Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
lol. just typical, right wing, "hate on the poor"?$15 an hour for burger flipping, you guys are gullible fuckers... lolHey jackass, it depends on the type of job. Starter jobs/beginner jobs or not careers and should not be paid as such.
No company can make a decent bottom line paying $15 an hour for a starter job.
Sure Cupcake, Sure
I'll wait for the ONE time CONservatives have EVER been on the correct side of US history Cupcake
Citigroup, one of the biggest recipients of government bailout money, gave employees $5.33 billion in bonuses for 2008, New York's attorney general said Thursday in a report detailing the payouts by nine big banks.--http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8214818&page=1
just too much, laissez-fair laziness, even if you can just lay around and do nothing, in Hooverville.FDR was a dictator, the fucking cripple pushed his will on the country that was shellshocked from the war.This is supposed to be a capitalist Republic... The federal government does not have a morality to determine what anyone gets paid it should be a states issue...Burger flipping is never worth $15 an hour, only an insane person would think so
Show me ANYONE who "deserves" hundreds of millions a year Buttercup?
Only an idiot would want to subsidize Corps that don't want to pay living wages AS they gut those "job creators" taxes even lower than they are today, which are the lowest sustained effective tax rate since before the GOP's first great depression!
Owners of companies are the ones that take all the risksThis is supposed to be a capitalist Republic... The federal government does not have a morality to determine what anyone gets paid it should be a states issue...Burger flipping is never worth $15 an hour, only an insane person would think so
Show me ANYONE who "deserves" hundreds of millions a year Buttercup?
Only an idiot would want to subsidize Corps that don't want to pay living wages AS they gut those "job creators" taxes even lower than they are today, which are the lowest sustained effective tax rate since before the GOP's first great depression!
Owners of companies are the ones that take all the risks
"This is supposed to be a capitalist Republic..."
PLEASE show me that in the Constitution Buttercup?
You mean the guy elected 4 times as Prez???
you mean the income transfers by "stealing it from the people" and calling it taxes?It's OK, socialism will be fine until they run out of other peoples money…Western Europe are the kings of subsidizing their businesses… With all the regulations and shit they have to go through they have to charge an arm and a leg for their shit.And her wages are being subsidized...just like all business in Europe. Lol
Seriously you tool? Don't understand ANYTHING but right wing memes huh?
HINT, THE US SUBSIDIZES MUCH MORE THAN EUROPE DOES CUPCAKE!!!
Ten Examples of Welfare for Corporations and the Ultra-Rich | BillMoyers.com
Average American Families Pays $6K a Year in Big Business Subsidies
Average American Families Pays $6K a Year in Big Business Subsidies | BillMoyers.com
GROW A BRAIN BUTTERCUP
Got it, you'll stick with right wing memes and CHOOSE not to get your head out of your rear end
Yes, dear; there must be limits. Only in right wing fantasy, are there no limits on a warfare-State, only limits to a welfare-State.Indeed. Thank you.A true military axiom in most cases
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution provides Congress authority to raise and support Armies and to provide and maintain a Navy. There are absolutely no limits on that. It is at the complete and total discretion of Congress and the Commander in Chief.we don't have a military constitution. We have a civil Constitution with specific, limiting terms.
Your wishes may not be confused with facts and reality.Defense may not be confused with offense.
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."
The Federalist Number Forty-One
re-state your alleged argument, right winger.just talk, right winger; "bring it on", i love to practice having more than just repeal.Any quote you care to cite. It really is that simple. If the right wing is using it, it is just, propaganda and rhetoric.Bring what on? Can you be specific on what part of Jeffersons quotes did you find to be propaganda. Please use the quote and show me, unless that is to difficult for you.
Sure do, go back into this thread where you stated it was propaganda, they are right before where several posts asked you for clarification, however if you are going to choose to dismiss it and claim your silly lame excuse, then don't bother. It seems you don't like in depth conversation and prefer cliches.
So go back and let me know instead of crying bring it on. You seriously have nothing that is why you won't go back and pull the quotes and deal with it.
y'all usually just have, red herrings and other forms of diversions, like begging the question; which, are usually considered fallacies, to begin with.
lol. Not at all; Thank You for proving my point.re-state your alleged argument, right winger.just talk, right winger; "bring it on", i love to practice having more than just repeal.Any quote you care to cite. It really is that simple. If the right wing is using it, it is just, propaganda and rhetoric.
Sure do, go back into this thread where you stated it was propaganda, they are right before where several posts asked you for clarification, however if you are going to choose to dismiss it and claim your silly lame excuse, then don't bother. It seems you don't like in depth conversation and prefer cliches.
So go back and let me know instead of crying bring it on. You seriously have nothing that is why you won't go back and pull the quotes and deal with it.
y'all usually just have, red herrings and other forms of diversions, like begging the question; which, are usually considered fallacies, to begin with.
