PRECISELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And that's why we oppose it. It doesn't solve problems, it just maintains them and creates new ones.
Your confession is accepted.
You'll do anything to defend your hero. Why does conservatism create such devotion in it's followers? Why do results only matter to you when it's Obama, but Bush's results get sugarcoated and -- "blame the Democrats."
How's that red Kool-Aid?
And I ask you one more time:
can you point to a single US Supreme Court decision in the last 200 plus years which agrees with your interpretation of the powers of Congress as you so described them here?
..post 114YOu need to read your actual Constitution and put down the opinions of mere individuals .
..post 213i have read it......its hard isn't it when you have to argue against the founders, and you know your on the losing side...as you always are.
...217So what did you find it in that you believe proves you correct?
Are you saying that the social welfare programs you do not favor require a budget deficit to exist while other programs in the budget do not require a budget deficit?
That is certainly the feeling one is beginning to get and time is running short to do anything about it.
NOW you switch, and want to know what the court says..........when you asked i what i found ...what the constitution says......your switching and sleight of hand action games, are a very poor attempt to confuse the other readers of the forum.
No. I'm saying that the inclusion of these programs, ceteris parabus, requires a massive deficit.
Please show that is the precisely the programs you object to and not the ones you do not object to that cause or require the deficit.
And there is a most excellent reason for asking you this. Because it is the Supreme Court who interprets the US Constitution. They have been doing so for over 220 years. And not a single Court decision agrees with your far right extremist interpretation of what the powers of Congress are or what the scope of the Federal Government is regarding the American people.
So for you to
1- know this reality about who interprets the Constitution
2- know that not a single Court decision in 220 years agrees with you
3- cling to this ridiculous interpretation in despite of those two facts
shows that their is some fantasy world of the USA that you seem to believe exists that has nothing at all to do with the real one the rest of us inhabit.
You don't know what ceteris paribus means, do you?
no hay, sorry again ...you wanted to know the constitution, becuase you stated...i needed to read it.......so you referring to the constitution.
all other things being equal - so what?
So, all other things being equal, if we eliminate these programs the deficit goes down. If we reintroduce them, the deficit goes up.
If we eliminate all other spending the same thing is also true. So what? Why are you singling out these particular programs and not the other programs and coming to the same conclusion?
Results always matter, the problem is you don't understand how to research actual results. I have posted the Bush results but you continue to buy what you are told. Suggest bls.gov, bea.gov, and the U.S. Treasury and maybe you wouldn't continue to make a fool out of yourself.
Bush's results: A decade of war, budget deficits, and an economic collapse.
And in your mind with your own belief system and your own adopted realities - is it your opinion that there is nothing in between the two opposite ends on the continuum..... solving the problem 100% or not solving the problem and doing nothing?
no hay, sorry again ...you wanted to know the constitution, becuase you stated...i needed to read it.......so you referring to the constitution.
now you wish to switch over to the court, and that is not what you stated in your beginning arguments.
your inconsistency is very troubling.
Sadly, Ernst, what the Constitution says is actually irrelevant. Yeah, we can read it and see what the federal government's powers are SUPPOSED to be. But if the federal government says something is legal, then it's legal. It may be evil. It may be contrary to the Constitution, but none of that matters. The federal government has absolute and final legal authority to determine the extent of its own powers.
Because I consider robbing Peter to pay Paul to be completely unethical.
Unethical and VERY expensive.
Sadly, Ernst, what the Constitution says is actually irrelevant. Yeah, we can read it and see what the federal government's powers are SUPPOSED to be. But if the federal government says something is legal, then it's legal. It may be evil. It may be contrary to the Constitution, but none of that matters. The federal government has absolute and final legal authority to determine the extent of its own powers.
Nope never said that, it's a lie. Don't run away from our discussion and try to change the subject. You responded to "Where are the examples of the Federal Govt. solving a social problem?", with "What makes you think that was the goal?". Now answer the question. So far your arguments have been obliterated, because you can't give examples.
Do you understand what a question is?
Do you know the difference between a period used as punctuation and a question mark used as punctuation?
I asked you a question based on your post. As such, a question to you clarifying your position CANNOT BE A LIE. It is impossible as it was a question which you could answer.
As to obliterating any position I have taken, exactly what position was obliterated and in what post did that supposedly happen because I can find NOTHING which even comes close.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
The Declaration of Independence
You have failed to provide examples, and brought into question the premise of social safety net objectives. In fact your statements imply social safety nets were never designed to solve problems.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?