Obama Admits it: Conservatism Works

[Dr Grump]

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.

You going back to where your ancestors are from, too?

 

[antagon]

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....

youre obsessed with the charity, laziness, power and corruptibility aspect of entitlement. this is not a simpleton's arguement. those that reject capitalism go about criticizing greed, corruption, exploitation of labor - incidentals to the core facts and the intent of the policy. we'll need to see the side-show for what it is.

all i can do is ask we see the potential for inefficiencies in everything. this is macroeconomics, after all.

but your statement that 'a society can indeed run, and run more effectively without nationalist socialist programs' sounds greater than it is in practice. at a basic level, one which the nuance of is debated 'right' and 'left' in the US, these systems comprise the crucial element in a point a, point b, point c progression to first world status which we have long obtained.

that is purely economics. you can save your concerns for work ethics for the religion board. hard work is great. i make my living off it as im sure you do, but we do so in an economy that benefits from social infrastructure in the way of welfare, social security, etc... beyond roads and rails now for a century. you simply cant pretend that the huge amereconomy functions notwithstanding these features, or that 'these entitlements do nothing but hinder us even more with increasing government, increased red-tape waste and fraud, and increased pandering and payoffs'

you claim efficiencies which make third-world economies grow far quicker than the US economy, sure, but not that will allow them to post the per-capita efficiency that is exibited by you and I, even taken in average with our laziest countrymen. thats what im on about. where you see that high percap GDP, you'll find these systems of capitalist infrastructure in place: mixed economies. not cause/paradox as youve argued. cause/effect, like everything else on the planet.

you dont need to lobby the US into the digression youre hoping for, there's dozens of developing countries which fit your mold.

its a matter of getting out of the country every once and a while and getting out in the economy often enough to see the world for how it works, rather than what some wayside economists think is clever. i cant avoid the facts ive laid out here, neither from highscool economics, nor my line of work, nor an 'in touch' american life.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Liberalism founded the USA??

 

[Dr Grump]

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?

Bailouts

 

[rightwinger]

Liberalism founded the USA??



View attachment 9016

Afraid so. Our founding fathers were liberals. Conservatives of the day supported the crown

 

[Yurt]

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

how exactly?

Bailouts

that was bush...next

 

[SFC Ollie]

Liberalism founded the USA??



View attachment 9016

Afraid so. Our founding fathers were liberals. Conservatives of the day supported the crown

I just don't see much Liberalism in the Constitution. Or much in the writings of the different founders. Of course I am not an expert in this field by any means.

 

[antagon]

our founders were trying to build a great nation. liberals or conservatives could quote them for their purposes, but then, as now, the center is the pragmatic focus. thats the great thing about thomas jefferson. he saw right and wrong, not left and right.

 

[SFC Ollie]

our founders were trying to build a great nation. liberals or conservatives could quote them for their purposes, but then, as now, the center is the pragmatic focus. thats the great thing about thomas jefferson. he saw right and wrong, not left and right.

That is true, Must be where I get it from. He is my Great great Grand fathers Cousin.

 

[rightwinger]

Liberalism founded the USA??



View attachment 9016

Afraid so. Our founding fathers were liberals. Conservatives of the day supported the crown

I just don't see much Liberalism in the Constitution. Or much in the writings of the different founders. Of course I am not an expert in this field by any means.

The concept of "all men are created equal" was decidedly liberal for the day. Can you imagine an illiterate field worker having the same voting power as a wealthy educated landowner? Quite liberal for the day

Think of the monarchy.....Royalty was determined by birth. Your class was determined by who your parents were. Conservatives supported the crown.

 

[DiamondDave]

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 writers knew how to use the word people or persons.... and they specifically did not...

Yes.. the country as a whole is different than the individual parts making up that country and different than the specific individuals who were guaranteed their freedoms as part of the constitution

Those freedoms that the system you and your ilk support that is in direct conflict with those freedoms

 

[DiamondDave]

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.



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.

The very same supreme court within our government that is so busy trying to expand it's power and grasp..

They and your precious leftists are not and were not beyond the alure of the expansion of power.. which is exactly what they did...

Funny... you did complain about things when it was REPs expanding powers

 

[DiamondDave]

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....

youre obsessed with the charity, laziness, power and corruptibility aspect of entitlement. this is not a simpleton's arguement. those that reject capitalism go about criticizing greed, corruption, exploitation of labor - incidentals to the core facts and the intent of the policy. we'll need to see the side-show for what it is.

all i can do is ask we see the potential for inefficiencies in everything. this is macroeconomics, after all.

but your statement that 'a society can indeed run, and run more effectively without nationalist socialist programs' sounds greater than it is in practice. at a basic level, one which the nuance of is debated 'right' and 'left' in the US, these systems comprise the crucial element in a point a, point b, point c progression to first world status which we have long obtained.

that is purely economics. you can save your concerns for work ethics for the religion board. hard work is great. i make my living off it as im sure you do, but we do so in an economy that benefits from social infrastructure in the way of welfare, social security, etc... beyond roads and rails now for a century. you simply cant pretend that the huge amereconomy functions notwithstanding these features, or that 'these entitlements do nothing but hinder us even more with increasing government, increased red-tape waste and fraud, and increased pandering and payoffs'

you claim efficiencies which make third-world economies grow far quicker than the US economy, sure, but not that will allow them to post the per-capita efficiency that is exibited by you and I, even taken in average with our laziest countrymen. thats what im on about. where you see that high percap GDP, you'll find these systems of capitalist infrastructure in place: mixed economies. not cause/paradox as youve argued. cause/effect, like everything else on the planet.

you dont need to lobby the US into the digression youre hoping for, there's dozens of developing countries which fit your mold.

its a matter of getting out of the country every once and a while and getting out in the economy often enough to see the world for how it works, rather than what some wayside economists think is clever. i cant avoid the facts ive laid out here, neither from highscool economics, nor my line of work, nor an 'in touch' american life.

And the ruling elites in socialism have no greed??

Peoples within a socialist system do not wish to strive for more as a result of their personal labors, instead of it being handed to the collective and redistributed??

Peoples in those socialist systems would not rather own their own businesses and gain benefit from their risks and efforts??

Human nature toward self and family are in direct opposition to socialist government.. hence why it will always be opposed and why it will always fail... it is inferior

 

[DiamondDave]

Liberalism founded the USA??



View attachment 9016

Afraid so. Our founding fathers were liberals. Conservatives of the day supported the crown

Liberal myth.. you winger fucktard

 

[rightwinger]

Liberalism founded the USA??



View attachment 9016

Afraid so. Our founding fathers were liberals. Conservatives of the day supported the crown

Liberal myth.. you winger fucktard

Far from it. Our founding fathers were our original liberals. They looked at the existing monarchy, human rights and rights of the individual and decided we want better

The concept of "all men are created equal" was decidedly liberal for the day. Can you imagine an illiterate field worker having the same voting power as a wealthy educated landowner? Quite liberal for the day

Think of the monarchy.....Royalty was determined by birth. Your class was determined by who your parents were. Conservatives supported the crown.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The very same supreme court within our government that is so busy trying to expand it's power and grasp..

They and your precious leftists are not and were not beyond the alure of the expansion of power.. which is exactly what they did...

Funny... you did complain about things when it was REPs expanding powers

Here is your problem Dave. The Constitution gives the courts the authority to decide how the Constitution should be interpreted. They have yet to uphold any cases that support your interpretation of "General Welfare" Until they do....your interpretation is wrong

 

[Joe Steel]

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

Nonsense.

First, the states did not create the federal government. The document we call the US Constitution, technically, is a compact. That is, it is solemn agreement among individuals to create a community. The Preamble says "we the People...." not "we the states..." "do ordain and establish..." That's what makes it a compact. Everything after the Preamble is a consititution, i.e. a text constituting or creating a government.

Secondly, the general welfare clause, in fact, is a declaration of unlimited power for Congress. The Founders deliberately chose a vague and indefinite phrase,"provide for the general welfare," to ensure the federal government would be empowered to act in any way necessary to serve the People. This created a problem, though. Reasonable persons could have good faith disagreements about the nature of the general welfare and what policies would serve it. To avoid this problem in certain areas, the Founders defined a number of powers as necessary to provide for the general welfare. These are the so-called enumerated powers. Congress must do these things and may do anyting else it wishes.

Finally, the general welfare can be served by virtually any act of Congress as long the membership agrees. It need not be limited only the welfare of the states and exclude the welfare of individuals. If, for instance, Congress decides a half-pint of milk provided to every school child through the age of 10 years every morning would serve the general welfare, they can do it.

 

[antagon]

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....

youre obsessed with the charity, laziness, power and corruptibility aspect of entitlement. this is not a simpleton's arguement. those that reject capitalism go about criticizing greed, corruption, exploitation of labor - incidentals to the core facts and the intent of the policy. we'll need to see the side-show for what it is.

all i can do is ask we see the potential for inefficiencies in everything. this is macroeconomics, after all.

but your statement that 'a society can indeed run, and run more effectively without nationalist socialist programs' sounds greater than it is in practice. at a basic level, one which the nuance of is debated 'right' and 'left' in the US, these systems comprise the crucial element in a point a, point b, point c progression to first world status which we have long obtained.

that is purely economics. you can save your concerns for work ethics for the religion board. hard work is great. i make my living off it as im sure you do, but we do so in an economy that benefits from social infrastructure in the way of welfare, social security, etc... beyond roads and rails now for a century. you simply cant pretend that the huge amereconomy functions notwithstanding these features, or that 'these entitlements do nothing but hinder us even more with increasing government, increased red-tape waste and fraud, and increased pandering and payoffs'

you claim efficiencies which make third-world economies grow far quicker than the US economy, sure, but not that will allow them to post the per-capita efficiency that is exibited by you and I, even taken in average with our laziest countrymen. thats what im on about. where you see that high percap GDP, you'll find these systems of capitalist infrastructure in place: mixed economies. not cause/paradox as youve argued. cause/effect, like everything else on the planet.

you dont need to lobby the US into the digression youre hoping for, there's dozens of developing countries which fit your mold.

its a matter of getting out of the country every once and a while and getting out in the economy often enough to see the world for how it works, rather than what some wayside economists think is clever. i cant avoid the facts ive laid out here, neither from highscool economics, nor my line of work, nor an 'in touch' american life.

And the ruling elites in socialism have no greed??

Peoples within a socialist system do not wish to strive for more as a result of their personal labors, instead of it being handed to the collective and redistributed??

Peoples in those socialist systems would not rather own their own businesses and gain benefit from their risks and efforts??

Human nature toward self and family are in direct opposition to socialist government.. hence why it will always be opposed and why it will always fail... it is inferior

youre preaching to the choir about capitalism. my case revolves around your limited interpretation of what is required for capitalist economies to function to first-world standards.

nobody's advocating socialism. youve made a criticism of the united states, the most brilliant mixed capitalist society in human history, and im defending that against your bangladeshi free market model.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Nonsense.

First, the states did not create the federal government. The document we call the US Constitution, technically, is a compact. That is, it is solemn agreement among individuals to create a community. The Preamble says "we the People...." not "we the states..." "do ordain and establish..." That's what makes it a compact. Everything after the Preamble is a consititution, i.e. a text constituting or creating a government.

Secondly, the general welfare clause, in fact, is a declaration of unlimited power for Congress. The Founders deliberately chose a vague and indefinite phrase,"provide for the general welfare," to ensure the federal government would be empowered to act in any way necessary to serve the People. This created a problem, though. Reasonable persons could have good faith disagreements about the nature of the general welfare and what policies would serve it. To avoid this problem in certain areas, the Founders defined a number of powers as necessary to provide for the general welfare. These are the so-called enumerated powers. Congress must do these things and may do anyting else it wishes.

Finally, the general welfare can be served by virtually any act of Congress as long the membership agrees. It need not be limited only the welfare of the states and exclude the welfare of individuals. If, for instance, Congress decides a half-pint of milk provided to every school child through the age of 10 years every morning would serve the general welfare, they can do it.

There's not a single state that would have ratified the Constitution if they thought that's what they were singing on to. Not one!

 

[antagon]

The writers knew how to use the word people or persons.... and they specifically did not...

right. 'We the People.....'