View Poll Results: Government can't create jobs

Voters
204. You may not vote on this poll
  • Don't Know

    2 0.98%
  • Agree, it cannot

    116 56.86%
  • Disagree, it can

    86 42.16%
Page 19 of 32 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 311

Thread: Government can't create jobs

  1. #181
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Government can't create jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Smartest thing you've heard?

    Dumbest thing you've heard?

    Vote Maggots.
    Lack of context makes this poll worthless.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #182
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Government can't create jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    you have advocated slashing the DOD budget by 2/3rds, yes?

    last year, we paid out $257 Billion in retirees pension and health benefits.

    IOW, it is virtually impossible to cut DOD spending by 2/3rds without deeply cutting pay, pension, healthcare, etc. to our active duty and retirees.
    Your figure does not relate to just military spending, according to your link. Your point is not proven by this unrelated figure.
    Last edited by Catawba; 10-01-11 at 02:25 AM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #183
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Government can't create jobs

    [QUOTE=cpwill;1059837080]
    it wasn't me - it was James Madison. the father of the Constitution? the guy who wrote the passage in question?
    The rule of law is that the Supreme Court interprets what is constituional. No where does it say that your interpretation of James Madison supercedes the SC's decisions.


    really? fascinating - where did it specify that?
    Article 3 of the Constitution.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #184
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Government can't create jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba
    The rule of law is that the Supreme Court interprets what is constituional. No where does it say that your interpretation of James Madison supercedes the SC's decisions.
    1. it's not my interpretation. Madison was pretty clear on the matter. Even Alexander Hamilton (the most expansionist of that generation) argued that the Federal Government was held to its' enumerated powers.

    2. no where does the Constitution say that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional. if I may cite another American president on the matter:
    We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution... I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit; as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

    - Abraham Lincoln
    3. it should be noted that there was an individual who argued in favor of your interpretation of the General Welfare clause. That was the anti-Federalist, Brutus, who argued that with a provision so potentially open to abuse, the Federal government might one day expand to the point where it interfered in the relationship between employer and employee, interfered with our vehicles, and even interfer with our toilets. He, of course, unanimously derided and decried as an insane conspiracy theorist by the Constitutions' authors, who held his argument up in public as an example of our nutter the anti-federalists were.

    Article 3 of the Constitution.
    Article 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America

    Section 1 - Judicial powers

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

    (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

    Section 3 - Treason Note

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
    huh. that's odd. they appear to have forgotten to put the bit about Judicial Supremacy in there?
    Last edited by cpwill; 10-01-11 at 08:32 AM.

  5. #185
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Government can't create jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Since your police force didnt turn a profit you werent generating revenues. The citizens that worked private sector jobs were taxed for appropriate services. Without the private sector jobs, there would not have been enough money to pay for the local gov salaries.
    Your right...I never said that I wasnt paid via taxs...but it doesnt matter how your paid...the question was does govt create jobs..and they answer is obviously yes.

  6. #186
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Government can't create jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    Your right...I never said that I wasnt paid via taxs...but it doesnt matter how your paid...the question was does govt create jobs..and they answer is obviously yes.
    again, if you destroy three bridges, and use the materials to build two bridges, i'm not certain you can be said to have "created bridges"

  7. #187
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:06 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,206

    Re: Government can't create jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    The rule of law is that the Supreme Court interprets what is constituional. No where does it say that your interpretation of James Madison supercedes the SC's decisions.
    As cpwill said, it was not he who provided the interpretation, but the person who helped write it and who provided the ratifiers of Virginia with his observations of the document. There is much more evidence to back up what cpwill has said. And, a Chief Justice also had something to say about interpretation. This Chief Justice, John Marshall, said this in Marbury v. Madison:

    Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

    If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

    It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

    If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

    Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

    This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.


    cpwill provided you with the excellent example of Brutus and his wrong-headed view of the Constitution. Another one would be Patrick Henry during the debates at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. He too argued that certain clauses meant something different from what the authors and others argued. Patrick Henry lost the argument, as he was against ratifying the Constitution, but it was ratified over his objections and it was ratified because the supporters of the Constitution said exactly the opposite of Henry and what you are arguing. The Supreme Court is to decide per this decision, but it is to decide using the Constitution and its meaning and are not make things up.

  8. #188
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Government can't create jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    As cpwill said, it was not he who provided the interpretation, but the person who helped write it and who provided the ratifiers of Virginia with his observations of the document. There is much more evidence to back up what cpwill has said. And, a Chief Justice also had something to say about interpretation. This Chief Justice, John Marshall, said this in Marbury v. Madison:

    Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

    If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

    It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

    If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

    Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

    This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.


    cpwill provided you with the excellent example of Brutus and his wrong-headed view of the Constitution. Another one would be Patrick Henry during the debates at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. He too argued that certain clauses meant something different from what the authors and others argued. Patrick Henry lost the argument, as he was against ratifying the Constitution, but it was ratified over his objections and it was ratified because the supporters of the Constitution said exactly the opposite of Henry and what you are arguing. The Supreme Court is to decide per this decision, but it is to decide using the Constitution and its meaning and are not make things up.
    on the upside, if the constitution is a living document, that means we can declare torturing al-qaeda members to be "within the new understanding" of the Constitution

  9. #189
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Government can't create jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Since your police force didnt turn a profit you werent generating revenues.
    Let's do some math.

    Firm A generates $200 in sale revenue
    Firm A incurs $500 in costs.
    Firm A loses $300.

    By your argument, firm A has no revenue. Profit =/= Revenue.

    [quote]The citizens that worked private sector jobs were taxed for appropriate services.[/quote

    Last I checked, public workers were subject to the same taxes. Where do you live?

    Without the private sector jobs, there would not have been enough money to pay for the local gov salaries.
    To a degree yes, but you seem to be laboring under the notion that public workers pay no taxes.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #190
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Government can't create jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Lack of context makes this poll worthless.
    Lack on awareness of what people post makes your post worthless.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 19 of 32 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •