• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Franken sworn in as Minnesota senator

new coup for you said:
So what you're saying is vast government programs are ok when you agree with them.
Click to expand...
Let me help you out, national defense is a constitutional right and responsibility of the federal government, it is not only allowed to the federal it is required of it. Welfare and other social programs are not rights of the federal government and are constitutionally prohibited under the ninth, and tenth amendments, that a rogue Supreme Court allowed the fed the original lattitude in sidestepping the constitution under FDR was bad enough, that many in this country took that ball and ran with it after is a damn shame.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Let me help you out, national defense is a constitutional right and responsibility of the federal government, it is not only allowed to the federal it is required of it. Welfare and other social programs are not rights of the federal government and are constitutionally prohibited under the ninth, and tenth amendments, that a rogue Supreme Court allowed the fed the original lattitude in sidestepping the constitution under FDR was bad enough, that many in this country took that ball and ran with it after is a damn shame.
Click to expand...

But we're not debating what's constitutional, we're debating whether or not we support big government.

The Constitution actually allows for a pretty powerful Federal government.

And this is avoiding the elephant in the room...all the Evangelical Christian endorsed invasive social programs that Republicans love so much.

Again, no big government...except for Jesus and bombs.
 
new coup for you said:
No, big government is the government spending huge amounts of money and mobilizing millions of citizens, which is EXACTLY what the military is. All the true libertarian Enlightenment liberals that wrote the constitution were terrified of the government having a standing army.

And the military industrial complex makes a mockery of any kind of market relationship between the government and arms builders.

You don't dislike big government, you just like buying bombs more then feeding people.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do like buying bombs more than feeding people. You know why? Bombs protect the taxpayers that bought them with their hard-earned money.

Feeding people? Feed yourself. Why would I place a higher value on buying someone else's food over funding the defense of our nation?
 
G.I. Joe said:
Yes, I do like buying bombs more than feeding people. You know why? Bombs protect the taxpayers that bought them with their hard-earned money.

Feeding people? Feed yourself. Why would I place a higher value on buying someone else's food over funding the defense of our nation?
Click to expand...

Well that's fabulous and I'm sure we could have a debate on that point, however, stop maintaining that you support small government
 
G.I. Joe said:
Why would I place a higher value on buying someone else's food over funding the defense of our nation?
Click to expand...

You can maintain a National Defense AND feed people. There is nothing in the consitution that says we have to maintain a National Defense Budget as high as it is now.

There isn't only an "OR" option there.
 
TheNextEra said:
You can maintain a National Defense AND feed people. There is nothing in the consitution that says we have to maintain a National Defense Budget as high as it is now.

There isn't only an "OR" option there.
Click to expand...

I don't think the US has legitimately used its military to defend the nation since WWII.
 
new coup for you said:
Well that's fabulous and I'm sure we could have a debate on that point, however, stop maintaining that you support small government
Click to expand...
Ok I thought I explained why a strong military didn't equate to a large government, but I'll try again.

If we eradicated every entitlement/welfare program, or any other program the government wasn't designed for, and put HALF of that money toward the military, we would have a much stronger national defense while maintaining a smaller government. Not to mention it would further exclude the government out of the lives' of the people, making it "smaller" in another sense.
 
G.I. Joe said:
Ok I thought I explained why a strong military didn't equate to a large government, but I'll try again.

If we eradicated every entitlement/welfare program, or any other program the government wasn't designed for, and put HALF of that money toward the military, we would have a much stronger national defense while maintaining a smaller government. Not to mention it would further exclude the government out of the lives' of the people, making it "smaller" in another sense.
Click to expand...

You didn't explain anything, you just said "no...it doesn't count...because I like it."

So if we stopped spending money on stuff you don't like, and spent more money on stuff you DO like, we'd have a smaller government.

Wait...

What if we stopped spending money on stuff YOU like and spent more money on stuff I like...holy crap, we'd have smaller government!
 
new coup for you said:
But we're not debating what's constitutional, we're debating whether or not we support big government.
Click to expand...
Then we are debating the same thing as an overreaching federal government is unconstitutional.

The Constitution actually allows for a pretty powerful Federal government.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Amendment nine states that all powers not granted to the federal government are held by the people, that breaks down to states and local governments, the tenth amendment prohibits government from exercising those powers not granted to it. The powers granted to the federal are of a very small scope, they have the power to raise taxes, print money, raise a defense, and regulate interstate commerce(not to be construed as products sold in two or more states, it applies to commerce arguments between the states such as unfair taxes, tariffs, etc.).

QUOTE]And this is avoiding the elephant in the room...all the Evangelical Christian endorsed invasive social programs that Republicans love so much.[/QUOTE] Who said Republicans like the Evangelicals, they get used by the GOP like the Democrats use other minorities such as blacks, gays, hippies, jews, hispanics, the poor, etc.

Again, no big government...except for Jesus and bombs.
Click to expand...
Bombs are part of acceptable big government as they are proper maintenance(i.e. "regulation") of the defense of nation, promotion of Jesus by the federal would not be an acceptable usage of big government, and this does NOT excuse Democrat abuses and overreach of federal authority on all fronts since the early 1900's and complete ignoring of constitutional limits by any means.
 
TheNextEra said:
You can maintain a National Defense AND feed people. There is nothing in the consitution that says we have to maintain a National Defense Budget as high as it is now.

There isn't only an "OR" option there.
Click to expand...
No, there isn't a defense spending minimum in the constitution, there you are correct, but there is a prohibition on social spending.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Then we are debating the same thing as an overreaching federal government is unconstitutional.

No, it doesn't. Amendment nine states that all powers not granted to the federal government are held by the people, that breaks down to states and local governments, the tenth amendment prohibits government from exercising those powers not granted to it. The powers granted to the federal are of a very small scope, they have the power to raise taxes, print money, raise a defense, and regulate interstate commerce(not to be construed as products sold in two or more states, it applies to commerce arguments between the states such as unfair taxes, tariffs, etc.).

And this is avoiding the elephant in the room...all the Evangelical Christian endorsed invasive social programs that Republicans love so much.
Click to expand...
Who said Republicans like the Evangelicals, they get used by the GOP like the Democrats use other minorities such as blacks, gays, hippies, jews, hispanics, the poor, etc...[/QUOTE]

You want to debate the Constitution, which would mean we could debate the Constitutionality of various programs, however, that's not what this debate is about. It's about how big you want the government to be. And the reality is, is whether or not the government spends 500 billion dollars on social welfare programs and employs 50,000 federal workers to carry them out, or whether i spends 500 billion dollars on defense programs and employs 50,000 soldiers it's still spending 500 billion dollars and employing 50,000 people.

The difference is that you prefer one instance over the other, not that they're genuinely different in terms of government size.
 
new coup for you said:
You didn't explain anything, you just said "no...it doesn't count...because I like it."

So if we stopped spending money on stuff you don't like, and spent more money on stuff you DO like, we'd have a smaller government.

Wait...

What if we stopped spending money on stuff YOU like and spent more money on stuff I like...holy crap, we'd have smaller government!
Click to expand...
Here is the problem we keep encountering. You believe that the size of government is equal to the amount spent on it. This isn't true. If you spend a billion dollars on the military, it does not grow the size of government in the way that spending a billion dollars on, say, welfare does.

The main reason is, I gauge the size of government on how much it is allowed to intrude into our lives. When the government is paying for someone's groceries, it gives them a certain amount of power over that person. Also, it is OUR money that is footing the bill. So basically people who are standing on their own two feet are being forced to pay for those that aren't, which means the government is intruding into OUR lives as well.

I think the anatomy of a person would be a good analogy (as flaky as that sounds). Think of it this way. You can have a guy who weighs 250lbs, but has 30% body fat. On the other hand, you can have another guy who weighs the exact same thing, but at only 8% body fat, the difference being the man whose weight is attributed to muscle, rather than useless, disgusting fat, is going to be much more efficient in achieving his tasks.
 
Last edited:
new coup for you said:
And this is avoiding the elephant in the room...all the Evangelical Christian endorsed invasive social programs that Republicans love so much.
Click to expand...

And, which programs are those, exactly?
 
G.I. Joe said:
Ok, Mr. Hall Monitor(Another name, OOPS!!!) Did you actually read the post I was responding to? It wasn't exactly respectful and didn't exactly maintain a high level of discourse. I didn't call him that merely because I hate liberals. I actually engage in fruitful debate with liberals all the time. If you'll actually pay attention, he was the one who started with the cursing. I merely returned the favor. I have a feeling that if the situation were turned around, and I were a liberal, that post would have never been reported. Whatever, though. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

When I see jallman call people names, I don't report him because I like him. ;)

Seriously, I saw you using derogatory names for liberals and then saw you call someone a dumbass. That is not appropriate. Several pages into this thread, I saw you writing much more thoughtfully, so I liked that. I can't take someone seriously when they call liberals nasty names. It's incredibly childish.

Lastly, as I am sure your momma told you, two wrongs don't make a right. I can't stand the excuse of, "He called me a name first." That's a bogus reason to follow suit.
 
new coup for you said:
You want to debate the Constitution, which would mean we could debate the Constitutionality of various programs, however, that's not what this debate is about. It's about how big you want the government to be. And the reality is, is whether or not the government spends 500 billion dollars on social welfare programs and employs 50,000 federal workers to carry them out, or whether i spends 500 billion dollars on defense programs and employs 50,000 soldiers it's still spending 500 billion dollars and employing 50,000 people.

The difference is that you prefer one instance over the other, not that they're genuinely different in terms of government size.
Click to expand...
I have bolded the crux of the argument, the difference isn't what I prefer, as I wish we did not have to spend any taxpayer money as a country, but that isn't the reality, the reality is that constitutional law mandates defense and prohibits social spending, it is in the constitution itself, the federalist papers, and the anti-federalist papers, as well as other writings of the founding fathers, they were explicitly clear that defense is a necessary evil and niche issues are best left to the states, going as far as to mandate those issues to the states and local.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I have bolded the crux of the argument, the difference isn't what I prefer, as I wish we did not have to spend any taxpayer money as a country, but that isn't the reality, the reality is that constitutional law mandates defense and prohibits social spending, it is in the constitution itself, the federalist papers, and the anti-federalist papers, as well as other writings of the founding fathers, they were explicitly clear that defense is a necessary evil and niche issues are best left to the states, going as far as to mandate those issues to the states and local.
Click to expand...

Again, that's a debate about constitutionality not about government size.

500 billion dollars is 500 billion dollars and 50,000 people is 50,000 people. It doesn't matter what it's spent on or what those people are doing.
 
Last edited:
G.I. Joe said:
Here is the problem we keep encountering. You believe that the size of government is equal to the amount spent on it. This isn't true. If you spend a billion dollars on the military, it does not grow the size of government in the way that spending a billion dollars on, say, welfare does.

The main reason is, I gauge the size of government on how much it is allowed to intrude into our lives. When the government is paying for someone's groceries, it gives them a certain amount of power over that person. Also, it is OUR money that is footing the bill. So basically people who are standing on their own two feet are being forced to pay for those that aren't, which means the government is intruding into OUR lives as well.

I think the anatomy of a person would be a good analogy (as flaky as that sounds). Think of it this way. You can have a guy who weighs 250lbs, but has 30% body fat. On the other hand, you can have another guy who weighs the exact same thing, but at only 8% body fat, the difference being the man whose weight is attributed to muscle, rather than useless, disgusting fat, is going to be much more efficient in achieving his tasks.
Click to expand...

Whereas as vast arms programs (requiring equally vast bureaucracies) giving the government the abillitlty to kill you doesn't invade your "personal sovereignty".

If you asked the anti-federalists whether they were more concerned about a standing army or welfare programs, I'm pretty sure they'd say a standing army.
 
new coup for you said:
Again, that's a debate about constitutionality not about government size.
Click to expand...
What I'm getting at is that they are intertwined, I may not be making a clear argument, but the idea of the constitution was specifically to limit the size of government, as a small government is relatively powerless against the states, but strong enough to defend the union against outside forces, however a large, powerfull government can enact it's will whenever the mood strikes, especially with a unified tri-lateral power structure of single-party majority in the legislative, executive, and judicial, we have been at 3:3 and 2:3 for over two decades now and are seeing the rapid expansion of federal power because of this.
My point overall is that big government leads less rights, and the constitution was set up to prevent the government from getting to......well......where it is at currently.
 
new coup for you said:
Abstinence only education, forcing states to accept a federal drinking age, sexual morality law.
Click to expand...

The drinking age is a Right wing deal? That passed back in the days of the 50 year Dem Congress.

The other two aren't really invasive. Is this all you have? None of them are really, "social programs".

How 'bout gun control? Now, there's an invasive social program. That one belongs to the Libbos.
 
LaMidRighter said:
What I'm getting at is that they are intertwined, I may not be making a clear argument, but the idea of the constitution was specifically to limit the size of government, as a small government is relatively powerless against the states, but strong enough to defend the union against outside forces, however a large, powerfull government can enact it's will whenever the mood strikes, especially with a unified tri-lateral power structure of single-party majority in the legislative, executive, and judicial, we have been at 3:3 and 2:3 for over two decades now and are seeing the rapid expansion of federal power because of this.
My point overall is that big government leads less rights, and the constitution was set up to prevent the government from getting to......well......where it is at currently.
Click to expand...

You're still trying to make a discussion about pure organizational size about ideology.

I understand that you think that the millitary is more legitimate, however the reality is that it easily creates just as much bureaucracy and government spending as social programs.
 
apdst said:
The drinking age is a Right wing deal? That passed back in the days of the 50 year Dem Congress.

The other two aren't really invasive. Is this all you have? None of them are really, "social programs".

How 'bout gun control? Now, there's an invasive social program. That one belongs to the Libbos.
Click to expand...

And the Democrats aren't campaigning on "small government" are they.

Federal drinking age was Ronald Reagans baby.

Pretty obvious infringement of states rights.
 
new coup for you said:
You're still trying to make a discussion about pure organizational size about ideology.
Click to expand...
I'm being ideologically neutral in this case, the constitution states explicitly what the government has a right to do, if we limit things to this scope and only this scope for the sake of social versus military then we can easily see that it isn't an argument about opinion, but stated law and the legitimate scope of government spending.

I understand that you think that the millitary is more legitimate, however the reality is that it easily creates just as much bureaucracy and government spending as social programs.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that military spending is immune to waste and bureaucracy as that would be an indefensible position, anywhere there is government these days there is waste, fraud, and theft, it would be illogical to deny that, where we are at is that legitimacy is not my opinion, it's what is stated, this is fact.

U.S. CONSTITUTION
Click to expand...
 
new coup for you said:
And the Democrats aren't campaigning on "small government" are they.

Federal drinking age was Ronald Reagans baby.

Pretty obvious infringement of states rights.
Click to expand...

I don't agreee with the Minimum Drinking Age Act, that was written by a Democrat, but I have to ask: Is this all you have in the category of, "invasive social programs"?

Do you really want to do a comparison between Dems and Reps on invasive social programs?
 
apdst said:
I don't agreee with the Minimum Drinking Age Act, that was written by a Democrat, but I have to ask: Is this all you have in the category of, "invasive social programs"?

Do you really want to do a comparison between Dems and Reps on invasive social programs?
Click to expand...

Democrats don't run on the ticket of "small government" so the criticism isn't applicable. Kind of like how it's not hypocritical for Democrats to get caught in sex scandals because they don't run on "family values".

The Reality is that not a single Republican president since WWII has ever reduced the size of government.

Eisenhower created the single greatest public works project in history (the creation of the highways) and wantonly expanded the President's ability to make war.

Nixon instituted price and wage controls and created the War on Drugs.

Reagan brought Christian morality into government and furthered the War on Drugs while ramping up spending.

Both Bushs conducted war on semi-constitutional basis and exploded spending.

The Republicans have always been just as much about spending and government programs as the Democrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom