• 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!

Our Timidity is Killing the Constitution

James972 said:
dear, there is no Trump care. What planet have you been on???
Click to expand...

Exactly my point - Trump did promise medical care which would cover everybody and cost less, or did you forget that famous Trump rally promise as well?
 
Jesse Booth said:
Yes, very literally. Impeachments are backed by threat of violence via the police, if the impeached party won't vacate their position. The police are funded by the government, either directly through congressional approval of federal funding, or indirectly through congressional grants to states.
Click to expand...

So are you saying there is not something that Congress can spend money on ?
 
danielpalos said:
It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general warfare. Words have meaning, right wingers.
Click to expand...

OK, Congress spends money on project X and claims it is to provide for the general welfare.


Congress can make this claim about anything it spends money on.
 
Rich2018 said:
OK, Congress spends money on project X and claims it is to provide for the general welfare.


Congress can make this claim about anything it spends money on.
Click to expand...

Congress cannot make that claim about providing for the general badfare or the general warfare over the general welfare.
 
Rich2018 said:
Congress can make this claim about anything it spends money on.
Click to expand...

this is true! liberals spent trillions on welfare; it created the infamous school to prison rape pipeline, and still they imagine it for the general welfare. Total liberal insanity-right?
 
James972 said:
Thats absurd!! He's not a Nazi communist fascist progressive liberal socialist or monarchist. That narrows it down quite a bit. He is pro capitalist, pro family, pro defense, pro borders, and pro European melting pot. He a great and traditional conservative American much like our genius Founders. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

I don't think he is. A traditional conservative believes in fiscal responsibility, in plain language a balance budget. Not spending more than one takes in. Having outflow match the incoming revenues. Now if one has to cut spending to get there, one does it. If one has to raise taxes to get there, one does it. With our debt, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out one has to do both. I'll Repeat, a traditional conservatives believes in being fiscal responsible. That quite different from what is know today as a fiscal conservative. All they believe in is low taxes.

A traditional conservative believes in keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives. I.E. small government. Whatever Trump believes in is not traditional conservatism. Barry Goldwater was a traditional conservative. He used to be known as the father of modern day conservatism. But today's conservatives, be they neo or social or religious now refer to Barry as a libertarian. they don't claim him anymore.
 
danielpalos said:
Congress cannot make that claim about providing for the general badfare or the general warfare over the general welfare.
Click to expand...

Congress can spend money on anything and claim it is to provide for the general welfare. How many time do I need to say that to you ?

What, specifically, meets your criteria for "badfare" - spending on what exactly ?
 
Jesse Booth said:
I wasn't then, but might as well now. They can't buy happiness. Try disputing THAT, nerd!
Click to expand...

Why not ? Spending money top make Americans happy, would be considered as providing for the general welfare would it not (like an economic stimulus).

Is there anything specifically that you think Congress can't spend money on ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Why not ? Spending money top make Americans happy, would be considered as providing for the general welfare would it not (like an economic stimulus).

Is there anything specifically that you think Congress can't spend money on ?
Click to expand...

Yes. They are physically incapable of buying the intangible concept we refer to as happiness. What made you think I was arguing they couldn't spend money on things in the first place?
 
Perotista said:
I don't think he is. A traditional conservative believes in fiscal responsibility, in plain language a balance budget. Not spending more than one takes in. Having outflow match the incoming revenues. Now if one has to cut spending to get there, one does it.
Click to expand...

insanity of course!! We live in a liberal county. If Trump tried that, much as he might want to, he'd be gone in a flash. 1+1=2
 
Perotista said:
A traditional conservative believes in keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives. I.E. small government.
Click to expand...

huge tax and regulation cuts!! 1+1=2
 
Jesse Booth said:
Yes. They are physically incapable of buying the intangible concept we refer to as happiness. What made you think I was arguing they couldn't spend money on things in the first place?
Click to expand...

So you agree that Congress can spend money on anything it wants ?
 
Jesse Booth said:
Yes. They are physically incapable of buying the intangible concept we refer to as happiness. What made you think I was arguing they couldn't spend money on things in the first place?
Click to expand...

You didn't mention love. Congress can't buy much love.
 
Rich2018 said:
So you agree that Congress can spend money on anything it wants ?
Click to expand...

I'll go there, Rich, if you'd like. Not on just anything, but anything that they can reasonably claim is for the general welfare. There has to be a connection to either national defense or general welfare, and they have to make the argument. “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised." Said Thomas Jefferson (although the rest of the quote devolves into confusion, frankly). The point being, though, that Congress has the powers to tax and to spend (where have I heard that phrase before...?). The purposes are enumerated in clauses 1-18 (and implied in other provisions). "General welfare" is nowhere defined, but then, neither are "post roads", "militia", "defense" or the other thousands of words used. Common sense and judicial pronouncements will have to suffice, I guess... :)
 
Rich2018 said:
So you agree that Congress can spend money on anything it wants ?
Click to expand...

Actually, no. As an agrarian Republican in the vein of Thomas Jefferson, I consider it unconstitutional for the government to do anything that isn't precisely defined in the Constitution, like buying land from other nations. Can't be done, never ever forever. You still haven't explained what gave you the idea I was arguing against the notion that congress vote to spend money in my first post.
 
Jesse Booth said:
No, they can't buy happiness. Haven't you been reading my posts?
Click to expand...

I was talking about spending money

Do you agree that Congress can spend money on anything it wants.


You understand the difference between spending and attaining ?
 
Rich2018 said:
I was talking about spending money

Do you agree that Congress can spend money on anything it wants.


You understand the difference between spending and attaining ?
Click to expand...

You can't attain land without spending money on it, which is unconstitutional and against the spirit of Daddy Jefferson's intent. What part of my first post made you think I disagreed with you to begin with?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom