Why I dont want the govt to send checks to americans

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

9th and 10th Amendments

Everybody can suck it.



.

Why?

You seem to be the one sucking it.

Those two Amendments tell you why you can't just hand out checks to people.

If we can clear the courts of commies who want that result, proper interpretation should govern and the power would go back to the states.

.

 

[DOTR]

Not only is it unconstitutional, it will normalize the freakazoid far left's policies.
People are against it now but start having the govt hand out "free" money to these imbeciles and their politics will change.
"Hey man, this aint so bad. Lets vote for these extreme leftists and get more free shit"
A perfect example is democrats and the welfare system. The "new plantation" as some call it.
Dependence on the federal govt is regressive and flat out stupid.
The "progressives" want to take us back to the 13th century england. A crisis is a perfect way to do it!
Now that you read this, go back to the medias fear mongering.
Good day.

Gerald Ford was a leftist. (-:

But seriously, just giving people money may not really increase consumption, and that is the aim. We're looking at possibly best case 30-40% unemployment if we "shelter in place." I'm better placed to weather this job wise than most, but if I get a thousand bucks, I'm saving it because my wife's car has 200plusK and we'll need a new computer in it soon. I've already spent a chunk of cash on my kid's education, and am still spending. So I'm not even close to rolling in dough. But the people who will really spend any stimulus immediately are the soon to be unemployed. To the extent we can, we need to make up their pay checks, and make it possible for the small biz owners who will have to close up to have the ability to reopen 3-6 mos down the line.

I lived through it. Hurrican Rita. I personally tried to get into Wal-Mart in Galveston Texas after the first checks went out and there were big screen TV cartons strewn abut the parking lot as they loaded them into buggies and pushed them down the road jabbering and grinning.

The checks go to people who have proven to be incompetent with money already. But I guess thats the point. Its really a handout to corporations via people who have no sense of delayed gratification. If these checks go out again it will be the same...cellphones and TVs.

Well, it just seems to me that the people who made and served the Caesar salad I had two weeks ago, and the people at my favorite hamburger dive, are not going to have jobs shortly, and they will miss their rent and have food insecurity. They have a need that is not because they can't manage money or don't work. And, the whole point of having safety net programs, and even soc sec to an extent, is to make sure that we continue to have consumer demand during recessions so that the entire economy doesn't crash.

I think Gerald Ford had good intentions, and so does Mitt Romney, but you're right that just giving every 1K will not keep the laid off workers above water and basically have people buy …. shit.

No it wont. The hope is it will end up in the hands of corporations quickly.

 

[Pogo]

Not only is it unconstitutional, it will normalize the freakazoid far left's policies.
People are against it now but start having the govt hand out "free" money to these imbeciles and their politics will change.
"Hey man, this aint so bad. Lets vote for these extreme leftists and get more free shit"
A perfect example is democrats and the welfare system. The "new plantation" as some call it.
Dependence on the federal govt is regressive and flat out stupid.
The "progressives" want to take us back to the 13th century england. A crisis is a perfect way to do it!
Now that you read this, go back to the medias fear mongering.
Good day.

Not seeing how it's unconstitutional.

Please point to that enumerated power in the constitution then.
I'll wait.

BAM, there it is. Right into his own trap.

You see young'un, the Constitution doesn't spell out what the government can do. It spells out what the government CAN'T do.

No, it's the opposite.

Actually, the Constitution enumerates powers. Any powers not enumerated are reserved for the states. It says that quite plainly.

If that's true, then only the states can regulate, say, the internet, the airwaves or the airways. Let alone the CDC/FDA and so forth.

That's not how it works, is it. The COTUS says nothing about regulating the airwaves or drugs or the flight paths. Which is kind of remarkable considering how they took over the airports before they wrote that document --- you'd think they would have thought of that.

 

[TNHarley]

And the Treasury just submitted a proposal for 1k dollars to 200m americans and do it it again in May smh

 

[Pogo]

9th and 10th Amendments

Everybody can suck it.



.

Why?

You seem to be the one sucking it.

Those two Amendments tell you why you can't just hand out checks to people.

If we can clear the courts of commies who want that result, proper interpretation should govern and the power would go back to the states.

Oh they do huh.

WHO has the authority to allocate the government's money? Who?

 

[g5000]

Not only is it unconstitutional, it will normalize the freakazoid far left's policies.
People are against it now but start having the govt hand out "free" money to these imbeciles and their politics will change.
"Hey man, this aint so bad. Lets vote for these extreme leftists and get more free shit"
A perfect example is democrats and the welfare system. The "new plantation" as some call it.
Dependence on the federal govt is regressive and flat out stupid.
The "progressives" want to take us back to the 13th century england. A crisis is a perfect way to do it!
Now that you read this, go back to the medias fear mongering.
Good day.

Not seeing how it's unconstitutional.

Please point to that enumerated power in the constitution then.
I'll wait.

BAM, there it is. Right into his own trap.

You see young'un, the Constitution doesn't spell out what the government can do. It spells out what the government CAN'T do.

No, it's the opposite.

Actually, the Constitution enumerates powers. Any powers not enumerated are reserved for the states. It says that quite plainly.

If that's true, then only the states can regulate, say, the internet, the airwaves or the airways. Let alone the CDC/FDA and so forth.

That's not how it works, is it. The COTUS says nothing about regulating the airwaves or drugs or the flight paths. Which is kind of remarkable considering how they took over the airports before they wrote that document --- you'd think they would have thought of that.

Sorry, but regulation of interstate commerce is an enumerated power.

See Article 1, Section 8.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

 

[DrLove]

Not only is it unconstitutional, it will normalize the freakazoid far left's policies.
People are against it now but start having the govt hand out "free" money to these imbeciles and their politics will change.
"Hey man, this aint so bad. Lets vote for these extreme leftists and get more free shit"
A perfect example is democrats and the welfare system. The "new plantation" as some call it.
Dependence on the federal govt is regressive and flat out stupid.
The "progressives" want to take us back to the 13th century england. A crisis is a perfect way to do it!
Now that you read this, go back to the medias fear mongering.
Good day.

Don't worry about it too much TN. Looks like Aqua Buddha is cock-blocking (as is his habit).

Senate coronavirus vote delayed after Rand Paul pushes doomed amendment

 

[DOTR]

Well, it just seems to me that the people who made and served the Caesar salad I had two weeks ago, and the people at my favorite hamburger dive, are not going to have jobs shortly, and they will miss their rent and have food insecurity. They have a need that is not because they can't manage money or don't work. And, the whole point of having safety net programs, and even soc sec to an extent, is to make sure that we continue to have consumer demand during recessions so that the entire economy doesn't crash.

I think Gerald Ford had good intentions, and so does Mitt Romney, but you're right that just giving every 1K will not keep the laid off workers above water and basically have people buy …. shit.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Im not opposed to help but lets look at what should be done. Kids should still be taught that bad times come and savings is important. They should not be taught that they can rob their fellow citizens when they are out of work. Thats morally corrosive. We are living in boom times..or were. If that isnt enough to be prepared then lets look at what is wrong. If 50 years of a "war on poverty" resulted in yet an even greater percentage on the government dole then it should be addressed and let the Democrats riot in the streets while we address it.

Someone has a thread on here "back to the 1950's". Thats not a bad idea. The destruction of the family is what has led to this large scale barbarism and desperate dependency.

 

[TNHarley]

Not only is it unconstitutional, it will normalize the freakazoid far left's policies.
People are against it now but start having the govt hand out "free" money to these imbeciles and their politics will change.
"Hey man, this aint so bad. Lets vote for these extreme leftists and get more free shit"
A perfect example is democrats and the welfare system. The "new plantation" as some call it.
Dependence on the federal govt is regressive and flat out stupid.
The "progressives" want to take us back to the 13th century england. A crisis is a perfect way to do it!
Now that you read this, go back to the medias fear mongering.
Good day.

Not seeing how it's unconstitutional.

Please point to that enumerated power in the constitution then.
I'll wait.

BAM, there it is. Right into his own trap.

You see young'un, the Constitution doesn't spell out what the government can do. It spells out what the government CAN'T do.

No, it's the opposite.

Actually, the Constitution enumerates powers. Any powers not enumerated are reserved for the states. It says that quite plainly.

If that's true, then only the states can regulate, say, the internet, the airwaves or the airways. Let alone the CDC/FDA and so forth.

That's not how it works, is it. The COTUS says nothing about regulating the airwaves or drugs or the flight paths. Which is kind of remarkable considering how they took over the airports before they wrote that document --- you'd think they would have thought of that.

It lists enumerated powers. If it doesnt mention it, then its left to the states.
Good gawd, read the damn thing.

 

[TNHarley]

Not only is it unconstitutional, it will normalize the freakazoid far left's policies.
People are against it now but start having the govt hand out "free" money to these imbeciles and their politics will change.
"Hey man, this aint so bad. Lets vote for these extreme leftists and get more free shit"
A perfect example is democrats and the welfare system. The "new plantation" as some call it.
Dependence on the federal govt is regressive and flat out stupid.
The "progressives" want to take us back to the 13th century england. A crisis is a perfect way to do it!
Now that you read this, go back to the medias fear mongering.
Good day.

Don't worry about it too much TN. Looks like Aqua Buddha is cock-blocking (as is his habit).

Senate coronavirus vote delayed after Rand Paul pushes doomed amendment

Yea god forbid they discuss how to pay for it lol
"Trump let people keep more of their money with no way to pay for it wwwwaaaahhhhhh"

 

[Mr Natural]

I'll take every penny the government is willing to send me.

 

[danielpalos]

Not only is it unconstitutional, it will normalize the freakazoid far left's policies.

Lets cut taxes and spending 25% and normalize that

Sure. Let's abolish the discretionary spending of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[Pogo]

Not seeing how it's unconstitutional.

Please point to that enumerated power in the constitution then.
I'll wait.

BAM, there it is. Right into his own trap.

You see young'un, the Constitution doesn't spell out what the government can do. It spells out what the government CAN'T do.

No, it's the opposite.

Actually, the Constitution enumerates powers. Any powers not enumerated are reserved for the states. It says that quite plainly.

If that's true, then only the states can regulate, say, the internet, the airwaves or the airways. Let alone the CDC/FDA and so forth.

That's not how it works, is it. The COTUS says nothing about regulating the airwaves or drugs or the flight paths. Which is kind of remarkable considering how they took over the airports before they wrote that document --- you'd think they would have thought of that.

It lists enumerated powers. If it doesnt mention it, then its left to the states.
Good gawd, read the damn thing.

So the states are running the FAA?
The states are running the FCC?
The states are running the FDA?

Because I'm not seeing a word about flying, broadcasting or drugs in the COTUS.

 

[DOTR]

Not only is it unconstitutional, it will normalize the freakazoid far left's policies.
People are against it now but start having the govt hand out "free" money to these imbeciles and their politics will change.
"Hey man, this aint so bad. Lets vote for these extreme leftists and get more free shit"
A perfect example is democrats and the welfare system. The "new plantation" as some call it.
Dependence on the federal govt is regressive and flat out stupid.
The "progressives" want to take us back to the 13th century england. A crisis is a perfect way to do it!
Now that you read this, go back to the medias fear mongering.
Good day.

Gerald Ford was a leftist. (-:

But seriously, just giving people money may not really increase consumption, and that is the aim. We're looking at possibly best case 30-40% unemployment if we "shelter in place." I'm better placed to weather this job wise than most, but if I get a thousand bucks, I'm saving it because my wife's car has 200plusK and we'll need a new computer in it soon. I've already spent a chunk of cash on my kid's education, and am still spending. So I'm not even close to rolling in dough. But the people who will really spend any stimulus immediately are the soon to be unemployed. To the extent we can, we need to make up their pay checks, and make it possible for the small biz owners who will have to close up to have the ability to reopen 3-6 mos down the line.

I lived through it. Hurrican Rita. I personally tried to get into Wal-Mart in Galveston Texas after the first checks went out and there were big screen TV cartons strewn abut the parking lot as they loaded them into buggies and pushed them down the road jabbering and grinning.

The checks go to people who have proven to be incompetent with money already. But I guess thats the point. Its really a handout to corporations via people who have no sense of delayed gratification. If these checks go out again it will be the same...cellphones and TVs.

Well, it just seems to me that the people who made and served the Caesar salad I had two weeks ago, and the people at my favorite hamburger dive, are not going to have jobs shortly, and they will miss their rent and have food insecurity. They have a need that is not because they can't manage money or don't work. And, the whole point of having safety net programs, and even soc sec to an extent, is to make sure that we continue to have consumer demand during recessions so that the entire economy doesn't crash.

I think Gerald Ford had good intentions, and so does Mitt Romney, but you're right that just giving every 1K will not keep the laid off workers above water and basically have people buy …. shit.

What's with the references to Gerald Ford?

Oh he tried something similar in the 70s. He gave each taxpayer a $200 rebate.

Tax Reduction Act of 1975 - Wikipedia

And I distinctly recall my father and I both put ours in savings. I was working construction, but was shortly after laid off when the housing market failed. So I used the money to go back to college. It was great, but I was indictive of why Ford's program did not jump start the economy with consumer demand. People weren't spending anymore than they had to because we feared losing jobs. Give the money to people who already lost the jobs.

That was smart of you. But a different era. Trumps first instinct was to give a tax holiday to help working people. The Democrats said it isnt fair that people who dont pay taxes wont get a cut in that case. As if they arent already freeloading.

Im not sure you can "jump start" an economy. I think its best left alone. The money poured into jump starting under Obama is why he presided over the slowest and most anemic recovery in history.

The media wants the stock market back up and they will do anything to get that. I think it should be allowed to run its course and find its own level.

 

[TNHarley]

Please point to that enumerated power in the constitution then.
I'll wait.

BAM, there it is. Right into his own trap.

You see young'un, the Constitution doesn't spell out what the government can do. It spells out what the government CAN'T do.

No, it's the opposite.

Actually, the Constitution enumerates powers. Any powers not enumerated are reserved for the states. It says that quite plainly.

If that's true, then only the states can regulate, say, the internet, the airwaves or the airways. Let alone the CDC/FDA and so forth.

That's not how it works, is it. The COTUS says nothing about regulating the airwaves or drugs or the flight paths. Which is kind of remarkable considering how they took over the airports before they wrote that document --- you'd think they would have thought of that.

It lists enumerated powers. If it doesnt mention it, then its left to the states.
Good gawd, read the damn thing.

So the states are running the FAA?

Omfg

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Oh they do huh.

WHO has the authority to allocate the government's money? Who?

It's not a question of "who" but one of "what." For what purpose may our federal government collect taxes and spend. I will fully admit that it is a broad power.

But, then you must read what I posted in Post #45:

James Madison, Federalist 41:
"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."

Thomas Jefferson:
“The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”



I will wait for your reasoned response.

.

 

[g5000]

Please point to that enumerated power in the constitution then.
I'll wait.

BAM, there it is. Right into his own trap.

You see young'un, the Constitution doesn't spell out what the government can do. It spells out what the government CAN'T do.

No, it's the opposite.

Actually, the Constitution enumerates powers. Any powers not enumerated are reserved for the states. It says that quite plainly.

If that's true, then only the states can regulate, say, the internet, the airwaves or the airways. Let alone the CDC/FDA and so forth.

That's not how it works, is it. The COTUS says nothing about regulating the airwaves or drugs or the flight paths. Which is kind of remarkable considering how they took over the airports before they wrote that document --- you'd think they would have thought of that.

It lists enumerated powers. If it doesnt mention it, then its left to the states.
Good gawd, read the damn thing.

So the states are running the FAA?

Dude, your comprehension totally sucks today.

The federal government is given the power to regulate air travel via the FAA through the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Air travel is commerce among the several states! Therefore, the federal government is empowered to regulate air travel via the FAA.

 

[DOTR]

I will never take anyone whining about "free shit" seriously until I hear them calling for an end to tax expenditures which overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy and tilt the playing field in their favor.

That's over a trillion dollars a year in "free shit".

I am sick and tired of fucking assholes who blame the poor for our problems and deficits.

The problem is SPENDING, not revenue. 50% of the people pay ZERO taxes and another 35% actually profit from taxes (Earned Income Credit etc). When everyone is taxed, you can bitch. Until then, STFU.

Why not rid us all of the progressive commie tax system and go to a flat fucking tax or a national sales tax?

I bet your goose-stepping commie ass hates that idea, don't you.

.

Atlas Shrugged.

 

[Pogo]

Not seeing how it's unconstitutional.

Please point to that enumerated power in the constitution then.
I'll wait.

BAM, there it is. Right into his own trap.

You see young'un, the Constitution doesn't spell out what the government can do. It spells out what the government CAN'T do.

No, it's the opposite.

Actually, the Constitution enumerates powers. Any powers not enumerated are reserved for the states. It says that quite plainly.

If that's true, then only the states can regulate, say, the internet, the airwaves or the airways. Let alone the CDC/FDA and so forth.

That's not how it works, is it. The COTUS says nothing about regulating the airwaves or drugs or the flight paths. Which is kind of remarkable considering how they took over the airports before they wrote that document --- you'd think they would have thought of that.

Sorry, but regulation of interstate commerce is an enumerated power.

See Article 1, Section 8.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Seems to confirm my point, but regulating air traffic, or airways traffic, isn't "commerce" anyway. It's security. Keeping planes from flying into each other cannot be defined as "commerce".

 

[DrLove]

Not only is it unconstitutional, it will normalize the freakazoid far left's policies.
People are against it now but start having the govt hand out "free" money to these imbeciles and their politics will change.
"Hey man, this aint so bad. Lets vote for these extreme leftists and get more free shit"
A perfect example is democrats and the welfare system. The "new plantation" as some call it.
Dependence on the federal govt is regressive and flat out stupid.
The "progressives" want to take us back to the 13th century england. A crisis is a perfect way to do it!
Now that you read this, go back to the medias fear mongering.
Good day.

Don't worry about it too much TN. Looks like Aqua Buddha is cock-blocking (as is his habit).

Senate coronavirus vote delayed after Rand Paul pushes doomed amendment

Yea god forbid they discuss how to pay for it lol
"Trump let people keep more of their money with no way to pay for it wwwwaaaahhhhhh"

Meh - Rand doesn't seem to be worried about how to pay for it - You may be thinking of the OLD Rand prior to when he voted for Donald's debt busting 1.5 trillion dollar tax credit for Paris Hilton.

These are just monkey wrenches. He's an attention-seeking DICK.

The sources said Paul is forcing a vote on his amendment, which would "require a social security number for purposes of the child tax credit, and to provide the President the authority to transfer funds as necessary, and to terminate United States military operations and reconstruction activities in Afghanistan."