Bush, Republicans destroyed economy

cygo
Science Freak
cygo's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2010-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Bush, Republicans destroyed economy

I am 71 years old, and have voted Republican more times than Democrat. But I believe the Bush administration is responsible for destroying our economy by getting our nation into a war with Iraq and giving tax cuts we could not afford to the rich. It took the Republican administration eight years to destroy our economy and neither President Obama nor any other president can get us out of this mess in 21 months. I believe Obama's policies are working, but it will take time. I also believe if the Republicans take control of Congress in November, it will be just a matter of time before we seniors see Social Security privatized or our benefits cut. Medicare would be next.

~ T.R. Hilleren

 

http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20100912/OPINION03/9120309

 


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

never said abolish the govt, i do say abolish the fed and restore the govt to constitutional principles

i dont think the govt should partner with companies either

well im not sure your example is a realistic one but you do have a choice, dont buy the product, prices only work if people are willing and able to pay them for a particular good/service, if people want to buy the product for that much then why not?  plus a huge profit margin like that will encourage expansion in that industry, more employment, more productivity, lower costs, and higher real wages

Ah abolish the government...............ok daydream over. 

Atomicdogg, you forgot the cardinal rule of liberal economics. Evil rich people never hire anyone with their profits, they collect all their gold and put it in a giant swimming pool and go around in circles counting it. They don't invest in new companies or fund new inventions. They don't build new stores to distribute their wares and they never donate any money to charity. (all those new Walmarts are a figment of your imagination) They don't build factories. Factories are built by the magic conveyor belt pixies. I'm still trying to figure out how rich people make more money. I've had a penny sitting on the floor for a week and it is still just a penny, I must not have the right magic. Maybe if I put a second penny next to it they will have babies. 

Everyone knows the only way to create jobs is for the government to spend money. That is why the trillion dollar stimulus has kept our unemployment rate below 5% and has saved exactly 6343675596824334513453.3 jobs. And obviously, if you don't have the money, just spend it anyway because spending money creates money. So if you are $20k in debt, spend $30k and you will be $10k richer. 

 

Well I think that is Keynesian economics in a nutshell. If anyone doubts me, read John Maynard Keynes.  My parody is frighteningly close to what Keynesians actually believe and the Keynesians have been controlling our economy for most of the last century.  

 

Laughing out loud

"keynesians are to economics what witch doctors are to medicine" -Peter Schiff

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

never said abolish the govt, i do say abolish the fed and restore the govt to constitutional principles

i dont think the govt should partner with companies either

well im not sure your example is a realistic one but you do have a choice, dont buy the product, prices only work if people are willing and able to pay them for a particular good/service, if people want to buy the product for that much then why not?  plus a huge profit margin like that will encourage expansion in that industry, more employment, more productivity, lower costs, and higher real wages

Ah abolish the government...............ok daydream over. 

Atomicdogg, you forgot the cardinal rule of liberal economics. Evil rich people never hire anyone with their profits, they collect all their gold and put it in a giant swimming pool and go around in circles counting it. They don't invest in new companies or fund new inventions. They don't build new stores to distribute their wares and they never donate any money to charity. (all those new Walmarts are a figment of your imagination) They don't build factories. Factories are built by the magic conveyor belt pixies. I'm still trying to figure out how rich people make more money. I've had a penny sitting on the floor for a week and it is still just a penny, I must not have the right magic. Maybe if I put a second penny next to it they will have babies. 

Everyone knows the only way to create jobs is for the government to spend money. That is why the trillion dollar stimulus has kept our unemployment rate below 5% and has saved exactly 6343675596824334513453.3 jobs. And obviously, if you don't have the money, just spend it anyway because spending money creates money. So if you are $20k in debt, spend $30k and you will be $10k richer. 

 

Well I think that is Keynesian economics in a nutshell. If anyone doubts me, read John Maynard Keynes.  My parody is frighteningly close to what Keynesians actually believe and the Keynesians have been controlling our economy for most of the last century.  

As opposed to the rule of conservative economics that assumes that the rich people are using their vast wealth to support the counties where they're based and hire all those skilled enough to work in the countries where they are headquartered?

Oh, yes, they're all damn near penniless because they are such altruistic beings. true giants among men.

Now that's a daydream. Why do you stay in it?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Beyond Saving

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

never said abolish the govt, i do say abolish the fed and restore the govt to constitutional principles

i dont think the govt should partner with companies either

well im not sure your example is a realistic one but you do have a choice, dont buy the product, prices only work if people are willing and able to pay them for a particular good/service, if people want to buy the product for that much then why not?  plus a huge profit margin like that will encourage expansion in that industry, more employment, more productivity, lower costs, and higher real wages

Ah abolish the government...............ok daydream over. 

Atomicdogg, you forgot the cardinal rule of liberal economics. Evil rich people never hire anyone with their profits, they collect all their gold and put it in a giant swimming pool and go around in circles counting it. They don't invest in new companies or fund new inventions. They don't build new stores to distribute their wares and they never donate any money to charity. (all those new Walmarts are a figment of your imagination) They don't build factories. Factories are built by the magic conveyor belt pixies. I'm still trying to figure out how rich people make more money. I've had a penny sitting on the floor for a week and it is still just a penny, I must not have the right magic. Maybe if I put a second penny next to it they will have babies. 

Everyone knows the only way to create jobs is for the government to spend money. That is why the trillion dollar stimulus has kept our unemployment rate below 5% and has saved exactly 6343675596824334513453.3 jobs. And obviously, if you don't have the money, just spend it anyway because spending money creates money. So if you are $20k in debt, spend $30k and you will be $10k richer. 

 

Well I think that is Keynesian economics in a nutshell. If anyone doubts me, read John Maynard Keynes.  My parody is frighteningly close to what Keynesians actually believe and the Keynesians have been controlling our economy for most of the last century.  

As opposed to the rule of conservative economics that assumes that the rich people are using their vast wealth to support the counties where they're based and hire all those skilled enough to work in the countries where they are headquartered?

Oh, yes, they're all damn near penniless because they are such altruistic beings. true giants among men.

Now that's a daydream. Why do you stay in it?

 

on the question of liberal economists versus conservative economists..... theres no such thing

economists should be classified by their school of thought

rich people save and invest their money, which leads to many great things for an economy

rich people also give alot to charity

why the disdain for "the rich"

to me anyways it seems the rich people most folks are pissed off about are rich precisely because of the government

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:As opposed to

jcgadfly wrote:

As opposed to the rule of conservative economics that assumes that the rich people are using their vast wealth to support the counties where they're based and hire all those skilled enough to work in the countries where they are headquartered?

Oh, yes, they're all damn near penniless because they are such altruistic beings. true giants among men.

Now that's a daydream. Why do you stay in it?

 

Who cares if a factory is in the US or overseas? It isn't a fixed pie. Just because there are jobs overseas does not mean there cannot also be jobs here. Sometimes it is cheaper to build something overseas and ship it here. Other times it is easier to just build it here. Who cares? I don't care if my jeans are made in the US, China, Indonesia or Timbuktu. I certainly don't want to make my jeans myself so I go to the store and buy whatever strikes my fancy. 

 

My point is that the rich don't need to be penniless to benefit society. Even if a product is made overseas it has to be shipped, stored, stocked and sold here. Which employs people. If they are willing to do it for less, let them. More junk for us. How are we poorer from getting more stuff cheaper?

 

Rich people can't help but stimulate the economy. If they consume they stimulate the economy, if they loan money they stimulate the economy, if they invest in a new business they stimulate the economy, if they put their money in the bank they stimulate the economy. Generally, a wealthy person doesn't save their money in a coffee can or put it in the mattress (except drug dealers and the mafia). No one is hired by a poor person. It is because of rich people that we enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. Even our "poor" are extremely well off compared to most of the worlds population even now. 

 

Now I do need to differentiate between the person who is a capitalist and those who are political entrepreneurs. The capitalist is the one who makes money from the consumer. The political entrepreneur is the one who gets their money from the government. The former creates jobs and provides quality products inexpensively. The latter might not produce much of anything. They get their money from the government because of political connections regardless of whether or not they produce products that are desired. The latter is the kind that got our trillion dollar stimulus and will benefit from Bamacare and all the other government programs we are implementing. I did a rather thorough post on the difference between the two that were around in the late 19th and early 20th centuries a few weeks ago. Bring back the good capitalist robber barons please. 

If we could eliminate the "progressive" income tax and government subsidies maybe we could see it again. 

 

It is Keynesian logic that led to us destroying thousands of perfectly good cars with the cash for clunkers program. Think about it. We paid people to destroy a bunch of cars believing it would make us wealthier. In what world does destroying your car make you wealthier? FDR did the same thing when he had pigs slaughtered simply to reduce the supply so that the cost of pork would go up. The meat wasn't sold. Just thrown away. How did that make the economy better? Keynesians believe it did. That is how fucked up they are. 

 

They claim that the recession is over because GDP started going up a tiny bit. But they count government spending in GDP. Since the government is borrowing to spend that money it doesn't really exist. Say you had an income of 30k and a credit card with a 10k limit and you spent 40k did your income go up? Of course not. Your 10k in debt. In the same situation, the Keynesians claim that GDP has gone up. They ignore that much of the GDP comes from government spending (debt). Then everyone wonders why there are no new jobs. The recession isn't over. The "experts" like Paul Krugman will probably cover their tracks by calling it a double dip and blaming the Republican congress for blocking Bama's wonderful agenda. But really, it will just be a continuation of the recession. Which will continue for the same reason the Great Depression continued so damn long. Because we are listening to the Keynesians.

 

It isn't even over for the housing market. Just this week it was reported that all of the major home lenders have stopped the foreclosure process. Until all those bad loans are foreclosed on the housing bubble is still there. There are a ton of houses ready to go on the foreclosure market which will cause a glut of supply in the housing market. High supply means lower prices. Which means everyones house that is already low in value is going to go even lower. Until that happens anyone with an ounce of sense is going to wait to purchase a house because they know prices will go down. 

 

And why aren't businesses hiring? Maybe its because Congress didn't even hold a vote on the tax rates. As it stands right now, ALL of the Bush tax cuts will expire which sets up the largest tax increase in history. Tax increases cause a slowing economy. If your potential consumers will have less to spend next year, why would you invest in expanding today?  You will wait until the increase hits, then do your market research to determine if expanding will be profitable. Add onto that the fact that no one knows exactly how high insurance rates are going to go with Bamacare. Before a business expands, a lot of thought and study goes into determining if it will be profitable. Until you have clear information on what your costs will be and what your consumers are likely to do you will not commit millions of dollars to expanding. You don't just open a new store and cross your fingers, unless of course you got your money from the government. 

 

I'm done ranting for now. I can go on forever. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

As opposed to the rule of conservative economics that assumes that the rich people are using their vast wealth to support the counties where they're based and hire all those skilled enough to work in the countries where they are headquartered?

Oh, yes, they're all damn near penniless because they are such altruistic beings. true giants among men.

Now that's a daydream. Why do you stay in it?

 

Who cares if a factory is in the US or overseas? It isn't a fixed pie. Just because there are jobs overseas does not mean there cannot also be jobs here. Sometimes it is cheaper to build something overseas and ship it here. Other times it is easier to just build it here. Who cares? I don't care if my jeans are made in the US, China, Indonesia or Timbuktu. I certainly don't want to make my jeans myself so I go to the store and buy whatever strikes my fancy. 

 

My point is that the rich don't need to be penniless to benefit society. Even if a product is made overseas it has to be shipped, stored, stocked and sold here. Which employs people. If they are willing to do it for less, let them. More junk for us. How are we poorer from getting more stuff cheaper?

 

Rich people can't help but stimulate the economy. If they consume they stimulate the economy, if they loan money they stimulate the economy, if they invest in a new business they stimulate the economy, if they put their money in the bank they stimulate the economy. Generally, a wealthy person doesn't save their money in a coffee can or put it in the mattress (except drug dealers and the mafia). No one is hired by a poor person. It is because of rich people that we enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. Even our "poor" are extremely well off compared to most of the worlds population even now. 

 

Now I do need to differentiate between the person who is a capitalist and those who are political entrepreneurs. The capitalist is the one who makes money from the consumer. The political entrepreneur is the one who gets their money from the government. The former creates jobs and provides quality products inexpensively. The latter might not produce much of anything. They get their money from the government because of political connections regardless of whether or not they produce products that are desired. The latter is the kind that got our trillion dollar stimulus and will benefit from Bamacare and all the other government programs we are implementing. I did a rather thorough post on the difference between the two that were around in the late 19th and early 20th centuries a few weeks ago. Bring back the good capitalist robber barons please. 

If we could eliminate the "progressive" income tax and government subsidies maybe we could see it again. 

 

It is Keynesian logic that led to us destroying thousands of perfectly good cars with the cash for clunkers program. Think about it. We paid people to destroy a bunch of cars believing it would make us wealthier. In what world does destroying your car make you wealthier? FDR did the same thing when he had pigs slaughtered simply to reduce the supply so that the cost of pork would go up. The meat wasn't sold. Just thrown away. How did that make the economy better? Keynesians believe it did. That is how fucked up they are. 

 

They claim that the recession is over because GDP started going up a tiny bit. But they count government spending in GDP. Since the government is borrowing to spend that money it doesn't really exist. Say you had an income of 30k and a credit card with a 10k limit and you spent 40k did your income go up? Of course not. Your 10k in debt. In the same situation, the Keynesians claim that GDP has gone up. They ignore that much of the GDP comes from government spending (debt). Then everyone wonders why there are no new jobs. The recession isn't over. The "experts" like Paul Krugman will probably cover their tracks by calling it a double dip and blaming the Republican congress for blocking Bama's wonderful agenda. But really, it will just be a continuation of the recession. Which will continue for the same reason the Great Depression continued so damn long. Because we are listening to the Keynesians.

 

It isn't even over for the housing market. Just this week it was reported that all of the major home lenders have stopped the foreclosure process. Until all those bad loans are foreclosed on the housing bubble is still there. There are a ton of houses ready to go on the foreclosure market which will cause a glut of supply in the housing market. High supply means lower prices. Which means everyones house that is already low in value is going to go even lower. Until that happens anyone with an ounce of sense is going to wait to purchase a house because they know prices will go down. 

 

And why aren't businesses hiring? Maybe its because Congress didn't even hold a vote on the tax rates. As it stands right now, ALL of the Bush tax cuts will expire which sets up the largest tax increase in history. Tax increases cause a slowing economy. If your potential consumers will have less to spend next year, why would you invest in expanding today?  You will wait until the increase hits, then do your market research to determine if expanding will be profitable. Add onto that the fact that no one knows exactly how high insurance rates are going to go with Bamacare. Before a business expands, a lot of thought and study goes into determining if it will be profitable. Until you have clear information on what your costs will be and what your consumers are likely to do you will not commit millions of dollars to expanding. You don't just open a new store and cross your fingers, unless of course you got your money from the government. 

 

I'm done ranting for now. I can go on forever. 

 

very good post

id add about the tax rates on people making 250K plus

if you increase their rates its a disincentive to expand, we want people to expand, increase productivity, employ more folks, what the govt is saying is "you want to expand your business? hire more people? make more money? dont bother. because if you do we are going to take more of your hard earned dollars to squander"

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:Beyond

atomicdogg34 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

As opposed to the rule of conservative economics that assumes that the rich people are using their vast wealth to support the counties where they're based and hire all those skilled enough to work in the countries where they are headquartered?

Oh, yes, they're all damn near penniless because they are such altruistic beings. true giants among men.

Now that's a daydream. Why do you stay in it?

 

Who cares if a factory is in the US or overseas? It isn't a fixed pie. Just because there are jobs overseas does not mean there cannot also be jobs here. Sometimes it is cheaper to build something overseas and ship it here. Other times it is easier to just build it here. Who cares? I don't care if my jeans are made in the US, China, Indonesia or Timbuktu. I certainly don't want to make my jeans myself so I go to the store and buy whatever strikes my fancy. 

 

My point is that the rich don't need to be penniless to benefit society. Even if a product is made overseas it has to be shipped, stored, stocked and sold here. Which employs people. If they are willing to do it for less, let them. More junk for us. How are we poorer from getting more stuff cheaper?

