Gawain 0 #26 April 15, 2009 Quote >Sorry Bill, I don't see that power expressly outlined in Article I, Section 8: No problem, here it is: Quote Section 8 - Powers of Congress The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; So, you read that "welfare" as a handout to private companies? Not as defend and protect the general welfare of the republic? The first definition of "welfare" is not "handout". Congress does not have that power. The President does not have that power. If the framers of the Constitution really thought government control was in the best interest of the country, they would have written far more stricter language than this. I think you are giving Congress too much power. It is not the President's power. It is not Congress' power. It is not the Supreme Court's power. It is our power. And we have been far too willing, for far too long to just let about 535-550-ish people run our lives for us. Government has never created wealth or health in this country, or in any country. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #27 April 15, 2009 QuoteFor someone sworn to defend the Constitution, your post makes it appear that you don't have a very good understanding of that document. It appears that you need to read a bit more then. Because Article I, Section 8 provides no such broad discretionary power to Congress, or the Executive Branch. It's not written there. Bill can interpret all he wants. You apparently can't interpret it at all. The Constitution's purpose is to limit the power of the federal government. Not the other way around. The fact that you can't see that in an instant is proof of failure of the school system at its most fundamental tasks.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #28 April 15, 2009 >So, you read that "welfare" as a handout to private companies? Not as >defend and protect the general welfare of the republic? Among other things, yes. To be specific (from Webster's) welfare means 1) the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity and 2) aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need. If Congress decides that the prosperity of the country is enhanced by preventing one of its largest employers from going under, and that they can prevent that by giving money to a company that needs it, then that section specifically authorizes them to act. (I disagree with that action, but their right to do it is clearly delineated.) >If the framers of the Constitution really thought government control >was in the best interest of the country, they would have written far more >stricter language than this. If the framers didn't want Congress to be able to act to provide for the welfare of the US, they should not have put that ability in Article 1, Section 8. But they did. We can't know what was going on inside their heads, but we do know what they put on paper - and they said specifically that the Congress shall have the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States. >Government has never created wealth or health in this country, or in >any country. Of course. That's not their job. They just provide a framework for people to make money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #29 April 15, 2009 Gawain has pointed out perfectly the error of you points. If YOU dont think so then you had better look at the Constitution in its entirety and read the Federalists Papers because the context you use is terribly flawed"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #30 April 15, 2009 > If YOU dont think so then you had better look at the Constitution in its entirety . . . I did. Indeed, it says that the government has a role in protecting the general welfare of the US TWICE, in case you missed it the first time. Fortunately there are many places you can go where no such constitutional provision exists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #31 April 15, 2009 Thank you for being so educated in your spelling out the facts that is the constitution of this country. It is so sad to see those who want to "infer" the power granted the fed gov instead of knowing that the specific power "granted by the constitution are enumerated". Same goes to the recent ruling in Iowa concerning Gay Marriage. Just because the SC ruled does not mean a law now exists giving the state to provide gays with a marriage cert. Time to take the country back. Thanks"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #32 April 15, 2009 >It is so sad to see those who want to "infer" the power granted the >fed gov instead of knowing that the specific power "granted by the >constitution are enumerated". So the powers of the government are limited, and whatever rights the government doesn't have, the people have. > Just because the SC ruled does not mean a law now exists giving >the state to provide gays with a marriage cert. So the people only have the rights the government allows them to have, and if there's no law, there's no right. Not your best twist and squirm; it took you three sentences to reverse yourself. But not a bad effort at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #33 April 15, 2009 QuoteIf the framers of the Constitution really thought government control was in the best interest of the country, they would have written far more stricter language than this. Quite the contrary. If the framers had wanted to limit government control as you (and many others) like to claim, they would have used far more precise language than they did.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #34 April 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteFor someone sworn to defend the Constitution, your post makes it appear that you don't have a very good understanding of that document. It appears that you need to read a bit more then. Because Article I, Section 8 provides no such broad discretionary power to Congress, or the Executive Branch. It's not written there. Sure it is. You just have to read the document. ;-) QuoteYou apparently can't interpret it at all. It's rather ironic that such an accusation comes from you. QuoteThe Constitution's purpose is to limit the power of the federal government. That could not be further from the truth. The purpose of the Constitution was to replace the Articles of Confederation with a federal government that had enough authority to be able to control the individual states. The lack of such authority is one of the primary reason the Articles of Confederation failed.