More Chat about Originalism, Constitutionalism and German Liberalism

[FayeforCure]

Then I am a "Progressive"! 

Perfect, we've got it all figured out. Now lets run TOGETHER 

[NotNow]

    Sometimes I just can't follow what it is you are getting at.  Is this a new subject?  Are you upset with a country?  Do you think that BridgeTroll, UptownGirl, and I are in favor of poverty somehow?  Did you just find some photographs and want to post them?  What point are you trying to make? 

[NotNow]

That is an interesting observation.  Totally baseless, but interesting.  I've noticed that you make stuff up like this all the time.  I think it is to drive up traffic and hits for your advertising.  Maybe you could start a new thread and title it "NotNow Hates Poor People" or "Bridge Troll Hates Welfare". 

You really don't see anything wrong with making statements like this, do you?

[NotNow]

I am familiar with my own posts.  Could it be possible that you are seeing what you want to see, and not what is there? 

In life, I have found that those that believe that they are alway right will always find others in the wrong.

[NotNow]

I don't think your stupid!   

[finehoe]

Do you think that BridgeTroll, UptownGirl, and I are in favor of poverty somehow?  Did you just find some photographs and want to post them?  What point are you trying to make? 

I believe the point is that we find it curious that you attribute so much of what ails this country to social spending, which you say is clearly against what the founder's had in mind, yet nary a peep about the global empire the US has constructed in the last sixty years.   The Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories.  Here is something the founder's clearly never intended, and something that we spend unbelievable amounts of money on, yet you focus on the attempts of the government to improve people's lives as the reason we are "teetering on the brink of bankruptcy."   

[buckethead]

An excellent point, finehoe.

I'd rather "waste" money trying to educate a kid from the projects than "invest" money in building a global empire.

Welfare (especially in the truest sense of the word) is cheaper than warfare, yet we continue to choose warfare.

[Timkin]

and umm.......warfare is bankrupting us ( at least , I think it is )

[buckethead]

and umm.......warfare is bankrupting us ( at least , I think it is )

I'm not seeing a return on investment.

[NotNow]

Do you think that BridgeTroll, UptownGirl, and I are in favor of poverty somehow?  Did you just find some photographs and want to post them?  What point are you trying to make?  

I believe the point is that we find it curious that you attribute so much of what ails this country to social spending, which you say is clearly against what the founder's had in mind, yet nary a peep about the global empire the US has constructed in the last sixty years.   The Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories.  Here is something the founder's clearly never intended, and something that we spend unbelievable amounts of money on, yet you focus on the attempts of the government to improve people's lives as the reason we are "teetering on the brink of bankruptcy."  

(Sigh) I hate to repeat that people seem to read what they want, rather than what is written.  If you would review my posts, you would find that my arguments are that the Federal Government has exceeded its Constitutional authority.  A serious study of the founding of our Federal system should lead one to understand why the Constitution was written with strictly enumerated powers for the Federal Government.  I commonly complain about the misuse of the "general welfare" clause by Congress.  But there are instances of the Supreme Court and Presidents exceeding their Constitutional mandates as well.  The USG simply is not authorized to do anything it wants.  To argue otherwise simply ignores the history and content of the U S Constitution.

This does not mean that I don't think there should be government funded social programs, quite the contrary.  State and local governments should provide for the social safety net.  A program designed for the Urban poor in Chicago, managed in Washington DC, administered from Atlanta, and forced on rural poor in Alabama is illogical and doomed to failure.  Part of the brilliance of our system is leaving the international work in Washington DC, while allowing the fifty States to govern their own experiments in government.  Each State should design their own social safety net for their citizens and their particular needs.  The optimum site of administration is at the county level.  This is where we can watch our own.  Our own money and our own neighbors.  If one State comes up with an exceptional and novel method or idea, it will be copied by many States.  And when one State has a program in failure or becoming a budget buster, then there are forty nine other examples of how to do it.  Locally administered State programs will be much more efficient in providing services and taxpayers would get more "bang for the buck".  

The Federal Government should be much, much smaller and focused on the duties assigned by the Constitution.  

The question of "Pax Americana" and our military expenditures is a subject for another thread.  I would just point out that our "choice" of whether we want to be a world, regional, or local military power or a major influence in international affairs is being usurped by politicians who are buying lifetime seats of power and personal fortunes using money borrowed in our name.  If we really want to debate this subject, we should elect officials who will represent our wishes, rather than what we currently have which guarantees that we will lose that international influence and military power in fits and convulsions, without any planning or control, as economic reality forces us to part with these privileges of wealthy countries.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are costing us About $170 Billion a year lately.  A lot of money.  
The total cost of the Department of Defense in 2010 was about $663 Billion.  A whole lot of money.
The Federal budget deficit in 2010 was $1.65 Trillion (estimated).  Wwwwwooooowwww.  Stoopid money.  