 

Rich people can't help but stimulate the economy. If they consume they stimulate the economy, if they loan money they stimulate the economy, if they invest in a new business they stimulate the economy, if they put their money in the bank they stimulate the economy. Generally, a wealthy person doesn't save their money in a coffee can or put it in the mattress (except drug dealers and the mafia). No one is hired by a poor person. It is because of rich people that we enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. Even our "poor" are extremely well off compared to most of the worlds population even now. 

 

Now I do need to differentiate between the person who is a capitalist and those who are political entrepreneurs. The capitalist is the one who makes money from the consumer. The political entrepreneur is the one who gets their money from the government. The former creates jobs and provides quality products inexpensively. The latter might not produce much of anything. They get their money from the government because of political connections regardless of whether or not they produce products that are desired. The latter is the kind that got our trillion dollar stimulus and will benefit from Bamacare and all the other government programs we are implementing. I did a rather thorough post on the difference between the two that were around in the late 19th and early 20th centuries a few weeks ago. Bring back the good capitalist robber barons please. 

If we could eliminate the "progressive" income tax and government subsidies maybe we could see it again. 

 

It is Keynesian logic that led to us destroying thousands of perfectly good cars with the cash for clunkers program. Think about it. We paid people to destroy a bunch of cars believing it would make us wealthier. In what world does destroying your car make you wealthier? FDR did the same thing when he had pigs slaughtered simply to reduce the supply so that the cost of pork would go up. The meat wasn't sold. Just thrown away. How did that make the economy better? Keynesians believe it did. That is how fucked up they are. 

 

They claim that the recession is over because GDP started going up a tiny bit. But they count government spending in GDP. Since the government is borrowing to spend that money it doesn't really exist. Say you had an income of 30k and a credit card with a 10k limit and you spent 40k did your income go up? Of course not. Your 10k in debt. In the same situation, the Keynesians claim that GDP has gone up. They ignore that much of the GDP comes from government spending (debt). Then everyone wonders why there are no new jobs. The recession isn't over. The "experts" like Paul Krugman will probably cover their tracks by calling it a double dip and blaming the Republican congress for blocking Bama's wonderful agenda. But really, it will just be a continuation of the recession. Which will continue for the same reason the Great Depression continued so damn long. Because we are listening to the Keynesians.

 

It isn't even over for the housing market. Just this week it was reported that all of the major home lenders have stopped the foreclosure process. Until all those bad loans are foreclosed on the housing bubble is still there. There are a ton of houses ready to go on the foreclosure market which will cause a glut of supply in the housing market. High supply means lower prices. Which means everyones house that is already low in value is going to go even lower. Until that happens anyone with an ounce of sense is going to wait to purchase a house because they know prices will go down. 

 

And why aren't businesses hiring? Maybe its because Congress didn't even hold a vote on the tax rates. As it stands right now, ALL of the Bush tax cuts will expire which sets up the largest tax increase in history. Tax increases cause a slowing economy. If your potential consumers will have less to spend next year, why would you invest in expanding today?  You will wait until the increase hits, then do your market research to determine if expanding will be profitable. Add onto that the fact that no one knows exactly how high insurance rates are going to go with Bamacare. Before a business expands, a lot of thought and study goes into determining if it will be profitable. Until you have clear information on what your costs will be and what your consumers are likely to do you will not commit millions of dollars to expanding. You don't just open a new store and cross your fingers, unless of course you got your money from the government. 

 

I'm done ranting for now. I can go on forever. 

 

very good post

id add about the tax rates on people making 250K plus

if you increase their rates its a disincentive to expand, we want people to expand, increase productivity, employ more folks, what the govt is saying is "you want to expand your business? hire more people? make more money? dont bother. because if you do we are going to take more of your hard earned dollars to squander"

And all we have to do to bring jobs back to America is accept Chinese wages and labor laws, right?

Funny how the tax rates on the 250k+ went up under Clinton and the economy ran like a damn freight train, isn't it?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:And all we

jcgadfly wrote:

And all we have to do to bring jobs back to America is accept Chinese wages and labor laws, right?

Funny how the tax rates on the 250k+ went up under Clinton and the economy ran like a damn freight train, isn't it?

No. The number of jobs isn't fixed. If someone in China is already making your clothes, make something else. For example, the US is one of only a handful of countries that produces excess food. So go be a farmer. Hell, we've been allowing people to illegally enter our country and not pay taxes because there were so many jobs that "Americans won't do" in the farming, ranching and construction industries. What we need is for the marketplace correction to take place free of government interference. People who invest will do market research to determine what products have a profitable demand and invest in making those. Because the one thing you can count on rich people for is they want their money to make more money. The only limit to the number of jobs that can be created. The 90's should have proven that. We had more free trade agreements, more jobs "going over seas" than ever but still had full employment. Protectionism harms all countries involved and leads to higher prices and lower real wages for the consumer. In other news, we have started a trade war with China. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-trade-war-spirals-as-china-imposes-massive-1054-tariff-on-american-poultry-2010-9 We put a tariff on their tires so they put a tariff on our chicken. If this continues and becomes an all out trade war what is the result? Well everything you currently buy that is made in China or contains materials from China will be significantly more expensive. Now are you wealthier? Can you buy as many things as you could before? No. You will go to the store and everything will cost a lot more and you will bitch about the evil greedy capitalist when you can't buy as much as you once could. On top of that, we lose jobs in every sector that becomes involved in the trade war. Just what we need, more unemployed. 10.5% isn't high enough lets aim for 20%! (Unless of course you count people who have given up looking for work, then we are almost at 20 already lets aim for 30%!) Bama creates jobs like I golf. My scores higher than yours, I win!

 

You can raise taxes in an economy that is booming, and unless you raise them a ton it will not make a huge difference. If the economy is growing at 6% and you raise taxes it might slow to 5% growth, not horrible. If the economy is only growing at 0.75% or shrinking and you raise taxes the same amount your economy is now shrinking and you created a problem. So while many in my camp will constantly harp about lowering taxes I don't lose sleep over a tax increase in a booming economy. Just recognize that when you raise taxes it has a slowing effect on the economy. Clinton's tax increase was also aptly timed because as it went into effect we entered NAFTA which was a boost to the economy. So while doing something to slow the economy he also did something that spurred the economy resulting in a fairly solid economy. Combined with Clinton's desire to remain being President that caused him to give up the more liberal causes of universal healthcare and giving in to welfare reform you ended up with a fairly decent President. All President's should be more interested in getting blowjobs than ruining the country. If Obama would agree to just stop working, I'm sure I could raise enough money to keep hookers going into his office 24 hours a day.

 

Now compare what Clinton did to what Bama is doing. Clinton raised taxes in a booming economy and offset it with a free trade agreement and did not drastically increase government spending. More money coming into the government, not as much spending going out and a growing economy and wow a surplus. Magic. He did continue to appoint that idiot Greenspan to the fed which was a large part of what led to our current recession but that is another topic. Bama is increasing taxes (bad for economy) potentially on everyone (really bad for the economy), spending more on new entitlements than a drunken sailor (bad for the economy) and starting trade wars (bad for the economy). All this in an economy that is already weak. It would be enough to ruin a booming economy, it will be devastating to a weak economy. We really need to get him an intern. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 In other

 In other news http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/7/deficit-hits-almost-13-trillion-fiscal-2010/

Government spending rose 9% in 2010, how much did your income go up? Our government spent $3.453 trillion of which $1.291 trillion was borrowed. How long could you survive if you borrowed over one third of your income every year? Our national debt is now at $13.625 trillion and interest alone is $228 billion per year. In other words, if we put EVERY penny that goes into the government towards paying off the debt it would take 7 years to pay it off. That would be shutting down every government service and doing nothing but paying off debt. If we treated it like a 30 year mortgage we would have to pay $580 billion per year or 26.8% of every dollar the government collects towards paying off the debt. Which would require a 45.8% across the board spending cut. If you walked into a debt counselors office with those kind of numbers they would tell you to declare bankruptcy. This is before we even talk about the cost of the healthcare entitlement or the fact that Social Security and Medicare will both reach the point where they will be paying out more than they collect before the debt is paid off. Even the evil rich don't have enough money unless we do something radical soon.

 

And what do you think happens when people decide it is a bad idea to loan money to the US government? Interest rates get even higher. It would be the largest spending cuts in history if we simply cut the $1.291 trillion we currently borrow (it would be a 37% cut). Note, the debt was that high even though a substantial amount of TARP was paid back in 2010. Next year we aren't getting anything from TARP. 

 

WAKE UP Americans. If we want to keep our standard of living we have to do something NOW. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

And all we have to do to bring jobs back to America is accept Chinese wages and labor laws, right?

Funny how the tax rates on the 250k+ went up under Clinton and the economy ran like a damn freight train, isn't it?

No. The number of jobs isn't fixed. If someone in China is already making your clothes, make something else. For example, the US is one of only a handful of countries that produces excess food. So go be a farmer. Hell, we've been allowing people to illegally enter our country and not pay taxes because there were so many jobs that "Americans won't do" in the farming, ranching and construction industries. What we need is for the marketplace correction to take place free of government interference. People who invest will do market research to determine what products have a profitable demand and invest in making those. Because the one thing you can count on rich people for is they want their money to make more money. The only limit to the number of jobs that can be created. The 90's should have proven that. We had more free trade agreements, more jobs "going over seas" than ever but still had full employment. Protectionism harms all countries involved and leads to higher prices and lower real wages for the consumer. In other news, we have started a trade war with China. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-trade-war-spirals-as-china-imposes-massive-1054-tariff-on-american-poultry-2010-9 We put a tariff on their tires so they put a tariff on our chicken. If this continues and becomes an all out trade war what is the result? Well everything you currently buy that is made in China or contains materials from China will be significantly more expensive. Now are you wealthier? Can you buy as many things as you could before? No. You will go to the store and everything will cost a lot more and you will bitch about the evil greedy capitalist when you can't buy as much as you once could. On top of that, we lose jobs in every sector that becomes involved in the trade war. Just what we need, more unemployed. 10.5% isn't high enough lets aim for 20%! (Unless of course you count people who have given up looking for work, then we are almost at 20 already lets aim for 30%!) Bama creates jobs like I golf. My scores higher than yours, I win!

 

You can raise taxes in an economy that is booming, and unless you raise them a ton it will not make a huge difference. If the economy is growing at 6% and you raise taxes it might slow to 5% growth, not horrible. If the economy is only growing at 0.75% or shrinking and you raise taxes the same amount your economy is now shrinking and you created a problem. So while many in my camp will constantly harp about lowering taxes I don't lose sleep over a tax increase in a booming economy. Just recognize that when you raise taxes it has a slowing effect on the economy. Clinton's tax increase was also aptly timed because as it went into effect we entered NAFTA which was a boost to the economy. So while doing something to slow the economy he also did something that spurred the economy resulting in a fairly solid economy. Combined with Clinton's desire to remain being President that caused him to give up the more liberal causes of universal healthcare and giving in to welfare reform you ended up with a fairly decent President. All President's should be more interested in getting blowjobs than ruining the country. If Obama would agree to just stop working, I'm sure I could raise enough money to keep hookers going into his office 24 hours a day.

 

Now compare what Clinton did to what Bama is doing. Clinton raised taxes in a booming economy and offset it with a free trade agreement and did not drastically increase government spending. More money coming into the government, not as much spending going out and a growing economy and wow a surplus. Magic. He did continue to appoint that idiot Greenspan to the fed which was a large part of what led to our current recession but that is another topic. Bama is increasing taxes (bad for economy) potentially on everyone (really bad for the economy), spending more on new entitlements than a drunken sailor (bad for the economy) and starting trade wars (bad for the economy). All this in an economy that is already weak. It would be enough to ruin a booming economy, it will be devastating to a weak economy. We really need to get him an intern. 

Increasing taxes bad for the economy? You went one paragraph and contradicted yourself. The economy wasn't booming until Clinton increased the tax rate (ever so slightly, I might add) on the uppercrust. No, he did not increase spending all that much. - would you mind telling your friend on this thread that spending cuts alone do not stimulate anything?

What is Obama doing? Increasing revenue by letting deep tax cuts for wealthy folks go away. He is spending on stuff like jobs and infrastructure when he should be taking money out of a defense budget that hasn't needed it for years (personally, I think we've run out of brown people to bomb). Why is it that I never hear conservatives of any stripe mention that little detail?

Trade wars? You mean because he doesn't want unsafe vehicles on America's highways? Damn him for wanting to save lives! Because he wants people to buy American made products? That infrastructure repairing son of a bitch!

I think we both agree that NAFTA was stupid. It more than likely wouldn't have happened if Republicans weren't so paranoid about the EU (yes I know Clinton signed it. I consider him the best Republican president we've had - thanks Mike Malloy)

Would you be as disturbed by these actions if a conservative was taking them? Or would they not have gone far enough?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Increasing

jcgadfly wrote:

Increasing taxes bad for the economy? You went one paragraph and contradicted yourself. The economy wasn't booming until Clinton increased the tax rate (ever so slightly, I might add) on the uppercrust. No, he did not increase spending all that much. - would you mind telling your friend on this thread that spending cuts alone do not stimulate anything?

In 1992 the economy grew 3.3% in 1993 it grew 2.8% according to our governments numbers. Then it stabilized and grew every year at a rate around 3.5% until 9/11, then it was spurred back and resumed healthy growth until 2008 when the housing bubble burst and GW's bailouts destroyed the economy and it hasn't gotten better since. 

So yes, the tax increase slowed the growth in the economy. It happens every time. As you point out it was a small increase so it didn't have a devastating effect. And I don't think anyone is arguing that spending cuts alone stimulate. Cutting taxes stimulates, but it is probably impossible to cut taxes enough to get us out of our current hole especially if we keep spending like this. So spending cuts have to come first. Excess government debt does cause a drag on the economy because business owners know they are going to get the bill sooner or later. 

 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

What is Obama doing? Increasing revenue by letting deep tax cuts for wealthy folks go away. He is spending on stuff like jobs and infrastructure when he should be taking money out of a defense budget that hasn't needed it for years (personally, I think we've run out of brown people to bomb). Why is it that I never hear conservatives of any stripe mention that little detail?

Yes the wars were a waste of money, I agree with you. But just because Bush wasted money doesn't make it right for Bama to do the same. We know Bush was a mental midget. So stop copying him. So there, you have heard me mention it but I don't really call myself conservative. The one thing I supported Bama on was ending the wars and the bastard still hasn't done it. 

 

Bama is spending on cronies that his government likes. Even if you accept the absurd 3.7 million jobs saved figure it works out to around $270k per job. Do you seriously think most people who have a job that got some stimulus money make 270k per year? And that is taking Bama at his word that 3.7 million people would have lost their jobs which any economist worth their salt will laugh at. You give a business owner an extra 270k and he/she will hire more than one person. And raising taxes will not have as large effect on increasing revenue as predicted. The CBO never accounts for the disincentive taxes bring to making income. So we will be taking a higher percentage but the number that percentage comes out of will be lower. With the economy as bad as it is, I wouldn't be surprised if a massive tax increase actually caused lower revenue for the government. I believe it is a huge mistake to raise taxes in an economy that is already struggling, especially one as large as the one coming.

Tax cuts often lead to higher revenue for the government. Revenue to the government went up after the Bush tax cuts. The bottom line is that government isn't going to get the money it needs unless the economy flourishes. So we need to do what is best for the economy first and determine if raising taxes is necessary later.

jcgadfly wrote:

Trade wars? You mean because he doesn't want unsafe vehicles on America's highways? Damn him for wanting to save lives! Because he wants people to buy American made products? That infrastructure repairing son of a bitch!

What do safety standards have to do with anything? We didn't put tariffs on tires from China because they were unsafe. He did it to please the unions. The result is a higher price for consumers who want to buy tires and the American tire industry has not seen an appreciable increase in business while our chicken farmers are now getting an appreciable decrease in business. Free trade always helps both parties involved. If your income is 10% higher it doesn't mean a thing if everything you buy costs 20% more. You have more money but can afford less so in real terms you are poorer.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
 

I think we both agree that NAFTA was stupid. It more than likely wouldn't have happened if Republicans weren't so paranoid about the EU (yes I know Clinton signed it. I consider him the best Republican president we've had - thanks Mike Malloy)

No we can't. I think NAFTA was great. It kept our economy growing, much like our free trade agreement with China and when Reagan stopped the trade war with Japan.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Would you be as disturbed by these actions if a conservative was taking them? Or would they not have gone far enough?