Thanks for proving you are all talk and no substance. I understand why you refuse to back up your stupid statements. I was embarrassed for you when you posted them.
lol. Not at all; Thank You for proving my point.re-state your alleged argument, right winger.just talk, right winger; "bring it on", i love to practice having more than just repeal.Sure do, go back into this thread where you stated it was propaganda, they are right before where several posts asked you for clarification, however if you are going to choose to dismiss it and claim your silly lame excuse, then don't bother. It seems you don't like in depth conversation and prefer cliches.
So go back and let me know instead of crying bring it on. You seriously have nothing that is why you won't go back and pull the quotes and deal with it.
y'all usually just have, red herrings and other forms of diversions, like begging the question; which, are usually considered fallacies, to begin with.
Thanks for proving you are all talk and no substance. I understand why you refuse to back up your stupid statements. I was embarrassed for you when you posted them.
re-state your alleged argument, right winger.
y'all usually just have, red herrings and other forms of diversions, like begging the question; which, are usually considered fallacies, to begin with.
if You don't really care but Only want to Protest too Much about it; why should I? I posted my argument, you declined to argue any refutation.lol. Not at all; Thank You for proving my point.re-state your alleged argument, right winger.just talk, right winger; "bring it on", i love to practice having more than just repeal.
So go back and let me know instead of crying bring it on. You seriously have nothing that is why you won't go back and pull the quotes and deal with it.
y'all usually just have, red herrings and other forms of diversions, like begging the question; which, are usually considered fallacies, to begin with.
Thanks for proving you are all talk and no substance. I understand why you refuse to back up your stupid statements. I was embarrassed for you when you posted them.
re-state your alleged argument, right winger.
y'all usually just have, red herrings and other forms of diversions, like begging the question; which, are usually considered fallacies, to begin with.
I already restated twice, if you can't go back a re-read it, its on you. For a guy that claims he has solutions and pretends to be so much smarter than others, you have some serious comprehension issues.
if You don't really care but Only want to Protest too Much about it; why should I? I posted my argument, you declined to argue any refutation.lol. Not at all; Thank You for proving my point.re-state your alleged argument, right winger.So go back and let me know instead of crying bring it on. You seriously have nothing that is why you won't go back and pull the quotes and deal with it.
y'all usually just have, red herrings and other forms of diversions, like begging the question; which, are usually considered fallacies, to begin with.
Thanks for proving you are all talk and no substance. I understand why you refuse to back up your stupid statements. I was embarrassed for you when you posted them.
re-state your alleged argument, right winger.
y'all usually just have, red herrings and other forms of diversions, like begging the question; which, are usually considered fallacies, to begin with.
I already restated twice, if you can't go back a re-read it, its on you. For a guy that claims he has solutions and pretends to be so much smarter than others, you have some serious comprehension issues.
I win. It really is that simple, when those of the opposing view have nothing but repeal.
like i said; nothing but red herrings, and "emotion".if You don't really care but Only want to Protest too Much about it; why should I? I posted my argument, you declined to argue any refutation.lol. Not at all; Thank You for proving my point.re-state your alleged argument, right winger.
y'all usually just have, red herrings and other forms of diversions, like begging the question; which, are usually considered fallacies, to begin with.
Thanks for proving you are all talk and no substance. I understand why you refuse to back up your stupid statements. I was embarrassed for you when you posted them.
re-state your alleged argument, right winger.
y'all usually just have, red herrings and other forms of diversions, like begging the question; which, are usually considered fallacies, to begin with.
I already restated twice, if you can't go back a re-read it, its on you. For a guy that claims he has solutions and pretends to be so much smarter than others, you have some serious comprehension issues.
I win. It really is that simple, when those of the opposing view have nothing but repeal.
You posted nothing, I asked you to clarify and you have refused. I am done playing your silly diversion games when you get caught looking stupid. Either answer or don't. It is obvious you can't support your opinion otherwise it would have been done. Also repeal has nothing to do with the argument and another of your deflections which seem to get you off some how.
So, either clarify and if you don't and comeback with a stupid cliche, I know and so will everyone else that you have nothing to back up your silly argument.
How many times do I need to post an argument for you? Most people get it the first time and then go back and reread the post. Why can't you?
Shell shock and ignorance elected him, his presidency expedited the distraction of this country. Woodrow Wilson started it along with Theodore Roosevelt he just hurried it along. We are still playing paying for his debt... lolFDR was a dictator, the fucking cripple pushed his will on the country that was shellshocked from the war.
You mean the guy elected 4 times as Prez???
Funny how they love the guy that wouldn't let public unions have collective bargaining, the guy that shipped US citizens into interment camps, opposed anti-lynching legislation, snubbing Olympic gold medalist Jesse Owens, he denied 936 Jewish refugees boarding on to a boat and be granted asylum. However because he is a Democrat, he is revered by the left wing nut jobs.
