AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@MontereyJack,

We started buiding and selling equipment to other countries before we even entered the war, that did help us tremendously I think, and FDR's own guy, Morgantheau, said all the spending did not work. Unemployment was almost as high years after the depression started, as you say in 38 and 39, as it was in the beginning, proving FDR was not all that successful.

All I can say about your argument, perhaps we will all receive one more big historical lesson. I do not believe government spending can build a healthy economy, it must be done through private enterprise. Unless you grow something, mine something, or build something, you are not creating wealth, you only consume it. We become a society feeding upons itself unless we unleash the free market to go out and create wealth. Extending somebody's unemployment benefits might be nice, but it creates no jobs, nor does it create any wealth.

Aside from the above points, economies by definition are somewhat cyclical, so I do think the economy may at some point come back, but I think the recesion is already deeper than it needed to be by Obama's policies. Any positive turnaround whatsoever will be ballyhooed by Obama as success, no matter how lame the turnaround might be.

I am not very optimistic, not until we get Obama out of there and replace him with a president and a Congress that actually believes in free enterprise and free markets instead of being an adversary to them.

0 Replies

okie, look at what governments actually do, they grow stuff, build stuff mine stuff, produce stuff, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS. And moreover,a large part of what they do is actuially contracted to private business, which wouldn't be doing anywhere near so well without those government bucks coming in: who built the planes? Douglass, Boeing, Curtiss-Wright. Who built the tanks? GM. Who built the interstates? Or the Big Dig? Private contractors. Who does the medicine for Medicare? Private doctors. Private hospitals. You guys seem to think the money government gets just disappears down some black hole. It goes to economic activities very similar to what private companies are doing--producing goods and services and paying people to produce them, which produces a multiplier effect, just like any other dollar spent in the economy. The difference is the government can do it on a much larger scale, and can put off paying for some of the costs until the economy is running well again.Which is why stimulus spending can right the economy the Bush era sabotaged.

4 Replies

@MontereyJack,

They just don't approve because the poor gets their share too~! To them it's all socialism.

They also don't understand what goes on at most of the universities in this country that does productive research (R&D) that ends up creating new industries and products; and many are government funded.

The space program has produced untold good for humans and our ability to produce better and safer consumer products.

All they see is money being wasted.

There's no cure for stupid.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

The courts are not empowered by the Constitution to legislate the meaning of uniform. The meaning of uniform was established by the founders of the Constitution to mean exactly what I said it means: Tax rates on things of the same kind shall be equal (e.g., population, dollars of income).

Actually the courts ARE empowered by the constitution to do just that.

Quote:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,

Quote:

This Constitution, ..., shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ....

The courts have the power to decide issues in any case about the constitution. The definition of a word in the constitution is what the courts are authorized to do by the constitution.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

okie, look at what governments actually do, they grow stuff, build stuff mine stuff, produce stuff, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS.

WRONG!
The US government does none of this and unlike any other business, the government does not care about making a profit.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

They just don't approve because the poor gets their share too~!

That's both stupid and wrong!

ceci girl, open wide the doors to your home and let the poor come in a take "their share"...
Let us know how it works out for you.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

I wondered where those morning emails of Ff's were coming from. Then I got a morning email with a link attached.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/07/another_republican_lawmaker_bu.html

Shoulda known Laughing

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

I wondered where those morning emails of Ff's were coming from. Then I got a morning email with a link attached.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/07/another_republican_lawmaker_bu.html

Shoulda known

Some of the emails I get are forwarded from friends. Some are unsourced though some do eventually wind up on the Urban Legend sites--some are authentic. Some aren't. Most of what I post from emails comes from newsletters from various groups to which I subscribe.

I can honestly say though that I can't think of a single racist email I have received. Why is it that you seem to know of racist emails and I don't? We must move in different circles.

0 Replies

More on the CBO analysis of the proposed healthcare reform bill. What do you bet Pelosi tries to ram it through on the theory that they will find a way to pay for it later?

Quote:

CBO Chief: Health Bills To Increase Federal Costs
By David Clarke and Edward Epstein, CQ Staff

The health care overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce, the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said Thursday.

That is not a message likely to sit well with congressional Democrats or the Obama administration, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., said Thursday she thinks lawmakers can find ways to wring more costs out of the health system as they continue work on their bills.

The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Democrat Max Baucus of Montana, who has not yet released a bill, said his panel is acutely aware of the long-term cost concern. “Clearly our committee will do what it can,” he said. “We are very seriously concerned about that issue. We very much want to come up with a bill that bends the cost curve.”
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003168293

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I'm hopeful that there are enough democrats who will defeat any health plan that doesn't take care of cost reduction.

0 Replies

Also received this in my email this morning. It is unsourced, but I think a few of you might appreciate it:

Quote:

We have enjoyed the redneck jokes for years. It's time to take a reflective look at the core beliefs of a culture that values home, family, country and God. If I had to stand before a dozen terrorists who threaten my life, I'd choose a half dozen or so rednecks to back me up. Tire irons, squirrel guns and grit -- that's what rednecks are made of. I hope I am one of those. If you feel the same, pass this on to your redneck friends. Ya'll know who ya’ll are.

You might be a redneck if: It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, 'One nation, under God.'

You might be a redneck if: You've never fretted about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places.

You might be a redneck if: You still say ' Christmas' instead of 'Winter Festival.'

You might be a redneck if: You bow your head when someone prays.

You might be a redneck if: You stand and place your hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem or the flag is carried by.

You might be a redneck if: You treat our armed forces veterans with great respect, and always have.

You might be a redneck if: You've never burned an American flag, nor intend to.

You might be a redneck if: You know what you believe and you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.

You might be a redneck if: You respect your elders and raised your kids to do the same.

You might be a redneck if: You'd give your last dollar to a friend.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I enjoyed that Foxie, but here's my rebuttal:

You might be a redneck if: It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, 'One nation, under God.'
You might be a redneck: If you didn't understand the Constitution based on the separation of church and state.

You might be a redneck if: You've never fretted about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places.
See above.

You might be a redneck if: You still say ' Christmas' instead of 'Winter Festival.'
You might be a redneck: If you believe “Christmas” is a redneck phrase. FACT: Many non-christian countries celebrate "christmas."

You might be a redneck if: You bow your head when someone prays.
You might be a redneck if: You are offended by Muslims.

You might be a redneck if: You stand and place your hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem.
You might be a redneck if: You believe only rednecks do this.

You might be a redneck if: You treat our armed forces veterans with great respect, and always have.
You might be a redneck if: You believe only rednecks support our troops.

You might be a redneck if: You've never burned an American flag, nor intend to.
You might be a redneck if: You don't know the difference between burning the flag vs peacefully demontrating in public (on issues that shows contempt for our Constitution.)

You might be a redneck if: You know what you believe and you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.
You might be a redneck if: Your beliefs are bigoted towards gays and lesbians, and want to enforce your religious' beliefs on others.

You might be a redneck if: You respect your elders and raised your kids to do the same.
You might be a redneck if: You shoot first and ask questions later.

0 Replies

@parados,

The courts are not authorized to redefine the meaning of words in the Constitution. Since the Constitution is "the supreme law of the land," and can only be Amended as specified in Article V of the Constitution, the Courts cannot lawfully amend the Constitution. Courts redefining the original meaning of words in the Constitution when the Constitution was adopted or subsequently lawfully amended, is clearly unlawful.

As you yourself quoted the Constitution, Article III Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, ..." The pertinent phrase is:
"arising under this Constitution."
It does not say arising under whatever way contemporary judges interpret the Constitution. Contemporary judges are by oath legally bound to support the Constitution as written and lawfully amended.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The meaning of the word uniform in the Constitution Article I Section 8, has not been lawfully amended according to Article V, since the Constitution was adopted. Therefore, the word uniform in Article I Section 8 means what it originally meant when the Constitution was adopted. It meant the same tax rate shall be applied to each and every thing of a particular kind (e.g., population, dollars)

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican, I just read the first sentence in your post; the problem is not the redefining of the Constitution by others; it's you! That's the reason why you're the only one who makes foolish charges against Obama.

1 Reply

And an update on the group Obama has designated to help realign voter policies and procedures to make them more 'honest' and also the group that will have the biggest responsibility in conducting the 2010 census. Gives you a great deal of confidence in the system doesn't it? Not!

This is an alert to those interested in integrity in government: NAME CHANGE - same old group; different I.D.

And why did John Conyers (D-MI) who recent promised he would investigate ACORN call off the investigation two months later? He said something like the "powers that be" had blocked it. Who are the powers that be? I could give you two guesses, but I bet you only need one.

Quote:

Tarnished ACORN Launches Re-Branding Effort
Monday, June 22, 2009 7:26 PM
By: David A. Patten Article Font Size

ACORN's entanglements with vote-fraud allegations have grown so radioactive that the organization may jettison the ACORN name altogether.

ACORN's global entity, ACORN International, announced June 17 that it has changed its name to "Community Organizations International."

Speculation is rampant that the parent ACORN organization, whose formal name is the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is considering a name-change as well.

The rebranding is seen as an indication that mounting fraud allegations are taking a heavy toll.

"This may indeed be the beginning of an ACORN network-wide rebranding, but a rotten ACORN by any other name still stinks," Matthew Vadum, a staunch ACORN critic at the Capital Research Center think tank, tells Newsmax.

Vadum describes ACORN International as "a nonprofit group that aspires to spread the gospel of [radical community organizer] Saul Alinsky across the globe."

Criminal prosecutions and investigations pending against ACORN and its former workers include:

An ongoing FBI probe.

Fourteen states are looking into vote-fraud allegations against ACORN.

In Las Vegas and Pittsburgh, prosecutors have filed indictments against several former ACORN operatives. Charges focus on the organization's alleged practice of establishing quotas specifying the number of registrations workers were required to submit each day. Many states outlaw such quotas, for fear they may pressure canvassers into encouraging fraudulent registrations.

Ohio's Cuyahoga County has indicted Darnell Nash, an ACORN-registered voter, for voting illegally. Nash registered to vote on nine occasions, using different names and addresses each time.

Investigators have said that as many as 4,000 ACORN voter registrations in Ohio could be fraudulent.

ACORN International has stated that its mission is to "sustain grassroots organizing throughout the world."

ACORN and ACORN International have interlocking directorates. In its 2007 tax filing, ACORN International listed its president as Maude Hurd, who also serves as president of the parent ACORN organization. Both organizations are based in New Orleans.

"ACORN's brand has been damaged through their own actions. It would certainly be understandable if they decided to change their name,” Marcel Reid, a former ACORN board member who now serves as chairman of ACORN 8, tells Newsmax.

ACORN 8 is a group of former ACORN reformers who concluded that what really needs reform is ACORN.

On June 11, ACORN attorneys wrote a letter to ACORN 8 alleging its name "has confused third-parties into believing that you are part of, you speak for, or have been endorsed by ACORN."

The letter threatens "monetary damages and injunctive relief" if ACORN 8 does not "cease and desist from using the ACORN name."

Reid counters that while ACORN is an acronym, ACORN 8 is her group's actual name. "We have no intention of changing our name unless required to do so," Reid tells Newsmax.

Reid adds: "ACORN's brand has been damaged through their own actions. It would certainly be understandable if they decided to change their name.”

ACORN's attorneys wrote in their letter to ACORN 8: "It appears you are benefiting from the goodwill established by ACORN at great expense to ACORN."

Last fall, then-presidential candidate John McCain charged that ACORN was “on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country.”

At the time, media critics suggested McCain was overreacting.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/acorn_investigations/2009/06/22/227999.html

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

You might be a redneck if: You'd give your last dollar to a friend.

Commie redneck socialists!

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

And this from the party that believes everybody should be capable of self-sufficiency! The poor are just lazy people, and live off of welfare.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, I just read the first sentence in your post; the problem is not the redefining of the Constitution by others; it's you! That's the reason why you're the only one who makes foolish charges against Obama.

(1) The definition of the word uniform in Article I Section 8 was stated by Madison--the author of much of the Constitution as adopted--not me.
(2) Madison's definition of uniform was repeated by the USSC in 1895-- before the adoption of the 16th Amendment in 1913-- along with its declaration at that time that an income tax was unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment did not redefine the word uniform in Article I Section 8.
(3) I may be the only one on A2K who uses Madison's definition of the word uniform, but, if I am, that is irrelevant.
(4) Those who define the word uniform to mean the equivalent of uniformly non-uniform throughout the USA are the ones making foolish charges.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

And this from the party that believes everybody should be capable of self-sufficiency! The poor are just lazy people, and live off of welfare.

No!

This is from the party that believes charity should be voluntary private giving and not government giving, because government giving corrupts our government by causing it to take property from those who lawfully earned it and giving it to those who have not lawfully earned it. Also, because private charity is a much more effective than government in helping people who are not self-sufficient eventually become self-sufficient.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
And this from the party that believes everybody should be capable of self-sufficiency! The poor are just lazy people, and live off of welfare.

No!

This is from the party that believes charity should be voluntary private giving and not government giving, because government giving corrupts our government by causing it to take property from those who lawfully earned it and giving it to those who have not lawfully earned it. Also, because private charity is a much more effective than government in helping people who are not self-sufficient eventually become self-sufficient.

Yep. When the government robs Peter to pay Paul, it will always be able to count on the support of Paul. And there are few more corrupting influences on both the government and Paul when that happens.

The Redneck however thinks it is honorable to give his own dollar to Paul when Paul needs it. C.I. apparently thinks it is honorable to forcibly take Peter's dollar and give it to Paul so that C.I. can feel righteous.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know