Want to cut taxes??

[rightwinger]

Let them work... how un-democrat

Sure....crash the economy with wild speculation

Fire your workforce

Then tell them to "Get a job you lazy bum"

Funny... it's the employer's or business owner's responsibility for you to work and provide for your family???!!!!?? Oh wait, it's society's or the government's responsibility to find you a job and provide for your family???!!!??? Oh wait, it's the government's responsibility to take from those who do earn and work and redistribute it???!!!???

You have some warped ideals there wrongwinger...

I simply state it is a personal responsibility to take care of you, your family, and your wants and needs... and that with that freedom you have given from the constitution in this country, you take also the freedom to fail that goes hand in hand with the freedom to succeed... and in our freedoms, I feel it is a great thing to do to VOLUNTARILY give to charities and causes that speak to you in some way.... but in no way should we be forced to take care of the personal responsibilities of others, no matter how good it makes a person like you feel generous while using the monies of others

This goes beyond the scope of individual business owners. In many cases, they were victimized by this recession. The impact has been global, it is well beyond what an individual worker or small business owner can control.

If an entire business sector collapses because of the actions of financial speculators, it is not the workers fault that he is "lazy and needs to get a job"

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The founding fathers you are quoting would have expected Christian charity to provide the services our government now does under "general welfare". They had no intention of it being bastardized the way liberals have.

All I know is that if we apply the well established common law rules of construction to the U. S. Constitution, the men who made the Constitution wanted Congress to have the power to provide for the "happiness of many species or individuals" of the United States.

General welfare= Keep the Indians from raiding the frontier areas.

What sort of goofy interpretive methodology did you use to arrive at that nonsense?

The founders would have never been so ignorant to believe they could provide happiness for anyone.

The words in the Constitution and the rules of construction say otherwise.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I don't want to cut taxes.

i want everyone to pay their proportional fair share. Just think of the revenue that would bring in.

Cut taxes or cut spending or a combination of both.

 

[DiamondDave]

All I know is that if we apply the well established common law rules of construction to the U. S. Constitution, the men who made the Constitution wanted Congress to have the power to provide for the "happiness of many species or individuals" of the United States.

General welfare= Keep the Indians from raiding the frontier areas.

What sort of methodology did you use to arrive at that nonsense.

The founders would have never been so ignorant to believe they could provide happiness for anyone.

The words in the Constitution and the rules of construction say otherwise.

Ehhh.. wrong again (a pattern for you)... try having the freedom to PURSUE happiness... not to have it given to you at the expense of others.. just as you don't get your personal needs and responsibilities given to you, but you get the freedom to provide for them yourself

idiot

 

[saveliberty]

General welfare= Keep the Indians from raiding the frontier areas.

What sort of methodology did you use to arrive at that nonsense.

The founders would have never been so ignorant to believe they could provide happiness for anyone.

The words in the Constitution and the rules of construction say otherwise.

Ehhh.. wrong again (a pattern for you)... try having the freedom to PURSUE happiness... not to have it given to you at the expense of others.. just as you don't get your personal needs and responsibilities given to you, but you get the freedom to provide for them yourself

idiot

Must be Mickey Mouse under an assumed name. Gee Pluto, let's go pick up some happiness and general welfare from the Post Office.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

"the general welfare" and the meaning behind the original writing of the founders that stated "provide for the general welfare of the United States."

The well established rule of construction in 1788 was that,

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.​

In 1788, according to the 1787 edition of Dr. Samuel Johnson's dictionary, the usual and most known significations of "general" and "welfare" were "comprehending many species or individuals" and "happiness."

Thus, the Constitution grants Congress power to provide for the "happiness of many species or individuals."

Except that the term "general welfare" together has an entirely different meaning.

Not if you obey the rules of construction, which is probably what the men who made the Constitution wanted us to do.

I could take the term "general" to mean a ranking military officer as well, when taken out of context.

You could, but you should obey the rules of construction to ascertain the meaning of the Constitution. That's what James Madison claimed he did.

the last few words of the sentence within the constitution.... where the subject is already defined as "THE UNITED STATES"... not the individuals within the united states.

The United States is composed of people and it was the people who ordained and established the Constitution of the United States which grants Congress power to provide for the general welfare of the people of the United States.

Try and look also, as suggested before, at the ENUMERATED powers granted to the federal government... notice it did not say unlimited powers

The power of Congress to provide for the general welfare is an enumerated power.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

"the general welfare" and the meaning behind the original writing of the founders that stated "provide for the general welfare of the United States."

The well established rule of construction in 1788 was that,

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.​

In 1788, according to the 1787 edition of Dr. Samuel Johnson's dictionary, the usual and most known significations of "general" and "welfare" were "comprehending many species or individuals" and "happiness."

Thus, the Constitution grants Congress power to provide for the "happiness of many species or individuals."

"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."

I note that James Madison admits that the words, if taken literally, grant Congress unlimited power to provide for the general welfare.

One of the many men that made the U. S. Constitution was Fisher Ames. He believed the Constitution he voted to ratify vested Congress with the authority over all objects of national concern, or of a general nature.

I advert to the Constitution, which vested Congress with the authority over all objects of national concern, or of a general nature.

--Fisher Ames; In 1791 during a debate in the House of Representatives on the Establishment of a National Bank.

​

James Madison, principal author of the Constitution

The author of the Constitution was a body of approximately 55 politicians.

 

[Sinatra]

Save America: Lower Taxes Now

The United States is a nation greatly burdened by a prohibitive tax code that stifles prospective economic growth and endangers our future.


Read more: Save America: Lower Taxes Now | Newsflavor

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Let them work... how un-democrat

Sure....crash the economy with wild speculation

Fire your workforce

Then tell them to "Get a job you lazy bum"

but in no way should we be forced to take care of the personal responsibilities of others

I don't mind being forced to take care of the personal responsibility of my fellow man to support themselves, by providing generous financial relief when they become unemployed, because:

Unemployment is one one of the social problems that led to the rise of state socialism, where the government owns and controls of the means of industrial production.

Even though I have enormous wealth right now, the day may come when I might be broke and unemployed.

Generous financial relief for the unemployed increases the demand for goods and services, which grows the economy, which is always a good thing.
​

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Save America: Lower Taxes Now

The United States is a nation greatly burdened by a prohibitive tax code that stifles prospective economic growth and endangers our future.


Read more: Save America: Lower Taxes Now | Newsflavor

The tax code hasn't stifled the growth of my wealth. I have more money than Mick Jagger.

How has the tax code stiffed your efforts to achieve financial success?

 

[uscitizen]

How many Generals have you ever heard of on welfare?

 

[saveliberty]

How many Generals have you ever heard of on welfare?

Electric? I heard it was corporate.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The United States is a nation greatly burdened by a prohibitive tax code that stifles prospective economic growth and endangers our future.

Every time someone complains about too much government regulation, I ask them to tell me about a regulation they believe is unreasonable. So far, not one of them has told me about even one regulation they believe is unreasonable.

 

[shintao]

Save America: Lower Taxes Now

The United States is a nation greatly burdened by a prohibitive tax code that stifles prospective economic growth and endangers our future.


Read more: Save America: Lower Taxes Now | Newsflavor

Cut the head off that snake. All Volunteer Government Party (AVGP)

 

[Oddball]

The United States is a nation greatly burdened by a prohibitive tax code that stifles prospective economic growth and endangers our future.

Every time someone complains about too much government regulation, I ask them to tell me about a regulation they believe is unreasonable. So far, not one of them has told me about even one regulation they believe is unreasonable.

I chalk it up to stunned disbelief that anyone could ask such a naïve question.

 

[jeffrockit]

Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War

You lie.

The Iraq War will cost us more than $3 trillion. The measures in the stimulus bill are nominally worth $787 billion.

I never lie. Those figures, that I linked, were from the govt. You, on the other hand, provided no link for the bogus numbers you presented.

 

[DiamondDave]

"the general welfare" and the meaning behind the original writing of the founders that stated "provide for the general welfare of the United States."

The well established rule of construction in 1788 was that,

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.​

In 1788, according to the 1787 edition of Dr. Samuel Johnson's dictionary, the usual and most known significations of "general" and "welfare" were "comprehending many species or individuals" and "happiness."

Thus, the Constitution grants Congress power to provide for the "happiness of many species or individuals."

Not if you obey the rules of construction, which is probably what the men who made the Constitution wanted us to do.

You could, but you should obey the rules of construction to ascertain the meaning of the Constitution. That's what James Madison claimed he did.

the last few words of the sentence within the constitution.... where the subject is already defined as "THE UNITED STATES"... not the individuals within the united states.

The United States is composed of people and it was the people who ordained and established the Constitution of the United States which grants Congress power to provide for the general welfare of the people of the United States.

Try and look also, as suggested before, at the ENUMERATED powers granted to the federal government... notice it did not say unlimited powers

The power of Congress to provide for the general welfare is an enumerated power.

Are you really this fucking stupid??

Hmmm... a differing meaning over general welfare, just as there is a differing meaning for the term slippery slope.... where the meaning of the combination is not as simple as the 'most common' meaning of the 2 words

The United States is not the citizenry.. try actually reading the papers on the formation of this country...

And provide for the general welfare is NOT an enumerated power... in as you see it.. as you CONTINUALLY refuse to use the entire phrase

And please try and rub whatever brain cells you have left to try and understand that the GENERAL welfare of the whole is not inherently about the welfare of EACH individual

 

[DiamondDave]

Sure....crash the economy with wild speculation

Fire your workforce

Then tell them to "Get a job you lazy bum"

but in no way should we be forced to take care of the personal responsibilities of others

I don't mind being forced to take care of the personal responsibility of my fellow man to support themselves, by providing generous financial relief when they become unemployed, because:

Unemployment is one one of the social problems that led to the rise of state socialism, where the government owns and controls of the means of industrial production.

Even though I have enormous wealth right now, the day may come when I might be broke and unemployed.

Generous financial relief for the unemployed increases the demand for goods and services, which grows the economy, which is always a good thing.
​

You don't mind being forced... you could have ended your statement right there... says it all

 

[KissMy]

the record $708 billion military spending called for by the Obama administration for fiscal 2011 will be nearly equivalent to the military spending of all other nations in the world combined.

Obamacrats are spending more money on the wars than the Bushrepubs did, WOW!

The Total Cost of Wars Since 2001 is only $1 Trillion to date. A third of this cost has been added since Obama took office.

BTW, That Pie Cart posted by the OP only shows the U.S. discretionary budget. The true Budget looks much different.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

While national offense is certainly bloated beyond belief, I see a whole pile in that green part of the pie that isn't any of the feds' business to start with.

Housing? - Nope.
Health? - Nope.
Edumacation? - Nope.
Community Development? - Hardly.
Agriculture? - Nuh-uh.
Environment? - Not even.
Science and Energy? - Negative.

Like I keep saying and the chart backs up...It's not the taxes, it's the spending.

Lemme guess.....that's what Porky Limbaugh says, right??

​

"Most of the budget savings from House GOP Leader John Boehner’s proposed spending cuts would be canceled out by the extension of upper-income tax cuts also backed by Republicans."

"Ya' miss my tax-increases, yet??"​