TWENTY-THREE polls say the same thing: Increase taxes to reduce the deficit.

[TurtleDude]

The constitution isn't whatever you want it to be, it is what the (currently right wing) supreme court says it is. The supreme court has been extremely clear about the spending power for generations... Just because you would prefer if they basically ignore that clause doesn't make it so.

You do understand that one can honestly find fault in supreme court decisions and question their logic-especially when they get threatened by FDR and then suddenly reject 130 years of precedent?

 

[TurtleDude]

ah - and you know things and have wisdom that the past 85 years of the US Supreme Court did not have. We get it.

I certainly know that the FDR supreme court completely reversed 130 years of precedent based on what just about every legal scholar concedes was political expediency

I realize you will worship decisions that benefit your welfare-socialist lean. But tell me why was Schechter Poultry quickly cast aside in a few years after it was issued?

 

[haymarket]

I certainly know that the FDR supreme court completely reversed 130 years of precedent based on what just about every legal scholar concedes was political expediency

News Bulletin For Turtle: FDR and his court have been dead for a very long long time now. There has been plenty of new justices to provide the votes to reverse any 'errors' you believe may have occurred. But guess what? Has not happened.

 

[TurtleDude]

News Bulletin For Turtle: FDR and his court have been dead for a very long long time now. There has been plenty of new justices to provide the votes to reverse any 'errors' you believe may have occurred. But guess what? Has not happened.

3 reasons

1) 20 years of uninterrupted dem appointments to the federal courts meant by the time there was a GOP majority on the various courts there had been 30+ years of "precedent' upholding New Deal nonsense

2) Republican judges tend to respect precedent--its the conservative choice. Its why we have what many legal scholars call the "leftward ratchet" of jurisprudence. Leftwing courts ratchet precedent leftward and then conservative judges affirm existing precedent

3) political reality. New Deal policies and the Great Society programs created millions of people who became dependent on the leftwing legislation

 

[PzKfW IVe]

You claim to be a lawyer, so obviously you know that is nonsense... The federal government can spend on anything that advances the general welfare and doesn't contradict any enumerated right of people. Duh. Hello Con Law 1...

Con Law 1:
-To spend money, money must be appropriated
-To appropriate money, Congress must be given a power to create legislation regarding the topic in question.

Congress has no power to create legislation regarding education, health care, retirement, etc - and thus, may not appropriate any monies to those effects.

I charge $175/hr for tutoring; please advise on your address so I can send the bill.

 

[PzKfW IVe]

Somehow one of us is getting our signals crossed. I am arguing that rather than cutting it all from entitlements, we should spread it around. Do you agree or disagree?

That must be you , as I have repeatedly stated that spending mustr be cut across the board.

No there really wouldn't.

FY2009 spoending was $ 3518.2B
Removing $1.6T from that leaves amost $2000B.
To argue that cutting speniding by $1.6T acrooss the board - that is, reducing all spending by ~43% - would effectively eliminate government is, well, outright silly.

Really -- its nearly impossible to argue that the government cant do what it is supposed to do with $2000B or less.

Again, if you can't make any arguments backing that up, I guess you lose the debate by default, right?

YOU are the one trying to arge that it matters how $1.6T is removed from the economy, not me.
You have yet to support that position.

If you cut spending two things happen- less money flows into the economy AND the stuff you're spending the money on doesn't happen.

Thiis is the same thing; you don't get to count it twice.

 

[haymarket]

you forget the main reason turtle

- the SC made the right decisions and there is no reason to overturn.

 

[TurtleDude]

you forget the main reason turtle

- the SC made the right decisions and there is no reason to overturn.

I will keep that in mind the next time you melt down over the Citizens United v. FEC

 

[teamosil]

That must be you , as I have repeatedly stated that spending mustr be cut across the board.

You say that... But then you say:

YOU are the one trying to arge that it matters how $1.6T is removed from the economy, not me.
You have yet to support that position.

So, I dunno. Seems like you're not sure which side of that issue you're on... Why do you think it must be spread across the board if you are apparently skeptical of the idea that it would be bad not to spread it?

Thiis is the same thing; you don't get to count it twice.

No, those aren't the same thing at all. For example, say you cut a program that costs $100m that provides school lunches to kids whose parents can't afford them. Two things happen. For one, $100m less makes its way into the economy, so the people who were employed by that program are looking for jobs, the people who sell the food to the program have to lay people off, the people who work there don't have money to buy ipods, so apple lays people off, etc. That is the effect of removing a source of money into the economy. But, on top of that, you have the removal of the actual effects of the program- the kids that got lunches before don't get lunches any more. You follow?

 

[teamosil]

Con Law 1:
-To spend money, money must be appropriated
-To appropriate money, Congress must be given a power to create legislation regarding the topic in question.

Congress has no power to create legislation regarding education, health care, retirement, etc - and thus, may not appropriate any monies to those effects.

Article 1, section 8, clause 18 says that they can pass legislation necessary and proper to enact any of the earlier clauses in that section. Article 1, section 8, clause 1 says they can spend money. It's the very first enumerated power of congress...

 

[The Giant Noodle]

i think that's where the republicans are going to be surprised in 2012. even my die hard conservative friends don't think the burden should be on the middle class and the poor.

Republicans are going to lose in 2012. They have no one. They ignore Ron Paul and all they have is Perry and Perry will lose by about 8%

 

[teamosil]

You do understand that one can honestly find fault in supreme court decisions and question their logic-especially when they get threatened by FDR and then suddenly reject 130 years of precedent?

I think you're talking about the expansion of the commerce power more than the spending power. But, regardless, it's a fight the kookie wingnuts lost 75 years ago... Get over it already. Obviously we all know that it wouldn't be possible to have a real government or retain first world status without the first clause of article 1, section 8... That's why they put it first... So what are you after exactly? You want to ignore a clause of the constitution because you hope to destroy the country? Umm.... Nah. I think I'll pass on that.

 

[winston53660]

I think you're talking about the expansion of the commerce power more than the spending power. But, regardless, it's a fight the kookie wingnuts lost 75 years ago... Get over it already. Obviously we all know that it wouldn't be possible to have a real government or retain first world status without the first clause of article 1, section 8... That's why they put it first... So what are you after exactly? You want to ignore a clause of the constitution because you hope to destroy the country? Umm.... Nah. I think I'll pass on that.

Hmmmm let's see what kind of response you get......

 

[haymarket]

I will keep that in mind the next time you melt down over the Citizens United v. FEC

You do realize that Citizens United is a new decision that was rendered by the current SC and that no other SC has had the opportunity to either review it or reverse it don't you?

You cannot say the same for the New Deal program rulings that you hate so much because the SC has changed and changed and changed many times and they have had ample time and opportunity to reverse - but they have not.

So your comparison & argument FAILS miserably.

 

[sookster]

sigh....I love the non-consistency of American logic.

Do you guys know why there is an electorial college? The electorial college was put into place to protect the system from mass ignorance. Let's say a really popular movie star runs for president. More than likely, most of his or her votes have something to do with their movie career which in my view is not right. It is ignorant. You want to vote for somebody for their political views. Of course, people in power have abused the electorial college, however there have been what, six times the college has gone against public vote?

So we have a system to protect against mass ignorane essentially, but if we read political polls on the public it must mean everyone is competent. We also have to put into consideration, that our current school system with the added standardization breeds people that do not think for themselves, they just regurgitate what other men with big credentials think.

If the government were to tax at 100 percent, the government still could not pay all the debt. I'm sorry, the answer isn't taxing. The people in power have to stop acting like four year olds and realize that they have to cut spending. You HAVE to do this. If you were to buy a six thousand dollar drum set on a credit card, you could not keep your same budget. You would have to reform it for the six thousand dollar credit purchase. But these people in power all have their own agenda, and so when their beloved program is under the magnifying glass of becoming cut, they cry like four year olds and point to other programs. And well, who doesn't like more money? And so they may use this debt crisis as a reason to increase more taxes!

It really is pathetic. If you are going to accrue 14.x trillion dollars in debt, you have to at some point cut things you like. You can't have the whole cake, that is the conditions of Life. If you don't like it, bitch to evolution or your creator.

 

[haymarket]

Sookster - its not 1787 anymore and the American populace is not a bunch of ignorant backwater farmers anymore. We have a system of national wide public education for all from grades K through 12 mandating courses in such things as GOVERNMENT and CIVICS and SOCIALS STUDIES. Your need for an Electoral College system has long ago been rendered obsolete.

 

[Henrin]

Article 1, section 8, clause 18 says that they can pass legislation necessary and proper to enact any of the earlier clauses in that section. Article 1, section 8, clause 1 says they can spend money. It's the very first enumerated power of congress...

I think you're talking about the expansion of the commerce power more than the spending power. But, regardless, it's a fight the kookie wingnuts lost 75 years ago... Get over it already. Obviously we all know that it wouldn't be possible to have a real government or retain first world status without the first clause of article 1, section 8... That's why they put it first... So what are you after exactly? You want to ignore a clause of the constitution because you hope to destroy the country? Umm.... Nah. I think I'll pass on that.

This should be fun to play this game again. The necessary and proper clause allows them the power to pass laws to carry out the other enumerated powers. The other clauses have meanings still, you can't just ignore them. Expanding the power of the commerce clause claiming its fine because of necessary and proper clause makes no sense. The commerce clause has limits put in place and those limits still have to be respected when you are trying to make it possible to work. You can't take over commerce of the country to enact the power of the commerce clause because it not meant to allow you to have control over commerce. Your argument is so illogical I have to ask if you put it together thinking it through or if you just **** it out.

As for the attack that we lost a battle is a weak forgetting that the meaning will always be on our side and no matter how much time goes by that will always be true.

