Q. For Small Government Adherents

[danielpalos]

Sorry bud...."Living through it" doesn't count. You have to "study" it from books written by faculty lounge communists to get the "real" story......

- More "I got nothin'" from Randall.

He seems to be saying, that simply bailing out the wealthiest and then letting it trickle down is not the same as providing for general welfare.

Actually it is "promoting" the General Welfare and "Providing" for the common defense.

Both are in our supreme law of the land should there be any need to quibble in legal venues regarding latitude of construction.

Well, actually there is. The left believes that it is somehow the job of a federal government to "provide" when, in fact, it was never written. In those days, you either took care of yourself or you died. Many died in the formation of this country. It is the job of the federal government to PROVIDE for the defense of the country and to collect tariffs. Nothing more.

Where do those of your point of view get your propaganda and rhetoric from? There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

The Congress shall have 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;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[RandallFlagg]

- More "I got nothin'" from Randall.

He seems to be saying, that simply bailing out the wealthiest and then letting it trickle down is not the same as providing for general welfare.

Actually it is "promoting" the General Welfare and "Providing" for the common defense.

Both are in our supreme law of the land should there be any need to quibble in legal venues regarding latitude of construction.

Well, actually there is. The left believes that it is somehow the job of a federal government to "provide" when, in fact, it was never written. In those days, you either took care of yourself or you died. Many died in the formation of this country. It is the job of the federal government to PROVIDE for the defense of the country and to collect tariffs. Nothing more.

Where do those of your point of view get your propaganda and rhetoric from? There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

The Congress shall have 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;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Well, I don't know about anyone else....but mine comes from THIS parchment:

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.

Not good enough for you? Sorry......

 

[dblack]

- More "I got nothin'" from Randall.

He seems to be saying, that simply bailing out the wealthiest and then letting it trickle down is not the same as providing for general welfare.

Actually it is "promoting" the General Welfare and "Providing" for the common defense.

Both are in our supreme law of the land should there be any need to quibble in legal venues regarding latitude of construction.

Well, actually there is. The left believes that it is somehow the job of a federal government to "provide" when, in fact, it was never written. In those days, you either took care of yourself or you died. Many died in the formation of this country. It is the job of the federal government to PROVIDE for the defense of the country and to collect tariffs. Nothing more.

Where do those of your point of view get your propaganda and rhetoric from? There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

The Congress shall have 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;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Ever wonder why they wrote "general welfare" rather than the "specific needs of individuals"?

 

[Pksimon2007]

It's hardly the "cornerstone" of the Constitution, but servile boot-licking toadies such as you like to think so. The Founders viewed taxation as a necessary evil, at best. In fact they viewed government as a necessary evil.

We went to war with England because they were taking 1% of our resources. Now, we happily give them (Uncle Sugar) 30-40% and never bat an eye.

And that's not enough, apparently

Indeed. Th e left would be more than happy to take 50-60-70 percent. Well, of course, with the exception of Soros and Sharpton...they get a pass.

- I laid out my position early, in favor of lower taxes.

I explained that to you, as well, when you got it wrong before.

You're clearly not that bright, very emotional - or as an alternative, perhaps you're just not very honest.

You repeatedly call people emotional.

Take a minute and click on these users' names and check out how long we've been here.
We get 'emotional' because this is thread number too-damned-many of We Need MORE Government' that we've

- I have a little technique to deal with that sort of problem.

Being a liberty-loving person, when someone says something I disagree with, and I don't want to respond, I don't.

If you can't respond to the OP in any way other than exploding and calling people names, you have the liberty not to post.

As an adult, you have no cause to complain about the OP. Ignore it, and it goes away for you.

It appears to frustrate you that, after years of posting here, you have not convinced everyone to share your point of view.

I get that.

But it's a big ol' world, and in a free society, not everyone will agree. If you would prefer a society in which everyone did, you may want to reconsider whether liberty is really for you.

 

[Pksimon2007]

He seems to be saying, that simply bailing out the wealthiest and then letting it trickle down is not the same as providing for general welfare.

Actually it is "promoting" the General Welfare and "Providing" for the common defense.

Both are in our supreme law of the land should there be any need to quibble in legal venues regarding latitude of construction.

Well, actually there is. The left believes that it is somehow the job of a federal government to "provide" when, in fact, it was never written. In those days, you either took care of yourself or you died. Many died in the formation of this country. It is the job of the federal government to PROVIDE for the defense of the country and to collect tariffs. Nothing more.

Where do those of your point of view get your propaganda and rhetoric from? There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

The Congress shall have 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;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Well, I don't know about anyone else....but mine comes from THIS parchment:

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.

Not good enough for you? Sorry......

Oddly, you all have been arguing what a flawed document it is for hours, based partly on the fact that it established a government in the first place.

