. First Omaha Service Corp in 1978 and Smiley vs. Citibank in 1996.
> 
> Marquette held that national banks could charge credit card customers the highest interest rate allowed in the bank's home state, as opposed to the customer's. As a result, major banks moved to states like South Dakota and Delaware, where there were no usury ceilings on rates.2 Because the credit card market is dominated by national issuers, what few state usury laws remain are irrelevant.
> 
> In 1996, Smiley effected the same outcome for fees which, like interest rates, used to be regulated at the state level. Late fees averaged $16 before Smiley. Now, it's $32.3.



Credit Card Industry Practices: In Brief | Demos



Foxfyre said:


> But how do interest rates tie into a resultuion restricting what government can spend our money on?  Am I missing something there?



If one is going to make a legislation that revokes relief to poor people, surely it is in everyone's best interests to help said poor people out of the hole they have dug themselves into, which is a good part of the reason they require the assistance in the first place.



Foxfyre said:


> Otherwise, you are right that the savvyest or most favored legislators would not be able to drag a disproportionate amount of pork into their respective states.  But there wouldn't be any 'extra money' to distribute.  The federal government would simply be taxing much less so that the states would keep much more of the money generated in their respective states.  And without federal money to cover their ineptness and irresponsibility in governing, a whole bunch of state governments would be inspired to clean up their acts to facilitate more prosperity within their respective states.   Could be a win win for everybody except for those who profit from the corruption.



There would in fact be "extra money" to distribute, as many people would eventually have more capital to engage in consumption, as well as to invest in creating small local businesses, giving state and local economies a lift, rather than just feeding their hard earned money to the corporate banks.


----------



## Vast LWC

dblack said:


> One man's loan shark is another's savior. I hardly see how we justify telling loan applicants how much interest they can pay on a loan. It should be up to them.



A loan shark is no one's savior.

They simply delay the pain, causing more pain over time.

There have always been laws against usury on the books.  It is only a recent phenomenon that they were made effectively useless, and that corporate banks became loan sharks.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vast LWC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kudos for giving this some intelligent thought.  And I believe there are laws  in all 50 states regulating/forbidding usurous interest rates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual state laws on usury were effectively done away with 20 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two court cases effectively invalidated state usury laws, Marquette vs. First Omaha Service Corp in 1978 and Smiley vs. Citibank in 1996.
> 
> Marquette held that national banks could charge credit card customers the highest interest rate allowed in the bank's home state, as opposed to the customer's. As a result, major banks moved to states like South Dakota and Delaware, where there were no usury ceilings on rates.2 Because the credit card market is dominated by national issuers, what few state usury laws remain are irrelevant.
> 
> In 1996, Smiley effected the same outcome for fees which, like interest rates, used to be regulated at the state level. Late fees averaged $16 before Smiley. Now, it's $32.3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Credit Card Industry Practices: In Brief | Demos
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But how do interest rates tie into a resultuion restricting what government can spend our money on?  Am I missing something there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one is going to make a legislation that revokes relief to poor people, surely it is in everyone's best interests to help said poor people out of the hole they have dug themselves into, which is a good part of the reason they require the assistance in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise, you are right that the savvyest or most favored legislators would not be able to drag a disproportionate amount of pork into their respective states.  But there wouldn't be any 'extra money' to distribute.  The federal government would simply be taxing much less so that the states would keep much more of the money generated in their respective states.  And without federal money to cover their ineptness and irresponsibility in governing, a whole bunch of state governments would be inspired to clean up their acts to facilitate more prosperity within their respective states.   Could be a win win for everybody except for those who profit from the corruption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There would in fact be "extra money" to distribute, as many people would eventually have more capital to engage in consumption, as well as to invest in creating small local businesses, giving state and local economies a lift, rather than just feeding their hard earned money to the corporate banks.
Click to expand...


Well as for those usurous interest rates, you made me look it up.    And it appears you are right that there are no rules here in New Mexico which is probaby why New Mexico, though I love it, sucks in so many different categories.

But it appears that most states do still have usury laws.  Texas for instance has that 10% rate you suggest:
Usury Laws by State &#8211; LoanBack

Will address your other point in a separate post. . . .


----------



## Foxfyre

LWC posted in his previous post:


> If one is going to make a legislation that revokes relief to poor people, surely it is in everyone's best interests to help said poor people out of the hole they have dug themselves into, which is a good part of the reason they require the assistance in the first place.



In one sense I agree.  It would be unconscionably and unjustifiably cruel to abruptly revoke Social Security and Mediare at the federal level after making millions of people dependent on these programs.  . . but. . . .

We could begin now to slowly and carefuly back out of these programs at the federal level in small increments just as they have accrued and begin to privatize them. 

Except for allocating  tracts of unimproved land to homesteaders way back when, I can't think of any case in which government has relieved poverty to any significant degree by giving people stuff.  I rather go with Ben Franklin's philosophy that we do people no kindness by making them easier in their poverty, but true compassion is leading or driving them out of it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION
> 
> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and


That may be, but its not justification for amending the Constitution to balance the budget. The problems with how such an amendment might work (poorly) notwithstanding, this effort is motivated by partisan politics, not sound public policy. Its normal and appropriate for a First World industrialized Nation such as the United State to have its Federal budget fluctuate between deficit and surplus and back to deficit again; the problem isnt an unbalanced budget per se, but the size of the deficit and length of time a budget stays away from surplus. 

However difficult, the solution lies with the political will of the people and their desire to make a lasting change, it cant be forced upon them from the top down. 



> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and



According to whom? Evidence in support? In order to make a successful effort to amend the Constitution, one must provide credible, objective evidence in support of the reasons why the amendment should be ratified, not subjective inference and speculation. 



> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and



Subjective partisan dogma, undocumented, irrelevant, and not justification for an amendment to the Constitution all citizens must abide. Attempting to mitigate an undesirable aspect of human nature is a matter of social engineering, not a matter of Constitutional law. 



> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and


According to what authority? Congress is currently subject to any number of limitations. See e.g. _US v. Butler_ (1936), _South Dakota v. Dole_ (1987), _US v. Lopez_ (1995), _US v. Morrison_ (2000), and _National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius_ (2012), where the Court just this year placed restrictions on Congress power as authorized by the Commerce Clause. 



> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,



Entitlement mentality? Again, this isnt objective public policy, this is subjective partisan politics. 



> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.


This is a solution in search of a problem. 

Such a proposal is utterly untenable. What criteria would be used to determine what is or is not a benevolence or benefit, what criteria would be used to identify an unworthy person, group, demographic, or entity not entitled to a benevolence or benefit, and how on earth are the courts going to interpret such an amendment when lawsuits are filed claiming Equal Protection and Due Process violations?


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, by far, the largest current method of transferring money directly from the poor to the rich in this country is interest on debt.
> 
> Specifically, interest rates of about 30% that can be found on credit cards and other forms of credit generally used by poorer folks.
> 
> If one wants to make sure there is no need for federal funding to be extended to the poor, (and cutting off funding for poor folks is surely what this amendment is aimed to do) then stopping creditors from charging outrageous usury fees would be an excellent first step.
> 
> And don't tell me people need to be smarter about borrowing money.  If the circumstances are dire enough, anyone will try to get credit, no matter what the interest rate, and that's when they get trapped.
> 
> Especially in the rather common circumstance where a payment is missed, and the interest rates on a credit card suddenly go up from 8% to 29.9%.
> 
> A top interest rate of 10% will leave plenty of room to fight inflation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest that a top rate of 10% would result in much fewer loans to the lowest income people.   Fewer credit cards issues too, which maybe isn't a bad idea.   So, instead of getting lower interest credit they'll get no credit at all, or much less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One man's loan shark is another's savior. I hardly see how we justify telling loan applicants how much interest they can pay on a loan. It should be up to them.
Click to expand...


I agree, but I do think that full disclosure must be applied.  If somebody is making a loan at a usurous rate, he should not be able to deflect or obscure or omit advising the borrower how much he or she will be requiredf to pay back and when.


----------



## dblack

Vast LWC said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> One man's loan shark is another's savior. I hardly see how we justify telling loan applicants how much interest they can pay on a loan. It should be up to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A loan shark is no one's savior.
Click to expand...


You're missing the point. Who we call a "loan shark" is a matter of opinion. How high is too high when it comes to interest rates? As others here have pointed out, being willing to pay higher interest rates is sometimes the only way a person with poor credit can get a loan. Setting legal limits on that is, essentially, setting legal limits on who has access to credit.


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest that a top rate of 10% would result in much fewer loans to the lowest income people.   Fewer credit cards issues too, which maybe isn't a bad idea.   So, instead of getting lower interest credit they'll get no credit at all, or much less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One man's loan shark is another's savior. I hardly see how we justify telling loan applicants how much interest they can pay on a loan. It should be up to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, but I do think that full disclosure must be applied.  If somebody is making a loan at a usurous rate, he should not be able to deflect or obscure or omit advising the borrower how much he or she will be requiredf to pay back and when.
Click to expand...


Totally agree there. Ensuring transparency and honest dealings is exactly the function we need government to provide when it comes to economic regulation. Unfortunately, the regulatory state often serves merely to obscure things further.


----------



## Vast LWC

Foxfyre said:


> Well as for those usurous interest rates, you made me look it up.    And it appears you are right that there are no rules here in New Mexico which is probaby why New Mexico, though I love it, sucks in so many different categories.
> 
> But it appears that most states do still have usury laws.  Texas for instance has that 10% rate you suggest:
> Usury Laws by State &#8211; LoanBack
> 
> Will address your other point in a separate post. . . .



It doesn't matter the local state usury laws are.

The court ruling decided that banks only need to obey the usury laws of the state they are headquartered in.

That, combined with the interstate banking deregulation of the '90s, allowed Credit card companies to completely avoid state usury laws, by headquartering themselves in states that have more lax laws.


----------



## Vast LWC

dblack said:


> You're missing the point. Who we call a "loan shark" is a matter of opinion. How high is too high when it comes to interest rates? As others here have pointed out, being willing to pay higher interest rates is sometimes the only way a person with poor credit can get a loan. Setting legal limits on that is, essentially, setting legal limits on who has access to credit.



I'm not missing the point.

These corporations are using these people's desperation to commit extortion.  

Once they drag them into the cycle of debt, they keep raising their interest rates, and string them along for as long as possible until they suck them dry.

They are predatory, and are parasites on society.

That is why Christ called the money changers "a den of thieves", and why there have been usury laws in most civilized societies for millennia. 

This practice is the primary reason for the massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, to the very wealthy, for the past 30 years.

Don't you people wonder why, while the average person lost 40% of their wealth in the past 5 years, the top 10% of the wealth-holders either held even or gained?


----------



## Vast LWC




----------



## dblack

Vast LWC said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. Who we call a "loan shark" is a matter of opinion. How high is too high when it comes to interest rates? As others here have pointed out, being willing to pay higher interest rates is sometimes the only way a person with poor credit can get a loan. Setting legal limits on that is, essentially, setting legal limits on who has access to credit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not missing the point.
Click to expand...


Well, yeah, you are. You're simply repeating yourself in saying that loan sharking is bad. I get that, and as long as we agree on who the loan sharks are, I agree. But where we draw the line between a loan shark and a legitimate high-risk, high-interest loan is a largely judgement call. And my _point_ is that different people will make that call differently. 

As with so much of the regulatory state, you want to impose your judgement on others. Why not make laws requiring honesty and transparency and let borrowers decide what's best for them?


----------



## Vast LWC

dblack said:


> Well, yeah, you are. You're simply repeating yourself in saying that loan sharking is bad. I get that, and as long as we agree on who the loan sharks are, I agree. But where we draw the line between a loan shark and a legitimate high-risk, high-interest loan is a largely judgement call. And my _point_ is that different people will make that call differently.
> 
> As with so much of the regulatory state, you want to impose your judgement on others. Why not make laws requiring honesty and transparency and let borrowers decide what's best for them?



Because the huddled masses do not generally have the foresight to realize when they're being swindled, especially when the credit card companies catch them young.  

Which is why they have salesmen go to college campuses across the nation, recruiting new debt holders.  

By the time the average american is 30 years old, they are already tens thousands of dollars in debt.  A debt that they'll very likely be paying interest on for the rest of their lives.

It is indeed a Den of Thieves.  Sometimes that Jesus guy hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Vast LWC

And no, I'm not assuming that people are stupid, I'm simply saying that the average person simply cannot wrap their head around the fact that if they take out a large amount of debt, and only pay the minimum payment, they will, in all probability, never pay off that debt.


----------



## dblack

Vast LWC said:


> And no, I'm not assuming that people are stupid, I'm simply saying that the average person simply cannot wrap their head around the fact that if they take out a large amount of debt, and only pay the minimum payment, they will, in all probability, never pay off that debt.



Well, then perhaps we can come to some agreement on the transparency and full-disclosure that Foxfyre and I were discussing. I'm sure as hell not in favor of banks taking advantage of people by preying on their ignorance. They need to be abundantly clear with potential customers just what sort of commitment is involved. If that means adding requirements for showing loan applicants just how long they'll be paying if they only pay minimum payments, and just how much they'll be paying in total interest - that's the kind of regulation I can get behind. I certainly don't think there are enough of those kinds of rules currently.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vast LWC said:


> And no, I'm not assuming that people are stupid, I'm simply saying that the average person simply cannot wrap their head around the fact that if they take out a large amount of debt, and only pay the minimum payment, they will, in all probability, never pay off that debt.



They will understand it if the lender is required to explain it to them.   Full disclosure and honesty in lending requires full disclosure and honesty.  Then if the person has it explained to him and chooses to take the loan anyway, it should be his choice.

I object to charging the same interest rate to the irresponsible high risk person as is charged to the responsible person who has done what is necessary to merit a low interest rate.  Interest should be based on risk and not some arbitrary amount fixed by government.

But the only way I can see to tie this line of discussion to the OP is to require honesty and full disclosure from our elected leaders and those hired to be administrators of government agencies.  That in turn would also apply to the Fed and require us being informed on how and what basis interest rates are set for the banks at the federal level.   (Unless we can get rid of the Fed but that is for a separate debate.)


----------



## Vidi

I reject the resolution entirely as such equal distribution of "benevolence" can only be attained through a socialistic redistribution of wealth, which I fundamentally oppose.


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> And no, I'm not assuming that people are stupid, I'm simply saying that the average person simply cannot wrap their head around the fact that if they take out a large amount of debt, and only pay the minimum payment, they will, in all probability, never pay off that debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will understand it if the lender is required to explain it to them.   Full disclosure and honesty in lending requires full disclosure and honesty.  Then if the person has it explained to him and chooses to take the loan anyway, it should be his choice.
> 
> I object to charging the same interest rate to the irresponsible high risk person as is charged to the responsible person who has done what is necessary to merit a low interest rate.  Interest should be based on risk and not some arbitrary amount fixed by government.
Click to expand...


Interest rates are not dictated by the government. They are dictated by the Federal Reserve which is privately owned.


----------



## Vidi

dblack said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> One man's loan shark is another's savior. I hardly see how we justify telling loan applicants how much interest they can pay on a loan. It should be up to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A loan shark is no one's savior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. Who we call a "loan shark" is a matter of opinion. How high is too high when it comes to interest rates? As others here have pointed out, being willing to pay higher interest rates is sometimes the only way a person with poor credit can get a loan. Setting legal limits on that is, essentially, setting legal limits on who has access to credit.
Click to expand...



Let me put this to you:

I would argue that risk is shared.

If someone buys the house next door to mine, but goes bankrupt and the house falls into disarray and stays vacant, MY property values suffer.

Should there not then be some mechanism to protect me from the foolish risks taken by others? Should the irresponsible behavior of others cost me?


----------



## dblack

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> And no, I'm not assuming that people are stupid, I'm simply saying that the average person simply cannot wrap their head around the fact that if they take out a large amount of debt, and only pay the minimum payment, they will, in all probability, never pay off that debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will understand it if the lender is required to explain it to them.   Full disclosure and honesty in lending requires full disclosure and honesty.  Then if the person has it explained to him and chooses to take the loan anyway, it should be his choice.
> 
> I object to charging the same interest rate to the irresponsible high risk person as is charged to the responsible person who has done what is necessary to merit a low interest rate.  Interest should be based on risk and not some arbitrary amount fixed by government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interest rates are not dictated by the government. They are dictated by the Federal Reserve which is privately owned.
Click to expand...


We were discussing usury laws that cap interest rates lenders are allowed to charge for loans.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Foxfyre said:


> *A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION*​
> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and
> 
> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and
> 
> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.
> 
> *    *    *    *    *   *​Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .



I would add language that would force all elected and appointed government representatives to be held to exactly the same standards as everyone else and I would make any violation of that stricture to be punishable by law.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> I reject the resolution entirely as such equal distribution of "benevolence" can only be attained through a socialistic redistribution of wealth, which I fundamentally oppose.



Excuse me?   The OP forbids the federal government from dispensing ANY form of benevolence on anybody.  How can that be a socialisitc redistribution of wealth?


----------



## dblack

Vidi said:


> Let me put this to you:
> 
> I would argue that risk is shared.
> 
> If someone buys the house next door to mine, but goes bankrupt and the house falls into disarray and stays vacant, MY property values suffer.
> 
> Should there not then be some mechanism to protect me from the foolish risks taken by others? Should the irresponsible behavior of others cost me?



Yes, this is the core difference in philosophy between libertarians and, for lack of a better term 'statists' (no insult intended). You want a government whose primary purpose is to function as an insurance company and assumes all risk is a public concern. As this fundamentally violates self-determination, and actively interferes with our personal decisions regarding how much risk we are willing to accept, I reject it categorically. 

There will always be secondary (tertiary, etc...) effects of someone in society suffering misfortune (or enjoying good fortune for that matter). But freedom requires us to accept this. Insisting that we be protected from every inadvertent side-effect of others' decisions effectively disallows those decisions and squelches personal freedom. It implies that every decision we make requires permission from the state.


----------



## Foxfyre

gallantwarrior said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION*​
> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and
> 
> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and
> 
> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.
> 
> *    *    *    *    *   *​Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would add language that would force all elected and appointed government representatives to be held to exactly the same standards as everyone else and I would make any violation of that stricture to be punishable by law.
Click to expand...


It is there in the resolution.  They can't vote anybody--and that would include themselves---any benefit that they don't vote for all of us.  That takes care of the problem.  

You may have a good idea to add language specifying that they can make no law affecting any of us that does not apply equally to themselves.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Foxfyre said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we can stop calling ourselves a Christian nation? When Muslims are feeding their poor and hungry from govt funds, we should be ashamed to pass this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the resolution to prevent Christians at any level other than the federal level from being benevolent to anybody they wish.  And with the exception of Kuwait where there really are more millions than there are people, but in which class status still strongly prevails, there are almost no Muslim countries that do not have many people living in crushing poverty.
> 
> The purpose of the resolution is to eliminate what I believe is the rampant abuse resulting from the ability of those in the federal government to use our money for their own benefit, the widespread corruption resulting from that, and in a manner from which we the people are so removed that we are powerless to stop it without a new law.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, all good ideas and intentions...but guess who passes the new laws?  Revolution is sometimes a preferable option if true results are desired.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Vast LWC said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ????   Why the emphasis on interest rates?   That's a big tool used to fight inflation, why are you putting limits on it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, by far, the largest current method of transferring money directly from the poor to the rich in this country is interest on debt.
> 
> Specifically, interest rates of about 30% that can be found on credit cards and other forms of credit generally used by poorer folks.
> 
> If one wants to make sure there is no need for federal funding to be extended to the poor, (and cutting off funding for poor folks is surely what this amendment is aimed to do) then stopping creditors from charging outrageous usury fees would be an excellent first step.
> 
> And don't tell me people need to be smarter about borrowing money.  If the circumstances are dire enough, anyone will try to get credit, no matter what the interest rate, and that's when they get trapped.
> 
> Especially in the rather common circumstance where a payment is missed, and the interest rates on a credit card suddenly go up from 8% to 29.9%.
> 
> A top interest rate of 10% will leave plenty of room to fight inflation.
Click to expand...


The federal government is not given the task of being a banker for "poor" people who cannot afford credit.  What happened to saving for what you wanted?  You want it badly enough, you give up some other things.  Or, if not able to go beyond the basics, and unwilling to improve your lot, you just continue in the socio-economic strata that you inhabit.  It is not up to the government to improve anyone's lot in life, especially if they are unwilling to do so on their own initiative.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Foxfyre said:


> LWC posted in his previous post:
> 
> 
> 
> If one is going to make a legislation that revokes relief to poor people, surely it is in everyone's best interests to help said poor people out of the hole they have dug themselves into, which is a good part of the reason they require the assistance in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one sense I agree.  It would be unconscionably and unjustifiably cruel to abruptly revoke Social Security and Mediare at the federal level after making millions of people dependent on these programs.  . . but. . . .
> 
> We could begin now to slowly and carefuly back out of these programs at the federal level in small increments just as they have accrued and begin to privatize them.
> 
> Except for allocating  tracts of unimproved land to homesteaders way back when, I can't think of any case in which government has relieved poverty to any significant degree by giving people stuff.  I rather go with Ben Franklin's philosophy that we do people no kindness by making them easier in their poverty, but true compassion is leading or driving them out of it.
Click to expand...


People allocated those government land grants were required to "prove up".  That meant that they had to actually improve the land to some specified extent, thereby making that land productive and the landowners contributors to the general welfare of the community.


----------



## gallantwarrior

dblack said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> One man's loan shark is another's savior. I hardly see how we justify telling loan applicants how much interest they can pay on a loan. It should be up to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A loan shark is no one's savior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. Who we call a "loan shark" is a matter of opinion. How high is too high when it comes to interest rates? As others here have pointed out, being willing to pay higher interest rates is sometimes the only way a person with poor credit can get a loan. Setting legal limits on that is, essentially, setting legal limits on who has access to credit.
Click to expand...


It gets even worse when the federal government insures loans made at these usurious interest rates.  There is no real impetus for those making such loans to ensure that the people they are loaning the money to are capable of paying the loans back.  Those who take these loans have no real reason to pay them back when they know the loans will be paid for should they default.


----------



## Vidi

dblack said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will understand it if the lender is required to explain it to them.   Full disclosure and honesty in lending requires full disclosure and honesty.  Then if the person has it explained to him and chooses to take the loan anyway, it should be his choice.
> 
> I object to charging the same interest rate to the irresponsible high risk person as is charged to the responsible person who has done what is necessary to merit a low interest rate.  Interest should be based on risk and not some arbitrary amount fixed by government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interest rates are not dictated by the government. They are dictated by the Federal Reserve which is privately owned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were discussing usury laws that cap interest rates lenders are allowed to charge for loans.
Click to expand...


I stand corrected. Thank you.


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I reject the resolution entirely as such equal distribution of "benevolence" can only be attained through a socialistic redistribution of wealth, which I fundamentally oppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me?   The OP forbids the federal government from dispensing ANY form of benevolence on anybody.  How can that be a socialisitc redistribution of wealth?
Click to expand...





> any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity *that does not equally benefit all *



Thats socialism or its cousin, communism. The government, if it exists, MUST make laws, it MUST regulate. Its the very nature of the beast. If EVERY law must benefit EVERYONE equally, then either the government can not exist or it must be socialist or communist.

Sorry, but thats how I see it.


----------



## dblack

gallantwarrior said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> A loan shark is no one's savior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. Who we call a "loan shark" is a matter of opinion. How high is too high when it comes to interest rates? As others here have pointed out, being willing to pay higher interest rates is sometimes the only way a person with poor credit can get a loan. Setting legal limits on that is, essentially, setting legal limits on who has access to credit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It gets even worse when the federal government insures loans made at these usurious interest rates.  There is no real impetus for those making such loans to ensure that the people they are loaning the money to are capable of paying the loans back.  Those who take these loans have no real reason to pay them back when they know the loans will be paid for should they default.
Click to expand...


Exactly. And lenders have no reason not to make the loans, no matter how risky or ill-advised they may be. This is the kind of government intervention that is debilitating to the economy.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I reject the resolution entirely as such equal distribution of "benevolence" can only be attained through a socialistic redistribution of wealth, which I fundamentally oppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me?   The OP forbids the federal government from dispensing ANY form of benevolence on anybody.  How can that be a socialisitc redistribution of wealth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity *that does not equally benefit all *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats socialism or its cousin, communism. The government, if it exists, MUST make laws, it MUST regulate. Its the very nature of the beast. If EVERY law must benefit EVERYONE equally, then either the government can not exist or it must be socialist or communist.
> 
> Sorry, but thats how I see it.
Click to expand...


I did not say that every law must benefit everybody equally.  I said government at any level cannot use the people's money to benefit one group that does not benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

So, if they cut a subsidy check for say people living in one place, they have to cut a subsidy check for everybody else too.  And as that will not be financially feasible, they won't be voting to buy votes for a particular constituency.

Certainly those who don't need or want a particular government service don't have to apply for it or use it.  But anybody can.


----------



## Darkwind

Foxfyre said:


> *A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION*​
> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and
> 
> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and
> 
> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.
> 
> *    *    *    *    *   *​Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .



Point number 1:



> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only  is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming  an impossibility, and


It was considered self evident that to spend more money than one earned was a moral inconsistency.  It was considered in the past, and should  be considered today, an axiom that if there is a need to spend the public treasury on a public need; that need would be so self evident that no debate would be considered necessary and everyone would recognize the need.

Point Number 2:



> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's  personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to  avoid doing that, and


It is obvious to all that the use of the peoples money has degraded to a contest of who can bribe the most critical demographic for the purpose of remaining in power.  This is a criminal act morally, and should be codified legislatively.  There must be a need, beyond the need of the representative, to fulfill and it must be Constitutionally authorized before it is even debated.

Point Number 3:



> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and


this is more a matter of experts, but strikes Me as common sense.

Point number 4,5,& 6:



> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of  restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we  now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the  Constitution, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big  corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient  is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and  the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed  to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form  of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity  that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings  and/or socioeconomic status.


4 & 5 are the same argument and 6 is a logical resolution.


Yeah, its late and I'm kind of tired.  lol


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me?   The OP forbids the federal government from dispensing ANY form of benevolence on anybody.  How can that be a socialisitc redistribution of wealth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity *that does not equally benefit all *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats socialism or its cousin, communism. The government, if it exists, MUST make laws, it MUST regulate. Its the very nature of the beast. If EVERY law must benefit EVERYONE equally, then either the government can not exist or it must be socialist or communist.
> 
> Sorry, but thats how I see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say that every law must benefit everybody equally.  I said government at any level cannot use the people's money to benefit one group that does not benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> So, if they cut a subsidy check for say people living in one place, they have to cut a subsidy check for everybody else too.  And as that will not be financially feasible, they won't be voting to buy votes for a particular constituency.
> 
> Certainly those who don't need or want a particular government service don't have to apply for it or use it.  But anybody can.
Click to expand...



_Every law_ is the use of taxpayer money, as it must be enforced. If there is no enforcement, then the law is irrelevent. If a citizen chooses to take advantage of the benefit or not is irrelevent under your resolution ( as worded ) as the benefit MUST be presented to them in the first place.

Therefore, your resolution would either bind the hands of government to complete inaction or it would force it into a socialist or communist state.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats socialism or its cousin, communism. The government, if it exists, MUST make laws, it MUST regulate. Its the very nature of the beast. If EVERY law must benefit EVERYONE equally, then either the government can not exist or it must be socialist or communist.
> 
> Sorry, but thats how I see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say that every law must benefit everybody equally.  I said government at any level cannot use the people's money to benefit one group that does not benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> So, if they cut a subsidy check for say people living in one place, they have to cut a subsidy check for everybody else too.  And as that will not be financially feasible, they won't be voting to buy votes for a particular constituency.
> 
> Certainly those who don't need or want a particular government service don't have to apply for it or use it.  But anybody can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _Every law_ is the use of taxpayer money, as it must be enforced. If there is no enforcement, then the law is irrelevent. If a citizen chooses to take advantage of the benefit or not is irrelevent under your resolution ( as worded ) as the benefit MUST be presented to them in the first place.
> 
> Therefore, your resolution would either bind the hands of government to complete inaction or it would force it into a socialist or communist state.
Click to expand...


And yet the U.S. Government ran under the concept expressed in the resolution for about 150 years or so without feeling the least bit bound.  Why is that do you think?


----------



## Foxfyre

Darkwind, your post is provocative and I'll get back to it when I have more time to give it justice.


----------



## Vast LWC

gallantwarrior said:


> The federal government is not given the task of being a banker for "poor" people who cannot afford credit.  What happened to saving for what you wanted?  You want it badly enough, you give up some other things.  Or, if not able to go beyond the basics, and unwilling to improve your lot, you just continue in the socio-economic strata that you inhabit.  It is not up to the government to improve anyone's lot in life, especially if they are unwilling to do so on their own initiative.



I'm not sure I mentioned anywhere that the government should act as a "banker" for anyone.

I was making the point that they should allow states to enforce the usury laws that formerly protected people from criminal activity, as what was formerly criminal is now commonplace in the banking industry.

They certainly do have the power to do this, as they are given the constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce.

I don't believe I mentioned the government lending money to anyone.


----------



## Darkwind

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats socialism or its cousin, communism. The government, if it exists, MUST make laws, it MUST regulate. Its the very nature of the beast. If EVERY law must benefit EVERYONE equally, then either the government can not exist or it must be socialist or communist.
> 
> Sorry, but thats how I see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say that every law must benefit everybody equally.  I said government at any level cannot use the people's money to benefit one group that does not benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> So, if they cut a subsidy check for say people living in one place, they have to cut a subsidy check for everybody else too.  And as that will not be financially feasible, they won't be voting to buy votes for a particular constituency.
> 
> Certainly those who don't need or want a particular government service don't have to apply for it or use it.  But anybody can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _Every law_ is the use of taxpayer money, as it must be enforced. If there is no enforcement, then the law is irrelevent. If a citizen chooses to take advantage of the benefit or not is irrelevent under your resolution ( as worded ) as the benefit MUST be presented to them in the first place.
> 
> Therefore, your resolution would either bind the hands of government to complete inaction or it would force it into a socialist or communist state.
Click to expand...

yes, every law should be enforced.  The President does NOT get to decide which ones will and which ones will not.


----------



## Darkwind

Foxfyre said:


> Darkwind, your post is provocative and I'll get back to it when I have more time to give it justice.


At your pleasure lass.  I'll be in and out for the whole week.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> *A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION*​
> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and
> 
> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and
> 
> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.
> 
> *    *    *    *    *   *​Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .




While the above is certainly a carefully crafted and well intentioned concept, I must so very, very respectfully suggest that it is perhaps - just perhaps - not entirely practical. The actual implementation of that carefully crafted and well intentioned concept would, it seems in my oh-so-humble opinion, involve many more complications and contradictions with existing obligations than may perhaps - just perhaps - have been considered. Furthermore, the wording of this would-be Amendment seems to leave too wide an avenue for interpretation to avoid politicization to a degree that would render the concept meaningless. All of the foregoing is likely moot in any case since, in my oh-so-so-humble opinion, there is virtually no chance that such an Amendment would pass. 

I pray that my comments will not be interpreted as overly aggressive or contrarian, and I humbly beg the forgiveness of anyone who might take them as such.


----------



## Vidi

dblack said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me put this to you:
> 
> I would argue that risk is shared.
> 
> If someone buys the house next door to mine, but goes bankrupt and the house falls into disarray and stays vacant, MY property values suffer.
> 
> Should there not then be some mechanism to protect me from the foolish risks taken by others? Should the irresponsible behavior of others cost me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is the core difference in philosophy between libertarians and, for lack of a better term 'statists' (no insult intended). You want a government whose primary purpose is to function as an insurance company and assumes all risk is a public concern. As this fundamentally violates self-determination, and actively interferes with our personal decisions regarding how much risk we are willing to accept, I reject it categorically.
> 
> There will always be secondary (tertiary, etc...) effects of someone in society suffering misfortune (or enjoying good fortune for that matter). But freedom requires us to accept this. Insisting that we be protected from every inadvertent side-effect of others' decisions effectively disallows those decisions and squelches personal freedom. It implies that every decision we make requires permission from the state.
Click to expand...


No. Tertiary effects are taxation without representation. 

I dont want to take personal responsibility for your actions which I cannot control. I will take responsibility for mine and mine alone. Where your actions have a direct effect on my well being and the well being of my family is where governmental oversight begins. And ONLY there.


----------



## Darkwind

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION*​
> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and
> 
> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and
> 
> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.
> 
> *    *    *    *    *   *​Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the above is certainly a carefully crafted and well intentioned concept, I must so very, very respectfully suggest that it is perhaps - just perhaps - not entirely practical. The actual implementation of that carefully crafted and well intentioned concept would, it seems in my oh-so-humble opinion, involve many more complications and contradictions with existing obligations than may perhaps - just perhaps - have been considered. *Furthermore, the wording of this would-be Amendment seems to leave too wide an avenue for interpretation to avoid politicization to a degree that would render the concept meaningless.* All of the foregoing is likely moot in any case since, in my oh-so-so-humble opinion, there is virtually no chance that such an Amendment would pass.
> 
> I pray that my comments will not be interpreted as overly aggressive or contrarian, and I humbly beg the forgiveness of anyone who might take them as such.
Click to expand...

So, it would be the perfect bill?


----------



## Vidi

gallantwarrior said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ????   Why the emphasis on interest rates?   That's a big tool used to fight inflation, why are you putting limits on it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, by far, the largest current method of transferring money directly from the poor to the rich in this country is interest on debt.
> 
> Specifically, interest rates of about 30% that can be found on credit cards and other forms of credit generally used by poorer folks.
> 
> If one wants to make sure there is no need for federal funding to be extended to the poor, (and cutting off funding for poor folks is surely what this amendment is aimed to do) then stopping creditors from charging outrageous usury fees would be an excellent first step.
> 
> And don't tell me people need to be smarter about borrowing money.  If the circumstances are dire enough, anyone will try to get credit, no matter what the interest rate, and that's when they get trapped.
> 
> Especially in the rather common circumstance where a payment is missed, and the interest rates on a credit card suddenly go up from 8% to 29.9%.
> 
> A top interest rate of 10% will leave plenty of room to fight inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal government is not given the task of being a banker for "poor" people who cannot afford credit.  *What happened to saving for what you wanted?*  You want it badly enough, you give up some other things.  Or, if not able to go beyond the basics, and unwilling to improve your lot, you just continue in the socio-economic strata that you inhabit.  It is not up to the government to improve anyone's lot in life, especially if they are unwilling to do so on their own initiative.
Click to expand...


the price of things went up while wages remained at a constant.

My brother in law works for a company that just had its best year ever making more profits than it ever had before hundreds of millions of dollars. 

At review time, the employees were given a 1.25% "merit" raise maximum. Can we really expect people to save money if their wages, even when theyre wildly successful, do not increase with the cost of living?


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> LWC posted in his previous post:
> 
> 
> 
> If one is going to make a legislation that revokes relief to poor people, surely it is in everyone's best interests to help said poor people out of the hole they have dug themselves into, which is a good part of the reason they require the assistance in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one sense I agree.  It would be unconscionably and unjustifiably cruel to abruptly revoke Social Security and Mediare at the federal level after making millions of people dependent on these programs.  . . but. . . .
> 
> We could begin now to slowly and carefuly back out of these programs at the federal level in small increments just as they have accrued and begin to privatize them.
> 
> Except for allocating  tracts of unimproved land to homesteaders way back when, I can't think of any case in which government has relieved poverty to any significant degree by giving people stuff.  I rather go with Ben Franklin's philosophy that we do people no kindness by making them easier in their poverty, but true compassion is leading or driving them out of it.
Click to expand...



NO! NO! NO! A thousand times NO!

Privatizing Social Security is BAD! There is NO PROFIT to be made from it.

It would be better to put a time limit on it, saying that it will continue for so many years and then anyone born after that date will need this new privatized program weve come up with.

But taking the existing system and trying to turn a profit on it will never work.


----------



## P@triot

Sky Dancer said:


> The Founders could not have envisioned how our country would change.



Very true - which is why they built an amendment process in which allows for the Constitution to be altered for the changes they could not possibly have envisioned. Sadly, our government refuses to follow the law and the just bypasses the amendment process (case in point - the unconstitutional Obamacare).


----------



## dblack

Vidi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me put this to you:
> 
> I would argue that risk is shared.
> 
> If someone buys the house next door to mine, but goes bankrupt and the house falls into disarray and stays vacant, MY property values suffer.
> 
> Should there not then be some mechanism to protect me from the foolish risks taken by others? Should the irresponsible behavior of others cost me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is the core difference in philosophy between libertarians and, for lack of a better term 'statists' (no insult intended). You want a government whose primary purpose is to function as an insurance company and assumes all risk is a public concern. As this fundamentally violates self-determination, and actively interferes with our personal decisions regarding how much risk we are willing to accept, I reject it categorically.
> 
> There will always be secondary (tertiary, etc...) effects of someone in society suffering misfortune (or enjoying good fortune for that matter). But freedom requires us to accept this. Insisting that we be protected from every inadvertent side-effect of others' decisions effectively disallows those decisions and squelches personal freedom. It implies that every decision we make requires permission from the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Tertiary effects are taxation without representation.
> 
> I dont want to take personal responsibility for your actions which I cannot control. I will take responsibility for mine and mine alone. Where your actions have a direct effect on my well being and the well being of my family is where governmental oversight begins. And ONLY there.
Click to expand...


Yet you're suggesting that a neighbor taking risks that might affect others' perception of your property value is a 'direct effect'. Likewise, you've made arguments that indicate you believe government should dictate how we finance our health care because it might have a similar impact on your insurance premiums.

These are not "direct effects", or in any case they are not direct effects we should expect to be protected from. By this logic you could justify laws dictating my choice of which bread to buy because it _might_ have an effect on the price of your favorite brand. 

We didn't create government for the purpose of maintaining a static environment. We grant it power over us in order to protect us from bullies and thugs, not to insulate us from the general uncertainties of living in a pluralistic society.


----------



## dblack

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> LWC posted in his previous post:
> 
> 
> 
> If one is going to make a legislation that revokes relief to poor people, surely it is in everyone's best interests to help said poor people out of the hole they have dug themselves into, which is a good part of the reason they require the assistance in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one sense I agree.  It would be unconscionably and unjustifiably cruel to abruptly revoke Social Security and Mediare at the federal level after making millions of people dependent on these programs.  . . but. . . .
> 
> We could begin now to slowly and carefuly back out of these programs at the federal level in small increments just as they have accrued and begin to privatize them.
> 
> Except for allocating  tracts of unimproved land to homesteaders way back when, I can't think of any case in which government has relieved poverty to any significant degree by giving people stuff.  I rather go with Ben Franklin's philosophy that we do people no kindness by making them easier in their poverty, but true compassion is leading or driving them out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO! NO! NO! A thousand times NO!
> 
> Privatizing Social Security is BAD! There is NO PROFIT to be made from it.
> 
> It would be better to put a time limit on it, saying that it will continue for so many years and then anyone born after that date will need this new privatized program weve come up with.
> 
> But taking the existing system and trying to turn a profit on it will never work.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Efforts to "privatize" what were previously government services are often suspect and, when they result in granting "fiefdoms" to private industry, almost always a bad idea in my view. If we decide government doesn't need to be doing something, they should just stop doing it. Perhaps gradually, with plenty of public notice - but granting the controlling power of the state to private enterprise is a cure worse than the disease.


----------



## Jackson

> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to *prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status*.



It's about time we were all treated as true equals.  This is what we have been striving for since the construction of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.


----------



## Artevelde

Foxfyre said:


> *A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION*​
> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and
> 
> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and
> 
> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.
> 
> *    *    *    *    *   *​Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .



I understand where you're coming from, but I do see some problems.

First of all, I am on principle not a big fan of constitutional amendments. Let's make the Constitution work, instead of trying to tinker with it (even if with the best intentions).

Second, as it is written your proposal might have unintended consequences. Are we going to outlaw veteran's benefits? (they are a particular group too)


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> A loan shark is no one's savior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. Who we call a "loan shark" is a matter of opinion. How high is too high when it comes to interest rates? As others here have pointed out, being willing to pay higher interest rates is sometimes the only way a person with poor credit can get a loan. Setting legal limits on that is, essentially, setting legal limits on who has access to credit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me put this to you:
> 
> I would argue that risk is shared.
> 
> If someone buys the house next door to mine, but goes bankrupt and the house falls into disarray and stays vacant, MY property values suffer.
> 
> Should there not then be some mechanism to protect me from the foolish risks taken by others? Should the irresponsible behavior of others cost me?
Click to expand...


However distressing and unfortunate this situation may be, the only remedy for this situation is for the federal government to stay out of it EXCEPT for requirements of sound money management by the banks.  That means the government no longer bullies, threatens, or coerces banks into making risky loans to 'poor' people but insists that the banks return to sound lending practices.  Home loans will be made to people who save up for a down payment, who are responsible to pay their debts on time, and who earn enough money to realistically be able to pay their mortgages. 

People who have worked hard and developed the discipline to save and have a substantial investment in their homes, as well as having demonstrated the integrity of being honorable in paying their debts are not going to default on their mortgage except in very rare and unusual circumstances..

People who have little or no investment in their homes and little or no credit rating to protect are far more likely to not care if they default on their loans because they don't have anything to lose, most especially if they know the federal goverment may bail them out if they get into trouble.


----------



## Foxfyre

Artevelde said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION*​
> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and
> 
> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and
> 
> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.
> 
> *    *    *    *    *   *​Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand where you're coming from, but I do see some problems.
> 
> First of all, I am on principle not a big fan of constitutional amendments. Let's make the Constitution work, instead of trying to tinker with it (even if with the best intentions).
> 
> Second, as it is written your proposal might have unintended consequences. Are we going to outlaw veteran's benefits? (they are a particular group too)
Click to expand...



Veteran's benefits are part of the contract we make with those who choose to put their lives on the line in service to their country, and it is a constitutional requirement for the federal government  to provide the 
common defense.  So I see our veterans as not a special interest group, and my hope with the resolution is to attract true public servants back into government who will deal with veteran affairs thoughtfully, compassionately, and responsibly.

As for the Constitution working, the resolution itself makes the argument that it doesn't anymore.  For the first 150+ years or so of the USA, those elected to high office were restrained to do only what the Constitution allowed them to do.  As the Constitution makes absolutely no allowance for redistribution of wealth or dispensation of the people's treasury to special interest groups, the federal government did none of that.

Beginning with Teddy Roosevelt and snowballing ever since, the leaders decided they would no longer follow the old rules.  Rather than be restricted by what the Constitution allowed them to do, they turned that on its head and decided the government could do any damn thing it wanted unless the Constitution specifically prohibited it.

The result, a nation in which 50% of the people are dependent on some form of government subsidy that they are so attached to they elect people who will continue those subsidies rather than elect people dedicated to good government.  And we have politicians who are able to use the government to make themselves multi millionaires and that is their primary motivation for everything they do.  The result is a nation mired in crushing debt with a downgraded credit rating and teetering on the brink of bankruptcy with no will to correct what would put us back on track.

I think the resolution would fix most of that.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> LWC posted in his previous post:
> 
> 
> In one sense I agree.  It would be unconscionably and unjustifiably cruel to abruptly revoke Social Security and Mediare at the federal level after making millions of people dependent on these programs.  . . but. . . .
> 
> We could begin now to slowly and carefuly back out of these programs at the federal level in small increments just as they have accrued and begin to privatize them.
> 
> Except for allocating  tracts of unimproved land to homesteaders way back when, I can't think of any case in which government has relieved poverty to any significant degree by giving people stuff.  I rather go with Ben Franklin's philosophy that we do people no kindness by making them easier in their poverty, but true compassion is leading or driving them out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO! NO! NO! A thousand times NO!
> 
> Privatizing Social Security is BAD! There is NO PROFIT to be made from it.
> 
> It would be better to put a time limit on it, saying that it will continue for so many years and then anyone born after that date will need this new privatized program weve come up with.
> 
> But taking the existing system and trying to turn a profit on it will never work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. Efforts to "privatize" what were previously government services are often suspect and, when they result in granting "fiefdoms" to private industry, almost always a bad idea in my view. If we decide government doesn't need to be doing something, they should just stop doing it. Perhaps gradually, with plenty of public notice - but granting the controlling power of the state to private enterprise is a cure worse than the disease.
Click to expand...


If the states wanted to initiate some sort of social security program for their people, that would be their prerogative.  But once we slowly and carefully backed out of the existing programs so that we don't break faith with those the government has already made dependent on them, why not focus government efforts on making it profitable, responsible, and attractive to build your own retirement accounts?  Let's get retirement plans out of the hands of corporate America.  If people own their own plans, unethical corporate execs can't abscond with the money.  There would be nothing stopping an employer from contributing to the plans if they chose to do so, however.

Likewise if the workers and not the company own their health insurance policies, they can take them with them when they change jobs and dont have to worry about a job change costing them their healthcare coverage.  If employers want to continue to contribute a certain amount for a worker's health plan, there would be nothing to prohibit them from including that in a compensation package.

There's all kinds of ways to address these problems without the federal government being a nanny state.


----------



## Foxfyre

Darkwind said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION*​
> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and
> 
> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and
> 
> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.
> 
> *    *    *    *    *   *​Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the above is certainly a carefully crafted and well intentioned concept, I must so very, very respectfully suggest that it is perhaps - just perhaps - not entirely practical. The actual implementation of that carefully crafted and well intentioned concept would, it seems in my oh-so-humble opinion, involve many more complications and contradictions with existing obligations than may perhaps - just perhaps - have been considered. *Furthermore, the wording of this would-be Amendment seems to leave too wide an avenue for interpretation to avoid politicization to a degree that would render the concept meaningless.* All of the foregoing is likely moot in any case since, in my oh-so-so-humble opinion, there is virtually no chance that such an Amendment would pass.
> 
> I pray that my comments will not be interpreted as overly aggressive or contrarian, and I humbly beg the forgiveness of anyone who might take them as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, it would be the perfect bill?
Click to expand...


LOL.

Seriously though, the whole purpose of the resolution would be to take most of the ability for personal gain at somebody else's expense out of the equation and, while that would not eliminate politics, it would alter the political climate a great deal.

In my opinion it would return politics to honest differences of opinion in how to address problems with both sides serious about actually solving the problem.  There would be no personal benefit in intentionally allowing the problem to continue.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the above is certainly a carefully crafted and well intentioned concept, I must so very, very respectfully suggest that it is perhaps - just perhaps - not entirely practical. The actual implementation of that carefully crafted and well intentioned concept would, it seems in my oh-so-humble opinion, involve many more complications and contradictions with existing obligations than may perhaps - just perhaps - have been considered. *Furthermore, the wording of this would-be Amendment seems to leave too wide an avenue for interpretation to avoid politicization to a degree that would render the concept meaningless.* All of the foregoing is likely moot in any case since, in my oh-so-so-humble opinion, there is virtually no chance that such an Amendment would pass.
> 
> I pray that my comments will not be interpreted as overly aggressive or contrarian, and I humbly beg the forgiveness of anyone who might take them as such.
> 
> 
> 
> So, it would be the perfect bill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Seriously though, the whole purpose of the resolution would be to take most of the ability for personal gain at somebody else's expense out of the equation and, while that would not eliminate politics, it would alter the political climate a great deal.
> 
> In my opinion it would return politics to honest differences of opinion in how to address problems with both sides serious about actually solving the problem.  There would be no personal benefit in intentionally allowing the problem to continue.
Click to expand...




It would alter nothing, becuase it would never pass. If it somehow did pass, it would be meaningless for the reasons outlined above.


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it would be the perfect bill?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Seriously though, the whole purpose of the resolution would be to take most of the ability for personal gain at somebody else's expense out of the equation and, while that would not eliminate politics, it would alter the political climate a great deal.
> 
> In my opinion it would return politics to honest differences of opinion in how to address problems with both sides serious about actually solving the problem.  There would be no personal benefit in intentionally allowing the problem to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would alter nothing, becuase it would never pass. If it somehow did pass, it would be meaningless for the reasons outlined above.
Click to expand...


Are you sure?   I would have put good money on lots of things that I believed would never pass and I would have lost a lot of those bets.  Are you prepared to say that it is impossible that there are not enough Americans left who love their country to have the conversation and eventually bring it to a vote?

To refuse to even consider an idea, a concept, or possibility because 'it couldn't happen' is one of the best ways I can think of to bring forward progress to a screeching halt.

And you'll have to give me a better argument for how the resolution is 'meaningless' to be taken seriously about that.


----------



## Foxfyre

*Quick aside as a reminder to those just entering this thread:

This thread is in the CDZ where civility rules are enforced.  Everybody is pretty well sticking within those parameters, but I dont want to lose somebody with an interesting or useful point of view just because they weren't aware.  *


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Veteran's benefits are part of the contract we make with those who choose to put their lives on the line in service to their country, and it is a constitutional requirement for the federal government  to provide the
> common defense.  So I see our veterans as not a special interest group.





You demonstrate yourself how the whole idea would quickly be reduced to irrelevancy. Any half-assed lawyer could craft an argument that a whole host of other special interest groups are not really special interest groups, etc. And we have a whole bunch of half-assed lawyers in Congress. It would never pass, and would be meaningless in any case.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Seriously though, the whole purpose of the resolution would be to take most of the ability for personal gain at somebody else's expense out of the equation and, while that would not eliminate politics, it would alter the political climate a great deal.
> 
> In my opinion it would return politics to honest differences of opinion in how to address problems with both sides serious about actually solving the problem.  There would be no personal benefit in intentionally allowing the problem to continue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would alter nothing, becuase it would never pass. If it somehow did pass, it would be meaningless for the reasons outlined above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure?   I would have put good money on lots of things that I believed would never pass and I would have lost a lot of those bets.  Are you prepared to say that it is impossible that there are not enough Americans left who love their country to have the conversation and eventually bring it to a vote?
Click to expand...



Yes I'm sure, and recognizing that in no way indicates any lack of love of country. That kind of emotive language does nothing to advance the conversation or to make an impracitcal notion any more feasible. I understand the frustration from whence it sprung, but it really isn't a very well thought-out idea.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> And you'll have to give me a better argument for how the resolution is 'meaningless' to be taken seriously about that.




I explained that in my first post on the subject.


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Veteran's benefits are part of the contract we make with those who choose to put their lives on the line in service to their country, and it is a constitutional requirement for the federal government  to provide the
> common defense.  So I see our veterans as not a special interest group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You demonstrate yourself how the whole idea would quickly be reduced to irrelevancy. Any half-assed lawyer could craft an argument that a whole host of other special interest groups are not really special interest groups, etc. And we have a whole bunch of half-assed lawyers in Congress. It would never pass, and would be meaningless in any case.
Click to expand...


A whole bunch of other people are not essential to the constitutional requirement to provide the common defense.  So there is plenty of room to debate what constitutes appropriate contractual agreements for those who choose to put their lives on the line to provide that common defense, and whether that puts them into a special classification, but that is a totally different debate than the concepts in the resolution.

If you find the exercise of debating the concepts in the resolution to be meaningless, why are you participating at all?  There's lots and lots of other threads on subjects you might find less meaningless.  Just a friendly suggestion.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Veteran's benefits are part of the contract we make with those who choose to put their lives on the line in service to their country, and it is a constitutional requirement for the federal government  to provide the
> common defense.  So I see our veterans as not a special interest group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You demonstrate yourself how the whole idea would quickly be reduced to irrelevancy. Any half-assed lawyer could craft an argument that a whole host of other special interest groups are not really special interest groups, etc. And we have a whole bunch of half-assed lawyers in Congress. It would never pass, and would be meaningless in any case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A whole bunch of other people are not essential to the constitutional requirement to provide the common defense.
Click to expand...



Calm down and think for a minute. As I tried to tell you before, anyone with any legal training and/or political experience could find ways to tie any number of other special interest groups to Constitutional obligations, thus putting their chosen group outside the scope of your would-be bill, thus rendering it meaningless for all practical purposes. I mentioned all this in my very first post on the subject.


----------



## Vast LWC

Foxfyre said:


> However distressing and unfortunate this situation may be, the only remedy for this situation is for the federal government to stay out of it EXCEPT for requirements of sound money management by the banks.  That means the government no longer bullies, threatens, or coerces banks into making risky loans to 'poor' people but insists that the banks return to sound lending practices.  Home loans will be made to people who save up for a down payment, who are responsible to pay their debts on time, and who earn enough money to realistically be able to pay their mortgages.
> 
> People who have worked hard and developed the discipline to save and have a substantial investment in their homes, as well as having demonstrated the integrity of being honorable in paying their debts are not going to default on their mortgage except in very rare and unusual circumstances..
> 
> People who have little or no investment in their homes and little or no credit rating to protect are far more likely to not care if they default on their loans because they don't have anything to lose, most especially if they know the federal goverment may bail them out if they get into trouble.



I agree that the government should not force banks to extend loans to people who obviously will not be able to pay them back.

However, in return, banks should not be allowed to engage in clear usury.  

Laws are already on the books, as you mentioned, in most states.  It is the federal government that has allowed banks to skirt these usury laws.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vast LWC said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> However distressing and unfortunate this situation may be, the only remedy for this situation is for the federal government to stay out of it EXCEPT for requirements of sound money management by the banks.  That means the government no longer bullies, threatens, or coerces banks into making risky loans to 'poor' people but insists that the banks return to sound lending practices.  Home loans will be made to people who save up for a down payment, who are responsible to pay their debts on time, and who earn enough money to realistically be able to pay their mortgages.
> 
> People who have worked hard and developed the discipline to save and have a substantial investment in their homes, as well as having demonstrated the integrity of being honorable in paying their debts are not going to default on their mortgage except in very rare and unusual circumstances..
> 
> People who have little or no investment in their homes and little or no credit rating to protect are far more likely to not care if they default on their loans because they don't have anything to lose, most especially if they know the federal goverment may bail them out if they get into trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that the government should not force banks to extend loans to people who obviously will not be able to pay them back.
> 
> However, in return, banks should not be allowed to engage in clear usury.
> 
> Laws are already on the books, as you mentioned, in most states.  It is the federal government that has allowed banks to skirt these usury laws.
Click to expand...


I doubt there are many, if any banks engaged in usury practices.  I have taken out a lot of loans over my adult lifetime, and I have never failed to be able to negotiate an acceptable interest rate at any time that I have borrowed for any purpose.

But let's deal with that on its own deserving thread.  The OP is already pretty complex and covers a number of concepts without introducing a separate one.  The only way interest rates are pertinent to the OP is if the federal government mandated a lower interest rate to be made available to a special interest group and denied it to everybody else.


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You demonstrate yourself how the whole idea would quickly be reduced to irrelevancy. Any half-assed lawyer could craft an argument that a whole host of other special interest groups are not really special interest groups, etc. And we have a whole bunch of half-assed lawyers in Congress. It would never pass, and would be meaningless in any case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A whole bunch of other people are not essential to the constitutional requirement to provide the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down and think for a minute. As I tried to tell you before, anyone with any legal training and/or political experience could find ways to tie any number of other special interest groups to Constitutional obligations, thus putting their chosen group outside the scope of your would-be bill, thus rendering it meaningless for all practical purposes. I mentioned all this in my very first post on the subject.
Click to expand...


I don't have a lot of legal training but I have had some.  And therefore I can see that the resolution is not a bill nor is it wording for a Constitutional Amendment.

Like the Declaration of Independence was the Foundation for our Constitution, the New Emancipation Proclamation is intended to be a foundation for a conversation on how best to wrest our federal government away from corrupted and opportunisitic politicians and special interests and return it to a concept of securing our unalienable rights and then leaving us alone to govern ourselves.

It is intended to restore the Constitution as a document that limits what government is allowed to do rather than just specify what it is not allowed to do.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> A whole bunch of other people are not essential to the constitutional requirement to provide the common defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down and think for a minute. As I tried to tell you before, anyone with any legal training and/or political experience could find ways to tie any number of other special interest groups to Constitutional obligations, thus putting their chosen group outside the scope of your would-be bill, thus rendering it meaningless for all practical purposes. I mentioned all this in my very first post on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a lot of legal training but I have had some.  And therefore I can see that the resolution is not a bill nor is it wording for a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Like the Declaration of Independence was the Foundation for our Constitution, the New Emancipation Proclamation is intended to be a foundation for a conversation on how best to wrest our federal government away from corrupted and opportunisitic politicians and special interests and return it to a concept of securing our unalienable rights and then leaving us alone to govern ourselves.
Click to expand...



If you want to pick that nit, the title 'New Emancipation Proclamation' is inappropriate. The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order. Is that what you had in mind? Also, considering what the Emancipation Proclamation really was, your use of it here could be construed as pretty offensive.


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down and think for a minute. As I tried to tell you before, anyone with any legal training and/or political experience could find ways to tie any number of other special interest groups to Constitutional obligations, thus putting their chosen group outside the scope of your would-be bill, thus rendering it meaningless for all practical purposes. I mentioned all this in my very first post on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a lot of legal training but I have had some.  And therefore I can see that the resolution is not a bill nor is it wording for a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Like the Declaration of Independence was the Foundation for our Constitution, the New Emancipation Proclamation is intended to be a foundation for a conversation on how best to wrest our federal government away from corrupted and opportunisitic politicians and special interests and return it to a concept of securing our unalienable rights and then leaving us alone to govern ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to pick that nit, the title 'New Emancipation Proclamation' is inappropriate. The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order. Is that what you had in mind? Also, considering what the Emancipation Proclamation really was, your use of it here could be construed as pretty offensive.
Click to expand...


No dear, and I don't know how to explain what I had in mind any better than I explained it.

The Emancipation Proclamation was the President's declaration that the slaves would be freed.

The New Emancipation Proclamation is my, and I hope a lot of other people's, declaration that we the people will be freed from a corrupt and ever more manipulative and oppressive government.

And if that offends you, well I can't help that.  You might enjoy Q.W.'s thread on being offended that is also active in the CDZ.


----------



## Foxfyre

Cleaning up the election process is being debated in another thread and has absolutely nothing to do with the corruption that exists in the government we have.

The resolution is to reform a system that is broken and that, in my opinion, has created the huge lion's shares of the problems we have at the current time.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> The New Emancipation Proclamation is my, and I hope a lot of other people's, declaration that we the people will be freed from a corrupt and ever more manipulative and oppressive government.





You don't see where equating our need to rein in the overreach of government spending and entitlement programs with the actual condition of slavery is wildly inappropriate? That is taking emoting way, way too far.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> The Emancipation Proclamation was the President's declaration that the slaves would be freed.




Not exactly, but close enough.


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Emancipation Proclamation is my, and I hope a lot of other people's, declaration that we the people will be freed from a corrupt and ever more manipulative and oppressive government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see where equating our need to rein in the overreach of government spending and entitlement programs with the actual condition of slavery is wildly inappropriate? That is taking emoting way, way too far.
Click to expand...


Your opinion is noted.   And again I refer you to the separate discussion on what is and what isn't offensive.

The last time I looked up the definition, 'slavery' is restriction of freedom coupled with involuntary servitude to another.  It really doesn't matter what the motives are or how nicely it is dressed up, it is slavery nonetheless.

If you choose to discuss why the government confiscating what I earn and using it to benefit others, most especially when it also benefits those dispensing the money, is not a form of slavery, I would be interested in hearing it.

I am not interested in getting into a side issue of semantics.


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say that every law must benefit everybody equally.  I said government at any level cannot use the people's money to benefit one group that does not benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> So, if they cut a subsidy check for say people living in one place, they have to cut a subsidy check for everybody else too.  And as that will not be financially feasible, they won't be voting to buy votes for a particular constituency.
> 
> Certainly those who don't need or want a particular government service don't have to apply for it or use it.  But anybody can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Every law_ is the use of taxpayer money, as it must be enforced. If there is no enforcement, then the law is irrelevent. If a citizen chooses to take advantage of the benefit or not is irrelevent under your resolution ( as worded ) as the benefit MUST be presented to them in the first place.
> 
> Therefore, your resolution would either bind the hands of government to complete inaction or it would force it into a socialist or communist state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet the U.S. Government ran under the concept expressed in the resolution for about 150 years or so without feeling the least bit bound.  Why is that do you think?
Click to expand...


I think that you have a distiorted view of the first 150 years of our countries existence. At NO time in our history did laws effect everyone equally. There have ALWAYS been winners and losers in every decision made by government. Thats just the nature of the beast.

Sure, we may have a conceptual ideal that we hope will guide us, but practical application will always fall far short of that ideal. By placing that ideal into the Constitution, in the manner in which you suggest, youre advocating for a socialist or communist government in which the government redistributes all resources equally.


----------



## Vidi

Darkwind said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say that every law must benefit everybody equally.  I said government at any level cannot use the people's money to benefit one group that does not benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> So, if they cut a subsidy check for say people living in one place, they have to cut a subsidy check for everybody else too.  And as that will not be financially feasible, they won't be voting to buy votes for a particular constituency.
> 
> Certainly those who don't need or want a particular government service don't have to apply for it or use it.  But anybody can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Every law_ is the use of taxpayer money, as it must be enforced. If there is no enforcement, then the law is irrelevent. If a citizen chooses to take advantage of the benefit or not is irrelevent under your resolution ( as worded ) as the benefit MUST be presented to them in the first place.
> 
> Therefore, your resolution would either bind the hands of government to complete inaction or it would force it into a socialist or communist state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, every law should be enforced.  The President does NOT get to decide which ones will and which ones will not.
Click to expand...



In theory.  

But with limited resources available, every President must decide priority. It is through that priority that a President can put enforcment of certain laws so far back on the list that they essentially become non existant.


----------



## Vidi

Rottweiler said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders could not have envisioned how our country would change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very true - which is why they built an amendment process in which allows for the Constitution to be altered for the changes they could not possibly have envisioned. Sadly, our government refuses to follow the law and the just bypasses the amendment process (case in point - the unconstitutional Obamacare).
Click to expand...



To the absolutel shock of EVERYONE, SCOTUS has deemed it Constitutional. The system has decided against your statement.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Emancipation Proclamation is my, and I hope a lot of other people's, declaration that we the people will be freed from a corrupt and ever more manipulative and oppressive government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see where equating our need to rein in the overreach of government spending and entitlement programs with the actual condition of slavery is wildly inappropriate? That is taking emoting way, way too far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion is noted.   And again I refer you to the separate discussion on what is and what isn't offensive.
> 
> The last time I looked up the definition, 'slavery' is restriction of freedom coupled with involuntary servitude to another.  It really doesn't matter what the motives are or how nicely it is dressed up, it is slavery nonetheless.
> 
> If you choose to discuss why the government confiscating what I earn and using it to benefit others, most especially when it also benefits those dispensing the money, is not a form of slavery, I would be interested in hearing it.
> 
> I am not interested in getting into a side issue of semantics.
Click to expand...




You would seem to have ensured that it would come up when you chose the name of your 'resolution.' To equate, in any way, government overreach and excessive taxation unwisely spent (though certainly that is serious) with the actual horrors of slavery that actual human beings suffered day in and day out for centuries in this country is beyond outrageous. To diminish such unspeakable human suffering in this way is far more than merely inappropriate.


----------



## Vidi

dblack said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is the core difference in philosophy between libertarians and, for lack of a better term 'statists' (no insult intended). You want a government whose primary purpose is to function as an insurance company and assumes all risk is a public concern. As this fundamentally violates self-determination, and actively interferes with our personal decisions regarding how much risk we are willing to accept, I reject it categorically.
> 
> There will always be secondary (tertiary, etc...) effects of someone in society suffering misfortune (or enjoying good fortune for that matter). But freedom requires us to accept this. Insisting that we be protected from every inadvertent side-effect of others' decisions effectively disallows those decisions and squelches personal freedom. It implies that every decision we make requires permission from the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Tertiary effects are taxation without representation.
> 
> I dont want to take personal responsibility for your actions which I cannot control. I will take responsibility for mine and mine alone. Where your actions have a direct effect on my well being and the well being of my family is where governmental oversight begins. And ONLY there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you're suggesting that a neighbor taking risks that might affect others' perception of your property value is a 'direct effect'. Likewise, you've made arguments that indicate you believe government should dictate how we finance our health care because it might have a similar impact on your insurance premiums.
> 
> These are not "direct effects", or in any case they are not direct effects we should expect to be protected from. By this logic you could justify laws dictating my choice of which bread to buy because it _might_ have an effect on the price of your favorite brand.
> 
> *We didn't create government for the purpose of maintaining a static environment*. We grant it power over us in order to protect us from bullies and thugs, not to insulate us from the general uncertainties of living in a pluralistic society.
Click to expand...



I agree we didnt create government to maintain a *static *environment. We created government to create a _*stable*_ enviorment. Government has NO OTHER PURPOSE than that. 

Every law, every regulation, every amendment to the Constitution should be passed ONLY to promote stability.

Unneccesary and foolish risk promotes instability that places the innocent at risk though no fault of their own.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Every law_ is the use of taxpayer money, as it must be enforced. If there is no enforcement, then the law is irrelevent. If a citizen chooses to take advantage of the benefit or not is irrelevent under your resolution ( as worded ) as the benefit MUST be presented to them in the first place.
> 
> Therefore, your resolution would either bind the hands of government to complete inaction or it would force it into a socialist or communist state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the U.S. Government ran under the concept expressed in the resolution for about 150 years or so without feeling the least bit bound.  Why is that do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that you have a distiorted view of the first 150 years of our countries existence. At NO time in our history did laws effect everyone equally. There have ALWAYS been winners and losers in every decision made by government. Thats just the nature of the beast.
> 
> Sure, we may have a conceptual ideal that we hope will guide us, but practical application will always fall far short of that ideal. By placing that ideal into the Constitution, in the manner in which you suggest, youre advocating for a socialist or communist government in which the government redistributes all resources equally.
Click to expand...


But let's focus here.  The resolution does not address most laws that the federal government would pass.  It does not address federal guidelines for the proper handling of foodstuffs or what hours the Post Office will be open or regulation of shared air space, surface water, etc.

The resolution is focused only on restricting the federal government to what the Constitution allows it to do and, to make sure there are no loopholes as some courts have seen in the general welfare clause, it will prohibit the federal government  from collecting taxes from any citizen for the exclusive benefit of any other citizen, group, demographic, entity, etc.


----------



## Foxfyre

Quick aside:  It's senior ctiizen discount day at Albertson's and I'm off to the grocery store.  Back later.


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. Who we call a "loan shark" is a matter of opinion. How high is too high when it comes to interest rates? As others here have pointed out, being willing to pay higher interest rates is sometimes the only way a person with poor credit can get a loan. Setting legal limits on that is, essentially, setting legal limits on who has access to credit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me put this to you:
> 
> I would argue that risk is shared.
> 
> If someone buys the house next door to mine, but goes bankrupt and the house falls into disarray and stays vacant, MY property values suffer.
> 
> Should there not then be some mechanism to protect me from the foolish risks taken by others? Should the irresponsible behavior of others cost me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However distressing and unfortunate this situation may be, the only remedy for this situation is for the federal government to stay out of it EXCEPT for requirements of sound money management by the banks.  That means the government no longer bullies, threatens, or coerces banks into making risky loans to 'poor' people but insists that the banks return to sound lending practices.  Home loans will be made to people who save up for a down payment, who are responsible to pay their debts on time, and who earn enough money to realistically be able to pay their mortgages.
> 
> People who have worked hard and developed the discipline to save and have a substantial investment in their homes, as well as having demonstrated the integrity of being honorable in paying their debts are not going to default on their mortgage except in very rare and unusual circumstances..
> 
> People who have little or no investment in their homes and little or no credit rating to protect are far more likely to not care if they default on their loans because they don't have anything to lose, most especially if they know the federal goverment may bail them out if they get into trouble.
Click to expand...



You do understand that it wasnt the bad loans that brought down the economy right? It was the securitizing them and reselling that did it.

In fact, the loans themselves were toxic only because of the manner in which they were set up. 

think about it.

The government said Hey if you give loans to these questionable borrowers, we will insure the loans so you get your money no matter what." BUT the goevrnment did not dicate what the terms of the loans were. So the banks jumped in with the subprime category and pushed as many people into BAD loans, loans the bank KNEW could NEVER be paid off unless someone won the lottery.

But heres the rub:

A Sub Prime loan meant the bank was taking more risk by lending to someone with less than stellar credit. We often hear that these people had no business getting the loans they were getting. BUT...the reality is the bank took NO RISK at all by giving out those loans because if the borrower paid it off, they made money. If they didnt, the government paid, and the banks made money. There was NO WAY for the banks to lose. 

So the structures of sub prime loans, structured for five years instead of 30, or mortgage payments that doubled or even tripled after trhee to five years, were specifically designed for the borrower to be forced into another loan within a few years. This was accepted because house prices were rising and the house itself should have been more valueable a few years down the road and thus given the borrower equity in the hosue itself.

But like I said the banks assumed NO RISK AT ALL. So the structures of the laons should have been BETTER than those of people who didnt fall into the subprime category. They should have favored the comsumer MORE. And because they didnt, tehy were set up to fail by the banks.

Why? because when a borrower is forced to refinance repeatedly, they are never an owner ALWAYS a rented and the bank has now taken ownership of the house without any of the responsibilities of a landlord.

It was the perfect scam.


----------



## Foxfyre

Yes Vidi, I have debated the 2008 crash for hours and hours and hours now as well as help coach a debate team in a formal debate on that subject.  And it is an interesting subject but unfortunately will derail this thread if we get into it.

So lets just accept a general consensus that a responsible federal government exercises responsible regulation and oversight of banks using federal money, our government seriously let us down in that regard that created the 2008 crash, and maybe the resolution as written will help us put true public servants back into government to replace those who have little or no interest in actually solving problems.


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the U.S. Government ran under the concept expressed in the resolution for about 150 years or so without feeling the least bit bound.  Why is that do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you have a distiorted view of the first 150 years of our countries existence. At NO time in our history did laws effect everyone equally. There have ALWAYS been winners and losers in every decision made by government. Thats just the nature of the beast.
> 
> Sure, we may have a conceptual ideal that we hope will guide us, but practical application will always fall far short of that ideal. By placing that ideal into the Constitution, in the manner in which you suggest, youre advocating for a socialist or communist government in which the government redistributes all resources equally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But let's focus here.  *The resolution does not address most laws that the federal government would pass. * It does not address federal guidelines for the proper handling of foodstuffs or what hours the Post Office will be open or regulation of shared air space, surface water, etc.
> 
> The resolution is focused only on restricting the federal government to what the Constitution allows it to do and, to make sure there are no loopholes as some courts have seen in the general welfare clause, it will prohibit the federal government  from collecting taxes from any citizen for the exclusive benefit of any other citizen, group, demographic, entity, etc.
Click to expand...


I think you need to reread your resolution.



> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.



EVERY LAW bestows a form of benevolence or benefit to SOMEONE. It must or its meaningless. 

So your resolution would effect EVERY LAW passed, past, present and future, forcing the government into either complete and total inaction, or into a purely communist state.




Oh and show me a tax thats collected for the "exclusive" benefit of another group of people. You see, its that word exclusive you put in there that damns your statement. It can be argued that food stamps and welfare are to the benefit of the rich. After all, it heps prevent food riots doesnt it? It helps to prevent large scale uprisings where "let them eat cake." isnt going to stop the angry mob at the gate, doesnt it?

Its far too easy to argue benefit and benevolence and end up with a society that looks NOTHING like what the Founders envisioned.

Sorry, Fox, I appreciate what your trying to accomplish, but THAT particular resolution is a communist manifesto.


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Yes Vidi, I have debated the 2008 crash for hours and hours and hours now as well as help coach a debate team in a formal debate on that subject.  And it is an interesting subject but unfortunately will derail this thread if we get into it.
> 
> So lets just accept a general consensus that a responsible federal government exercises responsible regulation and oversight of banks using federal money, our government seriously let us down in that regard that created the 2008 crash, and maybe the resolution as written will help us put true public servants back into government to replace those who have little or no interest in actually solving problems.



fair enough. I apologize. It was not my intention to derail.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> maybe the resolution as written will help us put true public servants back into government to replace those who have little or no interest in actually solving problems.





Just out of curiosity, do you actually expect that anything posted here will have any impact on the world outside this forum?


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see where equating our need to rein in the overreach of government spending and entitlement programs with the actual condition of slavery is wildly inappropriate? That is taking emoting way, way too far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is noted.   And again I refer you to the separate discussion on what is and what isn't offensive.
> 
> The last time I looked up the definition, 'slavery' is restriction of freedom coupled with involuntary servitude to another.  It really doesn't matter what the motives are or how nicely it is dressed up, it is slavery nonetheless.
> 
> If you choose to discuss why the government confiscating what I earn and using it to benefit others, most especially when it also benefits those dispensing the money, is not a form of slavery, I would be interested in hearing it.
> 
> I am not interested in getting into a side issue of semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would seem to have ensured that it would come up when you chose the name of your 'resolution.' To equate, in any way, government overreach and excessive taxation unwisely spent (though certainly that is serious) with the actual horrors of slavery that actual human beings suffered day in and day out for centuries in this country is beyond outrageous. To diminish such unspeakable human suffering in this way is far more than merely inappropriate.
Click to expand...


I've already noted that you have a problem with the name of the resolution.  I have given my rationale for it and you either accept that or you don't.   If you believe it is offensively inappropriate then report it and me and let the mods handle it.  If it bothers you too much to concentrate on anything else, again I point you to a very large, diverse world out there beyond the CDZ where you can criticize me and my thread with impunity and characterize it any way you wish.

Otherwise, I will again respectfully request that you focus on the content and purpose of the resolution and will thank you for your courtesy and consideration.


----------



## dblack

Vidi said:


> I think that you have a distiorted view of the first 150 years of our countries existence. At NO time in our history did laws effect everyone equally. There have ALWAYS been winners and losers in every decision made by government. Thats just the nature of the beast.



I think you're missing the point. Sure, laws will affect different people differently. But currently we deliberately write laws to reward some and punish others, and that should never be the intent. The intent ought to be equal rights under the law. Indulging the urge to use the government to hand out favors corrupts egalitarian government and encourages corporatism.

I think the Foxfyre's "manifesto" is a move in the right direction. We should condemn government that plays favorites and promote equal treatment under the law. Even if that goal present challenges in its practical implementation.

The one thing I'd like to see highlighted more is the practice of using the tax code as the principal tool in effecting unequal treatment. As Justice Roberts and PPACA have shown us, the government doesn't need specific authority to dictate behavior when it can use discriminatory taxation to achieve the same ends. That practice, more than any other, needs to end.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you have a distiorted view of the first 150 years of our countries existence. At NO time in our history did laws effect everyone equally. There have ALWAYS been winners and losers in every decision made by government. Thats just the nature of the beast.
> 
> Sure, we may have a conceptual ideal that we hope will guide us, but practical application will always fall far short of that ideal. By placing that ideal into the Constitution, in the manner in which you suggest, youre advocating for a socialist or communist government in which the government redistributes all resources equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's focus here.  *The resolution does not address most laws that the federal government would pass. * It does not address federal guidelines for the proper handling of foodstuffs or what hours the Post Office will be open or regulation of shared air space, surface water, etc.
> 
> The resolution is focused only on restricting the federal government to what the Constitution allows it to do and, to make sure there are no loopholes as some courts have seen in the general welfare clause, it will prohibit the federal government  from collecting taxes from any citizen for the exclusive benefit of any other citizen, group, demographic, entity, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you need to reread your resolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EVERY LAW bestows a form of benevolence or benefit to SOMEONE. It must or its meaningless.
> 
> So your resolution would effect EVERY LAW passed, past, present and future, forcing the government into either complete and total inaction, or into a purely communist state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and show me a tax thats collected for the "exclusive" benefit of another group of people. You see, its that word exclusive you put in there that damns your statement. It can be argued that food stamps and welfare are to the benefit of the rich. After all, it heps prevent food riots doesnt it? It helps to prevent large scale uprisings where "let them eat cake." isnt going to stop the angry mob at the gate, doesnt it?
> 
> Its far too easy to argue benefit and benevolence and end up with a society that looks NOTHING like what the Founders envisioned.
> 
> Sorry, Fox, I appreciate what your trying to accomplish, but THAT particular resolution is a communist manifesto.
Click to expand...


No Vidi, I see a distinct difference between 'benefit' or 'benevolence' to targeted individuals, groups, entities, demographics etc. and benefit as is intended in the general welfare.

The Interstate Highways system for instance was conceived to improve our defense capabilities should somebody get a wild hair and directly attack us.  But it has absolutely promoted the general welfare also as it has been developed partially on a per capita basis but mostly on an orderly grid useful to anybody and everybody who wishes to travel from one part of the country to another.  Also every man, woman, and child, without respect to their political affliation, socioeconomic status, race, religion or whatever benefits from the Interstate system.  There is no way to make a case that it benefits any targeted group more than any other.  It is absolutely what the Founders had in mind with the general welfare clause.

So maybe everybody won't benefit equally from every law, but there is a huge difference between that and targeting one group for a benefit that others won't share in but will  be expected to pay for.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> I've already noted that you have a problem with the name of the resolution.




You've got it backwards. The problem lies not with me, but with the name of the 'resolution' itself. If you can't justify diminishing the suffering of those who labored under actual slavery, you should think of another name. I've also pointed out that the name doesn't work on another level as well, since the real Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order and not a make-believe 'resolution.' This is a point that bears consideration.


----------



## Vidi

dblack said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you have a distiorted view of the first 150 years of our countries existence. At NO time in our history did laws effect everyone equally. There have ALWAYS been winners and losers in every decision made by government. Thats just the nature of the beast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're missing the point. Sure, laws will affect different people differently. But currently we deliberately write laws to reward some and punish others, and that should never be the intent. The intent ought to be equal rights under the law. Indulging the urge to use the government to hand out favors corrupts egalitarian government and encourages corporatism.
> 
> I think the Foxfyre's "manifesto" is a move in the right direction. We should condemn government that plays favorites and promote equal treatment under the law. Even if that goal present challenges in its practical implementation.
> 
> The one thing I'd like to see highlighted more is the practice of using the tax code as the principal tool in effecting unequal treatment. As Justice Roberts and PPACA have shown us, the government doesn't need specific authority to dictate behavior when it can use discriminatory taxation to achieve the same ends. That practice, more than any other, needs to end.
Click to expand...



The 14th amendment calls for equal protection under the law. That is the closest we will ever get to true equality.

The resolution as stated says that NO LAW may be passed giving benefit to one group without giving benefit to ALL groups. That is an impossibility because of the very nature of laws. ALL LAWS are made to correct an imbalance in the system. They specifically pick winners and losers because they are created to correct an injustice of some kind.

Foxfyres resolution is an impossibility because it ignores completely the very nature of laws and why they are made. If however the goal is equal protection under the law, then Foxfyres resolution is redundant as the 14th amendment already provides for that protection.

Therefore, I fully oppose Foxfyres resolution 100% as being both unworkable at worst  and redundant at best.


----------



## Vidi

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already noted that you have a problem with the name of the resolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've got it backwards. *The problem lies not with me, but with the name of the 'resolution' itself. *If you can't justify diminishing the suffering of those who labored under actual slavery, you should think of another name. I've also pointed out that the name doesn't work on another level as well, since the real Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order and not a make-believe 'resolution.' This is a point that bears consideration.
Click to expand...



YOU have a problem with the name of the resolution. We get it. The REST of us are actually discussing the resolution on the merits of its contents. Would you like to join us in that discussion or continue to  Foxfyre over her poor name choice?


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But let's focus here.  *The resolution does not address most laws that the federal government would pass. * It does not address federal guidelines for the proper handling of foodstuffs or what hours the Post Office will be open or regulation of shared air space, surface water, etc.
> 
> The resolution is focused only on restricting the federal government to what the Constitution allows it to do and, to make sure there are no loopholes as some courts have seen in the general welfare clause, it will prohibit the federal government  from collecting taxes from any citizen for the exclusive benefit of any other citizen, group, demographic, entity, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to reread your resolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EVERY LAW bestows a form of benevolence or benefit to SOMEONE. It must or its meaningless.
> 
> So your resolution would effect EVERY LAW passed, past, present and future, forcing the government into either complete and total inaction, or into a purely communist state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and show me a tax thats collected for the "exclusive" benefit of another group of people. You see, its that word exclusive you put in there that damns your statement. It can be argued that food stamps and welfare are to the benefit of the rich. After all, it heps prevent food riots doesnt it? It helps to prevent large scale uprisings where "let them eat cake." isnt going to stop the angry mob at the gate, doesnt it?
> 
> Its far too easy to argue benefit and benevolence and end up with a society that looks NOTHING like what the Founders envisioned.
> 
> Sorry, Fox, I appreciate what your trying to accomplish, but THAT particular resolution is a communist manifesto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Vidi, I see a distinct difference between 'benefit' or 'benevolence' to targeted individuals, groups, entities, demographics etc. and benefit as is intended in the general welfare.
> 
> The Interstate Highways system for instance was conceived to improve our defense capabilities should somebody get a wild hair and directly attack us.  But it has absolutely promoted the general welfare also as it has been developed partially on a per capita basis but mostly on an orderly grid useful to anybody and everybody who wishes to travel from one part of the country to another.  Also every man, woman, and child, without respect to their political affliation, socioeconomic status, race, religion or whatever benefits from the Interstate system.  There is no way to make a case that it benefits any targeted group more than any other.  It is absolutely what the Founders had in mind with the general welfare clause.
> 
> So maybe everybody won't benefit equally from every law, but there is a huge difference between that and targeting one group for a benefit that others won't share in but will  be expected to pay for.
Click to expand...



good example! The highway system! Lets use that.


Awesomeville and Smellslikefeetburg were both small towns in Iowa ( names are fictional ) when highway 80 was constructed.

The interstate went less than a mile from Smellslikefeetburg while Awesomeville was 30 miles away. The commerce that came with the interstate, the easy access to trade routes made Smellslikefeetburg grow to a thriving city, while Awesomeville's economy moved slowly and even contracted when businesses ( wanting to be closer to the interstate ) moved to Smellslikefeetburg.

So the Interstate highway system picked winners and losers. It gave benefit top some while punishing others.

Your resolution REQUIRES that benefit be givern to ALL groups equally, which is impossible.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to reread your resolution.
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY LAW bestows a form of benevolence or benefit to SOMEONE. It must or its meaningless.
> 
> So your resolution would effect EVERY LAW passed, past, present and future, forcing the government into either complete and total inaction, or into a purely communist state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and show me a tax thats collected for the "exclusive" benefit of another group of people. You see, its that word exclusive you put in there that damns your statement. It can be argued that food stamps and welfare are to the benefit of the rich. After all, it heps prevent food riots doesnt it? It helps to prevent large scale uprisings where "let them eat cake." isnt going to stop the angry mob at the gate, doesnt it?
> 
> Its far too easy to argue benefit and benevolence and end up with a society that looks NOTHING like what the Founders envisioned.
> 
> Sorry, Fox, I appreciate what your trying to accomplish, but THAT particular resolution is a communist manifesto.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Vidi, I see a distinct difference between 'benefit' or 'benevolence' to targeted individuals, groups, entities, demographics etc. and benefit as is intended in the general welfare.
> 
> The Interstate Highways system for instance was conceived to improve our defense capabilities should somebody get a wild hair and directly attack us.  But it has absolutely promoted the general welfare also as it has been developed partially on a per capita basis but mostly on an orderly grid useful to anybody and everybody who wishes to travel from one part of the country to another.  Also every man, woman, and child, without respect to their political affliation, socioeconomic status, race, religion or whatever benefits from the Interstate system.  There is no way to make a case that it benefits any targeted group more than any other.  It is absolutely what the Founders had in mind with the general welfare clause.
> 
> So maybe everybody won't benefit equally from every law, but there is a huge difference between that and targeting one group for a benefit that others won't share in but will  be expected to pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> good example! The highway system! Lets use that.
> 
> 
> Awesomeville and Smellslikefeetburg were both small towns in Iowa ( names are fictional ) when highway 80 was constructed.
> 
> The interstate went less than a mile from Smellslikefeetburg while Awesomeville was 30 miles away. The commerce that came with the interstate, the easy access to trade routes made Smellslikefeetburg grow to a thriving city, while Awesomeville's economy moved slowly and even contracted when businesses ( wanting to be closer to the interstate ) moved to Smellslikefeetburg.
> 
> So the Interstate highway system picked winners and losers. It gave benefit top some while punishing others.
> 
> Your resolution REQUIRES that benefit be givern to ALL groups equally, which is impossible.
Click to expand...


No, the federal Interstate picked no winners and losers.  It provided the funds and laid out the map.  It was up to the states to build the roads, however, and it was the states who determined where the exits would go.  It is a pretty safe bet, however, that an Interstate exit is rarely responsible for the prosperity of a community, but it is the prosperity (and sizes) of the communities that gneerally determine were exits will be.  A large city may have dozens, for instance, while tiny burgs have to share an exit with somebody else.

But I do see your point that such is not always 100% fair, but again that is the choice of the states and not the federal government.  There are many many communiies with exits off our interstate system in New Mexico that still struggle to survive, while cities nowhere close to an interstate highway are thriving.  It is all relative.


----------



## Foxfyre

Reviting the resolution, here is the exact wording:



> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.



I think it is pretty specific that the purpose is to prohibit the federal government from targeting any group for a benefit without making it available to everybody.


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Vidi, I see a distinct difference between 'benefit' or 'benevolence' to targeted individuals, groups, entities, demographics etc. and benefit as is intended in the general welfare.
> 
> The Interstate Highways system for instance was conceived to improve our defense capabilities should somebody get a wild hair and directly attack us.  But it has absolutely promoted the general welfare also as it has been developed partially on a per capita basis but mostly on an orderly grid useful to anybody and everybody who wishes to travel from one part of the country to another.  Also every man, woman, and child, without respect to their political affliation, socioeconomic status, race, religion or whatever benefits from the Interstate system.  There is no way to make a case that it benefits any targeted group more than any other.  It is absolutely what the Founders had in mind with the general welfare clause.
> 
> So maybe everybody won't benefit equally from every law, but there is a huge difference between that and targeting one group for a benefit that others won't share in but will  be expected to pay for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> good example! The highway system! Lets use that.
> 
> 
> Awesomeville and Smellslikefeetburg were both small towns in Iowa ( names are fictional ) when highway 80 was constructed.
> 
> The interstate went less than a mile from Smellslikefeetburg while Awesomeville was 30 miles away. The commerce that came with the interstate, the easy access to trade routes made Smellslikefeetburg grow to a thriving city, while Awesomeville's economy moved slowly and even contracted when businesses ( wanting to be closer to the interstate ) moved to Smellslikefeetburg.
> 
> So the Interstate highway system picked winners and losers. It gave benefit top some while punishing others.
> 
> Your resolution REQUIRES that benefit be givern to ALL groups equally, which is impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the federal Interstate picked no winners and losers.  It provided the funds and laid out the map.  It was up to the states to build the roads, however, and it was the states who determined where the exits would go.  It is a pretty safe bet, however, that an Interstate exit is rarely responsible for the prosperity of a community, but it is the prosperity (and sizes) of the communities that gneerally determine were exits will be.  A large city may have dozens, for instance, while tiny burgs have to share an exit with somebody else.
> 
> But I do see your point that such is not always 100% fair, but again that is the choice of the states and not the federal government.  There are many many communiies with exits off our interstate system in New Mexico that still struggle to survive, while cities nowhere close to an interstate highway are thriving.  It is all relative.
Click to expand...


Im sorry but the data disagrees with you.

The Effects of Road Infrastructure on Property Value | eHow.com

*Businesses often cluster around highway exits that carry traffic off and onto a major freeway.* The highway interchange provides convenient access to the area, which promotes growth. Home builders typically advertise close proximity to major highway exits as selling points. 

*Large highways can serve as barriers to divide regions, economically*. Robert Caro, author of "The Power Broker," cites Robert Moses' design of the Cross Bronx Expressway as the direct cause for uprooting stable communities and isolating the South Bronx as a notorious inner-city ghetto from the rest of New York City.

*Property values fall when new roads are built that redirect traffic away from an area*. For example, the interstate highway system has led to the decline of small towns that are away from the interstate. Traffic is more likely to use the main highway, than to patronize businesses along what have now become back roads. In fact, large sections of historic Route 66 are now abandoned because of the nation's interstate highway build-out.


History of the Interstate Highway System &#8211; Maps, resources, freight companies, cdl trucking jobs, truck driving schools | TruckersReport.com

While the interstate highway system has had a positive impact on the ability of travelers and businesses to get from one point to another, it&#8217;s not all positive. The interstate system has seen the decline in use of secondary highways which go through towns. The decline in usage has meant that less people go through the towns, and businesses have folded.



Lastly to repond to your last point. Your resolution says AT ANY LEVEL. This MUST therefore include federal funds given to States for specific purposes.


----------



## Charles_Main

Moonglow said:


> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> other countries do it also even China.It is not a corrupting influence if managed correctly
Click to expand...


It is clearly not being Managed Correctly, and we have ample evidence that it is unwise at best to expect the Government to be able to Manage anything correctly.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> good example! The highway system! Lets use that.
> 
> 
> Awesomeville and Smellslikefeetburg were both small towns in Iowa ( names are fictional ) when highway 80 was constructed.
> 
> The interstate went less than a mile from Smellslikefeetburg while Awesomeville was 30 miles away. The commerce that came with the interstate, the easy access to trade routes made Smellslikefeetburg grow to a thriving city, while Awesomeville's economy moved slowly and even contracted when businesses ( wanting to be closer to the interstate ) moved to Smellslikefeetburg.
> 
> So the Interstate highway system picked winners and losers. It gave benefit top some while punishing others.
> 
> Your resolution REQUIRES that benefit be givern to ALL groups equally, which is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the federal Interstate picked no winners and losers.  It provided the funds and laid out the map.  It was up to the states to build the roads, however, and it was the states who determined where the exits would go.  It is a pretty safe bet, however, that an Interstate exit is rarely responsible for the prosperity of a community, but it is the prosperity (and sizes) of the communities that gneerally determine were exits will be.  A large city may have dozens, for instance, while tiny burgs have to share an exit with somebody else.
> 
> But I do see your point that such is not always 100% fair, but again that is the choice of the states and not the federal government.  There are many many communiies with exits off our interstate system in New Mexico that still struggle to survive, while cities nowhere close to an interstate highway are thriving.  It is all relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im sorry but the data disagrees with you.
> 
> The Effects of Road Infrastructure on Property Value | eHow.com
> 
> *Businesses often cluster around highway exits that carry traffic off and onto a major freeway.* The highway interchange provides convenient access to the area, which promotes growth. Home builders typically advertise close proximity to major highway exits as selling points.
> 
> *Large highways can serve as barriers to divide regions, economically*. Robert Caro, author of "The Power Broker," cites Robert Moses' design of the Cross Bronx Expressway as the direct cause for uprooting stable communities and isolating the South Bronx as a notorious inner-city ghetto from the rest of New York City.
> 
> *Property values fall when new roads are built that redirect traffic away from an area*. For example, the interstate highway system has led to the decline of small towns that are away from the interstate. Traffic is more likely to use the main highway, than to patronize businesses along what have now become back roads. In fact, large sections of historic Route 66 are now abandoned because of the nation's interstate highway build-out.
> 
> 
> History of the Interstate Highway System &#8211; Maps, resources, freight companies, cdl trucking jobs, truck driving schools | TruckersReport.com
> 
> While the interstate highway system has had a positive impact on the ability of travelers and businesses to get from one point to another, it&#8217;s not all positive. The interstate system has seen the decline in use of secondary highways which go through towns. The decline in usage has meant that less people go through the towns, and businesses have folded.
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly to repond to your last point. Your resolution says AT ANY LEVEL. This MUST therefore include federal funds given to States for specific purposes.
Click to expand...


No.  The resolution does not say at any level.  It specifically refers to the federal government and specifically says that it does not apply to state and local governments.

There is anecdotal evidence to support pretty much any point of view anybody wants to support.  Certainly the history of the railroad always helped create booms and busts, with whole towns picking up lock stock and barrel to move to the railroad when it didn't come to them.

So I don't deny that the Interstate Highway system probably did put some businesses out of business even as it provided an anchor for thousands of businesses to be created.  The automobile also put a lot of wagon and buggy makers out of business and commercial airlines have put numerous bus companies out of business and reduced the cross country bus system to a small fraction of what it once was.

But the principle remains the same.  The Interstate Highway system was a completely non discriminatory project that promoted the general welfare and did not set out to benefit favored constituencies.


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the federal Interstate picked no winners and losers.  It provided the funds and laid out the map.  It was up to the states to build the roads, however, and it was the states who determined where the exits would go.  It is a pretty safe bet, however, that an Interstate exit is rarely responsible for the prosperity of a community, but it is the prosperity (and sizes) of the communities that gneerally determine were exits will be.  A large city may have dozens, for instance, while tiny burgs have to share an exit with somebody else.
> 
> But I do see your point that such is not always 100% fair, but again that is the choice of the states and not the federal government.  There are many many communiies with exits off our interstate system in New Mexico that still struggle to survive, while cities nowhere close to an interstate highway are thriving.  It is all relative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im sorry but the data disagrees with you.
> 
> The Effects of Road Infrastructure on Property Value | eHow.com
> 
> *Businesses often cluster around highway exits that carry traffic off and onto a major freeway.* The highway interchange provides convenient access to the area, which promotes growth. Home builders typically advertise close proximity to major highway exits as selling points.
> 
> *Large highways can serve as barriers to divide regions, economically*. Robert Caro, author of "The Power Broker," cites Robert Moses' design of the Cross Bronx Expressway as the direct cause for uprooting stable communities and isolating the South Bronx as a notorious inner-city ghetto from the rest of New York City.
> 
> *Property values fall when new roads are built that redirect traffic away from an area*. For example, the interstate highway system has led to the decline of small towns that are away from the interstate. Traffic is more likely to use the main highway, than to patronize businesses along what have now become back roads. In fact, large sections of historic Route 66 are now abandoned because of the nation's interstate highway build-out.
> 
> 
> History of the Interstate Highway System &#8211; Maps, resources, freight companies, cdl trucking jobs, truck driving schools | TruckersReport.com
> 
> While the interstate highway system has had a positive impact on the ability of travelers and businesses to get from one point to another, it&#8217;s not all positive. The interstate system has seen the decline in use of secondary highways which go through towns. The decline in usage has meant that less people go through the towns, and businesses have folded.
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly to repond to your last point. Your resolution says AT ANY LEVEL. This MUST therefore include federal funds given to States for specific purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  The resolution does not say at any level.  It specifically refers to the federal government and specifically says that it does not apply to state and local governments.
> 
> There is anecdotal evidence to support pretty much any point of view anybody wants to support.  Certainly the history of the railroad always helped create booms and busts, with whole towns picking up lock stock and barrel to move to the railroad when it didn't come to them.
> 
> So I don't deny that the Interstate Highway system probably did put some businesses out of business even as it provided an anchor for thousands of businesses to be created.  The automobile also put a lot of wagon and buggy makers out of business and commercial airlines have put numerous bus companies out of business and reduced the cross country bus system to a small fraction of what it once was.
> 
> But the principle remains the same.  The Interstate Highway system was a completely non discriminatory project that promoted the general welfare and did not set out to benefit favored constituencies.
Click to expand...



Fox,

*prohibit the federal government at any level *

Your words, not mine.

And as I stated, as FEDERAL funds for the interstate highway would be given to the States for a specific purpose, your resolution AS WORDED would have to apply and therefore,  prohibit the interstate highway system from being built as it would provide direct ebenefit to some while not being able to provide it for others.




on a side note, I just want to say publicly,  thank you for this thread and more importantly for your respectful dissent and debate. I am enjoying the hell out of myself and love you for it.


----------



## JDzBrain

Vidi said:


> Lastly to repond to your last point. Your resolution says AT ANY LEVEL. This MUST therefore include federal funds given to States for specific purposes.


Ok...skipping past all the rest of this.  This ONE THING is at the root of ALL our problems in this country.  

Those are called unfunded or partially funded mandated spending programs Vidi.  Sending funds to states for specific purposes is EXACTLY what Obamacare does and then drops the hammer on the state if they don't do it the way Obamacare specifies.  Or it DID until the Supreme Court ruled that portion of it UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Foxy is right.  This taking of a state's wealth and sending a SMALL portion of seed funding back to the state with a mandate to spend more has GOT TO END.  Medicaid, the Education Department, NRCS, Food Stamps, Welfare and on and on and on.  

It is TIME that we stopped this endless string of protected classes and federally mandated spending sprees designed to buy votes!

It's total insanity an it's KILLING OUR WAY OF LIFE!

This country was founded on EQUAL.  Equal protections under the law, all men created equal, equal opportunity to succeed or fail of our own accord...equal.  NOT fair, not punitive...equal.


----------



## Vidi

JDzBrain said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly to repond to your last point. Your resolution says AT ANY LEVEL. This MUST therefore include federal funds given to States for specific purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok...skipping past all the rest of this.  This ONE THING is at the root of ALL our problems in this country.
> 
> Those are called unfunded or partially funded mandated spending programs Vidi.  Sending funds to states for specific purposes is EXACTLY what Obamacare does and then drops the hammer on the state if they don't do it the way Obamacare specifies.  Or it DID until the Supreme Court ruled that portion of it UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
> 
> Foxy is right.  This taking of a state's wealth and sending a SMALL portion of seed funding back to the state with a mandate to spend more has GOT TO END.  Medicaid, the Education Department, NRCS, Food Stamps, Welfare and on and on and on.
> 
> It is TIME that we stopped this endless string of protected classes and federally mandated spending sprees designed to buy votes!
> 
> It's total insanity an it's KILLING OUR WAY OF LIFE!
> 
> This country was founded on EQUAL.  Equal protections under the law, all men created equal, equal opportunity to succeed or fail of our own accord...equal.  NOT fair, not punitive...equal.
Click to expand...


Im not opposed to the 14th amendment. In fact, Ive labeled Fox's resolution redundant for that very reason. Equal protection is already a part of the Constitution.

Her resolution however goes further than the 14th and requires that any benefit to one group be given to all groups. Its too broadly worded , too open to interpetation and therefore would lead to a complete sieze of the system. Can you just imagine the workload that would be placed on the Judicial system dealing with the lawsuits this resolution would generate?

On the other hand, if strictly adhered to, it would lead directly to communism as that is the only form of government in which all benefits are gievn "equally" ( on paper, communism has never worked that way in practice which is why it will always fail. )


----------



## IGetItAlready

Foxfyre said:


> *A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION*​
> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and
> 
> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and
> 
> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.
> 
> *    *    *    *    *   *​Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .



I love your assessments but I'm not sure I agree with the resolution. Wouldn't that just make it even easier for the Cloward-Piven crowd to collapse our economy?


----------



## Foxfyre

IGetItAlready said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION*​
> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and
> 
> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and
> 
> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.
> 
> *    *    *    *    *   *​Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love your assessments but I'm not sure I agree with the resolution. Wouldn't that just make it even easier for the Cloward-Piven crowd to collapse our economy?
Click to expand...


Now THAT is an interesting observation.  Please expland on it?


----------



## JDzBrain

Vidi said:


> Im not opposed to the 14th amendment. In fact, Ive labeled Fox's resolution redundant for that very reason. Equal protection is already a part of the Constitution.
> 
> Her resolution however goes further than the 14th and requires that any benefit to one group be given to all groups. Its too broadly worded , too open to interpetation and therefore would lead to a complete sieze of the system. Can you just imagine the workload that would be placed on the Judicial system dealing with the lawsuits this resolution would generate?
> 
> On the other hand, if strictly adhered to, it would lead directly to communism as that is the only form of government in which all benefits are gievn "equally" ( on paper, communism has never worked that way in practice which is why it will always fail. )


No, no...see, I think you are missing the inherently rigid pragmatic nature of the political animal.  This would take away the incentive for pandering.  

If they CAN'T fund a targeted program that would benefit a select sector, but instead would be FORCED to spread it EQUALLY across the board...they wouldn't do it at ALL.  What would be the point?

We all know that the ONLY reason they do 99% of this crap is to further their own interest.  If it doesn't do that...they will not do it!

Do you really think there is a chance in France that these jackwagons would have voted to subsidize corn and mandate ethanol made from it be used if they weren't getting kickbacks in the form of donations and votes.  That's just not the way politics work!

By the way, I AM opposed to the 14th amendment.  Talk about redundant AND destructive!

But that's for another discussion.  ;~)


----------



## FA_Q2

I agree with the op entirely.  I would love to see something like this implemented along with ending the concept of block grants to the state.  

To vidi - your argument really does not make any sense.  Nothing benefits everyone equally in about but the heart of what I get from fox's op is that individual sub groups cannot be targeted for redistribution efforts.  Perhaps the specific wording is the problem.  Why dont you suggest better wording then?  Or do you disagree with e entire sentiment.  Do you not agree that the federal government should cease pandering entirely but should be able to provide general services such as police, fire protections and roads that are available to ALL even if the benefits of such are not equal?


----------



## dblack

Vidi said:


> I agree we didnt create government to maintain a *static *environment. We created government to create a _*stable*_ enviorment. Government has NO OTHER PURPOSE than that.
> 
> Every law, every regulation, every amendment to the Constitution should be passed ONLY to promote stability.
> 
> Unneccesary and foolish risk promotes instability that places the innocent at risk though no fault of their own.



Once again, we disagree on the fundamentals. We need government to protect our rights, to protect our _freedom_ to create the kind of world we want to live in, not to tell us what that world must be. I don't want a government that 'runs' the country like some kind of communal corporation. Government should enforce laws that prohibit coercion and otherwise stay out of the way, letting us contribute to the economy, the society, the culture, as we see fit.

It's really the difference between a government that acts as a referee and one that acts as a manager.


----------



## saveliberty

First, I think its sad that Iowa doesn't have an Awesomeville.

It seems that the proclamation section regarding equal benefit might be reframed to state that revenue from the people in a given area be offset by some reasonable reinvestment in that area from the federal government.

The areas need to be large enough that it generates roughly equal amounts of revenue for the feds.  It also needs to be small enough that indivdual states are not forced to share with another state.


----------



## IGetItAlready

Foxfyre said:


> IGetItAlready said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION*​
> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and
> 
> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and
> 
> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.
> 
> *    *    *    *    *   *​Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love your assessments but I'm not sure I agree with the resolution. Wouldn't that just make it even easier for the Cloward-Piven crowd to collapse our economy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now THAT is an interesting observation.  Please expland on it?
Click to expand...


Well, it appears you're trying to reduce the number of new federal handouts by setting the bar a little higher in requiring congress to "prove" that any new proposals would benefit the nation as a whole. I don't see creating a false image of universal benefit as such a difficult thing to do for a group of people, many of whom seem to have majored more in human manipulation and rhetoric than in civics and poly-sci. 
Therefore, I can envision your proclamation presenting a roadblock to new regs at first but once a means by which to bypass or falsely satisfy the condition is found we'd actually have new regulations that virtually everyone would "qualify" for. 
Human nature being what it is, qualification would lead many who are not even in need to cash in on the entitlement, thereby placing a bigger burden on the tax payer, leading to a "necessity" for incessantly increased tax revenue, leading to increased hardship and poverty, leading to the "necessity" for subsequent handouts, each of which would likely be easier to deem "necessary", leading to the tax payer's inability to cover the cost of sustaining entitlements, leading eventually to total economic collapse and the Cloward-Piven strategist's holy grail of offering proof that the capitalist system does not work and that a new system is necessary. 

...Am I over thinking this?


----------



## Foxfyre

IGetItAlready said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IGetItAlready said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love your assessments but I'm not sure I agree with the resolution. Wouldn't that just make it even easier for the Cloward-Piven crowd to collapse our economy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now THAT is an interesting observation.  Please expland on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it appears you're trying to reduce the number of new federal handouts by setting the bar a little higher in requiring congress to "prove" that any new proposals would benefit the nation as a whole. I don't see creating a false image of universal benefit as such a difficult thing to do for a group of people, many of whom seem to have majored more in human manipulation and rhetoric than in civics and poly-sci.
> Therefore, I can envision your proclamation presenting a roadblock to new regs at first but once a means by which to bypass or falsely satisfy the condition is found we'd actually have new regulations that virtually everyone would "qualify" for.
> Human nature being what it is, qualification would lead many who are not even in need to cash in on the entitlement, thereby placing a bigger burden on the tax payer, leading to a "necessity" for incessantly increased tax revenue, leading to increased hardship and poverty, leading to the "necessity" for subsequent handouts, each of which would likely be easier to deem "necessary", leading to the tax payer's inability to cover the cost of sustaining entitlements, leading eventually to total economic collapse and the Cloward-Piven strategist's holy grail of offering proof that the capitalist system does not work and that a new system is necessary.
> 
> ...Am I over thinking this?
Click to expand...


Over thinking?  I don't think so.  I do appreciate your putting some thought into it though.

If you've ever seen the movie "Dave", there was one scene in which the lead character was addressing the press corps and was expressing that sometimes there are so many problems that it just becomes one big bunch of noise and nobody even really tries to address it any more.  That's a pure paraphrase but that was the gist of it.

Well that's the way it is in America now too.  We send people to Congress to represent us, but with very few exceptions, they quickly discover that the way to get along is to go along, and to go along means do what you have to do to help each other increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes by being elected again and again.   So that becomes their focus and purpose to be there.  They no longer even try to fix any problems because it is the problems that keep them in power.

The purpose of the resolution is to take all of that out of the equation.  If our elected leaders are denied ability to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes by virtue of problems existing and therefore they have no incentive to actually do the jobs we expect them to do, then they will be forced to do the jobs we expect them to do.  When they are unable to enrich themselves inthe process, we will again elect public servants instead of self serving career politicians to high office.

You do that by denying them the ability of to use our money to buy influence and votes.


----------



## Foxfyre

So I was wondering if anyone had a suggestion of how the RESOLVED part of the resolution could be written to deny government charity (i.e. buying votes)without muddying the waters otherwise?


----------



## saveliberty

Our community doesn't use tax dollars to support charities as a rule.  What they have done is say, Domestic Harmony actually saves tax dollars that would have been spent in other government services.


----------



## Vidi

JDzBrain said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im not opposed to the 14th amendment. In fact, Ive labeled Fox's resolution redundant for that very reason. Equal protection is already a part of the Constitution.
> 
> Her resolution however goes further than the 14th and requires that any benefit to one group be given to all groups. Its too broadly worded , too open to interpetation and therefore would lead to a complete sieze of the system. Can you just imagine the workload that would be placed on the Judicial system dealing with the lawsuits this resolution would generate?
> 
> On the other hand, if strictly adhered to, it would lead directly to communism as that is the only form of government in which all benefits are gievn "equally" ( on paper, communism has never worked that way in practice which is why it will always fail. )
> 
> 
> 
> No, no...see, I think you are missing the inherently rigid pragmatic nature of the political animal.  This would take away the incentive for pandering.
> 
> If they CAN'T fund a targeted program that would benefit a select sector, but instead would be FORCED to spread it EQUALLY across the board...they wouldn't do it at ALL.  What would be the point?
> 
> We all know that the ONLY reason they do 99% of this crap is to further their own interest.  If it doesn't do that...they will not do it!
> 
> Do you really think there is a chance in France that these jackwagons would have voted to subsidize corn and mandate ethanol made from it be used if they weren't getting kickbacks in the form of donations and votes.  That's just not the way politics work!
> 
> By the way, I AM opposed to the 14th amendment.  Talk about redundant AND destructive!
> 
> But that's for another discussion.  ;~)
Click to expand...


I see your point on pandering but it would also force the system to seize as no legislation could be passed because all legislation is choosing a winner and a loser. 

That's the nature of government.


----------



## Foxfyre

Are you sure, Save?  I was just now looking at a newsletter from the local chapter of Catholic Charities stating that 85% of their funding came from the government.  I was amazed and a little horrified, actually, but intend to research that further.  If from state and local government, possibly okay.  But from the federal government?  No way could I justify that.


