Republican Budget cuts will cost 1 million Americans their jobs

[Cuyo]

I don't recall them including the words "just kidding" next to the general welfare clause and commerce clause.

perhaps it would help if you actually read caselaw?

just a suggestion.

The war on the Commerce Clause is probably the most interesting to me - Cons argue that it was never meant to be applied the way it now is. Never crosses their mind that maybe it was broad brushed for the exact reason as it is now interpreted - In other words, they knew that interstate commerce would mean a lot more one day than it did at the time, and government would have to adapt accordingly.

Is it really that complex? If all the things Cons argue are illegal were intended to be illegal, why would it not say so in plain English?

HAhhahahaha HOLY SHIT! The people that wrote it MADE FUN of people like you HAHahaha!

Mmmmmmm-hmm.

How do you think ya did?

 

[shintao]

I don't recall them including the words "just kidding" next to the general welfare clause and commerce clause.

perhaps it would help if you actually read caselaw?

just a suggestion.

The war on the Commerce Clause is probably the most interesting to me - Cons argue that it was never meant to be applied the way it now is. Never crosses their mind that maybe it was broad brushed for the exact reason as it is now interpreted - In other words, they knew that interstate commerce would mean a lot more one day than it did at the time, and government would have to adapt accordingly.

Is it really that complex? If all the things Cons argue are illegal were intended to be illegal, why would it not say so in plain English?

But it never crossed your mind the way you suggest interpreting it in this post, it COULD BE WRONG.?

Yeah, that's it!! It really is a typo! It is supposed to be General Well done claws. Like in all the crab they were eating at the time.

 

[Bfgrn]

Wow, you really have put a lot of thought into this!

And tell me again what policies have created people as you put it, whose existence depends upon them ? That's civil society? Generation after generation living off the taxpayer?

Sounds like B.S. to me.

And you have put no thought into it. You have simply done what conservatives always do.

You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.

I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.

Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.

So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Liberalism is total bullshit designed to placate the lazy. Liberalism is a total lack of faith in the individual and a total investment in the collective. It's for dummies.

Thank you for solidly proving my point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And some say the government cannot and does not create jobs. Hummph...

cutting spending is going to cut jobs no matter where you cut spending.

Does that mean you oppose cutting corporate welfare?

 

[Avorysuds]

The war on the Commerce Clause is probably the most interesting to me - Cons argue that it was never meant to be applied the way it now is. Never crosses their mind that maybe it was broad brushed for the exact reason as it is now interpreted - In other words, they knew that interstate commerce would mean a lot more one day than it did at the time, and government would have to adapt accordingly.

Is it really that complex? If all the things Cons argue are illegal were intended to be illegal, why would it not say so in plain English?

HAhhahahaha HOLY SHIT! The people that wrote it MADE FUN of people like you HAHahaha!

Mmmmmmm-hmm.

How do you think ya did?

James Madison said when asked if the General Welfare clause was a grant of power "If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once"


Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.


http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed41.htm

I'm doing fine, how are you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are a lot of ways to get the budget in order. Doing it at the expense of people who can least afford it has to be the LAST solution, not the first. All we heard from Republicans after the crash of the economy is that the worst thing you can do during a recession is raise the taxes of the rich. NO...the worse thing you can do is cut services to the people whose existence depends upon them and cutting off people's source of income in a job market where there are not enough jobs for the people already unemployed. Now, that Republicans secured the Bush tax cuts for the rich, their solution is to cut jobs and services to the middle class and the poor. That is not only the worse thing you can do during a recession, it is cruel and unusual treatment of citizens of this country who were in NO WAY TO BLAME for the crash. If you really can't understand that Soggy, then I have to question your understanding of what a civil society is.

The question shouldn't be about people being forced to eat dog food, it should be about the opulent having to order a few less cases of caviar.


We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

Wow, you really have put a lot of thought into this!

And tell me again what policies have created people as you put it, whose existence depends upon them ? That's civil society? Generation after generation living off the taxpayer?

Sounds like B.S. to me.

And you have put no thought into it. You have simply done what conservatives always do.

You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.

I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.

Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.

So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

What Reagan revolution? What unfettered capitalism? Are you from another fucking planet, or did you just sleep during the years Reagan was President? He increased federal spending by 53%, increased the federal workforce by 250,000 people, created a drug czar, and added numerous regulations. I can understand some Republicans thinking he is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I do not understand why a person who claims to hate him does not know what he did. You could destroy every person that argues that Reagan hated big government by pointing out how he actually grew it, instead you feed into their delusion, and even believe it yourself.

You are a complete idiot, and your inability to see the the truth destroys any credibility you have. I don't give a fuck how old you are, you were not paying attention, so you have zero wisdom.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

End welfare for corporations.

The Defense Department awarded billions of dollars worth of contracts between 2007 and 2009 to companies accused of defrauding the Pentagon, according to a preliminary report.

According to the report by the Pentagon's office of the undersecretary for acquisition, between 2007 and 2009:

• $682.1 million in contracts were awarded to 30 Defense contractors who had been convicted of criminal fraud, resulting in judgments including fines, restitution, suspensions or debarments.

• $280 billion in contracts were awarded to 91 contractors who had incurred civil judgments, and 120 contractors who had settled charges of fraud.

• $992.5 million in contracts were awarded to 43 contractors who had been suspended from contracting with the Pentagon. They were awarded more than $3.8 million while they were suspended.

• $4 billion in contracts were awarded to 164 contractors who had been debarred. They received $15 million in contracts after they were debarred.

Report: DoD awarded billions to firms despite fraud - FederalTimes.com

I agree, we should end all corporate welfare. We could start by ending all subsidies for green jobs, then move on to the ethanol subsidies, then subsidies for museums, high speed rail, transit agencies...

Why do I hear a bunch of liberals screaming in pain and horror?

The only thing a liberal would scream at your neanderthal ideas is:

Meet you permanent daddies...

Coming from a guy that thinks Reagan supported unbridled capitalism that is actually a compliment.

Did you know Carter actually did more to cut government regulations in the 4 years he was in office than Reagan did his entire 8 year term?

 

[Cuyo]

HAhhahahaha HOLY SHIT! The people that wrote it MADE FUN of people like you HAHahaha!

Mmmmmmm-hmm.

How do you think ya did?

James Madison said when asked if the General Welfare clause was a grant of power "If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once"


Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.


Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 41

I'm doing fine, how are you?

James Madison believed the primary function of government should be to protect the rich from the poor. He also firmly believed only a ruling class should participate in politics - Horrified of the prospect of the rabble getting involved. What, do you think showing that one founding father had hackneyed views like yours makes some kind of profound point?

 

[Cuyo]

Wow, you really have put a lot of thought into this!

And tell me again what policies have created people as you put it, whose existence depends upon them ? That's civil society? Generation after generation living off the taxpayer?

Sounds like B.S. to me.

And you have put no thought into it. You have simply done what conservatives always do.

You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.

I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.

Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.

So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

What Reagan revolution? What unfettered capitalism? Are you from another fucking planet, or did you just sleep during the years Reagan was President? He increased federal spending by 53%, increased the federal workforce by 250,000 people, created a drug czar, and added numerous regulations. I can understand some Republicans thinking he is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I do not understand why a person who claims to hate him does not know what he did. You could destroy every person that argues that Reagan hated big government by pointing out how he actually grew it, instead you feed into their delusion, and even believe it yourself.

You are a complete idiot, and your inability to see the the truth destroys any credibility you have. I don't give a fuck how old you are, you were not paying attention, so you have zero wisdom.

Are you actually running on a platform of claiming Reagan did NOT strive to reduce government oversight of private industry? Really? Final answer?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you would get rid of the education dept? Are you crazy? Homeland security I understand.

The IRS is, by default, part of the govt. Unless you want to get rid of income tax, which will never happen.

As for the fed reserve, who pays for them if the Govt doesn't? They need to be answerable to the people via the govt...

Could you name the provision of the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to become involved in Education?

Could you explain what is wise about removing money from states so Washington can give it back to states for education purposes?

Why is it better for Education to be controled at the national level instead of at the local levels by the people who are actually affected by educational choices?

I actually kinda agree with you there. I think that maybe there needs to be an Education Dept, but should only be there to make sure everybody in the Union is on the same page when it comes to standardised tests. That would probably be about it. No say on allocation of monies etc.

The DoE originally collected data about schools and collated it. There was so much concern about it taking away power from local schools that it was abolished a year after it started.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Or because it's one of the few areas the FedGov is supposed to spend money, per the constitution...

Holy fuck you guys are Rtarded.

I don't recall them including the words "just kidding" next to the general welfare clause and commerce clause.

perhaps it would help if you actually read caselaw?

just a suggestion.

The war on the Commerce Clause is probably the most interesting to me - Cons argue that it was never meant to be applied the way it now is. Never crosses their mind that maybe it was broad brushed for the exact reason as it is now interpreted - In other words, they knew that interstate commerce would mean a lot more one day than it did at the time, and government would have to adapt accordingly.

Is it really that complex? If all the things Cons argue are illegal were intended to be illegal, why would it not say so in plain English?

So, you think interstate commerce gives the federal government the right to prevent you from growing a backyard garden? Do you think the founders ever envisioned it would be used that way, because it is now. That is why I think it is being misused.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And you have put no thought into it. You have simply done what conservatives always do.

You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.

I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.

Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.

So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but what you profess is not conservatism, it's narcissism.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

What Reagan revolution? What unfettered capitalism? Are you from another fucking planet, or did you just sleep during the years Reagan was President? He increased federal spending by 53%, increased the federal workforce by 250,000 people, created a drug czar, and added numerous regulations. I can understand some Republicans thinking he is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I do not understand why a person who claims to hate him does not know what he did. You could destroy every person that argues that Reagan hated big government by pointing out how he actually grew it, instead you feed into their delusion, and even believe it yourself.

You are a complete idiot, and your inability to see the the truth destroys any credibility you have. I don't give a fuck how old you are, you were not paying attention, so you have zero wisdom.

Are you actually running on a platform of claiming Reagan did NOT strive to reduce government oversight of private industry? Really? Final answer?

Of course not.

It should be obvious even to me that adding tariffs, quotas, and raising taxes across the board is nothing but reducing government interference in private industry.

He talked the talk, but he did not walk the walk. If you think he did you are just as delusional as you accuse conservatives of being.

 

[Avorysuds]

Mmmmmmm-hmm.

How do you think ya did?

James Madison said when asked if the General Welfare clause was a grant of power "If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once"


Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.


Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 41

I'm doing fine, how are you?

James Madison believed the primary function of government should be to protect the rich from the poor. He also firmly believed only a ruling class should participate in politics - Horrified of the prospect of the rabble getting involved. What, do you think showing that one founding father had hackneyed views like yours makes some kind of profound point?

Ahh, so that makes the defining of "general welfare" mean not what it was written to be in the constitution but what you want it to mean...

You believe the GW clause can mean ANYTHING congress wants, eh? You have to pick a side here, either you support Bush and Obama or you don't.

 

[uscitizen]

One thing that spending cuts will do?

Make fools out of those who said that govt spending did not create jobs.

 

[DiveCon]

One thing that spending cuts will do?

Make fools out of those who said that govt spending did not create jobs.

not if it does what it's expected to do
and stimulates private sector jobs

 

[DiveCon]

btw, what good is keeping jobs that are unsustainable?

 

[uscitizen]

One thing that spending cuts will do?

Make fools out of those who said that govt spending did not create jobs.

not if it does what it's expected to do
and stimulates private sector jobs

who expects it to do that? the same ones who believe tax cuts for the rich makes jobs?

Believers in political mythology... sheesh.

 

[Avorysuds]

One thing that spending cuts will do?

Make fools out of those who said that govt spending did not create jobs.

One thing more spending will do?

Make fools out of those who said deficits don't matter.


Cut now or cut later. Cutting later will cost you by far more jobs and prove that Government jobs are meaningless. Create 200 million Government jobs and watch the country burn.

 

[Ernie S.]

Well then I guess we should just keep spending 1.5 Trillion dollars a year more than we take in. So they can keep their Jobs.

Yea Einstein...let's put a million people in the employments line, and instead of having them be productive taxpayers, we'll put them on the public dole...fucking BRILLIANT!

Why should Americans worry about corporations outsourcing jobs, when we have a party in this country that will just OUT the door jobs.

This is where liberals show their stupidity. Government employees are not productive taxpayers. They produce nothing of intrinsic value, no goods and damned little efficient services either
Yes they pay taxes, but still are a net loss, unless they are in the 110% tax bracket.
Hell yes, pay them unemployment for 26 weeks 15 grand for UI benefits is better than 75 grand to shuffle paperwork or lean on a shovel.

 

[uscitizen]

One thing that spending cuts will do?

Make fools out of those who said that govt spending did not create jobs.

One thing more spending will do?

Make fools out of those who said deficits don't matter.


Cut now or cut later. Cutting later will cost you by far more jobs and prove that Government jobs are meaningless. Create 200 million Government jobs and watch the country burn.

And who was that who said "Reagan proved that defecits do not matter"?

Cut out 1/3 of our offshore military outposts. We spend at minimum 1/4 trillion on them annually. Not counting Afganistan and Iraq.

Yes cut other things as well, but why cut taxes? That did not work before and it will not work now.

I did not say we did not need to cut, just that it would prove those who said govt spending did not create jobs to be fools.