Republican Pledge to Cut $100 Billion May Hit Education, Cancer Research

[Zander]

Nope, no slogans....just cut and paste.

You are either willfully being obtuse or just plain stupid. The article lists a detailed series of cuts to federal spending. You asked "what do we cut" I provided a list - and you are still parroting your inane one liners?

No, it's wingnut nonsense from beginning to end which has no support in Congress; Not even from the teabaggers you elected.

There is one "wingnut" here for sure.......Sangha the silly.

 

[Oddball]

"
No slogan here pal ---- How to Cut the Federal Budget | The Heritage Foundation
that is $343 billion in cuts.

At least make an effort....

Nope, no slogans....just cut and paste.

You are either willfully being obtuse or just plain stupid....

He's both.

Committed Marxists are like that.

 

[Oddball]

The primary argument was that if it wasn't enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, the power didn't exist

BULLSHIT ALERT!!!!!!!

Care to source this gem? You know, to an actual federalist?

I didn't think so.

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

~~James Madison, Federalist and primary author of the Constitution for the united States

The bullshitter here is you, tovarich LiberalLout.

 

[LiberalNut]

Oddball, you need another history lesson. Madison did not join the Federalist party. He became a member of Jefferson't Democratic-Republican party (anti-federalists).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party

Duh.

Most of his time in Congress was spent fighting the Federalist though he did flip-flop again upon coming to the Presidency. Presidents tend to like presidential power.

 

[Oddball]

Try reading Federalist #84, tovarich.

It was written by Federalist Alexander Hamilton.

The one who needs the history lesson here is you.

 

[LiberalNut]

Ummm Hamilton was a federalist, and notably, as per another thread topic, a strong supporter of the National Bank. Hamilton had the expansive view of the general welfare clause that actually won the day in our jurisprudence.

Let me know when you need some more history lessons dude.

 

[LiberalNut]

In the thirtieth of the Federalist Papers, Hamilton argued for an expansive interpretation of the spending clause. He believed that Congress should have the power to freely tax and spend on behalf of the nation, arguing that a "general power of taxation" must be "interwoven" in the "frame of the government." He opined that "money" is a "vital principle of the body politic" and that "a complete power, therefore, to procure a regular and adequate supply of it... may be regarded as an indispensable ingredient to every constitution" (Hamilton 1787). Later, in his 1791 Report to Congress on the Subject of Manufacturers, Hamilton urged George Washington's administration to adopt an expansive interpretation of the spending clause. He characterized Congress's taxing and spending power as "plenary and indefinite," as a standalone power. He believed that the phrase "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" meant that Congress could freely exercise discretion to tax and spend to do anything it believed would benefit the nation (Hamilton 1791).

SPENDING CLAUSE

 

[NYcarbineer]

100 billion? That's the GOP'er's big move??

lol

The Republican's unfunded masterpiece, Medicare Part D, is going to cost roughly 100 billion a year for the rest of this decade.