So go ahead and wrap yourself in the flag, if you must, but it just looks ridiculous.

 

[Pksimon2007]

He seems to be saying, that simply bailing out the wealthiest and then letting it trickle down is not the same as providing for general welfare.

Actually it is "promoting" the General Welfare and "Providing" for the common defense.

Both are in our supreme law of the land should there be any need to quibble in legal venues regarding latitude of construction.

Well, actually there is. The left believes that it is somehow the job of a federal government to "provide" when, in fact, it was never written. In those days, you either took care of yourself or you died. Many died in the formation of this country. It is the job of the federal government to PROVIDE for the defense of the country and to collect tariffs. Nothing more.

Where do those of your point of view get your propaganda and rhetoric from? There is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws.

The Congress shall have 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;

but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Ever wonder why they wrote "general welfare" rather than the "specific needs of individuals"?

- Cuz this:

Society was not considered, at the time, to be separate from its individual constituents. Perhaps the definition from Vattel's Law of Nations, which was both known to the framers and considered authoritative in the matter of definitions, will help you:

"In the act of association, by virtue of which a multitude of men form together a state or nation, each individual has entered into engagements with all, to promote the general welfare; and all have entered into engagements with each individual, to facilitate for him the means of supplying his necessities, and to protect and defend him."

- The general welfare MEANT such specific things as the necessities to being a free person.

 

[rightwinger]

But the best way to promote the general welfare would be to allow an environment that makes it easier for citizens and charities to provide and more difficult for the government to do so

Actually, the best way is to do it where it is most efficient and effective

Hmmm, no, but government is hardly the most efficient or effective means. How much of the money devoted to poverty programs actually gets to the intended beneficiaries?

Again, LBJ started his "Great Society" nonsense to "end poverty in our lifetime". 50 Trillion dollars later........

Our defense budget has not ended war in our time

My point exactly. War has been going on since the beginning of man. Poverty has been around since the beginning of time. What the hell is your point?

What did Einstein Say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

The point being you spend money on poverty because it is needed. While you may not end all poverty, you provide a safety net, and programs to help people escape poverty

 

[rightwinger]

And sometimes providing for the welfare of those who most need it promotes the general welfare of all

But the best way to promote the general welfare would be to allow an environment that makes it easier for citizens and charities to provide and more difficult for the government to do so

Actually, the best way is to do it where it is most efficient and effective

Hmmm, no, but government is hardly the most efficient or effective means. How much of the money devoted to poverty programs actually gets to the intended beneficiaries?

If a local family loses its breadwinner, local charities can help them
When a whole community loses its breadwinners, we need big government

Local charities are great, but they fall victim to the rise and fall of local Economies and the magnitude of help that is needed

We have numerous national charities, and we would have lot more if people weren't being taxed into poverty to support our vast welfare state.

Even national charities are affected by fluctuations in the economy affecting not only the money that is contributed but what they must pay out in bad times

 

[rightwinger]

And sometimes providing for the welfare of those who most need it promotes the general welfare of all

But the best way to promote the general welfare would be to allow an environment that makes it easier for citizens and charities to provide and more difficult for the government to do so

Actually, the best way is to do it where it is most efficient and effective

Hmmm, no, but government is hardly the most efficient or effective means. How much of the money devoted to poverty programs actually gets to the intended beneficiaries?

If a local family loses its breadwinner, local charities can help them
When a whole community loses its breadwinners, we need big government

Local charities are great, but they fall victim to the rise and fall of local Economies and the magnitude of help that is needed

When has an entire community lost its breadwinners? I realize reality is a foreign concept to you (since you think Big Business both controls the GOP and loathes the GOP).

When towns depend on a single industry and that industry collapses. When a natural disaster hits.
That is why we need the nationwide support that government can provide

 

[Pksimon2007]

//Wrong. Common law was the law of the common people. It was separate from the crown which had no control over it. It was the creation of private courts created to resolve disputes between the common people.//

- The courts weren't private, big guy.


//It's not a myth. It's an historical fact. In this country, before the federal reserve was created, we had free banking. Any bank in the country could print it's own currency. You can even find some of these bank notes for sale on the internet.//

- It is NOW called "free banking". Free banking actually took place under a series of national banking acts. And it was the dismal experience of speculative notes like those that led to the Federal Reserve Act. People had had enough of financial libertarianism.


//it was easily over 90%. Books like Moby Dick sold hundreds of thousands of copied. And that was in the day when books were luxury items. Ever town had its newspaper.//

- The appropriate response might be to whip out some actual statistical evidence. You need statistics, not anecdotes, to support statistical claims.

//What's wrong with paying tolls? If you move to Orlando you'll pay them just about every time you go somewhere. Nowadays they have electronic devices that pay them for you automatically. They even have devices that read your license plate so you don't have to install anything in your car.//

- Because they limit your freedom of movement. They *limit* your freedom

//A neurosurgeon would obviously have to go to a school, but that doesn't mean government is required.//

- You've moved the goalposts so far here I'm not even sure you have a point here.

 

[Obiwan]

I don't believe that this question can be answered without knowing all of the functions of the federal government and being aware of the implications of losing functions. I seriously doubt anyone on here (including myself) can make an informed opinion on such a huge budgetary issue.

Yet, these people want to slash, cut and fuck all the away across it with a butcher knife! Yet, they blame Obama for our slipping ranking in the world. These people don't have a plan!

Actually, the idea of allowing people to gain job experience in return for welfare should go right along with Obozo's plan. After all, didn't he say that the riots, looting, and burning down buildings was due to the protesters not having jobs?

Just think, if those folks gain job experience (and good work references, if they are willing to actually work), it will make it easier for them to get regular jobs. Employers are always looking for good workers!!!!

So, has Obozo finally hit on a good idea, or was it just another load of horseshit foisted on us by Obozo and the Jackass Party??????

 

[The Rabbi]

But the best way to promote the general welfare would be to allow an environment that makes it easier for citizens and charities to provide and more difficult for the government to do so

Actually, the best way is to do it where it is most efficient and effective

Hmmm, no, but government is hardly the most efficient or effective means. How much of the money devoted to poverty programs actually gets to the intended beneficiaries?

If a local family loses its breadwinner, local charities can help them
When a whole community loses its breadwinners, we need big government

Local charities are great, but they fall victim to the rise and fall of local Economies and the magnitude of help that is needed

When has an entire community lost its breadwinners? I realize reality is a foreign concept to you (since you think Big Business both controls the GOP and loathes the GOP).

When towns depend on a single industry and that industry collapses. When a natural disaster hits.
That is why we need the nationwide support that government can provide

You understand that's not an answer, right? Even in NoLa during Katrina people were working.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, the best way is to do it where it is most efficient and effective

Hmmm, no, but government is hardly the most efficient or effective means. How much of the money devoted to poverty programs actually gets to the intended beneficiaries?

If a local family loses its breadwinner, local charities can help them
When a whole community loses its breadwinners, we need big government

Local charities are great, but they fall victim to the rise and fall of local Economies and the magnitude of help that is needed

When has an entire community lost its breadwinners? I realize reality is a foreign concept to you (since you think Big Business both controls the GOP and loathes the GOP).

When towns depend on a single industry and that industry collapses. When a natural disaster hits.
That is why we need the nationwide support that government can provide

You understand that's not an answer, right? Even in NoLa during Katrina people were working.

Looked to me like they were evacuating

 

[The Rabbi]

Hmmm, no, but government is hardly the most efficient or effective means. How much of the money devoted to poverty programs actually gets to the intended beneficiaries?

If a local family loses its breadwinner, local charities can help them
When a whole community loses its breadwinners, we need big government

Local charities are great, but they fall victim to the rise and fall of local Economies and the magnitude of help that is needed

When has an entire community lost its breadwinners? I realize reality is a foreign concept to you (since you think Big Business both controls the GOP and loathes the GOP).

When towns depend on a single industry and that industry collapses. When a natural disaster hits.
That is why we need the nationwide support that government can provide

You understand that's not an answer, right? Even in NoLa during Katrina people were working.

Looked to me like they were evacuating

Thats because you're stupid. There were plenty of people left who didnt evacuate. That included some of the wealthiest people there.

 

[rightwinger]

If a local family loses its breadwinner, local charities can help them
When a whole community loses its breadwinners, we need big government

Local charities are great, but they fall victim to the rise and fall of local Economies and the magnitude of help that is needed

When has an entire community lost its breadwinners? I realize reality is a foreign concept to you (since you think Big Business both controls the GOP and loathes the GOP).

When towns depend on a single industry and that industry collapses. When a natural disaster hits.
That is why we need the nationwide support that government can provide

You understand that's not an answer, right? Even in NoLa during Katrina people were working.

Looked to me like they were evacuating

Thats because you're stupid. There were plenty of people left who didnt evacuate. That included some of the wealthiest people there.

Sure Rabbi, sure

Isn't this the point where you run away when challenged to defend your bizarre claims?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Small government has no cost deficits, of any kind. There is no end to the cost benefits... as it cost less, leaves those working with smaller incomes with more money, more freedom to produce more, thus to produce more benefit for themselves.

There is no reason why the US Federal government should cost more than 500 billion dollars to operate, using current dollars. Same with State and local government... except the cost for those should 1/50th of the US Federal budget for the largest state governments and much less for the smaller states.

Of course to do that you'd need to cull those currently infected by the mental disorder that limits an individual to socialism... .

The good news is that nature has a cure for the current problems caused by socialism and by all apparent signs we're not far from being subjected to that cure. So don't sweat it, its all under control.

 

[Dragonlady]

Left wingers don't remember the long painfully slow recovery with all the government growth and spending. Arguing military size is one thing but the government does much more than that.

Governments that aren't spending trillions of borrowed money on war, have money to spend on their people and their infrastructure. Governments which haven't spent the last 10+ years at war, are balancing their budgets.

Countries which put people ahead of corporations, have healthier economies.

Your corporations and oligarchs are awash in cash. They've never had more money than they do now and yet it's not enough. The people have no savings and few investments. Americans are mortgaged to the hilt and their credit cards are maxed out and that's not enough for the right.

You encourage people to go deeply in debt to get a college degree but saddling the next generation with student loans it will take the next 20 years to repay means they won't be able to buy homes or other consumer goods to keep the economy moving.

Everyday working people need jobs. Shipping manufacturing overseas helped corporations bottom lines in the short run but is killing the economy in the long term.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Left wingers don't remember the long painfully slow recovery with all the government growth and spending. Arguing military size is one thing but the government does much more than that.

Governments that aren't spending trillions of borrowed money on war, have money to spend on their people and their infrastructure. Governments which haven't spent the last 10+ years at war, are balancing their budgets.

Countries which put people ahead of corporations, have healthier economies.

Your corporations and oligarchs are awash in cash. They've never had more money than they do now and yet it's not enough. The people have no savings and few investments. Americans are mortgaged to the hilt and their credit cards are maxed out and that's not enough for the right.

You encourage people to go deeply in debt to get a college degree but saddling the next generation with student loans it will take the next 20 years to repay means they won't be able to buy homes or other consumer goods to keep the economy moving.

Everyday working people need jobs. Shipping manufacturing overseas helped corporations bottom lines in the short run but is killing the economy in the long term.

Please cite ONE EXAMPLE of Right-wing Policy that promotes people being poor, having fire-walled credit cards, massive college debt, or to accrue any debt.

Christian principles literally discourage EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR ASSERTED "RIGHT-WING" CAUSED PROBLEMS... and since Christianity defines America, thus 'the right', and The Ideological left adamantly opposes Christianity and its principled tenets, please explain how any of that drivel even relates to the right, let alone defines it?

 

[rightwinger]

Left wingers don't remember the long painfully slow recovery with all the government growth and spending. Arguing military size is one thing but the government does much more than that.

Governments that aren't spending trillions of borrowed money on war, have money to spend on their people and their infrastructure. Governments which haven't spent the last 10+ years at war, are balancing their budgets.

Countries which put people ahead of corporations, have healthier economies.

Your corporations and oligarchs are awash in cash. They've never had more money than they do now and yet it's not enough. The people have no savings and few investments. Americans are mortgaged to the hilt and their credit cards are maxed out and that's not enough for the right.

You encourage people to go deeply in debt to get a college degree but saddling the next generation with student loans it will take the next 20 years to repay means they won't be able to buy homes or other consumer goods to keep the economy moving.

Everyday working people need jobs. Shipping manufacturing overseas helped corporations bottom lines in the short run but is killing the economy in the long term.

Please cite ONE EXAMPLE of Right-wing Policy that promotes people being poor, having fire-walled credit cards, massive college debt, or to accrue any debt.

Christian principles literally discourage EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR ASSERTED "RIGHT-WING" CAUSED PROBLEMS... and since Christianity defines America, thus 'the right', and The Ideological left adamantly opposes Christianity and its principled tenets, please explain how any of that drivel even relates to the right, let alone defines it?

Where does Christaianity define America?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Actually, the best way is to do it where it is most efficient and effective

Hmmm, no, but government is hardly the most efficient or effective means. How much of the money devoted to poverty programs actually gets to the intended beneficiaries?

Again, LBJ started his "Great Society" nonsense to "end poverty in our lifetime". 50 Trillion dollars later........

Our defense budget has not ended war in our time

My point exactly. War has been going on since the beginning of man. Poverty has been around since the beginning of time. What the hell is your point?

What did Einstein Say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

The point being you spend money on poverty because it is needed. While you may not end all poverty, you provide a safety net, and programs to help people escape poverty

You "spend your money" on poverty!?!?! Jesus - the amount of money that this country has spent on poverty should make us all millionaires!!! How damned much "money" do we have to shell out!?!?!?

Geezzz. even the staunchest left wing communist liberal has the ability to understand that throwing good money after bad only gets you ZERO. This might be hard for you to understand, but I'll give it a shot. Read the following carefully....





IT DOESN'T WORK!!!!!