BECAUSE he was a Dem Cupcake? No context in ANY of those things you mention? Or the FACT that FDR gave US min wage, labor laws, right to organize, 40 hour weeks, stopped the CONservatives/GOP great depression, fought and won WW2, etc?
BTW, CONservatives stood with EVERY SINGLE THING YOU LIST ABOUT WHAT FDR DID CUPCAKE!
AS TOO THE ANTI LYNCHING
"I did not choose the tools with which I must work," FDR explained. "Had I been permitted to choose them, I would have selected quite different ones. But I've got to get legislation passed by Congress to save America. The Southerners [...] occupy strategic places on most of the Senate and House committees. If I come out for the anti-lynching bill now, they will block every bill I ask Congress to pass to keep America from collapsing. I just can't take that risk." FDR
Try context Buttercup
Oh good, a blog is what you are going by, no freakin bias there! Lol!
See, you justified everything he did, had he been a Republican you would have been pissed, thanks for proving my point, dummy.
Shell shock and ignorance elected him, his presidency expedited the distraction of this country. Woodrow Wilson started it along with Theodore Roosevelt he just hurried it along. We are still playing paying for his debt... lolYou mean the guy elected 4 times as Prez???
Funny how they love the guy that wouldn't let public unions have collective bargaining, the guy that shipped US citizens into interment camps, opposed anti-lynching legislation, snubbing Olympic gold medalist Jesse Owens, he denied 936 Jewish refugees boarding on to a boat and be granted asylum. However because he is a Democrat, he is revered by the left wing nut jobs.
BECAUSE he was a Dem Cupcake? No context in ANY of those things you mention? Or the FACT that FDR gave US min wage, labor laws, right to organize, 40 hour weeks, stopped the CONservatives/GOP great depression, fought and won WW2, etc?
BTW, CONservatives stood with EVERY SINGLE THING YOU LIST ABOUT WHAT FDR DID CUPCAKE!
AS TOO THE ANTI LYNCHING
"I did not choose the tools with which I must work," FDR explained. "Had I been permitted to choose them, I would have selected quite different ones. But I've got to get legislation passed by Congress to save America. The Southerners [...] occupy strategic places on most of the Senate and House committees. If I come out for the anti-lynching bill now, they will block every bill I ask Congress to pass to keep America from collapsing. I just can't take that risk." FDR
Try context Buttercup
Oh good, a blog is what you are going by, no freakin bias there! Lol!
See, you justified everything he did, had he been a Republican you would have been pissed, thanks for proving my point, dummy.
Got it Cupcake you will stick with right wing memes and not use logic. I'm shocked
like i said; nothing but red herrings, and "emotion".if You don't really care but Only want to Protest too Much about it; why should I? I posted my argument, you declined to argue any refutation.lol. Not at all; Thank You for proving my point.Thanks for proving you are all talk and no substance. I understand why you refuse to back up your stupid statements. I was embarrassed for you when you posted them.
re-state your alleged argument, right winger.
y'all usually just have, red herrings and other forms of diversions, like begging the question; which, are usually considered fallacies, to begin with.
I already restated twice, if you can't go back a re-read it, its on you. For a guy that claims he has solutions and pretends to be so much smarter than others, you have some serious comprehension issues.
I win. It really is that simple, when those of the opposing view have nothing but repeal.
You posted nothing, I asked you to clarify and you have refused. I am done playing your silly diversion games when you get caught looking stupid. Either answer or don't. It is obvious you can't support your opinion otherwise it would have been done. Also repeal has nothing to do with the argument and another of your deflections which seem to get you off some how.
So, either clarify and if you don't and comeback with a stupid cliche, I know and so will everyone else that you have nothing to back up your silly argument.
How many times do I need to post an argument for you? Most people get it the first time and then go back and reread the post. Why can't you?
Oh the little boy who cried wolf, isn't that cute. They just had to be nothing more than racist, right? Why? For all those cries of being labeled an "obstructionist", the "party of No!" they want nothing to do with helping THIS president. That "do nothing party" who said we need to put a stop to this administration and their agenda. He won't last to see another term. Does all that rhetoric sound all too familiar, maybe even Deja Vu perhaps? So who IIs the obstructionist? Who is that party of no!? We must resist!! Not my president!!! Yes, the claim that all this resistance just HAD to be because they were simply - racist. Don't make me laugh. Race has been over used... with every occasion that the left felt they were feeling some form of resistance to their agenda, because someone couldn't see as they do and share in the liberal view of government. Liberals simply begin to lose it and come undone under the pressure of political confrontation.
So now you are up in arms, with your little diaper pins, throwing your little Trump tantrums of impeachment (another familiar rhetoric tone because they had to be racist for even suggesting that of Obama- oh my God.) all this because you don't happen to like this particular choice for president. You don't like what he has planned for the direction of this nation. Well .. welcome to the other side of the fence there fruitcake. Oh, and if you want to see some ACTUAL examples of what racist rhetoric really sounds like, look to how liberal democrats treat an African American conservative. Liberals are such hypocrites, you'd think for all their criticisms and concerns they'd actually learn something and know better.
