Obama Admits it: Conservatism Works

[DiamondDave]

I do not believe that the federal government exists to be an entitlement system... that those powers are granted to the states via the constitution.. wherein if as a state the state chooses to provide those things, they can do so... and with the power being in the hands of the states, those not agreeing can choose to remain in that state or to move to a state with differing policies while still remaining in the US itself.. once that power is given to the Fed, you have no choice.. nowhere else to go

Stick to the Constitution and not try and use the federal government to grab any and all power it can

the founders recognized the marginal ability if not ineptitude of states to tackle the concerns id raised of infrastructure. the federal government acted then and throughout history to affect these, be it striking a national currency to funding interstate, hell, intercontinental rail infrastructure, national education standards, etc.

you propose an inferior US history to what we have to be proud of today. where does that urge come from? why would you want our country fragmented and underachieving as you think is ....better?

ABSOLUTELY WRONG

The founders recognized that there are some things where a federal government is needed.. including relations between the states, national defense, currency, a national military (I.E. the Navy), trade/tariffs with foreign lands, etc.... but were very careful on the powers granted to the fed

You propose an all encompassing national government... which is inferior to what was intended... the fed has no business in entitlements to individuals.. it's business is to the country as a whole entity... it is not there to be your nanny, your security blanket, or as some confiscation mechanism to take over your personal responsibilities for you... and please remember that we have a federal government created and crafted by the states, not states that were crafted by the federal government

I suggest a little study or reading into the constitution itself and the intent behind it all
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[Mr. Peepers]

What the heck is a "winger"? I suddenly see that all over this board. Is that supposed to be the new neocon insult for progressives? I don't get it... Who came up with it?

 

[DiamondDave]

What the heck is a "winger"? I suddenly see that all over this board. Is that supposed to be the new neocon insult for progressives? I don't get it... Who came up with it?

Winger can be an extremist of any party.. not necessarily DEMs.. for example, KMAN is a winger on the REP/right side... bobo the assclown is a winger on the DEM/left side

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Hey, can someone send me the link were Obama is praising conservatism that this thread is based on? I can't find it.

 

[Vast LWC]

Health care is not a producer, but a service that uses the products of the various medical industries to provide your own personal care.... and yes, government options are indeed getting government into the business of healthcare, taking over control and influence of that service industry... something inspired by the socialist notion of government controlling the service and production

Which would make the Post Office a "socialist" invention, as well as the Military...

What amazes me here is that the US is less "socialist" than just about all of the other industrialized nations.

And even though Obama and company by no means come close to any of their levels of socialism, nor have they expressed a desire to reach those levels, they are branded "Stalinists" and "Communists".

Thus, logically, you are saying that every other modern industrialized nation on the face of the planet are Communist nations, by virtue of being more "Socialist" than Obama's administration.

And you all wonder why the rest of the world hates you.

Funny.. 1 person says Stalinism after the other says socialism and socialist inspired programs.. and only links to the USSR when we have examples of government takeover of a business or industry... you changing the terms in your post does not change what was said.. but nice try

First Sentence of the first post of this thread reads:

After a year of full blown FDR/Soviet Style Central Planning

Would you prefer I said "Lenin-ist"?

Obama has indeed 'did' with the likes of GM... and lest we not forget the 'stimulus' handouts with all the little government mandates to go along with it, being right in line of making the business beholden to the government

Like what, specifically?

Are you trying to deny the government the ability to dictate what people do with money that it gives out?

And if you think in the basis of freedom is a mere talking point, when we have the examples of the Obama and left-wing stances of invading personal freedoms of contributors for the expense of non-contributors, you are sadly mistaken... it is in fact a reality in leftist government

No, I think the word "Freedom" in the way Right-Wingers use it is a talking point. Right-Wingers use "Freedom" in such a wide variety of circumstances that the word has ceased to have meaning when uttered by a right-winger.

As far as the rest of this sentence goes, this happens among ALL politicians. And Red States are usually the major beneficiaries of such policies, on a per capita basis.

Your arguments might actually work better if you were not taking your own talking points from left wing sources, and if you actually used what was said by your opposition without trying to change the terminology for your own benefit...

Like what, specifically?

I can guarantee you that I haven't so much as glanced at a left-wing site since this conversation began. I hate all talking heads, and specifically criticize those on the left as well as those on the right.

I'll stick to the facts that Obama is socialism inspired and has ideals and actions in direct opposition to what was laid out in the original writings and intent of the constitution.. that very same constitution that helps ensure a society based in the concepts of freedom and not in the basis of entitlement, huge government, and redistribution

The orginal "intent" of the constitution was a variety of points of view, as has been discussed in many, many other threads.

As far as the actual "writings" of the Constitution, by which I assume you mean the actual text of the document, the general welfare clause covers everything you mentioned, aside from "Huge Government" which is a relative term and yet another talking point.

 

[Vast LWC]

ABSOLUTELY WRONG

The founders recognized that there are some things where a federal government is needed.. including relations between the states, national defense, currency, a national military (I.E. the Navy), trade/tariffs with foreign lands, etc.... but were very careful on the powers granted to the fed

Nevertheless, these are all "socialist" services that could conceivably be accomplished by private enterprise.

Thank god they aren't privatized.

You propose an all encompassing national government... which is inferior to what was intended... the fed has no business in entitlements to individuals.. it's business is to the country as a whole entity... it is not there to be your nanny, your security blanket, or as some confiscation mechanism to take over your personal responsibilities for you... and please remember that we have a federal government created and crafted by the states, not states that were crafted by the federal government

I suggest a little study or reading into the constitution itself and the intent behind it all
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

And your link is in itself a partisan interpretation of the Consitution.

Remember, just because it's printed on the internet doesn't mean it's true, and it certainly doesn't mean it's un-biased.

 

[DiamondDave]

ABSOLUTELY WRONG

The founders recognized that there are some things where a federal government is needed.. including relations between the states, national defense, currency, a national military (I.E. the Navy), trade/tariffs with foreign lands, etc.... but were very careful on the powers granted to the fed

Nevertheless, these are all "socialist" services that could conceivably be accomplished by private enterprise.

Thank god they aren't privatized.

You propose an all encompassing national government... which is inferior to what was intended... the fed has no business in entitlements to individuals.. it's business is to the country as a whole entity... it is not there to be your nanny, your security blanket, or as some confiscation mechanism to take over your personal responsibilities for you... and please remember that we have a federal government created and crafted by the states, not states that were crafted by the federal government

I suggest a little study or reading into the constitution itself and the intent behind it all
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

And your link is in itself a partisan interpretation of the Consitution.

Remember, just because it's printed on the internet doesn't mean it's true, and it certainly doesn't mean it's un-biased.

Oh yeah.. Thank God you have to involuntarily contribute to a savings/retirement plan that gains less for you than the common bank account... Thank GOD for a overblown government assisted medical insurance system that is filled to the gills with fraud and corruption on top of the governmental red tape that wastes your tax dollars....
And btw.. national defense is not 'socialist'.. nor are things like currency or a tariff

The link itself is to a word for word posting of the constitution.. there is nothing partisan on the site.... it is indeed the first site that comes up when googling the word constitution.. .I reference nothing of opinions given.. only to the text of the document and to the attached dictionary defining terms as used in the document

But nice try... I could have linked to a winger site, quoting all sorts of opinions... but I did not... I link to that site for a word for word resource of the constitution itself

 

[DiamondDave]

Oh.... BTW.. nice attempt to put OTHER PEOPLE's WORDS INTO MY MOUTH.... try and see who used the word stalinist, you buffoon

 

[antagon]

I do not believe that the federal government exists to be an entitlement system... that those powers are granted to the states via the constitution.. wherein if as a state the state chooses to provide those things, they can do so... and with the power being in the hands of the states, those not agreeing can choose to remain in that state or to move to a state with differing policies while still remaining in the US itself.. once that power is given to the Fed, you have no choice.. nowhere else to go

Stick to the Constitution and not try and use the federal government to grab any and all power it can

the founders recognized the marginal ability if not ineptitude of states to tackle the concerns id raised of infrastructure. the federal government acted then and throughout history to affect these, be it striking a national currency to funding interstate, hell, intercontinental rail infrastructure, national education standards, etc.

you propose an inferior US history to what we have to be proud of today. where does that urge come from? why would you want our country fragmented and underachieving as you think is ....better?

ABSOLUTELY WRONG

The founders recognized that there are some things where a federal government is needed.. including relations between the states, national defense, currency, a national military (I.E. the Navy), trade/tariffs with foreign lands, etc.... but were very careful on the powers granted to the fed

You propose an all encompassing national government... which is inferior to what was intended... the fed has no business in entitlements to individuals.. it's business is to the country as a whole entity... it is not there to be your nanny, your security blanket, or as some confiscation mechanism to take over your personal responsibilities for you... and please remember that we have a federal government created and crafted by the states, not states that were crafted by the federal government

I suggest a little study or reading into the constitution itself and the intent behind it all
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

thanks for the link, guy.

im not advocating anything different than the US is now, and where we are now as the only real superpower on the planet. i dont subscribe to any alarmist fantasies whereby the federal government is 'all encompassing' or the US is hellbound for socialism.

with that clear, the federal government predates us both with a multi-billion dollar business in entitlements as part of the nation's infrastructure. sure you can pretend that entitlement is some kind of nannying, but i make the case that it is capitalist infrastructure essential to forging a middle class in greater proportion than the poor, and its the middle class that through our consumership makes us the leading post-industrial nation on earth. all of that is constitutional, and by far.

if im wrong there, please point out where the constitution forebodes progress. i find it to be a brilliant document, instead, with the ability to direct a modern country, just as well as it did a country in its infancy and developing years.

if you dont aim to take cover with the constitution, are you among those who feel the government should have never elevated above mexico or other nations which suffer without basic entitlements? or worse, someone who thinks the US should abandon them?

hopefully not one that hopes to argue that we'd arrived at this point despite all that, but with no sort of merit to your arguement, whatsoever. im making a list of those clowns.

 

[obama2ndterm]

ttp://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=conservatism_itself

 

[DiamondDave]

The orginal "intent" of the constitution was a variety of points of view, as has been discussed in many, many other threads.

As far as the actual "writings" of the Constitution, by which I assume you mean the actual text of the document, the general welfare clause covers everything you mentioned, aside from "Huge Government" which is a relative term and yet another talking point.

Wrong again

Try and look at the enumerated powers.. the general welfare clause was never intended as some catch all to give the government authority to do anything it wants

Article 1, Section 8 states:

"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, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."


Where leftists and entitlement junkies go wrong is in thinking that the general welfare of the states individually and as a collective whole(you know.. the entities that created the federal government and allow the federal government to have power) is the same thing as the welfare of individuals... it is MUCH different than the welfare of individuals and the use of entitlements to individual citizens within the country...


but nice try.. even though activist entitlement junkies and power junkies in the government have abused this in exactly the way you want it to be, the wording is quite clear as is the context of the statement

 

[Bern80]

the founders recognized the marginal ability if not ineptitude of states to tackle the concerns id raised of infrastructure. the federal government acted then and throughout history to affect these, be it striking a national currency to funding interstate, hell, intercontinental rail infrastructure, national education standards, etc.

you propose an inferior US history to what we have to be proud of today. where does that urge come from? why would you want our country fragmented and underachieving as you think is ....better?

ABSOLUTELY WRONG

The founders recognized that there are some things where a federal government is needed.. including relations between the states, national defense, currency, a national military (I.E. the Navy), trade/tariffs with foreign lands, etc.... but were very careful on the powers granted to the fed

You propose an all encompassing national government... which is inferior to what was intended... the fed has no business in entitlements to individuals.. it's business is to the country as a whole entity... it is not there to be your nanny, your security blanket, or as some confiscation mechanism to take over your personal responsibilities for you... and please remember that we have a federal government created and crafted by the states, not states that were crafted by the federal government

I suggest a little study or reading into the constitution itself and the intent behind it all
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

thanks for the link, guy.

im not advocating anything different than the US is now, and where we are now as the only real superpower on the planet. i dont subscribe to any alarmist fantasies whereby the federal government is 'all encompassing' or the US is hellbound for socialism.

with that clear, the federal government predates us both with a multi-billion dollar business in entitlements as part of the nation's infrastructure. sure you can pretend that entitlement is some kind of nannying, but i make the case that it is capitalist infrastructure essential to forging a middle class in greater proportion than the poor, and its the middle class that through our consumership makes us the leading post-industrial nation on earth. all of that is constitutional, and by far.

if im wrong there, please point out where the constitution forebodes progress. i find it to be a brilliant document, instead, with the ability to direct a modern country, just as well as it did a country in its infancy and developing years.

if you dont aim to take cover with the constitution, are you among those who feel the government should have never elevated above mexico or other nations which suffer without basic entitlements? or worse, someone who thinks the US should abandon them?

hopefully not one that hopes to argue that we'd arrived at this point despite all that, but with no sort of merit to your arguement, whatsoever. im making a list of those clowns.

that interpretation is to completely misunderstand the intent of the framers. As to your question about the constitution prohibiting progress. that's a red herring I've ever seen one. First of all it implies that is the role of government to create progress. It isn't. That was not the intention of the founders. Their intention was to create a free society. They intended for central government to be limited in scope because they knew that while all of things you speak of sound good on paper, it would also open up the door for a lot of less than genuine intentions adn ultimately tyranny.

 

[DiamondDave]

the founders recognized the marginal ability if not ineptitude of states to tackle the concerns id raised of infrastructure. the federal government acted then and throughout history to affect these, be it striking a national currency to funding interstate, hell, intercontinental rail infrastructure, national education standards, etc.

you propose an inferior US history to what we have to be proud of today. where does that urge come from? why would you want our country fragmented and underachieving as you think is ....better?

ABSOLUTELY WRONG

The founders recognized that there are some things where a federal government is needed.. including relations between the states, national defense, currency, a national military (I.E. the Navy), trade/tariffs with foreign lands, etc.... but were very careful on the powers granted to the fed

You propose an all encompassing national government... which is inferior to what was intended... the fed has no business in entitlements to individuals.. it's business is to the country as a whole entity... it is not there to be your nanny, your security blanket, or as some confiscation mechanism to take over your personal responsibilities for you... and please remember that we have a federal government created and crafted by the states, not states that were crafted by the federal government

I suggest a little study or reading into the constitution itself and the intent behind it all
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

thanks for the link, guy.

im not advocating anything different than the US is now, and where we are now as the only real superpower on the planet. i dont subscribe to any alarmist fantasies whereby the federal government is 'all encompassing' or the US is hellbound for socialism.

with that clear, the federal government predates us both with a multi-billion dollar business in entitlements as part of the nation's infrastructure. sure you can pretend that entitlement is some kind of nannying, but i make the case that it is capitalist infrastructure essential to forging a middle class in greater proportion than the poor, and its the middle class that through our consumership makes us the leading post-industrial nation on earth. all of that is constitutional, and by far.

if im wrong there, please point out where the constitution forebodes progress. i find it to be a brilliant document, instead, with the ability to direct a modern country, just as well as it did a country in its infancy and developing years.

if you dont aim to take cover with the constitution, are you among those who feel the government should have never elevated above mexico or other nations which suffer without basic entitlements? or worse, someone who thinks the US should abandon them?

hopefully not one that hopes to argue that we'd arrived at this point despite all that, but with no sort of merit to your arguement, whatsoever. im making a list of those clowns.

The federal government does not go against progress.. for there is the ability to amend the constitution... and it does not set up the government to exist to limit or forbid the progress of individual citizens within our country... but what has been bastardized has been the freedoms it gives.. by the very creation of these entitlement programs and the expansion of the tendrils of the federal government in to all aspects of the lives of citizens... morphing into this huge abomination of a system that is acting as a wealth redistribution center, a red tape factory, and some omnipotent entity with appendages stuck to business, individual responsibilities, and the advancement and property of citizens

We should not have the federal government in the business of individual or corporate entitlements at all... those are personal responsibilities of the citizen and the company/corporation/business.. we have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail..

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Hellooo... can anyone add the link where obama is praising conservatism? Please?

 

[obama2ndterm]

Mostly seniors on Govt insurance riding govt paid for scooters. Screaming and claiming to be important.Jim Demint and Dick Armey, two of the scummiest people ever,will lead anyone, especially low information voters as this. Unlikely to impact any race anywhere!

 

[SFC Ollie]

I've seen several in other boards and/or threads mention that the Post Office and Military would be considered Socialism. I don't see it, please explain.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes my pointy headed, mentally challenged little friend, we post here in the morning BEFORE those shows are on. Do you know what the word "before" means?

Where not Libruls linking to Media Matters and only adding "ZOMG!!! DID YOU KNOW THIS??""

Sure Frank, you feed the media. Not the other way around. You go boyee.

And why did you leave out the part about explaining how funding the State of Fraud of $60Billion annually is a success?

Did you check Media Matters, Kos and Huffington for your answers and drew lemons there?

Because I was giving you the credit of that not actually being a talking point?

It made so little sense, that I figured it must be original.

So wait, Medicare is good because you can't figure out how losing $60B annually to fraud is a bad thing? Is that what you;re saying?

 

[antagon]

ABSOLUTELY WRONG

The founders recognized that there are some things where a federal government is needed.. including relations between the states, national defense, currency, a national military (I.E. the Navy), trade/tariffs with foreign lands, etc.... but were very careful on the powers granted to the fed

You propose an all encompassing national government... which is inferior to what was intended... the fed has no business in entitlements to individuals.. it's business is to the country as a whole entity... it is not there to be your nanny, your security blanket, or as some confiscation mechanism to take over your personal responsibilities for you... and please remember that we have a federal government created and crafted by the states, not states that were crafted by the federal government

I suggest a little study or reading into the constitution itself and the intent behind it all
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

thanks for the link, guy.

im not advocating anything different than the US is now, and where we are now as the only real superpower on the planet. i dont subscribe to any alarmist fantasies whereby the federal government is 'all encompassing' or the US is hellbound for socialism.

with that clear, the federal government predates us both with a multi-billion dollar business in entitlements as part of the nation's infrastructure. sure you can pretend that entitlement is some kind of nannying, but i make the case that it is capitalist infrastructure essential to forging a middle class in greater proportion than the poor, and its the middle class that through our consumership makes us the leading post-industrial nation on earth. all of that is constitutional, and by far.

if im wrong there, please point out where the constitution forebodes progress. i find it to be a brilliant document, instead, with the ability to direct a modern country, just as well as it did a country in its infancy and developing years.

if you dont aim to take cover with the constitution, are you among those who feel the government should have never elevated above mexico or other nations which suffer without basic entitlements? or worse, someone who thinks the US should abandon them?

hopefully not one that hopes to argue that we'd arrived at this point despite all that, but with no sort of merit to your arguement, whatsoever. im making a list of those clowns.

that interpretation is to completely misunderstand the intent of the framers. As to your question about the constitution prohibiting progress. that's a red herring I've ever seen one. First of all it implies that is the role of government to create progress. It isn't. That was not the intention of the founders. Their intention was to create a free society. They intended for central government to be limited in scope because they knew that while all of things you speak of sound good on paper, it would also open up the door for a lot of less than genuine intentions adn ultimately tyranny.

the founders were wise enough not to enumerate what infrastructure they felt, 200 years ago, were within the scope of government. i dont think you'd find your guidance there.

im not the paper jockey here. im speaking about the united states as it is in reality, americans and our govenment. the idea that we have gone awry in having social infrastructure is the paper proposal im trying to get my head around.

im left with the impression and compelling real-world evidence that what the minimalists are proposing doesnt give the constitution the credit of applicability to modern first-world nations as the US stands now. or that the reality of their assessment of the role of government wouldnt be tragicly worse than the status quo, were it not just on paper. that the tyranny would be manifested in poverty, etc. thats how it is in other minimalist countries.

no red herrings; no dancin round the issue: if the constitution cant be interpreted to include basic entitlements, it cannot be said to apply to any first-world nation. there are no nations with developed economies that have not achieved that position proceeding their implementation of these 'technologies' - progressive entitlements establishing a minimal standard for everyone and with other, wealthier folk's cash. ouch. thats a cause-effect relationship as hard to swallow for some as capitalism's survival of the fittest is for others.

i trust we're all hard working and have a distaste for laziness. that is a separate, personal issue to take up with the needlessly entitled. am i alone in understanding that practical neccessity for this infrastructure in a modern society, having seen the cause-effect relationship in backwards ones without it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes my pointy headed, mentally challenged little friend, we post here in the morning BEFORE those shows are on. Do you know what the word "before" means?

Where not Libruls linking to Media Matters and only adding "ZOMG!!! DID YOU KNOW THIS??""

Sure Frank, you feed the media. Not the other way around. You go boyee.

And why did you leave out the part about explaining how funding the State of Fraud of $60Billion annually is a success?

Did you check Media Matters, Kos and Huffington for your answers and drew lemons there?

Because I was giving you the credit of that not actually being a talking point?

It made so little sense, that I figured it must be original.

So wait, Medicare is good because you can't figure out how losing $60B annually to fraud is a bad thing? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

ttp://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=conservatism_itself

Um, OK. I read this article and I don't even think it mentions Obama anywhere and it certainly doesn't praise conservatism. I think you gave me the wrong link.