An Unconstitutional Economy

[Flanders]

Somewhere along the way American presidents decided they were hired as salesmen selling services and products. That was bad enough, but salesmen selling a political cause with tax dollars perverts the meaning of freedom. To be precise, salesmen-presidents selling liberalism’s collectivist ideology would have used the same sales pitch selling the joys of slavery before the Civil War ended.

Note that Nazis topped Madison Avenue’s methods when they reduced slavery to a slogan:

Work Sets You Free​

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M3dc980e79706457095a2a2574e2d4e97H0&pid=Api&w=261&h=181

Bottom line: Presidents selling an economy is itself a violation of the Constitution.

It was Bill Clinton who coined this gem:

It’s the economy, stupid.​

XXXXX​

You probably are old enough to remember the comment then-governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton made on why President Bush should be removed from office and he placed in his stead. The economy was lagging, at least a little bit. Bill Clinton said to the American public, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Not only did he insult every American citizen (calling them stupid for thinking anything but the economy was important) but he made a point that the only political issue worth discussing was the economy.​

Since 1993 the media convinced Americans that controlling the economy is well within the federal government’s constitutional authority. Media mouths never sold a bigger lie for liberalism:

laissez faire also laisser faire (noun)

1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.

2. Noninterference in the affairs of others.​

NOTE: An economy is not a form of government; Socialism/Communism is a form of government and never the twain shall meet.

The fact is that there will always be an economy. Either an economy that creates enormous wealth as did the economy in the first hundred or so years of America’s Republic, or an economy that Socialists must create in order for their ideology to survive. This is the reality history teaches:

All governments act by force when they act.
Acting by force destroys wealth.
Therefore, all governments destroy wealth when they act.​

Let me repeat it:​

Governments destroy wealth when they act.​

It’s the economy, stupid.

There is not a single word in America’s Declaration Of Independence, or the U.S. Constitutions, that says the government must fabricate an economy for the “common good.” Those documents say a lot about freedom and liberty —— neither one says the economy comes from government.

Finally, I never thought I would see a bigger liar in the White House than Bill Clinton. After Clinton, I bet the family jewels that a bigger lair than Barack Hussein Obama would never be born. I do not know where to go after Hillary Clinton. Every word that comes out of her mouth is a lie. My question is this: If she becomes president what in hell will she say in her State of the Union Addresses?

​

​

 

[Fenton Lum]

This is all the american public will get until they take on the responsibility for granting their own consent to the power structure, blaming politicians will keep on earning you what it always has.

 

[gipper]

Government is NOTHING if not corrupt, just as all politicians are corrupt.

The American people are about to elect the most corrupt pol in our history. This coincides with the fact that the federal government is now way too big and powerful...put into the hands of the most corrupt pol in history...accompanied by a media that will do anything to protect her and a billionaire class that owns her.

What could go wrong?

 

[Ozone]

there's too much genius in the american people to suffer the fractional reserve monster, at least that is my opinion. because you can't protect the economy with some socialist or communist utopian dream about who or what owns the means of production. the only way to protect the economy is in the value of currencies. so you want to trade away real gold and silver for what? a printing press what turns out commercial cartoons so you can earn customer reward points and a credit score? the free market has it's own qualities, it goes like the laws of physics, even the congress would be wise to follow the periodic table of chemical elements before they follow some mood swing.

 

[Flanders]

This is all the american public will get until they take on the responsibility for granting their own consent to the power structure, blaming politicians will keep on earning you what it always has.

To Fenton Lum: Rigging elections, corrupt bureaucrats, talking heads and politicians lying about everything can hardly be called consent.

Government is NOTHING if not corrupt, just as all politicians are corrupt.

The American people are about to elect the most corrupt pol in our history. This coincides with the fact that the federal government is now way too big and powerful...put into the hands of the most corrupt pol in history...accompanied by a media that will do anything to protect her and a billionaire class that owns her.

To gipper: A brief but accurate definition.

What could go wrong?

To gipper: I can only add that everything already went wrong.

there's too much genius in the american people to suffer the fractional reserve monster, at least that is my opinion. because you can't protect the economy with some socialist or communist utopian dream about who or what owns the means of production. the only way to protect the economy is in the value of currencies. so you want to trade away real gold and silver for what? a printing press what turns out commercial cartoons so you can earn customer reward points and a credit score? the free market has it's own qualities, it goes like the laws of physics, even the congress would be wise to follow the periodic table of chemical elements before they follow some mood swing.

To Ozone: Excellent points. Paper money transformed Karl Mark’s equal distribution of the wealth into equal circulation of the wealth. Paper money combined with the XVI Amendment gave Socialists the form of government they wanted. Ever since the FDR years controlling the economy passed as a government Right.

Note that boom & bust cycles were portrayed as the villain. In fact, boom & bust is as normal as day and night.

