No government required

[P@triot]

You can fight that fight if you want but it’s isnt realistic. Best thing to do if you really want to be in the game is figure out the best ways to improve on what we already have. In some cases cuts make sense. In others better management, staffing, funding or more efficient systems can go a long way.

While that is absolutely true - it’s the equivalent of saying “rapes are going to happen anyway, so let’s figure out a better way to rape women”. If it’s not 1 of the 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the states, in the U.S. Constitution, then I am going to vehemently oppose it to my dying breath.

I’m not looking for a better way to violate the U.S. Constitution or a more efficient way to break our laws. Social Security should not exist. If the American people wanted it to exist, then FDR and the Dumbocrats would have gotten the votes they needed to amend the U.S. Constitution and make retirement a responsibility of the federal government. They didn’t.

 

[Slade3200]

We were talking about Obama’s election and back then the Left was elected and had control.

Correct. And then the American people sent conservatives in droves across the nation in the 2010 midterms to stop the destructive agenda of Obama and the Dumbocrats.

The view you people have that everyone should bow to whoever is in power is extremely dangerous. I don’t expect Dumbocrats to cater to President Trump. Their constituents voted for them to implement the left-wing agenda. Not to facilitate Trump’s agenda. If that results in gridlock - so be it. The federal government has no constitutional authority to be doing 98% of the shit they are voting on anyway - so gridlock is simply protecting us all.

Well I’m glad you feel protected by the gridlock in Washington but I expect better. I don’t think anybody should bow to anybody else. Differences of opinion should be expressed and listened to and, ultimately, the ones in power make the call. There is a healthy way to be the opposition and an unhealthy way. The last decade has been extremely unhealthy. It’s shame you can’t see it.

I guess I could make your same point after the Reagan and Bush eras when the Left “came our in droves” to elect Clinton and Obama, both for 8 year terms. It’s a lame argument to try and say that an entire ideology is wrong because of a few elections. The political tides are always shifting.

 

[Slade3200]

You can fight that fight if you want but it’s isnt realistic. Best thing to do if you really want to be in the game is figure out the best ways to improve on what we already have. In some cases cuts make sense. In others better management, staffing, funding or more efficient systems can go a long way.

While that is absolutely true - it’s the equivalent of saying “rapes are going to happen anyway, so let’s figure out a better way to rape women”. If it’s not 1 of the 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the states, in the U.S. Constitution, then I am going to vehemently oppose it to my dying breath.

I’m not looking for a better way to violate the U.S. Constitution or a more efficient way to break our laws. Social Security should not exist. If the American people wanted it to exist, then FDR and the Dumbocrats would have gotten the votes they needed to amend the U.S. Constitution and make retirement a responsibility of the federal government. They didn’t.

They legislated it through congress which is a power granted to them by the constitution, is it not? Where in the constitution is social security outlawed?

 

[P@triot]

I guess I could make your same point after the Reagan and Bush eras when the Left “came our in droves” to elect Clinton and Obama, both for 8 year

Except that that didn’t happen. There is a monumental difference between electing one person and electing several thousand across the U.S.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If you're against the GOVERNMENT Then you're for legalization of drugs like me.

 

[Slade3200]

I guess I could make your same point after the Reagan and Bush eras when the Left “came our in droves” to elect Clinton and Obama, both for 8 year

Except that that didn’t happen. There is a monumental difference between electing one person and electing several thousand across the U.S.

That didn’t happen? You don’t remember the Democratic super majority in 2008? THAt happened through elections did it not?

And what’s going to happen when the Dems win power in congress or the white house again? Will you allow your same logic to be used against you? You realized you’re gonna be suck with your foot in your mouth don’t you?

 

[P@triot]

They legislated it through congress which is a power granted to them by the constitution, is it not?

That comment is mind-numbing. It’s been used thousands of times here on USMB by progressives and it’s been shot down millions of times by those of us who are actually educated about the U.S. Constitution.

A seat in Congress is not a blank check to do whatever the fuck you want. The federal government is explicitly restricted to 18 enumerated powers. As such, congressmen are explicitly restricted to legislation around those 18 responsibilities.

Tomorrow, Congress could “legislate though Congress” that all progressives must immediately surrender their 1st Amendment rights. But that wouldn’t be legal/constitutional. Because being a congressman is not a blank check to do whatever the fuck you want.

Where in the constitution is social security outlawed?

In the 10th Amendment...(which states):

“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.”

Since retirement was never delegated to the federal government by the states, they have absolutely no authority to create a retirement plan, stick a gun to the head of citizens, and force us into it. It doesn’t matter if it was “legislated through Congress”. It’s still 100% illegal/unconstitutional.

Excerpt From United States Bill of Rights (United States)
This material may be protected by copyright.

 

[P@triot]

I guess I could make your same point after the Reagan and Bush eras when the Left “came our in droves” to elect Clinton and Obama, both for 8 year

Except that that didn’t happen. There is a monumental difference between electing one person and electing several thousand across the U.S.

That didn’t happen? You don’t remember the Democratic super majority in 2008? THAt happened through elections did it not?

That wasn’t the result of a single midterm. That “super majority” was the accumulation of Democrat victories over a span of roughly 8 years.

 

[P@triot]

I guess I could make your same point after the Reagan and Bush eras when the Left “came our in droves” to elect Clinton and Obama, both for 8 year terms.

Yeah...um...neither Clinton nor Obama followed Ronald Reagan. Reagan was so wildly popular, we ended up with 12 years in a row (3 straight terms) of Republican control of the White House.

If you’re going to make an argument or point - make sure it is historically accurate.

 

[P@triot]

And what’s going to happen when the Dems win power in congress or the white house again? Will you allow your same logic to be used against you? You realized you’re gonna be suck with your foot in your mouth don’t you?

I always welcome the use of logic. But it won’t be “used against me”. If the American people hand over the House, or the Senate, or 33 of the 50 states to the Democrats during the Trump Administration, it will be a clear repudiation on the current Republican Party and I would fully expect them to fight against the agenda of the current Republican Party as that will be why their constituents sent them to Washington.

 

[Slade3200]

They legislated it through congress which is a power granted to them by the constitution, is it not?

That comment is mind-numbing. It’s been used thousands of times here on USMB by progressives and it’s been shot down millions of times by those of us who are actually educated about the U.S. Constitution.

A seat in Congress is not a blank check to do whatever the fuck you want. The federal government is explicitly restricted to 18 enumerated powers. As such, congressmen are explicitly restricted to legislation around those 18 responsibilities.

Tomorrow, Congress could “legislate though Congress” that all progressives must immediately surrender their 1st Amendment rights. But that wouldn’t be legal/constitutional. Because being a congressman is not a blank check to do whatever the fuck you want.

Where in the constitution is social security outlawed?

In the 10th Amendment...(which states):

“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.”

Since retirement was never delegated to the federal government by the states, they have absolutely no authority to create a retirement plan, stick a gun to the head of citizens, and force us into it. It doesn’t matter if it was “legislated through Congress”. It’s still 100% illegal/unconstitutional.

Excerpt From United States Bill of Rights (United States)
This material may be protected by copyright.

I don't know why i'm going there with you as i'm sure you've had this debate many times before but the difference between you and I is in our interpretations of Article 1 section 8 which grants congress the power and responsibility to promote the general welfare. Yes that is an extremely general phrase that can mean anything and thats why there is a legislation process that involves elected officials and majority votes and a check and balance via presidential veto and supreme court appeals etc. Thats how our government works

 

[Slade3200]

I guess I could make your same point after the Reagan and Bush eras when the Left “came our in droves” to elect Clinton and Obama, both for 8 year terms.

Yeah...um...neither Clinton nor Obama followed Ronald Reagan. Reagan was so wildly popular, we ended up with 12 years in a row (3 straight terms) of Republican control of the White House.

If you’re going to make an argument or point - make sure it is historically accurate.

Reagan was the good guy who cut all the taxes and deregulated businesses and when that started going to shit Bush had to make corrections which is why he only served one term. I'm not interested in getting into a detailed debate about the various administrations. Fact is we have bounce between Republican and Democratic control since our inception. It is a lazy argument to say that one ideology has proven incorrect or bad every time a new party takes power unless you are going to admit the same thing every time the Republicans lose congress or the white house.

 

[Slade3200]

And what’s going to happen when the Dems win power in congress or the white house again? Will you allow your same logic to be used against you? You realized you’re gonna be suck with your foot in your mouth don’t you?

I always welcome the use of logic. But it won’t be “used against me”. If the American people hand over the House, or the Senate, or 33 of the 50 states to the Democrats during the Trump Administration, it will be a clear repudiation on the current Republican Party and I would fully expect them to fight against the agenda of the current Republican Party as that will be why their constituents sent them to Washington.

Ok, thats a fair statement. I do agree that the transition to Republican control was what the country wanted, I think its healthy to have a good back and forth between the power of both parties and we are do for some good fiscally conservative leadership. Thats what our country wanted. I don't think that means anything Liberals or Dems want is worthless. I don't think these all or nothing games are going to work well for us in the long run. I don't understand why people promote them

 

[radical right]

Social Security should not exist. If the American people wanted it to exist, then FDR and the Dumbocrats would have gotten the votes they needed to amend the U.S. Constitution and make retirement a responsibility of the federal government. They didn’t.

Effectively everything the government does not specifically enumerated should require a constitutional amendment before they do it? That promoting the general welfare has no operative effect. You have to amend the constitutional to create the EPA.

 

[radical right]

Since retirement was never delegated to the federal government by the states, they have absolutely no authority to create a retirement plan, stick a gun to the head of citizens, and force us into it. It doesn’t matter if it was “legislated through Congress”. It’s still 100% illegal/unconstitutional.

That would also prohibit the CDC (center for disease control) the EPA (environmental protection agency) the TVA (Tennassee valley authority) and a million other government agencies created to promote the general welfare.

 

[radical right]

I do agree that the transition to Republican control was what the country wanted,

Not so fast. The numbers don't support the gerrymandered results.

 

[P@triot]

I don't know why i'm going there with you as i'm sure you've had this debate many times before but the difference between you and I is in our interpretations of Article 1 section 8 which grants congress the power and responsibility to promote the general welfare.

Except that the “General Welfare Clause” is not a power. It’s a comment with regards to the scope of the federal government’s 18 enumerated powers. Here is none other than Thomas Jefferson himself clearly explaining as much:

“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 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” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

And because Thomas Jefferson understood all too well the left’s inability to grasp reality, he covered it again eight years later...

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

The fact is - not even progressives believe their nonsense. It’s just their way to attempt to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

It is a lazy argument to say that one ideology has proven incorrect or bad every time a new party takes power unless you are going to admit the same thing every time the Republicans lose congress or the white house.

Except that I never said “ideology” in general. I specifically cited Barack Insane Obama and those Dumbocrats (Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc.) that were destroying the U.S.

 

[Slade3200]

I do agree that the transition to Republican control was what the country wanted,

Not so fast. The numbers don't support the gerrymandered results.

I was speaking more to the Republican victories in state elections and congress. Trumps election was a fluke, lesser of two evils

 

[P@triot]

I do agree that the transition to Republican control was what the country wanted,

Not so fast. The numbers don't support the gerrymandered results.

I was speaking more to the Republican victories in state elections and congress. Trumps election was a fluke, lesser of two evils

I sort of agree with that. I do think it was the lesser of two evils. But I'm not sure you can call it a "fluke". After all, he blew threw the Republican primary like nothing we've ever seen. He should have been out of the race within the first 6 months based on everything we've ever known about campaigning. Instead, he just kept getting more and more popular.

It's comments like these that illustrates that the left still hasn't learned the "Trump Lesson". Donald Trump is not a result of the right. He's a direct result of the left. As long as the left continues with a bat-shit crazy platform of men are actually women, women are actually men, and properly identifying either results in criminal prosecution, the left will continue to ensure conservative victories. Especially when they refer to them as "flukes". The left has a priceless opportunity to learn from their ass-kicking over the past 8 years. You can't elect radicals like Barack Obama, refuse to accept biology, and attempt to control speech and still expect to win elections.