I think Bush is on the short list of worst President's ever. Slightly below Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Theodore Roosevelt, Obama, Jimmy Carter then GW. Bama is working his way up the list and might make number one or two. And if it wasn't for him Bush would be top 5. Yes, I was screaming during the Bush administration conservatives get no special protection from me. I was screaming about the housing bubble and our addiction to low interest rates long before the collapse and everyone thought I was crazy. Well, I didn't lose my money in the market and have little sympathy for those who did.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
1. You mean raising the

1. You mean raising the interest rates to avoid a superheating economy did nothing to slow it down? It was all the tax increases on the people and corporations (legally recognized people) that didn't pay their share to begin with?

2. I agree with you on Obama not copying Bush on war and wasting money. Why is it cool to copy Bush's bad idea to cut taxes on the rich (who again don't pay their share to begin with)?

3. Safety standards the reason for the trade issues with Mexico. Some Mexican truckers (Ok a lot of Mexican truckers) are driving vehicles that shouldn't be allowed on any roads. Because the Mexican government and the maquiladoras they serve don't want to make the trucks safe, they slap tariffs on us.

4. NAFTA kept our economy growing? Really? I didn't realize you were an expat living in Mexico. I will agree those agreements did change our economy. We went from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. We went from a creditor nation to a debtor nation. Not sure that those are good changes.

5. You have no sympathy with those who lost money inthe market crash and yet you want people to put their retirement incomes in the hands of that same market?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. You mean

jcgadfly wrote:

1. You mean raising the interest rates to avoid a superheating economy did nothing to slow it down? It was all the tax increases on the people and corporations (legally recognized people) that didn't pay their share to begin with?

The fed cut interest rates substantially in 1991 and 1992 and didn't touch them in 1993. It didn't start raising them until the end of 1994 then went back to cutting them in 1996 under the theory that we needed to keep cutting them to keep the economy going. It then raised them 1% in 2000 and has been cutting them ever since. So the growth in 1993 was not affected by any change in the interest rates because there wasn't one.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

2. I agree with you on Obama not copying Bush on war and wasting money. Why is it cool to copy Bush's bad idea to cut taxes on the rich (who again don't pay their share to begin with)?

We are not talking about more tax cuts. We are talking about not raising taxes. People who are paying 35% this year will be paying 39.6% next year. That is an increase from where they are right now. The economy doesn't care that the current rates are the result of a tax cut passed 10 years ago. An increase in taxes will slow the economy. Since it is already in the tank I don't think putting salt on the wound helps or is a good idea since our stated goal is to create jobs.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Safety standards the reason for the trade issues with Mexico. Some Mexican truckers (Ok a lot of Mexican truckers) are driving vehicles that shouldn't be allowed on any roads. Because the Mexican government and the maquiladoras they serve don't want to make the trucks safe, they slap tariffs on us.

We were talking about the tariffs on China. Mexico is barely a functioning government right now. I would love to talk about each and every trade agreement we have with every country but you probably don't honestly want to have that conversation.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

4. NAFTA kept our economy growing? Really? I didn't realize you were an expat living in Mexico. I will agree those agreements did change our economy. We went from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. We went from a creditor nation to a debtor nation. Not sure that those are good changes.

Yes, it did. NAFTA was with Canada as well. We make a ton of money sending corn to Mexico every year. And we are still a manufacturing country. This is one of the biggest myths. The US manufacturing output was $1.8 trilliion worth and Mexico's was only $144 billion. Basically, we could buy everything Mexico makes with only a little more than half of the interest we pay on our debt. We are the largest manufacturer in the world, the only country that is close to us is China. And we still account for 27% of manufacturing in the world. So all those jobs we "lost" to Mexico simply didn't happen. Yes, some companies moved down there. So what. We build or retool factories to make something different. The reason manufacturing jobs have suffered so much is that most American factories are highly automated. We use these fancy things called computers that allow one person to do a job that used to take several people. Those damned computers have taken away more jobs than any Mexican.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

5. You have no sympathy with those who lost money inthe market crash and yet you want people to put their retirement incomes in the hands of that same market?

No, I have said before and will say again that people putting money into the stock market as their sole retirement fund are idiots. Putting money in the stock market is gambling just as much as playing poker. If you can't afford to lose the money you shouldn't put it in the market. Unfortunately, our government has pursued tax policies and legislation designed to encourage 401ks to invest in the stock market instead of safer more secure investments. The result is millions of people have money in the stock market and to make it worse, most of them don't even know what stocks they are invested in. Which is why stock price is no longer a solid indication of the quality of the company. Wall street brokers make more money gambling than they do investing in solid long term companies. If you don't know exactly what companies you are invested in and why you have no business in the stock market. For your retirement I would advise putting far less into the market than most people do. A little is fine for the chance at great growth, but make sure the other money you have is enough for your retirement.

Remember May 6th? The stock market collapsed 1000 points and everyone has brushed it off as a "computer error" that started the run. People on Wall Street know that they are playing with fire. It collapsed because a ton of people have their finger on the sell button and the second they believe anything is happening they are getting their money out. Whether it was started by a computer error or not it demonstrates that the big money on Wallstreet is prepared for a crash. Guess who's shares were not sold. If the end is coming do you think your broker is going to worry about his shares or yours first? So personally, I wouldn't recommend having a lot of money in the market right now. But it is your retirement. If you want to eat canned tuna thats your business.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. You mean raising the interest rates to avoid a superheating economy did nothing to slow it down? It was all the tax increases on the people and corporations (legally recognized people) that didn't pay their share to begin with?

The fed cut interest rates substantially in 1991 and 1992 and didn't touch them in 1993. It didn't start raising them until the end of 1994 then went back to cutting them in 1996 under the theory that we needed to keep cutting them to keep the economy going. It then raised them 1% in 2000 and has been cutting them ever since. So the growth in 1993 was not affected by any change in the interest rates because there wasn't one.

Then again, interest rates were around 5-7% under Clinton and were cut to 0-1% under Bush. a drop from 7 to 5 is larger than a drop from 5-0. Still doesn't seem like the Clinton economy was all that bad.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. I agree with you on Obama not copying Bush on war and wasting money. Why is it cool to copy Bush's bad idea to cut taxes on the rich (who again don't pay their share to begin with)?

We are not talking about more tax cuts. We are talking about not raising taxes. People who are paying 35% this year will be paying 39.6% next year. That is an increase from where they are right now. The economy doesn't care that the current rates are the result of a tax cut passed 10 years ago. An increase in taxes will slow the economy. Since it is already in the tank I don't think putting salt on the wound helps or is a good idea since our stated goal is to create jobs.

 No, we're talking about unneeded cuts going away and a resulting boost in revenue. Besides, how can you slow a stagnant economy down? You are also assuming that most of the people affected by this tax (I use this term loosely because they won't feel the increase) affect job creation.

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Safety standards the reason for the trade issues with Mexico. Some Mexican truckers (Ok a lot of Mexican truckers) are driving vehicles that shouldn't be allowed on any roads. Because the Mexican government and the maquiladoras they serve don't want to make the trucks safe, they slap tariffs on us.

We were talking about the tariffs on China. Mexico is barely a functioning government right now. I would love to talk about each and every trade agreement we have with every country but you probably don't honestly want to have that conversation.

 Actually we were talking about both - the tariffs on China because they're treating their citizens like shit and buggering their exchange rate fraudulently I have no problem with. I like the fair market over the free market.

jcgadfly wrote:

4. NAFTA kept our economy growing? Really? I didn't realize you were an expat living in Mexico. I will agree those agreements did change our economy. We went from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. We went from a creditor nation to a debtor nation. Not sure that those are good changes.

Yes, it did. NAFTA was with Canada as well. We make a ton of money sending corn to Mexico every year. And we are still a manufacturing country. This is one of the biggest myths. The US manufacturing output was $1.8 trilliion worth and Mexico's was only $144 billion. Basically, we could buy everything Mexico makes with only a little more than half of the interest we pay on our debt. We are the largest manufacturer in the world, the only country that is close to us is China. And we still account for 27% of manufacturing in the world. So all those jobs we "lost" to Mexico simply didn't happen. Yes, some companies moved down there. So what. We build or retool factories to make something different. The reason manufacturing jobs have suffered so much is that most American factories are highly automated. We use these fancy things called computers that allow one person to do a job that used to take several people. Those damned computers have taken away more jobs than any Mexican.

Yes, we use these called computers that are made in China, Japan and Korea and we we need tech support we get directed to a call center in India. You're right - Mexico is the least of our problems.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

5. You have no sympathy with those who lost money inthe market crash and yet you want people to put their retirement incomes in the hands of that same market?

No, I have said before and will say again that people putting money into the stock market as their sole retirement fund are idiots. Putting money in the stock market is gambling just as much as playing poker. If you can't afford to lose the money you shouldn't put it in the market. Unfortunately, our government has pursued tax policies and legislation designed to encourage 401ks to invest in the stock market instead of safer more secure investments. The result is millions of people have money in the stock market and to make it worse, most of them don't even know what stocks they are invested in. Which is why stock price is no longer a solid indication of the quality of the company. Wall street brokers make more money gambling than they do investing in solid long term companies. If you don't know exactly what companies you are invested in and why you have no business in the stock market. For your retirement I would advise putting far less into the market than most people do. A little is fine for the chance at great growth, but make sure the other money you have is enough for your retirement.

Remember May 6th? The stock market collapsed 1000 points and everyone has brushed it off as a "computer error" that started the run. People on Wall Street know that they are playing with fire. It collapsed because a ton of people have their finger on the sell button and the second they believe anything is happening they are getting their money out. Whether it was started by a computer error or not it demonstrates that the big money on Wallstreet is prepared for a crash. Guess who's shares were not sold. If the end is coming do you think your broker is going to worry about his shares or yours first? So personally, I wouldn't recommend having a lot of money in the market right now. But it is your retirement. If you want to eat canned tuna thats your business.

 

Then why do you support people who, if they don't want to scrap social security, want to "invest" it in the stock market?

What investments I have are currently in bonds - I hate betting on the economy to lose but it does bring in money.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Then why do

jcgadfly wrote:

Then why do you support people who, if they don't want to scrap social security, want to "invest" it in the stock market?

What investments I have are currently in bonds - I hate betting on the economy to lose but it does bring in money.

I don't.

I believe that we should scrap social security but am against the idea of letting the government invest the money in the stock market or forcing people to invest it in the market. You should keep your money and invest it however you see fit. I trust you to decide the best retirement plan for yourself. If you want to invest it in bonds fine, if you want to buy gold fine, if you want to buy stocks fine, if you want to buy lottery tickets fine, if you want to use it to have a ton of kids in the hope that one will become a millionaire fine. It's your money. But if your retirement plan doesn't work out so hot don't expect me to pay for it. If I got to keep my 15.3% that goes to social security and medicare I would be a millionaire. That would be kind of nice.

 

Besides, you should be against the social security tax because it unfairly targets those who make less than 106k per year. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

As opposed to the rule of conservative economics that assumes that the rich people are using their vast wealth to support the counties where they're based and hire all those skilled enough to work in the countries where they are headquartered?

Oh, yes, they're all damn near penniless because they are such altruistic beings. true giants among men.

Now that's a daydream. Why do you stay in it?

 

Who cares if a factory is in the US or overseas? It isn't a fixed pie. Just because there are jobs overseas does not mean there cannot also be jobs here. Sometimes it is cheaper to build something overseas and ship it here. Other times it is easier to just build it here. Who cares? I don't care if my jeans are made in the US, China, Indonesia or Timbuktu. I certainly don't want to make my jeans myself so I go to the store and buy whatever strikes my fancy. 

 

My point is that the rich don't need to be penniless to benefit society. Even if a product is made overseas it has to be shipped, stored, stocked and sold here. Which employs people. If they are willing to do it for less, let them. More junk for us. How are we poorer from getting more stuff cheaper?

 

Rich people can't help but stimulate the economy. If they consume they stimulate the economy, if they loan money they stimulate the economy, if they invest in a new business they stimulate the economy, if they put their money in the bank they stimulate the economy. Generally, a wealthy person doesn't save their money in a coffee can or put it in the mattress (except drug dealers and the mafia). No one is hired by a poor person. It is because of rich people that we enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. Even our "poor" are extremely well off compared to most of the worlds population even now. 

 

Now I do need to differentiate between the person who is a capitalist and those who are political entrepreneurs. The capitalist is the one who makes money from the consumer. The political entrepreneur is the one who gets their money from the government. The former creates jobs and provides quality products inexpensively. The latter might not produce much of anything. They get their money from the government because of political connections regardless of whether or not they produce products that are desired. The latter is the kind that got our trillion dollar stimulus and will benefit from Bamacare and all the other government programs we are implementing. I did a rather thorough post on the difference between the two that were around in the late 19th and early 20th centuries a few weeks ago. Bring back the good capitalist robber barons please. 

If we could eliminate the "progressive" income tax and government subsidies maybe we could see it again. 

 

It is Keynesian logic that led to us destroying thousands of perfectly good cars with the cash for clunkers program. Think about it. We paid people to destroy a bunch of cars believing it would make us wealthier. In what world does destroying your car make you wealthier? FDR did the same thing when he had pigs slaughtered simply to reduce the supply so that the cost of pork would go up. The meat wasn't sold. Just thrown away. How did that make the economy better? Keynesians believe it did. That is how fucked up they are. 

 

They claim that the recession is over because GDP started going up a tiny bit. But they count government spending in GDP. Since the government is borrowing to spend that money it doesn't really exist. Say you had an income of 30k and a credit card with a 10k limit and you spent 40k did your income go up? Of course not. Your 10k in debt. In the same situation, the Keynesians claim that GDP has gone up. They ignore that much of the GDP comes from government spending (debt). Then everyone wonders why there are no new jobs. The recession isn't over. The "experts" like Paul Krugman will probably cover their tracks by calling it a double dip and blaming the Republican congress for blocking Bama's wonderful agenda. But really, it will just be a continuation of the recession. Which will continue for the same reason the Great Depression continued so damn long. Because we are listening to the Keynesians.

 

It isn't even over for the housing market. Just this week it was reported that all of the major home lenders have stopped the foreclosure process. Until all those bad loans are foreclosed on the housing bubble is still there. There are a ton of houses ready to go on the foreclosure market which will cause a glut of supply in the housing market. High supply means lower prices. Which means everyones house that is already low in value is going to go even lower. Until that happens anyone with an ounce of sense is going to wait to purchase a house because they know prices will go down. 

 

And why aren't businesses hiring? Maybe its because Congress didn't even hold a vote on the tax rates. As it stands right now, ALL of the Bush tax cuts will expire which sets up the largest tax increase in history. Tax increases cause a slowing economy. If your potential consumers will have less to spend next year, why would you invest in expanding today?  You will wait until the increase hits, then do your market research to determine if expanding will be profitable. Add onto that the fact that no one knows exactly how high insurance rates are going to go with Bamacare. Before a business expands, a lot of thought and study goes into determining if it will be profitable. Until you have clear information on what your costs will be and what your consumers are likely to do you will not commit millions of dollars to expanding. You don't just open a new store and cross your fingers, unless of course you got your money from the government. 

 

I'm done ranting for now. I can go on forever. 

 

very good post

id add about the tax rates on people making 250K plus

if you increase their rates its a disincentive to expand, we want people to expand, increase productivity, employ more folks, what the govt is saying is "you want to expand your business? hire more people? make more money? dont bother. because if you do we are going to take more of your hard earned dollars to squander"

And all we have to do to bring jobs back to America is accept Chinese wages and labor laws, right?

Funny how the tax rates on the 250k+ went up under Clinton and the economy ran like a damn freight train, isn't it?

 

holy oversimplification batman

 

no other factors went into how well the economy was back then (which was merely an illusion), just taxes

 

got it

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
i dont know if i agree about

i dont know if i agree about NAFTA, NAFTA isnt free trade, its managed trade

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

As opposed to the rule of conservative economics that assumes that the rich people are using their vast wealth to support the counties where they're based and hire all those skilled enough to work in the countries where they are headquartered?

Oh, yes, they're all damn near penniless because they are such altruistic beings. true giants among men.

Now that's a daydream. Why do you stay in it?

 

Who cares if a factory is in the US or overseas? It isn't a fixed pie. Just because there are jobs overseas does not mean there cannot also be jobs here. Sometimes it is cheaper to build something overseas and ship it here. Other times it is easier to just build it here. Who cares? I don't care if my jeans are made in the US, China, Indonesia or Timbuktu. I certainly don't want to make my jeans myself so I go to the store and buy whatever strikes my fancy. 

 

My point is that the rich don't need to be penniless to benefit society. Even if a product is made overseas it has to be shipped, stored, stocked and sold here. Which employs people. If they are willing to do it for less, let them. More junk for us. How are we poorer from getting more stuff cheaper?

 

Rich people can't help but stimulate the economy. If they consume they stimulate the economy, if they loan money they stimulate the economy, if they invest in a new business they stimulate the economy, if they put their money in the bank they stimulate the economy. Generally, a wealthy person doesn't save their money in a coffee can or put it in the mattress (except drug dealers and the mafia). No one is hired by a poor person. It is because of rich people that we enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. Even our "poor" are extremely well off compared to most of the worlds population even now. 

 

Now I do need to differentiate between the person who is a capitalist and those who are political entrepreneurs. The capitalist is the one who makes money from the consumer. The political entrepreneur is the one who gets their money from the government. The former creates jobs and provides quality products inexpensively. The latter might not produce much of anything. They get their money from the government because of political connections regardless of whether or not they produce products that are desired. The latter is the kind that got our trillion dollar stimulus and will benefit from Bamacare and all the other government programs we are implementing. I did a rather thorough post on the difference between the two that were around in the late 19th and early 20th centuries a few weeks ago. Bring back the good capitalist robber barons please. 

If we could eliminate the "progressive" income tax and government subsidies maybe we could see it again. 

 

It is Keynesian logic that led to us destroying thousands of perfectly good cars with the cash for clunkers program. Think about it. We paid people to destroy a bunch of cars believing it would make us wealthier. In what world does destroying your car make you wealthier? FDR did the same thing when he had pigs slaughtered simply to reduce the supply so that the cost of pork would go up. The meat wasn't sold. Just thrown away. How did that make the economy better? Keynesians believe it did. That is how fucked up they are. 

 

They claim that the recession is over because GDP started going up a tiny bit. But they count government spending in GDP. Since the government is borrowing to spend that money it doesn't really exist. Say you had an income of 30k and a credit card with a 10k limit and you spent 40k did your income go up? Of course not. Your 10k in debt. In the same situation, the Keynesians claim that GDP has gone up. They ignore that much of the GDP comes from government spending (debt). Then everyone wonders why there are no new jobs. The recession isn't over. The "experts" like Paul Krugman will probably cover their tracks by calling it a double dip and blaming the Republican congress for blocking Bama's wonderful agenda. But really, it will just be a continuation of the recession. Which will continue for the same reason the Great Depression continued so damn long. Because we are listening to the Keynesians.

 

It isn't even over for the housing market. Just this week it was reported that all of the major home lenders have stopped the foreclosure process. Until all those bad loans are foreclosed on the housing bubble is still there. There are a ton of houses ready to go on the foreclosure market which will cause a glut of supply in the housing market. High supply means lower prices. Which means everyones house that is already low in value is going to go even lower. Until that happens anyone with an ounce of sense is going to wait to purchase a house because they know prices will go down. 

 

And why aren't businesses hiring? Maybe its because Congress didn't even hold a vote on the tax rates. As it stands right now, ALL of the Bush tax cuts will expire which sets up the largest tax increase in history. Tax increases cause a slowing economy. If your potential consumers will have less to spend next year, why would you invest in expanding today?  You will wait until the increase hits, then do your market research to determine if expanding will be profitable. Add onto that the fact that no one knows exactly how high insurance rates are going to go with Bamacare. Before a business expands, a lot of thought and study goes into determining if it will be profitable. Until you have clear information on what your costs will be and what your consumers are likely to do you will not commit millions of dollars to expanding. You don't just open a new store and cross your fingers, unless of course you got your money from the government. 

 

I'm done ranting for now. I can go on forever. 

 

very good post

id add about the tax rates on people making 250K plus

if you increase their rates its a disincentive to expand, we want people to expand, increase productivity, employ more folks, what the govt is saying is "you want to expand your business? hire more people? make more money? dont bother. because if you do we are going to take more of your hard earned dollars to squander"

And all we have to do to bring jobs back to America is accept Chinese wages and labor laws, right?

Funny how the tax rates on the 250k+ went up under Clinton and the economy ran like a damn freight train, isn't it?

 

holy oversimplification batman

 

no other factors went into how well the economy was back then (which was merely an illusion), just taxes

 

got it

 

It's a variant of your claim. You claim that cutting spending (by itself - no other factors) will magically improve the economy.

Now you see how stupid it is. So stop it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

As opposed to the rule of conservative economics that assumes that the rich people are using their vast wealth to support the counties where they're based and hire all those skilled enough to work in the countries where they are headquartered?

Oh, yes, they're all damn near penniless because they are such altruistic beings. true giants among men.

Now that's a daydream. Why do you stay in it?

 

Who cares if a factory is in the US or overseas? It isn't a fixed pie. Just because there are jobs overseas does not mean there cannot also be jobs here. Sometimes it is cheaper to build something overseas and ship it here. Other times it is easier to just build it here. Who cares? I don't care if my jeans are made in the US, China, Indonesia or Timbuktu. I certainly don't want to make my jeans myself so I go to the store and buy whatever strikes my fancy. 

 

My point is that the rich don't need to be penniless to benefit society. Even if a product is made overseas it has to be shipped, stored, stocked and sold here. Which employs people. If they are willing to do it for less, let them. More junk for us. How are we poorer from getting more stuff cheaper?

 

Rich people can't help but stimulate the economy. If they consume they stimulate the economy, if they loan money they stimulate the economy, if they invest in a new business they stimulate the economy, if they put their money in the bank they stimulate the economy. Generally, a wealthy person doesn't save their money in a coffee can or put it in the mattress (except drug dealers and the mafia). No one is hired by a poor person. It is because of rich people that we enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. Even our "poor" are extremely well off compared to most of the worlds population even now. 

 

Now I do need to differentiate between the person who is a capitalist and those who are political entrepreneurs. The capitalist is the one who makes money from the consumer. The political entrepreneur is the one who gets their money from the government. The former creates jobs and provides quality products inexpensively. The latter might not produce much of anything. They get their money from the government because of political connections regardless of whether or not they produce products that are desired. The latter is the kind that got our trillion dollar stimulus and will benefit from Bamacare and all the other government programs we are implementing. I did a rather thorough post on the difference between the two that were around in the late 19th and early 20th centuries a few weeks ago. Bring back the good capitalist robber barons please. 

If we could eliminate the "progressive" income tax and government subsidies maybe we could see it again. 

 

It is Keynesian logic that led to us destroying thousands of perfectly good cars with the cash for clunkers program. Think about it. We paid people to destroy a bunch of cars believing it would make us wealthier. In what world does destroying your car make you wealthier? FDR did the same thing when he had pigs slaughtered simply to reduce the supply so that the cost of pork would go up. The meat wasn't sold. Just thrown away. How did that make the economy better? Keynesians believe it did. That is how fucked up they are. 

 

They claim that the recession is over because GDP started going up a tiny bit. But they count government spending in GDP. Since the government is borrowing to spend that money it doesn't really exist. Say you had an income of 30k and a credit card with a 10k limit and you spent 40k did your income go up? Of course not. Your 10k in debt. In the same situation, the Keynesians claim that GDP has gone up. They ignore that much of the GDP comes from government spending (debt). Then everyone wonders why there are no new jobs. The recession isn't over. The "experts" like Paul Krugman will probably cover their tracks by calling it a double dip and blaming the Republican congress for blocking Bama's wonderful agenda. But really, it will just be a continuation of the recession. Which will continue for the same reason the Great Depression continued so damn long. Because we are listening to the Keynesians.

 

It isn't even over for the housing market. Just this week it was reported that all of the major home lenders have stopped the foreclosure process. Until all those bad loans are foreclosed on the housing bubble is still there. There are a ton of houses ready to go on the foreclosure market which will cause a glut of supply in the housing market. High supply means lower prices. Which means everyones house that is already low in value is going to go even lower. Until that happens anyone with an ounce of sense is going to wait to purchase a house because they know prices will go down. 

 

And why aren't businesses hiring? Maybe its because Congress didn't even hold a vote on the tax rates. As it stands right now, ALL of the Bush tax cuts will expire which sets up the largest tax increase in history. Tax increases cause a slowing economy. If your potential consumers will have less to spend next year, why would you invest in expanding today?  You will wait until the increase hits, then do your market research to determine if expanding will be profitable. Add onto that the fact that no one knows exactly how high insurance rates are going to go with Bamacare. Before a business expands, a lot of thought and study goes into determining if it will be profitable. Until you have clear information on what your costs will be and what your consumers are likely to do you will not commit millions of dollars to expanding. You don't just open a new store and cross your fingers, unless of course you got your money from the government. 

 

I'm done ranting for now. I can go on forever. 

 

very good post

id add about the tax rates on people making 250K plus

if you increase their rates its a disincentive to expand, we want people to expand, increase productivity, employ more folks, what the govt is saying is "you want to expand your business? hire more people? make more money? dont bother. because if you do we are going to take more of your hard earned dollars to squander"

And all we have to do to bring jobs back to America is accept Chinese wages and labor laws, right?

Funny how the tax rates on the 250k+ went up under Clinton and the economy ran like a damn freight train, isn't it?

 

holy oversimplification batman

 

no other factors went into how well the economy was back then (which was merely an illusion), just taxes

 

got it

 

It's a variant of your claim. You claim that cutting spending (by itself - no other factors) will magically improve the economy.

Now you see how stupid it is. So stop it.

 

uumm no, i said we need to cut spending, lower taxes, cut regulation, have sound money, and have the govt do only those things its authorized by the constitution to do

this is mostly a thread about the economy but i guess we'd be remiss if we left out foreign policy since that does have a major impact, we need a non-interventionist foreign policy

far different

dont think i ever said all we need to do is simply cut spending

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

As opposed to the rule of conservative economics that assumes that the rich people are using their vast wealth to support the counties where they're based and hire all those skilled enough to work in the countries where they are headquartered?

Oh, yes, they're all damn near penniless because they are such altruistic beings. true giants among men.

Now that's a daydream. Why do you stay in it?

 

Who cares if a factory is in the US or overseas? It isn't a fixed pie. Just because there are jobs overseas does not mean there cannot also be jobs here. Sometimes it is cheaper to build something overseas and ship it here. Other times it is easier to just build it here. Who cares? I don't care if my jeans are made in the US, China, Indonesia or Timbuktu. I certainly don't want to make my jeans myself so I go to the store and buy whatever strikes my fancy. 

 

My point is that the rich don't need to be penniless to benefit society. Even if a product is made overseas it has to be shipped, stored, stocked and sold here. Which employs people. If they are willing to do it for less, let them. More junk for us. How are we poorer from getting more stuff cheaper?

 

Rich people can't help but stimulate the economy. If they consume they stimulate the economy, if they loan money they stimulate the economy, if they invest in a new business they stimulate the economy, if they put their money in the bank they stimulate the economy. Generally, a wealthy person doesn't save their money in a coffee can or put it in the mattress (except drug dealers and the mafia). No one is hired by a poor person. It is because of rich people that we enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. Even our "poor" are extremely well off compared to most of the worlds population even now. 

 

Now I do need to differentiate between the person who is a capitalist and those who are political entrepreneurs. The capitalist is the one who makes money from the consumer. The political entrepreneur is the one who gets their money from the government. The former creates jobs and provides quality products inexpensively. The latter might not produce much of anything. They get their money from the government because of political connections regardless of whether or not they produce products that are desired. The latter is the kind that got our trillion dollar stimulus and will benefit from Bamacare and all the other government programs we are implementing. I did a rather thorough post on the difference between the two that were around in the late 19th and early 20th centuries a few weeks ago. Bring back the good capitalist robber barons please. 

If we could eliminate the "progressive" income tax and government subsidies maybe we could see it again. 

 

It is Keynesian logic that led to us destroying thousands of perfectly good cars with the cash for clunkers program. Think about it. We paid people to destroy a bunch of cars believing it would make us wealthier. In what world does destroying your car make you wealthier? FDR did the same thing when he had pigs slaughtered simply to reduce the supply so that the cost of pork would go up. The meat wasn't sold. Just thrown away. How did that make the economy better? Keynesians believe it did. That is how fucked up they are. 

 

They claim that the recession is over because GDP started going up a tiny bit. But they count government spending in GDP. Since the government is borrowing to spend that money it doesn't really exist. Say you had an income of 30k and a credit card with a 10k limit and you spent 40k did your income go up? Of course not. Your 10k in debt. In the same situation, the Keynesians claim that GDP has gone up. They ignore that much of the GDP comes from government spending (debt). Then everyone wonders why there are no new jobs. The recession isn't over. The "experts" like Paul Krugman will probably cover their tracks by calling it a double dip and blaming the Republican congress for blocking Bama's wonderful agenda. But really, it will just be a continuation of the recession. Which will continue for the same reason the Great Depression continued so damn long. Because we are listening to the Keynesians.

 

It isn't even over for the housing market. Just this week it was reported that all of the major home lenders have stopped the foreclosure process. Until all those bad loans are foreclosed on the housing bubble is still there. There are a ton of houses ready to go on the foreclosure market which will cause a glut of supply in the housing market. High supply means lower prices. Which means everyones house that is already low in value is going to go even lower. Until that happens anyone with an ounce of sense is going to wait to purchase a house because they know prices will go down. 

 

And why aren't businesses hiring? Maybe its because Congress didn't even hold a vote on the tax rates. As it stands right now, ALL of the Bush tax cuts will expire which sets up the largest tax increase in history. Tax increases cause a slowing economy. If your potential consumers will have less to spend next year, why would you invest in expanding today?  You will wait until the increase hits, then do your market research to determine if expanding will be profitable. Add onto that the fact that no one knows exactly how high insurance rates are going to go with Bamacare. Before a business expands, a lot of thought and study goes into determining if it will be profitable. Until you have clear information on what your costs will be and what your consumers are likely to do you will not commit millions of dollars to expanding. You don't just open a new store and cross your fingers, unless of course you got your money from the government. 

 

I'm done ranting for now. I can go on forever. 

 

very good post

id add about the tax rates on people making 250K plus

if you increase their rates its a disincentive to expand, we want people to expand, increase productivity, employ more folks, what the govt is saying is "you want to expand your business? hire more people? make more money? dont bother. because if you do we are going to take more of your hard earned dollars to squander"

And all we have to do to bring jobs back to America is accept Chinese wages and labor laws, right?

Funny how the tax rates on the 250k+ went up under Clinton and the economy ran like a damn freight train, isn't it?

 

holy oversimplification batman

 

no other factors went into how well the economy was back then (which was merely an illusion), just taxes

 

got it

 

It's a variant of your claim. You claim that cutting spending (by itself - no other factors) will magically improve the economy.

Now you see how stupid it is. So stop it.

 

uumm no, i said we need to cut spending, lower taxes, cut regulation, have sound money, and have the govt do only those things its authorized by the constitution to do

this is mostly a thread about the economy but i guess we'd be remiss if we left out foreign policy since that does have a major impact, we need a non-interventionist foreign policy

far different

dont think i ever said all we need to do is simply cut spending

 

cut (wasteful) spending - all for it

cut revenue - just flat stupid

sound money - Ok. short of going back to gold, not sure how.

having the gov't do only things authorized by the constitution - pretty much doing it now. You want to change those duties - not sure why.

non-interventionist foreign policy - again, you wish to change the duties of the government.

Read the Preamble and Art. I, Sect.8 again.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:i dont

atomicdogg34 wrote:

i dont know if i agree about NAFTA, NAFTA isnt free trade, its managed trade

 

True, if I was dictator of the world it isn't exactly what I would have set up. However, since I am too lazy to become dictator of the world it made things a lot more free than they were and with political realities probably the best we could hope for. Our "free trade" agreement with China wasn't really free either as illustrated by the tariffs on tires and chicken.

