AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Congress does not get to determine what is and is not constitutional--that is the constitutional duty of the Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court has decided that the general welfare is whatever Congress says it is. The Supreme Court has yet to invalidate a single tax, or a single spending item, for failure to promote the general welfare.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Probably some validity in all of that. But look at this 1964 article from Time Magazine.

Well, you're certainly aware of the "Gleichschaltung laws" from 1933. And that there wasn't a freedom of press in Germany since 1933 ...

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Congress does not get to determine what is and is not constitutional--that is the constitutional duty of the Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court has decided that the general welfare is whatever Congress says it is. The Supreme Court has yet to invalidate a single tax, or a single spending item, for failure to promote the general welfare.

Nope, but the Democrats have the reputation for really really liking taxes and big government programs and initiatives, and, as I posted earlier, usually the majority of the people don't. I'm sure that's why the only Democrat to serve two terms since FDR was Clinton, and the only reason he did, I believe, was that Newt Gingrich and the freshman GOP class of 1994 rescued his presidency by reining in the excesses he had planned. The people liked it, and Clinton was re-elected. Otherwise, I don't think he would have gotten a second term because I don't think he and a Democratic congress would ever have done what was otherwise accomplished.

The same thing could happen for Barack Obama if he doesn't mend his ways really quick. He'll get a GOP Congress who will likely save his presidency, and we will preserve what left of our Republic and maybe be able to undo some of the damage that has been done over the last several years.

We can only hope. It would be a win win for everybody.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Congress does not get to determine what is and is not constitutional--that is the constitutional duty of the Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court has decided that the general welfare is whatever Congress says it is.
The Supreme Court has yet to invalidate a single tax, or a single spending item, for failure to promote the general welfare.

IF that were the actual state of the law,
then Congress woud never have to stand for election again,
if it enacted a statute providing for no further elections, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE GENERAL WELFARE.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Nope, but the Democrats have the reputation for really really liking taxes and big government programs and initiatives, and, as I posted earlier, usually the majority of the people don't.

Why be so general when we have specific evidence on this point: Universal health care, pretty much as in the bills moving through Congress right now, was a major plank in Obama's program. Opposing it was a major plank in McCain's platform. Obama won. So we know what the American people liked here. We have direct evidence from the voting booth.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Did you NOT read Thomas' statement David?

Elections are neither tax or spending items and no one would confuse them as such. Congress is given the power to tax and spend for the general welfare under the Constitution.

Quote:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

0 Replies

This is only one poll on the health care debate, but I believe others will mirror this one pretty closely. The biggest problem I have seen is that the misinformation being spread by the conservatives and insurance industry has won the communication war. From CBN.

Quote:

Poll Shows Obama Health Care Rating Low
CBNNews.com
Saturday, August 22, 2009

The latest version of Adobe Flash Player is required to watch this video. Please click on the link below to download the latest version. Thanks!

A new poll shows that more Americans are unhappy with President Barack Obama's performance in the health care debate.

Only 49 percent say they believe he will make the right decision for the country, compared to the 60 percent who said that when his presidency was 100 days old.

The ABC News-Washington Post poll shows that the president's overall approval rating is 57 percent.

But 53 percent disapprove of his handling of the federal deficit.

50 percent oppose the healthcare reform bill, while 45 percent support it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I wonder how many people like myself who only disapprove of how Obama is handling the healthcare bill BECAUSE he hasn't done enough to explain how it will not increase the deficit.

I'm more than fine with healthcare reform, AS LONG AS we know how much it will cost and there are clear methods of payment. I think it should be a separate tax like SSN is now, where the money goes into it's own accounting bucket and expenditures are paid out of that bucket, etc. And the government should not be able to rob this fund like they do with SSN today.

I hope this program isn't just included in the general budget.

3 Replies

@maporsche,

The problem is not that O has failed to explain the financing for health reform. It is that the general public is lazy and ignorant. O has been very explicit on how the reform would be funded. See my comments above. However, while you can teach people, you cannot make them learn. This applies to many on this thread, such as CI.

2 Replies

Goodness gracious. Number of advertisers who have dropped Glenn Beck now at 46... http://www.politicususa.com/en/Beck-Boycott-46

Unusually effective initiative, this one. Murdoch's advertising revenues are way down (true for lots of media folks) but this does present an opportunity to do some damage to Murdoch's operations (a desirable consequence) and I hope folks here are taking note. It's difficult to watch Beck now and difficult not to. His demeanor is something most odd and painful, rather like a mix of trailer-park Joe McCarthy and Jim Baker in a state of total mental collapse curled up in the backseat of a car.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Yeah, I keep hearing you Advocate.

We'll tax some of the people some of the time by some amount.

Very clear.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I wonder how many people like myself who only disapprove of how Obama is handling the healthcare bill BECAUSE he hasn't done enough to explain how it will not increase the deficit.

I'm more than fine with healthcare reform, AS LONG AS we know how much it will cost and there are clear methods of payment. I think it should be a separate tax like SSN is now, where the money goes into it's own accounting bucket and expenditures are paid out of that bucket, etc. And the government should not be able to rob this fund like they do with SSN today.

I hope this program isn't just included in the general budget.

In the end it doesn't matter what bucket the taxpayer's money is paid out of--what matters is what taxpayer's bucket the money is taken from.

I don't see a whole lot of fiscal responsibility or integrity out of our current leadership at the moment and thus don't hold much hope that they will be responsible re healthcare either. Right now they're scrambling to find a solution that they hope won't get them all thrown out of office and I honestly don't think they know or care whether it will actually work just so the sh*t doesn't hit the fan before the next election..

I am all for healthcare reform too, but I want it to be REAL reform that will actually do some good rather than some big massive bill that won't deliver as advertised, will make things worse, won't fix the worst problems, and will saddle us with another huge unsustainable entitlement.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Goodness gracious. Number of advertisers who have dropped Glenn Beck now at 46... http://www.politicususa.com/en/Beck-Boycott-46

Unusually effective initiative, this one. Murdoch's advertising revenues are way down (true for lots of media folks) but this does present an opportunity to do some damage to Murdoch's operations (a desirable consequence) and I hope folks here are taking note. It's difficult to watch Beck now and difficult not to. His demeanor is something most odd and painful, rather like a mix of trailer-park Joe McCarthy and Jim Baker in a state of total mental collapse curled up in the backseat of a car.

Wrong. Newscorp revenues are down as are most big corporations not favored by the Obama administration, but Fox News revenues are up. Glenn Beck ratings are soaring and beginning to rival O'Reilly who has held the #1 spot for ages.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Nope, but the Democrats have the reputation for really really liking taxes and big government programs and initiatives, and, as I posted earlier, usually the majority of the people don't.

Why be so general when we have specific evidence on this point: Universal health care, pretty much as in the bills moving through Congress right now, was a major plank in Obama's program. Opposing it was a major plank in McCain's platform. Obama won. So we know what the American people liked here. We have direct evidence from the voting booth.

No, you have evidence from the voting booth that the people bought into slick oratory and were gullible enough to believe it coupled with disgust with a GOP who governed miserably for the last several years. It is very obvious from the polls that the people are beginning to see that they were fooled by that slick oratory and they don't like it.

But as the Democrats violate the peoples' trust again and again, the GOP is slowly coming back into favor and, as bad as they have been, the people are beginning to see them as more trustworthy on this stuff than are the Democrats.

Quote:

Wednesday, August 26, 2009
If Democrats agree on a health care reform bill that is opposed by all Republicans in Congress, 24% of voters nationwide say the Democrats should pass that bill.

But a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% believe the Democrats should change the bill to win support from "a reasonable number of Republicans." Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure what congressional Democrats should do.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/24_say_democrats_should_pass_health_care_reform_without_gop_votes

Quote:

Thursday, August 27, 2009

As August winds down, the good news for President Obama and congressional Democrats is that support for their proposed health care legislation has stopped falling. The bad news is that most voters oppose the plan.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey show that 43% of voters nationwide favor the plan working its way through Congress while 53% are opposed. Those figures are virtually identical to results from two weeks ago.

As has been true since the debate began, those opposed to the congressional overhaul feel more strongly about the legislation than supporters. Forty-three percent (43%) now Strongly Oppose the legislation while 23% Strongly Favor it. Those figures, too, are similar to results from earlier in August.

While supporters of the reform effort say it is needed to help reduce the cost of health care, 52% of voters believe it will have the opposite effect and lead to higher costs. Just 17% believe the plans now in Congress will reduce costs. This is a critical point at a time when voters see deficit reduction as more important than health care reform.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/support_for_health_care_legislation_has_stopped_falling_but_most_still_opposed

In my opinion, the reason the polls re healthcare are holding steady right now is that the debate has been taken off the front pages partially due to Ted Kennedy's death and partially I believe at the request of the White House. Once the debate fires up again and the people begin to better understand what our government intends to do to us, I expect the approval for Obamacare to continue to fall.

That could change of course if he turned it around and proposed real reform that we could believe in.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Newscorp revenues are down as are most big corporations not favored by the Obama administration, but Fox News revenues are up.

Well, according to a Foxnews spokeswoman, as quoted in various papers, August 24 online, August 25 print editions, "The advertisers referenced have all moved their spots from Beck to other programs on the network so there has been no revenue lost."

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Most of Beck's opponents are also citing advertisers that were never aired on Beck's program to begin. Fox News itself is doing quite well in these difficult economic times and Beck's ratings are really really good right now. Both Fox and Beck are obviously benefitting from ColorofChange's hateful effort to silence Beck. Sometimes the people, especially conservative people, are smarter than the average bear, appreciate and respect courage of conviction, and resent hatefulness from whatever direction it comes.

I've only caught less than an hour of Beck this week, and that was inadvertent, but he was compelling. One thing he is hammering away on is that conservatives--those who don't want a socialized America--need to stop being timid when the Left tries to silence them with hate speech, accusations of racism, partisanship, etc. We must have courage of our convictions and continue to speak up and speak out.

He's right.

(One of the funniest things is Beck being accused of being a 'GOP operative'. There has been nobody, and I mean nobody who has been more critical and effective in criticism of President Bush and the GOP than Beck has been.)

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Hudgins in his article I previously posted was not excusing his own greed for an effective education for everyone's children. He was advocating it.

Bull. His greed is to keep his tax dollars from paying for poor kids.

Quote:

Hudgins didn't write this, but I will. ...
Your response is collectivist puke concealing one's own envy. Collectivists are sick from their resentment of those who aspire to better for themselves and their children. Worse, they are hateful of those who oppose the collectivist's pursuit of equality of results rather than maximization of each individual's opportunity.

Envy? Envy of what? I aspire better for myself and my children; and other people, and their children, and our whole nation, even those who aren't as successful.

Objectivism is nothing more than greed and promoting self-satisfaction, at the expense of all other moral considerations, wrapped in a pretty philosophical banner. It is as harmful a philosophy, to the process of conducting an orderly society, as any of your boogeymen.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

My application of the definition is exactly what the definition is. However I didn't say that I didn't mind the government confiscating my money to fund programs I like. I don't recall that we even discussed programs that I like or don't like.

Well, here's what you said:

Quote:

I agree to the social contract implied in the Constitution which secures our liberties, promotes the general welfare, and provides for the common defense and do not object to my taxes being confiscated for those purposes.

So you don't mind having your taxes being confiscated for those programs that you consider to be constitutional. And I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the programs you like and the programs you consider to be constitutional are not identical categories.

Foxfyre wrote:

I thought we already covered that. Now I'm leaning more into the functionally illiterate theory. Naw, that's too close to ad hominem and I would like to avoid that. Let's just say you must have overlooked it.

You don't like pigeon studies because you don't think it promotes the general welfare. But, as Thomas has pointed out, the courts have never struck down a law passed by congress on the grounds that it violates the general welfare clause. That's because the courts recognize that congress, as the democratically elected representative of the general will, is in the best position to ascertain the general welfare. Of course, if you have problems with that position, I understand why you're reluctant to voice your objections to the democratic process in a more forthright fashion.

Foxfyre wrote:

Nor do I but it was you who has suggested that if the government does it, then it must be legal or even okay and we should just accept it. Or perhaps you didn't intend to suggest that? If not, what do you think we should do about it if the government is imposing unacceptable conditions on you or confiscating your property in a manner you think is unconstitutional or forcing you to provide labor on behalf of another in what you consider to be an unconstitutional way?

Because those things would be contrary to specific prohibitions in the constitution. But then we already covered that. I think only somebody who was either functionally illiterate or intentionally dishonest or being intentionally combative would have extrapolated your interpretation out of what I said. Which are you?

Foxfyre wrote:

I guess I'm thinking of it as a matter of convenience rather than a literal interpretation.

A matter of convenience? Is that the constitutional standard? I thought the federal government was a government of limited powers. If the constitution doesn't permit the congress to do something, then it's prohibited. So there has to be a specific constitutional grant of power for congress to print currency, correct?

Foxfyre wrote:

Technically the paper dollar is symbolic of and can be redeemed for a silver dollar

No it can't.

2 Replies

The federal government can lawfully do what the Constitution says it can do.
The federal government cannot lawfully do what the Constitution does not say it can do.
The federal government cannot lawfully do what the Constitution says it cannot do.

The Constitution lists, in Article I. Section 8., seventeen things the federal government can do with the taxes it collects to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

Not one of those seventeen things grants the federal government the power to give money it collects in taxes to people or organizations who do not do any of those seventeen things.

President Obama signed the Stimulus Bill which says among other things that the federal government can give money it collects in taxes to people or organizations who do not do any of those seventeen things. By signing the Stimulus Bill, President Obama violated the Constitution.

President Obama should be held accountable for violating the Constitution.

Federal judges are not empowered by the Constitution to legislate or amend the Constitution. When judges in the federal courts legislate or amend the Constitution, they are violating the Constitution.

The federal judges who legislated or amended the Constitution should be held accountable for violating the Constitution.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

I am not suggesting that the feds running deficits to pay for the feds' operating expenses is unconstitutional. I am suggesting that the feds running deficits to pay for the operating expenses of private organizations or persons is unconstitutional. The feds paying for the medical care of private persons is an example of a payment that the feds are not delegated by the Constitution the power to make.

A deficit is a deficit. As long as the government can constitutionally run a deficit, then there's no such thing as a partially unconstitutional deficit. If the government goes into debt, the particular programs that get it into debt might be unconstitutional, but the deficit itself is constitutionally neutral.

ican711nm wrote:

When the feds lend tax payer money to private organizations or persons, they are exercising a power not granted them by the Constitution.

So there's no transfer of wealth when the government lends money?

ican711nm wrote:

Those persons operating an airport contribute to the regulation of commerce by confiscating certain kinds of commodities or other materials specified by the feds, and preventing them from being transported on airplanes, sold at airports, or even stored at airports.

The people in an airport may be regulating commerce in some respect, but how does the airport itself regulate commerce? Isn't it more accurate to say that an airport permits certain types of commercial activities that the government can regulate, but it doesn't regulate commerce itself?

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know