Politics

[Downinthebend]

Could Obama's low growth be because we had the worst economic down turn since the Great Depression?

Hey I will be real. The stimulus did not work to the extent that economists was said it would. The real issue is that it gave money to state and local governments for projects. The problem was the local and state government's simply took the stimulus money and cut back on their on funding. Bottom line we should not have given stimulus funds for infastructure unless state government spent an equal amount to what they did the previous year. That part was a big mistake but it was better than doing absolutely nothing.

What is the Republican plan to fix the economy? Cut back on helping people, and hope it will fix itself. That seems to be the conservative reasoning. When their is a problem with economy leave it alone and it will fix itself. The "your on your own" plan.

You notice the conservatives always turn the attention to the deficit. They complain about the economy but don't really put out job solutions. They are trying to convince people that cutting back on our debt will somehow grow the economy.

How is simply cutting the debt going to fix the economy?

Consider this: The government is funded by the private sector through taxation. Now if you have a budget surplus what does that mean? It means you have a private sector deficit because the government is pulling more money out of the economy than it is putting it back in. So some debt is actually a good thing because it means a private sector surplus.

Or it means that they are pissing away money taken at gunpoint, and then asking for more.

this is a fair point. personally, I don't care if schools are paid at the federal, state or local level so long as it is paid for and students receive a quality education. I think that if the federal government stopped funding and the states were left to raise taxes to make up the difference, many, many students in this country would be left high and dry because some states would opt out of raising taxes at a level sufficient to provide a quality education.

I' wouldn't agree on a positive relationship between funding and performance.

The thing is that the hold is allegadly because Hagel took money from radical groups. Ok that is a legitimate issue if true. Yet during the confirmation hearing not one person asked about this "money". It is after the fact now that it is time for a vote that they are bring it up which leads me to think it is made up.

Bottom line though this has never happened before. The fact is Obama for whatever reason has had to deal with more hate than any other President before him.

When you kill your citizens and refuse to answer by what methods you can decide to kill them, you deserve any and all hate directed on you (whether the hate is directed because of that policy or not).

We don't have a Medicare problem we have a health care cost problem.

Say with me folks.

I will say with you we have a health care problem, its just that I don't think the answer to government messing up a market is more government control in said market.

 

[chicago51]

Or it means that they are pissing away money taken at gunpoint, and then asking for more.

I think Obama said it best at the state of the union when talking about creating jobs. As opposed to a big government or a small government we need a smarter government.

Obama's plan for jobs particularly for manufactoring focused in on very specific projects in the state of the union. Now I don't think the stimulus was an example of smarter government. Hey though people can learn their lesson, Republicans all of a sudden seem to learn their lesson on deficit now that a democrat is president.

There were elements of the stimulus like the cash for clunkers program, the wind energy program in Iowa and there was stuff that did not work mainly a lot of the construction projects which basically took the place of state and local funding. It is not like that unemployment would be lower today if there was no stimulus. It would be higher.

Basically though what you are saying is that you support "your on your own" economics. Me personally I have been fortunate enough I have the same job through the whole recession as I also gone through school. I feel very blessed and lucky. As it says in the constitution though I think the function of government is to promote the general welfare. I would rather try and fail to help those struggling without work than to do nothing when it comes to promoting the general of welfare of the commans.

 

[Downinthebend]

Or it means that they are pissing away money taken at gunpoint, and then asking for more.

I think Obama said it best at the state of the union when talking about creating jobs. As opposed to a big government or a small government we need a smarter government.

Obama's plan for jobs particularly for manufactoring focused in on very specific projects in the state of the union. Now I don't think the stimulus was an example of smarter government. Hey though people can learn their lesson, Republicans all of a sudden seem to learn their lesson on deficit now that a democrat is president.

There were elements of the stimulus like the cash for clunkers program, the wind energy program in Iowa and there was stuff that did not work mainly a lot of the construction projects which basically took the place of state and local funding. It is not like that unemployment would be lower today if there was no stimulus. It would be higher.

Basically though what you are saying is that you support "your on your own" economics. Me personally I have been fortunate enough I have the same job through the whole recession as I also gone through school. I feel very blessed and lucky. As it says in the constitution though I think the function of government is to promote the general welfare. I would rather try and fail to help those struggling without work than to do nothing when it comes to promoting the general of welfare of the commans.

I didn't mention much about anything of economics-- just that the government pisses away money alot of the time. We need a smarter government (hard to get dumber from where we are)-- but also a constitutional one (which is smaller).

I'm not an infrastructure expert, but if there is a need for it, its a legitimate form of spending, lets just get clear that the intention (main goal) is to fix infrastructure for infrastructure and not "stimulus"

Cash for clunkers is largely regarded as being a complete failure.

"general wellfare" doesn't mean anything that the government wants as long as they say "general wellfare" in it, or why even have a constitution?

If the government can kill you as long as it says "general wellfare", wouldn't we live in an absurd world.. OH WAIT.

It seems clear to me that "general wellfare" is a preamble and that legitimate uses of taxation (at the federal level) are explicitly laid out, and saying "general wellfare" isn't legitimization for other taxation.

Do stuff, by all means help "the commons" (your term, not mine). Just don't point guns at people who don't want to and use violence to force them to. If your opinion of humanity is similar to mine, I think we would find that most people would try to help out each other on a voluntary (read: no guns pointed) basis (especially if it was a tax deduction) if they weren't already having a large portion of their income taken forcibly away.

 

[chicago51]

Or it means that they are pissing away money taken at gunpoint, and then asking for more.
I didn't mention much about anything of economics-- just that the government pisses away money alot of the time. We need a smarter government (hard to get dumber from where we are)-- but also a constitutional one (which is smaller).

I'm not an infrastructure expert, but if there is a need for it, its a legitimate form of spending, lets just get clear that the intention (main goal) is to fix infrastructure for infrastructure and not "stimulus"

Cash for clunkers is largely regarded as being a complete failure.

"general wellfare" doesn't mean anything that the government wants as long as they say "general wellfare" in it, or why even have a constitution?

If the government can kill you as long as it says "general wellfare", wouldn't we live in an absurd world.. OH WAIT.

It seems clear to me that "general wellfare" is a preamble and that legitimate uses of taxation (at the federal level) are explicitly laid out, and saying "general wellfare" isn't legitimization for other taxation.

Do stuff, by all means help "the commons" (your term, not mine). Just don't point guns at people who don't want to and use violence to force them to. If your opinion of humanity is similar to mine, I think we would find that most people would try to help out each other on a voluntary (read: no guns pointed) basis (especially if it was a tax deduction) if they weren't already having a large portion of their income taken forcibly away.

You are correct on what you said about general welfare. It does not mean the government can do whatever they want nor does it mean there are preset limitations on their authority either. Ultimately we the people set limits on the government.

If we don't want our president blowing people away with drone strikes we the people can demand that he stop.

If we the people want or don't a certain government program we can vote people in that will get make our desired changes.

I am not sure what you mean about unconstitutional spending. A great deal of our social programs have been challenged in the courts. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance have all been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Government spending on things like rebuilding our roads (roads are actually mentioned under Congress in the constitution), modernizing our power system, and upgrading our rail system are all constitutional under the commerse clause because we have done them before and all things I would consider promoting the general welfare.

Now you and I may disagree what general welfare is and that is okay because it is our right to do so.

 

[Downinthebend]

You are correct on what you said about general welfare. It does not mean the government can do whatever they want nor does it mean there are preset limitations on their authority either. Ultimately we the people set limits on the government.

If we don't want our president blowing people away with drone strikes we the people can demand that he stop.

If we the people want or don't a certain government program we can vote people in that will get make our desired changes.

I am not sure what you mean about unconstitutional spending. A great deal of our social programs have been challenged in the courts. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance have all been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Government spending on things like rebuilding our roads (roads are actually mentioned under Congress in the constitution), modernizing our power system, and upgrading our rail system are all constitutional under the commerse clause because we have done them before and all things I would consider promoting the general welfare.

Now you and I may disagree what general welfare is and that is okay because it is our right to do so.

I think the Constitution, is what is setting the limits on government, a simple majority should not be able to set the limits on the governmental.


I think you're missing the point. "General welfare" isn't a legitimate reason for taxation (at the federal level) legitimate reasons for taxation are:

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

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;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

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.

So if you want road spending, because we have some bad roads say that, don't say its because we need a stimulus. If however, the stimulus is what you want and you are trying to find where to direct it.. I haven't found anything close to "stimulus" in the constitution.

Also, regardless of whether a collective majority wants to set limits on drone warfare-- a limit should be set.

 

[chicago51]

I think the Constitution, is what is setting the limits on government, a simple majority should not be able to set the limits on the governmental.


I think you're missing the point. "General welfare" isn't a legitimate reason for taxation (at the federal level) legitimate reasons for taxation are:





So if you want road spending, because we have some bad roads say that, don't say its because we need a stimulus. If however, the stimulus is what you want and you are trying to find where to direct it.. I haven't found anything close to "stimulus" in the constitution.

Also, regardless of whether a collective majority wants to set limits on drone warfare-- a limit should be set.

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.

One could respectively argue that people having jobs is necessary and propper. There is also the commerce clause ammendment.

Again you may disagree with this. FDR though said "A hungry man is not a free man, and a hungry man is a bad citizen because he is too worried about being hungry."

I would argue that making sure our citizens don't go hungry is general welfare.

 

[BobD]

 

[Downinthebend]

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.

One could respectively argue that people having jobs is necessary and propper. There is also the commerce clause ammendment.

Again you may disagree with this. FDR though said "A hungry man is not a free man, and a hungry man is a bad citizen because he is too worried about being hungry."

I would argue that making sure our citizens don't go hungry is general welfare.

I don't understand why you quoted the thing you bolded. It gives the federal government the ability to make into effect those previous "powers". I don't understand how you are using it. Please explain.

If you want to talk about the commerce clause lets talk about that, but I don't see much of anything that would justify what you are trying to justify under this section. If you disagree with me about this section, by all means, make your case.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I think Obama said it best...

I'm sure he did.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

GOP Senators filibustered Chuck Hagel's nomination. Disgraceful. The guy deserves an up or down vote.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Also, Ted Cruz is a complete moron.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Do you honestly believe this?? I seem to remember a president or two being murdered... and every president in recent times has faced quite a bit of 'hate' from the other side... Bush and Clinton faced more than their share and just as much as anything today... I think the Obamaites view is skewed by their emotions a bit on this topic, I really do.

Overall I can't believe i just posted in this thread again, I keep seeing it on the front page and just had to see what in the world everyone kept up with it for... Last few pages are nothing but the same political pissing matches... my side is good, your side sucks, my thought is what the founder's intended and every bit of bad going on in the country is your side's fault...

But, what if my side IS good? And your side really DOES suck?

 

[chicago51]

Also, Ted Cruz is a complete moron.

Lol at Ted Cruz. I can't even take some guys seriously anymore.

 

[chicago51]

GOP Senators filibustered Chuck Hagel's nomination. Disgraceful. The guy deserves an up or down vote.

I hope this pisses Harry Reid off to the point he uses nuclear option to change the filibuster.

 

[chicago51]

The savior of the republican party!

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I hope this pisses Harry Reid off to the point he uses nuclear option to change the filibuster.

I'm not sure, but he might have to wait for the next congress to change the rules of the senate.

 

[chicago51]

I'm not sure, but he might have to wait for the next congress to change the rules of the senate.

There are three ways to change it.

One is to vote on a rules change which requires 67 votes.

Two is to vote on the rules on the first day which takes only 51.

The other is that the majority leader can use the nuclear or constitutional option. I don't fully understand it but I will give it my best. The majority leader with a majority approval can change the rules of the Senate. However the Senate can then vote to remove/change the majority leader but if the majority leader is retained his change becomes precedent.

I am conflicted here because I think the nuclear option may be the wrong way to change things because it just gives a bad vibe. It flips the script and makes the Republicans look like victims. I am just so sick of the BS though. So I don't know what we should do.

 

[Bluto]

This one's for you Buster.

When Resistance Is Futile: Bring In The Robots To Pull Superweeds : The Salt : NPR

 

[GoIrish41]

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.

One could respectively argue that people having jobs is necessary and propper. There is also the commerce clause ammendment.

Again you may disagree with this. FDR though said "A hungry man is not a free man, and a hungry man is a bad citizen because he is too worried about being hungry."

I would argue that making sure our citizens don't go hungry is general welfare.

Great point chicago. I'd rep you but I gotta spread it around.

 

[Buster Bluth]

This one's for you Buster.

When Resistance Is Futile: Bring In The Robots To Pull Superweeds : The Salt : NPR

Wow. I think I basically suggested that a few pages back.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

GOP Senators filibustered Chuck Hagel's nomination. Disgraceful. The guy deserves an up or down vote.

What's disgraceful about it? Do you understand the reason for his?

 

[GoIrish41]

What's disgraceful about it? Do you understand the reason for his?

Because it is the latest in a long line of things they've done to try to make Obama ineffective? Because they are trying to distract attention away from the fact that they are getting destroyed politically on every other issue? Because they don't like Republicans? This is unprecidented behavior. What reason do they have to do something that has never been done in our nation's history?

 

[chicago51]

Great point chicago. I'd rep you but I gotta spread it around.

I am not going to take credit for that point.

Thom Hartman who I listen to on the radio made that point.

Thom is a very smart outside the box liberal. He is not your typical Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow who liberals that just give the democratic party talking points. He really goes into the philosophy of our constitution.

The concept of government by the people for the people is an important one.

What is the government?

The constitution use phrase like we the people, common defense, and general welfare. The framers envisioned a we society not I got mine so I am good society. While liberals are often petrayed as anti constitution. Yet the John Locke view of government that Thomas Jefferson subscribe too as well is that government is there not only protect but to serve society. Government is there to promote the common good of society as a whole. Being progressive or liberal is basically saying that you believe government is there to serve the needs of society.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

What's disgraceful about it? Do you understand the reason for his?

Party of obstruction. A precedent has been set. If another Republican is ever able to win the presidency, he might see.

 

[GoIrish41]

I am not going to take credit for that point.

Thom Hartman who I listen to on the radio made that point.

Thom is a very smart outside the box liberal. He is not your typical Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow who liberals that just give the democratic party talking points. He really goes into the philosophy of our constitution.

The concept of government by the people for the people is an important one.

What is the government?

The constitution use phrase like we the people, common defense, and general welfare. The framers envisioned a we society not I got mine so I am good society. While liberals are often petrayed as anti constitution. Yet the John Locke view of government that Thomas Jefferson subscribe too as well is that government is there not only protect but to serve society. Government is there to promote the common good of society as a whole. Being progressive or liberal is basically saying that you believe government is there to serve the needs of society.

is this guy syndicated? I'd like to check him out.

 

[chicago51]

What's disgraceful about it? Do you understand the reason for his?

Okay I do not know where to start.

First off they criticize statements he made years ago on Israel. Yes he struggled in the hearing by being to non confrontational. Here's the thing though. It is not his policies that matter it his ability to run the Pentagon and he has the resume for that. President Obama sets the foreign policy not the secretary defense.

Second they did not even ask about some major things that secretary of defense actually does handle without having to got to the president on. Like getting this issue of female troops being raped by male troops under control.

Third Senator Graham said he was holding up the nominee for info on Bengazi. Dude there have been multiple hearings several classified Senate briefings and 10k page report released to the Senate. Also Chuck Hagel had nothing to do with Bengazi!

This a ploy to kill time and block President Obama's agenda that the people voted for.

 

[chicago51]

is this guy syndicated? I'd like to check him out.

His website is thomhartman.com

His radio show gets on from 2 to 5 here so 3 to 6 on the east coast. Don't what station it would be by you. If need be google Chicago's progressive talk and you listen to the Chicago feed it online which basically the national feed with Chicago traffic updates.

 

[chicago51]

Party of obstruction. A precedent has been set. If another Republican is ever able to win the presidency, he might see.

The democrats would fight a republican president hard they fought Bush. They problem is some them actually give a crap they would actually work with that president to get things done that help the country.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

The democrats would fight a republican president hard they fought Bush. They problem is some them actually give a crap they would actually work with that president to get things done that help the country.

uhhh what?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton had much bigger problems with "fluids" than Marco Rubio. Also, if he were a democrat he'd be praised for being the first Latino to give a party response to the state of the union. But since he's a Republican, he's mocked for taking a sip of water.