Why I dont want the govt to send checks to americans

[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.

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".

Wow. You don't believe air travel is interstate commerce?

Holy shit!

 

[DOTR]

Watch these morons use "general welfare"

Very good, you've got to the Preamble.

Now show us where the actual document prohibits it.

The fed gov is given a set of enumerated powers, then states everything else is left to the states. THATS where it "prohibits" it

The founders set it up that way. They knew tax redistribution would destroy the country. But sadly the 16th amendment undid their work. Hey at least at that point the US still used amendments rather than courts to change the law.

 

[Pogo]

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".

Wow. You don't believe air travel is interstate commerce?

Holy shit!

NO. Not every plane in the air is engaging in commerce. Just as not every broadcaster in the airwaves isn't. The FAA, in this example, isn't concerned with what commerce that plane may or may not be engaged in. It's concerned with air safety.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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".

It is BOTH.

.

 

[g5000]

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".

Wow. You don't believe air travel is interstate commerce?

Holy shit!

NO. Not every plane in the air is engaging in commerce. Just as not every broadcaster in the airwaves isn't. The FAA, in this example, isn't concerned with what commerce that plane may or may not be engaged in. It's concerned with air safety.

Air travel is the movement of people and freight in exchange for payment. That is commerce, full stop.

The FAA is the means by which that commerce is regulated.

I can't dumb this down any more than that for you.

 

[Pogo]

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".

It is BOTH.

Fine. Show us the FAA regulations on how much money you can make with a plane.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

NO. Not every plane in the air is engaging in commerce. Just as not every broadcaster in the airwaves isn't. The FAA, in this example, isn't concerned with what commerce that plane may or may not be engaged in. It's concerned with air safety.

Wow. There may be hope for you yet.

Is growing food for your own consumption "interstate commerce" in your opinion? (warning: this is a huge fucking trap)

.

 

[candycorn]

Most of it is going to businesses.

Hopefully the blob will attach some strings so it’s not used for bonuses

 

[Pogo]

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".

Wow. You don't believe air travel is interstate commerce?

Holy shit!

NO. Not every plane in the air is engaging in commerce. Just as not every broadcaster in the airwaves isn't. The FAA, in this example, isn't concerned with what commerce that plane may or may not be engaged in. It's concerned with air safety.

Air travel is the movement of people and freight in exchange for payment. That is commerce, full stop.

The FAA is the means by which that commerce is regulated.

I can't dumb this down any more than that for you.

I know it's hard to fathom in a land that worships money as a religion but NOT EVERYTHING IS COMMERCE, full stop.

The coordination of planes in the air has ZERO to do with how much money this one makes versus that one. It has everything to do with the consequences if this one runs into that one or bursts into flames in the air.

I don't see what the point is in continuing to state the obvious here. The OP claimed something was 'unconstitutional' and he can't back it up. That's all there is to it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Fine. Show us the FAA regulations on how much money you can make with a plane.

Again, I can answer that question with another question to illustrate the point.

Do you think growing food in your own back yard for your own consumption is "interstate commerce"? (trap question)

.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Most of it is going to businesses.

View attachment 313206

Hopefully the blob will attach some strings so it’s not used for bonuses

who is the blob?....

 

[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.

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".

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Again:

Is growing food in your own backyard for your own consumption "interstate commerce" which the Federal Government can regulate?

.

 

[g5000]

NO. Not every plane in the air is engaging in commerce. Just as not every broadcaster in the airwaves isn't. The FAA, in this example, isn't concerned with what commerce that plane may or may not be engaged in. It's concerned with air safety.

Wow. There may be hope for you yet.

Is growing food for your own consumption "interstate commerce" in your opinion? (warning: this is a huge fucking trap)

.

Heh. I know where you are going with this.

"Don't bogart that joint!"

 

[bendog]

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.

I was essentially agreeing with you.

 

[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.

I was essentially agreeing with you.

I know im not arguing. Just thinking out loud. But the question arises..if Americans couldn't prepare during boom times..then when can they?

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

How is this "unconstitutional?"

 

[OnePercenter]

I don't see any need for it either.

Then sign yours over to a food bank.

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

The Gov. handing out free money to everyone whether they need it or not? What could possibly go wrong?

Like spending it in the economy? How can that go wrong?

 

[justoffal]

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.

If they want to do something that will make an impact have them cancel all mortgage payments for April 2020 and forbid the collecting of rent for that month also.

JO