Supreme Court weighs new look at voting rights law

[eflatminor]

Yet a federal or state (even city and county) budget is planning.

You must be pissed about the lack of a budget out of Washington.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yet a federal or state (even city and county) budget is planning.

You must be pissed about the lack of a budget out of Washington.

Not too much, it's politics as usual and one reason every incumbent in the Congress ought to be concerned they will be next on the UE Line.

 

[eflatminor]

This is one reason to support the Democrats, they will borrow to repair our infrastructure which will also provide jobs

Here I think you miss the mark. First, we've already borrowed ourselves into oblivion. When each child is born with a $50,000 share of the debt, we've obviously taken borrowing to the extreme.

Secondly, government spending is the last place to "provide jobs". Sure, people will work for a government paycheck and businesses hired by the government usually get paid, but you're missing the big picture. If providing more jobs is the goal, how does taking capital out of the economy, running it through inefficient and corrupt government bureaucracies, then doling it out going to provide more jobs than if that capital were kept in the hands of those that earned it? They will simply hire less people. It's why we see ALL this government spending over the last several years while unemployment remains high.

Third, there is NOTHING in the Constitution about repairing infrastructure. It's a state issue.

Look to the individual voluntarily participating in free markets to create jobs and fix things, not central planners.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is one reason to support the Democrats, they will borrow to repair our infrastructure which will also provide jobs

Here I think you miss the mark. First, we've already borrowed ourselves into oblivion. When each child is born with a $50,000 share of the debt, we've obviously taken borrowing to the extreme.

Secondly, government spending is the last place to "provide jobs". Sure, people will work for a government paycheck and businesses hired by the government usually get paid, but you're missing the big picture. If providing more jobs is the goal, how does taking capital out of the economy, running it through inefficient and corrupt government bureaucracies, then doling it out going to provide more jobs than if that capital were kept in the hands of those that earned it? They will simply hire less people. It's why we see ALL this government spending over the last several years while unemployment remains high.

Third, there is NOTHING in the Constitution about repairing infrastructure. It's a state issue.

Look to the individual voluntarily participating in free markets to create jobs and fix things, not central planners.

I'm not a Constitutional Scholar and neither are you (though I did take ConLaw, have you?). I do suggest you read the 10th Amendment and think about it - don't assume that moron who is the Governor of Texas has a clue.

Consider, the Congress (whose members are representatives of the people of the several states) passes Obamacare. Ask yourself, how does such legislation violates the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution?

There is nothing in the Constitution allowing President Eisenhower to build the Interstate Highway system, should we dismantle it?

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is one reason to support the Democrats, they will borrow to repair our infrastructure which will also provide jobs

Here I think you miss the mark. First, we've already borrowed ourselves into oblivion. When each child is born with a $50,000 share of the debt, we've obviously taken borrowing to the extreme.

Blame GWB for the problem, remember, his continuing resolutions to support funding for the Iraq War? They were necessary because his war of choice was off budget. Obama has included the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his budgets.

Consider, much of the deficit spending was invested in building and repairing our roads and bridges, work done by what would have been unemployed contractors (private sector) and unemployed construction workers.

Secondly, government spending is the last place to "provide jobs". Sure, people will work for a government paycheck and businesses hired by the government usually get paid, but you're missing the big picture. If providing more jobs is the goal, how does taking capital out of the economy, running it through inefficient and corrupt government bureaucracies, then doling it out going to provide more jobs than if that capital were kept in the hands of those that earned it? They will simply hire less people. It's why we see ALL this government spending over the last several years while unemployment remains high.

Most of this paragraph is opinion based on your biases. In my job I wrote and management government grants (RFP's from the DOJ on VAWA issues) and there was nothing inefficient or corrupt in what my agency or other agencies around our nation did - we saved lives, protected families and put a number of assholes in jail and prison.

Third, there is NOTHING in the Constitution about repairing infrastructure. It's a state issue. See my post above.

Look to the individual voluntarily participating in free markets to create jobs and fix things, not central planners.

Sorry, you really don't understand that much of what the GOP is offering you is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The GOP, Romney in particular, are plutocrats and don't give a damn about you or your family. Don't take my word for it, listen to what he says, and see what Obama has done.

 

[eflatminor]

This is one reason to support the Democrats, they will borrow to repair our infrastructure which will also provide jobs

Here I think you miss the mark. First, we've already borrowed ourselves into oblivion. When each child is born with a $50,000 share of the debt, we've obviously taken borrowing to the extreme.

Secondly, government spending is the last place to "provide jobs". Sure, people will work for a government paycheck and businesses hired by the government usually get paid, but you're missing the big picture. If providing more jobs is the goal, how does taking capital out of the economy, running it through inefficient and corrupt government bureaucracies, then doling it out going to provide more jobs than if that capital were kept in the hands of those that earned it? They will simply hire less people. It's why we see ALL this government spending over the last several years while unemployment remains high.

Third, there is NOTHING in the Constitution about repairing infrastructure. It's a state issue.

Look to the individual voluntarily participating in free markets to create jobs and fix things, not central planners.

I'm not a Constitutional Scholar and neither are you (though I did take ConLaw, have you?). I do suggest you read the 10th Amendment and think about it - don't assume that moron who is the Governor of Texas has a clue.

I find the enumerated powers in conjunction with the 10th amendment a crystal clear outline of what the federal government is allowed to engage in...and nothing more. I draw this conclusion following a lifetime of study of economics and the US Constitution as well as advanced degrees in economics and finance. Moronic governors have not influenced my thinking. Constitutional and economic scholars have, along with a thorough reading of the Federalist Papers and the opinions of other founding fathers.

Consider, the Congress (whose members are representatives of the people of the several states) passes Obamacare. Ask yourself, how does such legislation violates the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution?

Because none of the enumerated powers mention heathcare. It is therefore a state issue. I understand progressives on the courts found a way to shoehorn it in...as they've been doing for over a century, to the detriment of our nation, IMO.

There is nothing in the Constitution allowing President Eisenhower to build the Interstate Highway system, should we dismantle it?

They shoehorned that one in by funding it under the Department of Defense budget. It was not Constitutional in my opinion, nor was it necessary or prudent (as all the folks along Route 66 that lost their livelihood will tell you). Should we dismantle it? No. We should see it along with much of the additional land and vacant buildings owned by the federal government, using that money to pay down debt, not additional spending.

 

[eflatminor]

This is one reason to support the Democrats, they will borrow to repair our infrastructure which will also provide jobs

Here I think you miss the mark. First, we've already borrowed ourselves into oblivion. When each child is born with a $50,000 share of the debt, we've obviously taken borrowing to the extreme.

Blame GWB for the problem, remember, his continuing resolutions to support funding for the Iraq War? They were necessary because his war of choice was off budget. Obama has included the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his budgets.

Consider, much of the deficit spending was invested in building and repairing our roads and bridges, work done by what would have been unemployed contractors (private sector) and unemployed construction workers.

Secondly, government spending is the last place to "provide jobs". Sure, people will work for a government paycheck and businesses hired by the government usually get paid, but you're missing the big picture. If providing more jobs is the goal, how does taking capital out of the economy, running it through inefficient and corrupt government bureaucracies, then doling it out going to provide more jobs than if that capital were kept in the hands of those that earned it? They will simply hire less people. It's why we see ALL this government spending over the last several years while unemployment remains high.

Most of this paragraph is opinion based on your biases. In my job I wrote and management government grants (RFP's from the DOJ on VAWA issues) and there was nothing inefficient or corrupt in what my agency or other agencies around our nation did - we saved lives, protected families and put a number of assholes in jail and prison.

Third, there is NOTHING in the Constitution about repairing infrastructure. It's a state issue. See my post above.

Look to the individual voluntarily participating in free markets to create jobs and fix things, not central planners.