Sorry Cupcake your dodge about BIRTHERS WHICH WAS 100% RACIST TRIPE IS NOTED
Of course you could prove me wrong by showing me where the right wing nutjobs demanded Cheeto's birth cert too?
RACIST my ass, you couldn't even provide me three racist remarks within the last 8 years from a sitting republican in Congress. I have already said racism is the liberal cop out towards any political who doesn't share in their political ideological viewls. Don't worry fruitcake, I got your liberal racism approach pegged.
Congress huh Buttercup?
BITE ME
You need a lot to learn about racism fruitcake.
Trump's daughter Ivanka was blessed with wealth that she never earned or had to work hard and struggle as perhaps an average middle class American would, Does that mean pointing out to someone's social status and wealth makes the individual sexist, or racist based on that statement you provided? Sorry Roger Ailes statement is not racist.
Referring to someone as black, like African American, does not make someone racist. Using the N Word in a inferior tone would. Damn your an idiot!
Ted Cruz discussing the achievements of our nation overcoming race, and the gratitude Americans share for equal opportunity now compared to if such republican measures to end slavery under Lincoln never happened, is not racist. That segment you quoted shows he is stating fact of our achievements, how far we've come compared to what we could have been. A successful nomination for a race that has been subject to so much wrong IS an achievement - dumbass. Not racist.
Rep Kris Crawford stating an "opinion" and Colin Powell stating an opinion is not EVIDENCE of racism. I can state an "opinion" that the democrat liberal party are run by the Democrat Socialist Party. Does that make my opinion valid and accurate without siting evidence? Evidently you believe so, just as my socialist statement just has to be evidence of such, right?
You have a lot to learn about racism. Now let me show you what racism REALLY looks like, perhaps by a slim margin you may actually learn something.
Party trumps race’ for Steele foes
Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.
Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an “Uncle Tom” and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.
Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report — the only Republican candidate so targeted.
‘Party trumps race’ for Steele foes
THAT'S what racism looks like, and we had to learn that from your own liberal democrats. So ends today's lesson on what RACISM actually is.
Sorry Cupcake, my original posit stands, GOPers/CONservatives birther nonsense was built on racist BS led by the Cheeto
/---- Not so fast Cupcake:The US was founded on a limited government, the preamble made it clear "to provide for the common defense and promote the common welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". There is nothing stating the government would supply all of your needs, they believed in individual rights of the people, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Again, not the provision of needs towards dependency by a large empowering government over the people you are hard pressed to find facts the clearly dictate the Founders views and intention for a socialist form of government.
Good thing the Founders got rid of that "limited: states thing called the Articles of Confederation and went for the BIG FEDERAL GOV'T CONSTITUTION, WHERE THEY PUT THAT "GENERAL WELFARE" CLAUSE IN RIGHT CUPCAKE?
"All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it." Ben Franklin
BUT YOU MORONS KEEP UP YOUR FALSE PREMISES BUTTERCUP
GOV'T SHOULD LIFT THE WEAKEST UP, BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY!!!
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[3][4]
The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6]Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]
These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]
Yet the General Welfare clause has been used to get US SS, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, etc. Go figure Cupcake
He just stated the interpretation of the general welfare clause and it is not what you are implying it to be, thise views you are attempting to imply is not the trrue intention of the Founders as it was originally written. You have a lot to learn about looking to the "original meaning" within the context it was written.
Sorry Cupcake, your side lost a LONG time ago on this Buttercup
Sorry Cupcake your dodge about BIRTHERS WHICH WAS 100% RACIST TRIPE IS NOTED
Of course you could prove me wrong by showing me where the right wing nutjobs demanded Cheeto's birth cert too?
RACIST my ass, you couldn't even provide me three racist remarks within the last 8 years from a sitting republican in Congress. I have already said racism is the liberal cop out towards any political who doesn't share in their political ideological viewls. Don't worry fruitcake, I got your liberal racism approach pegged.
Congress huh Buttercup?
BITE ME
You need a lot to learn about racism fruitcake.
Trump's daughter Ivanka was blessed with wealth that she never earned or had to work hard and struggle as perhaps an average middle class American would, Does that mean pointing out to someone's social status and wealth makes the individual sexist, or racist based on that statement you provided? Sorry Roger Ailes statement is not racist.
Referring to someone as black, like African American, does not make someone racist. Using the N Word in a inferior tone would. Damn your an idiot!
Ted Cruz discussing the achievements of our nation overcoming race, and the gratitude Americans share for equal opportunity now compared to if such republican measures to end slavery under Lincoln never happened, is not racist. That segment you quoted shows he is stating fact of our achievements, how far we've come compared to what we could have been. A successful nomination for a race that has been subject to so much wrong IS an achievement - dumbass. Not racist.
