Cons say the government doesn't create jobs....

[bripat9643]

Exactly! It's not that government CAN'T create jobs... Our problem is they CAN! Every one of them costs us money and make absolutely nothing... (other than bureaucratic problems for others.) Government can't create jobs and stimulate the economy by doing it because the jobs they create are not private sector capitalist free enterprise jobs. We should actually call "government jobs" by a different name... like maybe "anti-jobs!"

Bullshit

Any modern society needs a balance between private sector and government jobs

off topic, this about whether the govt can "create" jobs in any way other than by spending tax revenues.

No shit Sherlock

That is how "We the People" established a government to provide services for the good of the country. Those services provide tens of millions of jobs

The constitution is very clear on what "services" the federal govt is to provide and that the rest is left to the states. We have been in violation of the constitution in that regard since FDR.

The constitution is very broad in what services the federal government can provide.
Your limited view is not supported by our courts....good thing

The Constitution doesn't authorize the government to provide any services other than the ones specifically enumerated in the document.

 

[bripat9643]

The constitution is very clear on what "services" the federal govt is to provide and that the rest is left to the states. We have been in violation of the constitution in that regard since FDR.

The constitution is very broad in what services the federal government can provide.
Your limited view is not supported by our courts....good thing

you have obviously never read or studied the constitution. It is very specific on the division of responsibility and power.

Courts have been reading and interpreting the Constitution for two hundred years.....they don't support your interpretation

are courts always right? do you agree with every decision of every court in the nation? Listen, dude. we americans are free to disagree with our government when it does stupid things, and it has done some very stupid things in the last 30 or 40 years.

Over 200 years they have been very consistent in their interpretation of the latitude of government

Not many support your 18th century views on the scope of government

Of course they are consistent. They are part of the government. They invariably rule in favor of expanding government power over us. To be otherwise would be like expecting a fair ruling from a referee if he was a coach employed by the opposing team.

Mises Daily Mises Institute

As noted, the government is the ultimate judge in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself. Consequently, instead of merely preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will also provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage. That is, if one can only appeal to government for justice, justice will be perverted in the favor of government, constitutions and supreme courts notwithstanding. Indeed, these are government constitutions and courts, and whatever limitations on government action they may find is invariably decided by agents of the very same institution under consideration. Predictably, the definition of property and protection will be altered continually and the range of jurisdiction expanded to the government's advantage. The idea of eternal and immutable law that must be discovered will disappear and be replaced by the idea of law as legislation — as flexible state-made law.​

 

[rightwinger]

Bullshit

Any modern society needs a balance between private sector and government jobs

off topic, this about whether the govt can "create" jobs in any way other than by spending tax revenues.

No shit Sherlock

That is how "We the People" established a government to provide services for the good of the country. Those services provide tens of millions of jobs

The constitution is very clear on what "services" the federal govt is to provide and that the rest is left to the states. We have been in violation of the constitution in that regard since FDR.

The constitution is very broad in what services the federal government can provide.
Your limited view is not supported by our courts....good thing

The Constitution doesn't authorize the government to provide any services other than the ones specifically enumerated in the document.

Actually, it does

The fact that an anarchist can't understand is not my problem

 

[rightwinger]

The constitution is very broad in what services the federal government can provide.
Your limited view is not supported by our courts....good thing

you have obviously never read or studied the constitution. It is very specific on the division of responsibility and power.

Courts have been reading and interpreting the Constitution for two hundred years.....they don't support your interpretation

are courts always right? do you agree with every decision of every court in the nation? Listen, dude. we americans are free to disagree with our government when it does stupid things, and it has done some very stupid things in the last 30 or 40 years.

Over 200 years they have been very consistent in their interpretation of the latitude of government

Not many support your 18th century views on the scope of government

you are right, not many support the original intent and wording of the constitution. Thats why we are in the mess we are in today.

Views of freedom and democracy are not limited to any century. They are universal and timeless.

It amazes me that so many americans don't give a shit about what this country is all about. You are a case in point. I don't know why I waste my time with an idiot like you. I may not do it in the future.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

― Thomas Jefferson

 

[Redfish]

you have obviously never read or studied the constitution. It is very specific on the division of responsibility and power.

Courts have been reading and interpreting the Constitution for two hundred years.....they don't support your interpretation

are courts always right? do you agree with every decision of every court in the nation? Listen, dude. we americans are free to disagree with our government when it does stupid things, and it has done some very stupid things in the last 30 or 40 years.

Over 200 years they have been very consistent in their interpretation of the latitude of government

Not many support your 18th century views on the scope of government

you are right, not many support the original intent and wording of the constitution. Thats why we are in the mess we are in today.

Views of freedom and democracy are not limited to any century. They are universal and timeless.

It amazes me that so many americans don't give a shit about what this country is all about. You are a case in point. I don't know why I waste my time with an idiot like you. I may not do it in the future.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

― Thomas Jefferson

Good quote. Do you really think Jefferson would have approved of having half of the population dependent on the govt dole?

Jefferson also said. "a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have"

 

[bripat9643]

off topic, this about whether the govt can "create" jobs in any way other than by spending tax revenues.

No shit Sherlock

That is how "We the People" established a government to provide services for the good of the country. Those services provide tens of millions of jobs

The constitution is very clear on what "services" the federal govt is to provide and that the rest is left to the states. We have been in violation of the constitution in that regard since FDR.

The constitution is very broad in what services the federal government can provide.
Your limited view is not supported by our courts....good thing

The Constitution doesn't authorize the government to provide any services other than the ones specifically enumerated in the document.

Actually, it does

The fact that an anarchist can't understand is not my problem

No it doesn't. End of debate.

 

[rightwinger]

Courts have been reading and interpreting the Constitution for two hundred years.....they don't support your interpretation

are courts always right? do you agree with every decision of every court in the nation? Listen, dude. we americans are free to disagree with our government when it does stupid things, and it has done some very stupid things in the last 30 or 40 years.

Over 200 years they have been very consistent in their interpretation of the latitude of government

Not many support your 18th century views on the scope of government

you are right, not many support the original intent and wording of the constitution. Thats why we are in the mess we are in today.

Views of freedom and democracy are not limited to any century. They are universal and timeless.

It amazes me that so many americans don't give a shit about what this country is all about. You are a case in point. I don't know why I waste my time with an idiot like you. I may not do it in the future.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

― Thomas Jefferson

Good quote. Do you really think Jefferson would have approved of having half of the population dependent on the govt dole?

Jefferson also said. "a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have"

Hard to say. What would a man who supported keeping a quarter of the population in slavery believe?

 

[rightwinger]

Courts have been reading and interpreting the Constitution for two hundred years.....they don't support your interpretation

are courts always right? do you agree with every decision of every court in the nation? Listen, dude. we americans are free to disagree with our government when it does stupid things, and it has done some very stupid things in the last 30 or 40 years.

Over 200 years they have been very consistent in their interpretation of the latitude of government

Not many support your 18th century views on the scope of government

you are right, not many support the original intent and wording of the constitution. Thats why we are in the mess we are in today.

Views of freedom and democracy are not limited to any century. They are universal and timeless.

It amazes me that so many americans don't give a shit about what this country is all about. You are a case in point. I don't know why I waste my time with an idiot like you. I may not do it in the future.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

― Thomas Jefferson

Good quote. Do you really think Jefferson would have approved of having half of the population dependent on the govt dole?

Jefferson also said. "a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have"

My quote was real......your quote was bogus

Government big enough to give you everything you want... Quotation Thomas Jefferson s Monticello
Comments: Neither this quotation nor any of its variant forms has been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. Its first known appearance in print was in 1953, although it is most likely older

Why do conservatives always misattribute quotes to famous people?

 

[bripat9643]

are courts always right? do you agree with every decision of every court in the nation? Listen, dude. we americans are free to disagree with our government when it does stupid things, and it has done some very stupid things in the last 30 or 40 years.

Over 200 years they have been very consistent in their interpretation of the latitude of government

Not many support your 18th century views on the scope of government

you are right, not many support the original intent and wording of the constitution. Thats why we are in the mess we are in today.

Views of freedom and democracy are not limited to any century. They are universal and timeless.

It amazes me that so many americans don't give a shit about what this country is all about. You are a case in point. I don't know why I waste my time with an idiot like you. I may not do it in the future.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

― Thomas Jefferson

Good quote. Do you really think Jefferson would have approved of having half of the population dependent on the govt dole?

Jefferson also said. "a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have"

Hard to say. What would a man who supported keeping a quarter of the population in slavery believe?

You're the one who quoted Jefferson as some kind of authority on the Constitution.

So now you're attacking his authority?

 

[bripat9643]

off topic, this about whether the govt can "create" jobs in any way other than by spending tax revenues.

No shit Sherlock

That is how "We the People" established a government to provide services for the good of the country. Those services provide tens of millions of jobs

The constitution is very clear on what "services" the federal govt is to provide and that the rest is left to the states. We have been in violation of the constitution in that regard since FDR.

The constitution is very broad in what services the federal government can provide.
Your limited view is not supported by our courts....good thing

The Constitution doesn't authorize the government to provide any services other than the ones specifically enumerated in the document.

Actually, it does

The fact that an anarchist can't understand is not my problem

Can you quote the text where it authorizes government to provide services?

 

[Boss]

Hard to say. What would a man who supported keeping a quarter of the population in slavery believe?

You keep citing the Supreme Court but it was actually the Supreme Court who ruled slaves were property and upheld the institution of slavery for 85 years. THEN upheld the policies of segregation another 100 years. Is the SCOTUS the final arbiter on what is Constitutional? Nope! They can be, and often are, totally wrong.

Again, their responsibility under the Constitution (as it's written) is to determine if specific cases are within the provisions of the Constitution. They are not supposed to "interpret" things into the Constitution, but they have and you seem to think that is their role.

 

[rightwinger]

Over 200 years they have been very consistent in their interpretation of the latitude of government

Not many support your 18th century views on the scope of government

you are right, not many support the original intent and wording of the constitution. Thats why we are in the mess we are in today.

Views of freedom and democracy are not limited to any century. They are universal and timeless.

It amazes me that so many americans don't give a shit about what this country is all about. You are a case in point. I don't know why I waste my time with an idiot like you. I may not do it in the future.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

― Thomas Jefferson

Good quote. Do you really think Jefferson would have approved of having half of the population dependent on the govt dole?

Jefferson also said. "a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have"

Hard to say. What would a man who supported keeping a quarter of the population in slavery believe?

You're the one who quoted Jefferson as some kind of authority on the Constitution.

So now you're attacking his authority?

I'm attacking those who try to use 21 st century sensitivities to evaluate an 18th century person

 

[rightwinger]

No shit Sherlock

That is how "We the People" established a government to provide services for the good of the country. Those services provide tens of millions of jobs

The constitution is very clear on what "services" the federal govt is to provide and that the rest is left to the states. We have been in violation of the constitution in that regard since FDR.

The constitution is very broad in what services the federal government can provide.
Your limited view is not supported by our courts....good thing

The Constitution doesn't authorize the government to provide any services other than the ones specifically enumerated in the document.

Actually, it does

The fact that an anarchist can't understand is not my problem

Can you quote the text where it authorizes government to provide services?

Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution

 

[Camp]

My state is putting in several miles of sidewalk on a busy highway near where I live. Making it safer for pedestrians. Those guys putting in the sidewalks seem to be working very hard. Probably some of the hardest work a person can do, labor wise. Concrete and hot sun beats the heck out of you. Government work.

 

[Boss]

Can you quote the text where it authorizes government to provide services?

It's Article I Section 8... BUT, the liberals have interpreted "general welfare" to include pretty much anything their liberal hearts desire or their liberal mushbrains can think up to spend tax money on. If they need further validation they run to the commerce clause.

Now, Madison is expounding on the "general welfare" clause in Federalist 27 (I think), where he explains that it simply cannot mean what liberals interpret it to mean and that such an idea is ludicrous. He argues that IF it means what liberals interpret, there is really no need for a Constitution or enumerated powers. Congress simply has the power to do any damn thing it pleases by calling it "general welfare." But that is not what "general" is supposed to mean.

 

[rightwinger]

Provide for the general welfare means just that

Congress does that which needs doing....as determined by We the People
Congress has broad powers to pass laws. If they do not pass laws we like, we get rid of them

 

[Boss]

Provide for the general welfare means just that

Congress does that which needs doing....as determined by We the People
Congress has broad powers to pass laws. If they do not pass laws we like, we get rid of them

No, it doesn't mean what YOU interpret it to mean. Madison (who wrote it) totally disagrees with your interpretation. He explained how it is ludicrous to think it means what you claim.

Congress does not have the power to "do what needs doing" unless it falls under one of the several enumerated powers of Congress. If it's not in Article 1 Section 8, it is up to the states and people respectively.

Now, has the LIBERAL court ruled according to YOUR definition? Sure they have and they were WRONG! Just as they were WRONG to determine slaves were property and segregation was appropriate.

 

[Boss]

Provide for the general welfare means just that

Congress does that which needs doing....as determined by We the People
Congress has broad powers to pass laws. If they do not pass laws we like, we get rid of them

Earlier I said I thought it was Federalist 27, it was actually Federalist 41. Here is what the author had to say regarding what "general welfare" means:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.”

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are “their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare.” The terms of article eighth are still more identical: “All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,” etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

– James Madison, Federalist No. 41, General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution, Independent Journal, January 19, 1788; The Federalist (The Gideon Edition), (1818), Edited with an Introduction, Reader’s Guide, Constitutional Cross-reference, Index, and Glossary by George W. Carey and James McClellan (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2001)

Now it's important to note what Madison is answering is the argument that "general welfare" gives the Federal government some sort of unlimited power to "do what needs doing" as you put it. He says this is ABSURD! Because IF that's what it meant, there would be NO NEED for the enumeration of things which followed. He points out that the usage of the term "general welfare" is to summarize the enumerated powers which are subsequently listed and nothing more.

 

[bripat9643]

you are right, not many support the original intent and wording of the constitution. Thats why we are in the mess we are in today.

Views of freedom and democracy are not limited to any century. They are universal and timeless.

It amazes me that so many americans don't give a shit about what this country is all about. You are a case in point. I don't know why I waste my time with an idiot like you. I may not do it in the future.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

― Thomas Jefferson

Good quote. Do you really think Jefferson would have approved of having half of the population dependent on the govt dole?

Jefferson also said. "a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have"

Hard to say. What would a man who supported keeping a quarter of the population in slavery believe?

You're the one who quoted Jefferson as some kind of authority on the Constitution.

So now you're attacking his authority?

I'm attacking those who try to use 21 st century sensitivities to evaluate an 18th century person

Oh, you mean the way libs evaluate the Confederacy?

 

[bripat9643]

The constitution is very clear on what "services" the federal govt is to provide and that the rest is left to the states. We have been in violation of the constitution in that regard since FDR.

The constitution is very broad in what services the federal government can provide.
Your limited view is not supported by our courts....good thing

The Constitution doesn't authorize the government to provide any services other than the ones specifically enumerated in the document.

Actually, it does

The fact that an anarchist can't understand is not my problem

Can you quote the text where it authorizes government to provide services?

Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution

No, that authorizes government to provide only those "services" enumerated in the document.