Sorry, you really don't understand that much of what the GOP is offering you is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The GOP, Romney in particular, are plutocrats and don't give a damn about you or your family. Don't take my word for it, listen to what he says, and see what Obama has done.

Bush and Obama are remarkable similar in their spending and violations of the Constitution. This is one reason why I am not a Republican.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Here I think you miss the mark. First, we've already borrowed ourselves into oblivion. When each child is born with a $50,000 share of the debt, we've obviously taken borrowing to the extreme.

Blame GWB for the problem, remember, his continuing resolutions to support funding for the Iraq War? They were necessary because his war of choice was off budget. Obama has included the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his budgets.

Consider, much of the deficit spending was invested in building and repairing our roads and bridges, work done by what would have been unemployed contractors (private sector) and unemployed construction workers.

Secondly, government spending is the last place to "provide jobs". Sure, people will work for a government paycheck and businesses hired by the government usually get paid, but you're missing the big picture. If providing more jobs is the goal, how does taking capital out of the economy, running it through inefficient and corrupt government bureaucracies, then doling it out going to provide more jobs than if that capital were kept in the hands of those that earned it? They will simply hire less people. It's why we see ALL this government spending over the last several years while unemployment remains high.

Most of this paragraph is opinion based on your biases. In my job I wrote and management government grants (RFP's from the DOJ on VAWA issues) and there was nothing inefficient or corrupt in what my agency or other agencies around our nation did - we saved lives, protected families and put a number of assholes in jail and prison.

Third, there is NOTHING in the Constitution about repairing infrastructure. It's a state issue. See my post above.

Look to the individual voluntarily participating in free markets to create jobs and fix things, not central planners.

Sorry, you really don't understand that much of what the GOP is offering you is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The GOP, Romney in particular, are plutocrats and don't give a damn about you or your family. Don't take my word for it, listen to what he says, and see what Obama has done.

Bush and Obama are remarkable similar in their spending and violations of the Constitution. This is one reason why I am not a Republican.

I don't believe you or I have the educational background and experience to judge what is and what is not constitutional - keep in mind many of the more controversial SC decisions are split. And those guys and gals are supposed to be the experts.

Now time for me to get dinner going - Niners v. Cards on MNF.

 

[eflatminor]

Sorry, you really don't understand that much of what the GOP is offering you is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The GOP, Romney in particular, are plutocrats and don't give a damn about you or your family. Don't take my word for it, listen to what he says, and see what Obama has done.

Bush and Obama are remarkable similar in their spending and violations of the Constitution. This is one reason why I am not a Republican.

I don't believe you or I have the educational background and experience to judge what is and what is not constitutional - keep in mind many of the more controversial SC decisions are split. And those guys and gals are supposed to be the experts.

Now time for me to get dinner going - Niners v. Cards on MNF.

You don't believe me? What the heck is that? I'm a Libertarian, believe it or not.

I do not believe the SC are represented by 'experts'. Even a cursory look at some of their past HORRIBLE and clearly unconstitutional decisions proves that. We've had two kinds of justices at all levels of the court: Those that take the words and original intent of the Constitution for what it is, a list of powers the federal government can engage in and nothing more, and those that believe they are there to find a way around those limitations and original intent.

Enjoy your dinner.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You're either dumb or a pratisan liar (IMO you're both).

I'm fairly certain a majority of the forum would describe you the same way so you shouldn't go calling the kettle black, pot.

Also noticed you didn't say a word to try and refute my point, which tells everyone reading this thread all we need to know about whose view is the right one.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You're really not very bright and have little knowledge of history. But, thanks so much for participating. I've always believed we can learn much from fools.

Well there's a shocker! When you can't respond with specificity, logic and reason, launch an ad hominem attack. Typical.

What's amusing is he actually believes he's the smartest guy in the room, when in fact he is usually the biggest offender of idiocy and hubris he accuses others of. Very typical, however, of people with his Marxist views.