Log of Failed Liberal Policies

[Oddball]

James Madison and Federalist #41 disagree with your tired old authoritarian nanny statist spin on "general welfare"....I'll take the word of one of the principal authors of the document over some chick on the interwebz.

Nonetheless, the trappings of the socialistic welfare state aren't "investments" no matter how many mewling politicians, bureaucrats, and media jackals try to spin them as such.

 

[RDD_1210]

James Madison and Federalist #41 disagree with your tired old authoritarian nanny statist spin on "general welfare"....I'll take the word of one of the principal authors of the document over some chick on the interwebz.

Nonetheless, the trappings of the socialistic welfare state aren't "investments" no matter how many mewling politicians, bureaucrats, and media jackals try to spin them as such.

How come you only refer to Madison?

Weird how you ignore the other founders whose opinion doesn't fit your agenda.

 

[Oddball]

The military is a constitutionally authorized use of taxpayer dollars, ETOH subsidies, dippy windmills, and other sops to favored constituencies are not.

Regardless, neither of your irrelevant charts count crap like Medicare/Medicaid, gubmint schools, welfare handouts and all the other trappings of the socialistic welfare state as "investments", a defined by socialist nannies.

all expenditures deemed appropriate by congress for the "general welfare' are constitutional. whether or not they are prudent becomes the next question... but its political, not a constitutional question.

you see limitations on that clause?

My god - you have ZERO knowledge of our government, but that doesn't stop you from commenting, does it? Instead, you just make stuff up as you go.

I notice you left out the key word before your ignorant "general welfrae" comment, which is promote. It does not mean provide, stupid. The federal government is not authorized to provide for the general welfare.

Also, "general welfare" means accessible to all the people, not just to favored groups of people....Roads being the most obviuous example.

 

[P@triot]

James Madison and Federalist #41 disagree with your tired old authoritarian nanny statist spin on "general welfare"....I'll take the word of one of the principal authors of the document over some chick on the interwebz.

Nonetheless, the trappings of the socialistic welfare state aren't "investments" no matter how many mewling politicians, bureaucrats, and media jackals try to spin them as such.

How come you only refer to Madison?

Weird how you ignore the other founders whose opinion doesn't fit your agenda.

A better question is why do you change the subject when you're getting your ass kicked in a discussion?

Weird how you ignore the fact and move on to a question that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Perhaps you should start doing your own homework - I'm sure he doesn't have time to look up every quote from every founding father for you.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

James Madison and Federalist #41 disagree with your tired old authoritarian nanny statist spin on "general welfare"....I'll take the word of one of the principal authors of the document over some chick on the interwebz.

No, you're choosing the word of one principal author of the Constitution - Madison - over the word of another principal author - Hamilton. That's right, the two of the primary authors of the Federalist Papers disagreed on the meaning of that clause, you fucking moron.


Incidentally, the courts sided with Hamilton.

 

[Oddball]

James Madison and Federalist #41 disagree with your tired old authoritarian nanny statist spin on "general welfare"....I'll take the word of one of the principal authors of the document over some chick on the interwebz.

No, you're choosing the word of one principal author of the Constitution - Madison - over the word of another principal author - Hamilton. That's right, the two of the primary authors of the Federalist Papers disagreed on the meaning of that clause, you fucking moron.

Incidentally, the courts sided with Hamilton. So if you don't mind, I'm going to operate based on the law as actually applied.

Even though Hamilton was in fact for a powerful central power, he also believed that it should be specifically limited in scope....That's the reason that the Federalists saw no reason for a bill of rights....If it wasn't listed a a specifically enumerated power, then it was presumed that it didn't exist.

If "general welfare" meant just about anything and everything under the sun, they could've just quit writing Article 1, Section 8 after the first clause...But it doesn't, so they didn't.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

James Madison and Federalist #41 disagree with your tired old authoritarian nanny statist spin on "general welfare"....I'll take the word of one of the principal authors of the document over some chick on the interwebz.

Nonetheless, the trappings of the socialistic welfare state aren't "investments" no matter how many mewling politicians, bureaucrats, and media jackals try to spin them as such.

How come you only refer to Madison?

Weird how you ignore the other founders whose opinion doesn't fit your agenda.

Because he's a fucking ignorant moron.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

all expenditures deemed appropriate by congress for the "general welfare' are constitutional. whether or not they are prudent becomes the next question... but its political, not a constitutional question.

you see limitations on that clause?

My god - you have ZERO knowledge of our government, but that doesn't stop you from commenting, does it? Instead, you just make stuff up as you go.

I notice you left out the key word before your ignorant "general welfrae" comment, which is promote. It does not mean provide, stupid. The federal government is not authorized to provide for the general welfare.

Also, "general welfare" means accessible to all the people, not just to favored groups of people....Roads being the most obviuous example.

Interstate highways are only usable to people with motor vehicles. Thus not all people.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

James Madison and Federalist #41 disagree with your tired old authoritarian nanny statist spin on "general welfare"....I'll take the word of one of the principal authors of the document over some chick on the interwebz.

No, you're choosing the word of one principal author of the Constitution - Madison - over the word of another principal author - Hamilton. That's right, the two of the primary authors of the Federalist Papers disagreed on the meaning of that clause, you fucking moron.

Incidentally, the courts sided with Hamilton. So if you don't mind, I'm going to operate based on the law as actually applied.

Even though Hamilton was in fact for a powerful central power, he also believed that it should be specifically limited in scope....That's the reason that the Federalists saw no reason for a bill of rights....If it wasn't listed a a specifically enumerated power, then it was presumed that it didn't exist.

If "general welfare" meant just about anything and everything under the sun, they could've just quit writing Article 1, Section 8 after the first clause...But it doesn't, so they didn't.

Clause 1 doesn't authorize Congress to do ANYTHING for the general welfare, and no one claims that it does it only authorizes it to TAX, BORROW, and SPEND for the general welfare. But I'm sure you've read United States v. Butler so are quite familiar with that fact.

 

[Oddball]

Doesn't matter....If "general welfare" were meant to be a catch-all, like the left so constantly and wrongly claims, they would've just stopped writing right there, and not enumerated any more powers because all of them could be argued to fall under the "general welfare" of this or that.

But they didn't do that.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Doesn't matter....If "general welfare" were meant to be a catch-all, like the left so constantly and wrongly claims, they would've just stopped writing right there, and not enumerated any more powers because all of them could be argued to fall under the "general welfare" of this or that.

But they didn't do that.

The powers enumerated after clause 1 confer more than mere spending authority.

Lord you are dumb.

 

[tererun]

Where exactly is this log?

It is another false republican claim.

 

[RockyRacoon]

Because socialists research the polls, to see which constituency they can develop into dependents of the state, using taxpayer funds.

The largest R&D expense of the U.S. government is military.

And as you can see from the chart, R&D is a smaller part of the budget under Clinton and Obama than Regan, Bush, and Bush.

And as you can see from this chart

most current non-defense R&D goes to the National Institutes of Health. NASA is the next highest, followed by the NSF.

So I'm not sure what that's to do with liberals or conservatives.


You might consider trying the "R" part of R&D next time you post.,

Assuming the chart is accurate - it doesn't change the fact that we are getting 5% ROI on R&D government spending. That is just another massive indictment on the waste and inefficienty of government.

Additionally, defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. "Green technology" and other pet projects are not. Although wasting my tax dollars really sucks, I can stomach it a little easier when it is at least wasted in the arena's that are the constitutional responsibility of the federal government, and not for political pet projects as Oddball astutely pointed out already on this thread.

That 5% figure is laughable! The return on government investment in the development of computers and the inter-net alone are incalcuable. How about the technologies and advancements made in science through the space program. We spend millions a year on developing new medical techniques and wonder drugs. Government investment helped to end polio and small pox. What kind of advancements came out of WWII? To suggest that the US government has a 5% ROI is assinine!

 

[tererun]

"The United States federal government spends $480 billion per year of tax payers money on R&D and the resulting commercialization from that research has resulted in a less than 5% ROI (Return On Investment for you liberals)". - Robert Brumley (Pegasus Global Holdings)

(Since liberals are the parasite class that lives off of the government, they don't understand these concepts. So allow me to dumb it down to your level: the over bloated, unconstitutional, monstosity of a government that you have created spends an enormous amount of money and we have very little to show for it).

That is not a log. That is a quote. A log might be evidence, though in your case it is probably just going to be a bunch of bullshit you pulled out of your ass and made up. A quote is just a saying taken out of context you use to try and support your opinion using other people's opinions.

Just wanted to help you out with that idiocy for a bit.

 

[signelect]

Spending without measurable return is not a party issue, it is a political issue. It is designed to buy votes and with that as the yard stick it is higly successful. This has been going on since I cast my first vote. I was told that if I voted for Barry Goldwater my taxes would go up and the war in vietman would get worse.; I voted for Barry and they were right taxes went up and the war got worse.

 

[P@triot]

The largest R&D expense of the U.S. government is military.

And as you can see from the chart, R&D is a smaller part of the budget under Clinton and Obama than Regan, Bush, and Bush.

And as you can see from this chart

most current non-defense R&D goes to the National Institutes of Health. NASA is the next highest, followed by the NSF.

So I'm not sure what that's to do with liberals or conservatives.


You might consider trying the "R" part of R&D next time you post.,

Assuming the chart is accurate - it doesn't change the fact that we are getting 5% ROI on R&D government spending. That is just another massive indictment on the waste and inefficienty of government.

Additionally, defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. "Green technology" and other pet projects are not. Although wasting my tax dollars really sucks, I can stomach it a little easier when it is at least wasted in the arena's that are the constitutional responsibility of the federal government, and not for political pet projects as Oddball astutely pointed out already on this thread.

That 5% figure is laughable! The return on government investment in the development of computers and the inter-net alone are incalcuable. How about the technologies and advancements made in science through the space program. We spend millions a year on developing new medical techniques and wonder drugs. Government investment helped to end polio and small pox. What kind of advancements came out of WWII? To suggest that the US government has a 5% ROI is assinine!

Actually, it is calcuable and it's 5%. The "invaluable" use of the internet is from your perspective. How much money did the US government receive for it? Oh, that's right - $0!

Furthermore, that wasn't an R&D development. That was a reundant network to ensure communications weren't disrupted in the event of a nuclear war.

You're literally making stuff up and have no idea what you are talking about here.

 

[P@triot]

"The United States federal government spends $480 billion per year of tax payers money on R&D and the resulting commercialization from that research has resulted in a less than 5% ROI (Return On Investment for you liberals)". - Robert Brumley (Pegasus Global Holdings)

(Since liberals are the parasite class that lives off of the government, they don't understand these concepts. So allow me to dumb it down to your level: the over bloated, unconstitutional, monstosity of a government that you have created spends an enormous amount of money and we have very little to show for it).

That is not a log. That is a quote. A log might be evidence, though in your case it is probably just going to be a bunch of bullshit you pulled out of your ass and made up. A quote is just a saying taken out of context you use to try and support your opinion using other people's opinions.

Just wanted to help you out with that idiocy for a bit.

Um, stupid - if you look at the thread date, it's the first day. I (and many others) will add to the log as we come across facts, information, etc.

Wow did you just make yourself look like a fucking moron...

 

[RDD_1210]

James Madison and Federalist #41 disagree with your tired old authoritarian nanny statist spin on "general welfare"....I'll take the word of one of the principal authors of the document over some chick on the interwebz.

Nonetheless, the trappings of the socialistic welfare state aren't "investments" no matter how many mewling politicians, bureaucrats, and media jackals try to spin them as such.

How come you only refer to Madison?

Weird how you ignore the other founders whose opinion doesn't fit your agenda.

A better question is why do you change the subject when you're getting your ass kicked in a discussion?

Weird how you ignore the fact and move on to a question that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Perhaps you should start doing your own homework - I'm sure he doesn't have time to look up every quote from every founding father for you.

An even better question is why do you have a Hitler framed autograph on your kitchen wall?

See, we can both make shit up out of thin air. Fun!

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Wow. This is a really fucking dumb thread. I want to drop a Liberal Log on it and close it the fuck down.

 

[P@triot]

Another classic in terms of liberal "logic". In summary, they are telling people of independent means they have no right to drinks high in sugar, but will provide those same drinks to people living off of the government for them:


Uncle Sam Simultaneously Attacks and Subsidizes Soda Consumption

Federal Government Attacks and Subsidizes Soda Consumption