Rep Kris Crawford stating an "opinion" and Colin Powell stating an opinion is not EVIDENCE of racism. I can state an "opinion" that the democrat liberal party are run by the Democrat Socialist Party. Does that make my opinion valid and accurate without siting evidence? Evidently you believe so, just as my socialist statement just has to be evidence of such, right?
You have a lot to learn about racism. Now let me show you what racism REALLY looks like, perhaps by a slim margin you may actually learn something.
Party trumps race’ for Steele foes
Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.
Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an “Uncle Tom” and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.
Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report — the only Republican candidate so targeted.
‘Party trumps race’ for Steele foes
THAT'S what racism looks like, and we had to learn that from your own liberal democrats. So ends today's lesson on what RACISM actually is.
Sorry Cupcake, my original posit stands, GOPers/CONservatives birther nonsense was built on racist BS led by the Cheeto
You can't save yours of of the embarrassment no matter how hard you try. You are incapable of knowing what racism is when it's clearly defined through racial slurs. You provided no slurs, no clear rhetoric. Your failure to understand tgise derogatory terms associated is duly noted, not surprised by your response fruitcake
/---- Not so fast Cupcake:Good thing the Founders got rid of that "limited: states thing called the Articles of Confederation and went for the BIG FEDERAL GOV'T CONSTITUTION, WHERE THEY PUT THAT "GENERAL WELFARE" CLAUSE IN RIGHT CUPCAKE?
"All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it." Ben Franklin
BUT YOU MORONS KEEP UP YOUR FALSE PREMISES BUTTERCUP
GOV'T SHOULD LIFT THE WEAKEST UP, BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY!!!
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[3][4]
The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6]Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]
These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]
Yet the General Welfare clause has been used to get US SS, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, etc. Go figure Cupcake
He just stated the interpretation of the general welfare clause and it is not what you are implying it to be, thise views you are attempting to imply is not the trrue intention of the Founders as it was originally written. You have a lot to learn about looking to the "original meaning" within the context it was written.
Sorry Cupcake, your side lost a LONG time ago on this Buttercup
Sorry you won't find evidence of that through the Founders. Your responses are very lacking on facts.
People violate the law every day (they are called Dumbocrats). That includes left-wing Supreme Court Justices intentionally ignoring the U.S. Constitution in favor of their own personal political agenda.We don't have murders, rape, and armed robbery??? Oh wait....we do?!? Well if that happens, it must be legal then, uh?
How does it feel being my personal bitch in this debate?
SCOTUS rulings say it's OK to have "murders, rape, and armed robbery???" Buttercup
Weird, it's like YOU live in some ALTERNATE UNIVERSE where facts and history don't matter like when you blame Gov't policy like CRA for Dubya's failure to reign in the Banksters in their WORLD WIDE SUBPRIME BUBBLE?
Yeah I can see how THIS was on BJ Bill's shoulders Cupcake:
Looks to me you're already started writing your autobiography. In case you haven't been paying attention I already recently debunked all that "blame Bush and banks" BS through an earlier post. However here it is again in showing you're completely wrong yet again. Wow, surprising as it may be.
.
Up until 1995 the Community Reinvestment Act was largely a requirement to support "community groups" in poor neighborhoods. ... But after 1995 the scope of the law was dramatically increased.
Over the strenuous objections of the banks themselves and some Republicans in Congress, CRA was renewed and modified in such a way that it gave far more power to the federal government to punish banks for not lending more widely in poor neighborhoods. The classic "fair housing" laws from the Martin Luther King Jr. era of civil rights were deemed insufficient. ... Subprime loans to minority applicants exploded ten fold in the mid-1990s as a result. ..]
Under New Deal-era regulatory rules of Glass-Steagall, commercial banks and investment banks were separated. When that act was repealed as part of banking deregulation in 1999, commercial banks and investment banks were able to merge, subject to approval by regulators.
However, the banks' CRA rating was taken into account in the decision. This meant that a high CRA rating became an important prerequisite for mergers, which increased the pressure on the banks to make these risky loans. The banks also were given permission to put these loans into packages of securities that could then be sold into investment markets.
Economist's View: Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...
This below taken from an actual government document, identified by the GAO/GGD abbreviated attachment, outlining the changes:
Federal Reserve Board: Merger Process Needs Guidelines for Community Reinvestment Issues
( letter report 9/24/1999 GAO/GGD-99-180 )
In 1993, the Clinton Administration instructed the federal bank regulators to revise the CRA regulations by moving from a process- and paperwork-based system to a performance-based system focusing on results, especially the results in LMI areas of an institution's communities. Based on these instructions, the federal banking agencies replaced the qualitative CRA examination system with a more quantitative system that is based on actual performance.
