Is it just me?

[glenn1]

As far as the constitution goes... this entire war is unconstitutional in premise..... if you believe it is authorized please let me know how and when it became constitutonally operable, because apparently I'm not privy to this enlightenment.

What war are you referring to? The war in Iraq? Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11:

(The Congress shall have Power To) declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

It just says they have the power to declare war, it doesn't specify that it needs to be in a certain format or that the President needs to give a speech that includes the words "day of infamy." Know how Congress declared war against the Japanese in 1941? Joint Resolution, signed into public law by the President. In Iraq, it was amazingly enough a Joint Resolution, signed into public law by the President. Google "authorization for the use of military force in iraq resolution 2002" and you'll find your answer.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yeah, we need to go back to the pre New Deal system, which gave us the Great Depression. That would be a great achievement.

Then why did FDR propose private accounts to congress?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yeah, we need to go back to the pre New Deal system, which gave us the Great Depression. That would be a great achievement.

Then why did FDR propose private accounts to congress?

And why weren't they passed? Obviously they knew what they were doing, because the system they did pass has worked just fine for a third of this nation's history, and will work just fine as far as the eyes can see.

 

[Kerouactivist]

Originally posted by: glenn1

As far as the constitution goes... this entire war is unconstitutional in premise..... if you believe it is authorized please let me know how and when it became constitutonally operable, because apparently I'm not privy to this enlightenment.

What war are you referring to? The war in Iraq? Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11:

(The Congress shall have Power To) declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

It just says they have the power to declare war, it doesn't specify that it needs to be in a certain format or that the President needs to give a speech that includes the words "day of infamy." Know how Congress declared war against the Japanese in 1941? Joint Resolution, signed into public law by the President. In Iraq, it was amazingly enough a Joint Resolution, signed into public law by the President. Google "authorization for the use of military force in iraq resolution 2002" and you'll find your answer.

What about the 60 days rule (legislatively applied by congress) within not to mention other issues?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yeah, we need to go back to the pre New Deal system, which gave us the Great Depression. That would be a great achievement.

Then why did FDR propose private accounts to congress?

And why weren't they passed? Obviously they knew what they were doing, because the system they did pass has worked just fine for a third of this nation's history, and will work just fine as far as the eyes can see.

Well demographics have changed and the future does not look for SS.

 

[Kerouactivist]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: bthorny
in consideration of your reply what is the gap we are seeking as a overall world populus?
Included within, what should be the the median $$$?

I don't believe you can set a median value since they are different from country to country.

Sure you can. Adjust to a common currency and the do whatever comparisons need to done.

I'm not talking about adjusting to a common currency... I mean in terms of values from country to country. I would bet that most Americans see the telephone as a necessity that everyone should have access to; however, if you were to question a small tribe in Africa, I'm sure telephones would not be at the top of their lists. So, which median income is the correct to use?

Thats BS
sorry maybe you just don't understand stats/economics....

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Yeah, we need to go back to the pre New Deal system, which gave us the Great Depression. That would be a great achievement.

Then why did FDR propose private accounts to congress?

And why weren't they passed? Obviously they knew what they were doing, because the system they did pass has worked just fine for a third of this nation's history, and will work just fine as far as the eyes can see.

Well demographics have changed and the future does not look for SS.

It looks just fine. I am perfectly happy with future projections, even with the so called benefit cut as you call it.

 

[glenn1]

What about the 60 days rule within not to mention other issues?

You mean this 60 day rule in the law?

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS.?The President shall, at least once every 60 days,
submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint
resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of
authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts
that are expected to be required after such actions are completed,
including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105?338).

I'm sure he's been reporting to Congress as the law requires. It almost doesn't seem like you've read the resolution, it might be helpful to you if you do so rather than just accepting at face value what you've been told about it. Here's a link:

link

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: bthorny
Thats BS
sorry maybe you just don't understand stats/economics....

How is that BS? Do you honestly believe that the median income needed to live would be the same from country to country, even when equalized?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: glenn1
If he could "renege the New Deal" in a way which is equitable to all it would be the greatest achievement in the history of the Republic.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!

Ronald Reagan October 27, 1964

Let's hope when the end comes - the one presiding pulls this quote as a victory quote.

CsG

 

[Kerouactivist]

Originally posted by: glenn1

What about the 60 days rule within not to mention other issues?

You mean this 60 day rule in the law?

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS.?The President shall, at least once every 60 days,
submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint
resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of
authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts
that are expected to be required after such actions are completed,
including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105?338).

I'm sure he's been reporting to Congress as the law requires. It almost doesn't seem like you've read the resolution, it might be helpful to you if you do so rather than just accepting at face value what you've been told about it. Here's a link:

link

Your right according to the war powers act..sorry my mistake I read it as being that you had to meet the all of the requirements in 5 (b)..hey its mardi gras
If you believe, in the constitutionality of the warpower act of 1974 then it is a constitutionally sound war.

Although I must say that act is being challenged...for being constitutionally unsound.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Wasn't the effect of the "new deal" to even out massive discrepancies between the wealthiest or poorest citizens? With countries like Brazil, you have a small segment of the population with vast wealth, and the masses with very little. The US already has the highest levels of income inequality (between richest and poorest citizens) of first world nations. Do you really want to head into "third world" territory in terms of the distribution of wealth in your country?

Show me the lines anywhere in our founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Federalist Papers, etc) that show where that's a function the government is supposed to be doing, and I'll raise you the Tenth Amendment to show you that it's not.

I'll keep what we have thanks. I have seen the results of hands off govt. and it's a lot worse than what we are facing.

 

[Kerouactivist]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: bthorny
Thats BS
sorry maybe you just don't understand stats/economics....

How is that BS? Do you honestly believe that the median income needed to live would be the same from country to country, even when equalized?

first Median income can be standardized
secondly "needed to live"...WTF
standard of living can be taken into account if that is what you mean..

 

[glenn1]

Your right according to the war powers act..sorry my mistake I read it as being that you had to meet the all of the requirements in 5 (b)..hey its mardi gras
If you believe, in the constitutionality of the warpower act of 1974 then it is a constitutionally sound war.

Just out of curiousity, why would you believe it to be constitutionally unsound? Just because Congress didn't put the words "we declare war" in their resolution? I'll understand if you feel that way although IMO it's splitting hairs since the resolution specifically authorizes the use of military force, which is the definition of war.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: glenn1
If he could "renege the New Deal" in a way which is equitable to all it would be the greatest achievement in the history of the Republic.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!

Ronald Reagan October 27, 1964

Let's hope when the end comes - the one presiding pulls this quote as a victory quote.

CsG

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Second Inaugural Address January 20, 1937

Put in sig for your future reference

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Wasn't the effect of the "new deal" to even out massive discrepancies between the wealthiest or poorest citizens? With countries like Brazil, you have a small segment of the population with vast wealth, and the masses with very little. The US already has the highest levels of income inequality (between richest and poorest citizens) of first world nations. Do you really want to head into "third world" territory in terms of the distribution of wealth in your country?

Show me the lines anywhere in our founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Federalist Papers, etc) that show where that's a function the government is supposed to be doing, and I'll raise you the Tenth Amendment to show you that it's not.

US Constitution, Section. 8.

Clause 1: 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;

I know you cons stop reading at "common Defence"

 

[Kerouactivist]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Your right according to the war powers act..sorry my mistake I read it as being that you had to meet the all of the requirements in 5 (b)..hey its mardi gras
If you believe, in the constitutionality of the warpower act of 1974 then it is a constitutionally sound war.

Just out of curiousity, why would you believe it to be constitutionally unsound? Just because Congress didn't put the words "we declare war" in their resolution? I'll understand if you feel that way although IMO it's splitting hairs since the resolution specifically authorizes the use of military force, which is the definition of war.

I do believe that it is really splitting hairs, glenn...
But, I was just pointing that out because many times the right tend to rally behind a strict interpretationlistic version of the constitution...and if that be the case for them wouldn't it be the case that they say we declare war...logistically that would be sound..

Btw the amendment I love the most is
AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be con- strued to deny or disparage others retained by the people...

On an 'seperate' issue, I use that term lightly

IX
This is one that needs to be paid more attention to IMHO...Glenn I'm curious to your feeling about the 9th amendment...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: glenn1

Wasn't the effect of the "new deal" to even out massive discrepancies between the wealthiest or poorest citizens? With countries like Brazil, you have a small segment of the population with vast wealth, and the masses with very little. The US already has the highest levels of income inequality (between richest and poorest citizens) of first world nations. Do you really want to head into "third world" territory in terms of the distribution of wealth in your country?

Show me the lines anywhere in our founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Federalist Papers, etc) that show where that's a function the government is supposed to be doing, and I'll raise you the Tenth Amendment to show you that it's not.

US Constitution, Section. 8.

Clause 1: 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;

I know you cons stop reading at "common Defence"

I somehow doubt the founding fathers meant ah meant that as wealth redistribution.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: glenn1
If he could "renege the New Deal" in a way which is equitable to all it would be the greatest achievement in the history of the Republic.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!

Ronald Reagan October 27, 1964

Let's hope when the end comes - the one presiding pulls this quote as a victory quote.

CsG

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Second Inaugural Address January 20, 1937

Put in sig for your future reference

I'm not a socialist because I think people should be responsible for themselves and their families, so no thanks. Maybe someday we'll ween people off the National teet...

CsG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: glenn1

Wasn't the effect of the "new deal" to even out massive discrepancies between the wealthiest or poorest citizens? With countries like Brazil, you have a small segment of the population with vast wealth, and the masses with very little. The US already has the highest levels of income inequality (between richest and poorest citizens) of first world nations. Do you really want to head into "third world" territory in terms of the distribution of wealth in your country?

Show me the lines anywhere in our founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Federalist Papers, etc) that show where that's a function the government is supposed to be doing, and I'll raise you the Tenth Amendment to show you that it's not.

US Constitution, Section. 8.

Clause 1: 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;

I know you cons stop reading at "common Defence"

I somehow doubt the founding fathers meant ah meant that as wealth redistribution.

Let's See...
1) "Collect taxes."
2) "Provide for common Defence and general Welfare."

That is exactly what the government does. It's right there in the Constitution. If you can't understand it, read it several times, slowly.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: glenn1
If he could "renege the New Deal" in a way which is equitable to all it would be the greatest achievement in the history of the Republic.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!

Ronald Reagan October 27, 1964

Let's hope when the end comes - the one presiding pulls this quote as a victory quote.

CsG

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Second Inaugural Address January 20, 1937

Put in sig for your future reference

I'm not a socialist because I think people should be responsible for themselves and their families, so no thanks. Maybe someday we'll ween people off the National teet...

CsG

It has been tried and resulted in the Great Depression.
Americans didn't like it very much, hence the New Deal and Social Security.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: glenn1

Wasn't the effect of the "new deal" to even out massive discrepancies between the wealthiest or poorest citizens? With countries like Brazil, you have a small segment of the population with vast wealth, and the masses with very little. The US already has the highest levels of income inequality (between richest and poorest citizens) of first world nations. Do you really want to head into "third world" territory in terms of the distribution of wealth in your country?

Show me the lines anywhere in our founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Federalist Papers, etc) that show where that's a function the government is supposed to be doing, and I'll raise you the Tenth Amendment to show you that it's not.

US Constitution, Section. 8.

Clause 1: 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;

I know you cons stop reading at "common Defence"

I somehow doubt the founding fathers meant ah meant that as wealth redistribution.

Let's See...
1) "Collect taxes."
2) "Provide for common Defence and general Welfare."

That is exactly what the government does. It's right there in the Constitution. If you can't understand it, read it several times, slowly.

Where exactly does it say - steal from the haves and give to the have-nots? Where does it say that it can steal from the young and give to the old? Where does it say that it can steal from the working and give to the non-working.

It doesn't, but I'm sure you think involuntary wealth transfer qualifies as "general welfare".

CsG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: glenn1

Wasn't the effect of the "new deal" to even out massive discrepancies between the wealthiest or poorest citizens? With countries like Brazil, you have a small segment of the population with vast wealth, and the masses with very little. The US already has the highest levels of income inequality (between richest and poorest citizens) of first world nations. Do you really want to head into "third world" territory in terms of the distribution of wealth in your country?

Show me the lines anywhere in our founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Federalist Papers, etc) that show where that's a function the government is supposed to be doing, and I'll raise you the Tenth Amendment to show you that it's not.

US Constitution, Section. 8.

Clause 1: 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;

I know you cons stop reading at "common Defence"

I somehow doubt the founding fathers meant ah meant that as wealth redistribution.

Let's See...
1) "Collect taxes."
2) "Provide for common Defence and general Welfare."

That is exactly what the government does. It's right there in the Constitution. If you can't understand it, read it several times, slowly.

Where exactly does it say - steal from the haves and give to the have-nots? Where does it say that it can steal from the young and give to the old? Where does it say that it can steal from the working and give to the non-working.

It doesn't, but I'm sure you think involuntary wealth transfer qualifies as "general welfare".

CsG

The government Collects Taxes and Provides for general Welfare.
You can call it "stealing," "wealth redistribution," "socialism," It don't matter to me. It's not only perfectly constitutional, it's explicitly in the constitution. So take it up with the founding fathers.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: glenn1
If he could "renege the New Deal" in a way which is equitable to all it would be the greatest achievement in the history of the Republic.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!

Ronald Reagan October 27, 1964

Let's hope when the end comes - the one presiding pulls this quote as a victory quote.

CsG

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Second Inaugural Address January 20, 1937

Put in sig for your future reference

I'm not a socialist because I think people should be responsible for themselves and their families, so no thanks. Maybe someday we'll ween people off the National teet...

CsG

It has been tried and resulted in the Great Depression.
Americans didn't like it very much, hence the New Deal and Social Security.

So they voted themselves into the pocketbook of everyone else... wasn't that awful nice of them.:|

CsG

 

[glenn1]

Let's See...
1) "Collect taxes."
2) "Provide for common Defence and general Welfare."

That is exactly what the government does. It's right there in the Constitution. If you can't understand it, read it several times, slowly.

Let's flip this around. If you take this to mean that wealth redistribution is okay, name even one thing the government would be prohibited from doing under the guise of "general welfare" then.