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

[sangha]

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.

"10%" is not an amount of money. How much money would it save? 10% of what?

Wingnuts think their lies are not transparent. They also think the DOD is a "program"

 

[Oddball]

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?

The Libertarian Pledge to America by Laurence M. Vance

Now, don't let any of these overbearing, lying-out-their-asses leftloon louts ever tell you that they've never seen a specific proposal of what to cut.

 

[DiamondDave]

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]

Selective info again...

Seemed to leave out that the original statement was on the specific case that led to the finding that "The tax imposed in Butler was nevertheless held unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment reservation of power to the states."... hmmm... the very 10th amendment I mentioned...

We see CONTINUAL agenda driven findings by courts... but the language and the intent of the constitution was specific and quite clear... no matter how the power-hungry government has bastardized it over the years

 

[sangha]

"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..........

And the same thing goes for non-military spending. Cut the agricultural subsidies, and the GOP loses the midwest. Cut energy subsidies, and say goodbye to Texas and Alaska.

The best thing the teabaggers could do for the left is to actually come through on their promises, but since they're wingnuts, there's little chance they will do what they say they will. Once again, the right has been snookered by a bunch of greasy carnies

 

[Samson]

How much money would be saved?

10% of the current budgets.

You're rushing; Give it time to sink it.

"10%" is not an amount of money. How much money would it save? 10% of what?

Wingnuts think their lies are not transparent. They also think the DOD is a "program"

Ok, I added it all up:

$554,745,935,564.67

 

[Oddball]

"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]

Selective info again...

Seemed to leave out that the original statement was on the specific case that led to the finding that "The tax imposed in Butler was nevertheless held unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment reservation of power to the states."... hmmm... the very 10th amendment I mentioned...

We see CONTINUAL agenda driven findings by courts... but the language and the intent of the constitution was specific and quite clear... no matter how the power-hungry government has bastardized it over the years

Butler is, without a doubt, one of -if not THE- most ambiguous and cryptic USSC decisions in American history...It's little wonder that purposefully dishonest little scabs like sangha and LiberalLout quote it as though it's gospel.

 

[shintao]

Now, don't let any of these overbearing, lying-out-their-asses leftloon louts ever tell you that they've never seen a specific proposal of what to cut.

Libertarians are now republicans?? LMAO!! Give up the crack pipe dude. I am surprised you didn't post the Green Party, with all the delusions you are having..............

 

[Oddball]

Now, don't let any of these overbearing, lying-out-their-asses leftloon louts ever tell you that they've never seen a specific proposal of what to cut.

Libertarians are now republicans?? LMAO!! Give up the crack pipe dude. I am surprised you didn't post the Green Party, with all the delusions you are having..............

Irrelevant to the fact that you now have a quite extensive list of what would/should be cut, by people who are serious about making such cuts.

You really need to work harder at the diversion and deflection thing.

 

[sangha]

"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]

Selective info again...

Seemed to leave out that the original statement was on the specific case that led to the finding that "The tax imposed in Butler was nevertheless held unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment reservation of power to the states."... hmmm... the very 10th amendment I mentioned...

We see CONTINUAL agenda driven findings by courts... but the language and the intent of the constitution was specific and quite clear... no matter how the power-hungry government has bastardized it over the years

Gee, talk about selective reading

Yes, in Butler the court found that law unconstitutional. However, your selective reading left out the part where the court, in a LATER RULING, explicitely ruled that the power to tax for the general welfare was NOT dependant on ANY of the other enumerated powers of govt mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[LiberalNut]

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

The truly sad thing is that the drone isn't even really lying. He just doesn't understand that the real world has nothing to do with the pile of bullshit that he's been force fed. He thinks the 10th amendment has actual meaning in our jurisprudence. Why does he think that? Some right wing noise machine outlet told him so. No need to think. No need to actually know anything.

Just repeat.

 

[sangha]

10% of the current budgets.

You're rushing; Give it time to sink it.

"10%" is not an amount of money. How much money would it save? 10% of what?

Wingnuts think their lies are not transparent. They also think the DOD is a "program"

Ok, I added it all up:

$554,745,935,564.67

Wrong answer. It doesn't add up to that. You lied

 

[sangha]

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

Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Selective info again...

Seemed to leave out that the original statement was on the specific case that led to the finding that "The tax imposed in Butler was nevertheless held unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment reservation of power to the states."... hmmm... the very 10th amendment I mentioned...

We see CONTINUAL agenda driven findings by courts... but the language and the intent of the constitution was specific and quite clear... no matter how the power-hungry government has bastardized it over the years

Butler is, without a doubt, one of -if not THE- most ambiguous and cryptic USSC decisions in American history...It's little wonder that purposefully dishonest little scabs like sangha and LiberalLout quote it as though it's gospel.

I'm pretty sure that every written word is a cryptic one for you since my post showed that Butler does not apply

Will wingnuts ever learn how to read English?

 

[LiberalNut]

Ok, I added it all up:

$554,745,935,564.67

Ummm, even under your idiotic "across the board" idiocy then, you still have over 600,000,000,000 in deficit.

Not that you actually added anything.

 

[sangha]

Now, don't let any of these overbearing, lying-out-their-asses leftloon louts ever tell you that they've never seen a specific proposal of what to cut.

Libertarians are now republicans?? LMAO!! Give up the crack pipe dude. I am surprised you didn't post the Green Party, with all the delusions you are having..............

Irrelevant to the fact that you now have a quite extensive list of what would/should be cut, by people who are serious about making such cuts.

You really need to work harder at the diversion and deflection thing.

By "people"???

I don't think one wingnut with a blog = "people"

 

[DiamondDave]

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

Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Selective info again...

Seemed to leave out that the original statement was on the specific case that led to the finding that "The tax imposed in Butler was nevertheless held unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment reservation of power to the states."... hmmm... the very 10th amendment I mentioned...

We see CONTINUAL agenda driven findings by courts... but the language and the intent of the constitution was specific and quite clear... no matter how the power-hungry government has bastardized it over the years

Gee, talk about selective reading

Yes, in Butler the court found that law unconstitutional. However, your selective reading left out the part where the court, in a LATER RULING, explicitely ruled that the power to tax for the general welfare was NOT dependant on ANY of the other enumerated powers of govt mentioned in the Constitution.

In the governmental grasp for power, the courts, the legislators, and the executives have ALL overstepped the bounds laid out.... the wording and intent in the constitution is rather clear... and THAT original intent to limit the government as to what it is tasked to do, is where we as a society needs to get back to

There is WAYYYY too much governmental spending that is not justified by the limited powers given to government specifically within the constitution

 

[sangha]

Selective info again...

Seemed to leave out that the original statement was on the specific case that led to the finding that "The tax imposed in Butler was nevertheless held unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment reservation of power to the states."... hmmm... the very 10th amendment I mentioned...

We see CONTINUAL agenda driven findings by courts... but the language and the intent of the constitution was specific and quite clear... no matter how the power-hungry government has bastardized it over the years

Gee, talk about selective reading

Yes, in Butler the court found that law unconstitutional. However, your selective reading left out the part where the court, in a LATER RULING, explicitely ruled that the power to tax for the general welfare was NOT dependant on ANY of the other enumerated powers of govt mentioned in the Constitution.

In the governmental grasp for power, the courts, the legislators, and the executives have ALL overstepped the bounds laid out.... the wording and intent in the constitution is rather clear... and THAT original intent to limit the government as to what it is tasked to do, is where we as a society needs to get back to

There is WAYYYY too much governmental spending that is not justified by the limited powers given to government specifically within the constitution

In wingnut world, everything is a part of the Vast Liberal Conspiracy

 

[shintao]

Butler is, without a doubt, one of -if not THE- most ambiguous and cryptic USSC decisions in American history...It's little wonder that purposefully dishonest little scabs like sangha and LiberalLout quote it as though it's gospel.

Ahh, does that disagree with your delusional beliefs in the Constitution Dudley?? That Colorado Koolaide has infected your brain stem. You don't have to like the law, just follow it and STFU!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Be smart, Don't Die, Vote Democrat!

 

[LiberalNut]

the wording and intent in the constitution is rather clear... and THAT original intent to limit the government as to what it is tasked to do, is where we as a society needs to get back to

Riiiight. There was no Federalist, Anti-Federalist debate and the article under consideration doesn't actually state the truth, that the Hamiltonian view overwhelmingly holds sway in our jurisprudence.

No need for history, the wingnut has a talking point!

 

[Samson]

Ok, I added it all up:

$554,745,935,564.67

Ummm, even under your idiotic "across the board" idiocy then, you still have over 600,000,000,000 in deficit.

Not that you actually added anything.

The point that it decreased hasn't really hit you yet.

Like I said, you souldn't rush....but, your doctor's probably already recommended a slower mental pace.