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #35 April 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteFor someone sworn to defend the Constitution, your post makes it appear that you don't have a very good understanding of that document. It appears that you need to read a bit more then. Because Article I, Section 8 provides no such broad discretionary power to Congress, or the Executive Branch. It's not written there. Sure it is. You just have to read the document. ;-) QuoteYou apparently can't interpret it at all. It's rather ironic that such an accusation comes from you. QuoteThe Constitution's purpose is to limit the power of the federal government. That could not be further from the truth. The purpose of the Constitution was to replace the Articles of Confederation with a federal government that had enough authority to be able to control the individual states. The lack of such authority is one of the primary reason the Articles of Confederation failed. The Articles of Confederation failed because of its ambiguity, which didn't lend itself to help preserve a confederation as a whole, or provide real application for a common defense. The Constitution fixed that - common defense, Congress, single currency, executive branch. It was further refined with the Bill of Rights. Since then only, what, 17 further amendments since 1795. In fact, the 10th Amendment expressly notes that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since you and I weren't alive way back then, I pose this (rhetorical) question: Because the revolution was rooted in booting the ruling monarchy of England, it's overreaching, overbearing, overtaxing government out of the way, does it not serve that the Constitution was written, it would be structured to prevent an overreaching, overbearing, overtaxing central government?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks2065 0 #36 April 15, 2009 Quote>So, you read that "welfare" as a handout to private companies? Not as >defend and protect the general welfare of the republic? Among other things, yes. To be specific (from Webster's) welfare means 1) the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity and 2) aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need. If Congress decides that the prosperity of the country is enhanced by preventing one of its largest employers from going under, and that they can prevent that by giving money to a company that needs it, then that section specifically authorizes them to act. (I disagree with that action, but their right to do it is clearly delineated.) >If the framers of the Constitution really thought government control >was in the best interest of the country, they would have written far more >stricter language than this. If the framers didn't want Congress to be able to act to provide for the welfare of the US, they should not have put that ability in Article 1, Section 8. But they did. We can't know what was going on inside their heads, but we do know what they put on paper - and they said specifically that the Congress shall have the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States. >Government has never created wealth or health in this country, or in >any country. Of course. That's not their job. They just provide a framework for people to make money. Quotesince it says it must be equall among the states wouldn't that mean if michigan gets $15b shouldn't every state? i don't believe bailing out the auto companies is being equall. The constitution is written to give all states equall opertunity not pick and choose which ones congress or the president wants to prosper or fail. It also doesn't say anything about paying a companies way out of debt. They do have the right to levy laws that promote growth through limiting compition from foriegn countries. But why would they want to do that? protect our industries and jobs doesn't seem to be high on Obama's list of important things to do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #37 April 15, 2009 QuoteThe Articles of Confederation failed because of its ambiguity, which didn't lend itself to help preserve a confederation as a whole, or provide real application for a common defense. I.e. under the Articles, the central government did not have sufficient power over the states. Thus, a federal government with more authority was formed with the ratification of the Constitution. Quote[T]he 10th Amendment expressly notes that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Right. But very little power was not delegated to the federal government by the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution. QuoteSince you and I weren't alive way back then, I pose this (rhetorical) question: Because the revolution was rooted in booting the ruling monarchy of England, it's overreaching, overbearing, overtaxing government out of the way, does it not serve that the Constitution was written, it would be structured to prevent an overreaching, overbearing, overtaxing central government? First, taxation without representation != overtaxing. Second, the Constitution was written because the framers understood that the Articles did not provide a sufficiently powerful central government. So, using Vattel's Law of Nations as a primary reference, the framers drafted the blueprints for a new, more powerful, yet just, federal government. "To define and punish … Offenses against the Law of Nations;" delegates substantial power to Congress not specifically enumerated elsewhere in Article I. The framers desired a just central government, not a weak one.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #38 April 15, 2009 >since it says it must be equall among the states wouldn't that mean if michigan >gets $15b shouldn't every state? It doesn't say it must be equal. >The constitution is written to give all states equall opertunity not pick and >choose which ones congress or the president wants to prosper or fail. So Nebraska has to have a Navy port, to be "equal to" California? And Alaska has to have just as many highways as Texas? And there have to be just as many air traffic control centers in South Dakota as in Texas? Think, man! > They do have the right to levy laws that promote growth through limiting > compition from foriegn countries. Yes, they have that right as well. > protect our industries and jobs doesn't seem to be high on Obama's list of > important things to do. Sounds like you agree with him on that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #39 April 15, 2009 Quote So Nebraska has to have a Navy port, to be "equal to" California? And Alaska has to have just as many highways as Texas? And there have to be just as many air traffic control centers in South Dakota as in Texas? I wouldn't mind any definition of equality being applied to the money sent back to California. We're getting hosed, mostly because our delegation won't act in concert (unlike Texas). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerryzflies 0 #40 April 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteFor someone sworn to defend the Constitution, your post makes it appear that you don't have a very good understanding of that document. It appears that you need to read a bit more then. Because Article I, Section 8 provides no such broad discretionary power to Congress, or the Executive Branch. It's not written there. Bill can interpret all he wants. You apparently can't interpret it at all. The Constitution's purpose is to limit the power of the federal government. Not the other way around. The fact that you can't see that in an instant is proof of failure of the school system at its most fundamental tasks. And what does the Supreme Court have to say about the matter? The SC, not you, not rushmc, not billvon, are the "deciders" on the meaning of the Constitution.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #41 April 15, 2009 QuoteThe SC, not you, not rushmc, not billvon, are the "deciders" on the meaning of the Constitution. And until our betters speak, all us serfs ought to just get back to the fields?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerryzflies 0 #42 April 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe SC, not you, not rushmc, not billvon, are the "deciders" on the meaning of the Constitution. And until our betters speak, all us serfs ought to just get back to the fields? If that's how you choose to view yourserf. Apparently you don't believe in the powers invested in the SC by the Constitution.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #43 April 15, 2009 >I wouldn't mind any definition of equality being applied to the money >sent back to California. OK, fair enough. California gets 81 cents in Federal spending for every dollar it pays to the feds. So we drop Federal taxes in CA until that becomes $1/$1. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #44 April 15, 2009 Quote>I wouldn't mind any definition of equality being applied to the money >sent back to California. OK, fair enough. California gets 81 cents in Federal spending for every dollar it pays to the feds. So we drop Federal taxes in CA until that becomes $1/$1. does that balance our budget? Or are we still in the red? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #45 April 15, 2009 >does that balance our budget? Or are we still in the red? We'd still be far in the red. So an alternative - increase taxes on all the welfare states until we can increase California's federal aid back to $1/$1. Helps balance both the state and the federal budget. (I think I still prefer tax reduction tho.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks2065 0 #46 April 15, 2009 Quote>since it says it must be equall among the states wouldn't that mean if michigan >gets $15b shouldn't every state? It doesn't say it must be equal. >The constitution is written to give all states equall opertunity not pick and >choose which ones congress or the president wants to prosper or fail. So Nebraska has to have a Navy port, to be "equal to" California? And Alaska has to have just as many highways as Texas? And there have to be just as many air traffic control centers in South Dakota as in Texas? Think, man! > They do have the right to levy laws that promote growth through limiting > compition from foriegn countries. Yes, they have that right as well. > protect our industries and jobs doesn't seem to be high on Obama's list of > important things to do. Sounds like you agree with him on that. QuoteThe Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States it does say uniform throughout the us, to me that means equal. If they bail out Michigan by giving GM money they need to give $15b to other states to bail out failing companies. that would be uniform but would cost about $750b just for that. And no Obama does not think keeping our jobs safe is important just by not letting the wording in about using US labor in the bailout package. I don't think we need to bail out the companies but use restrictions to level the playing field with imports. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #47 April 15, 2009 >The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts >and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and >general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises >shall be uniform throughout the United States >it does say uniform throughout the us, to me that means equal. Agreed. Taxation must be equal. >If they bail out Michigan by giving GM money they need to give $15b to >other states to bail out failing companies. The section you quoted does not say "any monies they give out must be equal." It says "duties, imposts and excises (i.e. taxes) shall be uniform." > I don't think we need to bail out the companies . . . I agree there. >but use restrictions to level the playing field with imports. Disagree. We don't need to protect american companies that produce crap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #48 April 15, 2009 Quote>does that balance our budget? Or are we still in the red? We'd still be far in the red. So an alternative - increase taxes on all the welfare states until we can increase California's federal aid back to $1/$1. Helps balance both the state and the federal budget. (I think I still prefer tax reduction tho.) I love it - "increase the taxes on everybody else until it's fair" the easiest way to fix the ratio back to 1/1 for all the states is to NOT TAKE THE MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE It's impossible for all the states to get to 1/1 because the Feds will take some off the top for administrative purposes (as a minimum) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #49 April 15, 2009 >I love it - "increase the taxes on everybody else until it's fair" Was a joke. I really don't think we need to "equalize" federal aid to states. Would be silly to give money to other states just because Louisiana got lots of disaster aid for Katrina (for example) - despite what some posters claim is in the constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #50 April 15, 2009 QuoteBy "everyone" do you mean all the consumers who, knowing we have to stop burning fossil fuels, purchase fossil fuel burning cars anyway? People take what they're given. How many electric and hydrogen cars are the big three automakers putting into production? Not everyone lives in California and can easily buy a Tesla or Zap. Quote Which is exactly what the companies who pledge to create more eco-friendly cars will do once they know the government will be paying their bills. So why are there a dozen electric car manufacturers in North America that are already putting out production cars? Quote Are you suggesting these auto workers are somehow dumber and less capable than any other employee who gets laid off? They can dig into their savings, go back to school, and learn new skills just like the rest of us. Most employees get unemployement insurance. That is exactly what I had in mind - the same thing as unemployment insurance, but on a larger scale for the huge number of workers that are going to get cut. This keeps the employees on their feet, and the execs can dig into their own savings and go back to school (but most of them probably won't). Quote Haha, I'll make that pledge. Want to pay me? Sure, if you're one of the few people that is already cranking out production vehicles, then you would qualify. Companies, as I mentioned above, like Zap, who have already demonstrated that they are committed to producing environmentally friendly vehicles. Quote Right, no government money. Only the government "killing off" a huge sector of the country's economy and hoping the rest falls into place. You had it right when you said "let them die". No need to kill them off with our own money. Never said it would be easy. Easy is continuing to do things the way you always have, even if it's wrong.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Gawain 0 #35 April 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteFor someone sworn to defend the Constitution, your post makes it appear that you don't have a very good understanding of that document. It appears that you need to read a bit more then. Because Article I, Section 8 provides no such broad discretionary power to Congress, or the Executive Branch. It's not written there. Sure it is. You just have to read the document. ;-) QuoteYou apparently can't interpret it at all. It's rather ironic that such an accusation comes from you. QuoteThe Constitution's purpose is to limit the power of the federal government. That could not be further from the truth. The purpose of the Constitution was to replace the Articles of Confederation with a federal government that had enough authority to be able to control the individual states. The lack of such authority is one of the primary reason the Articles of Confederation failed. The Articles of Confederation failed because of its ambiguity, which didn't lend itself to help preserve a confederation as a whole, or provide real application for a common defense. The Constitution fixed that - common defense, Congress, single currency, executive branch. It was further refined with the Bill of Rights. Since then only, what, 17 further amendments since 1795. In fact, the 10th Amendment expressly notes that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since you and I weren't alive way back then, I pose this (rhetorical) question: Because the revolution was rooted in booting the ruling monarchy of England, it's overreaching, overbearing, overtaxing government out of the way, does it not serve that the Constitution was written, it would be structured to prevent an overreaching, overbearing, overtaxing central government?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #36 April 15, 2009 Quote>So, you read that "welfare" as a handout to private companies? Not as >defend and protect the general welfare of the republic? Among other things, yes. To be specific (from Webster's) welfare means 1) the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity and 2) aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need. If Congress decides that the prosperity of the country is enhanced by preventing one of its largest employers from going under, and that they can prevent that by giving money to a company that needs it, then that section specifically authorizes them to act. (I disagree with that action, but their right to do it is clearly delineated.) >If the framers of the Constitution really thought government control >was in the best interest of the country, they would have written far more >stricter language than this. If the framers didn't want Congress to be able to act to provide for the welfare of the US, they should not have put that ability in Article 1, Section 8. But they did. We can't know what was going on inside their heads, but we do know what they put on paper - and they said specifically that the Congress shall have the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States. >Government has never created wealth or health in this country, or in >any country. Of course. That's not their job. They just provide a framework for people to make money. Quotesince it says it must be equall among the states wouldn't that mean if michigan gets $15b shouldn't every state? i don't believe bailing out the auto companies is being equall. The constitution is written to give all states equall opertunity not pick and choose which ones congress or the president wants to prosper or fail. It also doesn't say anything about paying a companies way out of debt. They do have the right to levy laws that promote growth through limiting compition from foriegn countries. But why would they want to do that? protect our industries and jobs doesn't seem to be high on Obama's list of important things to do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #37 April 15, 2009 QuoteThe Articles of Confederation failed because of its ambiguity, which didn't lend itself to help preserve a confederation as a whole, or provide real application for a common defense. I.e. under the Articles, the central government did not have sufficient power over the states. Thus, a federal government with more authority was formed with the ratification of the Constitution. Quote[T]he 10th Amendment expressly notes that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Right. But very little power was not delegated to the federal government by the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution. QuoteSince you and I weren't alive way back then, I pose this (rhetorical) question: Because the revolution was rooted in booting the ruling monarchy of England, it's overreaching, overbearing, overtaxing government out of the way, does it not serve that the Constitution was written, it would be structured to prevent an overreaching, overbearing, overtaxing central government? First, taxation without representation != overtaxing. Second, the Constitution was written because the framers understood that the Articles did not provide a sufficiently powerful central government. So, using Vattel's Law of Nations as a primary reference, the framers drafted the blueprints for a new, more powerful, yet just, federal government. "To define and punish … Offenses against the Law of Nations;" delegates substantial power to Congress not specifically enumerated elsewhere in Article I. The framers desired a just central government, not a weak one.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #38 April 15, 2009 >since it says it must be equall among the states wouldn't that mean if michigan >gets $15b shouldn't every state? It doesn't say it must be equal. >The constitution is written to give all states equall opertunity not pick and >choose which ones congress or the president wants to prosper or fail. So Nebraska has to have a Navy port, to be "equal to" California? And Alaska has to have just as many highways as Texas? And there have to be just as many air traffic control centers in South Dakota as in Texas? Think, man! > They do have the right to levy laws that promote growth through limiting > compition from foriegn countries. Yes, they have that right as well. > protect our industries and jobs doesn't seem to be high on Obama's list of > important things to do. Sounds like you agree with him on that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 April 15, 2009 Quote So Nebraska has to have a Navy port, to be "equal to" California? And Alaska has to have just as many highways as Texas? And there have to be just as many air traffic control centers in South Dakota as in Texas? I wouldn't mind any definition of equality being applied to the money sent back to California. We're getting hosed, mostly because our delegation won't act in concert (unlike Texas). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #40 April 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteFor someone sworn to defend the Constitution, your post makes it appear that you don't have a very good understanding of that document. It appears that you need to read a bit more then. Because Article I, Section 8 provides no such broad discretionary power to Congress, or the Executive Branch. It's not written there. Bill can interpret all he wants. You apparently can't interpret it at all. The Constitution's purpose is to limit the power of the federal government. Not the other way around. The fact that you can't see that in an instant is proof of failure of the school system at its most fundamental tasks. And what does the Supreme Court have to say about the matter? The SC, not you, not rushmc, not billvon, are the "deciders" on the meaning of the Constitution.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #41 April 15, 2009 QuoteThe SC, not you, not rushmc, not billvon, are the "deciders" on the meaning of the Constitution. And until our betters speak, all us serfs ought to just get back to the fields?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #42 April 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe SC, not you, not rushmc, not billvon, are the "deciders" on the meaning of the Constitution. And until our betters speak, all us serfs ought to just get back to the fields? If that's how you choose to view yourserf. Apparently you don't believe in the powers invested in the SC by the Constitution.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #43 April 15, 2009 >I wouldn't mind any definition of equality being applied to the money >sent back to California. OK, fair enough. California gets 81 cents in Federal spending for every dollar it pays to the feds. So we drop Federal taxes in CA until that becomes $1/$1. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #44 April 15, 2009 Quote>I wouldn't mind any definition of equality being applied to the money >sent back to California. OK, fair enough. California gets 81 cents in Federal spending for every dollar it pays to the feds. So we drop Federal taxes in CA until that becomes $1/$1. does that balance our budget? Or are we still in the red? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #45 April 15, 2009 >does that balance our budget? Or are we still in the red? We'd still be far in the red. So an alternative - increase taxes on all the welfare states until we can increase California's federal aid back to $1/$1. Helps balance both the state and the federal budget. (I think I still prefer tax reduction tho.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #46 April 15, 2009 Quote>since it says it must be equall among the states wouldn't that mean if michigan >gets $15b shouldn't every state? It doesn't say it must be equal. >The constitution is written to give all states equall opertunity not pick and >choose which ones congress or the president wants to prosper or fail. So Nebraska has to have a Navy port, to be "equal to" California? And Alaska has to have just as many highways as Texas? And there have to be just as many air traffic control centers in South Dakota as in Texas? Think, man! > They do have the right to levy laws that promote growth through limiting > compition from foriegn countries. Yes, they have that right as well. > protect our industries and jobs doesn't seem to be high on Obama's list of > important things to do. Sounds like you agree with him on that. QuoteThe Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States it does say uniform throughout the us, to me that means equal. If they bail out Michigan by giving GM money they need to give $15b to other states to bail out failing companies. that would be uniform but would cost about $750b just for that. And no Obama does not think keeping our jobs safe is important just by not letting the wording in about using US labor in the bailout package. I don't think we need to bail out the companies but use restrictions to level the playing field with imports. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #47 April 15, 2009 >The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts >and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and >general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises >shall be uniform throughout the United States >it does say uniform throughout the us, to me that means equal. Agreed. Taxation must be equal. >If they bail out Michigan by giving GM money they need to give $15b to >other states to bail out failing companies. The section you quoted does not say "any monies they give out must be equal." It says "duties, imposts and excises (i.e. taxes) shall be uniform." > I don't think we need to bail out the companies . . . I agree there. >but use restrictions to level the playing field with imports. Disagree. We don't need to protect american companies that produce crap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #48 April 15, 2009 Quote>does that balance our budget? Or are we still in the red? We'd still be far in the red. So an alternative - increase taxes on all the welfare states until we can increase California's federal aid back to $1/$1. Helps balance both the state and the federal budget. (I think I still prefer tax reduction tho.) I love it - "increase the taxes on everybody else until it's fair" the easiest way to fix the ratio back to 1/1 for all the states is to NOT TAKE THE MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE It's impossible for all the states to get to 1/1 because the Feds will take some off the top for administrative purposes (as a minimum) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #49 April 15, 2009 >I love it - "increase the taxes on everybody else until it's fair" Was a joke. I really don't think we need to "equalize" federal aid to states. Would be silly to give money to other states just because Louisiana got lots of disaster aid for Katrina (for example) - despite what some posters claim is in the constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #50 April 15, 2009 QuoteBy "everyone" do you mean all the consumers who, knowing we have to stop burning fossil fuels, purchase fossil fuel burning cars anyway? People take what they're given. How many electric and hydrogen cars are the big three automakers putting into production? Not everyone lives in California and can easily buy a Tesla or Zap. Quote Which is exactly what the companies who pledge to create more eco-friendly cars will do once they know the government will be paying their bills. So why are there a dozen electric car manufacturers in North America that are already putting out production cars? Quote Are you suggesting these auto workers are somehow dumber and less capable than any other employee who gets laid off? They can dig into their savings, go back to school, and learn new skills just like the rest of us. Most employees get unemployement insurance. That is exactly what I had in mind - the same thing as unemployment insurance, but on a larger scale for the huge number of workers that are going to get cut. This keeps the employees on their feet, and the execs can dig into their own savings and go back to school (but most of them probably won't). Quote Haha, I'll make that pledge. Want to pay me? Sure, if you're one of the few people that is already cranking out production vehicles, then you would qualify. Companies, as I mentioned above, like Zap, who have already demonstrated that they are committed to producing environmentally friendly vehicles. Quote Right, no government money. Only the government "killing off" a huge sector of the country's economy and hoping the rest falls into place. You had it right when you said "let them die". No need to kill them off with our own money. Never said it would be easy. Easy is continuing to do things the way you always have, even if it's wrong.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