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> So I was wondering if anyone had a suggestion of how the RESOLVED part of the resolution could be written to deny government charity (i.e. buying votes)without muddying the waters otherwise?



I don't think it can Fox.

I think your intention is good, you want to stop ( as JD put it ) the pandering.

But I think what you both are talking about is corruption. And the laws are already being ignored, bent, broken or rewritten to propagate the problem.  

I also believe that the only solution to the problem is a more informed public removing from office those panderers.

I don't think we can legislate the problem away.


----------



## saveliberty

Foxfyre said:


> Are you sure, Save?  I was just now looking at a newsletter from the local chapter of Catholic Charities stating that 85% of their funding came from the government.  I was amazed and a little horrified, actually, but intend to research that further.  If from state and local government, possibly okay.  But from the federal government?  No way could I justify that.



I was speaking of our local government only.  Still, if another source can deliver a service the government is attempting at a better price and quality...


----------



## dblack

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I was wondering if anyone had a suggestion of how the RESOLVED part of the resolution could be written to deny government charity (i.e. buying votes)without muddying the waters otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it can Fox.
> 
> I think your intention is good, you want to stop ( as JD put it ) the pandering.
> 
> But I think what you both are talking about is corruption. And the laws are already being ignored, bent, broken or rewritten to propagate the problem.
> 
> I also believe that the only solution to the problem is a more informed public removing from office those panderers.
> 
> I don't think we can legislate the problem away.
Click to expand...


But most of the practices the resolution targets aren't illegal, and don't involve breaking any rules. The giveaways and favors being "pandered" are legal under the prevailing interpretation of the Constitution. What I see in the resolution is a statement rejecting corporatist government and reaffirming that the purpose of government is protecting equal rights under the law, rather than handing out "benefits". It's either asserting "no, we really mean it" regarding existing protections, or calling for actually amendments that clarify the intent.


----------



## saveliberty

How about your only entitled to a pup tent every three years, a spot in the park to pitch it, access to the porta potty, oatmeal for breakfast, peanut butter sandwich for lunch and soup with salad for dinner.  Everything else you get on your own.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I was wondering if anyone had a suggestion of how the RESOLVED part of the resolution could be written to deny government charity (i.e. buying votes)without muddying the waters otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it can Fox.
> 
> I think your intention is good, you want to stop ( as JD put it ) the pandering.
> 
> But I think what you both are talking about is corruption. And the laws are already being ignored, bent, broken or rewritten to propagate the problem.
> 
> I also believe that the only solution to the problem is a more informed public removing from office those panderers.
> 
> I don't think we can legislate the problem away.
Click to expand...


But the Constitution worked again and again for the first 150 years or so as President after President and Congressional leader after Congressional leader noted that despite their sense of compassion and wanting to help in some need, they could not identify any provision in in the Constitution that would allow them to use the people's money for that purpose.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
 -Benjamin Franklin

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
 -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816


Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
 -Thomas Jefferson

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
 With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
 -James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.
 -James Madison

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton,
 -James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I was wondering if anyone had a suggestion of how the RESOLVED part of the resolution could be written to deny government charity (i.e. buying votes)without muddying the waters otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it can Fox.
> 
> I think your intention is good, you want to stop ( as JD put it ) the pandering.
> 
> But I think what you both are talking about is corruption. And the laws are already being ignored, bent, broken or rewritten to propagate the problem.
> 
> I also believe that the only solution to the problem is a more informed public removing from office those panderers.
> 
> I don't think we can legislate the problem away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Constitution worked again and again for the first 150 years or so as President after President and Congressional leader after Congressional leader noted that despite their sense of compassion and wanting to help in some need, they could not identify any provision in in the Constitution that would allow them to use the people's money for that purpose.
> 
> When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
> -Benjamin Franklin
> 
> To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
> -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
> 
> 
> Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
> -Thomas Jefferson
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
> With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
> 
> In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
> -James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)
> 
> [T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.
> -James Madison
> 
> If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton,
> -James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).
Click to expand...


I think youre missing my point. 

One of the objections I have to your resolution is its redundancy. The 14th amendment grants every citizen of the United States equal protection under the law. So if a law is passed that unjustly and exclusively favors one group at the expense of another the that law is unconstitutional. 

However, while the system may actually work correctly, the people within the system can be biased and therefore, corrupt the system.

In other words, those who will break the law for their own selfish purposes will not be detered from doing so if a new law is passed, especially one that simple reinterates what already exists.

So it become incumbent upon the people to remove those people from power. And due to the brilliance of our Founding Fathers,  the system has a mechanism for that as well, the votng booth.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it can Fox.
> 
> I think your intention is good, you want to stop ( as JD put it ) the pandering.
> 
> But I think what you both are talking about is corruption. And the laws are already being ignored, bent, broken or rewritten to propagate the problem.
> 
> I also believe that the only solution to the problem is a more informed public removing from office those panderers.
> 
> I don't think we can legislate the problem away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the Constitution worked again and again for the first 150 years or so as President after President and Congressional leader after Congressional leader noted that despite their sense of compassion and wanting to help in some need, they could not identify any provision in in the Constitution that would allow them to use the people's money for that purpose.
> 
> &#8220;When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.&#8221;
> -Benjamin Franklin
> 
> &#8220;To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.&#8221;
> -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
> 
> 
> &#8220;Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.&#8221;
> -Thomas Jefferson
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
> &#8220;With respect to the two words &#8216;general welfare,&#8217; I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.&#8221;
> 
> In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, &#8220;I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.&#8221;
> -James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)
> 
> &#8220;&#8230;[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.&#8221;
> -James Madison
> 
> &#8220;If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.&#8221; James Madison, &#8220;Letter to Edmund Pendleton,&#8221;
> -James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think youre missing my point.
> 
> One of the objections I have to your resolution is its redundancy. The 14th amendment grants every citizen of the United States equal protection under the law. So if a law is passed that unjustly and exclusively favors one group at the expense of another the that law is unconstitutional.
> 
> However, while the system may actually work correctly, the people within the system can be biased and therefore, corrupt the system.
> 
> In other words, those who will break the law for their own selfish purposes will not be detered from doing so if a new law is passed, especially one that simple reinterates what already exists.
> 
> So it become incumbent upon the people to remove those people from power. And due to the brilliance of our Founding Fathers,  the system has a mechanism for that as well, the votng booth.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't.  Pell grants are limited to certain income levels.  So are food stamps, Medicaid, and all other subsidies targeting certain income demographics.   The government gives huge subsidies to certain industries or corporations to produce specific products or for specific research.  They exhibit no non bias whatsoever in those subsidies.  Federal money is funneled much more heavily into certain school districts than into others.  Nnne of that violates the spirit of 'equal protection'.

And because of the great amount of discretion the federal government has in allocating funds to this group or that group or this entity or that entity and the ability to pick winners and losers, whole demographics can be bribed with the people's money or promises that they can expect to receive the people's money soon or whatever.

Not only is this corrupting at the government level, but it is corrupting to the recipients of the government benevolence and a huge incentive to keep electing people who will keep the freebies coming or who will promise the most freebies.


----------



## saveliberty

I'm appreciating Vidi's ability to carry on a civil debate.  I agree with Foxfyre that most social programs used in the US produce winners and losers.  Further it produces dependence and behaviors opposite that which we should be promoting.


----------



## Foxfyre

Yes, Vidi has been great.  He's really making me defend my argument.


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Constitution worked again and again for the first 150 years or so as President after President and Congressional leader after Congressional leader noted that despite their sense of compassion and wanting to help in some need, they could not identify any provision in in the Constitution that would allow them to use the people's money for that purpose.
> 
> &#8220;When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.&#8221;
> -Benjamin Franklin
> 
> &#8220;To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.&#8221;
> -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
> 
> 
> &#8220;Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.&#8221;
> -Thomas Jefferson
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
> &#8220;With respect to the two words &#8216;general welfare,&#8217; I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.&#8221;
> 
> In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, &#8220;I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.&#8221;
> -James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)
> 
> &#8220;&#8230;[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.&#8221;
> -James Madison
> 
> &#8220;If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.&#8221; James Madison, &#8220;Letter to Edmund Pendleton,&#8221;
> -James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think youre missing my point.
> 
> One of the objections I have to your resolution is its redundancy. The 14th amendment grants every citizen of the United States equal protection under the law. So if a law is passed that unjustly and exclusively favors one group at the expense of another the that law is unconstitutional.
> 
> However, while the system may actually work correctly, the people within the system can be biased and therefore, corrupt the system.
> 
> In other words, those who will break the law for their own selfish purposes will not be detered from doing so if a new law is passed, especially one that simple reinterates what already exists.
> 
> So it become incumbent upon the people to remove those people from power. And due to the brilliance of our Founding Fathers,  the system has a mechanism for that as well, the votng booth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  Pell grants are limited to certain income levels.  So are food stamps, Medicaid, and all other subsidies targeting certain income demographics.   The government gives huge subsidies to certain industries or corporations to produce specific products or for specific research.  They exhibit no non bias whatsoever in those subsidies.  Federal money is funneled much more heavily into certain school districts than into others.  Nnne of that violates the spirit of 'equal protection'.
> 
> And because of the great amount of discretion the federal government has in allocating funds to this group or that group or this entity or that entity and the ability to pick winners and losers, whole demographics can be bribed with the people's money or promises that they can expect to receive the people's money soon or whatever.
> 
> Not only is this corrupting at the government level, but it is corrupting to the recipients of the government benevolence and a huge incentive to keep electing people who will keep the freebies coming or who will promise the most freebies.
Click to expand...



It doesnt violate equal protection because if a rich person suddenly becomes poor they would be eligible for the same welfare check, food stamps, pell grants as anyone else of that income level.

Which would be another devestating side effect of your resolution by the way. It would end once and for all, ALL federal level social safety nets. For every dollar given out in welfare a dollar must be recieved in taxes or borrowed. If your resolution were added to the Constitution, if a family of four bringing in $15,000 a year recived $10,000 in aid then a family of four bringin $1,000,000 a year must also recieve $10,000 in aid. Which means there would be NO way to pay for any type of social safety net.

So, the government would have to rerdistribute welth evenly to everyone , thus robbing the rich to make everyone middle class.

OR, another possibility that I hadnt considered yet is that Social Darwinism would be at work with millions of people living in shanty towns again and with any Federal aid to them being Unconstitutional the chances of civil unrest increase dramatically.


----------



## Vidi

saveliberty said:


> I'm appreciating Vidi's ability to carry on a civil debate.  I agree with Foxfyre that most social programs used in the US produce winners and losers.  Further it produces dependence and behaviors opposite that which we should be promoting.



I would argue that ALL social programs produce winners and losers.

But are the losers really losers? 

If we tax a guy making a million dollars a year at an effective tax rate of 35% thats 350,000 dollars in taxes. Can he not feed his family on the remaining $650,000?

So while we can debate the fairness or unfairness of a 35% tax rate  ( I used an extremely high number to avoid that debate...another thread for that please ) , I owuldnt exactly call someone who take ownership of $650,000 a year a "loser"?



And thank you both for your kind words and your own civility.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think youre missing my point.
> 
> One of the objections I have to your resolution is its redundancy. The 14th amendment grants every citizen of the United States equal protection under the law. So if a law is passed that unjustly and exclusively favors one group at the expense of another the that law is unconstitutional.
> 
> However, while the system may actually work correctly, the people within the system can be biased and therefore, corrupt the system.
> 
> In other words, those who will break the law for their own selfish purposes will not be detered from doing so if a new law is passed, especially one that simple reinterates what already exists.
> 
> So it become incumbent upon the people to remove those people from power. And due to the brilliance of our Founding Fathers,  the system has a mechanism for that as well, the votng booth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  Pell grants are limited to certain income levels.  So are food stamps, Medicaid, and all other subsidies targeting certain income demographics.   The government gives huge subsidies to certain industries or corporations to produce specific products or for specific research.  They exhibit no non bias whatsoever in those subsidies.  Federal money is funneled much more heavily into certain school districts than into others.  Nnne of that violates the spirit of 'equal protection'.
> 
> And because of the great amount of discretion the federal government has in allocating funds to this group or that group or this entity or that entity and the ability to pick winners and losers, whole demographics can be bribed with the people's money or promises that they can expect to receive the people's money soon or whatever.
> 
> Not only is this corrupting at the government level, but it is corrupting to the recipients of the government benevolence and a huge incentive to keep electing people who will keep the freebies coming or who will promise the most freebies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesnt violate equal protection because if a rich person suddenly becomes poor they would be eligible for the same welfare check, food stamps, pell grants as anyone else of that income level.
> 
> Which would be another devestating side effect of your resolution by the way. It would end once and for all, ALL federal level social safety nets. For every dollar given out in welfare a dollar must be recieved in taxes or borrowed. If your resolution were added to the Constitution, if a family of four bringing in $15,000 a year recived $10,000 in aid then a family of four bringin $1,000,000 a year must also recieve $10,000 in aid. Which means there would be NO way to pay for any type of social safety net.
> 
> So, the government would have to rerdistribute welth evenly to everyone , thus robbing the rich to make everyone middle class.
> 
> OR, another possibility that I hadnt considered yet is that Social Darwinism would be at work with millions of people living in shanty towns again and with any Federal aid to them being Unconstitutional the chances of civil unrest increase dramatically.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  So you have just argued against your own argument that the resolution is already covered by the 14th Amendment.  

But yes, essentially removing all federal social safety nets is exactly what I am proposing  because they are doing far more harm than good, they are corrupting those in government and the beneficiaries of them, and they are bankrupting the nation.  That is precisely what the resolution says.

It does not suppose there will be no social safety nets, but they will be at the state and local levels where historically they have been far less damaging.


----------



## dblack

Vidi said:


> It doesnt violate equal protection because if a rich person suddenly becomes poor they would be eligible for the same welfare check, food stamps, pell grants as anyone else of that income level.



I've seen this argument many times before. And while it's always seemed "off" to me, I've never really seen exactly how, but I think I'm beginning to.

Arguably, all law is discriminatory in nature. We punish people who don't abide, and leave the rest alone. But ordinary law discriminates against people who have, nominally, done something wrong. The kind of discriminatory law you're defending is of a different nature and singles people out for special treatment (positive or negative) based on arbitrary goals of the state. That doesn't seem like 'equal protection' to me.



> The way. It would end once and for all, ALL federal level social safety nets. For every dollar given out in welfare a dollar must be recieved in taxes or borrowed. If your resolution were added to the Constitution, if a family of four bringing in $15,000 a year recived $10,000 in aid then a family of four bringin $1,000,000 a year must also recieve $10,000 in aid. Which means there would be NO way to pay for any type of social safety net.



This is true. But it would also end corporate welfare and make a huge dent in corporatist government. Most of the lobbyists would get bored and go home.

Would it be worth the tradeoff, given that we could do all the safety netting we wanted at the state, local and *gasp* non-governmental community level? Obviously, I think so.


----------



## Vidi

dblack said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesnt violate equal protection because if a rich person suddenly becomes poor they would be eligible for the same welfare check, food stamps, pell grants as anyone else of that income level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen this argument many times before. And while it's always seemed "off" to me, I've never really seen exactly how, but I think I'm beginning to.
> 
> Arguably, all law is discriminatory in nature. We punish people who don't abide, and leave the rest alone. But ordinary law discriminates against people who have, nominally, done something wrong. The kind of discriminatory law you're defending is of a different nature and singles people out for special treatment (positive or negative) based on arbitrary goals of the state. That doesn't seem like 'equal protection' to me.
Click to expand...


Youre correct in that it does single people out based on goals of the government, but they are far from arbitrary. The single mission of government is to promote stability. Stability is everything for a country.  A country with little stability has very little economic opportunity as well, so by taking from the rich and giving to the poor it provides the stability needed for the entrepenuer to make his fortune.   Social safety nets are not just in place "to help out the needy in their time of crisis". Thats a nice sentiment, but they are also there to keep that portion of the population from taking matters into their own hands. they MUST be placated or riots, looting even open rebellion takes place.





> The way. It would end once and for all, ALL federal level social safety nets. For every dollar given out in welfare a dollar must be recieved in taxes or borrowed. If your resolution were added to the Constitution, if a family of four bringing in $15,000 a year recived $10,000 in aid then a family of four bringin $1,000,000 a year must also recieve $10,000 in aid. Which means there would be NO way to pay for any type of social safety net.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true. But it would also end corporate welfare and make a huge dent in corporatist government. Most of the lobbyists would get bored and go home.
> 
> Would it be worth the tradeoff, given that we could do all the safety netting we wanted at the state, local and *gasp* non-governmental community level? Obviously, I think so.
Click to expand...


I think youre placing far too much faith in the abilities of State and Local governemnts.

Think of it this way:






Corporate welfare doesnt exist just on the Federal level. It exists at all levels of government. Currently the top six banking institutions in America have a net value of 2/3rds the total of the annual GDP of the United States. In other words, they could buy or sell any single state in the Union, even California which is the 8th largest economy in the world.

If with this resolution, we defang the Federal government in an attempt to end corruption, we will simply take away one of the levels of protection the smaller and therefore weaker levels of government possess. That why Montana losing their Citizens United ruling is so scary. SCOTUS just opened the door for corruption that the State government is now powerless to stop. Over the next few election cycles Montana is going to become the testing ground for Citizens United and its effects on State governments. I suspect we will see a huge increase in the amount of corruption in Montana over the next decade ( unless we deal with the CItizens United problem once and for all ) 

Additonally, consider Mitt Romneys governorship of Massechusets. He entered office facing a lrage budget deficit. he dealt with it by raising fees for government services, cutting those services and then cutting fund to local municipalities. This forced the local governments to cut their budgets and raise property taxes to make up the difference.

This means people were paying more and getting less and the social safety nets lost funds in the process.


so TLDR version:

Ending social safety nets leads to instability and unrest

State and Local governments to not have the financial clout to ward off the kind of money that multinational corporations can porr into an area and thus corruption and your taxes would increase, while services would decrease.


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  Pell grants are limited to certain income levels.  So are food stamps, Medicaid, and all other subsidies targeting certain income demographics.   The government gives huge subsidies to certain industries or corporations to produce specific products or for specific research.  They exhibit no non bias whatsoever in those subsidies.  Federal money is funneled much more heavily into certain school districts than into others.  Nnne of that violates the spirit of 'equal protection'.
> 
> And because of the great amount of discretion the federal government has in allocating funds to this group or that group or this entity or that entity and the ability to pick winners and losers, whole demographics can be bribed with the people's money or promises that they can expect to receive the people's money soon or whatever.
> 
> Not only is this corrupting at the government level, but it is corrupting to the recipients of the government benevolence and a huge incentive to keep electing people who will keep the freebies coming or who will promise the most freebies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesnt violate equal protection because if a rich person suddenly becomes poor they would be eligible for the same welfare check, food stamps, pell grants as anyone else of that income level.
> 
> Which would be another devestating side effect of your resolution by the way. It would end once and for all, ALL federal level social safety nets. For every dollar given out in welfare a dollar must be recieved in taxes or borrowed. If your resolution were added to the Constitution, if a family of four bringing in $15,000 a year recived $10,000 in aid then a family of four bringin $1,000,000 a year must also recieve $10,000 in aid. Which means there would be NO way to pay for any type of social safety net.
> 
> So, the government would have to rerdistribute welth evenly to everyone , thus robbing the rich to make everyone middle class.
> 
> OR, another possibility that I hadnt considered yet is that Social Darwinism would be at work with millions of people living in shanty towns again and with any Federal aid to them being Unconstitutional the chances of civil unrest increase dramatically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Exactly.  So you have just argued against your own argument that the resolution is already covered by the 14th Amendment*.
> 
> But yes, essentially removing all federal social safety nets is exactly what I am proposing  because they are doing far more harm than good, they are corrupting those in government and the beneficiaries of them, and they are bankrupting the nation.  That is precisely what the resolution says.
> 
> It does not suppose there will be no social safety nets, but they will be at the state and local levels where historically they have been far less damaging.
Click to expand...



Sorry youre going to have to enlighten me on how Ive argued against my point. Im not seeing it.


----------



## dblack

Vidi said:


> Youre correct in that it does single people out based on goals of the government, but they are far from arbitrary. The single mission of government is to promote stability.



Well, as I mentioned before, that's where we disagree. In my view the single mission of government is to protect our rights. Stability is often a side-effect of that, but often not, and should never be the goal. 


> I think youre placing far too much faith in the abilities of State and Local governemnts.



I'm placing more faith in people, that's for sure. State and local governments, meh.. not so much. (see comment below)



> Corporate welfare doesnt exist just on the Federal level. It exists at all levels of government.



Very true, which is the single biggest reason I want to see this resolution extended to the individual States as well, via the fourteenth. This would end welfare there as well, but it wouldn't prevent us from developing safety net systems outside of government.


----------



## Vidi

dblack said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre correct in that it does single people out based on goals of the government, but they are far from arbitrary. The single mission of government is to promote stability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as I mentioned before, that's where we disagree. In my view the single mission of government is to protect our rights. Stability is often a side-effect of that, but often not, and should never be the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> I think youre placing far too much faith in the abilities of State and Local governemnts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm placing more faith in people, that's for sure. State and local governments, meh.. not so much. (see comment below)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corporate welfare doesnt exist just on the Federal level. It exists at all levels of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true, which is the single biggest reason I want to see this resolution extended to the individual States as well, via the fourteenth. This would end welfare there as well, but it wouldn't prevent us from developing safety net systems outside of government.
Click to expand...


In my opinion, our rights cannot be protected without stability. Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness all go out the window if you cant drive down the street without facing an angry mob.


As to extension of this resolution to the States, it would end every known governmental safety net that we currently have. Thus rioting in the streets when the unemployed cant feed their kids.

I strongly suggest that what you recommend is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## dblack

Vidi said:


> In my opinion, our rights cannot be protected without stability. Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness all go out the window if you cant drive down the street without facing an angry mob.



Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. And when protecting rights requires stability, then we aim for stability - but it must be in the service of protecting rights, and not the end goal in and of itself. That to me presents nightmare scenarios. Things could be quite 'stable' in a locked-down police state. But I wouldn't want to live there.



> As to extension of this resolution to the States, it would end every known governmental safety net that we currently have. Thus rioting in the streets when the unemployed cant feed their kids.
> 
> I strongly suggest that what you recommend is a recipe for disaster.



I hear you. I'm suggesting otherwise; that disaster is what we're headed for if we don't reverse the trend. I see far more risk of rioting as dependency on the state grows ever more pervasive and vital to everyday life.


----------



## Vidi

dblack said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, our rights cannot be protected without stability. Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness all go out the window if you cant drive down the street without facing an angry mob.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. And when protecting rights requires stability, then we aim for stability - but it must be in the service of protecting rights, and not the end goal in and of itself. That to me presents nightmare scenarios. Things could be quite 'stable' in a locked-down police state. But I wouldn't want to live there.
Click to expand...


Excellent point. I may want to rethink my wording, though I am unable to come up with a better word at the moment.



> As to extension of this resolution to the States, it would end every known governmental safety net that we currently have. Thus rioting in the streets when the unemployed cant feed their kids.
> 
> I strongly suggest that what you recommend is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear you. I'm suggesting otherwise; that disaster is what we're headed for if we don't reverse the trend. I see far more risk of rioting as dependency on the state grows ever more pervasive and vital to everyday life.
Click to expand...


Ahhh now we get into a different debate though, dont we? How best to serve the economic interests of the country as a whole?


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesnt violate equal protection because if a rich person suddenly becomes poor they would be eligible for the same welfare check, food stamps, pell grants as anyone else of that income level.
> 
> Which would be another devestating side effect of your resolution by the way. It would end once and for all, ALL federal level social safety nets. For every dollar given out in welfare a dollar must be recieved in taxes or borrowed. If your resolution were added to the Constitution, if a family of four bringing in $15,000 a year recived $10,000 in aid then a family of four bringin $1,000,000 a year must also recieve $10,000 in aid. Which means there would be NO way to pay for any type of social safety net.
> 
> So, the government would have to rerdistribute welth evenly to everyone , thus robbing the rich to make everyone middle class.
> 
> OR, another possibility that I hadnt considered yet is that Social Darwinism would be at work with millions of people living in shanty towns again and with any Federal aid to them being Unconstitutional the chances of civil unrest increase dramatically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Exactly.  So you have just argued against your own argument that the resolution is already covered by the 14th Amendment*.
> 
> But yes, essentially removing all federal social safety nets is exactly what I am proposing  because they are doing far more harm than good, they are corrupting those in government and the beneficiaries of them, and they are bankrupting the nation.  That is precisely what the resolution says.
> 
> It does not suppose there will be no social safety nets, but they will be at the state and local levels where historically they have been far less damaging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry youre going to have to enlighten me on how Ive argued against my point. Im not seeing it.
Click to expand...


You said the 14th Amendment produces equal treatment in the matter of government charity and then provided specific examples of how it does not.

Rewarding the least successful and denying reward to the most successful is not equal protection.  Most especially when it is the most successful who are required to provide the funding for the least successful.  That is arbitrary redistribution of wealth that should never be a function of the federal government.

The federal government should be returned to its original role in which promoting the general welfare meant doing what was helpful for all to prosper, but nobody was any more entitled to money from the treasury than anybody else no matter who they are.


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Exactly.  So you have just argued against your own argument that the resolution is already covered by the 14th Amendment*.
> 
> But yes, essentially removing all federal social safety nets is exactly what I am proposing  because they are doing far more harm than good, they are corrupting those in government and the beneficiaries of them, and they are bankrupting the nation.  That is precisely what the resolution says.
> 
> It does not suppose there will be no social safety nets, but they will be at the state and local levels where historically they have been far less damaging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry youre going to have to enlighten me on how Ive argued against my point. Im not seeing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said the 14th Amendment produces equal treatment in the matter of government charity and then provided specific examples of how it does not.
> 
> Rewarding the least successful and denying reward to the most successful is not equal protection.  Most especially when it is the most successful who are required to provide the funding for the least successful.  That is arbitrary redistribution of wealth that should never be a function of the federal government.
> 
> The federal government should be returned to its original role in which promoting the general welfare meant doing what was helpful for all to prosper, but nobody was any more entitled to money from the treasury than anybody else no matter who they are.
Click to expand...



no maam. I think thats where I problem lies.

However, I see now that my opposition was an "either/or" opposition not an "and" opposition which is where some of the confusion between us may lie ( in other words, my fault. Even I was treating it as an "and" oppostion. )

The 14th produces equal PROTECTION , which is the best we can hope for. If youre discussing protection then your resolution is redundant.

But if your resolution is only about TREATMENT, then my opposition is based on unworkable in any form of government other than a pure communist state.


EDIT: Also I would argue that taxing the successful at a higher rate than the unsuccessful is not unequal as the successful person is able to extract more of the wealth from the system ( yes I understand its not zero sum. ) and that a progressive tax system is not arbitrary as you and Dblack like to say  because its done with a very specific reason, the stability of the society,  and within the powers of the Constitution, so therefore limited.


----------



## Foxfyre

I'll be back to fight the good fight tomorrow if God is willing and all that. . . .good night all and thanks for giving me the best debate workout I've had in awhile.


----------



## Vidi

whitehall said:


> Personally I think that cries for a "Constitutional amendment" are nothing but excuses for politicians to blame the system when we freaking pay them to be the system. Fix it you fools. We don't need no stinking Amendment. We have you.



If a bad law is deemed Constitutional or a good law unconstitutional, the only way to change it is through an amendment.

While I agree 110% with your sentiment, I disagree with your conclusion.


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> I'll be back to fight the good fight tomorrow if God is willing and all that. . . .good night all and thanks for giving me the best debate workout I've had in awhile.



Yes, I must be off as well. I have to drive home before I can relax with season 3 of Warehouse 13 on Netflix and get some sleep before it all begins again in six hours ( from now lol )

Fox, Im happy to oblige. Please feel free to come up with a new topic when you feel the urge. With any luck, we will disagree on that one too LOL


----------



## JDzBrain

Vidi said:


> I think youre missing my point.
> 
> One of the objections I have to your resolution is its redundancy. *The 14th amendment grants every citizen of the United States equal protection under the law*....



You've said this a few times now and so I WILL address it.  The 14th amendment is radical reconstruction era BULL that did, with a constitutional amendment, what SHOULD have been done by legislation!  

It was plainly and simply, a usurping of state's authority by the federal government in the pretense of protecting emancipated slaves as a reprisal against a couple states that tried to use a loop hole in federal law to ship freed slaves back to Africa using their children.   

That's point one.  Point two is that NO...it does NOT guarantee equal protection under the law.  That is a fallacy.  It guarantees that no STATE can deny equal protection to a citizen of the United States living within it's borders.  You'll notice I have made bold the operative phrase in Section 1, posted below.  It says NOTHING about equal protections under federal law.  

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

"_1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State* shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._"

It would have said NO LAW shall be made or enforced...and so on and so on if the intent was as you claim.  What it says is no state shall make or enforce.  Your argument is base on a fallacy.  

By the way, the 14th amendment is also the amendment that made it LEGAL for a state to take a person's right to vote or freedom of speech or own a gun or property or anything else...FOR LIFE if they commit a crime.  Something they could not do before it's passage and something the founders never intended.  They believed in redemption.  

Given the cries about disenfranchisement of voters and calls by liberals to let prisoners vote, supporting the 14th to get the Mexican vote must present something of a Catch 22 for liberals!



Vidi said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre correct in that it does single people out based on goals of the government, but they are far from arbitrary. *The single mission of government is to promote stability.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, our rights cannot be protected without stability. *Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness all go out the window if you cant drive down the street without facing an angry mob.*
> 
> As to extension of this resolution to the States, it would end every known governmental safety net that we currently have. *Thus rioting in the streets when the unemployed cant feed their kids.*
> 
> I strongly suggest that what you recommend is a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...


First there is this, "_The single mission of government is to promote stability._"  

The Declaration of Independence is the WHY our country was founded, THIS..."_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America._"...the Preamble to the Constitution is the WHAT the governments SOLE job is and the Constitution is the HOW our government is to do that.  If it ain't in there...it ain't their job!

Then there is the part highlighted in the second quote.  If you look at EVERY riot that has occurred in the last 50 years, just where have those riots occurred and who is involved in them?  I'll give you a hint.  They are the very people you claim throwing money stolen from the pockets of working Americans SHOULD be placating.  It does NOT!  

Giving people a hand out just keeps um on the reservation, plantation or however you want to put it.  Giving them a hand UP removes discontent!  

Just like throwing money at education does NOT improve education.  The 5 highest spenders on education in this country are ALL at the bottom of performance.  That's FACT.  



Vidi said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I think that cries for a "Constitutional amendment" are nothing but excuses for politicians to blame the system when we freaking pay them to be the system. Fix it you fools. We don't need no stinking Amendment. We have you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If a bad law is deemed Constitutional or a good law unconstitutional, the only way to change it is through an amendment.
> *
> While I agree 110% with your sentiment, I disagree with your conclusion.
Click to expand...

No...it is NOT the only way!  As a matter of fact...it is the LAST way it should or has been done historically.  

There are literally DOZENS of examples of laws that have been upheld or overturned by the Supreme Court in the last hundred years that were simply taken back up  by Congress and rewritten to fix them or repeal them.  It does not take a constitutional amendment.  The only thing that takes a constitutional amendment to fix...IS a constitutional amendment!

Vidi, while I appreciate you're persistence AND thoughtful nature, the arguments presented ARE based primarily on misinterpretations.


----------



## saveliberty

One of the primary responsibilities of our government should be and is to protect the property of citizens.  Having to constantly defend your property reduces what society is able to produce as a whole and makes all citizens unable to invest in the future, due to a need to defend the present.

If a person's income is determined by the whims of government, then the government has failed to fulfill its duty.  Taking of the "rich's" income, because it is believed they have too much  or "enough" is simply stealing.  At this point investment becomes less attractive for the reason I mentioned above.

Entitlement programs become traps for many.  They never escape from the cycle of poverty and enter the middle class.  I have to wonder why that is.  It seems that the most likely reasons are a lack of skills, which should be actively pursued by the grantee, Lack of motivation, which should be rewarded with a time limit on benefits or politicans that want dependence.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Foxfyre said:


> *A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION*​
> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and
> 
> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and
> 
> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.
> 
> *    *    *    *    *   *​Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .



I agree 100%.  

I also read some responses and no one has convinced me that I should not agree with this.


----------



## Foxfyre

Okay, good morning everybody.    I'm working on my first cup of coffee and have had at least a few hours of sleep and should be almost human shortly.

I would like to focus on Vidi's 'angry mob' concept.  I don't recall reading of angry mobs in the history books during the Great Depression that was exacerbated for hundreds of thousands by the 'dust bowl' prolonged drought throughout the great plains.  Yes the federal government, for the very first time on any large scale, did step in with some free food and works programs, but it was not in response to angry mobs demanding government help.

I also don't read in the history books that there was a huge upsurge in crime during that time, or that people lived in more fear of each other.  There are stories of great compassion and how people helped people get through it all.

(Many economists,believe the federal governments first foray into Keynesian economics actually prolonged the Depression, but that is a subject for another thread and in any case it did not otherwise affect the majority of Americans at the time.)

That was an America in which the federal government had not previously stepped in to 'help' people in difficulty, and it never occurred to the people that it should.

What does seem to trigger angry mobs, however, is an entitlement mentality and a dependence on government to provide for us what we cannot or do not  choose to have the discipline to do to provide for ourselves.  It is only when people have become accustomed to the government providing what we want, most especially other people's money, that they rise up when there is any suggestion that such be stopped or reduced.

It happens in Greece.  It happens in California.  And maybe it will happen throughout America if the government actually does begin to rachet back the government freebies and hand outs.

But what is the alternative?  We are already in deficit at a very dangerous percentage of the GDP and the debt is rising at a rate no amount of increased taxes will put a dent in.


----------



## saveliberty

The answer is give in to Mob rule?  Really?


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> The answer is give in to Mob rule?  Really?



No, I'm pretty sure Vidi didn't mean that.  But his observation is not unrealistic based on what we are seeing in European governments where the leaders are trying to impose some austerity measures.

It goes back to the principle of the resolution itself:   entitlements corrupt both those in government and the recipients of the benevolence.   And probably a lot of angry people used to having access to other people's money is going to be a consequence of any real reform.


----------



## saveliberty

We interupt this discussion for an important announcement.

Foxfyre, Pale has Krispy Kremes in the CS.

That is all.

( I am in soooooooo...much trouble right now )


----------



## Foxfyre

LOL, yes you are Save, and I've already rhetorically negged him.  

Okay, back to our regularly scheduled programming here. . . . .


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Moonglow said:


> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> other countries do it also even China.It is not a corrupting influence if managed correctly
Click to expand...


Would your mom accept the excuse "Well sally murdered her brothers so why are you mad at me for murdering mine?"  

Just saying pointing to another countrys bad decision making doesn't justify making bad decisions here.


----------



## Foxfyre

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> other countries do it also even China.It is not a corrupting influence if managed correctly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would your mom accept the excuse "Well sally murdered her brothers so why are you mad at me for murdering mine?"
> 
> Just saying pointing to another countrys bad decision making doesn't justify making bad decisions here.
Click to expand...


Further, pointing to other countries and how they do things and what has and has not worked for them can be somewhat instructive, but really cannot compare to American exceptionalism.

The U.S.A. has the only government ever conceived in the history of the world that was organized for the sole purpose of recognizing, defending, and upholding unalienable rights that the people were deemed to already have, and to provide a basic structure that would allow the government to do that.

In EVERY other nation, it is the government that assigns the rights the people will have.  We were unique among every government that has every existed in having a Constitution that allowed government to do only specific things and nothing else.

But for a long time now, those who have not or will not appreciate the original intent of the U.S. Constitution have been turning it on its head to allow government to do what the Constitution does not expressly forbid rather than limiting government to what the Constitution expressly allows.

And it is to reverse that corruption of Constitutional intent that the resolution is intended to correct.


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> other countries do it also even China.It is not a corrupting influence if managed correctly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would your mom accept the excuse "Well sally murdered her brothers so why are you mad at me for murdering mine?"
> 
> Just saying pointing to another countrys bad decision making doesn't justify making bad decisions here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Further, pointing to other countries and how they do things and what has and has not worked for them can be somewhat instructive, but really cannot compare to American exceptionalism.
> 
> The U.S.A. has the only government ever conceived in the history of the world that was organized for the sole purpose of recognizing, defending, and upholding unalienable rights that the people were deemed to already have, and to provide a basic structure that would allow the government to do that.
> 
> In EVERY other nation, it is the government that assigns the rights the people will have.  We were unique among every government that has every existed in having a Constitution that allowed government to do only specific things and nothing else.
> 
> But for a long time now, those who have not or will not appreciate the original intent of the U.S. Constitution have been turning it on its head to allow government to do what the Constitution does not expressly forbid rather than limiting government to what the Constitution expressly allows.
> 
> And it is to reverse that corruption of Constitutional intent that the resolution is intended to correct.
Click to expand...


Glad to see this clarification. There have been several references in this thread to "corruption", and it's really the corruption of the intent and practice of limited government that I think we're talking about - not any specific graft or malfeasance on the part of any our leaders.

So many of these conversations circle around fundamental differences in our views regarding the purpose of government. The topic, apparently, is too abstract to interest many people in conversation, but I think it's probably the most important thing we could be talking about regarding US politics.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> I also don't read in the history books that there was a huge upsurge in crime during that time, or that people lived in more fear of each other.  .






Read again. There was a rapid increase in crime during the Great Depression.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> I don't recall reading of angry mobs in the history books during the Great Depression.





There were many strikes and protest movements during the Great Depression.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would your mom accept the excuse "Well sally murdered her brothers so why are you mad at me for murdering mine?"
> 
> Just saying pointing to another countrys bad decision making doesn't justify making bad decisions here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further, pointing to other countries and how they do things and what has and has not worked for them can be somewhat instructive, but really cannot compare to American exceptionalism.
> 
> The U.S.A. has the only government ever conceived in the history of the world that was organized for the sole purpose of recognizing, defending, and upholding unalienable rights that the people were deemed to already have, and to provide a basic structure that would allow the government to do that.
> 
> In EVERY other nation, it is the government that assigns the rights the people will have.  We were unique among every government that has every existed in having a Constitution that allowed government to do only specific things and nothing else.
> 
> But for a long time now, those who have not or will not appreciate the original intent of the U.S. Constitution have been turning it on its head to allow government to do what the Constitution does not expressly forbid rather than limiting government to what the Constitution expressly allows.
> 
> And it is to reverse that corruption of Constitutional intent that the resolution is intended to correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad to see this clarification. There have been several references in this thread to "corruption", and it's really the corruption of the intent and practice of limited government that I think we're talking about - not any specific graft or malfeasance on the part of any our leaders.
> 
> So many of these conversations circle around fundamental differences in our views regarding the purpose of government. The topic, apparently, is too abstract to interest many people in conversation, but I think it's probably the most important thing we could be talking about regarding US politics.
Click to expand...


I  agree.  And I think if we can't refocus the body politic to at least begin the conversation, we are absolutely rushing headlong to just become another enormous "Greece."   And there aren't enough combined economies in the world big enough to bail us out if we allow that to happen.

The corruption of which I have spoken, and which is referenced in the resolution, is a result of the corruption of Constitutional intent.  Our leaders are able to enrich themselves in every way at our expense, and that process has evolved to the point that their sole purpose in their respective offices is to favor as many different groups as they can so as to generate votes to keep themselves in an office in which they are enriching themselves.

That is an extremely unhealthy way to do government as those so favored quickly adopt an appetite and dependency on government favors and will focus their votes on those who will promise to keep the freebies coming.  Anybody who suggests removing or reducing those freebies quickly becomes political anathema to those who say they want reform but who don't want to risk giving anything up.

It creates a viscious circle in which entitlements and getting government money becomes the goal and actually solving real problems cannot  and will not be addressed.


----------



## saveliberty

Please enlighten us with links regarding the strikes and crime stats.


----------



## saveliberty

Posts #194 & 195 Foxfyre.


----------



## Unkotare

saveliberty said:


> Please enlighten us with links regarding the strikes and crime stats.




Social and Cultural Effects of the Depression [ushistory.org]

"The Great Depression brought a rapid rise in the crime rate as many unemployed workers resorted to petty theft to put food on the table. Suicide rates rose, as did reported cases of malnutrition. Prostitution was on the rise as desperate women sought ways to pay the bills."


Great Depression

"Many unemployed and frustrated workers took matters into their own hands. The Great Depression saw some of the most volatile strikes and protest movements in the city's history. Unions were often supported by the newly organized Congress of Industrial Organizations. Organizing efforts were facilitated by mass culture, which provided a common ground to a disparate workforce. Workers united across race, ethnicity, and even across different industries. By 1940 one-third of the workers in Chicago's manufacturing sector were unionized. Active social protest movements extended outside of the workplace too. Unemployed workers, relief recipients, even the unpaid schoolteachers held huge demonstrations during the early years of the Great Depression. Across the city, angry housewives protested retailers' misleading advertising and refusal to lower prices. In fact, it was a combination of public pressure and new state laws that ended the city's crippling tax strike. Although the degree of public unrest declined in later years, people's reliance on mass movements and national organization continued."


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> Posts #194 & 195 Foxfyre.



Aha ,okay, but let's don't get dragged off course in that direction. Yes, increased crime was a result of prohibition during that same era, but was mostly unrelated to the Depression.  And yes there were strikes, sometimes that turned violent, but union thuggery existed before and after the Depression too.

Otherwise increased crime was mostly illegal hunting and fishing and petty theft.  Watermelon stealing became epidemic.  But I also stole watermelons as a kid long after the Depression.  It was sort of a rite of passage.  But back then you could buy a large watermelon for 10 cents up to a quarter.

The point remains, that there wasn't mass rioting in the streets during the Great Depression which suggests that such activity is far more likely to happen when people are denied any of their government entitlements.

That is an illustration of the point to the resolution in the O.P.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> The point remains, that there wasn't mass rioting in the streets during the Great Depression






Yes, there was. 


Unemployed Councils, Eviction Riots, and the New Deal | The Economic Populist


Cleveland eviction riot of 1933 bears similarities to current woes | cleveland.com


----------



## Unkotare

saveliberty said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aha ,okay, but let's don't get dragged off course in that direction. Yes, increased crime was a result of prohibition during that same era, but was mostly unrelated to the Depression. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. If you had *bothered* to read the links...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get a grip.  We were writing responses to each other less than 60 seconds from your post.  Petty crime went up and apparently you think the Depression lasted into the 1940s and was centered in one city.  Deflection is not a debate point.  Try to address the OP.
Click to expand...



Instead of ignoring or avoiding facts, one should be honest enough to admit when one is wrong. Crime increased significantly during the Great Depression and there were mass riots in the streets of major cities.


----------



## saveliberty

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point remains, that there wasn't mass rioting in the streets during the Great Depression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there was.
> 
> 
> Unemployed Councils, Eviction Riots, and the New Deal | The Economic Populist
> 
> 
> Cleveland eviction riot of 1933 bears similarities to current woes | cleveland.com
Click to expand...


You just unwittingly gave support to Foxfyre's point entitlement folks cause these types of problems.  Also, they were isolated incidents in socialist neighborhoods, so mass riots?  Hardly.  It also was an unsourced blog post.


----------



## Unkotare

I provided facts, not conclusions. I don't know why you would resist facts. I don't see anyone else providing actual sources. There is no need for contention over a point of fact. A statement was made that was factually wrong. That is all.


----------



## Foxfyre

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posts #194 & 195 Foxfyre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aha ,okay, but let's don't get dragged off course in that direction. Yes, increased crime was a result of prohibition during that same era, but was mostly unrelated to the Depression. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. If you had bothered to read the links...
Click to expand...


I am sure you think I'm wrong, Unkotare, but I have read enough history on this subject to be pretty secure in my point of view, and you are entitled to your point of view too.

Rebuttal with hopes we won't get into a battle of links and cut and paste that pulls us off focus on the OP:



> But the notion that unemployment causes crime runs into some obvious difficulties. For one thing, the 1960s, a period of rising crime, had essentially the same unemployment rate as the late 1990s and early 2000s, a period when crime fell. Further, during the Great Depression, when unemployment hit 25 percent, the crime rate in many cities went down. (True, national crime statistics werent very useful back in the 1930s, but studies of local police records and individual citizens by scholars such as Glen Elder have generally found reduced crime, too.)
> Crime and the Great Recession by James Q. Wilson, City Journal Summer 2011
> Why Crime Keeps Falling - WSJ.com





> There are few outlaws in the United States as famous as Bonnie and Clyde  a young couple, with no jobs or prospects, driving across the country robbing banks and killing police officers to make ends meet during the Great Depression.
> 
> It's an indelible image of what people will do during desperate times. For a while, Bonnie and Clyde were almost American heroes.
> 
> There's only one problem: The Depression years had very little crime.
> 
> With the economy's current troubles, many people assume a crime wave is just around the corner. But criminologists say that's just an American myth
> Experts: Bad Economies Don't Cause Crime Waves : NPR



The point remains that even the hardships of the Great Depression and the great drought of the same period did not generate the angry rioting the in the streets that Vidi suggested.  Why? Because the people did not look to government as the solution for their hardships.

And yet modern history illustrates that people who have been made dependent on government will form angry mobs rioting in the street if government tries to reduce their government benefits.   Government charity is a corrupting force.


----------



## Unkotare

*ahem*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exuGv3HsV-U]Rioting Across America - The Great Depression - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> I am sure you think I'm wrong, Unkotare, but I have read enough history on this subject to be pretty secure in my point of view, and you are entitled to your point of view too..




It is not a matter of points of view. I have merely corrected you on a matter of fact. That is all.

You claimed that crime did not go up during the Great Depression, but it did.

You claimed that there were not mass riots in the streets during the Great Depression, but there were.

These are not matters of opinion and there is no reason for you to take it personally.


----------



## Foxfyre

You are misrepresenting what I said Unkotare.  I suggest you re-read what I posted.  And yes, you can find any number of dubious sites that will provide you ammo for your point of view.  So can I.  I chose sources known to be reasonably trustworthy, however, including PBS that is nobody's idea of a conservative or anti-government group.  I suggest you do likewise.


----------



## Unkotare

I have merely pointed out where you made a factual error. That is all. I have not even addressed your conclusions, so there is no need to feel threatened.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ackowledging your opinion and again saying you are wrong, Unkotare.  I acknowledgwe that you have declared me wrong.

Now respectfully asking that we allow others to decide who has made the better case and return to the thesis of the thread.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> Ackowledging your opinion .





It is not a matter of _opinion_. You were mistaken on a matter of _fact. _Again, there is no reason to take it personally.


----------



## saveliberty

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you think I'm wrong, Unkotare, but I have read enough history on this subject to be pretty secure in my point of view, and you are entitled to your point of view too..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of points of view. I have merely corrected you on a matter of fact. That is all.
> 
> You claimed that crime did not go up during the Great Depression, but it did.
> 
> You claimed that there were not mass riots in the streets during the Great Depression, but there were.
> 
> These are not matters of opinion and there is no reason for you to take it personally.
Click to expand...


Your highly biaed sources pointed to only sparse demonstrations Unktore.  Hardly fact.


----------



## dblack

One of the most common conceits of political discourse is the notion that "facts speak for themselves". They never do.


----------



## saveliberty

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ackowledging your opinion .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of _opinion_. You were mistaken on a matter of _fact. _Again, there is no reason to take it personally.
Click to expand...


No reason to deflect continually either, but there you are.  I can only conclude that your objection to the OP is mob rule may enuse.  Not much of a debate point.


----------



## Unkotare

saveliberty said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you think I'm wrong, Unkotare, but I have read enough history on this subject to be pretty secure in my point of view, and you are entitled to your point of view too..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of points of view. I have merely corrected you on a matter of fact. That is all.
> 
> You claimed that crime did not go up during the Great Depression, but it did.
> 
> You claimed that there were not mass riots in the streets during the Great Depression, but there were.
> 
> These are not matters of opinion and there is no reason for you to take it personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your highly biaed sources pointed to only sparse demonstrations Unktore.  Hardly fact.
Click to expand...




Maybe you didn't actually look at the links?


----------



## Unkotare

saveliberty said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ackowledging your opinion .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of _opinion_. You were mistaken on a matter of _fact. _Again, there is no reason to take it personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No reason to deflect continually either, but there you are.  I can only conclude that your objection to the OP is mob rule may enuse.  Not much of a debate point.
Click to expand...



Not sure why I have to keep repeating this but I was not addressing anyone's conclusions, I was merely correcting a factual error. There is really no need for anyone's ego to feel threatened over it.


----------



## saveliberty

Unkotare said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of _opinion_. You were mistaken on a matter of _fact. _Again, there is no reason to take it personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No reason to deflect continually either, but there you are.  I can only conclude that your objection to the OP is mob rule may enuse.  Not much of a debate point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure why I have to keep repeating this but I was not addressing anyone's conclusions, I was merely correcting a factual error. There is really no need for anyone's ego to feel threatened over it.
Click to expand...


Except your sources are not facts in some cases and misrepresentations in others.  Which we have tried to correct you on repeatedly.  Failing that we have asked you repeatedly, to return to the subject.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> One of the most common conceits of political discourse is the notion that "facts speak for themselves". They never do.



Exactly, and most especially when anecdotal evidence is presented as fact to dispute the larger picture.  

I have diligently tried to avoid using anecdotal evidence to support the thesis of this thread except as a means to illustrate an explanation.

But I think we have adequate established it as fact that despite the last years of organized crime violence that occurred in the earlier years of the Depression, and the union thuggery that has become common regardless of the economic climate, the facts still remain that the hard times of the Depression did not result in widespread angry mobs taking to the streets.  I'll amend that to be that it did not result in widespread angry mobs of ordinary citizens taking to the streets.  There was no entitlement mentality at that time.

And I think it is safe to say that Vidi is probably right that citizens could and/or will take to the streets to protest a roll back in their federal government freebies now that an entitlement mentality has been developed.

So, if we accept Vidi's observation as the reasonable and logical probability, would removing entitlements as a function of the federal governmewnt  be worth it?


----------



## saveliberty

Seems like it is necessary if we want to maintain a democratic republic.


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> Seems like it is necessary if we want to maintain a democratic republic.



So you were a signer in support of the resolution?


----------



## saveliberty

Foxfyre said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like it is necessary if we want to maintain a democratic republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you were a signer in support of the resolution?
Click to expand...


This was the question I was answering:  "
And I think it is safe to say that Vidi is probably right that citizens could and/or will take to the streets to protest a roll back in their federal government freebies now that an entitlement mentality has been developed.

So, if we accept Vidi's observation as the reasonable and logical probability, would removing entitlements as a function of the federal governmewnt be worth it?"

Now you ask a different question.  The answer to that one is probably not.  I would be in favor of multiple amendments to the Constitution limiting politicans to a single term, bills must be 100% germane to the subject of the bill, budgets must balance on an annual basis.


----------



## Unkotare

saveliberty said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> No reason to deflect continually either, but there you are.  I can only conclude that your objection to the OP is mob rule may enuse.  Not much of a debate point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure why I have to keep repeating this but I was not addressing anyone's conclusions, I was merely correcting a factual error. There is really no need for anyone's ego to feel threatened over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except your sources are not facts.
Click to expand...




Yes, they really are. I even provided a video. What have you contributed?


----------



## saveliberty

Unkotare said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure why I have to keep repeating this but I was not addressing anyone's conclusions, I was merely correcting a factual error. There is really no need for anyone's ego to feel threatened over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except your sources are not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they really are. I even provided a video. What have you contributed?
Click to expand...


Reason to someone claiming a blog and left wing website must be fact.  Seriously, you continue to deflect from the OP.  You have been asked repeatedly to stick to the OP.  I can only conclude you are trolling and I am required to report that.  Please return to the topic immediately, so I am not forced to follow the rules.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> the hard times of the Depression did not result in widespread angry mobs taking to the streets.





Despite the fact that I have provided video of angry mobs taking to the streets in cities across the country...


----------



## Foxfyre

You provided video of angry union workers taking to the streets, Unkotare.  I have conceded that point in several posts now.

One last time I am respectfully requesting that you acknowledge that your point is duly noted and I am respectfully requesting that we do not derail this thread via anecdotal disputes.


----------



## Unkotare

saveliberty said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except your sources are not facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they really are. I provided a variety of sources. I even provided a *video*. What have you contributed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reason to someone claiming a blog and left wing website must be fact.  Seriously, you continue to deflect from the OP.  You have been asked repeatedly to stick to the OP.  I can only conclude you are trolling and I am required to report that.  Please return to the topic immediately, so I am not forced to follow the rules.
Click to expand...



If you consider actual facts to be "trolling," then you do whatever you feel you need to do. If you want to create a fact-free zone so that anyone can say anything without ever being inconvenienced by the truth then I suggest you take that up with BD.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> One last time I am respectfully requesting that you acknowledge that your point is duly noted .





That is very nice of you, but for the third time, I was not making a point, I was correcting an error in FACT.


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like it is necessary if we want to maintain a democratic republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you were a signer in support of the resolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was the question I was answering:  "
> And I think it is safe to say that Vidi is probably right that citizens could and/or will take to the streets to protest a roll back in their federal government freebies now that an entitlement mentality has been developed.
> 
> So, if we accept Vidi's observation as the reasonable and logical probability, would removing entitlements as a function of the federal governmewnt be worth it?"
> 
> Now you ask a different question.  The answer to that one is probably not.  I would be in favor of multiple amendments to the Constitution limiting politicans to a single term, bills must be 100% germane to the subject of the bill, budgets must balance on an annual basis.
Click to expand...


But the resolution is specifically focused on removing entitlements and other freebies and monetary benefits to anybody as a function of the federal government as  a means to balance the budget among other things.

Your other two points could be worthy goals and certainly are worthy of debate, but should be handled in a separate thread.

But okay you can't support the resolution as written.   Why?


----------



## saveliberty

Because mine addresses your issue as well as others all at once.


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> Because mine addresses your issue as well as others all at once.



But how?  What objection do you have to the resolution?


----------



## saveliberty

As has already been demonstrated, it could be interpreted as redundant law.  That will cause tremendous litigation and unintended consequences.  My plan creates a balanced budget requirement which will eliminate many entitlements by necessity.  That also forces them to keep it balanced.  Transparency in legislation will be very helpful in seeing the goals and objectives of those in power.  Power will be limited.


----------



## dblack

saveliberty said:


> As has already been demonstrated, it could be interpreted as redundant law.  That will cause tremendous litigation and unintended consequences.  My plan creates a balanced budget requirement which will eliminate many entitlements by necessity.  That also forces them to keep it balanced.  Transparency in legislation will be very helpful in seeing the goals and objectives of those in power.  Power will be limited.



It's valid to point out that, if actually applied, the fourteenth amendment could be used to effect the things called for in the resolution. But it's not. If actually applied, in my view, it would have blocked the individual mandate tax - and all other tax "incentive" schemes. But it's not applied consistently. That's the unfortunate reality of the situation.

When the court and government conspire to "reinterpret" Constitutional protections out from under us, we should act to get them back - by passing new amendments that rebuild degraded protections.

EDIT: Also, I don't see how a balanced budget really addresses using government for redistributing 'benefit'. You could have gross inequities and still balance the books.


----------



## JDzBrain

Unkotare said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also don't read in the history books that there was a huge upsurge in crime during that time, or that people lived in more fear of each other.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read again. There was a rapid increase in crime during the Great Depression.
Click to expand...


Property crimes and ALL OTHER CRIMES were nearly 4 times higher in the 80's and 90's than any other time in the history of this country.  Over the history of this country, the crime rate has remained pretty much static, with only the NUMBERS changing with increases in population...NOT as a percentage of the population. Those have remained within a few points over our history...UNTIL the 80's and 90's.  

So just exactly WHY would that be?  Isn't that when our post Nam socially enlightened society started spending hit it's all time highs, We had a SUPPOSED 1.2 trillion dollar budget surplus, the current form of the farm bill that contains food stamp funding was written and enacted and on and on and on?  The answer to ALL that is YES!

Throwing money at a problem does NOT fix the problem.  It...at BEST...eases the symptom for a SHORT period.  In the long run, it makes it WORSE.  Just ask Greece and Spain and France and most of the REST of western Europe where the fires burn nightly!


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> As has already been demonstrated, it could be interpreted as redundant law.  That will cause tremendous litigation and unintended consequences.  My plan creates a balanced budget requirement which will eliminate many entitlements by necessity.  That also forces them to keep it balanced.  Transparency in legislation will be very helpful in seeing the goals and objectives of those in power.  Power will be limited.



I disagree that 'eliminating many entitlements by necessity' would be less likely to trigger litigation than the resolution would. I CAN see HUGE litigation if one group lost their entitlements but another was allowed to keep theirs.  Equal protection and all that. 

However, a Constitutional amendment has to be agreed to in Congress or produced via a constitutional convention and would have to be agreed to by 38 of 50 states.   I think most states have a policy of putting the amendment to the vote of the people in their respective states as to whether they want it ratified or not.

At any rate, if the basic concept of the resolution was written into a constitutional amendment and was ratified, there would be little to litigate.  The only time that would happen if somebody challenged a government contract to somebody as to whether it was legitimate government function or a 'pay off' or whatever, but those lawsuits happen all the time anyway.


----------



## Vidi

Ok theres a LOT to answer here...but I think that I need to clear something up first and that is the factual argument going on about civil unrest during the great depression.

Like many here, I have fought very hard against Unk outside the clean zone, so imagine my surprise when I find him actually support my facts. In fact, he has posted one of the videos that I was going to post in response so that will now be unneccesary. So Kudos to Unk!

But the unrest goes FAR beyond just that one video.

Does anyone here know what the Bonus Army was?



> Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The Bonus Army was the popular name of an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers&#8212;17,000 World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups&#8212;who gathered in Washington, D.C., in the spring and summer of 1932 to demand immediate cash-payment redemption of their service certificates. Its organizers called it the Bonus Expeditionary Force to echo the name of World War I's American Expeditionary Force, while the media called it the Bonus March. It was led by Walter W. Waters, a former Army sergeant.
> 
> A second, smaller Bonus March in 1933 at the start of the Roosevelt Administration was defused in May with an offer of jobs for the Civilian Conservation Corps at Fort Hunt, Virginia, which most of the group accepted. Those who chose not to work for the CCC by the May 22 deadline were given transportation home. In 1936, Congress overrode President Franklin D. Roosevelt's veto and paid the veterans their bonus years early.



On a side note: Look up General Smedley Butler and the Business Plot. Butler is one of Americas true unsung heroes. 


and it wasnt just the Bonus Army




> Timeline . Riding the Rails . American Experience . WGBH | PBS
> *
> February 1931*
> "Food riots" begin to break out in parts of the U.S. In Minneapolis, several hundred men and women smash the windows of a grocery market and make off with fruit, canned goods, bacon, and ham. One of the store's owners pulls out a gun to stop the looters, but is leapt upon and has his arm broken. The "riot" is brought under control by 100 policemen
> *
> March 1931*
> Three thousand unemployed workers march on the Ford Motor Company's plant in River Rouge, Michigan. Dearborn police and Ford's company guards attack the workers, killing four and injuring many more.
> 
> 
> *January 1937*
> United Automobile Workers strike at the General Motors Plant in Flint, Michigan. The strike turns violent when strikers clash with company-hired police.
> 
> 
> *May 1937*
> At Republic Steel's South Chicago plant, workers and their families try to combine a picnic with a rally and demonstration. Ten people are killed and a dozen more are wounded in the "Memorial Day Massacre."



Take away peoples hope and any program to give them hope and they will protest and violence breaks out.


----------



## Vidi

JDzBrain said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think youre missing my point.
> 
> One of the objections I have to your resolution is its redundancy. *The 14th amendment grants every citizen of the United States equal protection under the law*....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've said this a few times now and so I WILL address it.  The 14th amendment is radical reconstruction era BULL that did, with a constitutional amendment, what SHOULD have been done by legislation!
> 
> It was plainly and simply, a usurping of state's authority by the federal government in the pretense of protecting emancipated slaves as a reprisal against a couple states that tried to use a loop hole in federal law to ship freed slaves back to Africa using their children.
> 
> That's point one.  Point two is that NO...it does NOT guarantee equal protection under the law.  That is a fallacy.  It guarantees that no STATE can deny equal protection to a citizen of the United States living within it's borders.  You'll notice I have made bold the operative phrase in Section 1, posted below.  It says NOTHING about equal protections under federal law.
> 
> Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
> 
> "_1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State* shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._"
> 
> It would have said NO LAW shall be made or enforced...and so on and so on if the intent was as you claim.  What it says is no state shall make or enforce.  Your argument is base on a fallacy.
> 
> By the way, the 14th amendment is also the amendment that made it LEGAL for a state to take a person's right to vote or freedom of speech or own a gun or property or anything else...FOR LIFE if they commit a crime.  Something they could not do before it's passage and something the founders never intended.  They believed in redemption.
> 
> Given the cries about disenfranchisement of voters and calls by liberals to let prisoners vote, supporting the 14th to get the Mexican vote must present something of a Catch 22 for liberals!
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, our rights cannot be protected without stability. *Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness all go out the window if you cant drive down the street without facing an angry mob.*
> 
> As to extension of this resolution to the States, it would end every known governmental safety net that we currently have. *Thus rioting in the streets when the unemployed cant feed their kids.*
> 
> I strongly suggest that what you recommend is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First there is this, "_The single mission of government is to promote stability._"
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is the WHY our country was founded, THIS..."_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America._"...the Preamble to the Constitution is the WHAT the governments SOLE job is and the Constitution is the HOW our government is to do that.  If it ain't in there...it ain't their job!
> 
> Then there is the part highlighted in the second quote.  If you look at EVERY riot that has occurred in the last 50 years, just where have those riots occurred and who is involved in them?  I'll give you a hint.  They are the very people you claim throwing money stolen from the pockets of working Americans SHOULD be placating.  It does NOT!
> 
> Giving people a hand out just keeps um on the reservation, plantation or however you want to put it.  Giving them a hand UP removes discontent!
> 
> Just like throwing money at education does NOT improve education.  The 5 highest spenders on education in this country are ALL at the bottom of performance.  That's FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I think that cries for a "Constitutional amendment" are nothing but excuses for politicians to blame the system when we freaking pay them to be the system. Fix it you fools. We don't need no stinking Amendment. We have you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If a bad law is deemed Constitutional or a good law unconstitutional, the only way to change it is through an amendment.
> *
> While I agree 110% with your sentiment, I disagree with your conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...it is NOT the only way!  As a matter of fact...it is the LAST way it should or has been done historically.
> 
> There are literally DOZENS of examples of laws that have been upheld or overturned by the Supreme Court in the last hundred years that were simply taken back up  by Congress and rewritten to fix them or repeal them.  It does not take a constitutional amendment.  The only thing that takes a constitutional amendment to fix...IS a constitutional amendment!
> 
> Vidi, while I appreciate you're persistence AND thoughtful nature, the arguments presented ARE based primarily on misinterpretations.
Click to expand...


Wow, JD great post and great points. I dont have time tonight to address them all so I just want to tackle a couple as quickly as I can

1) Your point about NO State. Under a strict interpretation, youre absolutely right on that. I dont have a source to cite for rebuttal, so Ill have to concede the point. Great job! 

( but I reserve the right to come back to it if I can find a source lol )

2) Isnt Tranquility stability? 

Again GREAT POST! Greenies for you!


----------



## Vidi

saveliberty said:


> We interupt this discussion for an important announcement.
> 
> Foxfyre, Pale has Krispy Kremes in the CS.
> 
> That is all.
> 
> ( I am in soooooooo...much trouble right now )



Kristy Kremes are crap! I wish I could treat you all to fresh donuts from one of my bakeries to prove it. Hehe.


----------



## saveliberty

Fresh sounds good Vidi.  I have yet to suffer through a Krispy Kreme.


----------



## saveliberty

Finding new common ground with others is certainly a great byproduct of the CDZ concept Vidi.  The Bonus Army looks like a genuine issue with the government and not an entitlement issue to me.  This whole discussion is a distraction from the OP though.  I think Foxfyre has already conceded there were some uprisings.  I personally don't put it at a level of massive as suggested by Unktore.


----------



## Vidi

PHP:
	






saveliberty said:


> Finding new common ground with others is certainly a great byproduct of the CDZ concept Vidi.  The Bonus Army looks like a genuine issue with the government and not an entitlement issue to me.  This whole discussion is a distraction from the OP though.  I think Foxfyre has already conceded there were some uprisings.  I personally don't put it at a level of massive as suggested by Unktore.



When you add Unks examples with my own examples, you have a fair amount of unrest.

Unrest is not open rebellion. It is however almost always a prerequisite.

I dont see it as a distraction because the original question was actually a poll. Would we support the resolution? And weve been asked to support our reasoning.


----------



## saveliberty

Those incidents were aimed at government.  I don't think the one that is suggested would be towards government as much as government being a buffer against two opposing sides.

Got back from my run a little while ago and in about another 9 hours a donut is going to look really good.


----------



## Unkotare

saveliberty said:


> I personally don't put it at a level of massive as suggested by Unktore.




Did I use the word "massive"?


----------



## JDzBrain

Vidi said:


> ...I dont have time tonight to address them all so I just want to tackle a couple as quickly as I can
> 
> 1) Your point about NO State. Under a strict interpretation, youre absolutely right on that...
> ...( but I reserve the right to come back to it if I can find a source lol )
> 
> 2) Isnt Tranquility stability?
> 
> Again GREAT POST! Greenies for you!


LOL...well, I'll accept your rain check.  

As to tranquility, it wasn't JUST tranquility.  It was DOMESTIC tranquility.  

The founders coupled those two words for a very good reason.  The tranquility they were talking about was that derived from a life free from domestic insurrection, wars between states or attacks from abroad.  Which in the day and still to THIS DAY is a very REAL possibility.  

The War of 1812, Mexican American War and 9/11 are all examples of that interruption of tranquility by outside sources, while the Civil War (we call it the War of Northern Aggression down here.  ;~) is the best know example of domestic interruption of that tranquility, there have been several attempted domestic insurrections including one shooting war called Shay's Rebellion that occurred while the first Continental Convention was convening to try and ratify the Constitution.  

By the way, it actually WAS over the money!  ;~)

However, MOST were funded or incited by outside sources like England, France or Spain.  Hell, Occupy Wall Street was conceived, organized and executed from CANADA!

The founders had NO intention of IMPOSED tranquility on the individual.  They viewed that as oppression!  ;~)

They didn't believe tranquility could be imposed any more than they believed in collective salvation!

Oh, and *HERE* is a good source to get ya started with some of my claims.  It an article by historian David Barton from his web site.  Regardless of anything anyone might say about his politics or religious overtness, the guy IS the most knowledgeable historian alive today.


----------



## Foxfyre

Would it be conceivable that the Founders would not see many of our government initiatives as promoting or maintaining domestic tranquility?  The Resolution addresses this by taking away the federal government's ability to create class envy, to pick winners and losers as beneficiaries from the public treasury or via contracts let by the Federal government.

So we are already seeing those who see the federal government's role to provide a safety net.  That safety net, however, is pushing us to the very edge of national bankruptcy even as it disrupts domestic tranquility of those who resist losing any federal government benefits of any kind.

The Founders did not see a safety net as a function of the Federal Government.

Okay I'm out for tonight.  Back in the morning.


----------



## JDzBrain

Vidi said:


> PHP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finding new common ground with others is certainly a great byproduct of the CDZ concept Vidi.  The Bonus Army looks like a genuine issue with the government and not an entitlement issue to me.  This whole discussion is a distraction from the OP though.  I think Foxfyre has already conceded there were some uprisings.  I personally don't put it at a level of massive as suggested by Unktore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you add Unks examples with my own examples, you have a fair amount of unrest.
> 
> Unrest is not open rebellion. It is however almost always a prerequisite.
> 
> I dont see it as a distraction because the original question was actually a poll. Would we support the resolution? And weve been asked to support our reasoning.
Click to expand...


Folks, as with the example of Shay's Rebellion I mentioned above, which was a rebellion over printing money, bankers and the economy AND which took place in the late 1780's and early 1790's, rebellions...shooting and otherwise have been going on since the very days the founders were writing and ratifying our Constitution.  Had they intended that we were a welfare state...they had EVERY opportunity to just write that right into the Constitution.  They did NOT do that!

Instead, they took measures to make sure the national and state's armies (militias/National Guard) were strong enough to put down such rebellions.  And in fact, shortly after becoming our first president, Washington PERSONALLY led a 15,000 man militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion...a farmers rebellion over money....just to make the point!  

These riots, rebellions, insurrections...whatEVER you guys seem to be so frightened of have been happening since before this country WAS a country.  And WAY before we started down this damnednable welfare state crap.   We survived them then, and we will survive them in the future.  Because make no mistake, there WILL be more in the future....no matter how much we soak the rich!  

Beyond that, the notion of paying what is essentially protection money to try and placate those who would commit these acts is an abomination to the memories of those who have given their lives to establish and maintain this Republic and down right cowardly.  

Besides, just ask anyone who has been shook down in a protection racket.  All it leads to is ever increasing demands.  There is NO placating leeches.  They just keep sucking and sucking until they are so bloated they fall off or you go DRY!

As I've said before, I'm with Jefferson on this one.  "_To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical._"


----------



## saveliberty

Unkotare said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally don't put it at a level of massive as suggested by Unktore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I use the word "massive"?
Click to expand...


Post #206, used mass.


----------



## saveliberty

There are financial stress limits on everything.  The government cannot maintain current programs at the rate things are going now.  Thoughtful reductions and cuts now are far better than a collapse of the entire system.


----------



## Foxfyre

JDzBrain said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PHP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finding new common ground with others is certainly a great byproduct of the CDZ concept Vidi.  The Bonus Army looks like a genuine issue with the government and not an entitlement issue to me.  This whole discussion is a distraction from the OP though.  I think Foxfyre has already conceded there were some uprisings.  I personally don't put it at a level of massive as suggested by Unktore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you add Unks examples with my own examples, you have a fair amount of unrest.
> 
> Unrest is not open rebellion. It is however almost always a prerequisite.
> 
> I dont see it as a distraction because the original question was actually a poll. Would we support the resolution? And weve been asked to support our reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Folks, as with the example of Shay's Rebellion I mentioned above, which was a rebellion over printing money, bankers and the economy AND which took place in the late 1780's and early 1790's, rebellions...shooting and otherwise have been going on since the very days the founders were writing and ratifying our Constitution.  Had they intended that we were a welfare state...they had EVERY opportunity to just write that right into the Constitution.  They did NOT do that!
> 
> Instead, they took measures to make sure the national and state's armies (militias/National Guard) were strong enough to put down such rebellions.  And in fact, shortly after becoming our first president, Washington PERSONALLY led a 15,000 man militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion...a farmers rebellion over money....just to make the point!
> 
> These riots, rebellions, insurrections...whatEVER you guys seem to be so frightened of have been happening since before this country WAS a country.  And WAY before we started down this damnednable welfare state crap.   We survived them then, and we will survive them in the future.  Because make no mistake, there WILL be more in the future....no matter how much we soak the rich!
> 
> Beyond that, the notion of paying what is essentially protection money to try and placate those who would commit these acts is an abomination to the memories of those who have given their lives to establish and maintain this Republic and down right cowardly.
> 
> Besides, just ask anyone who has been shook down in a protection racket.  All it leads to is ever increasing demands.  There is NO placating leeches.  They just keep sucking and sucking until they are so bloated they fall off or you go DRY!
> 
> As I've said before, I'm with Jefferson on this one.  "_To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical._"
Click to expand...


And herein is another reason for the resolution.  The ability of government to print money is a huge liberal license for the government to spend as much money as it chooses to spend.  Also it is a form of wealth redistribution.  If we could again restrict the federal government to what the Constitution allows it to do, the fed could be abolished and the gold standard would have a much better chance of being re-established as law.

The Whiskey Rebellion, however, was not an uprising against losing a benefit but a most vigorous protest against new taxes imosed (on whiskey sales) by Congress as a means to pay off the national debt.  Washington did indeed ride with the militia to defend the beleagered tax authorities irate farmers were attacking.  The farmers disbanded and went home before the militia arrived with no confrontations necessary.  Working from memory here, I believe there were a few arrests--maybe 20 or so?--but I also seem to remember that all were acquitted and that ended the matter.

But this was a protest against what the already freedom loving farmers saw as an oppressive and unfair tax--oppressive and unfair being subjective of course.

Of interest, it was Jefferson's brand new Republican Party that repealed the whiskey tax when they took power some time later.

The resolution speaks to all the same issues they debated back then though.  It is those who want bigger government more able to be hands on to work with the people and redistribute wealth versus those who see small, limited government as they only way that freedom can exist and be defended.


----------



## JDzBrain

Foxfyre said:


> And herein is another reason for the resolution.  The ability of government to print money is a huge liberal license for the government to spend as much money as it chooses to spend.  Also it is a form of wealth redistribution.  If we could again restrict the federal government to what the Constitution allows it to do, the fed could be abolished and the gold standard would have a much better chance of being re-established as law.
> 
> The Whiskey Rebellion, however, was not an uprising against losing a benefit but a most vigorous protest against new taxes imosed (on whiskey sales) by Congress as a means to pay off the national debt.  Washington did indeed ride with the militia to defend the beleagered tax authorities irate farmers were attacking.  The farmers disbanded and went home after the militia arrived with no confrontations necessary.  Working from memory here, I believe there were a few arrests--maybe 20 or so?--but I also seem to remember that all were acquitted and that ended the matter.
> 
> But this was a protest against what the already freedom loving farmers saw as an oppressive and unfair tax--oppressive and unfair being subjective of course.
> 
> Of interest, it was Jefferson's brand new Republican Party that repealed the whiskey tax when they took power some time later.
> 
> The resolution speaks to all the same issues they debated back then though.  It is those who want bigger government more able to be hands on to work with the people and distribute wealth versus those who see small, limited government as they only way that freedom can exist and be defended.


Exactly so!  MOST of these rebellions...INCLUDING the War Between the States were about money.  Regardless of what revisionist history tells us.  

I can understand why Washington enacted the whiskey tax that sparked the rebellion.  He himself made shine and given his experience trying to get the states to pay his solders in the revolution...he HAD to find a way to provide for the common defense.  Given the small overhead and large profits in whiskey...it made sense to him.  It was WRONG, but I understand it.

As you said, it WAS repealed by Jefferson, who QUIT Washington's cabinet over the VERY THING we are discussing here.  Washington sided with those who wanted to do the whiskey tax and have a bigger central government...Jefferson disagreed, pointed out that a direct tax on income was unconstitutional and resigned.  

Of course, HE...Jefferson, violated the Constitution with the Louisiana Purchase when he was president.  So his hands aren't clean either.  LOL

That act of arrogance has led to the federal government owning more than 50% of ALL LAND west of the great plains in DIRECT violation of the Constitution.  ALL payed for by presidential discretionary spending funds.

ONE MORE way ideologues have bastardized constitutional procedures to buy influence with states and groups like the tree huggers.  

Oh, and Jefferson's party was the Democratic Republican Party wasn't it?  I'm pretty sure that Lincoln was the first Republican (an offshoot of the Democratic Republican Party that split into two camps, those who were military interventionist and those who were non-interventionist) to be president.  I THINK!  Like you said, I'm just going from memory...and I AIN'T gettin' any younger!  ;~)

At any rate, you are steel on target.  This HAS to be brought under control if our economy and Republic is EVER going to return to prominence and a leadership role in the world that we once enjoyed.  We HAVE to lead by example...NOT explanation and rationalizations!


----------



## Unkotare

saveliberty said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally don't put it at a level of massive as suggested by Unktore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I use the word "massive"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #206, used mass.
Click to expand...


So, I didn't use the word "massive" then? I used the word "mass" in direct reference to fox's factual error about street riots during the Great Depression.


----------



## Unkotare

JDzBrain said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, HE...Jefferson, violated the Constitution with the Louisiana Purchase when he was president.  So his hands aren't clean either.  LOL
> 
> That act of arrogance has led to the federal government owning more than 50% of ALL LAND west of the great plains in DIRECT violation of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wanna give it back?
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

JDzBrain said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And herein is another reason for the resolution.  The ability of government to print money is a huge liberal license for the government to spend as much money as it chooses to spend.  Also it is a form of wealth redistribution.  If we could again restrict the federal government to what the Constitution allows it to do, the fed could be abolished and the gold standard would have a much better chance of being re-established as law.
> 
> The Whiskey Rebellion, however, was not an uprising against losing a benefit but a most vigorous protest against new taxes imosed (on whiskey sales) by Congress as a means to pay off the national debt.  Washington did indeed ride with the militia to defend the beleagered tax authorities irate farmers were attacking.  The farmers disbanded and went home after the militia arrived with no confrontations necessary.  Working from memory here, I believe there were a few arrests--maybe 20 or so?--but I also seem to remember that all were acquitted and that ended the matter.
> 
> But this was a protest against what the already freedom loving farmers saw as an oppressive and unfair tax--oppressive and unfair being subjective of course.
> 
> Of interest, it was Jefferson's brand new Republican Party that repealed the whiskey tax when they took power some time later.
> 
> The resolution speaks to all the same issues they debated back then though.  It is those who want bigger government more able to be hands on to work with the people and distribute wealth versus those who see small, limited government as they only way that freedom can exist and be defended.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly so!  MOST of these rebellions...INCLUDING the War Between the States were about money.  Regardless of what revisionist history tells us.
> 
> I can understand why Washington enacted the whiskey tax that sparked the rebellion.  He himself made shine and given his experience trying to get the states to pay his solders in the revolution...he HAD to find a way to provide for the common defense.  Given the small overhead and large profits in whiskey...it made sense to him.  It was WRONG, but I understand it.
> 
> As you said, it WAS repealed by Jefferson, who QUIT Washington's cabinet over the VERY THING we are discussing here.  Washington sided with those who wanted to do the whiskey tax and have a bigger central government...Jefferson disagreed, pointed out that a direct tax on income was unconstitutional and resigned.
> 
> Of course, HE...Jefferson, violated the Constitution with the Louisiana Purchase when he was president.  So his hands aren't clean either.  LOL
> 
> That act of arrogance has led to the federal government owning more than 50% of ALL LAND west of the great plains in DIRECT violation of the Constitution.  ALL payed for by presidential discretionary spending funds.
> 
> ONE MORE way ideologues have bastardized constitutional procedures to buy influence with states and groups like the tree huggers.
> 
> Oh, and Jefferson's party was the Democratic Republican Party wasn't it?  I'm pretty sure that Lincoln was the first Republican (an offshoot of the Democratic Republican Party that split into two camps, those who were military interventionist and those who were non-interventionist) to be president.  I THINK!  Like you said, I'm just going from memory...and I AIN'T gettin' any younger!  ;~)
> 
> At any rate, you are steel on target.  This HAS to be brought under control if our economy and Republic is EVER going to return to prominence and a leadership role in the world that we once enjoyed.  We HAVE to lead by example...NOT explanation and rationalizations!
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, however,  the wrong interpretation of a Constitution that allows govenment to do what is not explicitly prohibited has created a leadership that no longer even tries to address and deal with problems.  They are interested in feathering their own personal nests and use frequently distorted explanation and all manner of rationalization to keep the people voting for them.   And a whole bunch of that rhetoric creates an illusion that governnent is gonna fix it; government is gonna give you what you need; govenment is the solution IF YOU VOTE FOR ME!!   Vote for that other guy and you will surely be screwed.

And once the election is over, it is right back to business as usual--the business of throwing the people just enough bones so they will keep the government in power and thereby enriching the career politicians and bureaucrats.

And part of this equation is to be sure we continue the dumbing down of America.  Distort history as much as possible because we have so short circuited independent and critical though among our citizens that they won't bother to check or question the revised versions.  And point out any flaw in the real heroes so they can be wholly condemned for their imperfection while exalting and justification mistakes and imperfections in those in the current government.  Without benefit of critical thought, they can get away with that almost every time.

I think we need to adopt the resolution before we have any hope to start turning all that around.


----------



## Foxfyre

QUESTION:   Do ya'll really think the current government we have will fix itself as long as it has the ability to use our money to prosper itself?

Do you have such faith in those elected leaders that they will do the right thing rather than what advantages themselves?


----------



## Montrovant

I tend to agree with Vidi about this, that if you want to consider this any kind of binding resolution, it is worded to broadly and too open to interpretation to be effective.

If you want to look at it as a non-binding matter of principle, I'm more inclined to agree with it; specifics could be worked out in an amendment or binding piece of legislature.

I think that as it is written, it would not only be too generally written, but that the very politicians (and perhaps judges) you wish to remove because of their corruption would be the ones to interpret the language.  So, in a sense, it could actually add another layer of political doublespeak when your intention would be to get rid of that, I think.

I don't trust politicians as a general rule.  I believe in the old adage that power corrupts.  However, I do question whether we have ever had a government made up of civil servants, people truly concerned with the good of the nation and following the rules and mandates of the constitution, at least for any extended period of time.  My interpretation of the history of government and politics is that it has always drawn people more interested in power than service; those we would want to be our leaders are rarely the ones who want the position.  I wonder if a system that prevents all, or most, of the ability of politicians to line their own pockets is realistic.  I also wonder if, even absent the lining of pockets, the power of political office might not still draw the wrong people into politics.

Before I ramble too far off topic, I'll end this here.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> I think we need to adopt the resolution before we have any hope to start turning all that around.






Just checking: You don't actually imagine this 'resolution' will ever exist or have any impact whatsoever anywhere beyond this one thread on this one forum on this one website for a few more days at most, do you? I mean, it's all well and good as a point of discussion, but you know this will not even leave a temporary impression on this very forum, right? No offense, it's just that the way you express yourself raises the question.


----------



## saveliberty

Albuquerque Protocol?


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> I tend to agree with Vidi about this, that if you want to consider this any kind of binding resolution, it is worded to broadly and too open to interpretation to be effective.
> 
> If you want to look at it as a non-binding matter of principle, I'm more inclined to agree with it; specifics could be worked out in an amendment or binding piece of legislature.
> 
> I think that as it is written, it would not only be too generally written, but that the very politicians (and perhaps judges) you wish to remove because of their corruption would be the ones to interpret the language.  So, in a sense, it could actually add another layer of political doublespeak when your intention would be to get rid of that, I think.
> 
> I don't trust politicians as a general rule.  I believe in the old adage that power corrupts.  However, I do question whether we have ever had a government made up of civil servants, people truly concerned with the good of the nation and following the rules and mandates of the constitution, at least for any extended period of time.  My interpretation of the history of government and politics is that it has always drawn people more interested in power than service; those we would want to be our leaders are rarely the ones who want the position.  I wonder if a system that prevents all, or most, of the ability of politicians to line their own pockets is realistic.  I also wonder if, even absent the lining of pockets, the power of political office might not still draw the wrong people into politics.
> 
> Before I ramble too far off topic, I'll end this here.



I don't think you are off topic.  The resolution is not intended to be 'law' but is rather intended to be a statement of principle as a first step for development of a law that will address the concepts in the resolution.  If we cannot agree what we want the law to achieve, there is no chance that enough of us will make our voices heard and so direct our elected representatives so that it can be passed.

There are some who insist on nitpicking the concepts to death; others who want to make it so legalistic that we can't get past legal technicalities, and then there are those who have no interest in it at all.  But a few are actually seeing the concept that drives the resolution.   It is that on which a large majority of us must agree before we will be able to move forward.


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> The resolution is not intended to be 'law' but is rather intended to be a statement of principle as a first step for development of a law that will address the concepts in the resolution.  If we cannot agree what we want the law to achieve, there is no chance that enough of us will make our voices heard and so direct our elected representatives so that it can be passed.



I'm supportive of any initiative that might inspire a nationwide dialog about the actual _purpose_ of government, and think this resolution, or similar proposals, could do that. One of the biggest problems we face as a nation is that we have such wildly differing expectations of our government. We need to find some consensus on a focused "mission statement" for government. Without that, we're just thrashing about, wasting a lot of effort from all parties involved.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The resolution is not intended to be 'law' but is rather intended to be a statement of principle as a first step for development of a law that will address the concepts in the resolution.  If we cannot agree what we want the law to achieve, there is no chance that enough of us will make our voices heard and so direct our elected representatives so that it can be passed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm supportive of any initiative that might inspire a nationwide dialog about the actual _purpose_ of government, and think this resolution, or similar proposals, could do that. One of the biggest problems we face as a nation is that we have such wildly differing expectations of our government. We need to find some consensus on a focused "mission statement" for government. Without that, we're just thrashing about, wasting a lot of effort from all parties involved.
Click to expand...


Exactly, and I blame our education system.  We don't really teach or encourage people to think critically any more.  Most don't have any idea how to look at both sides of any issue objectively.  Too many are conditioned to the 30 second sound bite or sloganeering that teaches by rote.  It is a form of brainwashing that prevents any from seeing any concept or point of view other than what they are 'supposed' to believe.

If the resolution can at least start a conversation and encourage some to start thinking a little outside the box they are conditioned to, then we are on our way.   Too many are so fixed and polarized in their point of view they won't even allow the conversation, much less engage in it.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

That would probably require Constitutional amendment. And I see the private scector being at least as big a part of the problem(s) as the government.


----------



## Unkotare

Foxfyre said:


> We don't really teach or encourage people to think critically any more.  .





Sure we do. 'We' teach a lot of things that most people don't end up being very good at.


----------



## JDzBrain

Unkotare said:


> JDzBrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, HE...Jefferson, violated the Constitution with the Louisiana Purchase when he was president.  So his hands aren't clean either.  LOL
> 
> That act of arrogance has led to the federal government owning more than 50% of ALL LAND west of the great plains in DIRECT violation of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wanna give it back?
Click to expand...

Actually, the governor of Utah (A state where the Federal government now owns more than 80% of the land...including all of the resource rich north east portion of the state) has filed a lawsuit against the Federal government trying to FORCE them to give that state's natural resources BACK to it's rightful owners...it's citizens!

And if you are talking about the Louisiana Purchase...It was bought for a fair enough a price.  Not NEARLY as cheap as 12 dollars worth of beads, but reasonable.  ;~)

Problem was, Jefferson jumped the gun.  There was already movement in Congress to purchase the land from the French.  The thing was, we MIGHT have gotten it even cheaper if Jefferson had waited for Congress.  

Napoleon and the French were in dire straights.  They couldn't carry on conquest in Europe AND maintain control over all their interest in the New World.  Had Jefferson waited, we MIGHT could have just walked in and taken over as some who remembered the French and Indian Wars suggested or forced the French to sale it to us for the 2 million some in Congress had suggested we offer.  More than Manhattan, but hey...cheap enough.  ;~)

What HAPPENED was, Jefferson paid Napoleon like 15 Million and he used that money consolidate his power and expand his wars of conquest.  Which, by the way...pissed the British OFF to no end.  They had NO love for the French given the help they'd provided us in our revolution.  And even less because of Napoleon's designs on their Empire.

The reason that is important is that because of our funding Napoleon's expanded ambitions...he got TOO ambitious.  While the French were otherwise occupied gettin' their butts kicked in Russia and having a string of revolutions...the British decided it was time to test us again.  

Jefferson's decision to violate Constitution not only lead DIRECTLY to the deaths of THOUSANDS in Europe, but also to a 2 year long war, the War of 1812 with the British...which we DAMN NEAR LOST! 

Nothing...and I mean NOTHING good ever comes for our elected officials violation of their oath to defend and protect the Constitution...EVER!

No one man was smart enough to write it and no one man is smart enough to righteously violate it.  No matter WHO they are!

So, to answer your question, the SMART money is on the Constitution and NOT the smart guy...EVERY TIME!

But then, we don't get do overs do we?  We just get more idiots compounding the problems caused by the last smart guy that violated their oath!


----------



## Foxfyre

9thIDdoc said:


> That would probably require Constitutional amendment. And I see the private scector being at least as big a part of the problem(s) as the government.



A Constitutional Amendment was not outside the possibilities offered in the OP, but I think the resolution itself suggests as much 'blame'on those outside of government as it suggests 'blame' on those in charge of the government.

There is an old teaching from management school though.  You cannot make a bad system work by changing the people.  And you can't make a poor worker competent by changing the system.

The resolution suggests we change both the system and the people in the way government uses the peoples' money.


----------



## JDzBrain

Unkotare said:


> Just checking: You don't actually imagine this 'resolution' will ever exist *or have any impact whatsoever anywhere beyond this one thread on this one forum on this one website for a few more days at most, do you? I mean, it's all well and good as a point of discussion, but you know this will not even leave a temporary impression on this very forum, right?* No offense, it's just that the way you express yourself raises the question.



You DO know that this thread is in the top 3 most VIEW on the Clean Debate Zone...right?  And it's no where NEAR the top 3 in total posters.  So SOMEONE is interested and watching the debate.  

So although I wasn't the one asked...I think is can say...YES, I DO think the ideas and principles we are discussing ARE going to leave an impression.  Even if it's only on 1 or 2 people...it's a start!



Foxfyre said:


> QUESTION:   Do ya'll really think the current government we have will fix itself as long as it has the ability to use our money to prosper itself?
> 
> Do you have such faith in those elected leaders that they will do the right thing rather than what advantages themselves?



I know that's more a rhetorical question than anything Foxy, but I think it deserves and answer.  Will the current government fix anything...NO...not a chance in France.  ;~)

Do I have faith it can be fixed by elected officials?  ABSOLUTELY!  

NOT with the Congress in it's current configuration of course.  But I, like our founders have faith in We the People.  We have already started to take the steps required to make that happen.  The principles that sparked the different TEA Party groups are GROWING in popularity.  Americans GET IT!

So yes, I think it can happen!



Montrovant said:


> I tend to agree with Vidi about this, that if you want to consider this any kind of binding resolution, it is worded to broadly and too open to interpretation to be effective.
> 
> If you want to look at it as a non-binding matter of principle, I'm more inclined to agree with it; specifics could be worked out in an amendment or binding piece of legislature.
> 
> I think that as it is written, it would not only be too generally written, but that the very politicians (and perhaps judges) you wish to remove because of their corruption would be the ones to interpret the language.  So, in a sense, it could actually add another layer of political doublespeak when your intention would be to get rid of that, I think.
> 
> *I don't trust politicians as a general rule.  I believe in the old adage that power corrupts.  However, I do question whether we have ever had a government made up of civil servants, people truly concerned with the good of the nation and following the rules and mandates of the constitution, at least for any extended period of time.  My interpretation of the history of government and politics is that it has always drawn people more interested in power than service; those we would want to be our leaders are rarely the ones who want the position.  I wonder if a system that prevents all, or most, of the ability of politicians to line their own pockets is realistic.  I also wonder if, even absent the lining of pockets, the power of political office might not still draw the wrong people into politics.*
> 
> Before I ramble too far off topic, I'll end this here.



You know what Montro, you've ALMOST hit it on the head.  See, the point is NOT the language of Foxy's resolution.  While Foxy is EXTREMELY bright and well versed in this stuff, she is just one mind.  No one person wrote our Constitution or ANY Amendment to it.  This discussion is about EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID...the system, the kind of people we've elected to serve us and the way they abuse it.  Your dead on!

It's not really about the minutia of writing a resolution...YET!  I figure if the thread goes on long enough, she'll get around to getting all of us to helping do another draft resolution!  LOL


----------



## Unkotare

JDzBrain said:


> ...YES, I DO think the ideas and principles we are discussing ARE going to leave an impression.




Then you are delusional.


----------



## saveliberty

It won't take an actual civil war to fix it, but it will take politicans watching the country rise up in arms against them to get change.  Then watch the bills fly and get passed in hours.


----------



## JDzBrain

Unkotare said:


> JDzBrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...YES, I DO think the ideas and principles we are discussing ARE going to leave an impression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then *you are delusional*.
Click to expand...

So I take you believe that of the 300-500 people that have LIKELY accounted for the nearly 1800 VIEWS of this thread not ONE will learn ANYTHING, not ONE will have their curiosity peaked and do their own research by ANYTHING that has been written here and pass it on.  

Huh, THAT...is a view of my fellow man that I personally could NOT live with!

See, that is a perfect example of what we are discussing and the MAIN difference between liberals and conservatives.  

Conservatives are...in general, optimist.  They believe, as did the founders, in the ability of man to rule himself, his own nature and destiny.

Conservatives believe it is man's inherit nature to do good, do good works and leave the world better than they found it.  

Conservatives believe that it is man's inherit curiosity that drives him to enlightenment, exploration and innovation...NOT external stimulus.  

Conservatives believe, as Jefferson said, "_I prefer the inconvenience of to much liberty to the tyranny of too little of it._"

Liberals believe NONE of that.  Liberals are...in general, pessimist and liberals in BOTH parties have set about writing MILLIONS of pages of new laws and regulations over the last 60 years to protect man from the ONE person he neither needs nor wants protection from...himself! 

Oh, and you DO know that personal attacks...BESIDES being disallowed in the Clean Debate Zone....is the last resort of the ignorant, right?

Nunt nah, is NOT debate.  It's a 6 year old on the playground! 



saveliberty said:


> It won't take an actual civil war to fix it, but it will take politicans watching the country rise up in arms against them to get change.  Then watch the bills fly and get passed in hours.


LOL...then the had better get to passin' stuff liberty!  Since the democrats took both houses of Congress in 2006, gun sales in this country have nearly tripled.  LEGAL gun ownership is higher right now than it has ever been in the history of this country.

That ain't happening because people are hunting down bigfoot!  ;~)

But you may be right, and the problem is that the first laws they will pass will be GUN RESTRICTIONS if the configuration of the Congress and president remains as it is now.


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> It won't take an actual civil war to fix it, but it will take politicans watching the country rise up in arms against them to get change.  Then watch the bills fly and get passed in hours.



Okay that relates more to the companion thread to this one:  "Revolution!"  Though most of the participants on that thread are not quite ready to take up arms to reign in a government that seems to be going rogue on us.

But rather than focus on HOW to accomplish significiant change I would ask everybody to refocus on WHAT we wish to accomplish.

Based on the straw poll, it would seem that a most members who have looked in on this thread are in agreement with the spirit of most of the resolution.

But I am also seeing folks shy away from really focusing on or embracing the conclusion that we must deny the federal government the ability to use our money for any form of charity or benevolence that benefits only some but not all.   Why do you think that concept is so uncomfortable for most?


----------



## JDzBrain

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The resolution is not intended to be 'law' but is rather intended to be a statement of principle as a first step for development of a law that will address the concepts in the resolution.  If we cannot agree what we want the law to achieve, there is no chance that enough of us will make our voices heard and so direct our elected representatives so that it can be passed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm supportive of any initiative that might inspire a nationwide dialog about the actual _purpose_ of government, and think this resolution, or similar proposals, could do that. One of the biggest problems we face as a nation is that we have such wildly differing expectations of our government. We need to find some consensus on a focused "mission statement" for government. Without that, we're just thrashing about, wasting a lot of effort from all parties involved.
Click to expand...

You know what guys, this reminds me of one of the sections, Section 51 in our State Constitution here in Kentucky.  It relates to how laws are passed and it might, with a little tweaking FIX a lot of the crap that Foxy's resolution addresses.  Anyway, here it is, word for word.  

"_No law enacted by the General Assembly_ (Changed to Congress of course.) _shall relate to more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title, and no law shall be revised, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred by reference to its title only, but so much thereof as is revised, amended, extended or conferred, shall be reenacted and published at length._"

This single statement, if passed as an Amendment, would eliminate Deem and Pass...the unconstitutional parliamentary trickery used to pass Obamacare.  It would END attaching HUGE spending for entitlement legislation to bills which ARE popular and proper.  It also FORCES Congressmen to ATTACH THEIR NAMES AND REPUTATIONS to votes for the insanity they are inflicting on us!

While I am EXTREMELY disappointed in the way our representatives have constantly VIOLATED our Constitution over the years here in Kentucky, I am VERY proud of the language written into that Constitution and this section is just one reason why!


----------



## JDzBrain

Foxfyre said:


> ...Based on the straw poll, it would seem that a most members who have looked in on this thread are in agreement with the spirit of most of the resolution.
> *
> But I am also seeing folks shy away from really focusing on or embracing the conclusion that we must deny the federal government the ability to use our money for any form of charity or benevolence that benefits only some but not all.   Why do you think that concept is so uncomfortable for most?*


That's easy Foxy.  It's because the founders were RIGHT!  

They believed in the inherit goodness of man and this kind of thing plays on and uses the inherit good nature of man to accomplish POLITICAL goals!

They use our nature against our best interest!


----------



## Foxfyre

JDzBrain said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Based on the straw poll, it would seem that a most members who have looked in on this thread are in agreement with the spirit of most of the resolution.
> *
> But I am also seeing folks shy away from really focusing on or embracing the conclusion that we must deny the federal government the ability to use our money for any form of charity or benevolence that benefits only some but not all.   Why do you think that concept is so uncomfortable for most?*
> 
> 
> 
> That's easy Foxy.  It's because the founders were RIGHT!
> 
> They believed in the inherit goodness of man and this kind of thing plays on and uses the inherit good nature of man to accomplish POLITICAL goals!
> 
> They use our nature against our best interest!
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree that is how it started.   Part of the problem is that it often takes many months or more often years or decades for the full effect of government policy to be fully felt.  And too often those who enact a policy of great consequence aren't even around when the chickens come home to roost.

I don't think Teddy Roosevelt intended to shift harmful power to the government when he expanded what government would be allowed to do.

 I don't think FDR had in mind the downside that government intervention and entitlements would eventually have. 

I don't think Carter had any insight that his relatively harmless CRA would be so completely infested with wrong thinking and corruptiion that would lead to the housing bubble crash of 2008.

And now I think we have created opportunistic political leaders who no longer care about consequences.  They blithely agree to harmful legislation knowing they won't be around to deal with the consequences years on down the line.  Or, when it all hits the fan, they know they can blame it on the current administration and not themselves.

The only way to correct that problem is to fix a bad system.  We need to close the public spigot that allows them to use our money to keep themselves in power and on a very lucrative gravy train.


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> JDzBrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Based on the straw poll, it would seem that a most members who have looked in on this thread are in agreement with the spirit of most of the resolution.
> *
> But I am also seeing folks shy away from really focusing on or embracing the conclusion that we must deny the federal government the ability to use our money for any form of charity or benevolence that benefits only some but not all.   Why do you think that concept is so uncomfortable for most?*
> 
> 
> 
> That's easy Foxy.  It's because the founders were RIGHT!
> 
> They believed in the inherit goodness of man and this kind of thing plays on and uses the inherit good nature of man to accomplish POLITICAL goals!
> 
> They use our nature against our best interest!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree that is how it started.   Part of the problem is that it often takes many months or more often years or decades for the full effect of government policy to be fully felt.  And too often those who enact a policy of great consequence aren't even around when the chickens come home to roost.
> 
> I don't think Teddy Roosevelt intended to shift harmful power to the government when he expanded what government would be allowed to do.
> 
> I don't think FDR had in mind the downside that government intervention and entitlements would eventually have.
> 
> I don't think Carter had any insight that his relatively harmless CRA would be so completely infested with wrong thinking and corruptiion that would lead to the housing bubble crash of 2008.
> 
> And now I think we have created opportunistic political leaders who no longer care about consequences.  They blithely agree to harmful legislation knowing they won't be around to deal with the consequences years on down the line.  Or, when it all hits the fan, they know they can blame it on the current administration and not themselves.
> 
> The only way to correct that problem is to fix a bad system.  We need to close the public spigot that allows them to use our money to keep themselves in power and on a very lucrative gravy train.
Click to expand...



Or we could just put term limits on them and force money out of politics by opposing the Citizens United decision.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JDzBrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's easy Foxy.  It's because the founders were RIGHT!
> 
> They believed in the inherit goodness of man and this kind of thing plays on and uses the inherit good nature of man to accomplish POLITICAL goals!
> 
> They use our nature against our best interest!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree that is how it started.   Part of the problem is that it often takes many months or more often years or decades for the full effect of government policy to be fully felt.  And too often those who enact a policy of great consequence aren't even around when the chickens come home to roost.
> 
> I don't think Teddy Roosevelt intended to shift harmful power to the government when he expanded what government would be allowed to do.
> 
> I don't think FDR had in mind the downside that government intervention and entitlements would eventually have.
> 
> I don't think Carter had any insight that his relatively harmless CRA would be so completely infested with wrong thinking and corruptiion that would lead to the housing bubble crash of 2008.
> 
> And now I think we have created opportunistic political leaders who no longer care about consequences.  They blithely agree to harmful legislation knowing they won't be around to deal with the consequences years on down the line.  Or, when it all hits the fan, they know they can blame it on the current administration and not themselves.
> 
> The only way to correct that problem is to fix a bad system.  We need to close the public spigot that allows them to use our money to keep themselves in power and on a very lucrative gravy train.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or we could just put term limits on them and force money out of politics by opposing the Citizens United decision.
Click to expand...


But even term limits allows them to do some major harm in a corrupt system.  Plenty of time to set in motion forces that will greatly benefit them personally when their relatively short term is completed and they return home.

I want a system in place where the ONLY motive that will drive them is to leave things better for everybody than they were when they arrived.  I think if they cannot build multi-million dollar pension funds or pay off their cronies or enact laws and legislation specifically to favor their own businessses, etc., most will naturally term limit themselves.  We will get true public servants in Washington again instead of self serving career politicians.  And if there are a few who love being public servants and want to run for re-election and stay on, well there's something to say for having a few old guards hanging around with the experience and a solid grasp of history.


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or we could just put term limits on them and force money out of politics by opposing the Citizens United decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But even term limits allows them to do some major harm in a corrupt system.  Plenty of time to set in motion forces that will greatly benefit them personally when their relatively short term is completed and they return home.
> 
> I want a system in place where the ONLY motive that will drive them is to leave things better for everybody than they were when they arrived.  I think if they cannot build multi-million dollar pension funds or pay off their cronies or enact laws and legislation specifically to favor their own businessses, etc., most will naturally term limit themselves.  We will get true public servants in Washington again instead of self serving career politicians.  And if there are a few who love being public servants and want to run for re-election and stay on, well there's something to say for having a few old guards hanging around with the experience and a solid grasp of history.
Click to expand...


I've never been much of a fan of term limits for that reason. It seems like a band-aid solution at best, and could do as much harm as good - especially if we're constantly faced with a large portion of reps in 'lame duck' mode. At that point, if they're not trusted public servants, they're primary incentive is to prep their exit strategy - handing out favors and laying the foundation for a lobbying career.

As far as reversing Citizens United it, again, seems like a bad solution to cover up for bad government to begin with. As long as government has the power to make or break businesses with the stroke of a pen, those businesses will find a way to influence decisions. We can play games attempting to limit access but it won't stem the tide. At best it will just make it so that only businesses with the really good lawyers will be able to influence government.

The problem with corporations being in bed with government is that government is in bed with corporations. If we want to keep economic power from having too much influence on government, we have to keep government out of the "business" of deciding who gets to have economic power. As long as they assume that role, people who want to get rich will find a way to manipulate government to their ends.


----------



## Unkotare

JDzBrain said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JDzBrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...YES, I DO think the ideas and principles we are discussing ARE going to leave an impression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then *you are delusional*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I take you believe that of the 300-500 people that have LIKELY accounted for the nearly 1800 VIEWS of this thread not ONE will learn ANYTHING, not ONE will have their curiosity peaked and do their own research by ANYTHING that has been written here and pass it on.
Click to expand...



No, not one.


----------



## Montrovant

JDzBrain said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Based on the straw poll, it would seem that a most members who have looked in on this thread are in agreement with the spirit of most of the resolution.
> *
> But I am also seeing folks shy away from really focusing on or embracing the conclusion that we must deny the federal government the ability to use our money for any form of charity or benevolence that benefits only some but not all.   Why do you think that concept is so uncomfortable for most?*
> 
> 
> 
> That's easy Foxy.  It's because the founders were RIGHT!
> 
> They believed in the inherit goodness of man and this kind of thing plays on and uses the inherit good nature of man to accomplish POLITICAL goals!
> 
> They use our nature against our best interest!
Click to expand...


I wonder how many of the founders, involved in a revolution and then politics, were likely to really believe that humanity is inherently good.


----------



## Montrovant

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree that is how it started.   Part of the problem is that it often takes many months or more often years or decades for the full effect of government policy to be fully felt.  And too often those who enact a policy of great consequence aren't even around when the chickens come home to roost.
> 
> I don't think Teddy Roosevelt intended to shift harmful power to the government when he expanded what government would be allowed to do.
> 
> I don't think FDR had in mind the downside that government intervention and entitlements would eventually have.
> 
> I don't think Carter had any insight that his relatively harmless CRA would be so completely infested with wrong thinking and corruptiion that would lead to the housing bubble crash of 2008.
> 
> And now I think we have created opportunistic political leaders who no longer care about consequences.  They blithely agree to harmful legislation knowing they won't be around to deal with the consequences years on down the line.  Or, when it all hits the fan, they know they can blame it on the current administration and not themselves.
> 
> The only way to correct that problem is to fix a bad system.  We need to close the public spigot that allows them to use our money to keep themselves in power and on a very lucrative gravy train.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we could just put term limits on them and force money out of politics by opposing the Citizens United decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But even term limits allows them to do some major harm in a corrupt system.  Plenty of time to set in motion forces that will greatly benefit them personally when their relatively short term is completed and they return home.
> 
> I want a system in place where the ONLY motive that will drive them is to leave things better for everybody than they were when they arrived.  I think if they cannot build multi-million dollar pension funds or pay off their cronies or enact laws and legislation specifically to favor their own businessses, etc., most will naturally term limit themselves.  We will get true public servants in Washington again instead of self serving career politicians.  And if there are a few who love being public servants and want to run for re-election and stay on, well there's something to say for having a few old guards hanging around with the experience and a solid grasp of history.
Click to expand...


I don't, offhand, know what kind of effective government would only allow one motive for public service.  If nothing else, there is always power to be gained/wielded as part of government, which will attract those who do not simply want to help their country.  Sure, that's a great idea in theory, but in practice I'd need to see some specifics to know how you could accomplish it.  Especially considering the fact that much of the corruption in governments is probably already outlawed.


----------



## saveliberty

Foxfyre said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't take an actual civil war to fix it, but it will take politicans watching the country rise up in arms against them to get change.  Then watch the bills fly and get passed in hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay that relates more to the companion thread to this one:  "Revolution!"  Though most of the participants on that thread are not quite ready to take up arms to reign in a government that seems to be going rogue on us.
> 
> But rather than focus on HOW to accomplish significiant change I would ask everybody to refocus on WHAT we wish to accomplish.
> 
> Based on the straw poll, it would seem that a most members who have looked in on this thread are in agreement with the spirit of most of the resolution.
> 
> But I am also seeing folks shy away from really focusing on or embracing the conclusion that we must deny the federal government the ability to use our money for any form of charity or benevolence that benefits only some but not all.   Why do you think that concept is so uncomfortable for most?
Click to expand...


Entitlements are mandated charity at a distance.  When you meet your neighbor in need, sometimes it reminds as that it could happen to us with just a small reversal of fortune.  So a part of us wants to keep a distance and just have that money removed from us.

At almost half of the population, all of us must certainly know a few people who get assistance.  Giving the need a familiar face makes it harder too.  Helping someone rebuild their life takes time and effort.  It yields better results, but is harder one on one.


----------



## FA_Q2

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or we could just put term limits on them and force money out of politics by opposing the Citizens United decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But even term limits allows them to do some major harm in a corrupt system.  Plenty of time to set in motion forces that will greatly benefit them personally when their relatively short term is completed and they return home.
> 
> I want a system in place where the ONLY motive that will drive them is to leave things better for everybody than they were when they arrived.  I think if they cannot build multi-million dollar pension funds or pay off their cronies or enact laws and legislation specifically to favor their own businessses, etc., most will naturally term limit themselves.  We will get true public servants in Washington again instead of self serving career politicians.  And if there are a few who love being public servants and want to run for re-election and stay on, well there's something to say for having a few old guards hanging around with the experience and a solid grasp of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never been much of a fan of term limits for that reason. It seems like a band-aid solution at best, and could do as much harm as good - especially if we're constantly faced with a large portion of reps in 'lame duck' mode. At that point, if they're not trusted public servants, they're primary incentive is to prep their exit strategy - handing out favors and laying the foundation for a lobbying career.
> 
> *As far as reversing Citizens United it, again, seems like a bad solution to cover up for bad government to begin with. As long as government has the power to make or break businesses with the stroke of a pen, those businesses will find a way to influence decisions. We can play games attempting to limit access but it won't stem the tide. At best it will just make it so that only businesses with the really good lawyers will be able to influence government.*
> 
> The problem with corporations being in bed with government is that government is in bed with corporations. If we want to keep economic power from having too much influence on government, we have to keep government out of the "business" of deciding who gets to have economic power. As long as they assume that role, people who want to get rich will find a way to manipulate government to their ends.
Click to expand...

Bingo. The sad reality is that as long as congress has the power nothing can be done to stop the influence.  I find it inane that many want to rail against citizens united without even bothering to understand that fact.  Before this ruling, companies were doing the exact same thing.  IMHO, tax law is the key.  Get rid of that and 90 percent of the problem is fixed.  The other side is regulating competitive products out of the market (see light bulbs vs CFL) Congress has no right to be deciding what I purchase outside of causing harm to others and even less of a right giving tax breaks to specific players.  This is one reason I am behind fox here as well, this is EXACTLY the type of thing the OP was targeting (at least as far as I could tell) 

In short, regulation will never stop the rich and powerful corporations from invading the system as long as you are giving such grate rewards when they do so.  The incentive is to strong.


Foxfyre said:


> But I am also seeing folks shy away from really focusing on or embracing the conclusion that we must deny the federal government the ability to use our money for any form of charity or benevolence that benefits only some but not all.   Why do you think that concept is so uncomfortable for most?


I think it is a matter of ideology that has been ingrained for so long.  Everywhere we look, the government has become an integral part of how we operate.  Regulation is so pervasive in our live in the name of helping us that you cannot get away from it no matter what you do.  I dont think people, in general, even understand what freedom is anymore.  

My rats are very well cared for in their cages and healthier than any of the wild counterparts could ever be.  The only thing they lack is freedom.  I do not want to be like them, I prefer freedom over others contrived wellbeing.


----------



## JDzBrain

Foxfyre said:


> ...And too often those who enact a policy of great consequence aren't even around when the chickens come home to roost.
> 
> I don't think Teddy Roosevelt intended to shift harmful power to the government when he expanded what government would be allowed to do.
> 
> I don't think FDR had in mind the downside that government intervention and entitlements would eventually have.
> 
> I don't think Carter had any insight that his relatively harmless CRA would be so completely infested with wrong thinking and corruptiion that would lead to the housing bubble crash of 2008.
> 
> And now I think we have created opportunistic political leaders who no longer care about consequences.  They blithely agree to harmful legislation knowing they won't be around to deal with the consequences years on down the line.  Or, when it all hits the fan, they know they can blame it on the current administration and not themselves.
> 
> *The only way to correct that problem is to fix a bad system.*  We need to close the public spigot that allows them to use our money to keep themselves in power and on a very lucrative gravy train.


EXACTLY Foxy.  It IS the system that is broken.  

Oh, and by the way...FDR DID know what he was doing with Social Security.  He talked conservatives in Congress into going along with funding it at like 40 million bucks with the PROMISE (Just like the promise to Reagan by democrats on reforming immigration) that it was to become "privatized" (where have we heard that in connection with SS...oh, yeah.  GW Bush tried to get that done) within 7 years if the Congress would just help out in the short term.  

In the mean time, FDR told his financial adviser at the time, can't recall his name off hand, but he later wrote a book about it, anyway, FDR told the man, If I can get the people hooked on it...the damn congress will NEVER be able to stop it!

He was RIGHT and it's a lesson that generations of politicians who followed learned and use...DAILY!  

As to Teddy and the peanut farmer...I think you may be right.  I think they were just ideologues who weren't bright enough to foresee the unintended consequences.  



Vidi said:


> Or we could just put term limits on them and force money out of politics by opposing the Citizens United decision.


Term limits wouldn't force money out of politics Vidi.  NOTHING will do that.  Heck, if you think about it, money is ALL government is really about.  How much of ours they take and what they spend it on.  As long as there is money, there will be those who seek to enrich themselves.  It's been that way for thousands of years!

As to the notion that Citizens United is somehow corrupting politics...it's not.  DESPITE the lie Obama stood in front of Congress the American People and the Supreme Court Justices and told,  Citizens United simply upholds the principle that  corporations have the SAME RIGHTS to petition their government as any individual, small business, business coops or a PAC run by a billionaire.  If you can...they can.  Simple!



Montrovant said:


> I don't, offhand, know what kind of effective government would only allow one motive for public service.  If nothing else, there is always power to be gained/wielded as part of government, which will attract those who do not simply want to help their country.  Sure, that's a great idea in theory, *but in practice I'd need to see some specifics to know how you could accomplish it. * Especially considering the fact that much of the corruption in governments is probably already outlawed.



Actually Montro, THIS is another one of the easy ones that everyone over complicates.  And Rick Perry had part of the answer.  First, we make the position of Congressman PART TIME!  In other words,  we pass legislation or an amendment if we want to put it out of politician's reach, that limits the amount of time Congress can meet each year.  

Instead of not showing up but about half the time for 125 days a year they schedule, let's make it so they only meet for 10 weeks, 50 working days out of the year, divided into 2 or 3 sessions.  If they can't get the peoples work done in 50 days...IT DON'T NEED DOING!

I could make a joke about Noah and 40 days, but I'll let it slide.  ;~)

And since they are only working 2 and a half months, they won't be needing that 180,000 dollars a year they've voted themselves OR all the Cadillac benefits as a part time employee.  

I'd suggest the same pay as the average military personnel makes.  That's about 53,000 a year.  MORE than fair for a part timer and should MORE than cover travel expenses.  

12 weeks, 53 grand and then send their asses home to make a living and live by the laws they saddle us with...INCLUDING taking care of their own health insurance like the rest of us!  

THEN we'll see who the REAL civic minded in this country are!

Of course we'd need legislation that says the president can ONLY make recess appointments in times of war or a declaration of national emergency.  Otherwise, he'd have to call a special session of congress for advice and consent or wait till the next regularly scheduled session.  Which is what is SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN HAPPENING ALREADY!  

See...NOT hard at all.  And it WOULD work.  Hell, it DID work for the first 2/3rds of this county's history....until the 17th Amendment started the deterioration of the culture away from public service and toward self service by removing one of our checks and balances.  Yet another of those unintended consequences that the short sighted weren't bright enough to foresee.   But the Founders were!



saveliberty said:


> Entitlements are mandated charity at a distance.  When you meet your neighbor in need, sometimes it reminds as that it could happen to us with just a small reversal of fortune.  So a part of us wants to keep a distance and just have that money removed from us.
> 
> At almost half of the population, all of us must certainly know a few people who get assistance.  Giving the need a familiar face makes it harder too.  Helping someone rebuild their life takes time and effort.  It yields better results, but is harder one on one.


True that Save.  I would, however point out that NO ONE has ever gotten a job from a homeless guy. you can't help others if you are BROKE and the FORCED redistribution of wealth serves as a strong disincentive to do charitable giving personally.  

The fact that over HALF of tax paying Americans only just now worked long enough to pay off their protection money (taxes) does NOT leave a hell of a lot of collective energy to do good works.  

And the truth is, most of the folks that feel that way about rather have the government do it for them...ain't got a pot to piss in anyway.  And the one thing they do have...their time...they ain't willing to give up!

What MOST of them had rather is that their conscience be soothed by diluting themselves into believing they did their part when they voted for some liberal ideologue who says THEY will feed the poor.  Never mind that for 48% of people, their ONLY contribution to feeding the poor is in the form of pulling that lever in the voting booth!

Just don't set right with me...or I suspect a heck of a lot of others either!


----------



## Old Rocks

Foxfyre said:


> *A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION*​
> WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and
> 
> WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and
> 
> WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and
> 
> WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.
> 
> This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.
> 
> *    *    *    *    *   *​Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .



Silly


----------



## Al_Fundie

I favor forgiving our own debt as we have forgiven the debt of others. Any foreign nation that doesn't like that can come get some.


----------



## Foxfyre

Montrovant said:


> JDzBrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Based on the straw poll, it would seem that a most members who have looked in on this thread are in agreement with the spirit of most of the resolution.
> *
> But I am also seeing folks shy away from really focusing on or embracing the conclusion that we must deny the federal government the ability to use our money for any form of charity or benevolence that benefits only some but not all.   Why do you think that concept is so uncomfortable for most?*
> 
> 
> 
> That's easy Foxy.  It's because the founders were RIGHT!
> 
> They believed in the inherit goodness of man and this kind of thing plays on and uses the inherit good nature of man to accomplish POLITICAL goals!
> 
> They use our nature against our best interest!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder how many of the founders, involved in a revolution and then politics, were likely to really believe that humanity is inherently good.
Click to expand...


They not only believed that humanity is inherently good, but they believed a people with their rights secured and otherwise left to govern themselves would make mistakes, but would eventually get around to doing the right thing.  And again and again and again, the American people proved them to be right about that as the initial injustices were corrected one by one, and inevitable mistakes were corrected even as we made new ones.

And most believed the Constitution would work only for a mostly religious and virtuous people.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--John Adams in a 1798 speech to the military.


----------



## Al_Fundie

Foxfyre said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JDzBrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's easy Foxy.  It's because the founders were RIGHT!
> 
> They believed in the inherit goodness of man and this kind of thing plays on and uses the inherit good nature of man to accomplish POLITICAL goals!
> 
> They use our nature against our best interest!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many of the founders, involved in a revolution and then politics, were likely to really believe that humanity is inherently good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They not only believed that humanity is inherently good, *but they believed a people with their rights secured and otherwise left to govern themselves would make mistakes, but would eventually get around to doing the right thing.  And again and again and again, the American people proved them to be right about that as the initial injustices were corrected one by one, and inevitable mistakes were corrected even as we made new ones.
> 
> And most believed the Constitution would work only for a mostly religious and virtuous people.
> 
> "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--John Adams in a 1798 speech to the military.
Click to expand...



BUT BUT I thought they founders were Christians, and we all know Christians believe that mankind is inherently evil and needs Jesus Christ for redemption.............


----------



## Foxfyre

Al_Fundie said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many of the founders, involved in a revolution and then politics, were likely to really believe that humanity is inherently good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They not only believed that humanity is inherently good, *but they believed a people with their rights secured and otherwise left to govern themselves would make mistakes, but would eventually get around to doing the right thing.  And again and again and again, the American people proved them to be right about that as the initial injustices were corrected one by one, and inevitable mistakes were corrected even as we made new ones.
> 
> And most believed the Constitution would work only for a mostly religious and virtuous people.
> 
> "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--John Adams in a 1798 speech to the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BUT BUT I thought they founders were Christians, and we all know Christians believe that mankind is inherently evil and needs Jesus Christ for redemption.............
Click to expand...


Do we all know that?


----------



## Foxfyre

On the part time government thing,  the U.S. government is so complex that we probably do need fulltime lawmakers.  But let's take away their power to enrich themselves by adopting something at least close to the resolution and figuring out how to make it law.

First, I don't begrudge Congress their six figure salaries BUT I do think it must be the states/people and not Congress that should establish their salaries and expense accounts.   I do think they need a substantial income because it is very expensive maintaining a residence in Washington DC as well as back home. . . .AND. . . .the resolution would require that they pay for their own healthcare and retirement program out of their salary.  The people would not pay for that.


----------



## Al_Fundie

Foxfyre said:


> Al_Fundie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They not only believed that humanity is inherently good, *but they believed a people with their rights secured and otherwise left to govern themselves would make mistakes, but would eventually get around to doing the right thing.  And again and again and again, the American people proved them to be right about that as the initial injustices were corrected one by one, and inevitable mistakes were corrected even as we made new ones.
> 
> And most believed the Constitution would work only for a mostly religious and virtuous people.
> 
> "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--John Adams in a 1798 speech to the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BUT BUT I thought they founders were Christians, and we all know Christians believe that mankind is inherently evil and needs Jesus Christ for redemption.............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we all know that?
Click to expand...



Care to quote a few Christians who believe they can attain heaven without Jesus?


----------



## Foxfyre

And looking further to the advantages of the resolution re our elected representatives:

1.  Take away the ability to grant special privleges, laws, policy etc. to individual businesses or grant funding without doing the same for all would remove the incentive of corporations to bribe government officials.

2.  Lobbying would be limited to corporate/industrial representatives educating Congress on what laws need to be passed or revoked or whatever, but ability to profit from influence peddling on the behalf of any industry would be eliminated.  We would take away most of the graft and corruption while not limiting the people's ability to petition their government.

3.  Our elected representatives would have much much less to do and could probably spend more time at home, but they would spend much less time and money campaigning, most especially since nobody could use campaign donations to buy special favors and that would greatly dry up a lot of campaign financing.

4.  And without ability to use their offices to increase their personal power, pretige, influence, and personal fortunes, they would be much more likely to focus on good government with real benefit to all.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Foxfyre said:


> On the part time government thing,  the U.S. government is so complex that we probably do need fulltime lawmakers.  But let's take away their power to enrich themselves by adopting something at least close to the resolution and figuring out how to make it law.
> 
> First, I don't begrudge Congress their six figure salaries BUT I do think it must be the states/people and not Congress that should establish their salaries and expense accounts.   I do think they need a substantial income because it is very expensive maintaining a residence in Washington DC as well as back home. . . .AND. . . .the resolution would require that they pay for their own healthcare and retirement program out of their salary.  The people would not pay for that.



I'd go even further:  Since maintaining residences in both venues is so expensive, we should simply establish housing like the military has.  Dormitories for those whose families don't accompany them, single-family homes for those with families.  If such is good enough for the military, it should be perfectly fine for Congress critters.


----------



## Foxfyre

gallantwarrior said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the part time government thing,  the U.S. government is so complex that we probably do need fulltime lawmakers.  But let's take away their power to enrich themselves by adopting something at least close to the resolution and figuring out how to make it law.
> 
> First, I don't begrudge Congress their six figure salaries BUT I do think it must be the states/people and not Congress that should establish their salaries and expense accounts.   I do think they need a substantial income because it is very expensive maintaining a residence in Washington DC as well as back home. . . .AND. . . .the resolution would require that they pay for their own healthcare and retirement program out of their salary.  The people would not pay for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd go even further:  Since maintaining residences in both venues is so expensive, we should simply establish housing like the military has.  Dormitories for those whose families don't accompany them, single-family homes for those with families.  If such is good enough for the military, it should be perfectly fine for Congress critters.
Click to expand...


That's a pretty good idea, but not enough to squabble over.  When we have true public servants back in Washington, I don't mind them being able to enjoy their time there.

But I do think we need to rein in the almost unlimited expense accounts.  For instance every new Congressman and every new Senator is allocated an enormous allowance to completely redecorate and furnish with all new stuff the office space they are allotted.  The old stuff may be a little as two years old but it is carted off to huge warehouses, full of discarded Congressional and military stuff, where it will never again see the light of day.   There is no doubt billions of dollars of perfectly good, barely used, or never used furniture, cabinets, equipment, supplies, etc. stashed in those warehouses, all gathering dust with no plans to do anything with any of it.

Wouldn't you think a responsive and responsible government would have more respect for the people's money?  Use things up or wear them out before replacing them like we do with the money we get to keep?   Use the good furniture that is there.  If you want something fancier, buy it yourself.  Pay for coach for Representatives and Senators to get back and forth from their home states--if they want an upgrade, pay the difference themselves.

The federal government also owns acres of empty office buildings.  Lets make three of those into a combination of dormitories and conference rooms.  Put one on the west coast, one in middle America, and one in DC and all government get togethers will be held in these.  Anybody who wants a fancy hotel room can pay for it himself or herself.

Meanwhile lets have a giant estate sale to liquidate all that stored stuff and sell most of the warehouse space to the private sector.

All these would be very small account items in the federal budget, but each account item probably represents far more taxes than all of us on USMB pay in combined taxes in a lifetime.  We deserve to have our money treated with respect.

And you add up enough small items, you start shaving billions off the costs of government.  Awhile back, for instance, the Army discovered that the soda crackers we eat are very similar to the special Army issue soda crackers and they stopped having soda crackers special made.  Savings to the people?  $100,000.    Makes you wonder how many more little $100,000 savings we could find if we started rewarding public servants for saving money instead of spending it?


----------



## Al_Fundie

Honestly, I'd close down the Capitol. with the advent of technology there is no reason to be shuttling politicians back and forth and paying the upkeep on two residences as well as two staffs for each politician.  Send em home and let them teleconference. If we can guide a Predator in Pakistan from an air base in Florida, we can have politicians debating laws via in the internet as well. Hell even voting.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Al_Fundie said:


> Honestly, I'd close down the Capitol. with the advent of technology there is no reason to be shuttling politicians back and forth and paying the upkeep on two residences as well as two staffs for each politician.  Send em home and let them teleconference. If we can guide a Predator in Pakistan from an air base in Florida, we can have politicians debating laws via in the internet as well. Hell even voting.



Not a bad idea.


----------



## Foxfyre

Al_Fundie said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al_Fundie said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT BUT I thought they founders were Christians, and we all know Christians believe that mankind is inherently evil and needs Jesus Christ for redemption.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we all know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Care to quote a few Christians who believe they can attain heaven without Jesus?
Click to expand...


Sure on a thread in which that is the subject.  That is not the subject of this thread so it is irrelevent.  Thank you so much for understanding.


----------



## saveliberty

The whole concept of representatives is the population had no way of making its desires known on each issue from a distance.  It also was a check against the majority having too much power.  You could have direct voting by voters on all business before the country.  Might still use representatives to write and introduce bills as a check.


----------



## Foxfyre

Al_Fundie said:


> Honestly, I'd close down the Capitol. with the advent of technology there is no reason to be shuttling politicians back and forth and paying the upkeep on two residences as well as two staffs for each politician.  Send em home and let them teleconference. If we can guide a Predator in Pakistan from an air base in Florida, we can have politicians debating laws via in the internet as well. Hell even voting.



Hmm.  Interesting concept.  However, if you have ever done teleconferencing, you know that the dynamics are very different than they are in face to face.  And with teleconferencing, it is far more difficult to do brainstorming and engage in the give and take that allows multiple points of view to expose all facets of an issue.    Then there is the problem of the Congressional Record that sort of helps keep it honest and committee conferencing and the congressional hearings to help provide essential congressional oversight.

Sometimes you really do need to have private discussions with people away from the microphones and not recorded in an e-mail for all posterity to challenge.

All that has to be considered.


----------



## Vidi

Foxfyre said:


> Al_Fundie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I'd close down the Capitol. with the advent of technology there is no reason to be shuttling politicians back and forth and paying the upkeep on two residences as well as two staffs for each politician.  Send em home and let them teleconference. If we can guide a Predator in Pakistan from an air base in Florida, we can have politicians debating laws via in the internet as well. Hell even voting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm.  Interesting concept.  However, if you have ever done teleconferencing, you know that the dynamics are very different than they are in face to face.  And with teleconferencing, it is far more difficult to do brainstorming and engage in the give and take that allows multiple points of view to expose all facets of an issue.    Then there is the problem of the Congressional Record that sort of helps keep it honest and committee conferencing and the congressional hearings to help provide essential congressional oversight.
> 
> Sometimes you really do need to have private discussions with people away from the microphones and not recorded in an e-mail for all posterity to challenge.
> 
> All that has to be considered.
Click to expand...


based on the "solutions" that come out of Washington, Id say that its not the teleconferenncing that would inhibit their ability to "brainstorm"


----------



## FA_Q2

Al_Fundie said:


> BUT BUT I thought they founders were Christians, and we all know Christians believe that mankind is inherently evil and needs Jesus Christ for redemption.............



This is somewhat off topic but you are grossly misstating what Christians generally believe.

We are all sinners, that does not mean we are all evil.  There is a world of difference.  You need Jesus for your salvation because of Gods justice, not because we are all evil.


----------



## JDzBrain

Montrovant said:


> I wonder how many of the founders, involved in a revolution and then politics, were likely to really believe that humanity is inherently good.


You know what Montro...NOT MANY.  However...they DID believe in the inherit goodness of MAN....the individual.  That's why they placed so much power an liberty in the hands of the individual.  The 10th Amendment, Powers of the States and People is the absolute expression of that.

"_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._"

That simple statement means that the individual has MORE POWER than the federal or state governments since the only powers governments have are those we the people allow them and everything else is ours alone.  

The reason they believed in us is because they knew that although there is always going to be a small portion of any population that is corruptible or just plain evil, the VAST majority ARE inherently good and would preserve that which they founded.

So, on reflection I guess you COULD say that they DID believe in humanity in that they believed that the individual would preserve the goodness of all humanity.  



Foxfyre said:


> On the part time government thing,  the U.S. government is so complex that we probably do need fulltime lawmakers.  But let's take away their power to enrich themselves by adopting something at least close to the resolution and figuring out how to make it law.
> 
> First, I don't begrudge Congress their six figure salaries BUT I do think it must be the states/people and not Congress that should establish their salaries and expense accounts.   I do think they need a substantial income because it is very expensive maintaining a residence in Washington DC as well as back home. . . .AND. . . .the resolution would require that they pay for their own healthcare and retirement program out of their salary.  The people would not pay for that.



Here's the thing Foxy, I have to disagree on part of this one.  

The state of Texas has the 8th largest economy in the WORLD.  Their legislature meets 2 months out of a year....every OTHER year.  That's right, they don't even meet every year and they manage to get the peoples work done.  

And that's in a state that not only accounts for 1/6th of the TOTAL economy of the entire US, but has the largest border with Mexico...nearly HALF of the entire boarder AND not only has the second highest population, but the FASTEST GROWING population in the entire country. A population fast approaching 1/10 our total population.   

Texas is basically equivalent to a top 10 most powerful country on the planet and their legislature meets for a couple months every other year.   

We don't NEED full time politicians.  We NEED commuted civil servants!

As to their salary, I don't begrudge them or ANYONE making as much money as they can.  What I begrudge is them doing it without having to do it under the same rules as the rest of us!

My point isn't about the money.  It's about the real point of your proclamation.  Shrinking the size and scope of government and reducing the waste and fraud.  

If our representatives were real civil servants in the tradition of the first 140 years of our history....we wouldn't be having this discussion.  We all know that's not the case though.



Foxfyre said:


> Al_Fundie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I'd close down the Capitol. with the advent of technology there is no reason to be shuttling politicians back and forth and paying the upkeep on two residences as well as two staffs for each politician.  Send em home and let them teleconference. If we can guide a Predator in Pakistan from an air base in Florida, we can have politicians debating laws via in the internet as well. Hell even voting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm.  Interesting concept.  However, if you have ever done teleconferencing, you know that the dynamics are very different than they are in face to face.  And with teleconferencing, it is far more difficult to do brainstorming and engage in the give and take that allows multiple points of view to expose all facets of an issue.    Then there is the problem of the Congressional Record that sort of helps keep it honest and committee conferencing and the congressional hearings to help provide essential congressional oversight.
> 
> Sometimes you really do need to have private discussions with people away from the microphones and not recorded in an e-mail for all posterity to challenge.
> 
> All that has to be considered.
Click to expand...


And there in lies the problem Foxy.  The people our representatives need to be brainstorming with are US...the people they represent.  

They take their happy butts off up to Washington, get absorbed into the culture, isolated from their consultants and insulated from the REAL WORLD they came from and we get Obamacare that leaves 3 million MORE people without health insurance than we currently have, Dodd/Frank that is driving small local banks out of business and preventing new home loans, CAFE standards that add 30% to the price of every car we buy, 36 Boutique blends of fuel that add a 1.50 to every gallon we burn, ethanol E21 standards that cause our cars to burn 30% MORE fuel than gas alone and DESTROY any car older than a 2010.  

What the hell do they care?  They don't have to live with it.  They get their fuel from OUR pockets in their underground parking lot and gas pumps at the Capitol building and on and on and on.  

No, that is the problem Foxy.  Until we make them PART TIME politicians and FULL TIME citizens...this thing ain't going to be fixed!

Oh, and I have got to say, I am more than a little surprised that anyone with the insight to write this proclamation would write this,  "_Sometimes you really do need to have private discussions with people away from the microphones and not recorded in an e-mail for all posterity to challenge._"

If you meant it the way it comes off, THAT...is how we got in this MESS in the first place.  Back room deals and arm twisting have been the ruination of this country and if we don't stop it...it will be the DEATH or our Republic!

If they really need to talk face to face, it will keep till one of the few weeks they are actually IN Washington.  

And here's the thing Foxy, they are ALREADY essentially part time employees.  The average EMPLOYED American who is working full time works about 250 days a year.  Congress...124 days last year.  That makes them half time employees who are getting full time pay and benefits at the expense of folks working TWICE as much time for...what's the national average, 68,000 bucks...LESS THAN half as much money.  

It's immoral!

ESPECIALLY when you consider that nearly half of employed Americans work about as many days in a year as Congress does total...JUST TO PAY THEIR TAXES to cover all the money Congress is spending!

It's just wrong and until our representatives become public servants again...I can't see it getting better.

Oh, and sorry if I took it too far off topic.  It's just that this one is one of my pet peeves.  ;~)


----------



## saveliberty

If they won't respect the Constitution, what makes anyone think they will a new piece of paper?


----------



## dblack

saveliberty said:


> If they won't respect the Constitution, what makes anyone think they will a new piece of paper?



I think most of our reps would express respect for the Constitution. Many of them likely even believe they abide by it. The problem is one of clarity. Whether through successive 'reinterpretations' or simply vagueries in the original document, there's no clear consensus on the degree to which the Constitution limits government. Thus the need for a statement that reaffirms its meaning.

As has been discussed, that might meant actually adding new amendments. It might mean simply expressing, in some _politically_ binding way, a mandate from the people on what we want the Constitution to mean. I'm not well-versed enough on Constitutional law to know what would be required to make the ideas expressed in the OP stick, but I think if it was widely supported our leaders would follow.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they won't respect the Constitution, what makes anyone think they will a new piece of paper?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think most of our reps would express respect for the Constitution. Many of them likely even believe they abide by it. The problem is one of clarity. Whether through successive 'reinterpretations' or simply vagueries in the original document, there's no clear consensus on the degree to which the Constitution limits government. Thus the need for a statement that reaffirms its meaning.
> 
> As has been discussed, that might meant actually adding new amendments. It might mean simply expressing, in some _politically_ binding way, a mandate from the people on what we want the Constitution to mean. I'm not well-versed enough on Constitutional law to know what would be required to make the ideas expressed in the OP stick, but I think if it was widely supported our leaders would follow.
Click to expand...


The problem is that our elected leaders and the bureaucrats they put into influential positions look at the Constitution as restricting only what they can't do.  They do not see it as a document that allows them to do only certain things.

Thus the temptation to use government for power,influence peddling, and self serving advantage becomes overwhelming.  They spend as much as they think they can get away with as that justifies an even bigger budget.  There is zero benefit to any of them for spending less, for being economical, for getting the most bang from the buck.  The bigger the budget, the more money the bureaucrat is worth.  The more money that can be funneled to voters and key campaign contributors, etc., the more powerful the legislator becomes.  The very system is a huge incentive for inefficient and ineffective government.

The purpose of the resolution is to take away their power to use our money to advantage themselves in any way.  It should provide a huge incentive to do government better.

And it gives us a fighting chance to return to the Constitutional intent that government is restricted to what the Constitution allows and not what the Constitution forbids.


----------



## saveliberty

Again, if they will ignore the Constitution, which I think Foxfyre is agreeing happens, a new document holds what special power to change that?


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> Again, if they will ignore the Constitution, which I think Foxfyre is agreeing happens, a new document holds what special power to change that?



No, I don't agree they are ignoring it at all.  I just think they have reversed the original intent.  It began with Teddy Roosevelt who was the first to start testing the theory that government should be restricted by what the Constitution forbids rather than what the Constitution allows.

The purpose of the resolution is to bring the original intent back into focus and return to a concept of a federal government limited by what the Constitution allows it to do.   I take self serving money out of the equation which provides the incentive to return to original intent.


----------



## Al_Fundie

Foxfyre said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if they will ignore the Constitution, which I think Foxfyre is agreeing happens, a new document holds what special power to change that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't agree they are ignoring it at all.  I just think they have reversed the original intent.  It began with Teddy Roosevelt who was the first to start testing the theory that government should be restricted by what the Constitution forbids rather than what the Constitution allows.
> 
> The purpose of the resolution is to bring the original intent back into focus and return to a concept of a federal government limited by what the Constitution allows it to do.   I take self serving money out of the equation which provides the incentive to return to original intent.
Click to expand...


That sounds good in theory, but the reality is that the USG could not operate under the strictest interpretation of the COTUS. The document would have to be completely rewritten to reflect the realities of the day.

And perhaps it SHOULD be rewritten, I mean can anyone seriously argue that point?

Just to name a conservative favorite as an example. The Second Amendment. I LOVE my guns, love to shoot, love to just own them, makes me feel more secure knowing I have one if I need it, but there really should be no debate about whether US citizens have the right to carry assault rifles around town, yet there is because the Second is as vague as it can be. Perhaps that Amendment needs clarification. 

On the other side of the table, there should be no debate about whether general welfare means food stamps and such, yet here we are....... 

So maybe it is time to rewrite the COTUS , or at least heavily amend it.


----------



## saveliberty

So they willfully changed the intent of the Constitution.  What keeps them from reinterpreting the new piece of paper?


----------



## saveliberty

Al_Fundie said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if they will ignore the Constitution, which I think Foxfyre is agreeing happens, a new document holds what special power to change that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't agree they are ignoring it at all.  I just think they have reversed the original intent.  It began with Teddy Roosevelt who was the first to start testing the theory that government should be restricted by what the Constitution forbids rather than what the Constitution allows.
> 
> The purpose of the resolution is to bring the original intent back into focus and return to a concept of a federal government limited by what the Constitution allows it to do.   I take self serving money out of the equation which provides the incentive to return to original intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds good in theory, but the reality is that the USG could not operate under the strictest interpretation of the COTUS. The document would have to be completely rewritten to reflect the realities of the day.
> 
> And perhaps it SHOULD be rewritten, I mean can anyone seriously argue that point?
> 
> Just to name a conservative favorite as an example. The Second Amendment. I LOVE my guns, love to shoot, love to just own them, makes me feel more secure knowing I have one if I need it, but there really should be no debate about whether US citizens have the right to carry assault rifles around town, yet there is because the Second is as vague as it can be. Perhaps that Amendment needs clarification.
> 
> On the other side of the table, there should be no debate about whether general welfare means food stamps and such, yet here we are.......
> 
> So maybe it is time to rewrite the COTUS , or at least heavily amend it.
Click to expand...


Which is why I suggested three amendments:

1.  One term only.
2.  Balanced Budget within the fiscal year.
3.  All bills must have everything germane to the bill only.


----------



## Al_Fundie

saveliberty said:


> Al_Fundie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't agree they are ignoring it at all.  I just think they have reversed the original intent.  It began with Teddy Roosevelt who was the first to start testing the theory that government should be restricted by what the Constitution forbids rather than what the Constitution allows.
> 
> The purpose of the resolution is to bring the original intent back into focus and return to a concept of a federal government limited by what the Constitution allows it to do.   I take self serving money out of the equation which provides the incentive to return to original intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds good in theory, but the reality is that the USG could not operate under the strictest interpretation of the COTUS. The document would have to be completely rewritten to reflect the realities of the day.
> 
> And perhaps it SHOULD be rewritten, I mean can anyone seriously argue that point?
> 
> Just to name a conservative favorite as an example. The Second Amendment. I LOVE my guns, love to shoot, love to just own them, makes me feel more secure knowing I have one if I need it, but there really should be no debate about whether US citizens have the right to carry assault rifles around town, yet there is because the Second is as vague as it can be. Perhaps that Amendment needs clarification.
> 
> On the other side of the table, there should be no debate about whether general welfare means food stamps and such, yet here we are.......
> 
> So maybe it is time to rewrite the COTUS , or at least heavily amend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why I suggested three amendments:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  One term only.
> 2.  Balanced Budget within the fiscal year.
> 3.  All bills must have everything germane to the bill only.
Click to expand...


I believe that if our Congressmen served one term only we'd never see them get ANYTHING accomplished. 

That may be a good thing.

I especially agree with number 3. Why in the world would a military spending authorization bill include a provision for funding a frog farm in Florida, for example?


----------



## saveliberty

Al_Fundie said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al_Fundie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds good in theory, but the reality is that the USG could not operate under the strictest interpretation of the COTUS. The document would have to be completely rewritten to reflect the realities of the day.
> 
> And perhaps it SHOULD be rewritten, I mean can anyone seriously argue that point?
> 
> Just to name a conservative favorite as an example. The Second Amendment. I LOVE my guns, love to shoot, love to just own them, makes me feel more secure knowing I have one if I need it, but there really should be no debate about whether US citizens have the right to carry assault rifles around town, yet there is because the Second is as vague as it can be. Perhaps that Amendment needs clarification.
> 
> On the other side of the table, there should be no debate about whether general welfare means food stamps and such, yet here we are.......
> 
> So maybe it is time to rewrite the COTUS , or at least heavily amend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I suggested three amendments:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  One term only.
> 2.  Balanced Budget within the fiscal year.
> 3.  All bills must have everything germane to the bill only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that if our Congressmen served one term only we'd never see them get ANYTHING accomplished.
> 
> That may be a good thing.
> 
> I especially agree with number 3. Why in the world would a military spending authorization bill include a provision for funding a frog farm in Florida, for example?
Click to expand...


The frog farm sounds a lot cheaper.  

Gridlock is the only thing saving us at the moment.