[buckethead]

I certainly agree that Congress is constrained to specific, enumerated powers. The General Welfare clause along with the Interstate Commerce Clause makes that process quite blurry.

As much as I revere the Founders, they left a gaping hole through the use of vague language. (I believe intentionally, as they were wise enough to know they could not predict the future.)

The Founders also agreed, to a man, that such a form of government as they had invented/designed would require moral and benevolent leaders/elected representatives in order to avert tyranny.

I don't suppose they were wrong on that account, nor that we'll find many elected officials who most feel fit the description of moral and benevolent.

We could find some pols we like, and so could others. Disagreement would ensue, but where we could most likely find agreement is in saying our politicians have failed us more so than our Constitution.

[BridgeTroll]

Do you think that BridgeTroll, UptownGirl, and I are in favor of poverty somehow?  Did you just find some photographs and want to post them?  What point are you trying to make? 

I believe the point is that we find it curious that you attribute so much of what ails this country to social spending, which you say is clearly against what the founder's had in mind, yet nary a peep about the global empire the US has constructed in the last sixty years.   The Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories.  Here is something the founder's clearly never intended, and something that we spend unbelievable amounts of money on, yet you focus on the attempts of the government to improve people's lives as the reason we are "teetering on the brink of bankruptcy."   

I would love to see an honest debate about closing many of these bases.  The need for many of them has passed.  The need for more than a few remains.  I think the Pentagon would love to relieve themselves of the costs of many of these bases.  But alas... once again... in a very bipartisan effort... our congress works diligently to keep bases in "their" districts open... you know... the whole jobs, jobs, jobs, thing.  We still argue about the closure of Cecil Field to this day.

Let the Pentagon decide what bases it wants and needs and you will see a reduction in bases.

[finehoe]

Joseph Stiglitz notes that the attacks on the middle class and poor are going to be unrelenting. The attacks are threefold.  Note especially the second and third:

- resisting financial and political reform which caused the financial crisis in the first place.  Three years after the crisis and no major player has even been indicted, the bonus system is flourishing again, and politicians are taking many millions in funds from the bankers and wealthy elite to promote their agendas.

- blaming the victims, and compelling them to take the greatest pain of the bailouts, and continuing bailouts and subsidies to the financial class through spending reallocations. The bailouts and spending on the military industrial complex are crowding out the public functions of government. There are even people trying to justify the theft of the Social Security Trust. Look, the funds are gone, we've taken them and given them to the banks! So no use crying over spilt milk, suck it up, and let's move on and take your cuts.

- shifting the impulse to reform from financial reform to 'tax reform' that further supports the monied interests. Cut taxes for the wealthiest as your primary agenda using a variety of deceptive means like promoting a consumption tax, of a flat income tax with offshore havens and loopholes, so the burden falls most heavily on those who spend the greatest percentage of their labor on subsistence, basic needs.

[FayeforCure]

Do you think that BridgeTroll, UptownGirl, and I are in favor of poverty somehow?  Did you just find some photographs and want to post them?  What point are you trying to make?  

I believe the point is that we find it curious that you attribute so much of what ails this country to social spending, which you say is clearly against what the founder's had in mind, yet nary a peep about the global empire the US has constructed in the last sixty years.   The Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories.  Here is something the founder's clearly never intended, and something that we spend unbelievable amounts of money on, yet you focus on the attempts of the government to improve people's lives as the reason we are "teetering on the brink of bankruptcy."  

I would love to see an honest debate about closing many of these bases.  The need for many of them has passed.  The need for more than a few remains.  I think the Pentagon would love to relieve themselves of the costs of many of these bases.  But alas... once again... in a very bipartisan effort... our congress works diligently to keep bases in "their" districts open... you know... the whole jobs, jobs, jobs, thing.  We still argue about the closure of Cecil Field to this day.

Let the Pentagon decide what bases it wants and needs and you will see a reduction in bases.

I love BT's "honest debate" quote. While he is right that nobody wants a base closure in their district, what prevented Republicans and many Democratis tag-alongs from discussing base closures overseas?

In all honesty, Republican bravado will not allow ANY discussion of base closings overseas either. AND THERE ARE TOO MANY DEMOCRATIC TAG-ALONGS, that will also do the bidding of the Military Industrial complex.

[buckethead]

I believe he was referring more to overseas bases.