Obama Admits it: Conservatism Works

[Vast LWC]

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

OK, first of all, I said "Thank God" the services listed were not privatized. I did not mention or refer to Social Security.

Secondly, the reason Social Security is now failing is because:

1. There are too many old people, and not enough young people to keep it solvent.

and

2. The Republicans gutted the Social Security fund.

In addition, I don't know what bank account you can find these days that gives you more than a 1.5% interest. If you can find one, send me a link, I'd love to check it out.

And, finally, the military, by your definition, is a "socialist" institution. It is a service (in this case defense and protection) that could theoretically be provided by the private sector, but is instead provided by the government.

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

The text of the document is indeed there, and then there are all kinds of links that contain interpretations of what the text says. That is where the partisan interpretations are located. You directed him to the site, and told him to research the constitution, you did not direct him to not look at the links.

 

[antagon]

The Republicans gutted the Social Security fund... a bipartisan feast.

 

[Vast LWC]

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...

Which is entirely your right-wing interpretation of what it says, and what the intent in the writing was.

The actual text simply reads "Provide for the General Welfare". Taken at face value, without allowing for external influence, my interpretation is completely correct, while yours is dependent upon some theory about the intent of the founding fathers.

And the country is made up of individuals. Their welfare is the welfare of the whole.

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

Yes, it is, and it is the wording and the context I presented.

What could be more clear than "Provide for the General Welfare"?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

So are public schools, roads and highways, police and fire departments....

Why should the public subsidise your mailing a letter? Private companies could do it

Military? Who needs it when we have Haliburton and Blackwater?

 

[antagon]

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

like i said above, i dont see the constitution being a hiding place for those who think you can run a modern nation without basic entitlements. try as you may, there's no constitutional arguement to be made. we could only hope to put words in the founders mouths in that pursuit.

as to 'where [minimalist radicals] go wrong' its in a failure to recognize entitlements as a capitalist infrastructure requisite to progress into the post-industrialized first-world.

i think they get tied up concerning themselves with the entitled.

capitalist progress: currency begets commerce, roads and ports beget industry, entitlements beget a middle class consumer base. thats a crude, and admittedly wanting image of the stark realities of the government's role in this progression, but it speaks on the behalf of history. <----thats not the case of the radical libertarian paper-eutopia.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Republicans gutted the Social Security fund... a bipartisan feast.

They did? When?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

So are public schools, roads and highways, police and fire departments....

Why should the public subsidise your mailing a letter? Private companies could do it

Military? Who needs it when we have Haliburton and Blackwater?

Public schools are state and community

Roads are state unless interstate

Police and fire are not federal God are you really this braindead from snorting KoolAid?

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

so are public schools, roads and highways, police and fire departments....

Why should the public subsidise your mailing a letter? Private companies could do it

military? Who needs it when we have haliburton and blackwater?

public schools are state and community

roads are state unless interstate

police and fire are not federal god are you really this braindead from snorting koolaid?

bingo

 

[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

like i said above, i dont see the constitution being a hiding place for those who think you can run a modern nation without basic entitlements. try as you may, there's no constitutional arguement to be made. we could only hope to put words in the founders mouths in that pursuit.

as to 'where [minimalist radicals] go wrong' its in a failure to recognize entitlements as a capitalist infrastructure requisite to progress into the post-industrialized first-world.

i think they get tied up concerning themselves with the entitled.

capitalist progress: currency begets commerce, roads and ports beget industry, entitlements beget a middle class consumer base. thats a crude, and admittedly wanting image of the stark realities of the government's role in this progression, but it speaks on the behalf of history. <----thats not the case of the radical libertarian paper-eutopia.

Absolutely false... those power hungry for the votes from the ones receiving the entitlements surely tell you this myth... a society can indeed run, and run more effectively without nationalist socialist programs... these entitlements do nothing but hinder us even more with increasing government, increased red-tape waste and fraud, and increased pandering and payoffs...

Humans are a charitable lot.. and when shown a situation, most will want to help... but in a free society they are not forced to help.. hence the existence of charity and foundations to help numerous causes... and you would be amazed at what a person could do if they were held to be more self reliant.... as adults that are not wards of the state, vegetables, or complete buffoons, we can do many things to provide for ourselves and our family.. however we have a culture of persons that simply do not wish to do what it takes or as much as it takes... they blame 'the man' or 'the rich' or society itself for their personal woes or their personal situation... it's about time that people do stand up and do for themselves instead of expecting society and others to provide it for them....

 

[DiamondDave]

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...

Which is entirely your right-wing interpretation of what it says, and what the intent in the writing was.

The actual text simply reads "Provide for the General Welfare". Taken at face value, without allowing for external influence, my interpretation is completely correct, while yours is dependent upon some theory about the intent of the founding fathers.

And the country is made up of individuals. Their welfare is the welfare of the whole.

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

Yes, it is, and it is the wording and the context I presented.

What could be more clear than "Provide for the General Welfare"?

finish the statement and stop leaving off "of the United States".. those few words at the end of the sentence make it all too clear.. except to the entitlement junkies and to those who want to be charitable without giving of their own resources

individual welfare is indeed much different that the welfare of the union as an entity

 

[Diuretic]

After a year of full blown FDR/Soviet Style Central Planning, after a year of TARP and "Stimulus" spending, after a year of denigrating capitalism and free enterprise, Obama has finally seen the light and admits that Conservatism works; only Conservatism can set the foundation for small businesses to bloom and prosper.

Maybe he was visited by the Spirits of Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman and Adams Smith last night, who knows? All we can tell is that today he has come to the realization that government spending does not create jobs. In America, that's a job for small businesses!

Welcome Obama! Glad to have you aboard.

Obama has saved American capitalism from itself. You should be kissing his feet.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

So are public schools, roads and highways, police and fire departments....

Why should the public subsidise your mailing a letter? Private companies could do it

Military? Who needs it when we have Haliburton and Blackwater?

Public schools are state and community

Roads are state unless interstate

Police and fire are not federal God are you really this braindead from snorting KoolAid?

State and local communities can be Socialist too. If the community is providing it vs a private enterprise=Socialism

Understand Comrade Frank?

 

[SFC Ollie]

After a year of full blown FDR/Soviet Style Central Planning, after a year of TARP and "Stimulus" spending, after a year of denigrating capitalism and free enterprise, Obama has finally seen the light and admits that Conservatism works; only Conservatism can set the foundation for small businesses to bloom and prosper.

Maybe he was visited by the Spirits of Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman and Adams Smith last night, who knows? All we can tell is that today he has come to the realization that government spending does not create jobs. In America, that's a job for small businesses!

Welcome Obama! Glad to have you aboard.

Obama has saved American capitalism from itself. You should be kissing his feet.

The only thing i want to do for Obama is to help him move back to Chicago.

 

[midcan5]

Again no answer but that is to be expected from a party and ideology that can only say NO.

I think today the terms liberal and conservative are a bit misleading. There are no conservatives with consistent views and values that a majority of them could agree on. Economic and social issues separate them, thus their loss in the last election. And there is no left today. More appropriate terms would be reactionaries and progressives. The reactionaries are the so called libertarians, 'conservatives,' religious right, ID fans, tea partiers, and most republicans. Progressives are liberals, a few independents, and a few democrats. Power and negative rhetoric have made labels vague and hard to match with accomplishments and values.

 

[Vast LWC]

finish the statement and stop leaving off "of the United States".. those few words at the end of the sentence make it all too clear.. except to the entitlement junkies and to those who want to be charitable without giving of their own resources

individual welfare is indeed much different that the welfare of the union as an entity

I'm sorry, so now you're claiming that the United States is an entity separate from the people of the United States?

Like the writers of the Constitution were literally trying to look out for the ground we walk on, rather than the people who make up the population???

 

[The T]

After a year of full blown FDR/Soviet Style Central Planning, after a year of TARP and "Stimulus" spending, after a year of denigrating capitalism and free enterprise, Obama has finally seen the light and admits that Conservatism works; only Conservatism can set the foundation for small businesses to bloom and prosper.

Maybe he was visited by the Spirits of Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman and Adams Smith last night, who knows? All we can tell is that today he has come to the realization that government spending does not create jobs. In America, that's a job for small businesses!

Welcome Obama! Glad to have you aboard.

Obama has saved American capitalism from itself. You should be kissing his feet.

The only thing i want to do for Obama is to help him move back to Chicago.

And then back to Kenya.

 

[Vast LWC]

And then back to Kenya.

and.... BAM another talking point!

Excellent work T.

 

[Yurt]

After a year of full blown FDR/Soviet Style Central Planning, after a year of TARP and "Stimulus" spending, after a year of denigrating capitalism and free enterprise, Obama has finally seen the light and admits that Conservatism works; only Conservatism can set the foundation for small businesses to bloom and prosper.

Maybe he was visited by the Spirits of Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman and Adams Smith last night, who knows? All we can tell is that today he has come to the realization that government spending does not create jobs. In America, that's a job for small businesses!

Welcome Obama! Glad to have you aboard.

Obama has saved American capitalism from itself. You should be kissing his feet.

how exactly?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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...

Which is entirely your right-wing interpretation of what it says, and what the intent in the writing was.

The actual text simply reads "Provide for the General Welfare". Taken at face value, without allowing for external influence, my interpretation is completely correct, while yours is dependent upon some theory about the intent of the founding fathers.

And the country is made up of individuals. Their welfare is the welfare of the whole.

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

Yes, it is, and it is the wording and the context I presented.

What could be more clear than "Provide for the General Welfare"?

finish the statement and stop leaving off "of the United States".. those few words at the end of the sentence make it all too clear.. except to the entitlement junkies and to those who want to be charitable without giving of their own resources

individual welfare is indeed much different that the welfare of the union as an entity

Except that the Supreme Court is the constitutional authority to decide what is constitutional and what is not. Your point is worthless.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, it works in certain situations just like liberalism works in certain situations. That's a reason no one political party holds office forever. Both have their flaws.

When has liberalism (whatever that is) ever worked?

It founded this country, freed the slaves, got women the vote, outlawed child labor, made our workplaces safer, made our environment cleaner and safer, educated our children, and on and on,

and was opposed by conservatives at every step along the way.