( PAGE 4 )
After the performance-based CRA regulations were issued in 1995, FFIEC published Interagency Questions and Answers regarding Community Reinvestment in 1997 and 1999. The 1989 statement was withdrawn effective April 5, 1999, and replaced by the Interagency Questions and Answers regarding Community Reinvestment.13 The 1989 Statement, which was in effect during the mergers contained in our study, including guidance on the following issues: * the basic components of an effective CRA policy, * the role of examination reports on CRA performance in reviewing applications, * the need for periodic review and documentation by financial institutions of their CRA performance, and * the role of commitments in assessing and institution's performance. Most notably, the regulators concluded in the Statement that the CRA record of the institution, as reflected in its examination reports, would be given great weight in the application process. In the Interagency Questions and Answers for 1999, the regulators continued to stress the significants of the CRA examination in the application process, and they stated the examination is an important, and often controlling, factor in the consideration of an institution's record. 14 According to the 1989 Statement, the CRA examination is not conclusive evidence in the face of significant and supported allegations from a commenter. Moreover, the balance may be shifted further when the examination is not recent or the particular issue raised in the 13 Questions and Answers regarding Community Reinvestment, 64 Fed. Reg. 23618-23648 (1999). 14 64 Fed. Reg. at 23641. GAO/GGD-99-180
(Page 9)
Guidelines for Community of Reinvestment Issues B-280468 application preceding was not addressed in the examination. During the development of the performance-based CRA regulations, a number of commenters expressed concern that the regulators may provide a "safe harbor" to depository institutions from challenges to their CRA performance record in the application process if they achieved an outstanding CRA rating. However, in the preamble of the 1995 final rule on the CRA regulations, the regulators reconfirmed the importance of the public comments in the applications process by acknowledging that materials related to CRA performance received during the applications process can and do provide relevant and valuable information.
Federal Reserve Board: Merger Process Needs Guidelines for
"It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. Now, I'm not saying I'm sure that was terrible policy, because a lot of those people who got homes still have them and they wouldn't have gotten them without that."
"But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it's one target, it's easy to blame them and congress certainly isn't going to blame themselves. At the same time, Congress is trying to pressure banks to loosen their lending standards to make more loans. This is exactly the same speech they criticized them for."
Bloomberg: 'Plain and simple,' Congress caused the mortgage crisis, not the banks | Capital New York
CUPCAKE YOUR FIRST LINK
Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...
Another attempt to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for the subprime crisis. Don't believe a word of it:
Economist's View: Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...
AS FOR BLOOMBERGS BS, A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST WAS CONGRESS'S FAULT BUTTERCUP??? LOL
Let’s just be clear about what the CRA does and doesn’t do. It simply says that if you open a branch office in a low income neighborhood and collect deposits there, you are obligated to do a certain amount of lending in that neighborhood. In other words, you can’t open a branch office in Harlem and use deposits from there to only fund loans in high-end Tribeca. A bank must make credit available on the same terms in both neighborhoods. In other words, a “red line” can’t be drawn around Harlem, a term that dates to when banks supposedly used colored pencils to draw no-loan zones on maps.
Showing that the CRA wasn’t the cause of the financial crisis is rather easy. As Warren Buffett pal Charlie Munger says, “Invert, always invert.” In this case, let’s assume Moore and Kudlow are correct, and the CRA did require banks to lend to unqualified, low-income buyers. What would that world have looked like?
Here’s what we should have seen:
Yet none of these things happened. And they should have, if the CRA was at fault. It’s no surprise that in congressional testimony, various experts were asked about the CRA -- from former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair to the Federal Reserve’s director of Consumer and Community Affairs -- and none blamed the crisis on the CRA.
- Home sales and prices in urban, minority communities would have led the national home market higher, with gains in percentage terms surpassing national figures;
- CRA mandated loans would have defaulted at higher rates;
- Foreclosures in these distressed urban CRA neighborhoods should have far outpaced those in the suburbs;
- Local lenders making these mortgages should have failed at much higher rates;
- Portfolios of banks participating in the Troubled Asset Relief Program should have been filled with securities made up of toxic CRA loans;
- Investors looking to profit should have been buying up properties financed with defaulted CRA loans; and
- Congressional testimony of financial industry executives after the crisis should have spelled out how the CRA was a direct cause, with compelling evidence backing their claims.
If that isn’t enough to dismiss the claim, consider this: Where did mortgages, especially subprime mortgages, default in large numbers?
It wasn’t Harlem, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit or any other poor, largely minority urban area covered by the CRA. No, the crisis was worst in Florida, Arizona, Nevada and California. Indeed, the vast majority of the housing collapse took place in the suburbs and exurbs, not the inner cities.
Now consider that much of the rest of the developed world also had a boom and bust in residential real estate that was worse than in the U.S. Oh, right -- those countries didn’t have the CRA.