----------



## Foxfyre

JDzBrain said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how many of the founders, involved in a revolution and then politics, were likely to really believe that humanity is inherently good.
> 
> 
> 
> You know what Montro...NOT MANY.  However...they DID believe in the inherit goodness of MAN....the individual.  That's why they placed so much power an liberty in the hands of the individual.  The 10th Amendment, Powers of the States and People is the absolute expression of that.
> 
> "_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._"
> 
> That simple statement means that the individual has MORE POWER than the federal or state governments since the only powers governments have are those we the people allow them and everything else is ours alone.
> 
> The reason they believed in us is because they knew that although there is always going to be a small portion of any population that is corruptible or just plain evil, the VAST majority ARE inherently good and would preserve that which they founded.
> 
> So, on reflection I guess you COULD say that they DID believe in humanity in that they believed that the individual would preserve the goodness of all humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the part time government thing,  the U.S. government is so complex that we probably do need fulltime lawmakers.  But let's take away their power to enrich themselves by adopting something at least close to the resolution and figuring out how to make it law.
> 
> First, I don't begrudge Congress their six figure salaries BUT I do think it must be the states/people and not Congress that should establish their salaries and expense accounts.   I do think they need a substantial income because it is very expensive maintaining a residence in Washington DC as well as back home. . . .AND. . . .the resolution would require that they pay for their own healthcare and retirement program out of their salary.  The people would not pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the thing Foxy, I have to disagree on part of this one.
> 
> The state of Texas has the 8th largest economy in the WORLD.  Their legislature meets 2 months out of a year....every OTHER year.  That's right, they don't even meet every year and they manage to get the peoples work done.
> 
> And that's in a state that not only accounts for 1/6th of the TOTAL economy of the entire US, but has the largest border with Mexico...nearly HALF of the entire boarder AND not only has the second highest population, but the FASTEST GROWING population in the entire country. A population fast approaching 1/10 our total population.
> 
> Texas is basically equivalent to a top 10 most powerful country on the planet and their legislature meets for a couple months every other year.
> 
> We don't NEED full time politicians.  We NEED commuted civil servants!
> 
> As to their salary, I don't begrudge them or ANYONE making as much money as they can.  What I begrudge is them doing it without having to do it under the same rules as the rest of us!
> 
> My point isn't about the money.  It's about the real point of your proclamation.  Shrinking the size and scope of government and reducing the waste and fraud.
> 
> If our representatives were real civil servants in the tradition of the first 140 years of our history....we wouldn't be having this discussion.  We all know that's not the case though.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al_Fundie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I'd close down the Capitol. with the advent of technology there is no reason to be shuttling politicians back and forth and paying the upkeep on two residences as well as two staffs for each politician.  Send em home and let them teleconference. If we can guide a Predator in Pakistan from an air base in Florida, we can have politicians debating laws via in the internet as well. Hell even voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm.  Interesting concept.  However, if you have ever done teleconferencing, you know that the dynamics are very different than they are in face to face.  And with teleconferencing, it is far more difficult to do brainstorming and engage in the give and take that allows multiple points of view to expose all facets of an issue.    Then there is the problem of the Congressional Record that sort of helps keep it honest and committee conferencing and the congressional hearings to help provide essential congressional oversight.
> 
> Sometimes you really do need to have private discussions with people away from the microphones and not recorded in an e-mail for all posterity to challenge.
> 
> All that has to be considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there in lies the problem Foxy.  The people our representatives need to be brainstorming with are US...the people they represent.
> 
> They take their happy butts off up to Washington, get absorbed into the culture, isolated from their consultants and insulated from the REAL WORLD they came from and we get Obamacare that leaves 3 million MORE people without health insurance than we currently have, Dodd/Frank that is driving small local banks out of business and preventing new home loans, CAFE standards that add 30% to the price of every car we buy, 36 Boutique blends of fuel that add a 1.50 to every gallon we burn, ethanol E21 standards that cause our cars to burn 30% MORE fuel than gas alone and DESTROY any car older than a 2010.
> 
> What the hell do they care?  They don't have to live with it.  They get their fuel from OUR pockets in their underground parking lot and gas pumps at the Capitol building and on and on and on.
> 
> No, that is the problem Foxy.  Until we make them PART TIME politicians and FULL TIME citizens...this thing ain't going to be fixed!
> 
> Oh, and I have got to say, I am more than a little surprised that anyone with the insight to write this proclamation would write this,  "_Sometimes you really do need to have private discussions with people away from the microphones and not recorded in an e-mail for all posterity to challenge._"
> 
> If you meant it the way it comes off, THAT...is how we got in this MESS in the first place.  Back room deals and arm twisting have been the ruination of this country and if we don't stop it...it will be the DEATH or our Republic!
> 
> If they really need to talk face to face, it will keep till one of the few weeks they are actually IN Washington.
> 
> And here's the thing Foxy, they are ALREADY essentially part time employees.  The average EMPLOYED American who is working full time works about 250 days a year.  Congress...124 days last year.  That makes them half time employees who are getting full time pay and benefits at the expense of folks working TWICE as much time for...what's the national average, 68,000 bucks...LESS THAN half as much money.
> 
> It's immoral!
> 
> ESPECIALLY when you consider that nearly half of employed Americans work about as many days in a year as Congress does total...JUST TO PAY THEIR TAXES to cover all the money Congress is spending!
> 
> It's just wrong and until our representatives become public servants again...I can't see it getting better.
> 
> Oh, and sorry if I took it too far off topic.  It's just that this one is one of my pet peeves.  ;~)
Click to expand...


And all the problems you outline could be remedied with a concept such as is suggested in the resolution in the OP.


----------



## JDzBrain

Al_Fundie said:


> That sounds good in theory, but the reality is that the USG could not operate under the strictest interpretation of the COTUS. The document would have to be completely rewritten to reflect the realities of the day.
> 
> And perhaps it SHOULD be rewritten, I mean can anyone seriously argue that point?
> 
> Just to name a conservative favorite as an example. The Second Amendment. I LOVE my guns, love to shoot, love to just own them, makes me feel more secure knowing I have one if I need it, but there really should be no debate about whether US citizens have the right to carry assault rifles around town, yet there is because the Second is as vague as it can be. Perhaps that Amendment needs clarification.
> 
> On the other side of the table, there should be no debate about whether general welfare means food stamps and such, yet here we are.......
> 
> So maybe it is time to rewrite the COTUS , or at least heavily amend it.



Ya know what Al, there is NO questions how the Founders felt about the right to keep and bare or even the type or way a firearm is own or carried.  

Here is Thomas Jefferson's take on guns.  "_A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks._"

Doesn't sound like a man who has any ambiguity about the nature of the 2nd Amendment to me!

Ad as a matter of fact, the most powerful weapon of mass destruction of the day was the cannon.  MANY of the founders owned and kept ready to go...CANNON on their lawns!

That is the equivalent of us keeping a chain gun on our car.  And in fact, the majority of cannon in this country during the time of our founding were owned by private citizens or groups of private citizens...NOT the national government.  

There is NOT ambiguity about the 2nd, except in the minds of those who wish to destroy it!

As to the point about welfare and food stamps, Jefferson had this to say.  "_It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself._"

Put it to the people and SEE where the truth falls!



saveliberty said:


> Which is why I suggested three amendments:
> 
> 1.  One term only.
> 2.  Balanced Budget within the fiscal year.
> 3.  All bills must have everything germane to the bill only.



Ya know what liberty?  While I agree with the principles you express, I am ALWAYS adverse to amending the Constitution.  NO GOOD has come from any amendment after the 10th!  That's because they were all written by men of limited intellect who repeat by Amendment what was already in our founding documents and should have been done by legislation instead.  

I will say this, Jefferson would have agreed with the thing about a balanced budget.  He said, "_It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world._"  And I agree as well.  When out national debt is MORE THAN 100% of our GDP...THAT ain't what's happening!

Folks there is NOTHING happening in our world or society today that was not occurring in the days this country was founded.  Technology does NOT change the human condition...ONLY our capability to deal with it.  

On the other hand, ALL...and I mean everyone of life's answers were written into the Constitution and our founding documents.  

It's just like the bible.  Having studied several religions, I don't have a religious bone in my body.  What I DO KNOW...is that the bible is a book full of common sense for a society intent on tolerance and coexistence.  Most atheist won't admit that because they are simply unenlightened contrarians.  But it is FACT and it's why the founders used it's teachings as the foundation for our laws and society!

Good thing this is the Clean Debate Zone.  I'd be getting flamed from both sides for that one!  LOL


----------



## Foxfyre

JDzBrain said:


> Al_Fundie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds good in theory, but the reality is that the USG could not operate under the strictest interpretation of the COTUS. The document would have to be completely rewritten to reflect the realities of the day.
> 
> And perhaps it SHOULD be rewritten, I mean can anyone seriously argue that point?
> 
> Just to name a conservative favorite as an example. The Second Amendment. I LOVE my guns, love to shoot, love to just own them, makes me feel more secure knowing I have one if I need it, but there really should be no debate about whether US citizens have the right to carry assault rifles around town, yet there is because the Second is as vague as it can be. Perhaps that Amendment needs clarification.
> 
> On the other side of the table, there should be no debate about whether general welfare means food stamps and such, yet here we are.......
> 
> So maybe it is time to rewrite the COTUS , or at least heavily amend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know what Al, there is NO questions how the Founders felt about the right to keep and bare or even the type or way a firearm is own or carried.
> 
> Here is Thomas Jefferson's take on guns.  "_A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks._"
> 
> Doesn't sound like a man who has any ambiguity about the nature of the 2nd Amendment to me!
> 
> Ad as a matter of fact, the most powerful weapon of mass destruction of the day was the cannon.  MANY of the founders owned and kept ready to go...CANNON on their lawns!
> 
> That is the equivalent of us keeping a chain gun on our car.  And in fact, the majority of cannon in this country during the time of our founding were owned by private citizens or groups of private citizens...NOT the national government.
> 
> There is NOT ambiguity about the 2nd, except in the minds of those who wish to destroy it!
> 
> As to the point about welfare and food stamps, Jefferson had this to say.  "_It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself._"
> 
> Put it to the people and SEE where the truth falls!
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I suggested three amendments:
> 
> 1.  One term only.
> 2.  Balanced Budget within the fiscal year.
> 3.  All bills must have everything germane to the bill only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya know what liberty?  While I agree with the principles you express, I am ALWAYS adverse to amending the Constitution.  NO GOOD has come from any amendment after the 10th!  That's because they were all written by men of limited intellect who repeat by Amendment what was already in our founding documents and should have been done by legislation instead.
> 
> I will say this, Jefferson would have agreed with the thing about a balanced budget.  He said, "_It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world._"  And I agree as well.  When out national debt is MORE THAN 100% of our GDP...THAT ain't what's happening!
> 
> Folks there is NOTHING happening in our world or society today that was not occurring in the days this country was founded.  Technology does NOT change the human condition...ONLY our capability to deal with it.
> 
> On the other hand, ALL...and I mean everyone of life's answers were written into the Constitution and our founding documents.
> 
> It's just like the bible.  Having studied several religions, I don't have a religious bone in my body.  What I DO KNOW...is that the bible is a book full of common sense for a society intent on tolerance and coexistence.  Most atheist won't admit that because they are simply unenlightened contrarians.  But it is FACT and it's why the founders used it's teachings as the foundation for our laws and society!
> 
> Good thing this is the Clean Debate Zone.  I'd be getting flamed from both sides for that one!  LOL
Click to expand...


I was rushed for time and did not give your previous posts the attention they deserved.  But never fear.  I pride myself on ability to flame somebody without breaking any of the CDZ rules.    (j/k)

Unless one views the Bible as at least in part as evidence of a people evolving in their understanding and appropriate response to a changing perception of who God is and what He expects of His people, it must literally be taken as a dichotomy of good vs evil, of self-servance vs compassion, of necessary violence vs tolerance and peace.

So perhaps it is inevitable that the founders, mostly immersed and guided by their understanding of JudeoChristian history and teachings, would also build some dichotomies into the U.S. Constitution.   Thus we have an original Constitution in which the basis is all men are created with equal unalienable rights that also accommodates slavery.  And though many if not most of the Founders abhored slavery, they saw that as a necessary violence overriding their personal feelings in order to persuade all the states to become part of the great experiment.

And despite a long standing cultural acceptance of slavery throughout Euope and the New Workd, even those who owned slaves--Washington, Jefferson, Franklin et al--knew in their hearts that it could not be justified.

What some said:



> John Jay, great supporter of the Constitution after its creation and an author of The Federalist wrote in 1786, "It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."
> 
> Oliver Ellsworth, one of the signers of the Constitution wrote, a few months after the Convention adjourned, "All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves."
> 
> Patrick Henry, the great Virginian patriot, refused to attend the Convention because he "smelt a rat," was outspoken on the issue, despite his citizenship in a slave state. In 1773, he wrote, "I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery."



They also knew that in the hands of a mostly moral and religious people, understandings and perceptions would change and whatever they got wrong in the beginning would be corrected in time.  And they left us a means to do that with the amendment process.

And so we had the Emancipation Proclamation, the battles over the Jim Crow laws, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments all necessary to break down the last barriers associated with slavery.   One vote to one household made sense at the beginning, but as the country grew and expanded that became far too difficult to properly administrate and the 19th Amendment was necessary.

So we now are under a new kind of slavery, the very kind the original Revolution and Constitution was intended to free us from and which the 13th Amendment finally made freedom possible for everybody.

And we need a New Emancipation Proclamation, possibly accompanied by a new revolution of sorts (see companion thread in the CDZ) to again restore the unalienable rights and freedoms the Founders fought so hard to defend for us.


----------



## FA_Q2

JDzBrain said:


> Al_Fundie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know what liberty? While I agree with the principles you express, I am ALWAYS adverse to amending the Constitution. NO GOOD has come from any amendment after the 10th! That's because they were all written by men of limited intellect who repeat by Amendment what was already in our founding documents and should have been done by legislation instead.
> 
> 
> 
> Really, are you sure about that.
> 
> Lets try the 13 amendment and since that is the obvious choice here then you can get back to me on that.  Remember that law CANNOT change the constitution so the 3/5th rule would still be in effect with an amendment process.  Your comments on the founders and the perfection of the origina constitution would say that you support such a concept because they were so smart.
> 
> 
> Dont be silly.  The constitution was written by extremely intelligent men but none of them were perfect and the document itself was not perfect nor can any document written by man be timeless.  New amendments are not written by men of lesser intelligence than the founders by default either.  Many were, but that is why we are supposed to be vigilant with our voting power in order to prevent changes that were not needed.  The problem with amendments is not the amendments or the process which was made extremely difficult to begin with but that the people have grown ever further from the control of government to the government controlling the people.
> 
> This is the problem I have with statements like yours: when we glorify the men of the past with perfection we lose our ability to think critically about the issue before us and our free will to improve on what has been done.  The founders were far from perfect.  I hold the constituting with GREAT respect and believe the it should be strictly adhered to (INCLUDING the provisions for changing it) but I am not going to abdicate my own thoughts because of some vaunted thought the founders were so great.  No, amending the constitution is one of the really good ideas that the founders had so that the government and the process could continue to work for hundreds of years.  Too bad the people have forgotten their role in the process.
Click to expand...


----------



## JDzBrain

FA_Q2 said:


> Really, are you sure about that.
> 
> Lets try the 13 amendment and since that is the obvious choice here then you can get back to me on that.  Remember that law CANNOT change the constitution so the 3/5th rule would still be in effect with an amendment process.  Your comments on the founders and the perfection of the origina constitution would say that you support such a concept because they were so smart.
> 
> 
> Dont be silly.  The constitution was written by extremely intelligent men but none of them were perfect and the document itself was not perfect nor can any document written by man be timeless.  New amendments are not written by men of lesser intelligence than the founders by default either.  Many were, but that is why we are supposed to be vigilant with our voting power in order to prevent changes that were not needed.  The problem with amendments is not the amendments or the process which was made extremely difficult to begin with but that the people have grown ever further from the control of government to the government controlling the people.
> 
> This is the problem I have with statements like yours: when we glorify the men of the past with perfection we lose our ability to think critically about the issue before us and our free will to improve on what has been done.  The founders were far from perfect.  I hold the constituting with GREAT respect and believe the it should be strictly adhered to (INCLUDING the provisions for changing it) but I am not going to abdicate my own thoughts because of some vaunted thought the founders were so great.  No, amending the constitution is one of the really good ideas that the founders had so that the government and the process could continue to work for hundreds of years.  Too bad the people have forgotten their role in the process.


First, if you would be so kind as to point out just ONE example of where I said the founders were perfect, I'd be a HECK of a lot more inclined to lend weight to your argument!

However, to answer your question....QUITE SURE!

Our founding documents do NOT just include the Constitution.  The Declaration is the Why, the Preamble is the what and the Constitution is the How.

The Constitution did NOT MAKE SLAVERY LEGAL...any more than it did indentured servitude or any other individual law.  There was NO REASON to write an amendment to the Constitution that only effected the 3rd clause of Article IV, Section 2.  WHICH...was a clause titled States citizens, Extradition and that is what it was dealing with.  

It dealt with a practice that was common then, but continues to this very day of forced labor.   Back then, the court would force a man to work for you to pay a debt.  Today, they garnish your wages or make you work for 40 cents a day in the prison cabinet shop.  And you can believe that even today, if you run, they WILL extradite your butt back...just like the clause says.  It did NOT legalize slavery or indentured servitude.  

The 13th Amendment...titled Slavery Abolished...abolished something that wasn't even IN the damn Constitution.  

And as a matter of fact, by the time the 13th was introduced, slavery had ALREADY been abolished in all but a few states and by the time it was ratified, the war was over and 9 of the 11 former Confederate states VOTED TO RATIFY IT.  

So WHY PASS THE AMENDMENT to abolish something that wasn't in the Constitution?  Because it was a political football to war with the south.  Just a couple weeks before the first shots were fired, the southern states offered to abolish slavery as part of a compromise that keep the fed from laying a (unconstitutional before the illegally passed 16th amendment made direct taxes legal) direct tax on southern textiles.  Jeff Davis said later that he had only one regret about the way he conducted the war.  That was that he hadn't freed the slave before he fired on Sumter.  On the other hand, Lincoln wrote in a letter to a friend that he would, "...free some of the slaves, one of the slaves or none of the slaves, whatever it took to rally citizens to the cause."  THAT is the REAL history of the 13th!

As to the 3/5ths clause...which wasn't a clause...it was NOT effected by the 13th amendment in any way.  IT was modified by the 14th Amendment.  You know, that brilliant piece of work that gave us anchor babies?  What a gem!?!?

The so called 3/5ths clause was PART of the 3rd clause of Article 1, Section 2 titled The House.  The sole purpose of that clause was to define how EQUAL taxes are laid and how many representatives are to be chosen for each state according to the population.  It was MODIFIED by the second clause of the 14th Amendment that...instead of simply addressing how representatives were chosen, made it so that ONLY MEN COULD VOTE!  

Added to anchor babies and the fact that it failed to address the taxes portion of the clause it was modifying all together...NOT the best examples for brains you could have brought out!

Brother, I could go on for days about the insanity that has been inflicted on this country by men playing politics with the founding principles.  AND WILL if you would like, but just know this, I did NOT describe the men who wrote the Constitution as "perfect." I WILL say that there had never before nor has there ever been since a greater collection of righteously inspired intellect in one place at one time in the history of this world.  And ANYONE who would argue otherwise...REALLY needs to study the history of this planet before making any assertions about our founding or the visionary documents that intellect produced.

Perfect diamonds...are produced by the trained mind and skilled hands of imperfect men!


----------



## Foxfyre

JDzBrain said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, are you sure about that.
> 
> Lets try the 13 amendment and since that is the obvious choice here then you can get back to me on that.  Remember that law CANNOT change the constitution so the 3/5th rule would still be in effect with an amendment process.  Your comments on the founders and the perfection of the origina constitution would say that you support such a concept because they were so smart.
> 
> 
> Dont be silly.  The constitution was written by extremely intelligent men but none of them were perfect and the document itself was not perfect nor can any document written by man be timeless.  New amendments are not written by men of lesser intelligence than the founders by default either.  Many were, but that is why we are supposed to be vigilant with our voting power in order to prevent changes that were not needed.  The problem with amendments is not the amendments or the process which was made extremely difficult to begin with but that the people have grown ever further from the control of government to the government controlling the people.
> 
> This is the problem I have with statements like yours: when we glorify the men of the past with perfection we lose our ability to think critically about the issue before us and our free will to improve on what has been done.  The founders were far from perfect.  I hold the constituting with GREAT respect and believe the it should be strictly adhered to (INCLUDING the provisions for changing it) but I am not going to abdicate my own thoughts because of some vaunted thought the founders were so great.  No, amending the constitution is one of the really good ideas that the founders had so that the government and the process could continue to work for hundreds of years.  Too bad the people have forgotten their role in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> First, if you would be so kind as to point out just ONE example of where I said the founders were perfect, I'd be a HECK of a lot more inclined to lend weight to your argument!
> 
> However, to answer your question....QUITE SURE!
> 
> Our founding documents do NOT just include the Constitution.  The Declaration is the Why, the Preamble is the what and the Constitution is the How.
> 
> The Constitution did NOT MAKE SLAVERY LEGAL...any more than it did indentured servitude or any other individual law.  There was NO REASON to write an amendment to the Constitution that only effected the 3rd clause of Article IV, Section 2.  WHICH...was a clause titled States citizens, Extradition and that is what it was dealing with.
> 
> It dealt with a practice that was common then, but continues to this very day of forced labor.   Back then, the court would force a man to work for you to pay a debt.  Today, they garnish your wages or make you work for 40 cents a day in the prison cabinet shop.  And you can believe that even today, if you run, they WILL extradite your butt back...just like the clause says.  It did NOT legalize slavery or indentured servitude.
> 
> The 13th Amendment...titled Slavery Abolished...abolished something that wasn't even IN the damn Constitution.
> 
> And as a matter of fact, by the time the 13th was introduced, slavery had ALREADY been abolished in all but a few states and by the time it was ratified, the war was over and 9 of the 11 former Confederate states VOTED TO RATIFY IT.
> 
> So WHY PASS THE AMENDMENT to abolish something that wasn't in the Constitution?  Because it was a political football to war with the south.  Just a couple weeks before the first shots were fired, the southern states offered to abolish slavery as part of a compromise that keep the fed from laying a (unconstitutional before the illegally passed 16th amendment made direct taxes legal) direct tax on southern textiles.  Jeff Davis said later that he had only one regret about the way he conducted the war.  That was that he hadn't freed the slave before he fired on Sumter.  On the other hand, Lincoln wrote in a letter to a friend that he would, "...free some of the slaves, one of the slaves or none of the slaves, whatever it took to rally citizens to the cause."  THAT is the REAL history of the 13th!
> 
> As to the 3/5ths clause...which wasn't a clause...it was NOT effected by the 13th amendment in any way.  IT was modified by the 14th Amendment.  You know, that brilliant piece of work that gave us anchor babies?  What a gem!?!?
> 
> The so called 3/5ths clause was PART of the 3rd clause of Article 1, Section 2 titled The House.  The sole purpose of that clause was to define how EQUAL taxes are laid and how many representatives are to be chosen for each state according to the population.  It was MODIFIED by the second clause of the 14th Amendment that...instead of simply addressing how representatives were chosen, made it so that ONLY MEN COULD VOTE!
> 
> Added to anchor babies and the fact that it failed to address the taxes portion of the clause it was modifying all together...NOT the best examples for brains you could have brought out!
> 
> Brother, I could go on for days about the insanity that has been inflicted on this country by men playing politics with the founding principles.  AND WILL if you would like, but just know this, I did NOT describe the men who wrote the Constitution as "perfect." I WILL say that there had never before nor has there ever been since a greater collection of righteously inspired intellect in one place at one time in the history of this world.  And ANYONE who would argue otherwise...REALLY needs to study the history of this planet before making any assertions about our founding or the visionary documents that intellect produced.
> 
> Perfect diamonds...are produced by the trained mind and skilled hands of imperfect men!
Click to expand...


All interesting concepts for sure.   But obviously the Founders reassured all that the Constitution neither required slavery nor prohibited slavery at the time it was presented and ratified by the states.  So the consensus was that slavery was legal for those states that chose to have it and it was also legal for states to prohibit it.   The 13th Amendment made it illegal for anybody to have it.

It has been explained that the Declaration of Independence is the reason for the Constitution, the Preamble is what it is intended to accomplish, and the body of the Constitution is the how that is to be done.  All that, plus the documents of the Founding Fathers is essential to an honest interpretation of original intent.

So  we now have a President and Congress who no longer feel bound by original intent.  And they all are now caught up in a system that feeds upon itself to benefit those in government, is totally self serving, and is a roadblock to focusing on what government was originally intended to do.  

How do we get back to original intent?


----------



## Intense

dblack said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, by far, the largest current method of transferring money directly from the poor to the rich in this country is interest on debt.
> 
> Specifically, interest rates of about 30% that can be found on credit cards and other forms of credit generally used by poorer folks.
> 
> If one wants to make sure there is no need for federal funding to be extended to the poor, (and cutting off funding for poor folks is surely what this amendment is aimed to do) then stopping creditors from charging outrageous usury fees would be an excellent first step.
> 
> And don't tell me people need to be smarter about borrowing money.  If the circumstances are dire enough, anyone will try to get credit, no matter what the interest rate, and that's when they get trapped.
> 
> Especially in the rather common circumstance where a payment is missed, and the interest rates on a credit card suddenly go up from 8% to 29.9%.
> 
> A top interest rate of 10% will leave plenty of room to fight inflation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest that a top rate of 10% would result in much fewer loans to the lowest income people.   Fewer credit cards issues too, which maybe isn't a bad idea.   So, instead of getting lower interest credit they'll get no credit at all, or much less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One man's loan shark is another's savior. I hardly see how we justify telling loan applicants how much interest they can pay on a loan. It should be up to them.
Click to expand...


Spoken like a true lender.


----------



## dblack

Intense said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest that a top rate of 10% would result in much fewer loans to the lowest income people.   Fewer credit cards issues too, which maybe isn't a bad idea.   So, instead of getting lower interest credit they'll get no credit at all, or much less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One man's loan shark is another's savior. I hardly see how we justify telling loan applicants how much interest they can pay on a loan. It should be up to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true lender.
Click to expand...


More like someone without a great credit score who doesn't want to be denied credit altogether. It's not up to you, or a "we-know-better-than-you" regulator, to tell me how much interest I should be willing to pay. If it's too high, I'll say no. If I think it reasonable, and I need it bad enough, I'll pay the higher interest. As long as there is no fraud or deception going on, the terms should be up to me and the lender, and no one else's business.


----------



## Intense

dblack said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> One man's loan shark is another's savior. I hardly see how we justify telling loan applicants how much interest they can pay on a loan. It should be up to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true lender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More like someone without a great credit score who doesn't want to be denied credit altogether. It's not up to you, or a "we-know-better-than-you" regulator, to tell me how much interest I should be willing to pay. If it's too high, I'll say no. If I think it reasonable, and I need it bad enough, I'll pay the higher interest. As long as there is no fraud or deception going on, the terms should be up to me and the lender, and no one else's business.
Click to expand...


Actually the Government would disagree with you there. So do I. There are limits as to what can be charged.


----------



## dblack

Intense said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true lender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More like someone without a great credit score who doesn't want to be denied credit altogether. It's not up to you, or a "we-know-better-than-you" regulator, to tell me how much interest I should be willing to pay. If it's too high, I'll say no. If I think it reasonable, and I need it bad enough, I'll pay the higher interest. As long as there is no fraud or deception going on, the terms should be up to me and the lender, and no one else's business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the Government would disagree with you there. So do I. There are limits as to what can be charged.
Click to expand...


I understand that you, and the government, disagree with me. I think you are both wrong. I just explained why.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> More like someone without a great credit score who doesn't want to be denied credit altogether. It's not up to you, or a "we-know-better-than-you" regulator, to tell me how much interest I should be willing to pay. If it's too high, I'll say no. If I think it reasonable, and I need it bad enough, I'll pay the higher interest. As long as there is no fraud or deception going on, the terms should be up to me and the lender, and no one else's business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Government would disagree with you there. So do I. There are limits as to what can be charged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that you, and the government, disagree with me. I think you are both wrong. I just explained why.
Click to expand...


I have to agree with this.  If somebody wants to charge 100% interest or 500% interest or 1000% interest, it should be the borrower's prerogative to pay it if the borrower chooses to do that.

It should be the role of government to safeguard the borrower's right to be fully informed of what he or she is agreeing to however.  I wouldn't even object to a requirement that the borrower sign acknowledgement that he or she has been duly informed and that he or she understands that other lenders offer a much lower rate.

We cannot say that we want self governance with the federal government playing only a support role to defend our rights and then regulate what we are allowed to choose to do.


----------



## saveliberty

We allow the goverment to regulate many parts of life where a person may injure themselves.  Interest rates appraoching 40% are almost impossilbe to payoff in a person's lifetime.  For the protection of that person, as well as the financial system itself, reasonable rates are necessary so that repayment is a likely outcome most of the time.  I find the legalized loan sharking that takes place with some credit cards and payday advances should be reined in.


----------



## JDzBrain

Foxfyre said:


> All interesting concepts for sure.   But obviously the Founders reassured all that the Constitution neither required slavery nor prohibited slavery at the time it was presented and ratified by the states.  So the consensus was that slavery was legal for those states that chose to have it and it was also legal for states to prohibit it.   The 13th Amendment made it illegal for anybody to have it.
> 
> It has been explained that the Declaration of Independence is the reason for the Constitution, the Preamble is what it is intended to accomplish, and the body of the Constitution is the how that is to be done.  All that, plus the documents of the Founding Fathers is essential to an honest interpretation of original intent.
> 
> So  we now have a President and Congress who no longer feel bound by original intent.  And they all are now caught up in a system that feeds upon itself to benefit those in government, is totally self serving, and is a roadblock to focusing on what government was originally intended to do.
> 
> How do we get back to original intent?


That's the point Foxy.  It's EXACTLY like the debate over abortion.  If the congress would simply pass a law that defines a fetus as a human being...whole and actualized at conception or 20 weeks or 30 weeks or whatever...Row v Wade would be rendered moot.  Then the debate could move to what is "justifiable" homicide!

The same thing would have been true with slavery or indentured servitude.  Federal law DOES take president over state law.  So why the amendment?  For the same reason as the 18th that abolished liquor or the 17th that took away the state's representatives in the Senate...POLITICS!

But you are dead right.  What to do indeed?

I personally think repealing nearly everything after the 10th Amendment would be a good start.  ;~)

In reality...it starts with your dog catcher!  Seriously, it starts with elections at the local level.  When we stop voting for our neighbor because they go to church with us or are married to our cousin OR just because they are willing to do the job...THAT begins the process of reclamation.  

People do not seem to realize that if they vote for the guy who is just trying to get the parking meters removed from in front of their store, that person may one day end up as their representative in the state capitol.  OR worse yet as their representative in the US Congress.  

The problem with that is that that person's reason for getting into politics in the first place is selfishness.  And selfish politicians are the problem we have now.  We need selfLESS politicians.  

I know that's not the magic pill most who ask your question want Foxy, but it IS the pill that will PERMANENTLY cure our government.  WE THE PEOPLE have to re-engage at every level to turn this around.  NOT just the national level!

If the person running for dog catcher has never read the Constitution...DON'T SUPPORT THEM.  And if you have to, work to find someone who has and is willing to run against them!



saveliberty said:


> We allow the goverment to regulate many parts of life where a person may injure themselves.  Interest rates appraoching 40% are almost impossilbe to payoff in a person's lifetime.  For the protection of that person, as well as the financial system itself, reasonable rates are necessary so that repayment is a likely outcome most of the time.  I find the legalized loan sharking that takes place with some credit cards and payday advances should be reined in.



I'll just re-post what Foxy wrote, because she stated it PERFECTLY and deserves rereading!



			
				Foxy said:
			
		

> I have to agree with this. If somebody wants to charge 100% interest or 500% interest or 1000% interest, it should be the borrower's prerogative to pay it if the borrower chooses to do that.
> 
> It should be the role of government to safeguard the borrower's right to be fully informed of what he or she is agreeing to however. I wouldn't even object to a requirement that the borrower sign acknowledgement that he or she has been duly informed and that he or she understands that other lenders offer a much lower rate.
> 
> We cannot say that we want self governance with the federal government playing only a support role to defend our rights and then regulate what we are allowed to choose to do.


The way predatory lending is ended in a free society with free market principles is DON'T BORROW FROM THEM!  

If they can't make a living a 40%, they will at 20% or 10% or 3.458%...whatever the market will bare!


----------



## Foxfyre

The only issue I have with your argument JD, is what Congress and the President pass as law can be rescinded at any time the Congress and President wish to rescind it.  And lately the President seems to be finding all kinds of loopholes to bypass Congress to make or rescind laws.

When the Constitution started out with the understanding by all signers that black people were not included in the unalienable rights afforded everybody else, I think the Constitution does have to correct that in order for it to be forever corrected.  Ditto to women's suffrage.   But I am certainly open to debating whether other amendments do in fact change original intent and need to be repealed.


----------



## Foxfyre

saveliberty said:


> We allow the goverment to regulate many parts of life where a person may injure themselves.  Interest rates appraoching 40% are almost impossilbe to payoff in a person's lifetime.  For the protection of that person, as well as the financial system itself, reasonable rates are necessary so that repayment is a likely outcome most of the time.  I find the legalized loan sharking that takes place with some credit cards and payday advances should be reined in.



If we could rein it in without controlling a person's right to be smart or stupid as he or she chooses, I would agree.  But there is no way to protect people from their own stupidity without restricting the freedoms we all enjoy.

The free market has resulted in me having no fees on my credit card and, because we pay the balance in full every 30 days, we pay no interest at all.  If the credit cards are not allowed to charge what they can get for interest, I wind up paying a fee to have my card and maybe lose the grace period too.   I prefer free market principles along with the schools again teaching real subjects like borrowing and interest and budgeting, etc.


----------



## saveliberty

I was in local politics for six years JD.  It is highly insulting to me that you think we all do it for selfish reasons.


----------



## JDzBrain

saveliberty said:


> I was in local politics for six years JD.  It is highly insulting to me that you think we all do it for selfish reasons.


LOL...well, we ARE free to feel however we want, but there really is no need to be liberty.  Not only would I not presume to make such a blanket statement, but that wasn't even the point to the statement.  

I THINK that if you reread my post, you'll see that my point was aimed squarely at the apathy of the average American voter who takes for grated the importance of EVERY vote.  NOT just the national ones.

My point was NOT that being someone's cousin disqualifies them, but that it does not automatically qualify them as deserving of our vote.  And until the number of people who understand that outnumber the number who don't...we are not going to get the representation we want.



Foxfyre said:


> The only issue I have with your argument JD, is what Congress and the President pass as law can be rescinded at any time the Congress and President wish to rescind it.  And lately the President seems to be finding all kinds of loopholes to bypass Congress to make or rescind laws.
> 
> *When the Constitution started out with the understanding by all signers that black people were not included in the unalienable rights afforded everybody else,* I think the Constitution does have to correct that in order for it to be forever corrected.  Ditto to women's suffrage.   But I am certainly open to debating whether other amendments do in fact change original intent and need to be repealed.


First...and just to get this out of the way Foxy, there was NO such assumption written into the Constitution.  At one point in our history, there were MORE whites and non blacks in slavery than there were blacks.  ONE MORE of those things about our history most people don't know.  Along with things like the FIRST slave owner in this country WAS BLACK!

YES, there were founders who owned slaves.  However, there were free black men who played a huge part in our founding as well.  That iconic picture of Washington crossing the Delaware, if you look closely, you'll notice that one of the fellas at his feet was a black man.  A FREE black man who was at Washington's side throughout the War of Independence!

11 of 13 casualties in the first battle of our revolutionary war were black men.  That's right, whites AND blacks fought at Lexington and Concord!

While there is no doubt that slavery was turned into a huge business of buying blacks from blacks and importing them to this country by the Dutch, it was NOT written into our Constitution or even presumed to it by the founders to be exclusively a black or white problem.  Just an immoral practice and contrary to the founding principles written into the Declaration. 

As a matter of fact, the so called, 3/5ths clause was written into the Constitution for the sole purpose of forcing future generations to deal with indentured servitude and slavery of ALL men AND women described as "all other Persons" in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution...NOT just blacks.

That out of the way, you are DEAD RIGHT!

It HAS become all to easy and routine for our elected officials to ignore the Constitution, the laws they pass and even their own rules.  And you know what?  It is all linked DIRECTLY back to a politically motivated Amendment! 

When the 17th Amendment was passed, it not only took away the peoples leverage within the Congress, but within their own state governments.  Does ANYONE honestly think that Obamacare would have ever seen the light of day if when the Senator's voted for it, they had to go back to the state representatives who elected them and explain how THEY were then going to explain to their constituents that they had to raise their state taxes to pay for the unfunded liabilities written into it?  There's not a chanch in franch as they say over in central Kentucky.  ;~)

Things like Obamacare ARE what comes from playing politics with the amendment process.  Repelling the 17th Amendment and returning the appointment of Senators BACK to the states as was the ORIGINAL INTENT of our founders would go a long way toward restoring checks and balances to our government.  

If we are to accept that our Senators are going to be corrupted, at least it would be by the selfish self interest of the citizens of their home states and not the highest bidder in Washington!  LOL



Foxfyre said:


> *If we could rein it in without controlling a person's right to be smart or stupid as he or she chooses, I would agree.  But there is no way to protect people from their own stupidity without restricting the freedoms we all enjoy.*
> 
> The free market has resulted in me having no fees on my credit card and, because we pay the balance in full every 30 days, we pay no interest at all.  If the credit cards are not allowed to charge what they can get for interest, I wind up paying a fee to have my card and maybe lose the grace period too.   I prefer free market principles along with the schools again teaching real subjects like borrowing and interest and budgeting, etc.


Perfectly stated Foxy.  Maybe the only person who has ever said it better is Thomas Jefferson.  "I prefer the inconvenience of too much liberty to the tyranny of too little of it."  ;~)

And yes, we WILL allow you the "great minds think alike" comment since you stated the principle so well and provided such a great example.  LOL


----------