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

As opposed to the rule of conservative economics that assumes that the rich people are using their vast wealth to support the counties where they're based and hire all those skilled enough to work in the countries where they are headquartered?

Oh, yes, they're all damn near penniless because they are such altruistic beings. true giants among men.

Now that's a daydream. Why do you stay in it?

 

Who cares if a factory is in the US or overseas? It isn't a fixed pie. Just because there are jobs overseas does not mean there cannot also be jobs here. Sometimes it is cheaper to build something overseas and ship it here. Other times it is easier to just build it here. Who cares? I don't care if my jeans are made in the US, China, Indonesia or Timbuktu. I certainly don't want to make my jeans myself so I go to the store and buy whatever strikes my fancy. 

 

My point is that the rich don't need to be penniless to benefit society. Even if a product is made overseas it has to be shipped, stored, stocked and sold here. Which employs people. If they are willing to do it for less, let them. More junk for us. How are we poorer from getting more stuff cheaper?

 

Rich people can't help but stimulate the economy. If they consume they stimulate the economy, if they loan money they stimulate the economy, if they invest in a new business they stimulate the economy, if they put their money in the bank they stimulate the economy. Generally, a wealthy person doesn't save their money in a coffee can or put it in the mattress (except drug dealers and the mafia). No one is hired by a poor person. It is because of rich people that we enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. Even our "poor" are extremely well off compared to most of the worlds population even now. 

 

Now I do need to differentiate between the person who is a capitalist and those who are political entrepreneurs. The capitalist is the one who makes money from the consumer. The political entrepreneur is the one who gets their money from the government. The former creates jobs and provides quality products inexpensively. The latter might not produce much of anything. They get their money from the government because of political connections regardless of whether or not they produce products that are desired. The latter is the kind that got our trillion dollar stimulus and will benefit from Bamacare and all the other government programs we are implementing. I did a rather thorough post on the difference between the two that were around in the late 19th and early 20th centuries a few weeks ago. Bring back the good capitalist robber barons please. 

If we could eliminate the "progressive" income tax and government subsidies maybe we could see it again. 

 

It is Keynesian logic that led to us destroying thousands of perfectly good cars with the cash for clunkers program. Think about it. We paid people to destroy a bunch of cars believing it would make us wealthier. In what world does destroying your car make you wealthier? FDR did the same thing when he had pigs slaughtered simply to reduce the supply so that the cost of pork would go up. The meat wasn't sold. Just thrown away. How did that make the economy better? Keynesians believe it did. That is how fucked up they are. 

 

They claim that the recession is over because GDP started going up a tiny bit. But they count government spending in GDP. Since the government is borrowing to spend that money it doesn't really exist. Say you had an income of 30k and a credit card with a 10k limit and you spent 40k did your income go up? Of course not. Your 10k in debt. In the same situation, the Keynesians claim that GDP has gone up. They ignore that much of the GDP comes from government spending (debt). Then everyone wonders why there are no new jobs. The recession isn't over. The "experts" like Paul Krugman will probably cover their tracks by calling it a double dip and blaming the Republican congress for blocking Bama's wonderful agenda. But really, it will just be a continuation of the recession. Which will continue for the same reason the Great Depression continued so damn long. Because we are listening to the Keynesians.

 

It isn't even over for the housing market. Just this week it was reported that all of the major home lenders have stopped the foreclosure process. Until all those bad loans are foreclosed on the housing bubble is still there. There are a ton of houses ready to go on the foreclosure market which will cause a glut of supply in the housing market. High supply means lower prices. Which means everyones house that is already low in value is going to go even lower. Until that happens anyone with an ounce of sense is going to wait to purchase a house because they know prices will go down. 

 

And why aren't businesses hiring? Maybe its because Congress didn't even hold a vote on the tax rates. As it stands right now, ALL of the Bush tax cuts will expire which sets up the largest tax increase in history. Tax increases cause a slowing economy. If your potential consumers will have less to spend next year, why would you invest in expanding today?  You will wait until the increase hits, then do your market research to determine if expanding will be profitable. Add onto that the fact that no one knows exactly how high insurance rates are going to go with Bamacare. Before a business expands, a lot of thought and study goes into determining if it will be profitable. Until you have clear information on what your costs will be and what your consumers are likely to do you will not commit millions of dollars to expanding. You don't just open a new store and cross your fingers, unless of course you got your money from the government. 

 

I'm done ranting for now. I can go on forever. 

 

very good post

id add about the tax rates on people making 250K plus

if you increase their rates its a disincentive to expand, we want people to expand, increase productivity, employ more folks, what the govt is saying is "you want to expand your business? hire more people? make more money? dont bother. because if you do we are going to take more of your hard earned dollars to squander"

And all we have to do to bring jobs back to America is accept Chinese wages and labor laws, right?

Funny how the tax rates on the 250k+ went up under Clinton and the economy ran like a damn freight train, isn't it?

 

holy oversimplification batman

 

no other factors went into how well the economy was back then (which was merely an illusion), just taxes

 

got it

 

It's a variant of your claim. You claim that cutting spending (by itself - no other factors) will magically improve the economy.

Now you see how stupid it is. So stop it.

 

uumm no, i said we need to cut spending, lower taxes, cut regulation, have sound money, and have the govt do only those things its authorized by the constitution to do

this is mostly a thread about the economy but i guess we'd be remiss if we left out foreign policy since that does have a major impact, we need a non-interventionist foreign policy

far different

dont think i ever said all we need to do is simply cut spending

 

cut (wasteful) spending - all for it

cut revenue - just flat stupid

sound money - Ok. short of going back to gold, not sure how.

having the gov't do only things authorized by the constitution - pretty much doing it now. You want to change those duties - not sure why.

non-interventionist foreign policy - again, you wish to change the duties of the government.

Read the Preamble and Art. I, Sect.8 again.

 

cutting revenue is stupid because?  had no idea allowing people to keep more of their own money was a stupid idea or bad economics

well since the constitution states that ONLY gold or silver can be legal tender id say gold is a good choice, but id be for competing currencies, let the market figure it out

you must be joking that the govt is only doing things authorized by the constitution, even james clyburn disagrees with you

i dont see how thats changing the duties of the govt at all, the founders advice was to have a non-interventionist foreign policy

so the govt is doing only whats contained in the powers regulated to it in article 1 section 8? laughable, unless your going to use dishonest "interpretations" of the commerce clause, the general welfare clause, and the supremacy clause

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:cut

jcgadfly wrote:

cut (wasteful) spending - all for it

cut revenue - just flat stupid

sound money - Ok. short of going back to gold, not sure how.

having the gov't do only things authorized by the constitution - pretty much doing it now. You want to change those duties - not sure why.

non-interventionist foreign policy - again, you wish to change the duties of the government.

Read the Preamble and Art. I, Sect.8 again.

1. Which spending would you cut? So far you haven't liked anything I want to cut. 

2. Lowering taxes does not necessarily lead to decreased revenue if it helps build the economy faster. However, as a political reality avoiding tax increases is probably the best we can hope for. Hopefully, when the economy recovers we can ditch the whole tax code and go with a much better tax system. Kind of curious atomicdogg what kind of tax system do you support?

3. Ditch the fed for starters and allow interest rates to be set by the market. Going back to gold right now would be a bad idea, because there isn't enough gold in the world to pay off our debt.

4. Except healthcare, buying companies and bailouts just to name a few.

5. The Constitution doesn't require interventionist foreign policy. Granted, it isn't against the Constitution to do it but it is still a bad idea. I thought you were against interventionist foreign policy too. I was under the impression we agreed wars and policing other countries are generally a waste of money. Especially since we can end any meaningful war with exactly two bombs.

6. The preamble provides the government with absolutely no authority. Jacobson v. Mass [197 U.S. 11 (1904)] where the Court states "the Preamble indicates the general purpose for which the people ordained and established the Constitution" and "[the Preamble] has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government"

And yes section 8 gives the government power to regulate international trade. It doesn't say there must be a lot of regulation. But I would favor a Constitutional Amendment to strike the second line "To borrow money on the credit of the United States" or at least amend it to say such borrowing must be temporary for emergency circumstances not general funding.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

cut (wasteful) spending - all for it

cut revenue - just flat stupid

sound money - Ok. short of going back to gold, not sure how.

having the gov't do only things authorized by the constitution - pretty much doing it now. You want to change those duties - not sure why.

non-interventionist foreign policy - again, you wish to change the duties of the government.

Read the Preamble and Art. I, Sect.8 again.

1. Which spending would you cut? So far you haven't liked anything I want to cut. 

2. Lowering taxes does not necessarily lead to decreased revenue if it helps build the economy faster. However, as a political reality avoiding tax increases is probably the best we can hope for. Hopefully, when the economy recovers we can ditch the whole tax code and go with a much better tax system. Kind of curious atomicdogg what kind of tax system do you support?

3. Ditch the fed for starters and allow interest rates to be set by the market. Going back to gold right now would be a bad idea, because there isn't enough gold in the world to pay off our debt.

4. Except healthcare, buying companies and bailouts just to name a few.

5. The Constitution doesn't require interventionist foreign policy. Granted, it isn't against the Constitution to do it but it is still a bad idea. I thought you were against interventionist foreign policy too. I was under the impression we agreed wars and policing other countries are generally a waste of money. Especially since we can end any meaningful war with exactly two bombs.

6. The preamble provides the government with absolutely no authority. Jacobson v. Mass [197 U.S. 11 (1904)] where the Court states "the Preamble indicates the general purpose for which the people ordained and established the Constitution" and "[the Preamble] has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government"

And yes section 8 gives the government power to regulate international trade. It doesn't say how or to what extent. But I would favor a Constitutional Amendment to strike the second line "To borrow money on the credit of the United States" or at least amend it to say such borrowing must be temporary for emergency circumstances not general funding.

 

im for getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with nothing

seems that isnt all that plausible in the current situation (though it should be), in the mean time im in favor of lowering overall tax burdens (not just shifting the cost around and claiming to lower them) while cutting spending

if someone proposed a flat tax or a consumption tax (like the Fair Tax for instance) id have to take a look at it, simplification of the tax structure and lowering overall tax burdens should be the goal until we can get rid of it for good

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

cut (wasteful) spending - all for it

cut revenue - just flat stupid

sound money - Ok. short of going back to gold, not sure how.

having the gov't do only things authorized by the constitution - pretty much doing it now. You want to change those duties - not sure why.

non-interventionist foreign policy - again, you wish to change the duties of the government.

Read the Preamble and Art. I, Sect.8 again.

1. Which spending would you cut? So far you haven't liked anything I want to cut. 

2. Lowering taxes does not necessarily lead to decreased revenue if it helps build the economy faster. However, as a political reality avoiding tax increases is probably the best we can hope for. Hopefully, when the economy recovers we can ditch the whole tax code and go with a much better tax system. Kind of curious atomicdogg what kind of tax system do you support?

3. Ditch the fed for starters and allow interest rates to be set by the market. Going back to gold right now would be a bad idea, because there isn't enough gold in the world to pay off our debt.

4. Except healthcare, buying companies and bailouts just to name a few.

5. The Constitution doesn't require interventionist foreign policy. Granted, it isn't against the Constitution to do it but it is still a bad idea. I thought you were against interventionist foreign policy too. I was under the impression we agreed wars and policing other countries are generally a waste of money. Especially since we can end any meaningful war with exactly two bombs.

6. The preamble provides the government with absolutely no authority. Jacobson v. Mass [197 U.S. 11 (1904)] where the Court states "the Preamble indicates the general purpose for which the people ordained and established the Constitution" and "[the Preamble] has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government"

And yes section 8 gives the government power to regulate international trade. It doesn't say there must be a lot of regulation. But I would favor a Constitutional Amendment to strike the second line "To borrow money on the credit of the United States" or at least amend it to say such borrowing must be temporary for emergency circumstances not general funding.

I don't think that cutting wasteful spending equates to eliminating entire sections of the government. We could cut a big ass portion of the defense budget and use it to build infrastructure. We could eliminate corporate welfare and rebuild the individual safety net. I don't see eliminating the Department of Education (for example) as anything but a means to keep people stupid. Cutting the Dept. of Labor? Nah, not interested in putting toddlers to work for twelve hours a day - nor do I want to work in a sweatshop, thanks. Dept. of Energy has forgotten it's original function. I'd like to see them go back to that

Health care - "promote the general welfare"

buying companies/Bailouts - could be interpreted as "insure domestic Tranquility". Keeping people working tends to keep down insurrections.

How do you see giving a country money in return for products/preferential treatment as non-interventionist? 

The preamble does not give authority, true. However, much of the preamble is listed throughout the constitution. Section 8 itself repeats the main components.

 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:Beyond

atomicdogg34 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

cut (wasteful) spending - all for it

cut revenue - just flat stupid

sound money - Ok. short of going back to gold, not sure how.

having the gov't do only things authorized by the constitution - pretty much doing it now. You want to change those duties - not sure why.

non-interventionist foreign policy - again, you wish to change the duties of the government.

Read the Preamble and Art. I, Sect.8 again.

1. Which spending would you cut? So far you haven't liked anything I want to cut. 

2. Lowering taxes does not necessarily lead to decreased revenue if it helps build the economy faster. However, as a political reality avoiding tax increases is probably the best we can hope for. Hopefully, when the economy recovers we can ditch the whole tax code and go with a much better tax system. Kind of curious atomicdogg what kind of tax system do you support?

3. Ditch the fed for starters and allow interest rates to be set by the market. Going back to gold right now would be a bad idea, because there isn't enough gold in the world to pay off our debt.

4. Except healthcare, buying companies and bailouts just to name a few.

5. The Constitution doesn't require interventionist foreign policy. Granted, it isn't against the Constitution to do it but it is still a bad idea. I thought you were against interventionist foreign policy too. I was under the impression we agreed wars and policing other countries are generally a waste of money. Especially since we can end any meaningful war with exactly two bombs.

6. The preamble provides the government with absolutely no authority. Jacobson v. Mass [197 U.S. 11 (1904)] where the Court states "the Preamble indicates the general purpose for which the people ordained and established the Constitution" and "[the Preamble] has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government"

And yes section 8 gives the government power to regulate international trade. It doesn't say how or to what extent. But I would favor a Constitutional Amendment to strike the second line "To borrow money on the credit of the United States" or at least amend it to say such borrowing must be temporary for emergency circumstances not general funding.

 

im for getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with nothing

seems that isnt all that plausible in the current situation (though it should be), in the mean time im in favor of lowering overall tax burdens (not just shifting the cost around and claiming to lower them) while cutting spending

if someone proposed a flat tax or a consumption tax (like the Fair Tax for instance) id have to take a look at it, simplification of the tax structure and lowering overall tax burdens should be the goal until we can get rid of it for good

 

The fair tax plan will help you out unless you actually buy things. Dropping the revenue to nil would only work if you did the same to spending (aka abolishing government by not allowing it to function).

You little anarchist you. Smiling

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:im for

atomicdogg34 wrote:

im for getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with nothing

seems that isnt all that plausible in the current situation (though it should be), in the mean time im in favor of lowering overall tax burdens (not just shifting the cost around and claiming to lower them) while cutting spending

if someone proposed a flat tax or a consumption tax (like the Fair Tax for instance) id have to take a look at it, simplification of the tax structure and lowering overall tax burdens should be the goal until we can get rid of it for good

 

How about the "If you want that program pay for it your damn self" system where Congressmen and Senators pay for whatever they spend with their own money or whatever money they raise. Yeah we can dream.

 

As a more realistic option I believe a consumption tax would be best as long as the 16th is repealed.

 

I've also always thought that if everyone paid their taxes (including SS and medicare) by writing out a check like I do far more people would be in favor of reform. Stop the withholding and "refund" bs and make people actually see how much they pay the government. I will never forget the first time I had to pay the self-employment tax and the amount I owed was substantially more than I had in my bank account. I was anti-government before then  On that day I became an anarchist  And since then I have mellowed out quite a bit   Now I'm just thinking of going Galt   

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Health care -

jcgadfly wrote:

Health care - "promote the general welfare"

The Congress shall 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; but all Duties, Impostsand Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Seems a big stretch to include healthcare in that one clause. Especially since nothing of the type is even remotely suggested anywhere else even though congresses powers are very clearly laid out. And we always ignore good old number 10 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If you can include healthcare in "general welfare" is there ANYTHING that could be excluded?

 

jcgadfly wrote:

buying companies/Bailouts - could be interpreted as "insure domestic Tranquility". Keeping people working tends to keep down insurrections.

Wow, now you've broken Stretch Armstrong. First of all it is in the preamble which as I pointed out before does not give powers to the government that are not elsewhere specified. The Court already heard that case. Second, insure domestic tranquility was almost certainly put in there because one of the reasons they were creating a national constitution was incidents like Shay's Rebellion.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

How do you see giving a country money in return for products/preferential treatment as non-interventionist? 

Because you can trade with someone without attempting to control them. You are simply making an economic deal. By interventionist I mean the attitude of we need to make everyone a democracy and send our troops over here and here to restore order or make sure you set your government up in a way we like. I take it that is what dogg meant too but he can speak for himself.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

im for getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with nothing

seems that isnt all that plausible in the current situation (though it should be), in the mean time im in favor of lowering overall tax burdens (not just shifting the cost around and claiming to lower them) while cutting spending

if someone proposed a flat tax or a consumption tax (like the Fair Tax for instance) id have to take a look at it, simplification of the tax structure and lowering overall tax burdens should be the goal until we can get rid of it for good

 

How about the "If you want that program pay for it your damn self" system where Congressmen and Senators pay for whatever they spend with their own money or whatever money they raise. Yeah we can dream.

 

As a more realistic option I believe a consumption tax would be best as long as the 16th is repealed.

 

I've also always thought that if everyone paid their taxes (including SS and medicare) by writing out a check like I do far more people would be in favor of reform. Stop the withholding and "refund" bs and make people actually see how much they pay the government. I will never forget the first time I had to pay the self-employment tax and the amount I owed was substantially more than I had in my bank account. I was anti-government before then  On that day I became an anarchist  And since then I have mellowed out quite a bit   Now I'm just thinking of going Galt   

 

ive done some reading on the Fair Tax, the legislation calls for the repeal of the 16th amendment, so thats good

yeah withholding is BS, they used to not have it, then they changed it around FDRs time i believe

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
"general welfare" thats

"general welfare"

 

thats what im talking about when i say dishonest interpretations

james madison was adamant when asked if that part was too broad and would allow the govt to do whatever it wanted, his reply was a resounding, "NO"

his point was that it was qualified by the other powers attached to it, and that it doesnt make sense to list the other powers if they are already contained within this so called superpower

"ensure domestic tranquility", LOL

jumped the shark on that one, i think thats the only time ive ever heard that used as an excuse

james clyburn: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”

and nancy pelosi:

 

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:"general

atomicdogg34 wrote:

"general welfare"

 

thats what im talking about when i say dishonest interpretations

james madison was adamant when asked if that part was too broad and would allow the govt to do whatever it wanted, his reply was a resounding, "NO"

his point was that it was qualified by the other powers attached to it, and that it doesnt make sense to list the other powers if they are already contained within this so called superpower

"ensure domestic tranquility", LOL

jumped the shark on that one, i think thats the only time ive ever heard that used as an excuse

james clyburn: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”

and nancy pelosi:

 

 

You are the one that wanted to play according to the Constitution. Changing your mind because you've been proven wrong?

Just because we have people who aren't playing by the constitution doesn't mean we have to abolish the document (which is now what you're changing tactics to do).

Screw interpreting it - perhaps you should try reading it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

"general welfare"

 

thats what im talking about when i say dishonest interpretations

james madison was adamant when asked if that part was too broad and would allow the govt to do whatever it wanted, his reply was a resounding, "NO"

his point was that it was qualified by the other powers attached to it, and that it doesnt make sense to list the other powers if they are already contained within this so called superpower

"ensure domestic tranquility", LOL

jumped the shark on that one, i think thats the only time ive ever heard that used as an excuse

james clyburn: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”

and nancy pelosi:

 

 

You are the one that wanted to play according to the Constitution. Changing your mind because you've been proven wrong?

Just because we have people who aren't playing by the constitution doesn't mean we have to abolish the document (which is now what you're changing tactics to do).

Screw interpreting it - perhaps you should try reading it.

 

what in the blue hell are you even talking about?

LOL

all i did was simply point out that your "interpretation" was absolutely untenable

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
The "good & plenty" clause

The "good & plenty" clause grants congress the power to give away stuff to whomever they want whenever they want. It is in Article 8 but it is in invisible ink so you need your ultraviolet light to read it. It is also written in code and the only known cipher is secure having been recorded on a computer chip and injected with Pelosi's botox. That is why all of us Constitutionalist radicals can't read it. You know how much Thomas Jefferson loved puzzles and codes. He was actually a Marxist but since Marx wasn't born yet he just didn't know it.

Obviously, the Constitution was written for the sole purpose of granting Congress the power to do whatever they wanted. Because the founders fought a war to get away from a country that allowed too much individual freedom and didn't have enough government welfare programs.  And that 10th Amendment was just thrown in as an afterthought. It doesn't really mean anything. That is why they put it last. It wasn't because they wanted to clarify that the Federal government was only in charge of what is expressly listed. That is just crazy. If you believe that, you probably also believe that people own their money, that the First Amendment includes the Internet and the Second Amendment includes guns other than muskets. Thats just CRAZY. 

 

Just as an example of how important the cipher is check out some of Jefferson's quotes.

 

"The government is best which governs least"

The government is best with big bureaucracy.

 

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread"

Clearly means Washington should be in complete control of the economy by taxing money and spreading it around because government is better than businessmen at determining what to invest in.

 

"the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. When all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."

Obviously means that Washington should be in charge of all things.

 

 

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."

Obviously means that the government isn't doing enough and should do more.

 

"Never spend your money before you have it"

Obviously means we should run up huge debts as fast as possible.

 

"With respect to our state and federal governments, I do not thing their relations correctly understood by foreigners. They generally suppose the former subordinate to the latter. But this is not the case. They are co-ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. To the state governments are reserved all legislation administration, in affairs which concern their own citizens only; and to the federal government is given whatever concerns foreigners and citizens of other states; these functions alone being made federal. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government - neither having control over the other, but within its own department."

Clearly means that he believed that all Federal laws trumped all State laws.

 

"If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; And the sixteen being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; But be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers; And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on 'til the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering...and the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

Clearly means we should tax the evil rich and run a deficit.

 

"The accounts of the United States ought to be, and may be made, as simple as those of a common farmer, and capable of being understood by common farmers."

Clearly means the tax code should be so complex a whole industry is developed just to file tax returns.

 

"Take not from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned"

Obviously means we should tax the evil rich heavily.

 

"Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the statute of Virginia for religious freedom, and father of the University of Virginia."

Epitaph of Jefferson at Charlottesville, Virginia, written by himself, 1825.

And the smartest man in American, if not world, history. Read what the man said. Read what Franklin, Jay, Madison, Hamilton, Adams and the rest wrote. Is this the country they built? Almost everything we do is the exact opposite of what they intended. It is a sad day for America when the people who set it up the first time around are considered extremists again. Can any rational person believe we are interpreting the Constitution as they intended?

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

"general welfare"

 

thats what im talking about when i say dishonest interpretations

james madison was adamant when asked if that part was too broad and would allow the govt to do whatever it wanted, his reply was a resounding, "NO"

his point was that it was qualified by the other powers attached to it, and that it doesnt make sense to list the other powers if they are already contained within this so called superpower

"ensure domestic tranquility", LOL

jumped the shark on that one, i think thats the only time ive ever heard that used as an excuse

james clyburn: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”

and nancy pelosi:

 

 

You are the one that wanted to play according to the Constitution. Changing your mind because you've been proven wrong?

Just because we have people who aren't playing by the constitution doesn't mean we have to abolish the document (which is now what you're changing tactics to do).

Screw interpreting it - perhaps you should try reading it.

 

what in the blue hell are you even talking about?

LOL

all i did was simply point out that your "interpretation" was absolutely untenable

Yet you never showed how. You basically said "I don't like your interpretation so it doesn't work."

I pulled from a reading of the constitution. I also said that the bail outs could be interpreted as such. I never said I held that interpretation.

I just figured preventing a new run on the banks might be make the domestic scene more tranquil - as would helping people keep jobs. don't you think so?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

"general welfare"

 

thats what im talking about when i say dishonest interpretations

james madison was adamant when asked if that part was too broad and would allow the govt to do whatever it wanted, his reply was a resounding, "NO"

his point was that it was qualified by the other powers attached to it, and that it doesnt make sense to list the other powers if they are already contained within this so called superpower

"ensure domestic tranquility", LOL

jumped the shark on that one, i think thats the only time ive ever heard that used as an excuse

james clyburn: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”

and nancy pelosi:

 

 

You are the one that wanted to play according to the Constitution. Changing your mind because you've been proven wrong?

Just because we have people who aren't playing by the constitution doesn't mean we have to abolish the document (which is now what you're changing tactics to do).

Screw interpreting it - perhaps you should try reading it.

 

what in the blue hell are you even talking about?

LOL

all i did was simply point out that your "interpretation" was absolutely untenable

Yet you never showed how. You basically said "I don't like your interpretation so it doesn't work."

I pulled from a reading of the constitution. I also said that the bail outs could be interpreted as such. I never said I held that interpretation.

I just figured preventing a new run on the banks might be make the domestic scene more tranquil - as would helping people keep jobs. don't you think so?

 

you must be a theist

"well 'let there be light' could be interpretated as the big bang"

give me a freaking break

i said it doesnt work because it isnt backed up by anything other than you making it up as you go along, total nonsense, not even the very liberal folks in govt have used that as an excuse

yeah domestic and tranquil, thats what we got because of the bailouts, LOL

meanwhile my assertion that something like the "general welfare" clause not working is backed up, by james madison, you know, one of the guys that wrote the damn constitution, as well as the states ratifying conventions

listen you can bend the words to mean anything you want i guess, but all thats going to do is get you laughed at

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

"general welfare"

 

thats what im talking about when i say dishonest interpretations

james madison was adamant when asked if that part was too broad and would allow the govt to do whatever it wanted, his reply was a resounding, "NO"

his point was that it was qualified by the other powers attached to it, and that it doesnt make sense to list the other powers if they are already contained within this so called superpower

"ensure domestic tranquility", LOL

jumped the shark on that one, i think thats the only time ive ever heard that used as an excuse

james clyburn: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”

and nancy pelosi:

 

 

You are the one that wanted to play according to the Constitution. Changing your mind because you've been proven wrong?

Just because we have people who aren't playing by the constitution doesn't mean we have to abolish the document (which is now what you're changing tactics to do).

Screw interpreting it - perhaps you should try reading it.

 

what in the blue hell are you even talking about?

LOL

all i did was simply point out that your "interpretation" was absolutely untenable

Yet you never showed how. You basically said "I don't like your interpretation so it doesn't work."

I pulled from a reading of the constitution. I also said that the bail outs could be interpreted as such. I never said I held that interpretation.

I just figured preventing a new run on the banks might be make the domestic scene more tranquil - as would helping people keep jobs. don't you think so?

 

you must be a theist

"well 'let there be light' could be interpretated as the big bang"

give me a freaking break

i said it doesnt work because it isnt backed up by anything other than you making it up as you go along, total nonsense, not even the very liberal folks in govt have used that as an excuse

yeah domestic and tranquil, thats what we got because of the bailouts, LOL

meanwhile my assertion that something like the "general welfare" clause not working is backed up, by james madison, you know, one of the guys that wrote the damn constitution, as well as the states ratifying conventions

listen you can bend the words to mean anything you want i guess, but all thats going to do is get you laughed at

So the best you got is calling me a theist?

Look, if something isn't working you do something radical, like oh, y'know FIX IT. Your method of just throwing it out if you don't like it will get us nowhere in a hurry.

As I said, I do not hold that interpretation. I said it could be interpreted that way and I gave my reasons for how it could. If you're happy with runs on banks, cool by me. I'm in a credit union. As for Madison, he didn't agree with a hell of a lot that was in the constitution, but he accepted it. Your problem is with Madison not with me.

I don't buy the "too big to fail" argument any more than you do. I'm also not a believer in the American consumer/victim of banks being "too small to survive"

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So the best

jcgadfly wrote:

So the best you got is calling me a theist?

Look, if something isn't working you do something radical, like oh, y'know FIX IT. Your method of just throwing it out if you don't like it will get us nowhere in a hurry.

As I said, I do not hold that interpretation. I said it could be interpreted that way and I gave my reasons for how it could. If you're happy with runs on banks, cool by me. I'm in a credit union. As for Madison, he didn't agree with a hell of a lot that was in the constitution, but he accepted it. Your problem is with Madison not with me.

I don't buy the "too big to fail" argument any more than you do. I'm also not a believer in the American consumer/victim of banks being "too small to survive"

 

The founders realized that and that is why it is why they gave us a way to "fix" or change the Constitution called constitutional amendments. So if you think the federal government should have more power pass an amendment. Anything you don't agree with in there try to amend it. What we are doing now is simply ignoring it. The Constitution is the only thing that protects the individual from the government. We ignore it for convenience at our own peril.

 

And no, it can't be interpreted that way. As I pointed out before domestic tranquility ONLY appears in the preamble. The Constitution is rather clear and lists specific enumerated powers of what the Congress CAN do and then specifically states that the rest is up to the states or the people. Now some clauses like the commerce clause can be argued about exactly how far the government can go. Although if you apply a little common sense and historical research it is clear that the commerce clause has been stretched well beyond the intentions of the men who wrote it. But really, the best argument those in Congress have now is "most of what we do has nothing to do with the Constitution." or "are you serious?" when asked where they get the power to do what they are doing. Even they know they are ignoring it. 

 

Why should we follow the Constitution? Because it is the ground rules our ancestors agreed to. It is the foundation of our society. If we simply say we will ignore the rules simply because it is inconvenient then we might as well not have any. What forces politicians to leave office at the end of their term? What protects our right to have an atheist website against the will of the majority? Even if there is something that we could all agree the federal government should do, ignoring the Constitution weakens it and makes it mean less. We should follow EVERY rule and restriction it lays out and if there is something that is simply a bad idea we should pass an amendment and change it. Would you play a game of Monopoly against someone who decided to change the rules halfway through the game without your consent? If you wouldn't even play an unimportant board game that way, why are you willing to let your government be that way? Our freedom lasts only as long as the government follows the rules. 

 

And where the hell do you get the idea that dogg wants to abolish the Constituion? He is arguing for the exact opposite. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So the best you got is calling me a theist?

Look, if something isn't working you do something radical, like oh, y'know FIX IT. Your method of just throwing it out if you don't like it will get us nowhere in a hurry.

As I said, I do not hold that interpretation. I said it could be interpreted that way and I gave my reasons for how it could. If you're happy with runs on banks, cool by me. I'm in a credit union. As for Madison, he didn't agree with a hell of a lot that was in the constitution, but he accepted it. Your problem is with Madison not with me.

I don't buy the "too big to fail" argument any more than you do. I'm also not a believer in the American consumer/victim of banks being "too small to survive"

 

The founders realized that and that is why it is why they gave us a way to "fix" or change the Constitution called constitutional amendments. So if you think the federal government should have more power pass an amendment. Anything you don't agree with in there try to amend it. What we are doing now is simply ignoring it. The Constitution is the only thing that protects the individual from the government. We ignore it for convenience at our own peril.

 

And no, it can't be interpreted that way. As I pointed out before domestic tranquility ONLY appears in the preamble. The Constitution is rather clear and lists specific enumerated powers of what the Congress CAN do and then specifically states that the rest is up to the states or the people. Now some clauses like the commerce clause can be argued about exactly how far the government can go. Although if you apply a little common sense and historical research it is clear that the commerce clause has been stretched well beyond the intentions of the men who wrote it. But really, the best argument those in Congress have now is "most of what we do has nothing to do with the Constitution." or "are you serious?" when asked where they get the power to do what they are doing. Even they know they are ignoring it. 

