It's not the government's job to **** with the economy

[Jarhead]

No one ever did.

physically and mentally challanged are the only ones that may.

Which pretty much covers liberals....

Ahhhh....now I get it.

Yup. I don't need Govt to take care of me either. I'm not one to sit on my ass and bemoan my situation. If things aren't good I do what it takes to make em good. Done so several times in my life. I sure as hell never ran to the Govt to bail me out.

Govt needs to get out of the business of picking winners and losers in the Private Sector as well. Solyndra is a prime example there. They can't pick winners for shit. They have no problem wasting taxpayer dollars and don't seem to give a shit if they do. They spend out hard earned money like it grows on a tree and they can pick that tree bald any time they want to.

Govt should stick to what its supposed to do via the Constitution and get the hell out of the way and let the private sector do what its supposed to do.

Correction if I may....

The private sector is not supposed to do anything. That is the beauty of America. The private sector is a collective of individuals...and individuals are allowed to do as they please as long as within the law.

It just naturally results in a prosperous and fullfilling life for those that participate and contribute.

 

[eflatminor]

You may disagree..but when the first cavemen banded together..it was nothing about being "free". Same on down along the line. Governments started to morph when technology got better and needs were met more easily. Free is basically an abstract. Hunger and the elements are not.

Isn't it wonderful in our relatively free society, we have so few hungry or exposed to the elements while in less free societies, they experience true poverty. It is our focus on freedom that has enriched the entire country and why our "poor" are considered rich in the rest of the world.

If you really want government "out of the way" of business..have at it. But that should mean, "out of the way" both ways. Government got involved in labor disputes because people were killing each other. You wanna go back to that? Fine. But don't cry at the dead bodies. Because that's the way it was.

I disagree. Murder was illegal prior to government's meddling in labor. Government has a Constitutional duty to intervein in the case of murder but does with regard to labor. Without the NLRB we'd have people killing each other? Please.

 

[Dragon]

Why do I need the supreme court when the constitution is written in plain english what the job of congress is? and the "general welfare" part is explained in federalist 44 as simply a description of the enumerated powers. If "general welfare" meant they could do whatever they wanted then WHY THE **** have enumerated powers in the first place? Where is the common sense?

Common sense? All right, here's the whole clause in question in pure "common sense" language:

"The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

This, like all of the other enumerated powers, is a separate power. It is not merely a commentary on the others. The "general welfare" clause is not a separate enumerated power, true -- it's a qualifier on the power to tax, which is also by implication the power to spend. It is NOT a limitation on any of the OTHER enumerated powers; for example, Congress does not have to show that it is coining money or punishing counterfeiters for the common defense or general welfare.

So: Congress cannot do "whatever it wants" in pursuit of the general welfare. It can, however, tax and spend any way it wants to provide for the general welfare, or to provide for the common defense or pay the public debt. The distinction here is quite plain; Congress cannot for example pass a law outlawing body piercing on the grounds that this is promoting the general welfare, because it is not authorized to do anything except tax and spend for that purpose. But to tax and spend for that purpose it is, explicitly, authorized.

If the framers intended something different, they were quite capable of expressing this in different language, as the framers of the Confederate Constitution did in 1861, granting Congress the power:

"To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States"

Here, we see a general power to tax and spend for the common defense but not for the general welfare; instead, the language seems to imply what is sometimes claimed -- wrongly -- about the corresponding clause of the U.S. Constitution. Aside from paying the debts and defending the country, the Confederate government was only authorized to tax and spend as needed to carry out other government functions.

So that's what the U.S. Constitution would have said, or words to that effect, if that had really been the intention. Since instead it grants very broad taxation and spending powers, clearly that, and not what you seem to think, was the intent.

 

[Jarhead]

You contradict yourself in the same post. You don't need the government to take care of you but you need it to protect you?

Protection is part and parcel with care. You may not think so..but that's the way it is. And "care" doesn't stop where you say so..it stops were "we" say so. And it's the "we" that includes the entire country. So at some point we either compromise or we don't.

And the "don't" will be the eventual end of the country.

that is not a contradiction...you are using semantics to call it a contradiction.

A security system and a lock on the door will protect the child from being kidnapped...but they will not change its diaper and feed it....so a Nanny is needed to take care of the child as well.

Stop with the semantics...my point is a valid one.

What semantics? That's what care involves. Nurturing and protecting. That's what parents in nature do..nuture and protect their young.

Your point is valid for you. It's not global.

In a free land it is valid for everyone.

When one reaches the age where one can be self sufficient...one does not need the "care" of anyone unless on opts tonot care for oneself.

However, one can not protect oneself from crime, fire and enemies and one cannot build roads bridges and tunnels...so government is there to furnish those needs.

 

[Wiseacre]

You may disagree..but when the first cavemen banded together..it was nothing about being "free". Same on down along the line. Governments started to morph when technology got better and needs were met more easily. Free is basically an abstract. Hunger and the elements are not.

Isn't it wonderful in our relatively free society, we have so few hungry or exposed to the elements while in less free societies, they experience true poverty. It is our focus on freedom that has enriched the entire country and why our "poor" are considered rich in the rest of the world.

If you really want government "out of the way" of business..have at it. But that should mean, "out of the way" both ways. Government got involved in labor disputes because people were killing each other. You wanna go back to that? Fine. But don't cry at the dead bodies. Because that's the way it was.

No need to take it to such extremes, not many really want gov't totally "out of the way" as you suggest, with blood in the streets and bodies stacking up. C'mon dude, that's a bit over the top.

How about less intrusive, less expensive to comply with, less control and less vitriol at businesses. Geez, it's no wonder corps are sitting on tons of cash, who would invest in growth at a time when the current admin is so ardently anti-growth? Gov't is supposed to partner with business to create a better economy, not choke it with a very short leash.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Isn't it wonderful in our relatively free society, we have so few hungry or exposed to the elements while in less free societies, they experience true poverty. It is our focus on freedom that has enriched the entire country and why our "poor" are considered rich in the rest of the world.

If you really want government "out of the way" of business..have at it. But that should mean, "out of the way" both ways. Government got involved in labor disputes because people were killing each other. You wanna go back to that? Fine. But don't cry at the dead bodies. Because that's the way it was.

No need to take it to such extremes, not many really want gov't totally "out of the way" as you suggest, with blood in the streets and bodies stacking up. C'mon dude, that's a bit over the top.

How about less intrusive, less expensive to comply with, less control and less vitriol at businesses. Geez, it's no wonder corps are sitting on tons of cash, who would invest in growth at a time when the current admin is so ardently anti-growth? Gov't is supposed to partner with business to create a better economy, not choke it with a very short leash.

That really sums up the goal of most of the jobs bills the republicans have passed out of the house in the last year.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The new deal was FDR...we got the double digit stuff AFTER wilson got the govt involved in the economy 20 years prior to the new deal.

No, it happened like clockwork from the 1830s on. The Great Depression wasn't unique. It was just the LAST such depression -- until this one.

Where does the constitution allow for the federal govt to run a social security or a medicare program

Article I, Section 8, first clause.

No it doesn't. The list of specifics that Congress has been given the "authority" to do, there is nothing provided that states the provision made by Congress established for the use of a "type of" social security, or a medicare program. I believe it's high time you re-read the United States Constitution again. However it IS clearly written under that same Article 1 Section 8:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Again, take the time to read the PreAmble of the US Constititution and learn the difference between the specific words that are chosen by our Founding Fathers: "provide" and "promote"

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

 

[Inthemiddle]

If they would stop this Wilson-era bullshit tinkering unemployment would go down and businesses could accurately prepare YEARS IN ADVANCE and hire people. I don't see why this is such a difficult god damn concept.

Okay, so it's not the government's job. Let's say they stop messing with the economy right now. What objections would you have to re-electing Obama?

 

[Dragon]

That is true there were some times where unemployemnt went over 10% before wilson but it happened more drastically and devestatingly after wilson and the laws he signed that related to the govt getting invovled in the economy.

Article 1, section 8's 3rd clause of regulating Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes does not give them the authority to take money from citizens and use it to bail out companies/banks/coroporations.

Article 1 section 8 does not give them authority to run a social security program nor medicare. Promoting the general welfare does not = run social security.

As far as health care being iffy in the constitution it is not........its not expressly granted in the constitution therefore it is not the domain of the federal govt but reserved for the states or the people respectively.

Since you brought up articl 1 section 8 how do you justify our progressive tax structure under the language that states all duties, imposts, and excises must be uniform?

Since we pulled out of the Depression, and until 2008, we never since had any downturns to compare in severity or duration with those of the pre-Depression era. We should count the Depression itself as the last such severe downturn, as I said.

Look up the Depression of 1873 or that of 1893, both well before Wilson. (Or Theodore Roosevelt, for that matter.)

Running social security = taxing and spending, which is what the first clause of I.8 empowers the government to do. It isn't a power to "promote the general welfare," that's a modification on the power to tax and spend. Clearly, Social Security consists of nothing except a tax and the spending of the revenue so collected.

Between the regulation of commerce clause and the tax and spend clause, clearly the government does have the authority to bail out failing businesses if it deems that in the general welfare; in fact, the commerce clause gave it the authority to do a lot more -- for example, placing regulations on the banks to make sure they don't **** up the same way again -- which unfortunately it did not do.

I'm not saying I approve of the bailouts and I certainly don't approve of the way they were handled, but there's no doubt they were within the government's authority.

Health care can be regulated as part of interstate commerce, but I agree the Constitution grants the federal government no authority to require a person to make a particular purchase. The question is whether the ACA does that. It imposes no penalties for failure to do so, except a tax. The question before the court is whether this tax is "regulation by the back door" such as the Court struck down the AAA for. If it's judged to be that, it would be struck down; if not, then it's just a tax, and clearly the government does have the authority to tax.

The income tax is not a duty, impost, or excise. However, it is in fact uniform throughout the United States, in that you will pay the same income tax rate in California that you do in Maine.

I generally break up posts to make it clear what I'm responding to, but I'll respect your wishes in this.

 

[Jarhead]

If they would stop this Wilson-era bullshit tinkering unemployment would go down and businesses could accurately prepare YEARS IN ADVANCE and hire people. I don't see why this is such a difficult god damn concept.

Okay, so it's not the government's job. Let's say they stop messing with the economy right now. What objections would you have to re-electing Obama?

I am somewhat concerned about his approach to foreign policy. He insists on finding "the good" where it doesnt exist.

 

[Jarhead]

If they would stop this Wilson-era bullshit tinkering unemployment would go down and businesses could accurately prepare YEARS IN ADVANCE and hire people. I don't see why this is such a difficult god damn concept.

Okay, so it's not the government's job. Let's say they stop messing with the economy right now. What objections would you have to re-electing Obama?

I see him as a man that is seriously lacking in leadership qualities.

In three years he has yet to accept the respoinsibility of anything.

He has engaged the country in a calss warfare that, to me, is unprecedented...whether warranted or not...it is not the role of a leader to allow it to happen....much less to enagge in it.

He has criticized the SCOTUS in front of an international audience and he has wrongfulkly accused a police department for acting stupidly..in front of an international audience.

He is not a leader by any means.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I am somewhat concerned about his approach to foreign policy. He insists on finding "the good" where it doesnt exist.

I'm not sure I follow what you mean.

 

[Jarhead]

If they would stop this Wilson-era bullshit tinkering unemployment would go down and businesses could accurately prepare YEARS IN ADVANCE and hire people. I don't see why this is such a difficult god damn concept.

Okay, so it's not the government's job. Let's say they stop messing with the economy right now. What objections would you have to re-electing Obama?

He does not represent America to the rest of the world as he should.

He is our representation yest he presents his personal views and implies they are the views of Americans.

For example...he told the world we are Arrogant. Perhaps he sees it that way....but that is by no means the sentiment of most Americans....

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

That is true there were some times where unemployemnt went over 10% before wilson but it happened more drastically and devestatingly after wilson and the laws he signed that related to the govt getting invovled in the economy.

Article 1, section 8's 3rd clause of regulating Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes does not give them the authority to take money from citizens and use it to bail out companies/banks/coroporations.

Article 1 section 8 does not give them authority to run a social security program nor medicare. Promoting the general welfare does not = run social security.

As far as health care being iffy in the constitution it is not........its not expressly granted in the constitution therefore it is not the domain of the federal govt but reserved for the states or the people respectively.

Since you brought up articl 1 section 8 how do you justify our progressive tax structure under the language that states all duties, imposts, and excises must be uniform?

Since we pulled out of the Depression, and until 2008, we never since had any downturns to compare in severity or duration with those of the pre-Depression era. We should count the Depression itself as the last such severe downturn, as I said.

Look up the Depression of 1873 or that of 1893, both well before Wilson. (Or Theodore Roosevelt, for that matter.)

Running social security = taxing and spending, which is what the first clause of I.8 empowers the government to do. It isn't a power to "promote the general welfare," that's a modification on the power to tax and spend. Clearly, Social Security consists of nothing except a tax and the spending of the revenue so collected.

Between the regulation of commerce clause and the tax and spend clause, clearly the government does have the authority to bail out failing businesses if it deems that in the general welfare; in fact, the commerce clause gave it the authority to do a lot more -- for example, placing regulations on the banks to make sure they don't **** up the same way again -- which unfortunately it did not do.

I'm not saying I approve of the bailouts and I certainly don't approve of the way they were handled, but there's no doubt they were within the government's authority.

Health care can be regulated as part of interstate commerce, but I agree the Constitution grants the federal government no authority to require a person to make a particular purchase. The question is whether the ACA does that. It imposes no penalties for failure to do so, except a tax. The question before the court is whether this tax is "regulation by the back door" such as the Court struck down the AAA for. If it's judged to be that, it would be struck down; if not, then it's just a tax, and clearly the government does have the authority to tax.

The income tax is not a duty, impost, or excise. However, it is in fact uniform throughout the United States, in that you will pay the same income tax rate in California that you do in Maine.

I generally break up posts to make it clear what I'm responding to, but I'll respect your wishes in this.

I think your interpretation of article 1, in the lines of social security and it being a tax/spend issue, is just incorrect. I understand how you make that interpretation but I think your really stretching the intent of what was written past the point of what was intended. The authority to create retirement accounts or provide medical services is not expressly granted by the constitution.

Using this same justification for the bailouts is another stretch to me. I believe that all powers not EXPRESSLY granted to the federal govt in the constitution are reserved for the states or the people respectively.


Impost is another word for tax and is commonly referred to as such in constitution classes. The imposts are not uniform under a progressive tax system. Depending on how much you make you may be subject to a different tax(impost) on your income. Imposts | Define Imposts at Dictionary.com


and thank you it was so much better responding to you this time

 

[Jarhead]

I am somewhat concerned about his approach to foreign policy. He insists on finding "the good" where it doesnt exist.

I'm not sure I follow what you mean.

Its an inner feeling I personally have. I fear he wants to find the good in dictators such as Castro, and the rest....as opposed to do what I think is best..which is to lend them no credibility until they stop with the hate and death rhetoric.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

If they would stop this Wilson-era bullshit tinkering unemployment would go down and businesses could accurately prepare YEARS IN ADVANCE and hire people. I don't see why this is such a difficult god damn concept.

Okay, so it's not the government's job. Let's say they stop messing with the economy right now. What objections would you have to re-electing Obama?

So the premise is obama will not tinker with tax rates anymore and will undo obamacare, dodd frank, and the other tinkering bills that have been passed and won't mess with the economy anymore? Is he going to pass balanced budgets?

If all that above is the case the objections I would have to obama is what I view as a poor treatment of our allies such as Israel under his admin. My other issue with obama is he hasn't demanded a budget from congress in 3 years! The budget is a bigger deal than the treatment of allies.

 

[JWBooth]

If they would stop this Wilson-era bullshit tinkering unemployment would go down and businesses could accurately prepare YEARS IN ADVANCE and hire people. I don't see why this is such a difficult god damn concept.

Kinda like cockroaches, the problem is it ain't so much what they eat, its what they fall into and **** up that makes them such a nuisance.

 

[Inthemiddle]

In three years he has yet to accept the respoinsibility of anything.

Actually, I remember a while back ago, Obama came right out and said that he'd been wrong on something. Don't remember exactly what it was. But I remember the GOP ripping him a new one for being wrong, and the pundits tearing him up for looking weak. So it seems it's a catch-22. He's wrong to take responsibility, and he's wrong pass the blame along.

He has engaged the country in a calss warfare that, to me, is unprecedented.

I have two problems with this. First, it's a product of economic policy, and if we remove this from the equation then the claims of class warfare also become moot. Second, the GOP does just as much to engage in class warfare as the Democrats. And in truth, the idea of "class warfare" has been completely redefined by the GOP in a false way such as to give rise to false allegations of one side doing all the warfare. Class warfare occurs whenever two different economic classes compete over varying interests. It happens when a labor union threatens to strike, it happens when a person complains about the price of bananas at the grocery store. The fact that the GOP pushes for tax breaks for the wealthy is itself class warfare.

But the GOP has pushed a different definition. That class warfare only occurs when someone speaks about one economic class or another. And that is a flat out inaccurate definition. Every time a GOP lawmaker complains that the rich are being taxed too much already, every time they vote to reduce funding for social programs, then class warfare is occurring.

He has criticized the SCOTUS in front of an international audience

Here, I firmly agree with your criticism. But not for criticizing the SCOTUS. But for the content of that criticism. Obama made it sound as if the court had been legislating. And that was an entirely inappropriate accusation to make based on the information. Just because he disagreed with them, or he didn't like the fact that the law is as it is in that particular case (which is what I suspect to moreso be the case) did not make their ruling somehow malicious, which is the way he sounded.

and he has wrongfulkly accused a police department for acting stupidly..in front of an international audience.

Again, I'm not going to object to him criticizing, I'm going to look to the substance of the criticism. On this particular point, I tend to agree with him. The police did act stupidly in my opinion.

 

[Jarhead]

inthemiddle..

You miss the point about class warfare.....class warfare will always exist in a free nation...between the classes. The People. It is human nature fueled mostly by jealousy and greed. However, when the president engages in it, it is no longer between the people. As for the GOP redefining it. I believe you may muisunderstand the stance of the GOP. They do not want to protect the rich. That is a left spin of their intentions. They wish to protect the one land, one law, one people....and not have separate laws that are directed to one CLASS of people.

Now...as for the police acted stupidly...I would like to engage in the debate with you...

Lets say THIS was the scenario.....

The neighbor reports to the police a man climbing through a neighbors window.
The police show up and knock on the door.
A well dressed man answers, the police explain why they are there.
The man explains it is a misunderstanding and it is his home and the police believe him and leave without checking his ID and ensuring it is his home.
And all the while the true owner of the house is tied to a chair getting piostol whipped by an accomplice while the well dressed man who answered the door ransacks the house and steals eveything of value.

Would you say the police acted stupidly in this case for NOT asking for ID?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I disagree. The primary function of our government is to keep us free. It's up to you to take care of yourself.

You may disagree..but when the first cavemen banded together..it was nothing about being "free". Same on down along the line. Governments started to morph when technology got better and needs were met more easily. Free is basically an abstract. Hunger and the elements are not.

And the federal govt is not there to keep us from being hungry and out of the elements....that power is reserved to the states or the people respectively .

See i'm not saying govt shouldn't help out, i'm just saying the federal govt has no constitutional authority in those areas...however they have gained the legistlative authority over the decades which is something I wish I could change.

The Federal Government should provide us with certain tools, such as a public education system. However if you refuse to use the resource of education that's provided to you and wander the streets, then it's not my job as a taxpayer to pay for your bad choices in life - it's called accountibility and personal responsibility.

The people in this nation have grown selfish with the concept of "what I FEEL I am entitled to have". The Federal Governments role is not to provide FOR you, but allow you the freedom to make your own choices and provide for yourself. Our nation was created with the PURSUIT of happiness. Pursuit, but never a guarantee of that happiness being provided to you, it signifies something you YOURSELF must determine to make happen. If you are irresponsible and your own bad decisions cause you to live under conditions that are less than what you had hoped or desired, that is the lesson you must "learn" for yourself. What ever happened to LEARNING from your own mistakes? Apparently certain "morals" of: hard work, pride of accomplishment, and initiative through self determination, we seem to have allowed to simply slip away from the previous hard working and frugal generation.

Instead we have this certain belief of some, which would rather look to the Federal Government to provide them with the lastest "fix" from their problems. A Big Government dependency concept that has allowed government to be more of an enabler instead of the solution towards someone's position in life. A system that trades reward, success, and accomplishment for punishment . . . . and provides for those who lack in self motivation, drive, and achievement into a self seeking "give me - give me" generation.