View Poll Results: How do You rate George W. Bush's Presidency?

Voters
110. You may not vote on this poll
  • He's The Best President We've Ever Had

    5 4.55%
  • He Was One Of The Best

    7 6.36%
  • He Was Pretty Good

    8 7.27%
  • He's Alright

    9 8.18%
  • He Was Kind Of Bad

    14 12.73%
  • He Was One Of The Worst

    51 46.36%
  • He Was The Worst

    16 14.55%
Page 27 of 39 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 384

Thread: Bush's Presidency

  1. #261
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Bush's Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Everything in the budget contributes to the defecit.
    Only if the deficit is larger than the amount of money spent on the unconstitutional and hence illegal items.

    If a home has $1000 income and the family spends $995 dollars on rent, energy, food and water, transportation, and clothing, and $605 on entertainment, it cannot be reasonably said that the home is too expensive for the family. No, the family is wasting money on non-essentials, and it's the non-essentials that have to be cut.

    Quote Originally Posted by quatrotritikali View Post
    Just because there are unconstitutional programs that doesn't mean that the president has a blank check to allow to cut taxes as much as he wants and not care about the defecit.
    Why doesn't it?

    Since it's unconstitutional to spend money on certain programs, it's also unconstitutional to collect taxes to have the money to spend on those programs.


    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
    As we all know, Article 1, Section 8 lists what the US Congress is to do to serve the "general welfare". Section 8 also only grants the Congress the authority to tax to pay for those actions allowed under it.

    Therefore taxing to pay for things not allowed is not allowed, and hence unconstitutional.

    Read your constitution someday.
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 06-23-09 at 12:18 PM.

  2. #262
    Walk with me in hell.
    stekim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    09-21-10 @ 10:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,106

    Re: Bush's Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Since it's unconstitutional to spend money on certain programs, it's also unconstitutional to collect taxes to have the money to spend on those programs.
    Flawed argument. Because it IS Constitutional for them to spend money where they do. I'm not saying it's smart or needed, but it's clearly not illegal. If it was actually unconstitutional they couldn't do it. Your ignorance of Constutional law is leading you to invalid arguments. You are stating something as a fact when the exact is opposite is clearly true.
    Wow. Am I awesome or what?

  3. #263
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Bush's Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by stekim View Post
    Flawed argument. Because it IS Constitutional for them to spend money where they do. I'm not saying it's smart or needed, but it's clearly not illegal. If it was actually unconstitutional they couldn't do it. Your ignorance of Constutional law is leading you to invalid arguments. You are stating something as a fact when the exact is opposite is clearly true.
    I dont recall seeing the words "education", "health care" or "retirement" in the Constitution. As an expert on Constitutional law, maybe you can point them out...?

  4. #264
    Walk with me in hell.
    stekim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    09-21-10 @ 10:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,106

    Re: Bush's Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    I dont recall seeing the words "education", "health care" or "retirement" in the Constitution. As an expert on Constitutional law, maybe you can point them out...?
    They don't need to be listed. But don't take my word for it.

    Spending Power - Further Readings

    The power of the U.S. Congress to tax and spend for the GENERAL WELFARE is granted under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution: "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." This clause is known as the Spending Power Clause or the General Welfare Clause. The Spending Power Clause does not grant to Congress the power to pass all laws for the general welfare; that is a power reserved to the states under the TENTH AMENDMENT. Rather, it gives Congress the power to control federal taxation and spending.
    But there must be some case law where the Supreme Court made that ruling, right? Why, yes, there is!

    Federal spending increased dramatically in the 1930s. Congress created new federal agencies and spending programs to manage the economic effects of the Great Depression, and the U.S. Supreme Court was forced to decide a spate of challenges to federal spending programs.
    So what happened? It's pins and needles time, my ill informed friends.

    In 1936, the Court construed the Spending Power Clause as giving Congress broad power to spend for the general welfare (United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 56 S. Ct. 312, 80 L. Ed. 477). According to the Butler decision, under the Spending Power Clause Congress was not limited to spending money to carry out the direct grants of legislative power found elsewhere in the Constitution; rather, it could tax and spend for what it determined to be the general welfare of the country. Because Congress has discretion to determine what is the general welfare, no court since Butler has ever invalidated a federal spending program on the ground that the general welfare of the country was not being promoted.
    So, yes, in fact, it is Constitutional. Because that's what the Supreme Court said. And according to the Constitution, it is them, not you or the good Reverand, that determine whether something is Constitutional. So now you can put the tired and very wrong arguments to bed. You are simply wrong. Feel free to criticize the spending. Lord knows I do. But we can stop with unconstitutional clap trap now.
    Last edited by stekim; 06-23-09 at 03:21 PM.
    Wow. Am I awesome or what?

  5. #265
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Bush's Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by stekim View Post
    They don't need to be listed.
    If what the Government can do is not limited by what the Constitution specifically says it can do, then there's no reason to have a Consitution at all.

    So, yes, in fact, it is Constitutional. Because that's what the Supreme Court said.
    Ah yes - the "because the court said so, regardless of what the Constitution actually says" argument.
    What the term for that? Oh yes -- an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy in that it assumes that said authority is infallible.

    To that end, here's a question for you:
    If the term "general welfare" and, under the same argument, the term "common defense" are, whatever Congress decides they are, rather than what the Constitution says they are, why bother including the Article I Section 8 clauses found between the first and the last?

    As I said -- the terms "health care" "education" and "retirement" are not found in the Constitution. Nothing you can do or say will change that fact.

    I really LOVE people who stumble upon these court cases and think they have something.

  6. #266
    Walk with me in hell.
    stekim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    09-21-10 @ 10:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,106

    Re: Bush's Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Since WWII has anybody tried to invade Russia, the USA, France or China? Nope, then it is a hypothetical. Sorry, it simply is so...
    Well yes. But do you think China could defend itself? Of course they can. And you know it. Russia clearly can, too. While hypothetical, it's also not much is dispute to anyone who thinks about it for 10 seconds. And they defend themsevles for far less than $266 billion.
    Wow. Am I awesome or what?

  7. #267
    Walk with me in hell.
    stekim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    09-21-10 @ 10:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,106

    Re: Bush's Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If what the Government can do is not limited by what the Constitution specifically says it can do, then there's no reason to have a Consitution at all.
    What it says they can do is interpreted BY LAW by the Supreme Court. They ruled on the spending. They said it's OK. By law that makes it Constitutional. Which, of course, is why they still do it and no one (including you) has bothered to sue them. It's already been done. It's over. You lost. Move on.

    Ah yes - the "because the court said so, regardless of what the Constitution actually says" argument.
    What the term for that? Oh yes -- an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy in that it assumes that said authority is infallible.
    The fallacy assumes that, yes. But I didn't! Not even close. I didn't say or imply they were infallible. But from a strictly LEGAL standpoint they are treated that way by the Constitution. The law says the Supreme Court gets final say on whether something is Constitutional. If they say it is, then legally it is. You are not mentioned in the Constitution as getting a say. So the argument over Constitutionality ends at the Supreme Court (unless they decide to overturn themselves, which is very rare).

    If the term "general welfare" and, under the same argument, the term "common defense" are, whatever Congress decides they are, rather than what the Constitution says they are, why bother including the Article I Section 8 clauses found between the first and the last?
    The Constitution does not define "general welfare". So that leaves it up to someone else to decide.

    As I said -- the terms "health care" "education" and "retirement" are not found in the Constitution. Nothing you can do or say will change that fact.
    I never said they were listed. Nor do I seek to change that. I merely pointed out that the Court ruled they don't need to be listed. Your issue isn't with me. Despite your comments to the contrary, spending on such things is quite legal and is 100% Constitutional. That is a fact, so I'm not sure what there is to argue about here. People like you sued in 1936. You lost. Spending on health care is legal. It may not be right, it may not help, it may be a waste, etc. But illegal it is not.
    Wow. Am I awesome or what?

  8. #268
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Bush's Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by stekim View Post
    Flawed argument. Because it IS Constitutional for them to spend money where they do. I'm not saying it's smart or needed, but it's clearly not illegal. If it was actually unconstitutional they couldn't do it.
    yeah.

    sure.

    right.

    whatever.

    okay.

    nope, there's no examples in history of the government passing unconstitutional law and the courts going along.

    nope.

    nary a one.

    you must be right because your avatar is smiling.

    Oh. BTW. You're arguing that the spending must be constitutional because the money is being spent. Since Thomas Jefferson concluded that the federal government could not spend money on public education because the Constitution did not allow it, and requested the Congress to submit an amendment to the Constitution so that such funding would be allowed, and since the congress both refused the amendment and the funding, at what time in the history of the United States was the Amendment thereby authorizing federal funding of public education issued and ratified?

    Both the president and the Congress agreed that federal funding for education was unconstitutional, no amendment was passed, yet today the federal government violates the Constitution by spending money on public education.

    So much for your argument. You should grow up and learn something about the real world before posting childishly idealistic nonsense in attempted refutation of your elders and your betters.

    I would suggest, at a minimum, that you develop the basic skill to recognize when you're using circular arguments, since that's what you were attempting here.
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 06-23-09 at 04:15 PM.

  9. #269
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Bush's Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by stekim View Post
    What it says they can do is interpreted BY LAW by the Supreme Court. They ruled on the spending. They said it's OK. By law that makes it Constitutional. Which, of course, is why they still do it and no one (including you) has bothered to sue them. It's already been done. It's over. You lost. Move on.
    So, you're arguing from authority, that since "authority" ruled on what the document says, that must be true and you don't have to be bothered with reading it for yourself.

    You are aware that the same authority ruled that Separate But Equal was valid constitutional policy and that Seperate But Equal was not valid constitutional policy, aren't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by stekim View Post
    The fallacy assumes that, yes. But I didn't! Not even close. I didn't say or imply they were infallible. But from a strictly LEGAL standpoint they are treated that way by the Constitution. The law says the Supreme Court gets final say on whether something is Constitutional. If they say it is, then legally it is. You are not mentioned in the Constitution as getting a say. So the argument over Constitutionality ends at the Supreme Court (unless they decide to overturn themselves, which is very rare).
    You are aware that passive submission to errant authority isn't the foundation for this country, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by stekim View Post
    The Constitution does not define "general welfare". So that leaves it up to someone else to decide.
    Article 1, Section 8 defines what the Congress is allowed to do to promote the general welfare. Items no on the list, and hence not allowed are: Socialist Security, public education, public welfare, FHA, Corporation for Public Broadcast, National Endowments for the Arts, agricultural subsidies, price supports, price controls, purchases of car manufacturers, a whole alphabet soup of government patronage isn't allowed. The "general welfare" phrase is not a clause granting a blank check.

    Anyone that feels otherwise seriously needs to take the "libertarian" off their "leaning" and put in "socialist".

    Quote Originally Posted by stekim View Post
    I never said they were listed. Nor do I seek to change that. I merely pointed out that the Court ruled they don't need to be listed. Your issue isn't with me. Despite your comments to the contrary, spending on such things is quite legal and is 100% Constitutional. That is a fact, so I'm not sure what there is to argue about here. People like you sued in 1936. You lost. Spending on health care is legal. It may not be right, it may not help, it may be a waste, etc. But illegal it is not.
    You're arguing that unlisted items are valid, hence the contention is with you, unless you want to get Justice Brayer or Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg to join us.
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 06-23-09 at 04:34 PM.

  10. #270
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Bush's Presidency

    Quote Originally Posted by stekim View Post
    In 1936, the Court construed the Spending Power Clause as giving Congress broad power to spend for the general welfare (United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 56 S. Ct. 312, 80 L. Ed. 477). According to the Butler decision, under the Spending Power Clause Congress was not limited to spending money to carry out the direct grants of legislative power found elsewhere in the Constitution; rather, it could tax and spend for what it determined to be the general welfare of the country. Because Congress has discretion to determine what is the general welfare, no court since Butler has ever invalidated a federal spending program on the ground that the general welfare of the country was not being promoted.
    OH! You mean the courts ruled in favor of FDR's scams...after ruling against them....after FDR threatened to pack the court with enough socialist votes to get his way, and this, in your mind, makes the decision uncoerced and justifiably valid.

    Can you explain why this magical unlimited blank check clause was found only a mere 149 years after the ratification of the Constitution? Why so soon? Why hasn't this magic been hidden even longer?
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 06-23-09 at 04:37 PM.

Page 27 of 39 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... 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
  •