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.
Creating a net -670,000 private sector jobs over an eight year period, leaving office with 780K jobs per month and 7% of GDP per year being lost is the "second best economy post war"?
Try looking at the years BEFORE the Democrats took control of Congress.
What to cut? I say we start with defense spending. Next?
That would be the only thing to be cut that would actually make a dent.... which is why the pretend rabbi troll and his ilk are so disingenuous....
it's the same old 'let's starve government til you can drown it in a bathtub' garbage that it's always been for the reactionary right.
It's always funny to hear someone who didn't even bother to look at the OP's links accuse the OP of being "reactionary", as though you didn't just kick in with kneejerk talking points.
Defense spending is the only thing to cut that would make a dent? Really? The Department of Health and Human Services encompasses about 1/4 of total federal spending, but you don't think cutting waste and dead weight there would "make a dent"? Puhleeze.
A lot of State budgets are stressed due to Federal mandates and programs such as Medicade.
Unfunded mandates, a really good reason to gen up support for nullification.
Not to mention we have more than just the constitution to go on. We have multiple writings by the founders from Before and after the constitution.
A lot of State budgets are stressed due to Federal mandates and programs such as Medicade.
Unfunded mandates, a really good reason to gen up support for nullification.
Medicaid is neither unfunded nor a mandate.
Not to mention we have more than just the constitution to go on. We have multiple writings by the founders from Before and after the constitution.
We also have their actions when actually governing to consider. For some reason those don't seem to get as much attention, e.g. Washington federalizing the militia to put down an anti-tax uprising, Washington and Madison chartering a national bank, and Jefferson, oh, Jefferson.
Medicaid is neither unfunded nor a mandate.
I think it's high time that an amendment is created outlining the EXACT specifics of what is covered under "general welfare". And "regulating commerce" for that matter.
Everyone comes to an agreement on it, and it's set in stone. Whatever isn't listed, is not authorized.
Both sides will have to give a little, but in the end it will save a ton of money because there is obviously way too much money being spent in the name of that vague ass phrase.
It should not take an amendment. The founders were very clear in their writings. The words General welfare in the preamble do NOT give the government ANY power not listed elsewhere in the ACTUAL body of the document.
This still assumes that when they said "general welfare" they were specifically talking about only those things mentioned next. That is simply an interpretation of what is written, and nothing more.
And general welfare is not just mentioned in the preamble. This was already covered.
Had they not said something as vague as "general welfare", I would agree, because then we only have those very specific things mentioned in section 8 to go on.
They mentioned general welfare in the most vague way possible.
Power corrupts absolutely. I am more interested in what they said before they had power, than what they did when they had it.
So are you saying that the new Mandates on states to expand coverage are not unfunded mandates?
In real life, I don't associate with people so stupid, rude, and hubristic as to think they can put words in my mouth and then take me to task for them. In all facets of my life, I am as pleasurable to know as your behavior deserves for me to be. Think on that.
Once again, if you have a question to ask me, then ASK it. Don't tell me what you think my answer to it is. Courtesy is given to those who earn it.
I just said "tell me you don't think the CIA, NSA ..... are constitutional"
That's the same fucking thing as asking you if you think they are.
Let's see how small government you really are.
No, it ISN'T the "same fucking thing". I can see why you think you need an Amendment to explain the grammar of the Constitution to you. Clearly, English is not your forte.
Telling me what to say is not the same thing as asking me what I think. Just that one sentence should explain the difference to anyone who understands elementary-school vocabulary.
Let's see how English proficient you are, when you attempt once again to REQUEST my opinion from me, rather than TELLING me what it is, TELLING me what it should be, or demanding that I demonstrate anything to you, as though I owe you something.
Your mother ever tell you you'll catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar? Because I can tell you now, acting as though I'm obligated to justify myself to you is the surest way to get nothing from me but ignored as a troll.
Call it whatever you want but it looks like it is still causing deficitsA lot of State budgets are stressed due to Federal mandates and programs such as Medicade.
Unfunded mandates, a really good reason to gen up support for nullification.
Medicaid is neither unfunded nor a mandate.
Not to mention we have more than just the constitution to go on. We have multiple writings by the founders from Before and after the constitution.
We also have their actions when actually governing to consider. For some reason those don't seem to get as much attention, e.g. Washington federalizing the militia to put down an anti-tax uprising, Washington and Madison chartering a national bank, and Jefferson, oh, Jefferson.
You know, in those days the schism was between Hamilton's Federalists and Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists, like Hamilton himself, embraced a fairly broad interpretation of the general welfare clause. The Democratic-Republicans took a more strict constructionist view. Indeed, the Jefferson quote in your sig is a paraphrase of Jefferson's description (in a letter to to Albert Gallatin) of this philosophical difference between the two parties.
Five years after writing that letter, now President, Jefferson was put in the odd position of spending a large sum of money in pursuit of an action not unambiguously authorized by the Constitution. The Federalists, their power dwindling at this point, argued against the Louisiana Purchase on constitutional grounds (such naked opportunism!). What did Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans present as a counterargument to justify their purchase? Why, the general welfare clause! Here's a leading Democratic-Republican in the House, Caesar Rodney, making the case:
A recurrence to the Constitution will show that it is predicated on the principle of the United States acquiring territory, either by war, treaty, or purchase. There was one part of that instrument within whose capricious grasp all these modes of acquisition were embraced. By the Constitution Congress have power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." To provide for the general welfare! The import of these terms is very comprehensive indeed. If this general delegation of authority be not at variance with other particular powers specially granted, nor restricted by them; if it be not in any degree comprehended in those subsequently delegated, I cannot perceive why, within the fair meaning of this general provision is not include the power of increasing our territory, if necessary for the general welfare or common defence.
Four years later that fine soldier for the party became Jefferson's attorney general. He retained the post for most of Madison's first term.
Politics wasn't invented after the founding generation died. Nor was selective (and sometimes internally inconsistent) interpretation of the Constitution's vague language. Welcome to America.
Power corrupts absolutely. I am more interested in what they said before they had power, than what they did when they had it.
We're all selective, aren't we?
So are you saying that the new Mandates on states to expand coverage are not unfunded mandates?
No state is required to participate in Medicaid. Arizona didn't set up its Medicaid program until 1982, 17 years after the program was authorized by law.
As for whether the Medicaid expansions are funded, they're entirely funded by the feds for two years, after which states get a 90%+ match rate for new eligibles. On what planet is a program in which someone else is paying more than 90 cents of every dollar of your costs "unfunded"?
thats been done and in the act of being done, it woulds help if you kept up.What to cut? I say we start with defense spending. Next?
What to cut? I say we start with defense spending. Next?
That would be the only thing to be cut that would actually make a dent.... which is why the pretend rabbi troll and his ilk are so disingenuous....
it's the same old 'let's starve government til you can drown it in a bathtub' garbage that it's always been for the reactionary right.
Bringing home some soldiers from a war we never should have started in the first place does not constitute "cutting defense".What to cut? I say we start with defense spending. Next?
That would be the only thing to be cut that would actually make a dent.... which is why the pretend rabbi troll and his ilk are so disingenuous....
it's the same old 'let's starve government til you can drown it in a bathtub' garbage that it's always been for the reactionary right.
thats been done and in the act of being done..........
Next?
What to cut? I say we start with defense spending. Next?
The department of Education. Next?
i know that's not something the rightwingnuts make much use of... but some of us think it's important.
what percentage of the federal budget is the department of education?
now what percentage of the federal budget are military expenditures?
He won't and you know it. Notice how he has to carefully word his sentence in order to appear correct. Except that his lies fell out from under him From the time that Bush had a congress that was controlled by the GOP until the time the Democrat party took control of the congress, there was significant gains in employment and the unemployed numbers remained pretty stable around 4%.Creating a net -670,000 private sector jobs over an eight year period, leaving office with 780K jobs per month and 7% of GDP per year being lost is the "second best economy post war"?
Try looking at the years BEFORE the Democrats took control of Congress.
He won't and you know it. Notice how he has to carefully word his sentence in order to appear correct. Except that his lies fell out from under him From the time that Bush had a congress that was controlled by the GOP until the time the Democrat party took control of the congress, there was significant gains in employment and the unemployed numbers remained pretty stable around 4%.Creating a net -670,000 private sector jobs over an eight year period, leaving office with 780K jobs per month and 7% of GDP per year being lost is the "second best economy post war"?
Try looking at the years BEFORE the Democrats took control of Congress.
The down slide in the economy began soon after Democrats took control of the government purse. The job losses (I know they blame it on Bush, but really, who the fuck cares what they thing anyway?) are wholly the Democrats fault.
On top of that, they had a candidate who ran saying he knew how to fix the economy and he'd have it fixed right away. Nearly two years later, it still isn't fixed. Incompetence in all facets of their economic philosophy and they want to blame job losses on Bush? Too funny if you think about it.
What to cut? I say we start with defense spending. Next?
That would be the only thing to be cut that would actually make a dent.... which is why the pretend rabbi troll and his ilk are so disingenuous....
it's the same old 'let's starve government til you can drown it in a bathtub' garbage that it's always been for the reactionary right.
It's always funny to hear someone who didn't even bother to look at the OP's links accuse the OP of being "reactionary", as though you didn't just kick in with kneejerk talking points.
Defense spending is the only thing to cut that would make a dent? Really? The Department of Health and Human Services encompasses about 1/4 of total federal spending, but you don't think cutting waste and dead weight there would "make a dent"? Puhleeze.
[ the only one there was then.
[
Nice try, but no. Deliberately trying to conflate and confuse community aid to the poor with government subsidies to the poor is just dishonest. And that IS what England had: community aid. The welfare of the vulnerable in the late 18th and early 19th centuries: Gilbert's Act of 1782, by Samantha Shave
What to cut? I say we start with defense spending. Next?
That would be the only thing to be cut that would actually make a dent.... which is why the pretend rabbi troll and his ilk are so disingenuous....
it's the same old 'let's starve government til you can drown it in a bathtub' garbage that it's always been for the reactionary right.
He won't and you know it.Creating a net -670,000 private sector jobs over an eight year period, leaving office with 780K jobs per month and 7% of GDP per year being lost is the "second best economy post war"?
Try looking at the years BEFORE the Democrats took control of Congress.
Notice how he has to carefully word his sentence in order to appear correct. Except that his lies fell out from under him From the time that Bush had a congress that was controlled by the GOP until the time the Democrat party took control of the congress, there was significant gains in employment and the unemployed numbers remained pretty stable around 4%.
The down slide in the economy began soon after Democrats took control of the government purse. The job losses (I know they blame it on Bush, but really, who the fuck cares what they thing anyway?) are wholly the Democrats fault.
What to cut? I say we start with defense spending. Next?
That would be the only thing to be cut that would actually make a dent.... which is why the pretend rabbi troll and his ilk are so disingenuous....
it's the same old 'let's starve government til you can drown it in a bathtub' garbage that it's always been for the reactionary right.
Everything needs to be cut straight across the board. What do you think about 20% from off the top of EVERYTHING.