 

Why should we follow the Constitution? Because it is the ground rules our ancestors agreed to. It is the foundation of our society. If we simply say we will ignore the rules simply because it is inconvenient then we might as well not have any. What forces politicians to leave office at the end of their term? What protects our right to have an atheist website against the will of the majority? Even if there is something that we could all agree the federal government should do, ignoring the Constitution weakens it and makes it mean less. We should follow EVERY rule and restriction it lays out and if there is something that is simply a bad idea we should pass an amendment and change it. Would you play a game of Monopoly against someone who decided to change the rules halfway through the game without your consent? If you wouldn't even play an unimportant board game that way, why are you willing to let your government be that way? Our freedom lasts only as long as the government follows the rules. 

 

And where the hell do you get the idea that dogg wants to abolish the Constituion? He is arguing for the exact opposite. 

I don't want the government to have more power. I also don't want to strip it of what power it has. This is why they got rid of the Articles of Confederation.

Some issues don't boil down to "state's rights". The Constitution is not a static document no matter how much you wish it was.

I agree that the congress has certain powers - dogg wants to strip them of some of those powers (taxation, for example) because he doesn't think he should have to abide by them. His words. Enough said.

If you give a damn for the Constitution, don't gut it just because it incoveniences your pocketbook.

Next you'll tell me that the government doesn't buy influence when it engages in international commerce.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Beyond Saving

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So the best you got is calling me a theist?

Look, if something isn't working you do something radical, like oh, y'know FIX IT. Your method of just throwing it out if you don't like it will get us nowhere in a hurry.

As I said, I do not hold that interpretation. I said it could be interpreted that way and I gave my reasons for how it could. If you're happy with runs on banks, cool by me. I'm in a credit union. As for Madison, he didn't agree with a hell of a lot that was in the constitution, but he accepted it. Your problem is with Madison not with me.

I don't buy the "too big to fail" argument any more than you do. I'm also not a believer in the American consumer/victim of banks being "too small to survive"

 

The founders realized that and that is why it is why they gave us a way to "fix" or change the Constitution called constitutional amendments. So if you think the federal government should have more power pass an amendment. Anything you don't agree with in there try to amend it. What we are doing now is simply ignoring it. The Constitution is the only thing that protects the individual from the government. We ignore it for convenience at our own peril.

 

And no, it can't be interpreted that way. As I pointed out before domestic tranquility ONLY appears in the preamble. The Constitution is rather clear and lists specific enumerated powers of what the Congress CAN do and then specifically states that the rest is up to the states or the people. Now some clauses like the commerce clause can be argued about exactly how far the government can go. Although if you apply a little common sense and historical research it is clear that the commerce clause has been stretched well beyond the intentions of the men who wrote it. But really, the best argument those in Congress have now is "most of what we do has nothing to do with the Constitution." or "are you serious?" when asked where they get the power to do what they are doing. Even they know they are ignoring it. 

 

Why should we follow the Constitution? Because it is the ground rules our ancestors agreed to. It is the foundation of our society. If we simply say we will ignore the rules simply because it is inconvenient then we might as well not have any. What forces politicians to leave office at the end of their term? What protects our right to have an atheist website against the will of the majority? Even if there is something that we could all agree the federal government should do, ignoring the Constitution weakens it and makes it mean less. We should follow EVERY rule and restriction it lays out and if there is something that is simply a bad idea we should pass an amendment and change it. Would you play a game of Monopoly against someone who decided to change the rules halfway through the game without your consent? If you wouldn't even play an unimportant board game that way, why are you willing to let your government be that way? Our freedom lasts only as long as the government follows the rules. 

 

And where the hell do you get the idea that dogg wants to abolish the Constituion? He is arguing for the exact opposite. 

I don't want the government to have more power. I also don't want to strip it of what power it has. This is why they got rid of the Articles of Confederation.

Some issues don't boil down to "state's rights". The Constitution is not a static document no matter how much you wish it was.

I agree that the congress has certain powers - dogg wants to strip them of some of those powers (taxation, for example) because he doesn't think he should have to abide by them. His words. Enough said.

If you give a damn for the Constitution, don't gut it just because it incoveniences your pocketbook.

Next you'll tell me that the government doesn't buy influence when it engages in international commerce.

 

 

well by defending these non-sensical "interpretations" you are bound to have the govt usurp more and more power, the govt needs to be stripped of certain powers, the powers it never should have had to begin with

jefferson thought of the 10th amendment as the cornerstone of the constitution, its the embodiment of what America was supposed to be, to reinforce why we broke away from england to begin with, to uphold the principle of local self govt

the constitution is a static document, it doesnt change on a whim, if you want to change it it has a built in mechanism for that, a "living" constitution has no power to protect the people, it might as well be a blank piece of paper

i dont think i should have to abide by a personal income tax, and neither should you for that matter, thats if you believe in private property, the govt does fund itself through other means

the people who claim the constitution grants them powers it clearly doesnt are the ones gutting it, they are perverting the intent from restraining the govt to restraining and managing the people

its time to take up dr. tom woods on his idea of nullification, its been used historically with great and heroic success (thats basically what california is doing now with its marijuana initiatives, govt and supreme court says you cant and cali says thanks for letting us know but we are doing it anyways)

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So the best you got is calling me a theist?

Look, if something isn't working you do something radical, like oh, y'know FIX IT. Your method of just throwing it out if you don't like it will get us nowhere in a hurry.

As I said, I do not hold that interpretation. I said it could be interpreted that way and I gave my reasons for how it could. If you're happy with runs on banks, cool by me. I'm in a credit union. As for Madison, he didn't agree with a hell of a lot that was in the constitution, but he accepted it. Your problem is with Madison not with me.

I don't buy the "too big to fail" argument any more than you do. I'm also not a believer in the American consumer/victim of banks being "too small to survive"

 

The founders realized that and that is why it is why they gave us a way to "fix" or change the Constitution called constitutional amendments. So if you think the federal government should have more power pass an amendment. Anything you don't agree with in there try to amend it. What we are doing now is simply ignoring it. The Constitution is the only thing that protects the individual from the government. We ignore it for convenience at our own peril.

 

And no, it can't be interpreted that way. As I pointed out before domestic tranquility ONLY appears in the preamble. The Constitution is rather clear and lists specific enumerated powers of what the Congress CAN do and then specifically states that the rest is up to the states or the people. Now some clauses like the commerce clause can be argued about exactly how far the government can go. Although if you apply a little common sense and historical research it is clear that the commerce clause has been stretched well beyond the intentions of the men who wrote it. But really, the best argument those in Congress have now is "most of what we do has nothing to do with the Constitution." or "are you serious?" when asked where they get the power to do what they are doing. Even they know they are ignoring it. 

 

Why should we follow the Constitution? Because it is the ground rules our ancestors agreed to. It is the foundation of our society. If we simply say we will ignore the rules simply because it is inconvenient then we might as well not have any. What forces politicians to leave office at the end of their term? What protects our right to have an atheist website against the will of the majority? Even if there is something that we could all agree the federal government should do, ignoring the Constitution weakens it and makes it mean less. We should follow EVERY rule and restriction it lays out and if there is something that is simply a bad idea we should pass an amendment and change it. Would you play a game of Monopoly against someone who decided to change the rules halfway through the game without your consent? If you wouldn't even play an unimportant board game that way, why are you willing to let your government be that way? Our freedom lasts only as long as the government follows the rules. 

 

And where the hell do you get the idea that dogg wants to abolish the Constituion? He is arguing for the exact opposite. 

I don't want the government to have more power. I also don't want to strip it of what power it has. This is why they got rid of the Articles of Confederation.

Some issues don't boil down to "state's rights". The Constitution is not a static document no matter how much you wish it was.

I agree that the congress has certain powers - dogg wants to strip them of some of those powers (taxation, for example) because he doesn't think he should have to abide by them. His words. Enough said.

If you give a damn for the Constitution, don't gut it just because it incoveniences your pocketbook.

Next you'll tell me that the government doesn't buy influence when it engages in international commerce.

 

 

well by defending these non-sensical "interpretations" you are bound to have the govt usurp more and more power, the govt needs to be stripped of certain powers, the powers it never should have had to begin with

jefferson thought of the 10th amendment as the cornerstone of the constitution, its the embodiment of what America was supposed to be, to reinforce why we broke away from england to begin with, to uphold the principle of local self govt

the constitution is a static document, it doesnt change on a whim, if you want to change it it has a built in mechanism for that, a "living" constitution has no power to protect the people, it might as well be a blank piece of paper

i dont think i should have to abide by a personal income tax, and neither should you for that matter, thats if you believe in private property, the govt does fund itself through other means

the people who claim the constitution grants them powers it clearly doesnt are the ones gutting it, they are perverting the intent from restraining the govt to restraining and managing the people

its time to take up dr. tom woods on his idea of nullification, its been used historically with great and heroic success (thats basically what california is doing now with its marijuana initiatives, govt and supreme court says you cant and cali says thanks for letting us know but we are doing it anyways)

 

The government should have certain powers delegated to it in the Constitution but I want to strip away those powers?

Make up your mind It's not supposed to change but there's a mechanism for it?

The government has the power to collect taxes - I just don't want them collecting taxes off me?

You're just full of contradictions, aren't you?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So the best you got is calling me a theist?

Look, if something isn't working you do something radical, like oh, y'know FIX IT. Your method of just throwing it out if you don't like it will get us nowhere in a hurry.

As I said, I do not hold that interpretation. I said it could be interpreted that way and I gave my reasons for how it could. If you're happy with runs on banks, cool by me. I'm in a credit union. As for Madison, he didn't agree with a hell of a lot that was in the constitution, but he accepted it. Your problem is with Madison not with me.

I don't buy the "too big to fail" argument any more than you do. I'm also not a believer in the American consumer/victim of banks being "too small to survive"

 

The founders realized that and that is why it is why they gave us a way to "fix" or change the Constitution called constitutional amendments. So if you think the federal government should have more power pass an amendment. Anything you don't agree with in there try to amend it. What we are doing now is simply ignoring it. The Constitution is the only thing that protects the individual from the government. We ignore it for convenience at our own peril.

 

And no, it can't be interpreted that way. As I pointed out before domestic tranquility ONLY appears in the preamble. The Constitution is rather clear and lists specific enumerated powers of what the Congress CAN do and then specifically states that the rest is up to the states or the people. Now some clauses like the commerce clause can be argued about exactly how far the government can go. Although if you apply a little common sense and historical research it is clear that the commerce clause has been stretched well beyond the intentions of the men who wrote it. But really, the best argument those in Congress have now is "most of what we do has nothing to do with the Constitution." or "are you serious?" when asked where they get the power to do what they are doing. Even they know they are ignoring it. 

 

Why should we follow the Constitution? Because it is the ground rules our ancestors agreed to. It is the foundation of our society. If we simply say we will ignore the rules simply because it is inconvenient then we might as well not have any. What forces politicians to leave office at the end of their term? What protects our right to have an atheist website against the will of the majority? Even if there is something that we could all agree the federal government should do, ignoring the Constitution weakens it and makes it mean less. We should follow EVERY rule and restriction it lays out and if there is something that is simply a bad idea we should pass an amendment and change it. Would you play a game of Monopoly against someone who decided to change the rules halfway through the game without your consent? If you wouldn't even play an unimportant board game that way, why are you willing to let your government be that way? Our freedom lasts only as long as the government follows the rules. 

 

And where the hell do you get the idea that dogg wants to abolish the Constituion? He is arguing for the exact opposite. 

I don't want the government to have more power. I also don't want to strip it of what power it has. This is why they got rid of the Articles of Confederation.

Some issues don't boil down to "state's rights". The Constitution is not a static document no matter how much you wish it was.

I agree that the congress has certain powers - dogg wants to strip them of some of those powers (taxation, for example) because he doesn't think he should have to abide by them. His words. Enough said.

If you give a damn for the Constitution, don't gut it just because it incoveniences your pocketbook.

Next you'll tell me that the government doesn't buy influence when it engages in international commerce.

 

 

well by defending these non-sensical "interpretations" you are bound to have the govt usurp more and more power, the govt needs to be stripped of certain powers, the powers it never should have had to begin with

jefferson thought of the 10th amendment as the cornerstone of the constitution, its the embodiment of what America was supposed to be, to reinforce why we broke away from england to begin with, to uphold the principle of local self govt

the constitution is a static document, it doesnt change on a whim, if you want to change it it has a built in mechanism for that, a "living" constitution has no power to protect the people, it might as well be a blank piece of paper

i dont think i should have to abide by a personal income tax, and neither should you for that matter, thats if you believe in private property, the govt does fund itself through other means

the people who claim the constitution grants them powers it clearly doesnt are the ones gutting it, they are perverting the intent from restraining the govt to restraining and managing the people

its time to take up dr. tom woods on his idea of nullification, its been used historically with great and heroic success (thats basically what california is doing now with its marijuana initiatives, govt and supreme court says you cant and cali says thanks for letting us know but we are doing it anyways)

 

The government should have certain powers delegated to it in the Constitution but I want to strip away those powers?

Make up your mind It's not supposed to change but there's a mechanism for it?

The government has the power to collect taxes - I just don't want them collecting taxes off me?

You're just full of contradictions, aren't you?

 

 

well i guess i know that A) Lawrence O'Donnell posts here and B) you're him

way to distort my actual position

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:jcgadfly

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So the best you got is calling me a theist?

Look, if something isn't working you do something radical, like oh, y'know FIX IT. Your method of just throwing it out if you don't like it will get us nowhere in a hurry.

As I said, I do not hold that interpretation. I said it could be interpreted that way and I gave my reasons for how it could. If you're happy with runs on banks, cool by me. I'm in a credit union. As for Madison, he didn't agree with a hell of a lot that was in the constitution, but he accepted it. Your problem is with Madison not with me.

I don't buy the "too big to fail" argument any more than you do. I'm also not a believer in the American consumer/victim of banks being "too small to survive"

 

The founders realized that and that is why it is why they gave us a way to "fix" or change the Constitution called constitutional amendments. So if you think the federal government should have more power pass an amendment. Anything you don't agree with in there try to amend it. What we are doing now is simply ignoring it. The Constitution is the only thing that protects the individual from the government. We ignore it for convenience at our own peril.

 

And no, it can't be interpreted that way. As I pointed out before domestic tranquility ONLY appears in the preamble. The Constitution is rather clear and lists specific enumerated powers of what the Congress CAN do and then specifically states that the rest is up to the states or the people. Now some clauses like the commerce clause can be argued about exactly how far the government can go. Although if you apply a little common sense and historical research it is clear that the commerce clause has been stretched well beyond the intentions of the men who wrote it. But really, the best argument those in Congress have now is "most of what we do has nothing to do with the Constitution." or "are you serious?" when asked where they get the power to do what they are doing. Even they know they are ignoring it. 

 

Why should we follow the Constitution? Because it is the ground rules our ancestors agreed to. It is the foundation of our society. If we simply say we will ignore the rules simply because it is inconvenient then we might as well not have any. What forces politicians to leave office at the end of their term? What protects our right to have an atheist website against the will of the majority? Even if there is something that we could all agree the federal government should do, ignoring the Constitution weakens it and makes it mean less. We should follow EVERY rule and restriction it lays out and if there is something that is simply a bad idea we should pass an amendment and change it. Would you play a game of Monopoly against someone who decided to change the rules halfway through the game without your consent? If you wouldn't even play an unimportant board game that way, why are you willing to let your government be that way? Our freedom lasts only as long as the government follows the rules. 

 

And where the hell do you get the idea that dogg wants to abolish the Constituion? He is arguing for the exact opposite. 

I don't want the government to have more power. I also don't want to strip it of what power it has. This is why they got rid of the Articles of Confederation.

Some issues don't boil down to "state's rights". The Constitution is not a static document no matter how much you wish it was.

I agree that the congress has certain powers - dogg wants to strip them of some of those powers (taxation, for example) because he doesn't think he should have to abide by them. His words. Enough said.

If you give a damn for the Constitution, don't gut it just because it incoveniences your pocketbook.

Next you'll tell me that the government doesn't buy influence when it engages in international commerce.

 

 

well by defending these non-sensical "interpretations" you are bound to have the govt usurp more and more power, the govt needs to be stripped of certain powers, the powers it never should have had to begin with

jefferson thought of the 10th amendment as the cornerstone of the constitution, its the embodiment of what America was supposed to be, to reinforce why we broke away from england to begin with, to uphold the principle of local self govt

the constitution is a static document, it doesnt change on a whim, if you want to change it it has a built in mechanism for that, a "living" constitution has no power to protect the people, it might as well be a blank piece of paper

i dont think i should have to abide by a personal income tax, and neither should you for that matter, thats if you believe in private property, the govt does fund itself through other means

the people who claim the constitution grants them powers it clearly doesnt are the ones gutting it, they are perverting the intent from restraining the govt to restraining and managing the people

its time to take up dr. tom woods on his idea of nullification, its been used historically with great and heroic success (thats basically what california is doing now with its marijuana initiatives, govt and supreme court says you cant and cali says thanks for letting us know but we are doing it anyways)

 

The government should have certain powers delegated to it in the Constitution but I want to strip away those powers?

Make up your mind It's not supposed to change but there's a mechanism for it?

The government has the power to collect taxes - I just don't want them collecting taxes off me?

You're just full of contradictions, aren't you?

 

 

well i guess i know that A) Lawrence O'Donnell posts here and B) you're him

way to distort my actual position

I was talking to Beyond Saving - are you him?

By the way, we may have to agree to disagree on this one.

See, I don't want to go back to back-alley abortions and freedom of expression limited once students are in a school. Oh and I'd like to know my rights if I'm arrested. There are constitutional rulings that the Supremes have made that I'd like to see go away. Those three need to stay. Oh wait, they weren't written as amendments. Roe, Tinker, Miranda - those have to go.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I don't want

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't want the government to have more power. I also don't want to strip it of what power it has. This is why they got rid of the Articles of Confederation.

Some issues don't boil down to "state's rights". The Constitution is not a static document no matter how much you wish it was.

I agree that the congress has certain powers - dogg wants to strip them of some of those powers (taxation, for example) because he doesn't think he should have to abide by them. His words. Enough said.

If you give a damn for the Constitution, don't gut it just because it incoveniences your pocketbook.

Next you'll tell me that the government doesn't buy influence when it engages in international commerce.

 

 

1. Ok, then why do you support universal healthcare which is clearly an expansion of its power?

2. Actually, it is quite static. The words are exactly the same as they were when it was first written, spelling errors and all. If you want to change it, there is a procedure to do so. My problem is that currently our federal government is constantly claiming new powers without even attempting to pass a constitutional amendment. If you believe we should have universal healthcare, fine. Pass a constitutional amendment granting the federal government the power to do so.

3. We were quite explicitly discussing REPEALING the 16th Amendment. So rather than simply ignoring the Constitution, those of us who support the Fair tax are attempting to change the Constitution legally. But as I have said before in this very thread, taxes is hardly a priority issue to me right now. 

4. That is why I believe we should have free trade agreements with EVERY country we trade with so that politicians have fewer opportunities to be corrupt. Note, I don't claim it is unconstitutional for the government to have tariffs. Just a bad idea.  (Before you twist my words into me claiming it is.)

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I don't want

atomicdogg34 wrote:

 well i guess i know that A) Lawrence O'Donnell posts here and B) you're him

way to distort my actual position

lol, I wouldn't be surprised

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't want the government to have more power. I also don't want to strip it of what power it has. This is why they got rid of the Articles of Confederation.

Some issues don't boil down to "state's rights". The Constitution is not a static document no matter how much you wish it was.

I agree that the congress has certain powers - dogg wants to strip them of some of those powers (taxation, for example) because he doesn't think he should have to abide by them. His words. Enough said.

If you give a damn for the Constitution, don't gut it just because it incoveniences your pocketbook.

Next you'll tell me that the government doesn't buy influence when it engages in international commerce.

 

 

1. Ok, then why do you support universal healthcare which is clearly an expansion of its power?

2. Actually, it is quite static. The words are exactly the same as they were when it was first written, spelling errors and all. If you want to change it, there is a procedure to do so. My problem is that currently our federal government is constantly claiming new powers without even attempting to pass a constitutional amendment. If you believe we should have universal healthcare, fine. Pass a constitutional amendment granting the federal government the power to do so.

3. We were quite explicitly discussing REPEALING the 16th Amendment. So rather than simply ignoring the Constitution, those of us who support the Fair tax are attempting to change the Constitution legally. But as I have said before in this very thread, taxes is hardly a priority issue to me right now. 

4. That is why I believe we should have free trade agreements with EVERY country we trade with so that politicians have fewer opportunities to be corrupt. Note, I don't claim it is unconstitutional for the government to have tariffs. Just a bad idea.  (Before you twist my words into me claiming it is.)

1.I support universal healthcare (preferably in the form of Medicare for everybody), yes. Please don't confuse that with what Obama is offering. It lands under Art 1. Sect. 8 "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

2. So goodbye, Roe, Tinker, Miranda. You weren't written as amendments so you no longer have standing. Hell, just disband SCOTUS and leave interpretation to the legislature. Checks and balances - just fuck off.

3. I can see repealing the 16th Amendement - it's redundant. It gives a right to the government that it already has - you just don't like where it's coming from. You'd rather see it come from a per item tax than a yearly draft.

4. Good, you finally accept what the Constitution says - hat damn. I'd prefer fair trade agreements we've seen what free trade has done.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1.I support

jcgadfly wrote:

1.I support universal healthcare (preferably in the form of Medicare for everybody), yes. Please don't confuse that with what Obama is offering. It lands under Art 1. Sect. 8 "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

2. So goodbye, Roe, Tinker, Miranda. You weren't written as amendments so you no longer have standing. Hell, just disband SCOTUS and leave interpretation to the legislature. Checks and balances - just fuck off.

3. I can see repealing the 16th Amendement - it's redundant. It gives a right to the government that it already has - you just don't like where it's coming from. You'd rather see it come from a per item tax than a yearly draft.

4. Good, you finally accept what the Constitution says - hat damn. I'd prefer fair trade agreements we've seen what free trade has done.

1. As I pointed out a rather weak argument even without Bama care style force you to buy from private companies. It is clear the "welfare" when the Constitution was written was never imagined to have the current meaning of welfare programs. It meant that the government could collect taxes for the well being of the country and the rest of the article clearly explains how they can do that. Congress can borrow money, regulate commerce, control naturalization, make money, punish counterfeiting, establish post offices and roads, create and protect copyrights, create courts, define and punish pirates, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces, organize, arm & discipline the militia, exercise exclusive legislation over the government seat not to exceed 10 square miles, to make laws necessary for the exercise of powers granted in the Constitution.

So if "general welfare" was intended to mean "do whatever you think is beneficial to the people" why does the Constitution lay out such detailed powers? Why not stop at that sentence? The first sentence also says the congress may tax for common defense but then it also specifically lists that congress can raise armies and a navy. Why doesn't it specifically state congress can manage healthcare? Your interpretation simply doesn't hold water if you read the whole document and research a tiny bit of history. 

 

2. Roe was horrible Supreme Court Law (and yes I am pro choice) but is argued on the basis of the 14th Amendment. I believe the argument is weak but at least there is one. Also the argument is not about what the government can do, Roe LIMITS the governments power. Tinker was a free speech case which is covered by the FIRST Amendment and again that decision LIMITS what the government can do.  Miranda is a case stemming from the FIFTH and SIXTH Amendments and once again is a case that LIMITS what the government can do to you. In all three cases the government attempted to infringe on a right protected in the Constitution which is exactly the role SCOTUS is supposed to play. It is supposed to limit the government when it overreaches beyond the powers expressly given to it by the Constitution. Your desire to have the government control healthcare is an EXPANSION of the governments powers, not a limit. So I don't see how my request the you definitively show where congress gets the authority to manage healthcare is in any way inconsistent with any of those decisions.

 

3. The 16th Amendment is not redundant. Read Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co [157 U.S. 429] 1895 where SCOTUS ruled that direct income taxes were unconstitutional. Because your favorite Article 1 section 8 says "all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Income taxes are, by definition, not uniform. One person pays a higher tax (dollar and percentage wise) than another. And yes, I do not like the current form of taxation. I believe it is economically bad policy and inherently unfair. Why should I pay 40.3% of my income when someone else pays 25.3% and someone else pays none? If I have to pay 40% so should everyone. Do I use government services more than others? No. I use them far less than most. I believe everyone should pay their part. And if you think your part is too much, join me on the cut spending train.

 

4. I always have accepted the Constitution and am quite capable of distinguishing between a Constitutionality question and a political one. Not everything is unconstitutional, but not everything that is constitutional should be done. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:atomicdogg34

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So the best you got is calling me a theist?

Look, if something isn't working you do something radical, like oh, y'know FIX IT. Your method of just throwing it out if you don't like it will get us nowhere in a hurry.

As I said, I do not hold that interpretation. I said it could be interpreted that way and I gave my reasons for how it could. If you're happy with runs on banks, cool by me. I'm in a credit union. As for Madison, he didn't agree with a hell of a lot that was in the constitution, but he accepted it. Your problem is with Madison not with me.

I don't buy the "too big to fail" argument any more than you do. I'm also not a believer in the American consumer/victim of banks being "too small to survive"

 

The founders realized that and that is why it is why they gave us a way to "fix" or change the Constitution called constitutional amendments. So if you think the federal government should have more power pass an amendment. Anything you don't agree with in there try to amend it. What we are doing now is simply ignoring it. The Constitution is the only thing that protects the individual from the government. We ignore it for convenience at our own peril.

 

And no, it can't be interpreted that way. As I pointed out before domestic tranquility ONLY appears in the preamble. The Constitution is rather clear and lists specific enumerated powers of what the Congress CAN do and then specifically states that the rest is up to the states or the people. Now some clauses like the commerce clause can be argued about exactly how far the government can go. Although if you apply a little common sense and historical research it is clear that the commerce clause has been stretched well beyond the intentions of the men who wrote it. But really, the best argument those in Congress have now is "most of what we do has nothing to do with the Constitution." or "are you serious?" when asked where they get the power to do what they are doing. Even they know they are ignoring it. 

 

Why should we follow the Constitution? Because it is the ground rules our ancestors agreed to. It is the foundation of our society. If we simply say we will ignore the rules simply because it is inconvenient then we might as well not have any. What forces politicians to leave office at the end of their term? What protects our right to have an atheist website against the will of the majority? Even if there is something that we could all agree the federal government should do, ignoring the Constitution weakens it and makes it mean less. We should follow EVERY rule and restriction it lays out and if there is something that is simply a bad idea we should pass an amendment and change it. Would you play a game of Monopoly against someone who decided to change the rules halfway through the game without your consent? If you wouldn't even play an unimportant board game that way, why are you willing to let your government be that way? Our freedom lasts only as long as the government follows the rules. 

 

And where the hell do you get the idea that dogg wants to abolish the Constituion? He is arguing for the exact opposite. 

I don't want the government to have more power. I also don't want to strip it of what power it has. This is why they got rid of the Articles of Confederation.

Some issues don't boil down to "state's rights". The Constitution is not a static document no matter how much you wish it was.

I agree that the congress has certain powers - dogg wants to strip them of some of those powers (taxation, for example) because he doesn't think he should have to abide by them. His words. Enough said.

If you give a damn for the Constitution, don't gut it just because it incoveniences your pocketbook.

Next you'll tell me that the government doesn't buy influence when it engages in international commerce.

 

 

well by defending these non-sensical "interpretations" you are bound to have the govt usurp more and more power, the govt needs to be stripped of certain powers, the powers it never should have had to begin with

jefferson thought of the 10th amendment as the cornerstone of the constitution, its the embodiment of what America was supposed to be, to reinforce why we broke away from england to begin with, to uphold the principle of local self govt

the constitution is a static document, it doesnt change on a whim, if you want to change it it has a built in mechanism for that, a "living" constitution has no power to protect the people, it might as well be a blank piece of paper

i dont think i should have to abide by a personal income tax, and neither should you for that matter, thats if you believe in private property, the govt does fund itself through other means

the people who claim the constitution grants them powers it clearly doesnt are the ones gutting it, they are perverting the intent from restraining the govt to restraining and managing the people

its time to take up dr. tom woods on his idea of nullification, its been used historically with great and heroic success (thats basically what california is doing now with its marijuana initiatives, govt and supreme court says you cant and cali says thanks for letting us know but we are doing it anyways)

 

The government should have certain powers delegated to it in the Constitution but I want to strip away those powers?

Make up your mind It's not supposed to change but there's a mechanism for it?

The government has the power to collect taxes - I just don't want them collecting taxes off me?

You're just full of contradictions, aren't you?

 

 

well i guess i know that A) Lawrence O'Donnell posts here and B) you're him

way to distort my actual position

I was talking to Beyond Saving - are you him?

By the way, we may have to agree to disagree on this one.

See, I don't want to go back to back-alley abortions and freedom of expression limited once students are in a school. Oh and I'd like to know my rights if I'm arrested. There are constitutional rulings that the Supremes have made that I'd like to see go away. Those three need to stay. Oh wait, they weren't written as amendments. Roe, Tinker, Miranda - those have to go.

 

if you were talking to him than why did you quote MY post?

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:if you

atomicdogg34 wrote:

if you were talking to him than why did you quote MY post?

 

Cause he is confused. Just like he is confused by Roe, Tinker and Miranda and somehow thinks we are arguing against them. I'm not aware of either of us even bringing up those issues, but I left me secret decoder in the extortionately priced safe at my last hotel so maybe I missed it.  

 

Especially Tinker, JC apparently hasn't seen my argument for free speech in the US Hate Church thread. Big fan of free speech. Not such a big fan of public schools. Free speech is guaranteed in the Constitution, schools are not (or at least are left up to the states). Protection against self incrimination and the right to a lawyer are guaranteed but healthcare is not. 

 

BTW JC, repealing Roe v. Wade would NOT make abortion illegal. It would simply allow the states to regulate abortion in whatever way they saw fit. No doubt Texas and Oklahoma would ban it, but New York or California never would. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

if you were talking to him than why did you quote MY post?

 

Cause he is confused. Just like he is confused by Roe, Tinker and Miranda and somehow thinks we are arguing against them. I'm not aware of either of us even bringing up those issues, but I left me secret decoder in the extortionately priced safe at my last hotel so maybe I missed it.  

 

Especially Tinker, JC apparently hasn't seen my argument for free speech in the US Hate Church thread. Big fan of free speech. Not such a big fan of public schools. Free speech is guaranteed in the Constitution, schools are not (or at least are left up to the states). Protection against self incrimination and the right to a lawyer are guaranteed but healthcare is not. 

 

BTW JC, repealing Roe v. Wade would NOT make abortion illegal. It would simply allow the states to regulate abortion in whatever way they saw fit. No doubt Texas and Oklahoma would ban it, but New York or California never would. 

You argued the position that the only constitutionally valid positions are ones that were written and ratified as amendments. Glad you're backing off that position.

As for confusion, i apologize. I got people who say the same things based on a selective reading of a document mixed up. I thought strict constructionist types weren't supposed to pick and choose.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You argued

jcgadfly wrote:

You argued the position that the only constitutionally valid positions are ones that were written and ratified as amendments. Glad you're backing off that position.

As for confusion, i apologize. I got people who say the same things based on a selective reading of a document mixed up. I thought strict constructionist types weren't supposed to pick and choose.

Now you have me confused. What am I picking and choosing? Or backing off of? (I fall in line with the "strict constructionists" probably about 95% of the time) Yes, absolutely everything SCOTUS decides should be based on exactly what the Constitution says and the original intent of the words. That doesn't mean there is some room for disagreement. For example, Miranda is more of a procedural ruling. The Constitution gives you 5th & 6th amendment rights but exactly how must the government apply them. Same thing occurs in search & seizure cases. We are protected from unreasonable search and seizure but what exactly is unreasonable? That is why we have the Supreme Court to theoretically be impartial in deciding those details and stopping the government when it goes over the line. But at the end of the day, it is clearly traced back to the Constitution. So which position do I have that isn't expressly written in the Constitution or ratified as an amendment? The Courts job is to interpret and apply the Constitution, not rewrite it. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
"general welfare"

"general welfare" AGAIN?

 

didn't we already go over this and show that "interpretation" to be absolutely untenable?

 

*sigh*

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul