Current Topics
What is "old"?
by pondering_it_all
0 seconds ago
The Impeachment of Donald trump
by NW Ponderer
24 minutes 14 seconds ago
Where have all the conservatives gone?
by perotista
Today at 01:14 AM
RoundTable for Fall 2019
by pondering_it_all
Today at 01:13 AM
Hyper-partisanship and irrationality
by logtroll
Today at 12:47 AM
auto industry, unions and strikes
by Jeffery J. Haas
Yesterday at 11:14 PM
If ISIS does the unthinkable...
by chunkstyle
Yesterday at 01:09 PM
Are both "sides" equally corrupt?
by chunkstyle
Yesterday at 12:18 PM
The Trump/Biden/Ukraine thing
by chunkstyle
Yesterday at 01:29 AM
Never-Before-Seen Trump Tax Documents Show Major Inconsistencies
by Greger
10/17/19 05:44 PM
The Departed - 2019
by pdx rick
10/17/19 01:12 PM
Why do humans fight so much?
by Greger
10/15/19 02:13 PM
Global warming predictions
by logtroll
10/13/19 08:47 PM
Turkey's Erdogan threatens to release millions of refugees into Europe over crit
by pdx rick
10/12/19 07:35 PM
Partisans' Trust in Legislative Branch Has Shifted in Past Year
by perotista
10/11/19 03:37 AM
Trump unleashes ISIS in Kurd Country
by Greger
10/10/19 05:31 PM
SF Board of Supervisors declare NRA a domestic terrorist organization
by NW Ponderer
10/09/19 03:08 PM
Is it too soon to be talking 2020?
by chunkstyle
10/07/19 02:44 PM
NRA acted as "foreign asset" for Russia ahead of 2016 election, Senate report cl
by Greger
10/07/19 02:19 AM
Roe v. Wade Is Under Immediate Threat
by jgw
10/06/19 08:05 PM
Forum Stats
6282 Members
59 Forums
16713 Topics
290882 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 2 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 >
Topic Options
#313857 - 08/15/19 09:51 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Mellowicious Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/03/06
Posts: 9624
Loc: flyover country
In my experience, which, living in flyover country, nay not be that vast, is that no one is quite as liberal or quite as conservative as s/he would like to have us think. In the same way I think voting a straight ticket is often an excuse for not doing the research, and yes, I know whereof I think.

The point being that I'm not really interested in the label. I'm interested in what you think and why you think it.
_________________________
Julia
Long time passing

Top
#313861 - 08/15/19 10:48 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Mellowicious]
BC Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/05/04
Posts: 7502
Loc: ...Grand Ledge...
Originally Posted By: Mellowicious
The point being that I'm not really interested in the label. I'm interested in what you think and why you think it.

Good to “hear” from you again Julia.
_________________________
- - - Bob


Top
#313863 - 08/15/19 10:53 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1600
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: Greger
The constitution requires government to provide for the common defense. Tanks and bombs. It does not require them to have the most expensive and powerful military in the history of the world and bases all over the world.

Do you remember why our navy was created? It was created to protect our trade in the eastern Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. Why did our trade in those bodies of water need protection? Because of the Barbary Pirates, the Islamist terrorists of that time, would attack our ships and sell the crews into slavery or pay a tribute (a tax) to the governments of the pirates. Thomas Jefferson believe that rather than pay the tribute he created our navy to stop the pirates. Our trade is now world wide to protect our trade, and the trade of almost every other country in the world, does indeed require the most expensive and most powerful military in the world. While you might not like it that the US does that but would want some other country to have that power? If you do, who should replace the US? Russia? China? How about Saudi Arabia? Iran? Think of the consequences if any of those countries, or any other, replaces the US as the most powerful military in the world. When the US replaced Great Britain the GDP of GB declined by about 25%. Would you like that to happen to our economy?

Originally Posted By: Greger
The Constitution also requires that it "promote the general welfare".

Greger, our government is supposed to promote the general Welfare in the way it's author James Madison said. Here is what Madison said about it.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
The general Welfare clause does not give our government carte blanche spending power.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#313871 - 08/15/19 11:41 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Greger]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 9462
Loc: One of the Mexicos
Originally Posted By: Greger
It is and that was a great rant, Bob!

I am hoisting a libation to that rant as we speak type.
_________________________
You can’t solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.

Top
#313877 - 08/16/19 02:54 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 41835
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
I am seriously thinking leaving the Reader Rant. Why? Because I am the only active classical liberal here. There are better things to do with my time to than to try and debate a bunch of modern day liberals who seem unable to accept anything they disagree with. The modern day liberals here are proof that they are not as open minded as they think they are.

You're asking "Liberals" to be ok with you pissing on their leg and saying its raining.

Hmm

This homey don't play like that. smile


You're also asking "Liberals" to accept modern Conservative bullshyte artistry. Again...nope. smile
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#313878 - 08/16/19 02:59 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Mellowicious]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 41835
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: Mellowicious
In my experience, which, living in flyover country, nay not be that vast, is that no one is quite as liberal or quite as conservative as s/he would like to have us think. In the same way I think voting a straight ticket is often an excuse for not doing the research, and yes, I know whereof I think.

The point being that I'm not really interested in the label. I'm interested in what you think and why you think it.

Mellow!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!1!!1!!!!1!!!!!!1!!!!!

smile
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#313879 - 08/16/19 03:08 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 41835
Loc: Puget Sound, WA


Why healthcare is a birthright smile


Originally Posted By: Greger
The Constitution also requires that it "promote the general welfare".

I will remind The Conservative of what the Preamble says:

Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the SCOTUS agreed that Congress has broad powers to spend federal money on our Country's general welfare, but with limited funding. The decision essentially combined Madison's interpretation of the clause that "spending is not unlimited" and Hamilton's interpretation of the clause to mean Congress the power to spend without limitation for the broader general welfare of the nation.

promote - support or actively encourage.

general - affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread

welfare - the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.

Any society that aspires to nothing, will lose everything. Through an insidious devaluation of curiosity and intellectualism, lost empathy and abandoned governance, it will eventually fall victim to its self-engendered-ise.
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#313882 - 08/16/19 03:35 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Greger Online   content

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 15480
Loc: Florida
Quote:
The general Welfare clause does not give our government carte blanche spending power.


1. I'm not asking for carte blanche spending power.

2. The Defense clause also does not give our government carte blanche spending power. Perhaps you'd like to explain that "defense budget" to me?

We have a federal minimum wage. It is a silly outdated figure with no basis in reality. I'd like to see it immediately bumped to $12 with plans to increase it to $15 by 2024. I don't think that involves a great deal of federal spending.

The simplest route to universal healthcare is expanding and changing our Medicare and Medicaid programs. Possibly merging them with the Veterans administration. Anyone could buy into it and anyone could buy out of it. The "wealthy" would pay more than the middle class, the poor would pay less, the destitute would receive free care. Insurance would come out of your paycheck. There might be shortfalls and premiums might be tweaked up and down but we already know that the system works, so again no carte blanche spending required.

Bernie's plan to pay for "free" higher education is a transaction tax on stock exchange transactions. I love this tax! The stock market is nothing but a casino and I see no reason the government shouldn't get a cut of the action.

Senator, these are workable solutions, within constitutional parameters, and can be funded without difficulty.

And tell me again what it is you hate about a well educated, well paid, and healthy population?
_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."— Oscar Wilde

Top
#313883 - 08/16/19 03:42 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Greger]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 41835
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: Greger
And tell me again what it is you hate about a well educated, well paid, and healthy population?


Conservatism is a breeding ground of anti-intellectualism, it’s a sin to be smart.

Hmm
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#313886 - 08/16/19 04:40 AM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17102
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Greger
The Constitution also requires that it "promote the general welfare".

Greger, our government is supposed to promote the general Welfare in the way it's author James Madison said. Here is what Madison said about it.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
The general Welfare clause does not give our government carte blanche spending power.
Two notes here that I think are very important. First, while that quote of James Madison is correct, it was a) not the last word on the subject (in fact, he lost the argument to Hamilton, who "argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare. Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams," (Wikipedia) and, ultimately, informed the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Butler, consistent with Justice Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. See also, Helvering v. Davis (1937), which upheld the Social Security Act; and South Dakota v. Dole (1987) validating a Spending Clause application that withheld a portion of federal highway funding from States that did not maintain a 21yo drinking age.), nor b) was he the final authority on the Constitution, as many would have one believe - he produced the first draft which was greatly modified during the constitutional debates.

Finally, I agree with the statement that "The general Welfare clause does not give our government carte blanche spending power" - but neither did Hamilton (or virtually anyone else) ever argue that. There is still a requirement that any spending be for "the General Welfare", but, at the same time, Congress is given great deference in making that judgment. The context, grammar and logic of Article I, section 8, cl. 1 militates toward the view that it is an independent authority, just as national defense is.

I appreciate the argument, and the historical basis for it, but that argument was lost immediately upon the passage of the Constitution, and has not been "the law of the land" for nearly a century. Of course, given the makeup of the current SCOTUS, it is entirely possible that they would overturn or simply ignore a century or more of contrary precedents and go back to the Madisonian view.

[I note that some of these points were already made while I was drafting this post.]

Top
Page 2 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 >

Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 12 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Snarky_Politics, Moot, Ikari, perotista, ttwtt78640
6282 Registered Users
A2