What's more, many of the lenders that made the subprime loans that contributed so much to the collapse were private non-bank lenders that weren’t covered by the CRA. Almost 400 of these went bankrupt soon after housing began to wobble.
I have called the CRA blame meme “the big lie” -- and with good reason. It’s an old trope, tinged with elements of dog-whistle politics, blaming low-income residents in the inner cities regardless of what the data show.
Lending to Poor People Didn't Cause the Financial Crisis
BANKSTERS DROPPED ALL UNDERWRITING STANDARDS CUPCAKE, YOU KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE? HINT GOV'T BACKED LOANS REQUIRED THEM
/---- Not so fast Cupcake:
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[3][4]
The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6]Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]
These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]
Yet the General Welfare clause has been used to get US SS, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, etc. Go figure Cupcake
He just stated the interpretation of the general welfare clause and it is not what you are implying it to be, thise views you are attempting to imply is not the trrue intention of the Founders as it was originally written. You have a lot to learn about looking to the "original meaning" within the context it was written.
Sorry Cupcake, your side lost a LONG time ago on this Buttercup
Sorry you won't find evidence of that through the Founders. Your responses are very lacking on facts.
Yet SCOTUS has repeatedly said for 100+ years my side is correct and your sides interpretation of the Constitution is nothing but snowflake dreams. Go figure
People violate the law every day (they are called Dumbocrats). That includes left-wing Supreme Court Justices intentionally ignoring the U.S. Constitution in favor of their own personal political agenda.SCOTUS rulings say it's OK to have "murders, rape, and armed robbery???" Buttercup
Weird, it's like YOU live in some ALTERNATE UNIVERSE where facts and history don't matter like when you blame Gov't policy like CRA for Dubya's failure to reign in the Banksters in their WORLD WIDE SUBPRIME BUBBLE?
Yeah I can see how THIS was on BJ Bill's shoulders Cupcake:
Looks to me you're already started writing your autobiography. In case you haven't been paying attention I already recently debunked all that "blame Bush and banks" BS through an earlier post. However here it is again in showing you're completely wrong yet again. Wow, surprising as it may be.
.
Up until 1995 the Community Reinvestment Act was largely a requirement to support "community groups" in poor neighborhoods. ... But after 1995 the scope of the law was dramatically increased.
Over the strenuous objections of the banks themselves and some Republicans in Congress, CRA was renewed and modified in such a way that it gave far more power to the federal government to punish banks for not lending more widely in poor neighborhoods. The classic "fair housing" laws from the Martin Luther King Jr. era of civil rights were deemed insufficient. ... Subprime loans to minority applicants exploded ten fold in the mid-1990s as a result. ..]
Under New Deal-era regulatory rules of Glass-Steagall, commercial banks and investment banks were separated. When that act was repealed as part of banking deregulation in 1999, commercial banks and investment banks were able to merge, subject to approval by regulators.
However, the banks' CRA rating was taken into account in the decision. This meant that a high CRA rating became an important prerequisite for mergers, which increased the pressure on the banks to make these risky loans. The banks also were given permission to put these loans into packages of securities that could then be sold into investment markets.
Economist's View: Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...
This below taken from an actual government document, identified by the GAO/GGD abbreviated attachment, outlining the changes:
Federal Reserve Board: Merger Process Needs Guidelines for Community Reinvestment Issues
( letter report 9/24/1999 GAO/GGD-99-180 )
In 1993, the Clinton Administration instructed the federal bank regulators to revise the CRA regulations by moving from a process- and paperwork-based system to a performance-based system focusing on results, especially the results in LMI areas of an institution's communities. Based on these instructions, the federal banking agencies replaced the qualitative CRA examination system with a more quantitative system that is based on actual performance.
( PAGE 4 )
After the performance-based CRA regulations were issued in 1995, FFIEC published Interagency Questions and Answers regarding Community Reinvestment in 1997 and 1999. The 1989 statement was withdrawn effective April 5, 1999, and replaced by the Interagency Questions and Answers regarding Community Reinvestment.13 The 1989 Statement, which was in effect during the mergers contained in our study, including guidance on the following issues: * the basic components of an effective CRA policy, * the role of examination reports on CRA performance in reviewing applications, * the need for periodic review and documentation by financial institutions of their CRA performance, and * the role of commitments in assessing and institution's performance. Most notably, the regulators concluded in the Statement that the CRA record of the institution, as reflected in its examination reports, would be given great weight in the application process. In the Interagency Questions and Answers for 1999, the regulators continued to stress the significants of the CRA examination in the application process, and they stated the examination is an important, and often controlling, factor in the consideration of an institution's record. 14 According to the 1989 Statement, the CRA examination is not conclusive evidence in the face of significant and supported allegations from a commenter. Moreover, the balance may be shifted further when the examination is not recent or the particular issue raised in the 13 Questions and Answers regarding Community Reinvestment, 64 Fed. Reg. 23618-23648 (1999). 14 64 Fed. Reg. at 23641. GAO/GGD-99-180
(Page 9)
Guidelines for Community of Reinvestment Issues B-280468 application preceding was not addressed in the examination. During the development of the performance-based CRA regulations, a number of commenters expressed concern that the regulators may provide a "safe harbor" to depository institutions from challenges to their CRA performance record in the application process if they achieved an outstanding CRA rating. However, in the preamble of the 1995 final rule on the CRA regulations, the regulators reconfirmed the importance of the public comments in the applications process by acknowledging that materials related to CRA performance received during the applications process can and do provide relevant and valuable information.
Federal Reserve Board: Merger Process Needs Guidelines for
"It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. Now, I'm not saying I'm sure that was terrible policy, because a lot of those people who got homes still have them and they wouldn't have gotten them without that."
"But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it's one target, it's easy to blame them and congress certainly isn't going to blame themselves. At the same time, Congress is trying to pressure banks to loosen their lending standards to make more loans. This is exactly the same speech they criticized them for."
Bloomberg: 'Plain and simple,' Congress caused the mortgage crisis, not the banks | Capital New York
CUPCAKE YOUR FIRST LINK
Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...
Another attempt to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for the subprime crisis. Don't believe a word of it:
Economist's View: Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...
AS FOR BLOOMBERGS BS, A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST WAS CONGRESS'S FAULT BUTTERCUP??? LOL
Let’s just be clear about what the CRA does and doesn’t do. It simply says that if you open a branch office in a low income neighborhood and collect deposits there, you are obligated to do a certain amount of lending in that neighborhood. In other words, you can’t open a branch office in Harlem and use deposits from there to only fund loans in high-end Tribeca. A bank must make credit available on the same terms in both neighborhoods. In other words, a “red line” can’t be drawn around Harlem, a term that dates to when banks supposedly used colored pencils to draw no-loan zones on maps.
Showing that the CRA wasn’t the cause of the financial crisis is rather easy. As Warren Buffett pal Charlie Munger says, “Invert, always invert.” In this case, let’s assume Moore and Kudlow are correct, and the CRA did require banks to lend to unqualified, low-income buyers. What would that world have looked like?
Here’s what we should have seen:
Yet none of these things happened. And they should have, if the CRA was at fault. It’s no surprise that in congressional testimony, various experts were asked about the CRA -- from former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair to the Federal Reserve’s director of Consumer and Community Affairs -- and none blamed the crisis on the CRA.
- Home sales and prices in urban, minority communities would have led the national home market higher, with gains in percentage terms surpassing national figures;
- CRA mandated loans would have defaulted at higher rates;
- Foreclosures in these distressed urban CRA neighborhoods should have far outpaced those in the suburbs;
- Local lenders making these mortgages should have failed at much higher rates;
- Portfolios of banks participating in the Troubled Asset Relief Program should have been filled with securities made up of toxic CRA loans;
- Investors looking to profit should have been buying up properties financed with defaulted CRA loans; and
- Congressional testimony of financial industry executives after the crisis should have spelled out how the CRA was a direct cause, with compelling evidence backing their claims.
If that isn’t enough to dismiss the claim, consider this: Where did mortgages, especially subprime mortgages, default in large numbers?
It wasn’t Harlem, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit or any other poor, largely minority urban area covered by the CRA. No, the crisis was worst in Florida, Arizona, Nevada and California. Indeed, the vast majority of the housing collapse took place in the suburbs and exurbs, not the inner cities.
Now consider that much of the rest of the developed world also had a boom and bust in residential real estate that was worse than in the U.S. Oh, right -- those countries didn’t have the CRA.
What's more, many of the lenders that made the subprime loans that contributed so much to the collapse were private non-bank lenders that weren’t covered by the CRA. Almost 400 of these went bankrupt soon after housing began to wobble.
I have called the CRA blame meme “the big lie” -- and with good reason. It’s an old trope, tinged with elements of dog-whistle politics, blaming low-income residents in the inner cities regardless of what the data show.
Lending to Poor People Didn't Cause the Financial Crisis
BANKSTERS DROPPED ALL UNDERWRITING STANDARDS CUPCAKE, YOU KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE? HINT GOV'T BACKED LOANS REQUIRED THEM
Did you miss the government document siting the lowering of banks standards as a condition for bank mergers in allowing for more homeowners that previously failed through basic credit checks to be approved. Nothing you've stated had been able to discredit a government document source I provided which outlied the standards banks are to follow and used those standards as weight into bank mergers. You can keep challenging if you like, I've done the research with plenty more that I can provide. Trust me ... from what I've seen, you don't have enough knowledge on the subject. Keep your conspiracy theories, fruitcake, and let me know when you are old enough to have an honest discussion. You see, anyone who knows anything about the housing market KNOWS these changes that took effect happened well before the Bush Administration.