The public fell for the promise that FDR’s collectivist policies would eliminate economic boom & bust cycles. That promise was as false as every other promise Communists in government ever made. Americans are going through the worst economic bust since the Great Depression while the government is propping up the people who caused the bust. The next Socialist bust will be a hundred times worse than this one because there are powerful forces controlling America’s institutions of influence, (government, media, education) who are working to institute a one government world. Those forces were just getting started during the Great Depression.

Incidentally:

Originally, the XVI Amendment was seen as a class tax in that it supposedly taxed the wealthy. By the time the XVI Amendment was fully implemented it was truly a class tax —— only the working class became the victim of class warfare. Proof: The rich have gotten richer since the FDR years.

Hussein’s phoney war on the wealthy is a continuation of the war against working Americans. This is how it works:

Labor is converted to money. Taxes are paid with money. The wealthy pay their taxes with the labors of the many. Today’s wealthiest Americans who supposedly pay most of the taxes are no better than the king’s titled tax collectors in the days of European monarchies. Bottom line: Hussein’s phoney war targeting the wealthy is just a sneaky way to confiscate more of the working class’ labors as part of his redistribution schemes.

The worst of it is that tax dollars not only fund our parasite class, along with further enriching the already-wealthy, tax dollars are sent to foreign countries in the form of foreign aid and development money. America’s working class receive no benefit from the income tax at home or abroad. At least those evil robber barons left Americans the choice of working for themselves in the days of boom and bust cycles; whereas, the income tax forces the working class to work for everyone except themselves.

XXXXX​

Somewhere along the way Americans were told they were morally obligated to work for a global common good. It did not take long for American Socialists to realize they could not raise the standard of living in poor countries by taxing America’s working class; so they decided to lower the standard of living for Americans —— for the common good. The XVI Amendment is doing just that. You know it’s true when pundits moan about America’s decline for every reason under the sun except the freedoms the XVI Amendment abolished.

Before outsourcing and open borders Americans had near full employment in boom cycles. Socialists promised that their income tax would eliminate booms and busts; instead, it gave the government the authority to set unemployment levels. Today, a bust is called an economic downturn or some such nonsense, and booms are called bubbles.

Now, ask yourself if full employment in boom cycles is not better than 10 percent permanently out of work? You might also ask yourself how long will it take before the permanently unemployed goes to 15 percent, then 20 percent, and so on until slave labor is implemented as a solution to the unemployment problem the government created?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/221926-a-class-tax.html​

 

[ScienceRocks]

There isn't a economy on earth that is first world that isn't similar to ours. Of course, you'd support bringing back the slave trade and deregulating everything so 10 times as many people every year would die from on the job injuries and piss poor conditions.

You're a evil person.

 

[Flanders]

10 times as many people every year would die from on the job injuries and piss poor conditions.

To Matthew: Claiming the moral high ground by spouting the usual garbage is a standard debate technique for your kind. If you want to count dead bodies compare the Democrat party’s Culture of Death against individual liberties. Big governments butchered more than 100 million of their own people in a little over a century. The number is sure to rise to a billion or more under the pretense of population control if they get their global government. Murdered infants since 1973 in this country alone is well over 55 million. And your kind is just getting started on this if the ACA is not repealed:

They’d gleefully point out that nowhere in the law did the phrase “death panels” occur, so (in their minds) that meant they’d never happen.

Ignorance…bliss, you know the drill.

If you have argued with leftists even a few times, you are probably familiar with this common literal semantics ploy. They will lock onto a word, and try to make the argument all about that, generally because they have no logical defense for the larger issue.​

Note that in 1993 the insurance industry got its first smell of blood in the rules they wrote for Hillarycare. In 2010 they finally got the license to kill they were after from the beginning:

The insurance company people who make rules for what is and is not going to be covered may not call themselves “panels” but they’re doing everything the Obamacare naysayers said they would be doing.​

Death Panels Are Here, They’re Just Not Called That
Stephen Kruiser
October 26, 2016, 2:36 am

Death Panels Are Here, They’re Just Not Called That | The American Spectator​

You're a evil person.

To Matthew: You are a confirmed asshole, but you serve a purpose. Decent people who read my replies can pick up some facts they did not know beforehand.

 

[pinqy]

Bottom line: Presidents selling an economy is itself a violation of the Constitution.

Which clause does it violate?

It was Bill Clinton who coined this gem:

It’s the economy, stupid.​

XXXXX​

You probably are old enough to remember the comment then-governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton made on why President Bush should be removed from office and he placed in his stead. The economy was lagging, at least a little bit. Bill Clinton said to the American public, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Not only did he insult every American citizen (calling them stupid for thinking anything but the economy was important) but he made a point that the only political issue worth discussing was the economy.​

Except...it was James Carville, and it was a sign at the campaign headquarters meant for the campaign staff. Clinton did not say it to the American public.​

There is not a single word in America’s Declaration Of Independence, or the U.S. Constitutions, that says the government must fabricate an economy for the “common good.” Those documents say a lot about freedom and liberty —— neither one says the economy comes from government.

What does "fabricate an economy" mean? I have never encountered that phrase in all my years as an economist.
But as for government management of the economy...the Constitution has quite a lot to say. Besides the ability to lay taxes, duties, and imposts, and to regulate the District of Columbia, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power:

• To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
• To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
• To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
• ...
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

All of those have an affect on the economy, and the powers over money and commerce are directly related to managing the economy.

 

[Flanders]

Which clause does it violate?

To pingy: The entire Section 8 in Article I. Nowhere does it authorize the welfare state. Indeed, America’s Founders would have been appalled at spending tax dollars on coerced charity for the general welfare (liberalism’s so-called common good). Following are a few brief examples of their thinking:

With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. James Madison

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. James Madison

Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. Thomas Jefferson

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.... James Madison

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison​

Can you find anything in the Constitution that justifies United Nations refugees?

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. Benjamin Franklin​

And let us not forget the First and Fifth Amendments:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

In short: Socialism is a state sponsored religion that gave us a welfare state economy.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

In short: The federal government —— THE EPA—— confiscates and dictates the use of private property in order to implement a political agenda.

I offered you a few obvious violations. If you are honest about it you can find more on your own.

Incidentally, can you name one person in today’s government who is at least as intelligent as any man who put together the greatest government ever devised? Individually, or collectively, the scum you admire have not the slightest idea of what it takes to govern a free people. Let me name a few of the smartest people among them: Hillary and Bill Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Harry Reid, and the always popular Nancy Pelosi.

Except...it was James Carville, and it was a sign at the campaign headquarters meant for the campaign staff. Clinton did not say it to the American public.

To pingy: I should have said “Bill Clinton made it famous.” Who in hell would know it if it began and ended with the Smiling Cobra?

"It's the economy, stupid" is a slight variation of the phrase "The economy, stupid", which James Carville had coined as a campaign strategist of Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against sitting president George H. W. Bush.​

It's the economy, stupid - Wikipedia​

What does "fabricate an economy" mean? I have never encountered that phrase in all my years as an economist.

To pingy: Now you know:

fabricate (verb, transitive)
fabricated, fabricating, fabricates

1. To make; create.

2. To construct by combining or assembling diverse, typically standardized parts: fabricate small boats.

3. To concoct in order to deceive: fabricated an excuse.​

But as for government management of the economy...the Constitution has quite a lot to say. Besides the ability to lay taxes, duties, and imposts, and to regulate the District of Columbia, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power:

To pingy: Nice try. Article I Section 8 is about raising revenues for the reasons the Constitution enumerates. That is not an economy, and certainly not an unconstitutional economy for people who wish to remain free.

 

[pinqy]

Which clause does it violate?

To pingy: The entire Section 8 in Article I. Nowhere does it authorize the welfare state. Indeed, America’s Founders would have been appalled at spending tax dollars on coerced charity for the general welfare (liberalism’s so-called common good).

I was asking about your claim that "Presidents selling an economy is itself a violation of the Constitution."
First it looks like you need to clarify what you mean by "selling an economy" means (I assumed you meant convincing the public of a course of action for the economy).

What does "fabricate an economy" mean? I have never encountered that phrase in all my years as an economist.

To pingy: Now you know:

fabricate (verb, transitive)
fabricated, fabricating, fabricates

1. To make; create.

2. To construct by combining or assembling diverse, typically standardized parts: fabricate small boats.

3. To concoct in order to deceive: fabricated an excuse.​

Economy:
1. thrifty management; frugality in the expenditure or consumption of money, materials, etc.
2. an act or means of thrifty saving; a saving: He achieved a small economy by walking to work instead of taking a bus.
3. the management of the resources of a community, country, etc., especially with a view to its productivity.
4. the prosperity or earnings of a place: Further inflation would endanger the national economy seriously.
5. the disposition or regulation of the parts or functions of any organic whole; an organized system or method.
6. the efficient, sparing, or concise use of something: an economy of effort; an economy of movement.

So what does "fabricating an economy" mean in your usage?
​

But as for government management of the economy...the Constitution has quite a lot to say. Besides the ability to lay taxes, duties, and imposts, and to regulate the District of Columbia, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power:

To pingy: Nice try. Article I Section 8 is about raising revenues for the reasons the Constitution enumerates. That is not an economy, and certainly not an unconstitutional economy for people who wish to remain free.

Establishing and controlling money and commerce is certainly managing an economy.

 

[Flanders]

Establishing and controlling money and commerce is certainly managing an economy.

To pingy: Here is where I get off:

​

 

[Flanders]

Note that in 1993 the insurance industry got its first smell of blood in the rules they wrote for Hillarycare.

At the beginning of the video Hillary Clinton practically accuses Donald Trump of working for the insurance industry. Do not stop there. Watch the video until you hear Obama lie like hell about illegal aliens being denied free healthcare:

​

NOTE: Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) is the guy that called Obama a liar at a State of the Union Address. Watch the horror on Pelosi’s face after Wilson shouted “You Lie.” Nutty Nancy gives the impression that Joe Wilson is the liar:

The guy who yelled "You lie!"