Happy 4th of July......Dont forget to thank a Liberal

[Flopper]

And what question were you answering...and where is the "flop" behind the answer ?

In 1787 (fixed that one for you)....we had smart people in D.C. (Philly).

In 2014, we have a bunch of greedy, self-centered, unprincipled, assholes in D.C. (GOP and Democrats).

Or was there another point you failed to make ?

Sorry, I accidentally posted the reply before I stated my point. As I understand your post, you believe almost all government spending and law making should be done at the local or the state level, not federal. The constitution should be taken literally.

It would seem then that the United States would function more like the Commonwealth of Nations but with a common constitution. Each state would be making it's own decisions concerning civil rights, environmental protection, disaster relief, Medicare, Social Security, and Welfare. A literal interpretation of the constitution would change National parks and monuments into states parks. State boarders and militias would be become much important than they are today because federal drug laws and child pornography laws would become state laws. Central banking and federal banking laws, security exchange regulations would be left to the states.

I suspect few people not even strong conservatives would approve of this new Un-united States.

Things that are best done by the federal government should be under the federal government. If the current constitution does not give them to them, it should be amended...there is a process for that.

Regardless of what you think is best done now, the unchecked assumption by the federal government of juristictions not formally granted is what the framers tried to prevent and specifically warned against.

I, for one, hate the current social security arrangement that we have now. However, I am for some form of federally regulated retirement program since it is apparent that people won't save for themselves. But even within that framework it would be much more flexible than what currently exists. This is not privatization (the very concept that sends libs into orbit).

I would grant the federal government that perview via constitutional amendment. That is the right way to do it.

As to the rest....many conservatives would find the return to the states of many of the things you described as appropriate and such a return would not only be more efficient...but would improve things.

There is simply to much money in Washington D.C. for it not to corrupt the system.

So you're in favor of a federally regulated retirement system, but not a privatized system. As the constitution stands today, such a system would have to be justified with a liberal interpretation of the general welfare clause and the commerce clause which is how social security is justified.

Medicare and Medicaid are justified as with Social Security on the general welfare clause. So if one is constitutions, then they all are.

And then there's welfare and it's back to general welfare cause.

Aside from the constitutionality issue of these programs, would the nation be better off if these were state programs>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Things that are best done by the federal government should be under the federal government. If the current constitution does not give them to them, it should be amended...there is a process for that.

Incorrect.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied. And it was not the Framers' intent that every issue be subject to the amendment process, we know this to be true per Articles III and VI of the Constitution, establishing the Judiciary, the doctrine of judicial review, and the interpretive authority of the Federal courts, where it is the responsibility of the courts to determine what the Constitution means, and whether or not the Federal government is acting in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

Moreover, seeking to resolve the many conflicts and controversies of the day would prove impossible via the amendment process, as the Constitution would eventually become so cluttered with 'amendments' that it would cease to have any relevant function or meaning.

 

[jillian]

Sorry, I accidentally posted the reply before I stated my point. As I understand your post, you believe almost all government spending and law making should be done at the local or the state level, not federal. The constitution should be taken literally.

It would seem then that the United States would function more like the Commonwealth of Nations but with a common constitution. Each state would be making it's own decisions concerning civil rights, environmental protection, disaster relief, Medicare, Social Security, and Welfare. A literal interpretation of the constitution would change National parks and monuments into states parks. State boarders and militias would be become much important than they are today because federal drug laws and child pornography laws would become state laws. Central banking and federal banking laws, security exchange regulations would be left to the states.

I suspect few people not even strong conservatives would approve of this new Un-united States.

Things that are best done by the federal government should be under the federal government. If the current constitution does not give them to them, it should be amended...there is a process for that.

Regardless of what you think is best done now, the unchecked assumption by the federal government of juristictions not formally granted is what the framers tried to prevent and specifically warned against.

I, for one, hate the current social security arrangement that we have now. However, I am for some form of federally regulated retirement program since it is apparent that people won't save for themselves. But even within that framework it would be much more flexible than what currently exists. This is not privatization (the very concept that sends libs into orbit).

I would grant the federal government that perview via constitutional amendment. That is the right way to do it.

As to the rest....many conservatives would find the return to the states of many of the things you described as appropriate and such a return would not only be more efficient...but would improve things.

There is simply to much money in Washington D.C. for it not to corrupt the system.

So you're in favor of a federally regulated retirement system, but not a privatized system. As the constitution stands today, such a system would have to be justified with a liberal interpretation of the general welfare clause and the commerce clause which is how social security is justified.

Medicare and Medicaid are justified as with Social Security on the general welfare clause. So if one is constitutions, then they all are.

And then there's welfare and it's back to general welfare cause.

Aside from the constitutionality issue of these programs, would the nation be better off if these were state programs>

of course not. nor could the states afford those programs like the federal government can. but they think the states won't keep them from discriminating like those old meanies in the federal system do.

 

[Flopper]

Things that are best done by the federal government should be under the federal government. If the current constitution does not give them to them, it should be amended...there is a process for that.

Regardless of what you think is best done now, the unchecked assumption by the federal government of juristictions not formally granted is what the framers tried to prevent and specifically warned against.

I, for one, hate the current social security arrangement that we have now. However, I am for some form of federally regulated retirement program since it is apparent that people won't save for themselves. But even within that framework it would be much more flexible than what currently exists. This is not privatization (the very concept that sends libs into orbit).

I would grant the federal government that perview via constitutional amendment. That is the right way to do it.

As to the rest....many conservatives would find the return to the states of many of the things you described as appropriate and such a return would not only be more efficient...but would improve things.

There is simply to much money in Washington D.C. for it not to corrupt the system.

So you're in favor of a federally regulated retirement system, but not a privatized system. As the constitution stands today, such a system would have to be justified with a liberal interpretation of the general welfare clause and the commerce clause which is how social security is justified.

Medicare and Medicaid are justified as with Social Security on the general welfare clause. So if one is constitutions, then they all are.

And then there's welfare and it's back to general welfare cause.

Aside from the constitutionality issue of these programs, would the nation be better off if these were state programs>

of course not. nor could the states afford those programs like the federal government can. but they think the states won't keep them from discriminating like those old meanies in the federal system do.

Exactly.

Social welfare programs such as Social Security and Medicare should be handled as they are now. Leaving these programs to the states would create huge disparities between states. Poorer states which often have more need for social social services and less funds to provide those services would see huge cuts. The cost of providing the services would also be much higher if it was handled by the states because the federal Social Security Administration and Center for Medicare Services would have to be duplicated in every state.

Most welfare programs are actually state programs jointly funded with the federal government. Although federal funding varies by state about 50% of the funds are provided by the states. The states now determine most of rules on eligibility, benefits, and time limits. The states also have the power to discontinue programs and create new programs.

 

[Listening]

Sorry, I accidentally posted the reply before I stated my point. As I understand your post, you believe almost all government spending and law making should be done at the local or the state level, not federal. The constitution should be taken literally.

It would seem then that the United States would function more like the Commonwealth of Nations but with a common constitution. Each state would be making it's own decisions concerning civil rights, environmental protection, disaster relief, Medicare, Social Security, and Welfare. A literal interpretation of the constitution would change National parks and monuments into states parks. State boarders and militias would be become much important than they are today because federal drug laws and child pornography laws would become state laws. Central banking and federal banking laws, security exchange regulations would be left to the states.

I suspect few people not even strong conservatives would approve of this new Un-united States.

Things that are best done by the federal government should be under the federal government. If the current constitution does not give them to them, it should be amended...there is a process for that.

Regardless of what you think is best done now, the unchecked assumption by the federal government of juristictions not formally granted is what the framers tried to prevent and specifically warned against.

I, for one, hate the current social security arrangement that we have now. However, I am for some form of federally regulated retirement program since it is apparent that people won't save for themselves. But even within that framework it would be much more flexible than what currently exists. This is not privatization (the very concept that sends libs into orbit).

I would grant the federal government that perview via constitutional amendment. That is the right way to do it.

As to the rest....many conservatives would find the return to the states of many of the things you described as appropriate and such a return would not only be more efficient...but would improve things.

There is simply to much money in Washington D.C. for it not to corrupt the system.

So you're in favor of a federally regulated retirement system, but not a privatized system. As the constitution stands today, such a system would have to be justified with a liberal interpretation of the general welfare clause and the commerce clause which is how social security is justified.

Medicare and Medicaid are justified as with Social Security on the general welfare clause. So if one is constitutions, then they all are.

And then there's welfare and it's back to general welfare cause.

Aside from the constitutionality issue of these programs, would the nation be better off if these were state programs>

No, they would not be better off if they were state programs since people move between states.

And your first statement is incorrect....as I stated I would want to see it done under a constitutional amendment. That removes the need to for libs to mis-apply the General Welfare Clause.

 

[Listening]

Things that are best done by the federal government should be under the federal government. If the current constitution does not give them to them, it should be amended...there is a process for that.

Regardless of what you think is best done now, the unchecked assumption by the federal government of juristictions not formally granted is what the framers tried to prevent and specifically warned against.

I, for one, hate the current social security arrangement that we have now. However, I am for some form of federally regulated retirement program since it is apparent that people won't save for themselves. But even within that framework it would be much more flexible than what currently exists. This is not privatization (the very concept that sends libs into orbit).

I would grant the federal government that perview via constitutional amendment. That is the right way to do it.

As to the rest....many conservatives would find the return to the states of many of the things you described as appropriate and such a return would not only be more efficient...but would improve things.

There is simply to much money in Washington D.C. for it not to corrupt the system.

So you're in favor of a federally regulated retirement system, but not a privatized system. As the constitution stands today, such a system would have to be justified with a liberal interpretation of the general welfare clause and the commerce clause which is how social security is justified.

Medicare and Medicaid are justified as with Social Security on the general welfare clause. So if one is constitutions, then they all are.

And then there's welfare and it's back to general welfare cause.

Aside from the constitutionality issue of these programs, would the nation be better off if these were state programs>

of course not. nor could the states afford those programs like the federal government can. but they think the states won't keep them from discriminating like those old meanies in the federal system do.

This is simply stupid.

THe money the federal governments comes from taxes paid by people who live in states. There is nobody who pays federal taxes who does not have a primary residency somewhere in one of the 50. The question would be over dividing it up which is what I would not like to see happen.

However, the program as it currently is constituted....SUCKS. It's great for people who have save up other funds (and S.S. has always stated....it was NOT to be a primary retirement vehicle). But it really screws the little guy who has no other savings.

There are other great benefits to having a private government account where your money is still your money. Like if you are mother trying to get funds from a deadbeat dad....easy to go get that money...and he can look forward to less for retirement.

 

[Listening]

Things that are best done by the federal government should be under the federal government. If the current constitution does not give them to them, it should be amended...there is a process for that.

Incorrect.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied. And it was not the Framers' intent that every issue be subject to the amendment process, we know this to be true per Articles III and VI of the Constitution, establishing the Judiciary, the doctrine of judicial review, and the interpretive authority of the Federal courts, where it is the responsibility of the courts to determine what the Constitution means, and whether or not the Federal government is acting in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

Moreover, seeking to resolve the many conflicts and controversies of the day would prove impossible via the amendment process, as the Constitution would eventually become so cluttered with 'amendments' that it would cease to have any relevant function or meaning.

Federalist 45 makes not mention of "implied" powers. The only implied powers allowed under the General Welfare Clause are those that rest within the scope of work specifically called out by the Constitution.

The rest is just lawyerspeak drummed up to justify the twisted system we have now.

Judicial Review was a John Marshall fabrication (which Robert Bork said was necessary and totally agreed with...then he shows how Marshall himself was not consistent).

As the SCOTUS has not been through the ages (but libs depend upon the nature of the Schizophrenic court to push an agenda....and then you get Ted Kennedy screaming at Roberts in confirmation hearings about "preserving" the gains of the past.....great he can change it...but YOU CAN"T CHANGE IT BACK....boy am I glad that scumbag is dead).

Of course, your other comment about the framers intent is only speculation on your part (which does fly in the face of Madison's writing's), but since you bastards have never really tried.....how would you know ?

 

[Listening]

Let's keep thanking those liberals...for not breeding. Seems they don't know how or they are gay.

Either way.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Some most outstanding butthurt on this thread.

Carry on. That is all.

 

[rightwinger]

So you're in favor of a federally regulated retirement system, but not a privatized system. As the constitution stands today, such a system would have to be justified with a liberal interpretation of the general welfare clause and the commerce clause which is how social security is justified.

Medicare and Medicaid are justified as with Social Security on the general welfare clause. So if one is constitutions, then they all are.

And then there's welfare and it's back to general welfare cause.

Aside from the constitutionality issue of these programs, would the nation be better off if these were state programs>

of course not. nor could the states afford those programs like the federal government can. but they think the states won't keep them from discriminating like those old meanies in the federal system do.

Exactly.

Social welfare programs such as Social Security and Medicare should be handled as they are now. Leaving these programs to the states would create huge disparities between states. Poorer states which often have more need for social social services and less funds to provide those services would see huge cuts. The cost of providing the services would also be much higher if it was handled by the states because the federal Social Security Administration and Center for Medicare Services would have to be duplicated in every state.

Most welfare programs are actually state programs jointly funded with the federal government. Although federal funding varies by state about 50% of the funds are provided by the states. The states now determine most of rules on eligibility, benefits, and time limits. The states also have the power to discontinue programs and create new programs.

What a hell hole this country would become if we didn't have the Federal Government to keep the states in check

 

[Listening]

of course not. nor could the states afford those programs like the federal government can. but they think the states won't keep them from discriminating like those old meanies in the federal system do.

Exactly.

Social welfare programs such as Social Security and Medicare should be handled as they are now. Leaving these programs to the states would create huge disparities between states. Poorer states which often have more need for social social services and less funds to provide those services would see huge cuts. The cost of providing the services would also be much higher if it was handled by the states because the federal Social Security Administration and Center for Medicare Services would have to be duplicated in every state.

Most welfare programs are actually state programs jointly funded with the federal government. Although federal funding varies by state about 50% of the funds are provided by the states. The states now determine most of rules on eligibility, benefits, and time limits. The states also have the power to discontinue programs and create new programs.

What a hell hole this country would become if we didn't have the Federal Government to keep the states in check

What a hell hole this country has become because of the Federal Government.

What is so funny is that many of the bozo's we have at the federal level started out as state legislators.

They get elected as federal folks and suddenly they get smarter.

Only a liberal would believe that.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It must always be a healthy balance between centralized government and state and local government. Right now, what the Right wants (mostly) is anarchy.

 

[Listening]

You can see that nobody addresses #607 because they can't.

All they say is that the Federalist Papers were "propaganda" (that latest page in the liberal book of marketing crap).

While developing the constitution, the founders spent a great deal of time looking at ancient governments to see what was good and what was bad in order to synthesize a better situation. Of course, it didn't start out that way. The states FIRST tried to behave as little countries under the Articles of Confederation, but soon figured out that they'd get thier asses kicked one by one.....so they joined together in a Union that had very specific goals. What they didn't assign the Federal Government, they kept for themselves (and they even had state sponsored religions...so much for the "wall") as stated in the 10th.

Liberals simply ignore what they want and use the courts to do their bidding.

libs.

 

[rightwinger]

Exactly.

Social welfare programs such as Social Security and Medicare should be handled as they are now. Leaving these programs to the states would create huge disparities between states. Poorer states which often have more need for social social services and less funds to provide those services would see huge cuts. The cost of providing the services would also be much higher if it was handled by the states because the federal Social Security Administration and Center for Medicare Services would have to be duplicated in every state.

Most welfare programs are actually state programs jointly funded with the federal government. Although federal funding varies by state about 50% of the funds are provided by the states. The states now determine most of rules on eligibility, benefits, and time limits. The states also have the power to discontinue programs and create new programs.

What a hell hole this country would become if we didn't have the Federal Government to keep the states in check

What a hell hole this country has become because of the Federal Government.

What is so funny is that many of the bozo's we have at the federal level started out as state legislators.

They get elected as federal folks and suddenly they get smarter.

Only a liberal would believe that.

Having a strong Federal Government is what turned this nation into an economic superpower. Centralized government is much more efficient than 50 independent governments duplicating services

State Governments have abused their citizens and we needed a strong federal government to keep them in check

 

[Listening]

What a hell hole this country would become if we didn't have the Federal Government to keep the states in check

What a hell hole this country has become because of the Federal Government.

What is so funny is that many of the bozo's we have at the federal level started out as state legislators.

They get elected as federal folks and suddenly they get smarter.

Only a liberal would believe that.

Having a strong Federal Government is what turned this nation into an economic superpower. Centralized government is much more efficient than 50 independent governments duplicating services

State Governments have abused their citizens and we needed a strong federal government to keep them in check

I realize that you take your liberal book of Fairly Tales as gospel, but such claims are simply stupid.

The founders knew there were specific functions that Federal Government would be best at and wihich would be necessary so as to avoid having states behave like little countries. Beyond that, they were happy to allow the states to do what they wanted.

That served this country well until the Federal Government decided to abuse that power and fomented Civil War. Since that time, the Federal Government has been instrumental in getting us involved in numerous World and Regional Wars (or did Alaska send troops to Vietnam) which have been very damaging to this country. Additionally, the government has been damaging to the economy as FDR's policies prolonged and deepened the depression.

BTW: Business made us an economic superpower......

 

[rightwinger]

What a hell hole this country has become because of the Federal Government.

What is so funny is that many of the bozo's we have at the federal level started out as state legislators.

They get elected as federal folks and suddenly they get smarter.

Only a liberal would believe that.

Having a strong Federal Government is what turned this nation into an economic superpower. Centralized government is much more efficient than 50 independent governments duplicating services

State Governments have abused their citizens and we needed a strong federal government to keep them in check

I realize that you take your liberal book of Fairly Tales as gospel, but such claims are simply stupid.

The founders knew there were specific functions that Federal Government would be best at and wihich would be necessary so as to avoid having states behave like little countries. Beyond that, they were happy to allow the states to do what they wanted.

That served this country well until the Federal Government decided to abuse that power and fomented Civil War. Since that time, the Federal Government has been instrumental in getting us involved in numerous World and Regional Wars (or did Alaska send troops to Vietnam) which have been very damaging to this country. Additionally, the government has been damaging to the economy as FDR's policies prolonged and deepened the depression.

BTW: Business made us an economic superpower......

The Civil War became necessary because of abuse of power by the states. States that would rather go to war with their own country than give black men their freedom.

It was FDR that turned this country from a sleeping giant into a superpower

 

[Listening]

Having a strong Federal Government is what turned this nation into an economic superpower. Centralized government is much more efficient than 50 independent governments duplicating services

State Governments have abused their citizens and we needed a strong federal government to keep them in check

I realize that you take your liberal book of Fairly Tales as gospel, but such claims are simply stupid.

The founders knew there were specific functions that Federal Government would be best at and wihich would be necessary so as to avoid having states behave like little countries. Beyond that, they were happy to allow the states to do what they wanted.

That served this country well until the Federal Government decided to abuse that power and fomented Civil War. Since that time, the Federal Government has been instrumental in getting us involved in numerous World and Regional Wars (or did Alaska send troops to Vietnam) which have been very damaging to this country. Additionally, the government has been damaging to the economy as FDR's policies prolonged and deepened the depression.

BTW: Business made us an economic superpower......

The Civil War became necessary because of abuse of power by the states. States that wouyld rather go to war with their own country than give black men their freedom.

It was FDR that turned this country from a sleeping giant into a superpower

More liberal fairy tales.

But keep trying.

WWII turned this country into an economic superpower......

Whoever you paid to educate you really screwed you....ask for your money back.

 

[rightwinger]

I realize that you take your liberal book of Fairly Tales as gospel, but such claims are simply stupid.

The founders knew there were specific functions that Federal Government would be best at and wihich would be necessary so as to avoid having states behave like little countries. Beyond that, they were happy to allow the states to do what they wanted.

That served this country well until the Federal Government decided to abuse that power and fomented Civil War. Since that time, the Federal Government has been instrumental in getting us involved in numerous World and Regional Wars (or did Alaska send troops to Vietnam) which have been very damaging to this country. Additionally, the government has been damaging to the economy as FDR's policies prolonged and deepened the depression.

BTW: Business made us an economic superpower......

The Civil War became necessary because of abuse of power by the states. States that would rather go to war with their own country than give black men their freedom.

It was FDR that turned this country from a sleeping giant into a superpower

More liberal fairy tales.

But keep trying.

WWII turned this country into an economic superpower......

Whoever you paid to educate you really screwed you....ask for your money back.

Imagine WWII with 48 states competing for defense projects and each company deciding what the market needed building

FDR took control of our industrial base and allocated precious materiel and labor resources to where they were most needed. A state centered government could not have done that

 

[Statistikhengst]

BTW, only 351 days until the next July 5th.

Keep this thread alive!

 

[Statistikhengst]

The Civil War became necessary because of abuse of power by the states. States that would rather go to war with their own country than give black men their freedom.

It was FDR that turned this country from a sleeping giant into a superpower

More liberal fairy tales.

But keep trying.

WWII turned this country into an economic superpower......

Whoever you paid to educate you really screwed you....ask for your money back.

Imagine WWII with 48 states competing for defense projects and each company deciding what the market needed building

FDR took control of our industrial base and allocated precious materiel and labor resources to where they were most needed. A state centered government could not have done that

And had that been the case, we may very well have lost the war.