• 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!

Current US Federal Budget Deficit

Conservative said:
As usual you left out a very important word in your statement, the word isn't provide for domestic welfare it is PROMOTE domestic Welfare
Click to expand...

Not in Article I it's not. Article I directs Congress to provide for the general welfare.
 
Greenbeard said:
Not in Article I it's not. Article I directs Congress to provide for the general welfare.
Click to expand...

And I was talking the Preamble!!! Goes to show that politicians understand how to keep power by spending money to buy votes
 
Conservative said:
As usual you left out a very important word in your statement, the word isn't provide for domestic welfare it is PROMOTE domestic Welfare

As for being born into wealth, tell that to Bill Gates and thousands of others who made it the old fashion way, working for it, developing some the people want, taking risk, paying state and local taxes, and being the last one paid. If you want to get ahead in this world stop whining about what someone else has, pays in taxes and work harder for it
Click to expand...

Incorrect... Constitution uses the word "provide" in Article I §8. It uses the word "promote" in the preamble, but as the Supreme Court ruled in Jacobsen v. Massachusetts, 197 US 11 (1905), "The United States does not derive any of its substantive powers from the Preamble of the Constitution. It cannot exert any power to secure the declared objects of the Constitution unless, apart from the Preamble, such power be found in, or can properly be implied from, some express delegation in the instrument."
 
Greenbeard said:
The powers and responsibilities of Congress reside in Article I.
Click to expand...

Yes and of course you have no problem spending IN THE NAME OF COMPASSION regardless of the power created for the bureaucrats spending the money. That never was the intent of our Founders who knew that power corrupts, created a part time legislature, and put most of the power at the state and local levels closest to the people.
 
Cordelier said:
Incorrect... Constitution uses the word "provide" in Article I §8. It uses the word "promote" in the preamble, but as the Supreme Court ruled in Jacobsen v. Massachusetts, 197 US 11 (1905), "The United States does not derive any of its substantive powers from the Preamble of the Constitution. It cannot exert any power to secure the declared objects of the Constitution unless, apart from the Preamble, such power be found in, or can properly be implied from, some express delegation in the instrument."
Click to expand...

Yes the power of Congress supported by people like you because in your world spending in the name of compassion matters more to you, makes you feel good regardless of the power generated for the bureaucrats. I founders knew that power corrupts and that is what you are supporting with the massive central gov't we have today. Our Founders created a part time legislature, put power at the state and local levels closest to the people and over time politicians have usurped that power and have grown our gov't so that now 70% of the budget is entitlement/mandatory spending.

Interesting how you seem to be a cafeteria liberal picking and choosing the parts of the Constitution that you support until there is another issue that you don't thus run to the judges for judicial activism
 
Conservative said:
What a waste of time you are, never did I say this was solely church responsibilities as those aren't the only charities in the state and local communities. Do you know how SS and Medicare are funded? Do you know what taxes you pay and their purpose. The answer is NO, you don't nor do most of the radicals in this forum.

Your post has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic and you refuse to acknowledge the line items in the budget and their funding mechanism. Not surprising as the unified budget is what radicals support where every dollar is the same. Learn the difference and stop letting the left make a fool out of you
Click to expand...

OK, in your know-it-all Conservative bull**** world, which of your all-benevolent charities will support the physically disabled, mentally disabled, and emotionally disabled. Salvation Army, Red Cross? Or maybe the NRA? C'mon hot shot - give me some names...
 
Media_Truth said:
OK, in your know-it-all Conservative bull**** world, which of your all-benevolent charities will support the physically disabled, mentally disabled, and emotionally disabled. Salvation Army, Red Cross? Or maybe the NRA? C'mon hot shot - give me some names...
Click to expand...

Typical liberal where spending in the name of compassion not results matter more to you as you have no problem with a 4.4 trillion dollar budget of which 3 trillion is social/entitlement spending. In your world we need that 4.4 trillion dollar budget to take care of issues that are really state and local responsibilities not a federal bureaucrats. Now stick to the thread topic and tell us all why this is a federal and not a state responsibility? Where do these people live? Who pays the price of the problems created because of people like this? Always delegating to someone else, aren't you?
 
Conservative said:
Yes the power of Congress supported by people like you because in your world spending in the name of compassion matters more to you, makes you feel good regardless of the power generated for the bureaucrats. I founders knew that power corrupts and that is what you are supporting with the massive central gov't we have today. Our Founders created a part time legislature, put power at the state and local levels closest to the people and over time politicians have usurped that power and have grown our gov't so that now 70% of the budget is entitlement/mandatory spending.

Interesting how you seem to be a cafeteria liberal picking and choosing the parts of the Constitution that you support until there is another issue that you don't thus run to the judges for judicial activism
Click to expand...

Oh give me a freaking break... conservative judges can be just as activist as liberal judges - you only have to look at Bush v. Gore to see an example of that. I gave you my reasoning for why we need to take a proactive approach to domestic spending... accept it or not, that's up to you - but if we as a country keep sticking to your "I got mine... screw the rest of you" philosophy then the end of that road is us becoming some like Central American banana republic.... a few rich people at the top with all the wealth and everyone else as poor as dirt. There's no economic policy more aptly named than Trickle-down economics.... because that's pretty much what it is when it reaches the bottom - a trickle.
 
Conservative said:
Typical liberal where spending in the name of compassion not results matter more to you as you have no problem with a 4.4 trillion dollar budget of which 3 trillion is social/entitlement spending. In your world we need that 4.4 trillion dollar budget to take care of issues that are really state and local responsibilities not a federal bureaucrats. Now stick to the thread topic and tell us all why this is a federal and not a state responsibility? Where do these people live? Who pays the price of the problems created because of people like this? Always delegating to someone else, aren't you?
Click to expand...

DODGE - DODGE - DODGE... Come again - which one of your charities is going to take care of the physically disabled, mentally disabled, and emotionally disabled? I showed that the State is already involved, with the current system. You're the one that said charities will take care of them. Stop your dodging. PATHETIC!!!!!!
 
Media_Truth said:
DODGE - DODGE - DODGE... Come again - which one of your charities is going to take care of the physically disabled, mentally disabled, and emotionally disabled? I showed that the State is already involved, with the current system. You're the one that said charities will take care of them. Stop your dodging. PATHETIC!!!!!!
Click to expand...

The state and local governments have that responsibility. You wait for a federal bureaucrat to do it, you are going to be disappointed. Keep believing what you want while ignoring reality. This thread isn't about that issue which obviously is important to you but you haven't answered the question, why do we need a 4.7 trillion dollar budget for that issue?
 
Conservative said:
The state and local governments have that responsibility. You wait for a federal bureaucrat to do it, you are going to be disappointed. Keep believing what you want while ignoring reality. This thread isn't about that issue which obviously is important to you but you haven't answered the question, why do we need a 4.7 trillion dollar budget for that issue?
Click to expand...

To provide for the general welfare
 
Conservative said:
The state and local governments have that responsibility. You wait for a federal bureaucrat to do it, you are going to be disappointed. Keep believing what you want while ignoring reality. This thread isn't about that issue which obviously is important to you but you haven't answered the question, why do we need a 4.7 trillion dollar budget for that issue?
Click to expand...

You're the one that brought up spending on "this issue" and others like it. So you've given up on the idea of churches and charities taking care of the needy? Now you want state and local governments to take care of the needs. Is it OK if some states do nothing, while other states do more? The states that do NOTHING can tell the needy to go to the other states. How's that sound Mr-Man-with-the-Answers?
 
Media_Truth said:
You're the one that brought up spending on "this issue" and others like it. So you've given up on the idea of churches and charities taking care of the needy? Now you want state and local governments to take care of the needs. Is it OK if some states do nothing, while other states do more? The states that do NOTHING can tell the needy to go to the other states. How's that sound Mr-Man-with-the-Answers?
Click to expand...

You have a very poor memory and posting history. No , I never raised this issue as it has nothing to do with the thread topic. this one is all yours and I know I can never expect to get an answer to any question regarding the thread topic. Absolutely stunning how easily it is to indoctrinate people into the false ideology of liberalism and total lack of understanding of civics, history, and economics. Please learn the role of the federal, state, and local governments and stop delegating responsibility to someone else.
 
Conservative said:
You have a very poor memory and posting history. No , I never raised this issue as it has nothing to do with the thread topic. this one is all yours and I know I can never expect to get an answer to any question regarding the thread topic. Absolutely stunning how easily it is to indoctrinate people into the false ideology of liberalism and total lack of understanding of civics, history, and economics. Please learn the role of the federal, state, and local governments and stop delegating responsibility to someone else.
Click to expand...

Dodge Ball!!! You started this topic with this statement --->

"returning all social programs excluding SS and Medicare to the states and local communities and stop the federal social engineering which isn't going to happen as bureaucrats buy votes with all that spending"...

So there's your turn-it-over-to-the-States (before that you said the church would take care of the needy). Now maybe you can answer the question ---> I'll repeat it, because you may be memory-challenged.

So you've given up on the idea of churches and charities taking care of the needy? Now you want state and local governments to take care of the needs. Is it OK if some states do nothing, while other states do more? The states that do NOTHING can tell the needy to go to the other states. How's that sound Mr-Man-with-the-Answers?
 
Media_Truth said:
Dodge Ball!!! You started this topic with this statement --->

"returning all social programs excluding SS and Medicare to the states and local communities and stop the federal social engineering which isn't going to happen as bureaucrats buy votes with all that spending"...

So there's your turn-it-over-to-the-States (before that you said the church would take care of the needy). Now maybe you can answer the question ---> I'll repeat it, because you may be memory-challenged.

So you've given up on the idea of churches and charities taking care of the needy? Now you want state and local governments to take care of the needs. Is it OK if some states do nothing, while other states do more? The states that do NOTHING can tell the needy to go to the other states. How's that sound Mr-Man-with-the-Answers?
Click to expand...

Do you know what the word excluding means? You don't like what your state is doing work to change leadership as states have term limits or MOVE! California would more to your liking
 
Conservative said:
Do you know what the word excluding means? You don't like what your state is doing work to change leadership as states have term limits or MOVE! California would more to your liking
Click to expand...

I should expect you to NOT backup any of your ridiculous assertions. Your Libertarian hogwash belongs nowhere except the circular bin.
 
Media_Truth said:
I should expect you to NOT backup any of your ridiculous assertions. Your Libertarian hogwash belongs nowhere except the circular bin.
Click to expand...

Keep dodging the questions as i don't see an answer, do you know what EXCLUDING means? Want me to post the definition? My ridiculous assertions?? What is ridiculous about EXCLUDING Medicare and SS from returning all social programs to the states since both have revenue sources from PAYROLL TAXES
 
Media_Truth said:
I should expect you to NOT backup any of your ridiculous assertions. Your Libertarian hogwash belongs nowhere except the circular bin.
Click to expand...

Trump Budget for 2020 is 4.7 trillion dollars of which 3.3 trillion dollars is entitlement and debt service spending neither of which are Presidential control but that reality escapes you as you prefer to place blame rather than propose solutions.

Please explain why 44% of income earning Americans pay zero in FIT and the top 1% pays 40% of FIT? Explain why you would support raising taxes on the rich to pay for the 1.47 trillion dollar discretionary spending categories and continue to support the unified budget created by LBJ?

US Federal Budget Breakdown
 
Conservative said:
Trump Budget for 2020 is 4.7 trillion dollars of which 3.3 trillion dollars is entitlement and debt service spending neither of which are Presidential control but that reality escapes you as you prefer to place blame rather than propose solutions.

Please explain why 44% of income earning Americans pay zero in FIT and the top 1% pays 40% of FIT? Explain why you would support raising taxes on the rich to pay for the 1.47 trillion dollar discretionary spending categories and continue to support the unified budget created by LBJ?

US Federal Budget Breakdown
Click to expand...

Trump's a very poor businessman, as has been shown throughout his career. He shouldn't be spending more than he takes in. I can't help it if he cut taxes for Billionaires, when he should have raised the top tier. But you love billionaires, and you love to see them rape America.
 
Conservative said:
Keep dodging the questions as i don't see an answer, do you know what EXCLUDING means? Want me to post the definition? My ridiculous assertions?? What is ridiculous about EXCLUDING Medicare and SS from returning all social programs to the states since both have revenue sources from PAYROLL TAXES
Click to expand...

Yeah right - what is it today. Are the churches going to take care of the handicapped? Or maybe you would prefer that the homeless take care of them.
 
Media_Truth said:
Trump's a very poor businessman, as has been shown throughout his career. He shouldn't be spending more than he takes in. I can't help it if he cut taxes for Billionaires, when he should have raised the top tier. But you love billionaires, and you love to see them rape America.
Click to expand...

The economic results generated tell a different story, results that you refuse to acknowledge but results that 56% of the American people support according to CNN
 
Media_Truth said:
Yeah right - what is it today. Are the churches going to take care of the handicapped? Or maybe you would prefer that the homeless take care of them.
Click to expand...

What is what today, the taxes you pay or their purpose? SS and Medicare are funded by payroll taxes, there would be more than enough money to fund programs you want within those programs had the gov't not borrowed trillions and now has to repay it by raising taxes to cover their abuse
 
Conservative said:
What is what today, the taxes you pay or their purpose? SS and Medicare are funded by payroll taxes, there would be more than enough money to fund programs you want within those programs had the gov't not borrowed trillions and now has to repay it by raising taxes to cover their abuse
Click to expand...

And... back to your fantasy world on how things should be even though we've had a unified budget for decades.
 
OrphanSlug said:
And... back to your fantasy world on how things should be even though we've had a unified budget for decades.
Click to expand...

Got it, you have no problem with your payroll taxes that fund your retirement supplement being put into the general fund and used by the bureaucrats on items other than your retirement supplement so that when your retirement comes up those bureaucrats can raise taxes, print or borrow more money to fund that retirement supplement? Perfect example of liberal logic and nothing independent about you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom