Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 661 of 4573 (803276)
03-28-2017 7:59 AM


More follow the money.
The rape of US citizens continues as Trump opens up those lands, air and water that actually belongs to all of us to sell those resources to corporations.
quote:
President Donald Trump will direct the federal government on Tuesday to begin dismantling his predecessor’s most significant climate change policies, with a sweeping directive telling agencies to stop trying to reduce the carbon pollution of electric utilities, oil and gas drillers and coal miners.
quote:
The order comes on the heels of Trump’s move to ease Obama’s ambitious vehicle fuel efficiency requirements and his order to reverse EPA’s controversial Waters of the U.S. rule. The president has also recently signed legislation undoing Obama-era rules on Appalachian coal mining and energy companies’ payments to foreign governments.
Trump plans to order the EPA to rewrite tough rules that make it virtually impossible to build a new coal-fired power plant, and he will tell the Interior Department to end Obama’s moratorium on new coal mines on federal lands, among other steps, White House officials said.
Additionally, the president’s energy independence executive order also will repeal several Obama-era environmental directives aimed at reducing the federal government’s own carbon footprint, and it will direct agencies to ferret out any additional policies that result in impediments to U.S. energy production, a likely reference to restrictions on fracking and offshore drilling. The president also will tell federal regulators to stop using the social cost of carbon, which attempts to quantify the effects of climate change, in economic analyses of future rules.
source

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(7)
Message 662 of 4573 (803279)
03-28-2017 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 653 by marc9000
03-27-2017 7:59 PM


Re: Reality
marc9000 responds to me:
quote:
There's no grandstanding and showboating going on with Democrats today? As they celebrate their latest victory of prolonging the status quo?
That you think being happy that people are not going to die is "grandstanding and showboating" says a lot.
Oh, of course there's political posturing on both sides, but let us not play dumb and engage in false equivalency, shall we?
quote:
I'd say they tried to do it in 60 days because Trump wanted it done in 60 days.
But Trump wasn't involved. They had seven years to come up with a plan and they scrapped it all to come up with yet another one and only gave themselves a couple months to do it? After all, Trump was saying all during the campaign that he had a "wonderful" plan. It was going to cover everyone.
Where was it?
And when it became clear that he didn't actually have a plan, why didn't Congress simply say, "No, this is complicated. It's going to take more time"? Of course, that leads to the question of "Seven years isn't enough time?" There was no guarantee that Trump was going to win. Surely they were working on a better way to provide actual health care to people no matter what, right? I mean, that is their job, isn't it? To write laws no matter who is in the White House? The Republicans may have this silly rule that no bill will come before the House unless a majority of Republicans support it, but the Democrats don't.
quote:
It was Trump's mistake
How could it be? He didn't write the bill. He just wanted his name on it. You know, like everything else in his "empire." He doesn't actually build it...he just puts his name on it.
quote:
he actually thought making deals with politicians was slightly similar to making deals in the free-market private sector with people who actually have some brains.
Which is why it is stupid to try to run business like a government: With government, you have to deal with people who have all the brains and don't seem to take too kindly to their constituents dying on them.
quote:
They believe the government is capable of doing plenty of things right, those things are outlined in the constitution. Healthcare isn't in there.
Except it is. Let us not play dumb and pretend that the Constitution is a laundry list. Does the government have the right to create an atomic bomb? It's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Should we dismantle our nuclear array post haste?
Hint: What do the words "general welfare" mean to you? It's mentioned twice in the Constitution. Can you tell us where? No...you don't get to look it up. From memory: Where does the Constitution talk about the power of government to provide for the general welfare?
quote:
Sometimes? Or all the time, despite what the 10th amendment says?
Someone doesn't understand what the 10th Amendment means. Given that you've already shown you don't know what the Constitution says about general welfare and how it isn't a laundry list, this is not surprising.
Hint: Article 6.
quote:
Sanders free-for-alls
Hold it right there:
First, you were just asking about the difference between the two parties. Now that you've been shown the difference (Republicans when they're out of power don't actually try to do their job while Democrats do), you're complaining that there really is a difference?
Second, "free"? Who said anything about "free"? You do realize that it will be paid for, yes? That's part of the contract you signed when you accepted citizenship in this country. Taxes aren't free.
quote:
Democrats tax and spend bills
Of course. Things need to be paid for. This is in direct contrast to Republicans that spend even more profligately than Democrats but cut taxes and thus ensure that nothing gets paid for. That's right: If you truly cared about cutting spending, you want to vote for the Democrats. They are much more fiscally responsible. If the Congress had merely rubber-stamped Reagan's budgets, the deficit would have been billions of dollars bigger than it actually turned out to be. Clinton delivered a surplus, you'll recall. And Obama reversed the hemorrhaging of Bush with his two undeclared wars...you did remember that Bush kept the Afghanistan and Iraq wars off the books, yes?
But, back to the point: You tax people to raise the money that you then spend on the services to be enjoyed by the people which is why they paid those taxes in the first place.
Are you about to say that you would rather spend $8000/year in "premiums" because to pay $4000 in "taxes" is anathema? In the end, is it really simply the word being used? You're going to pay for it no matter what. Do you really want to pay twice as much for worse outcomes simply because it isn't a "tax"?
quote:
are all for one reason, to increase the size and scope of government.
Incorrect:
To provide for the general welfare as mandated by the Constitution and demanded by the populace since it has become apparent that only the government can effectively manage the problem.
quote:
Can you describe any action the Democrats have attempted over the past....20 years that attempt anything that doesn't make the government bigger, first and foremost?
Yes.
Can you?
If you can't, why not? Have you considered the possibility that you are parroting talking points you don't understand?
Hint: Don't you find it interesting that in all the 8 years of Obama, we had the longest sustained period of private sector job growth? Now, there truly is a festive clue in there. Let's see if you can find the important words in that sentence.
Bonus hint: What is missing from that sentence? That is, something specific is called out, but there is a very obvious complementary part that isn't mentioned at all.
And that's just a start.
quote:
Yes, they caved to the Democrats in allowing the ACA
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
You seem to have forgotten that the ACA passed without any Republicans. Not one Republican voted for the ACA. So whence cometh your claim that they "caved"?
quote:
and now the people are increasingly aware of its unsustainability.
No, the ACA is quite sustainable. First, we need to rollback the Republicans sabotaging of the funding (have you forgotten Rubio's comments?) and then make a few tweaks. What would be better is a single-payer, universal coverage like Medicare for All, but that's a separate issue.
quote:
Democrats continue to think their only job now is to block everything the Republicans want to do
But the only thing the Republicans want to "do" is to roll back all of the progress we've made. So, of course the Democrats are going to fight it. They've seen the disaster and are working to avoid it. When someone argues that we don't need the umbrella because we aren't getting wet, you fight them. Did you forget Jindal's sneering about "volcano monitoring"...only to have a volcano erupt in Alaska?
Or should we go back to the Gilded Age? Oh, wait...don't tell me...you have completely forgotten the Bush II years, haven't you? The country went straight from Clinton to Obama with no intervening presidency in between, right?
quote:
even though the voters have them in the minority.
Actually, the voters have them in the majority. More people voted for Democrats, both for the presidency and for Congress, than for the Republicans. However, due to the Electoral College, the will of the people was thwarted with regard to the presidency and due to gerrymandering, the will of the people was thwarted with respect to Congress. And that goes for state legislatures, too.
quote:
As we saw, Hillary got the majority vote for the presidency, but that's only because the inner-city mobs came out to vote.
Oh...I see...they don't count. Trump got more votes if you don't count all the people who voted for Clinton because hey, those votes don't count.
quote:
They're not intelligent enough to come out for the mid-term elections. They don't know enough about how our country works to do that.
Indeed, Democrats have a problem with mid-terms. Their campaign focus on presidential elections leads to them having the structural bias against Democrats exacerbated when it comes to non-presidential elections. Remember: More people vote for Democrats than Republicans, even in non-presidential elections, and yet somehow Republicans manage to get seated in direct contradiction to the will of the people.
quote:
Why should they make anything public before they have to?
Because it would be evil to withhold a solution to a problem that is causing people to die. If you see a problem and you know how to fix it, then "right now" is the time you have to tell us what it is.
quote:
It only would give the Democrats more time and ability to block it.
Why would they block it if it were a solution to the problem? After all, now that everybody knows about it and can see what a wonderful solution it is, they'll vote for people who would implement the solution. But that assumes that your congresscritter is evil and wouldn't implement the solution straight away. If they're actually good people, they'll get to work on it right away which will make everybody's job easier.
Besides, McCain got re-elected to the Senate and it's been in Republican control for quite some time. Why's he holding back? Surely with Republican control of Congress they could override any presidential veto, which would be stupid considering the solution is so wonderful.
And thus, we're back to healthcare: Majorities in both the House and Senate and they still couldn't manage to get a bill passed.
This is what happens when you elect people who think government can't do anything: They'll fulfill their own prophecy.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by marc9000, posted 03-27-2017 7:59 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 675 by marc9000, posted 03-31-2017 11:01 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 663 of 4573 (803285)
03-28-2017 1:15 PM


Yet more symptoms of fear and guilt
The Trump Administration is taking even more steps to try to whitewash the Russian Connection by trying to limit and redact Sally Yates testimony before Congress.
quote:
As acting attorney general, Yates played a key part in the investigation surrounding Michael T. Flynn, a Trump campaign aide who became national security adviser before revelations that he had discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador to the United States in late December led to his ouster.
Yates and another witness at the planned hearing, former CIA director John Brennan, had made clear to government officials by Thursday that their testimony to the committee probably would contradict some statements that White House officials had made, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Ken Wainstein, a lawyer for Brennan, declined to comment.
On Friday, when Yates’s lawyer sent a letter to the White House indicating that she still wanted to testify, the hearing was canceled.
source
I wonder if il Donald has ever heard "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

  
14174dm
Member (Idle past 1109 days)
Posts: 161
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


(2)
Message 664 of 4573 (803286)
03-28-2017 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 653 by marc9000
03-27-2017 7:59 PM


Re: Reality
Rrhain: It's a bit like the way both McCain and Trump claimed that they had these wonderful plans that would solve our problems...but no, they aren't going to tell us what they are now. You'll have to wait until they get elected.
Um...if it is such a wonderful plan, spit it out! Of course, it turns out that it was all just hype, but that's the Republicans for you.
Why should they make anything public before they have to? It only would give the Democrats more time and ability to block it.
Are you kidding?
The whole point of a campaign is to inform the VOTERS what you plan to do if you are elected. If Trump and the Republicans had been HONEST and admitted that they had NO IDEA of what they were going to do, they would not have been elected. They WASTED seven years when they could have developed a complete plan with full agreement of the party. They should have shown up on the first day of Congress and voted on the bill they had written over the last seven years.
I think the reason they never did was, first, they are too centered on sound bite electioneering to accomplish anything and, second, it is unlikely that they would be able to come up with a bill that would satisfy everyone. They merely did the bare minimum to get campaign money.
God help us with their plans for tax reform (deficit explosion) and the military budget (billions to the military contractors).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by marc9000, posted 03-27-2017 7:59 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 665 of 4573 (803294)
03-28-2017 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 653 by marc9000
03-27-2017 7:59 PM


Re: Reality
Why should they make anything public before they have to? It only would give the Democrats more time and ability to block it.
Stop trying to make ineptitude look like genius. There never was a plan. Everybody knows that now.
Do you have any interest whatsoever in telling the truth or are is defending the Republican party your only aim.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by marc9000, posted 03-27-2017 7:59 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 666 of 4573 (803296)
03-28-2017 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 658 by Percy
03-28-2017 7:37 AM


Re: Trump Approval Rating
I already understand everything you said. People who can't afford healthcare simply forgo healthcare as much as possible.
That's right. However the purpose of the penalty is to modify behavior. It is the case that you don't get anything for the penalty, but that is how penalties work. And of course the really poor folks were supposed to be covered by Medicaid expansion which was intended to be mandatory. Unfortunately, a full 1/3 of the states opted out of coverage for poor folks.
And again, there is no need to fix that before fixing the rest of the ACA. The penalty is not being enforced right now.
It's worth noting that Trump has occasionally advocated a single-payer system, but it's hard to know how serious he is
I think we know the answer to that. At this point, it is pretty obvious that any advocacy for single payer by Trump is an insignificantly low priority because he did not ask his party for any such thing.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 658 by Percy, posted 03-28-2017 7:37 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 667 by Percy, posted 03-29-2017 6:57 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 667 of 4573 (803344)
03-29-2017 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 666 by NoNukes
03-28-2017 3:25 PM


Re: Trump Approval Rating
NoNukes writes:
That's right. However the purpose of the penalty is to modify behavior. It is the case that you don't get anything for the penalty, but that is how penalties work. And of course the really poor folks were supposed to be covered by Medicaid expansion which was intended to be mandatory. Unfortunately, a full 1/3 of the states opted out of coverage for poor folks.
I understand all that, but to my mind there shouldn't be a penalty at all, because it's taking away money from the people who can least afford it.
And again, there is no need to fix that before fixing the rest of the ACA. The penalty is not being enforced right now.
But the penalty is one of the major reasons there was so much push-back from Republicans. They need to find another way.
I think we know the answer to that. At this point, it is pretty obvious that any advocacy for single payer by Trump is an insignificantly low priority because he did not ask his party for any such thing.
Agreed. After all the campaign talk about having a better system that would be cheaper, fairer and cover more people, he had nothing. He just straight out lied, and continues to lie. I don't understand how the Trump constituency can't see this.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 666 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2017 3:25 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 668 of 4573 (803358)
03-29-2017 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 549 by petrophysics1
03-04-2017 8:16 PM


Re: This is great.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by petrophysics1, posted 03-04-2017 8:16 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 669 of 4573 (803359)
03-29-2017 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 549 by petrophysics1
03-04-2017 8:16 PM


Re: This is great.
Trump is great he is doing everything he said he would.
"I said, 'Who makes the pipes for the pipeline?’ Well, sir, it comes from all over the world, isn’t that wonderful? I said, 'Nope, it comes from the United States or we’re not building one.’ American steel. If they want a pipeline in the United States, they’re going to use pipe that’s made in the United States, do we agree?" --- Donald J. Trump on the Keystone pipeline, speech to CPAC, Feb. 23, 2017.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by petrophysics1, posted 03-04-2017 8:16 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 670 of 4573 (803360)
03-29-2017 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 549 by petrophysics1
03-04-2017 8:16 PM


Re: This is great.
Trump is great he is doing everything he said he would.
"I won't settle because it's an easy case to win in court." --- Donald J. Trump on the lawsuit over his fraudulent "university", on the "Morning Joe" show, Mar. 3, 2016.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by petrophysics1, posted 03-04-2017 8:16 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 671 of 4573 (803423)
03-30-2017 10:36 AM


So the Trumps enemy list grows.
Trump says that the Democrats and Freedom Caucus should be fought.
The interesting thing is all of the members of the Freedom Caucus are Conservative Republicans.
How many more groups can he piss off this week?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 672 of 4573 (803473)
03-31-2017 2:26 AM


Flynn wants immunity
BBC has the story.
Sounds like there is truth to the idea that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.
Flynn is also quoted as saying:
"When you get given immunity that means you've probably committed a crime,"
with regard to Clinton aides. I doubt that he'd say that now.

Replies to this message:
 Message 673 by Pressie, posted 03-31-2017 6:17 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 674 by NoNukes, posted 03-31-2017 4:14 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 673 of 4573 (803475)
03-31-2017 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 672 by PaulK
03-31-2017 2:26 AM


Re: Flynn wants immunity
After all of this, it seems as if some members of the current Chinese Government do have a better grasp of reality than the current US President. The US is rapidly loosing it's dominance. Volunteerily. It's mind-boggling.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 672 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2017 2:26 AM PaulK has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 674 of 4573 (803506)
03-31-2017 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 672 by PaulK
03-31-2017 2:26 AM


Re: Flynn wants immunity
Sounds like there is truth to the idea that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.
Maybe. But Flynn's request has been refused.
http://www.nbcnews.com/...cts-immunity-michael-flynn-n741061
quote:
The Senate Intelligence Committee turned down the request by former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's lawyer for a grant of immunity in exchange for his testimony, two congressional sources told NBC News.
A senior congressional official with direct knowledge said Flynn's lawyer was told it was "wildly preliminary" and that immunity was "not on the table" at the moment. A second source said the committee communicated that it is "not receptive" to Flynn's request "at this time."
In my view, turning down Flynn's request is the right thing to do. Flynn is implicated, and if you accept his plea without knowing the facts, Flynn could just fall on his sword without implicating anyone else. Investigate some more, and then make a call on offering Flynn immunity once you've gotten some details.
Or at least get a proffer from Flynn regarding what he would say. Absent that, no immunity.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 672 by PaulK, posted 03-31-2017 2:26 AM PaulK has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 675 of 4573 (803509)
03-31-2017 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 662 by Rrhain
03-28-2017 8:54 AM


Re: Reality
marc9000 writes:
There's no grandstanding and showboating going on with Democrats today? As they celebrate their latest victory of prolonging the status quo?
That you think being happy that people are not going to die is "grandstanding and showboating" says a lot.
"Not going to die" ?? I assume this must be a reference to the continuation of Obamacare. The U.S. got along well enough before the passing of Obamacare, and it will when it's over. People "died" in the U.S. in 1817, in 1917, and they still do in 2017. Not only from old age, but from society coming up short on coming to their rescue when they can't provide their own medical care. They do in every country all over the world.
But Trump wasn't involved. They had seven years to come up with a plan and they scrapped it all to come up with yet another one and only gave themselves a couple months to do it? After all, Trump was saying all during the campaign that he had a "wonderful" plan. It was going to cover everyone.
Where was it?
He's only been in office 10 weeks. It's a recurring problem throughout this thread - Trump is getting put down for not fulfilling in 2 months every promise he made during his campaign. No president in the past has done any better.
And when it became clear that he didn't actually have a plan, why didn't Congress simply say, "No, this is complicated. It's going to take more time"? Of course, that leads to the question of "Seven years isn't enough time?" There was no guarantee that Trump was going to win. Surely they were working on a better way to provide actual health care to people no matter what, right? I mean, that is their job, isn't it? To write laws no matter who is in the White House? The Republicans may have this silly rule that no bill will come before the House unless a majority of Republicans support it, but the Democrats don't.
They don't?
quote:
[Former House Speaker]Pelosi called proposals to allow more offshore drilling a deceptive "decoy" rather than a solution and indicated she would bar a vote on any bill that included it. "I'm not giving the gavel away to a tactic that supports the oil (companies), big oil at the cost and the expense of the consumer," she said on ABC's This Week.
Pelosi firm: No vote on offshore drilling - ABC News
marc9000 writes:
They believe the government is capable of doing plenty of things right, those things are outlined in the constitution. Healthcare isn't in there.
Except it is. Let us not play dumb and pretend that the Constitution is a laundry list.
Enumerated powers is the actual term, one of us is playing dumb, and it's not me.
Hint: What do the words "general welfare" mean to you?
Since I have a middle school history education, they mean to me exactly what they meant to the most prominent of the U.S. founders. What do Federalist Papers 41 and 45 mean to you?
quote:
Madison, from Federalist 45; "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.
"Few and defined", I'm sure Rachel Maddow and Ed Shultz have instructed you to call enumerated powers a "laundry list", but that's only current liberal efforts to re-write history.
You could learn more about actual U.S. history concerning the general welfare clause here if you'd like to actually learn something.
Someone doesn't understand what the 10th Amendment means.
Yes it's very clear that you don't. Tell me, if the general welfare clause gives congress unlimited power in domestic issues (not "external objects", Madison's words), then what is the purpose of having the 10th amendment at all?
But, back to the point: You tax people to raise the money that you then spend on the services to be enjoyed by the people which is why they paid those taxes in the first place.
Are you about to say that you would rather spend $8000/year in "premiums" because to pay $4000 in "taxes" is anathema? In the end, is it really simply the word being used? You're going to pay for it no matter what. Do you really want to pay twice as much for worse outcomes simply because it isn't a "tax"?
Hmmm, $8000 versus $4000, so you believe the government is twice as efficient as free markets?
marc9000 writes:
are all for one reason, to increase the size and scope of government.
Incorrect:
To provide for the general welfare as mandated by the Constitution and demanded by the populace since it has become apparent that only the government can effectively manage the problem.
"Demanded by the populace" that currently has Republicans in control of the presidency, the house, the senate, and the majority of governorships?
marc9000 writes:
Can you describe any action the Democrats have attempted over the past....20 years that attempt anything that doesn't make the government bigger, first and foremost?
Yes.
Can you?
No, I can't. I can't think of a thing that today's Democrats do that doesn't directly or indirectly increase the size and scope of government. You say you can, but you didn't name any. Maybe in your next post?
If you can't, why not? Have you considered the possibility that you are parroting talking points you don't understand?
We DO have irony! Do Maddow and Schultz ever mention the Federalist papers to their audiences?
Hint: Don't you find it interesting that in all the 8 years of Obama, we had the longest sustained period of private sector job growth?
Yes it is interesting, how the private sector can grow IN SPITE OF every government effort to license, regulate, restrict and prohibit most everything it tries to do. But some of the "private sector job growth" you refer to is private companies that support government mandates, like private environmental companies as one example.
Actually, the voters have them in the majority. More people voted for Democrats, both for the presidency and for Congress, than for the Republicans. However, due to the Electoral College, the will of the people was thwarted with regard to the presidency and due to gerrymandering, the will of the people was thwarted with respect to Congress. And that goes for state legislatures, too.
So, of this Constitution that you embrace, the Electoral College is the ONE THING that you'd like to do away with. Anything else? The second amendment maybe? The fourth and fifth amendments if global warming is involved?
Oh...I see...they don't count. Trump got more votes if you don't count all the people who voted for Clinton because hey, those votes don't count.
According to U.S. foundings, some votes can mean less than others. Especially today, when so many Clinton voters just want free stuff, and so many voters from your state are ineligible-to-vote Mexicans, which your state allows to vote anyway.
Because it would be evil to withhold a solution to a problem that is causing people to die. If you see a problem and you know how to fix it, then "right now" is the time you have to tell us what it is.
That can lead to complications on both foreign and domestic issues. On foreign issues, it allows enemies who hate the U.S. to plan how to defeat that solution. In domestic ones, it allows Democrats who hate the U.S. to defeat that solution.
marc9000 writes:
It only would give the Democrats more time and ability to block it.
Why would they block it if it were a solution to the problem?
Because it would make them look bad politically. Democrats have demonstrated that it's their power first, and the good of the U.S. second. Their thirst for more and more refugees pouring into this country to vote for them is proof of it.
And thus, we're back to healthcare: Majorities in both the House and Senate and they still couldn't manage to get a bill passed.
This is what happens when you elect people who think government can't do anything: They'll fulfill their own prophecy.
It's only been 10 weeks for this president. Maybe a better bill, one that reduces government meddling in health care even better, will come along.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 662 by Rrhain, posted 03-28-2017 8:54 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 676 by Percy, posted 04-01-2017 7:17 AM marc9000 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024