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

all these wingnuts were arguing about how wrong it was for a court to strike down a law as unconstitutional.

The notion that you have to completely abandon is that wingnuts actually know anything or that they think for themselves about these matters at all. They don't and they don't. They are trained to repeat a few catch phrases and that's it. If they even try to apply these catch phrases to the real world, they will fuck it up every single time.

If tomorrow the right wing noise machine's talking point was that eating live human babies was a Constitutionally protected right, they would be regurgitating that nonsense the same day.
 
We're talking about portions of the federal government that CAN be cut.

And what parts would those be specifically? Come on genius, show us that you know something.
 
According to LiberalNuts..... it means whatever the hell she wants it to mean. Hence the absurdity.
 
"across the board" is another catch phrase fed to wingnuts so that they don't have to actually think about what they are proposing to be cut.

How much of a percentage would have to be cut "across the board" to balance the budget wingnut?

about a 40% cut, 'across the board'
 
Neither are within the Article 1, Section 8 scope of congressional power.

You're a fucking moron who wouldn't know the constitution if it bit him on the ass. From article 1 sec. 8...

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...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That pretty much covers every friggin' public spending law that Congress could pass doesn't it shit for brains? You don't love the Constitution. You love some lie about the constitution that has been force fed into your inadaquate brain.

"Of the United States"... AKA the union... not for the things left for the states and not for individuals... but nice try...

Hence why the specific enumerated things government has permission to do or pay for are specifically listed...

Lest we forget... "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
"across the board" is another catch phrase fed to wingnuts so that they don't have to actually think about what they are proposing to be cut.

How much of a percentage would have to be cut "across the board" to balance the budget wingnut?

Cuts "across the board" are a lie. You can't cut our interest payments for the debt incurred under republican presidents

Yes, Captain Obvious.

We're talking about portions of the federal government that CAN be cut.


Shouldn't you be getting ready for 6th period P.E. or something...

Another lie. You're not talking about any cuts at all. You're just repeating your slogans. It's all you got

That's why you STILL can't identify specific programs to cut, and how much we'll save
 
"across the board" is another catch phrase fed to wingnuts so that they don't have to actually think about what they are proposing to be cut.

How much of a percentage would have to be cut "across the board" to balance the budget wingnut?

about a 40% cut, 'across the board'

So you'd cut the military in almost 1/2?

Way to surrender to the terrorists, wingnut!!:clap2:
 
We're talking about portions of the federal government that CAN be cut.

And what parts would those be specifically? Come on genius, show us that you know something.

You think it takes a genius to figure this out?

Well, golly, I'm not sure I could do that.....10% of a $5 Trillion/year budget?

10% from DOD
10% from DOI
10% from DOE
10% from DOS....

Are you able to pick up on the pattern yet?
 
Cuts "across the board" are a lie. You can't cut our interest payments for the debt incurred under republican presidents

OK, then lets cut the interest payments for debt incurred under the current President.. since it will be more than the others combined.

THANKS!!!
 
"across the board" is another catch phrase fed to wingnuts so that they don't have to actually think about what they are proposing to be cut.

How much of a percentage would have to be cut "across the board" to balance the budget wingnut?

about a 40% cut, 'across the board'

So you'd cut the military in almost 1/2?

Way to surrender to the terrorists, wingnut!!:clap2:

Yeah, Care4all, you wingnut!!!:lol:
 
Neither are within the Article 1, Section 8 scope of congressional power.

You're a fucking moron who wouldn't know the constitution if it bit him on the ass. From article 1 sec. 8...

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...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That pretty much covers every friggin' public spending law that Congress could pass doesn't it shit for brains? You don't love the Constitution. You love some lie about the constitution that has been force fed into your inadaquate brain.

"Of the United States"... AKA the union... not for the things left for the states and not for individuals... but nice try...

Hence why the specific enumerated things government has permission to do or pay for are specifically listed...

Lest we forget... "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Justice Story's construction, holding the power to tax and spend is an independent power; that is, the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare. The Court wrote:

“ [T]he [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare. ”

The tax imposed in Butler was nevertheless held unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment reservation of power to the states.

Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[22] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.[15]
 
"across the board" is another catch phrase fed to wingnuts so that they don't have to actually think about what they are proposing to be cut.

How much of a percentage would have to be cut "across the board" to balance the budget wingnut?

about a 40% cut, 'across the board'

That doesn't get rid of programs we don't need like the Military and corporate aid.
 
We're talking about portions of the federal government that CAN be cut.

And what parts would those be specifically? Come on genius, show us that you know something.

You think it takes a genius to figure this out?

Well, golly, I'm not sure I could do that.....10% of a $5 Trillion/year budget?

10% from DOD
10% from DOI
10% from DOE
10% from DOS....

Are you able to pick up on the pattern yet?

How much money would be saved?
 
We're talking about portions of the federal government that CAN be cut.

And what parts would those be specifically? Come on genius, show us that you know something.

You think it takes a genius to figure this out?

Well, golly, I'm not sure I could do that.....10% of a $5 Trillion/year budget?

10% from DOD
10% from DOI
10% from DOE
10% from DOS....

Are you able to pick up on the pattern yet?

How much money would be saved?

10% of the current budgets.

You're rushing; Give it time to sink it.
 
"across the board" is another catch phrase fed to wingnuts so that they don't have to actually think about what they are proposing to be cut.

How much of a percentage would have to be cut "across the board" to balance the budget wingnut?

about a 40% cut, 'across the board'

40% all at once would be to much at one time. That mcuh couldn't be picked up by the private sector or the states.

however, working your way down to that is workable.

But no one is really going to shrink the size of the government. You won't get the votes.
Closing bases in other countries? Pipe dream, even Bill the ax man of Vets clinton didn't have the balls to close foreign bases. Count the number of foreign bases and ports, times that by 4 and you have the number of towns or cities that thrive off having us there. No Pres wants or will listen to NATO whine and cry about how mean we are and how we left them exposed to..........
 

Forum List

Back
Top