 

[haymarket]

This should be fun to play this game again. The necessary and proper clause allows them the power to pass laws to carry out the other enumerated powers. The other clauses have meanings still, you can't just ignore them. Expanding the power of the commerce clause claiming its fine because of necessary and proper clause makes no sense. The commerce clause has limits put in place and those limits still have to be respected when you are trying to make it possible to work. You can't take over commerce of the country to enact the power of the commerce clause because it not meant to allow you to have control over commerce. Your argument is so illogical I have to ask if you put it together thinking it through or if you just **** it out.

.

I wonder why this is so clear to you and other people on the far right but is not supported by the United States Supreme Court who has the power to rule on such matters?

 

[Henrin]

I wonder why this is so clear to you and other people on the far right but is not supported by the United States Supreme Court who has the power to rule on such matters?

I wonder why you see something they didn't see in Citizens United? Could it be they are partisan?

 

[haymarket]

I wonder why you see something they didn't see in Citizens United? Could it be they are partisan?

you make a major error here.

First, how I or anyone else sees on particular recent case ruling has nothing to do with your inability to accept a very long history of many varied rulings from many different Supreme Courts on the issue of the general welfare clause. Nice try at diversion but its not going anywhere.

Second, as has been already explained to Turtle and others, Citizens United is a very recent ruling and there has not been opportunity for future Supreme Courts to yet review it. The same cannot be said for rightwing contentions about the general welfare clause, Social Security and many other things they object to.

Third, for all the talk about conservative justices respecting precedent as Turtle recently floated here over the weekend, they had no trouble throwing out such precedent in Citizens United. But we will see what future cases and future courts do with this. For now, it is the law of the land.

So Henrin- now we are back to you and your contentions

The necessary and proper clause allows them the power to pass laws to carry out the other enumerated powers. The other clauses have meanings still, you can't just ignore them. Expanding the power of the commerce clause claiming its fine because of necessary and proper clause makes no sense. The commerce clause has limits put in place and those limits still have to be respected when you are trying to make it possible to work. You can't take over commerce of the country to enact the power of the commerce clause because it not meant to allow you to have control over commerce. Your argument is so illogical I have to ask if you put it together thinking it through or if you just **** it out.

.



So I ask you again and would hope you answer this time

I wonder why this is so clear to you and other people on the far right but is not supported by the United States Supreme Court who has the power to rule on such matters?

 

[PzKfW IVe]

Article 1, section 8, clause 18 says that they can pass legislation necessary and proper to enact any of the earlier clauses in that section. Article 1, section 8, clause 1 says they can spend money. It's the very first enumerated power of congress...

Under this argument, none of 16 clauses beween the first and the last were necessary - and yet, each of them were specifically included because Congress would not have those powers if they weren't.

Conclusion:
Your argument is unsound.

 

[PzKfW IVe]

Article 1, section 8, clause 18 says that they can pass legislation necessary and proper to enact any of the earlier clauses in that section. Article 1, section 8, clause 1 says they can spend money. It's the very first enumerated power of congress...

Under this argument, none of 16 clauses beween the first and the last were necessary - and yet, each of them were specifically included because Congress would not have those powers if they weren't.

Conclusion:
Your argument is unsound.

 

[teamosil]

This should be fun to play this game again. The necessary and proper clause allows them the power to pass laws to carry out the other enumerated powers. The other clauses have meanings still, you can't just ignore them. Expanding the power of the commerce clause claiming its fine because of necessary and proper clause makes no sense. The commerce clause has limits put in place and those limits still have to be respected when you are trying to make it possible to work. You can't take over commerce of the country to enact the power of the commerce clause because it not meant to allow you to have control over commerce. Your argument is so illogical I have to ask if you put it together thinking it through or if you just **** it out.

Not sure what you're arguing exactly. The commerce clause doesn't express any limit on Congress. The limits are in section 9. Section 8 is where it grants powers to Congress. And yeah, absolutely the constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes".

As for the attack that we lost a battle is a weak forgetting that the meaning will always be on our side and no matter how much time goes by that will always be true.

How would the meaning be on your side? What does that even mean? The words in the actual constitution most definitely are not on your side. The notion that there is some secret meaning to the constitution that only right wingers can decipher is a notion I firmly reject...

Regardless, we were talking about the spending clause, not the commerce clause. The spending clause is all that Congress needs in order to spend money on whatever it wants. It needs to evoke the commerce clause if it wants to regulate.

 

[teamosil]

Under this argument, none of 16 clauses beween the first and the last were necessary - and yet, each of them were specifically included because Congress would not have those powers if they weren't.

What do you mean? Why wouldn't they be necessary? They grant Congress powers other than spending. The power to regulate things, to require the states to allow it to run a national postal service, to raise armies, etc. None of those things are just spending.

 

[PzKfW IVe]

So, I dunno. Seems like you're not sure which side of that issue you're on... Why do you think it must be spread across the board if you are apparently skeptical of the idea that it would be bad not to spread it?

Your claimed confusionis just an attempt at stalling. You want to argue thatit cannotbe cut entirely from entitlements; the probelm is, I never made that argument.

No, those aren't the same thing at all.

They are - you;re simply trying to add the same numbers twice but make it look like you aren't.