Obamas record in Illinois for white people

[2ndAmendment]

So what's your beef with healthcare?

Hell...if you're upset about the things the US Government does that isn't listed in the Constitution, I would assume you'd be busy protesting less ethical abuses of power.

I personally don't see providing healthcare to those who cannot provide it for themselves to be too egregious.

But maybe that's just because I'm a Liberal Democrat. :shrug:

My beef is it is not Constitutional! Social redistribution of wealth is not within the purview of the Federal government.

It is probably because you have not read the Constitution ever as is the case with most Americans and have no idea what the government is allowed to do or not do. The people in D.C. depend on that. FDR even said so, something to the effect that we can tell the people the Constitution says anything because they don't know.

If you have read the Constitution, then you interpret it through the eyes of your teachers or Cliff's Notes and not through the eyes of the writers as it should be.

 

[bcp]

If you want to discuss abuses of the American government in regard to the Constitution, I'm all for it.

I just get a bit bent when certain people choose to ##### about "abuses" that benefit the general population,yet seem to be happy as puppies when the government invades sovereign countries which haven't attacked us or our allies because they think it'll be easy.

dont change the subject.
convince us that socialism is better for us than the current system of 10% socialism, and 90% respectable workers paying their way.

 

[chernmax]

Kerad take your pick and enjoy your nightmare!!!

Jay Reding.com — Why Universal Health Care Keeps Failing

Terminated - WSJ.com

Government Health Care a Universal Failure - Thursday, May 10, 2007 - The Goldwater Institute

Socialized Health-Care Nightmare| The Foundation for Economic Education: The Freeman, Ideas on Liberty

WELCOME OBAMA’S UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM - Say Anything: Reader Blogs

www.dcexaminer.com >> Guest Columnists

 

[2ndAmendment]

But the judicial branch has said on numerous occassions that you are wrong in this thinking. I see general welfare as being for the good of the people, all the people and not just select groups. Now, if you care, explain to me what does or did the term mean to the founders?

And Jefferson called the judicial branch the despotic branch for just that reason. The courts were not interpreting the Constitution according to the meaning intended by the writers.

The courts can say I'm wrong, but the writings of the founders say I'm right.

The general welfare meant to take care of the business affairs of the government. Not only that, the Constitution delineates between the United States, the states, and the citizens and speaks specifically of the rights and powers of each group distinctively. The clause reads:

The Congress shall have 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;

You see it expressly speaks to the general welfare of the United States, not the general welfare of the citizens or the general welfare of the states.

 

[2ndAmendment]

.
what do you think the founding fathers would have done with this person.

he didnt care enough to go to school, or to learn a trade.
he refused to work a laboring, because he wanted to be the boss.
He sat around the homestead, just doing nothing all day.
then, at the end of each week, he demanded that he be given all of the substance, in equal amounts as those in the village or town had due to their hard work.

What do you think the founding fathers would have done.
would they have just provided for him and his family eternally until death?
would they have made him go to work with a shovel, or a plow to earn the money and the needed items that he was recieving.

I know what Jamestown colony did. They said work or starve.

 

[2ndAmendment]

If you want to discuss abuses of the American government in regard to the Constitution, I'm all for it.

I just get a bit bent when certain people choose to ##### about "abuses" that benefit the general population,yet seem to be happy as puppies when the government invades sovereign countries which haven't attacked us or our allies because they think it'll be easy.

Hello. I don't think we should be fighting for anyone's freedom but our own. I have posted that often. If you look back, I am a supporter of Ron Paul who also thinks the U.S of A. should mind its own business.

The founders stated that the U.S. of A. should encourage and promote the freedoms we enjoy for the whole world but that we should not fight anyone's battles to obtain them.

You have got the wrong guy. I am not a Republican. I am a politician's greatest enigma. I am a strict constructionist.

 

[Kerad]

My beef is it is not Constitutional! Social redistribution of wealth is not within the purview of the Federal government.

It is probably because you have not read the Constitution ever as is the case with most Americans and have no idea what the government is allowed to do or not do. The people in D.C. depend on that. FDR eve said so, something to the effect that we can't tell the people the Constitution says anything because they don't know.

If you have read the Constitution, then you interpret it through the eyes of your teachers or Cliff's Notes and not through the eyes of the writers as it should be.

I admit I have never read the unfiltered Constitution. To be honest, when you're young, you DO just want the Cliff Notes version, even if you want that.

However, I know enough about it (or think I do) to know that those who use the "But the Constitution doesn't allow for it" argument about...health care...for example, seem to be just thrilled to promote more disgusting abuses of it's authority....only to become Born Again Constitutionalists when it suits their argument.

Should it be "all or none"?

Should it be "most or some"?

It certainly shouldn't be "what I want but not what you want".

 

[bcp]

I admit I have never read the unfiltered Constitution. To be honest, when you're young, you DO just want the Cliff Notes version, even if you want that.

However, I know enough about it (or think I do) to know that those who use the "But the Constitution doesn't allow for it" argument about...health care...for example, seem to be just thrilled to promote more disgusting abuses of it's authority....only to become Born Again Constitutionalists when it suits their argument.

Should it be "all or none"?

Should it be "most or some"?

It certainly shouldn't be "what I want but not what you want".

name some of the abuses of its authority. you might find out that many here are against them also.

oh and for the record? Im not a registered republican either. I refuse to allow either party to use me like they own my vote regardless.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I admit I have never read the unfiltered Constitution. To be honest, when you're young, you DO just want the Cliff Notes version, even if you want that.

However, I know enough about it (or think I do) to know that those who use the "But the Constitution doesn't allow for it" argument about...health care...for example, seem to be just thrilled to promote more disgusting abuses of it's authority....only to become Born Again Constitutionalists when it suits their argument.

Should it be "all or none"?

Should it be "most or some"?

It certainly shouldn't be "what I want but not what you want".

Let me provide a couple of links for you on my web site.

United States Constitution
Here is a page of good links. GEI: Links

If you take the time to read the Constitution you may notice that where the Cliff's Notes gave separation of church and state as the First Amendment, the amendment says nothing of the sort and ONLY limits the power of Congress. Just one of many misconceptions many have about the Constitution.

If you don't read it, you don't really know what your rights are and how abusive the government really is of expanding its power.

 

[Ken King]

And Jefferson called the judicial branch the despotic branch for just that reason. The courts were not interpreting the Constitution according to the meaning intended by the writers.

The courts can say I'm wrong, but the writings of the founders say I'm right.

The general welfare meant to take care of the business affairs of the government. Not only that, the Constitution delineates between the United States, the states, and the citizens and speaks specifically of the rights and powers of each group distinctively. The clause reads: You see it expressly speaks to the general welfare of the United States, not the general welfare of the citizens or the general welfare of the states.

Having re-read Federalists Paper #41 I have a better understanding of the general welfare clause, per the founder's meaning, at least Madison's. That being that if something was proposed and it didn't follow the clause in the listed enumerations then it would be unconstitutional. I get that, but was that the common thought amongst all the founders? Is it still applicable today given the vastly different world that we live in versus the world they lived in? Given the way that the judicial has "interpreted" various "welfare" laws why didn't the legislative reign them in or was it because they were proposed by the legislative that the judicial acquiesced to the desire?

 

[2ndAmendment]

I admit I have never read the unfiltered Constitution. To be honest, when you're young, you DO just want the Cliff Notes version, even if you want that.

However, I know enough about it (or think I do) to know that those who use the "But the Constitution doesn't allow for it" argument about...health care...for example, seem to be just thrilled to promote more disgusting abuses of it's authority....only to become Born Again Constitutionalists when it suits their argument.

Should it be "all or none"?

Should it be "most or some"?

It certainly shouldn't be "what I want but not what you want".

When it comes to the Constitution, it is all of it all the time or should be. If it is anything else, then there is no limit on the federal government. Problem is the guys in D.C. don't want their power limited.

The founders wanted the least amount of government possible. They wanted the most government to be at the most local level where those in power were more responsible to the people they live with.

 

[Kerad]

dont change the subject.
convince us that socialism is better for us than the current system of 10% socialism, and 90% respectable workers paying their way.

I'm not here to convince you that "socilaism" is better than capitalism. Though we've certainly seen the effects of unsupervised capitalism in recent weeks, haven't we?


The "free market" plan seems to have imploded a bit as government regulation was relaxed...yes?


So it seems the best bet would be something inbetween. Or let's go back to the days of trading gold and pelts and maybe currency instead of stocks and "paper" only transactions.

Maybe?


No...of course not. we're never going back...so the abuses of such an economy has led us to where we are. How much are we spending in Iraq a month?

How much MORE do we need to spend in Afghanistan (and yes...Pakistan) to finally achieve the goal we set for ourselves on September 12th, 2001...after wasting time , money, and blood in Iraq?

How much do we need to spend to get the states ravaged by weather events back to the point where their contributing to the economy, as well as getting people back in their houses and back on the job...where they want to be?

And now, we've just burned over $700 Billion because companies made ridiculous decisions, leading people to make the same bad decisions.


The money's being spent. Are we spending it the right way?


In my opinion, we're not.


But...God forbid...somebody says "Maybe we should pay for healthcare."


Healthcare!!!! Socialism.


No. Not healthcare.


Screw healthcare. We've got foreign nations to invade, and then build back up. We've got companies moving overseas that we need to subsidize.

Screw healthcare.





But that's just my way of looking at it.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Having re-read Federalists Paper #41 I have a better understanding of the general welfare clause, per the founder's meaning, at least Madison's. That being that if something was proposed and it didn't follow the clause in the listed enumerations then it would be unconstitutional. I get that, but was that the common thought amongst all the founders? Is it still applicable today given the vastly different world that we live in versus the world they lived in? Given the way that the judicial has "interpreted" various "welfare" laws why didn't the legislative reign them in or was it because they were proposed by the legislative that the judicial acquiesced to the desire?

It gets back to why the Democrats want Obama for President. They want to appoint liberal judges to the SCOTUS. Liberal does not mean liberal in the classic sense to a political liberal. Liberal means they want a liberal interpretation of the Constitution so the powers of the government are not limited.

Even when the founders disagreed and Adams and Jefferson hated each other, they still wanted the least amount of power possible at the federal level.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I'm not here to convince you that "socilaism" is better than capitalism. Though we've certainly seen the effects of unsupervised capitalism in recent weeks, haven't we?


The "free market" plan seems to have imploded a bit as government regulation was relaxed...yes?


So it seems the best bet would be something inbetween. Or let's go back to the days of trading gold and pelts and maybe currency instead of stocks and "paper" only transactions.

Maybe?


No...of course not. we're never going back...so the abuses of such an economy has led us to where we are. How much are we spending in Iraq a month?

How much MORE do we need to spend in Afghanistan (and yes...Pakistan) to finally achieve the goal we set for ourselves on September 12th, 2001...after wasting time , money, and blood in Iraq?

How much do we need to spend to get the states ravaged by weather events back to the point where their contributing to the economy, as well as getting people back in their houses and back on the job...where they want to be?

And now, we've just burned over $700 Billion because companies made ridiculous decisions, leading people to make the same bad decisions.


The money's being spent. Are we spending it the right way?


In my opinion, we're not.


But...God forbid...somebody says "Maybe we should pay for healthcare."


Healthcare!!!! Socialism.


No. Not healthcare.


Screw healthcare. We've got foreign nations to invade, and then build back up. We've got companies moving overseas that we need to subsidize.

Screw healthcare.





But that's just my way of looking at it.

NO. We have seen the effects of government imposing social engineering on the financial markets and greedy people willing to do it because the government would bail them out when the stuff hit the fan just like they did.

If Barney Frank and Bill Clinton and some others had not passed regulations mandating lending money to those that could not qualify for a conventional loan, this mess would have never happened. If the banks had to stand behind the loan, those that were bad credit risks would have never gotten a loan in the first place.

 

[Ken King]

It gets back to why the Democrats want Obama for President. They want to appoint liberal judges to the SCOTUS. Liberal does not mean liberal in the classic sense to a political liberal. Liberal means they want a liberal interpretation of the Constitution so the powers of the government are not limited.

Even when the founders disagreed and Adams and Jefferson hated each other, they still wanted the least amount of power possible at the federal level.

So Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, all forms of welfare should be at the highest level of government state functions, right? And this bailout, with all the freaking special funding projects, should never have even been proposed by Congress.

 

[2ndAmendment]

So Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, all forms of welfare should be at the highest level of government state functions, right? And this bailout, with all the freaking special funding projects, should never have even been proposed by Congress.

Absolutely. Those things are not the feds business and if a state wants to have a socialist government that is the states business just as it is the counties.

The bailout should never have happened but neither should the fed have insisted on lending money to those that could not qualify. The feds caused the problem and then are adding to the problem by trying to fix it. I think they are just prolonging the inevitable failure of the market.

The feds do have the power to regulate interstate and international commerce and under those powers could regulate interstate and international money transactions.

I think if those that deal in commodity futures are required to have storage space for the contracts they buy, it would take the speculators out of the markets and prices would fall to where they should be. If the short term capital gains were taxed at a much higher rate that long term capital gains then the speculators would get out of the market and the investors would have a chance.

 

[Kerad]

NO. We have seen the effects of government imposing social engineering on the financial markets and greedy people willing to do it because the government would bail them out when the stuff hit the fan just like they did.

If Barney Frank and Bill Clinton and some others had not passed regulations mandating lending money to those that could not qualify for a conventional loan, this mess would have never happened. If the banks had to stand behind the loan, those that were bad credit risks would have never gotten a loan in the first place.

I'm no genius when it comes to the current mess, but I know it's unfair to try to stick this solely on Bill Clinton and the Dems.

This screwup passed over many desks, over many years.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I'm no genius when it comes to the current mess, but I know it's unfair to try to stick this solely on Bill Clinton and the Dems.

This screwup passed over many desks, over many years.

That is true. McCain did introduce a bill to stop Fanny and Freddy from doing the sub-prime thing. It never got out of committee. All the Republicans voted for it; all the Dems voted against it. Maxine Water, Barny Frank, ....

But Bush knew and said something but did not push it. It goes against minority home ownership. Sorry, but facts are facts. If you can't afford to buy a house, I don't care if you are black, white, or purple, the government has no business insisting that some private enterprise like a bank give you a loan but that is exactly what the feds did.

 

[2ndAmendment]

And with that, I bid you all a good night.

 

[Kerad]

And with that, I bid you all a good night.

Take it easy. For once, it was good "talking" with you.