So you absolutely cannot even post ONE fact to support your statement?
Really?
Wow... ok, I guess I'll just leave it at that then.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Conservatives Love Big Government, Hate Paying for It
- Thread starter hakr100
- Start date
So you absolutely cannot even post ONE fact to support your statement?
Really?
Wow... ok, I guess I'll just leave it at that then.
hakr100
Android Expert
Hey, I'm just wondering who decides who is a conservative these days.
I looked it up. No clear answers.
So, who is on the committee?
CAN'T is when someone makes a claim, is asked to support that claim with facts, and then doesn't claiming that they don't have to.
WON'T is when someone makes a claim and it remains unchallenged.
Actually, that's one of their few legitimate roles. "Provide for the common defence".
That, regulate trade between the states, and conduct treaties with foreign powers. Don't recall anything in there about welfare, social security, health care, or any of the myriad of other things that I've seen both sides clamoring for...
hakr100
Android Expert
You might consider buying a good dictionary.
Reagan had the biggest tax cut in history for the wealthy and the biggest tax increase in history for the middle class.
The republican's allowed paygo to expire in the earlier 2000s. (that paygo helped balance the budget during the clinton years)
The republican's fillibustered the new paygo last year.
Bush had the 2nd biggested tax cut in history for the wealthy... the CapGains/Div rates down to 15% meaning many of the wealthest in our country pay a lower effective rate then the middle class.
Even though health care exchanges were a republican idea... and selling insurance across state lines is a republican idea... the republican's forced the exchanges to be state based to protect those insurance companies that have monopolies.
The reublican's fillibustered a bill that would have penalized companies that outsourced jobs and rewarded companies that created jobs in the USA.
Bush and the republican's gave the drug companies a federal handout in the unfunded medicare part d.
Bush created a whole new federal department which basically duplcated functions that were already handle in other departments causing a vast expansion of the federal governemtn.
Bush outsourced many of the militarys functions to private companies... who seem to hold no accountablility for their actions.
Bush wrecked the dollar to keep interest rates low which lead to huge federal loaned money being pumped in the the housing market.
Bush normalized relations with Libya... after huge reserves of gas were discovered there.
Bush bailed out AIG to the tune of 140 Billion dollars without congressional approval.
Bush's administration guaranteed trillions of bad loans so the huge banks could pick up failed banks at no risk to themselves.
Bush kept the funding for the 2 wars off the budget to hide the true cost of them.
and the list goes on and on and on....
He's a test for you.
'Provide for the common defense' appears in the 1st sentence of Section 8 of the constitution.
Why don't you go look it up and return here with the full sentence.
Andy: you REALLY don't want to get into a "who knows the Constitution better" pissing match with me.
I'm going to guess: you're going to lump "healthcare" and all the other left-wing ideas into "provide for... the general welfare"?
Let me save you the time: any "right" that requires someone else be forced to do something, is not a right...
Government funded healthcare: requires doctors and suchlike. Part of the surge in healthcare costs has been the government's way of paying through Medicare: they only allow the hospital to charge a percentage.
Welfare (and unemployment, and similar): requires a portion of the taxes paid by those who work, go to those who don't. That is, workers are basically forced to support the unproductive.
Any others you'd like to discuss?
I'm going to guess: you're going to lump "healthcare" and all the other left-wing ideas into "provide for... the general welfare"?
Let me save you the time: any "right" that requires someone else be forced to do something, is not a right...
Government funded healthcare: requires doctors and suchlike. Part of the surge in healthcare costs has been the government's way of paying through Medicare: they only allow the hospital to charge a percentage.
Welfare (and unemployment, and similar): requires a portion of the taxes paid by those who work, go to those who don't. That is, workers are basically forced to support the unproductive.
Any others you'd like to discuss?
Don't know why not... you show little knowledge of it.
What would you consider 'provide for the general welfare' to mean
What do you think the courts have ruled it means?
Show me where in the constitution it says that? Or even a SC decision supporting your opinion.
Everything falls into that category... not just social programs.
Try again.... this time with a better arguement.
So you're trying to say that you can have a right that requires someone else to do something for you?
Wow... please don't ever run for office!
A right, in the sense of the US Constitution, is something that you inherently have, which should not be infringed by the government.
Let me give you another example: you have the right of free speech: you can say whatever you wish, about whatever topic. However, that right does NOT mean that your local paper has to print what you say, if they decide to ignore you...
It's been stated many times that "your rights end where they conflict with the rights of others". *I* see what you wish in this discussion to be conflicting...
Wow... please don't ever run for office!
A right, in the sense of the US Constitution, is something that you inherently have, which should not be infringed by the government.
Let me give you another example: you have the right of free speech: you can say whatever you wish, about whatever topic. However, that right does NOT mean that your local paper has to print what you say, if they decide to ignore you...
It's been stated many times that "your rights end where they conflict with the rights of others". *I* see what you wish in this discussion to be conflicting...
Sure i can. I also pay attention to what the "conservative" GOP politicians are saying. Apparently you are not.
As I have stated previously, I don't do homework for others. The answers you seek are easy enough to google.
Try:
Republicans seek cuts
And see if you get any hits.
Or,
Republicans seek to maintain tax cuts for the wealthy
Or...
Well, that's enough effort on my part.
1) Ron Paul, Eric Cantor, Marko Rubio, J. D. Hayworth, the list goes on
2) Conservatives seek to maintain tax cuts for EVERYONE, not just the wealthy. And we want to make it feasible by reducing federal spending.
Really, what makes more sense:
a) Federal government taxes all states, collects money, then redistributes money to each state, states spend allocated money on projects
or,
b) States collect taxes and spend that money on projects.
If you don't want corrupt politicians in office, stop voting them in. Do your due diligence in vetting candidates before voting. Otherwise STAY HOME
You are not making sense.
You claim social programs are unconstitutional because they take from the productive and give to the unproductive.
But that's true of every federal program.
My taxes are paying for our military. Someone on welfare is not paying taxes but still receiving benefit from our military.
Are you saying our military is unconstitutional?
Your arguement makes no sense.
BTW... you have not told me what you think the general welfare clause meant.
It has been debated since the Articles of Confederation.
But was deemed important enough to be included twice in the constitution.
To help you with your research task I'll give you some hints.
Start with Junto, stop by with Hamilton, proceed to John Marshall, and end with FDR and the new deal. (plus the court cases dealing with it)
Quoting FDR isn't going to help your case (with me, anyway)...
I'm not (necessarily) saying that all government programs are unconstitutional. However, some of the latest thought on what we have a "right" to are getting kinda ridiculous, and approaching (if not crossing the line) of "I have this right, so you have to do X"...
I'm not (necessarily) saying that all government programs are unconstitutional. However, some of the latest thought on what we have a "right" to are getting kinda ridiculous, and approaching (if not crossing the line) of "I have this right, so you have to do X"...
I'm not quoting FDR. I'm saying look at what the surpreme court said about FDR's new deal and the 'common welfare' clause.
You still haven't told me what you consider the 'common welfare' clause to mean.
no you are not. You want to cherry pick programs you like.
You stated that if the unproductive receive benefits paid for by the productive then it's unconstitutional.
That means every program.
Congress has the 'right' to pass laws.
The courts have the 'right' to deem laws unconstitutional.
If a law is passed and the SC deem it constitutional then the government is required to enforce whatever 'rights' that law gave to the people.
The social programs you abhor have been deemed constitutional over and over by the court.
as long as everyone reading this thread understands that you are unwilling to back up your statement with even one piece of factual evidence... then I Guess it really doesn't matter does it.
Whether your statements are discredited by discrediting the evidence you present, or they are discredited because you just refuse to provide any evidence altogether... they are discredited.
I'm familiar with Reagan... I was referring to Hakr's statement about the 21st Century...
You seem to be confusing government programs with rights.
You are both right. The military is a constitutional mandate, but national defense is not a "right" as per the constitution. If it was a "right", it would be listed in the Bill of Rights.
General Welfare is a constitutional mandate, but not a "right" as per the constitution.
Rights, by definition, are things that you can do (as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others).
For instance, you have a right to own a firearm. However, a convicted felon owning a firearm has a high tendency to infringe the rights of others, so that is not allowed.
No rights involve having government, or private citizens, provide you with a service.
The only right that could be arguable is legal representation. Government provides lawyers to fulfill your "Right" to legal counsel.
However, on closer inspection, it is not a right to have the government provide legal counsel. It is a right against the government convicting you without legal counsel.
The government provides you with legal counsel (if you cannot provide it for yourself), because it CANNOT convict you of a crime otherwise.
For further evidence... you are only provided legal representation when you are the defendant in a criminal trial. If you are being sued, you are not provided representation. If you are suing someone you are not provided representation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, in summary... you are both right.
Health Care, Welfare, National Defense and Social Security are NOT rights, and NEVER could be.
However, the fact that they are NOT rights doesn't make them unconstitutional either.
You do realize that was under the actual threat from FDR that he would double the size of the Supreme Court and stack the court with Justices that agreed with the New Deal... right?
hakr100
Android Expert
" Ron Paul, Eric Cantor, Marko Rubio, J. D. Hayworth," Well, that's a relief. I thought there would be folks other than hack politicians on the list of who determines what is "conservative" these days. I do admire Ron Paul for his quick wit, though. The rest on your list are true hacks.
I do vet politicians running for major offices before I vote. That's why in this last election, I voted a straight Democratic ticket. These days, I wouldn't vote for a Republican for dog catcher.
You are getting into semantics. There are individual rights, societies rights, government rights ... ect.
Won't disagree with you.
When people claim the right to something then what they are really saying is that they believe that government should and can provide something.
On forums when someone argues there is no 'right' to a program they are typically meaning that it is unconstitutional.
Are you saying the court oked the programs only because they would have oked anyway?
Anyway, there been countless cases... that was the most obvious.
I'm still waiting for someone to give their view on what the clause means.
Andy
Only the 1st item on the list was Reagan... the rest were in the 2000s.
Wrong.
"Society" and "government" can't have rights: how on Earth would you define them?
Only individuals can have rights. Government's job is to safeguard those rights. Go through the Bill of Rights: they're not a list of "the people may", but rather a list of "the government may NOT": it lists those things the government is not allowed to do. You'll notice people never get brought up on charges of violating the government's rights?
As for "society"... I'm not even sure how you could define "society's rights". What do you believe such consist of? How (and where) are they delineated?
I will point out though: the BoR is not a definitive list of every right we have. A good example would be the right to privacy, which came up in Roe v Wade and, even moreso, in the current flak over the TSA and their nude-o-scope (which, admittedly, does start to reach into 4th Amendment issues as well).
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Whats the American obbsession with the constitution about?