• 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!

Bush's Presidency

How do You rate George W. Bush's Presidency?

  • He's The Best President We've Ever Had

    Votes: 3 3.7%
  • He Was One Of The Best

    Votes: 6 7.3%
  • He Was Pretty Good

    Votes: 8 9.8%
  • He's Alright

    Votes: 6 7.3%
  • He Was Kind Of Bad

    Votes: 13 15.9%
  • He Was One Of The Worst

    Votes: 35 42.7%
  • He Was The Worst

    Votes: 11 13.4%

  • Total voters
    82
Then we get into a hyper-partisan argument with namecalling. Scarecrow will be along before long to prove my point on that.

Well, I suspect that if the hyper-partisans all left the message boards it would no longer be much fun for non-hyper-partisans like you.

People complain about message board idiots all the time, yet keep coming back for more. Funny how that works.

:2wave:
 
Sure. Let's start with a simple question. When was the last time Russia or China were attacked by another country?
How is this relevant?

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.
No, you haven't, as your 'proof' assumes that:

- every dollar spent counters every other dollar spent
- spending figures directly represent military ability
- our only military/security issues concern Russia and China
- the world security situation is stagnant

Try again.
 
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.

You've got to consider the opponent.

:2razz:
 
No it's not. You can either defend your country or you cannot.
And it's patently clear both countries can do that.
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.
 
You've got to consider the opponent.

:2razz:

a million Iraqi's, armed with hundreds of thuosands of tanks, SCUD's, etc?

In a head on battle, we would have lost you know. Politically. People would say it wasn't worth it, with hundreds maybe thousands of casualties... Instead, we had a smart guy, who said, how about we say we come from their side, then rape 'em from behind? Our strategy is what won the Iraqi Invasion, politcally.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

It requires willful denial to believe that tax cuts lead to deficits. Even with tax cuts, revenue has always trended upward particularly in an expanding economy.

Once more; deficits are caused by politicians spending MORE than they TAKE IN. There's no magical economic formula for it. If you cut taxes, and the result is the economy grows, revenue will indeed go UP. If you bury citizens with TAXES, you will find revenue in decline as they will no longer produce or they will go elsewhere where tax policies are more favorable for business.

California is a microcosm for what is happening right now at the Federal level. Over the last five years revenues went UP by about 40% and STILL, we ended up in a $20 billion plus deficit. The politicians SPENT beyond the 40% increases and then some.

It's NOT about tax cuts; it is about politicians who spend beyond their means to pander for votes from ignorant masses who swallow the swill they dish out and believe that someone ELSE is going to pay for all the freebees. In the long run, the ignorant masses who swallowed the swill are the ones who pay for it with lost jobs, declining income and rampant inflation caused by the politicians who now have to PRINT and BORROW money to pay for their political pandering.
 
Once more; deficits are caused by politicians spending MORE than they TAKE IN.
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.
 
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.

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:
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.
 
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...?
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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?

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?

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".

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:
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:
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

If you would only not start out as such a hot-head... :lol:
 
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.

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.

You touch on a great point that the root cause of the debt under Reagan (or any president) inherently has always been from unconstitutional spending. I just think that one of the only things worse then useless spending is not financing it with anything.

Odviously, it would be prefferable for there to be cuts to ballance the budget, but Reagan still should have understood that he increased the debt to GDP level by way too much.
Unlike in your senario, the "essential" cost that you are associating with lower taxes does not exist, because taxes can always be increased.

Reagan had alot of things going against him, from a weaker military position and the democratic controlled congress, so he will continue to be praised by history despite his defecit.

But we still can't let him off the hook so easily, the national debt is too big a problem for that, we need to aknowedge that a ballanced budget should be one of the highest priorities, and allowing more debt is always a grace problem.
 
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.

Something being constitutional or not is separate from it being allowed. The government commonly violates the Constitution.

Just admit that those programs are unconstitutional, and support them anyway (like me). :p :p

The 10th amendment is pretty specific about how Congress can only carry out then enumerated powers. If you have any questions with that, I can try to explain them.
 
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.

Not relevant. They'd be able to afford the rent if they weren't wasting their money on non-essentials.

We wouldn't have a deficit if the government wasn't wasting our money on unconstitutional non-essentials.

this point has already been discussed and debated and your side lost.
 
this point has already been discussed and debated and your side lost.

Keep telling yourself that. I bet believing that helps you sleep better at night. It's not true, but go ahead and believe it anyway.
 
Back
Top Bottom