- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 17,343
- Reaction score
- 2,876
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
And so, I asked:Spending is not a measure of the ability of a military.
Based on what?
And so, I asked:Spending is not a measure of the ability of a military.
Then we get into a hyper-partisan argument with namecalling. Scarecrow will be along before long to prove my point on that.
How is this relevant?Sure. Let's start with a simple question. When was the last time Russia or China were attacked by another country?
No, you haven't, as your 'proof' assumes that:I'll wait here for the answer. If it's C (and it is, no need to look it up) I have just demonstrated that you can effectively defend your country from attack for less than $266 billion.
30 % budget cut is one thing, but did the base closures actually make the country less safe? Come to think of it, the military Bush had to use for his two wars, at least at first, was the legacy military from Clinton, and it proved to be very effective.
Hardly. Both can be brought to their knees by destroying their economies, which can be done w/o using a single boot on the ground (especially in China's case). You're arguing from a false premise.No it's not. You can either defend your country or you cannot.
And it's patently clear both countries can do that.
You've got to consider the opponent.
:2razz:
I can give Reagan alot of slack for that, but he still shouldn't have cut taxes so much because of the huge defecit.
It wasn't the tax cuts that caused the deficit.
It was the congress spending money on unconstitutional programs.
Everything in the budget contributes to the defecit. That includes both the tax cuts and the unconstitutional spending.
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.
That's exactly right. You can cut taxes to any amount you want -- nothing in that cut necessitates that there will be even $1 of deficits.Once more; deficits are caused by politicians spending MORE than they TAKE IN.
Everything in the budget contributes to the defecit.
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.
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
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.
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...?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...?
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.
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.
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.
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.They don't need to be listed.
Ah yes - the "because the court said so, regardless of what the Constitution actually says" argument.So, yes, in fact, it is Constitutional. Because that's what the Supreme Court said.
Since WWII has anybody tried to invade Russia, the USA, France or China? Nope, then it is a hypothetical. Sorry, it simply is so...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
The Constitution does not define "general welfare". So that leaves it up to someone else to decide.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
You didn't prove it at all... at best it is a hypothetical.
Originally Posted by stekim
No it's not. You can either defend your country or you cannot.
Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
it is a hypothetical. Sorry, it simply is so...
Originally Posted by stekim
Well yes. While hypothetical
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.
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.
But the family is still spending too much on rent when they should look for a cheaper place to live, simillar to how Reagan shouldn't have cut taxes as much.
this point has already been discussed and debated and your side lost.