OT: r - I thought you should see this

On Mar 2, 12:47 pm, Robert Allison <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 12:16 am, Robert Allison <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >>>On Mar 1, 6:48 pm, Robert Allison <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>J. Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>>...
>
> >>>>>That was in the Articles of Confederation? Where?
>
> >>>>I meant the paper prescedant to the Constitution;
>
> >>>That paper was (were) the Article of Confederation.
>
> >>>>The Declaration of Independence.
>
> >>>Preceded the Articles of Confederation.
>
> >>But I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the Declaration.
>
> >>Didn't you recognize the words?
>
> > Of course I did.
>
> > The context in which you quoted them led to an inference
> > that you had forgotten about the Articles of Confederation.
>
> Sorry. I would not refer to a document that was no longer in
> effect to bolster my position about what was in effect.
>
> But I thought that anyone would recognize where those words came
> from.
>

Cool. However, we don't yet know you
that well.

One could also argue that the Declaration of
Independence is no longer 'in effect', having
been superseded by the 1783 Treaty of
Paris.

--

FF

On Feb 29, 7:39 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
> ... snip
>
>
>
> > In light of the fraudulent ratings Moody's, Standard, et al, recently
> > affixed to some mortgage backed securities, some would say there isn't
> > enough regulation in the financial markets.
>
> Interesting statement you make there. You use the word "fraudulent" which
> implies illegal and against some law. Then you imply that what is needed
> is more regulation (i.e., more laws) to make sure those breaking the law
> don't.

Suits are running through the courts. So it will be decided. How would
you describe those ratings if not fraudulent?

> You have no idea the amount of trouble that the so-called fixes like
> Sarbanes-Oxley have imposed on business all because of Enron and MCI. The
> cure is costing a huge amount that ultimately must be passed on to
> consumers.

You omitted a few fiascoes but don't worry. Regulations remain on the
books as long as ppl's memories.


> Would seem to be more effective to just enforce the laws we already have.
>

What law did Standard & Poors violate when they rated dubious debt
with their best designations? None that I'm aware of.

On Mar 2, 1:03 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 03:02:40 -0800, Charlie Self wrote:
>
> >> DMV is state run. Around here, it's pretty efficient. Over the years,
> >> I've been a fairly heavy user of the postal services, and have found
> >> them on the whole to be quite efficient.
>
> > And it's been shown many times that the amount of overhead involved in the
> > Social Security agency is lower than most private industry.
>
> That may be so, but how easy is it to deal with the Social Security
> Administration, or to my original comment, the Post Office or DMV? Ever
> stood in line at the Post Office? Are the clerks anxious to keep things
> moving? There's a good reason for that: customer service is *not* their
> prime motivator -- if you stand in line 45 minutes, they don't have any
> career status lost unlike if they were in private industry. Their prime
> directive is to not screw up. If you wait 45 minutes, that has no affect
> upon their job security; if they hurry things up in order to make sure the
> line moves through in a timely manner and are 45 cents short in their
> drawer at the end of the day -- *that's* a career detriment to them.
>

My experience with over-the-counter services at assorted
Post offices has been almost universally excellent, both
before and after privatization--much better than my experiences
with UPS.

I did have trouble with slow delivery and misrouting of post
privatization mail sent through the Southern Maryland
Sorting Center, but that situation improved after the Feds
busted the drug ring operating out of that center.

Further, the US Postal Service has consistently been one
of the lest expensive and most effecatious in the world
and remains so today. Ben Franklin got it off to a good
start.

I can't say the same for any state MVA/DMV offices, but
those are state, not Federal employees or contractors.

I have no personal experience with the SSA, but what
I have heard about persons seeking disability benefits
is not encouraging. Last I heard they had a backlog
of more than a year for ruing on applications, and a
practice of denying every one regardless of the health
of the applicant.

OTOH due to ridiculously poor regulation, (such as
a ludicrous stndard for what constitutes a 'surplus')
a number of private pension plans have been looted,
or underfunded to destruction in recent decades.

--

FF

On Feb 29, 4:12 pm, NoOne N Particular <[email protected]> wrote:
> DS wrote:
> > Robatoy wrote:
> >> That is not the only picture of her ...I think I have pasted this
> >> before:
>
> >>http://grampyshouse.net/cliches/galleries/clintonh/clintonh.htm
>
> > Wow! I have a friend who could pass for Bill in that picture of him with
> > long hair and beard. Looks so much like him it's uncanny.
>
> > As for the Hillary pics - now I see what this has to do with
> > woodworking. I'm getting Hillary-wood! Nice...
>
> Anyone have pics of the new messiah? (Obama). One that I can think of
> right off hand would be a picture of Alfred E. Neuman.
>
> Wayne

That's Bush, ol' What Me Worry? hisownself.

Robert Allison wrote:
>
> A supreme court decision could also do it, and has. It has interpreted
> the constitution to mean that the federal government has jurisdiction
> and that congress has the power to enact laws to provide for the general
> welfare.
>

Cite one U.S. Supreme Court decision, just ONE, where the SCT has held
that "Congress has the power to enact laws to provide for the general
welfare." I bet you can't.
The SCT has permitted the expansion of federal power mostly through an
expansive interpretation of the clause in Article I Section 7 giving
Congress power to regulate interstate commerce.
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

Robert Allison wrote:
> I M Curious wrote:
>
>> Cite one U.S. Supreme Court decision, just ONE, where the SCT has held
>> that "Congress has the power to enact laws to provide for the general
>> welfare." I bet you can't.


> Helvering v. Davis (1937)
>

Helvering didn't hold that. You need to read the case more closely.
Helvering dealt with Article I section 8 of the Constitution, granting
Congress the power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the common
defense and general welfare. Neither Article I section 8 nor Helvering
uses the phrase "provide for the general welfare" as a grant of federal
power to enact laws in general to provide for the general welfare.
Helvering dealt with "general welfare" as a modification of the grant to
Congress of the power to lay and collect taxes.

Most people who think the federal government has a general power to
"promote the general welfare" come to that conclusion by reading the
Preamble to the Constitution, as to which the Supreme Court said in
Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1905), "Although that
preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained
and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the
source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the
United States ..."
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

Robert Allison wrote:
> I M Curious wrote:
>
>> Robert Allison wrote:
>>
>>> I M Curious wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cite one U.S. Supreme Court decision, just ONE, where the SCT has
>>>> held that "Congress has the power to enact laws to provide for the
>>>> general welfare." I bet you can't.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Helvering v. Davis (1937)
>>>
>>
>> Helvering didn't hold that. You need to read the case more closely.
>> Helvering dealt with Article I section 8 of the Constitution, granting
>> Congress the power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the common
>> defense and general welfare. Neither Article I section 8 nor
>> Helvering uses the phrase "provide for the general welfare" as a
>> grant of federal power to enact laws in general to provide for the
>> general welfare. Helvering dealt with "general welfare" as a
>> modification of the grant to Congress of the power to lay and collect
>> taxes.
>>
>> Most people who think the federal government has a general power to
>> "promote the general welfare" come to that conclusion by reading the
>> Preamble to the Constitution, as to which the Supreme Court said in
>> Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1905), "Although that
>> preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained
>> and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the
>> source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the
>> United States ..."
>
> This is from the decision:
>
> Begin quote:
>
> Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." Constitution,
> Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65; Steward
> Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our
> history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the
> contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra.
> The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly
> reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not
> been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is
> conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another,
> between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be
> known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle
> ground, or certainly a penumbra, in which discretion is at large. The
> discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion
> belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of
> arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law.
>
> End quote
>
> Sure sounds like they decided it. But, I could be wrong.
>
> When the justice says that congress may spend money in aid of general
> welfare, it seems that it has ruled on that clause.
>

There IS a difference between the limited "spending power", which is
what Helvering refers to, and a more general "power to enact laws to
provide for the general welfare," which Helvering does NOT recognize.
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

Robert Allison wrote:
> I M Curious wrote:
>
>> Robert Allison wrote:
>>
>>> I M Curious wrote:
>>>
>>>> Robert Allison wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I M Curious wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite one U.S. Supreme Court decision, just ONE, where the SCT has
>>>>>> held that "Congress has the power to enact laws to provide for the
>>>>>> general welfare." I bet you can't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Helvering v. Davis (1937)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Helvering didn't hold that. You need to read the case more closely.
>>>> Helvering dealt with Article I section 8 of the Constitution,
>>>> granting Congress the power to lay and collect taxes to provide for
>>>> the common defense and general welfare. Neither Article I section 8
>>>> nor Helvering uses the phrase "provide for the general welfare" as
>>>> a grant of federal power to enact laws in general to provide for the
>>>> general welfare. Helvering dealt with "general welfare" as a
>>>> modification of the grant to Congress of the power to lay and
>>>> collect taxes.
>>>>
>>>> Most people who think the federal government has a general power to
>>>> "promote the general welfare" come to that conclusion by reading the
>>>> Preamble to the Constitution, as to which the Supreme Court said in
>>>> Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1905), "Although that
>>>> preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people
>>>> ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been
>>>> regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the
>>>> government of the United States ..."
>>>
>>>
>>> This is from the decision:
>>>
>>> Begin quote:
>>>
>>> Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare."
>>> Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1,
>>> 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great
>>> statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not
>>> resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States
>>> v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by
>>> Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of
>>> Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties
>>> are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn
>>> between one welfare and another, between particular and general.
>>> Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in
>>> advance of the event. There is a middle ground, or certainly a
>>> penumbra, in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however,
>>> is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress,
>>> unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not
>>> an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law.
>>>
>>> End quote
>>>
>>> Sure sounds like they decided it. But, I could be wrong.
>>>
>>> When the justice says that congress may spend money in aid of general
>>> welfare, it seems that it has ruled on that clause.
>>>
>>
>> There IS a difference between the limited "spending power", which is
>> what Helvering refers to, and a more general "power to enact laws to
>> provide for the general welfare," which Helvering does NOT recognize.
>
> OK, you are right. The government does not have unlimited power. It is
> limited to spending power to aid in the general welfare.
>
> Happy?
>
> How does any of this affect the reality of what the government can do?
> Has done?
>

The reality is that federal power has expanded through a broad
application of the commerce clause to situations it was never intended
to cover. Example: the federal government has no constitutional power
over education. But it does have power to regulate interstate commerce.
Solution? Offer federal money to state and local governments to use
in education in ways that affect interstate commerce, then regulate the
use of that money. As a result, the feds now have their size 13's in
state and local education issues, not as a means to provide for the
general welfare, but as a means to regulate interstate commerce. The
same thing occurs with health issues, environmental issues, and on and
on ad nauseum. That's why so much federal legislation includes "having
an effect on interestate commerce" as part of its requirements. If
Congress could simply enact laws that "provide for the general welfare"
it would not have to go through the legal gynastics needed to invoke the
commerce clause.
You can thank FDR and his court-packing scheme for the result.
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

Phisherman wrote:

> Not a big deal, but I can't stand her grading voice.

"grading"? She's a teacher? :)

Chris

[email protected] wrote:

> You guys take this election much to seriously.
>

Where the presidential election stands now, I would tend to agree. The
key is going to be the House and Senate. A socialist-leaning statist in
the White House coupled with a legislature controlled by similar leaning
socialist statists is going to lead to bad things happening, and those bad
things are going to trickle down.

> I don't see much difference between any of the candidates regardless
> of the party or their affiliations.
>

Unfortunate, but true. The Republicans let the media pick their
candidate this time and the early primaries with significant cross-over
voting by dems and independents have pretty well set up a candidate who
could hardly be considered conservative.

> It is odd to see the Democrats turn against Hillary, and the same
> machine that made the Clinton duo media darlings practically ignore
> her and her husband. Somehow they fell out of fashion with the press
> and now it appears that the fourth estate has anointed Obama the heir
> apparent.
>

It's a wonder to behold. The media is now starting to treat Hillary like
a Republican and the Clinton machine is stunned.


> After realizing how ineffective, lazy, self serving and sanctimonious
> The House and The Senate are, I quit worrying as much as I used to.
> It was just a year ago that my conservative friends were in tears
> because the Dems were declaring that they "took back America" and the
> first 100 days of their control would see sweeping changes to our laws
> and country.
>
> To date, the report of their changes is nil. Even with the most
> unpopular president in history, they can't muster enough votes in
> their own party faithful to pass significant legislation.
>

You better be grateful for that because the ideas they have in mind are
going to have some significant effects upon how you live your life.


> As for Bush, he is no conservative. I don't know what he aspires to,
> or how he decided party affiliation. Even without the war budget, I
> read that he has vetoed any piece of legislation that has spending
> attached to it if it doesn't have unrelated crap attached. Money
> flows from his hands like water.
>

Huh? He has vetoed maybe two or three pieces of legislation, max. That's
one of the problems, he has been way to willing to go along with whatever
gets sent to him. You are right, he is no conservative.

> McCain used to be considered a moderate Democrat. Now he is a
> Republican lefty. And take a look at Schwarzenegger; now fully
> embraced by Dems, but increasingly rejected by Republicans because he
> is driving up the debt of the state beyond the capability of paying
> off even part of it by championing his own social programs, while
> taking away from those he doesn't like.
>

That's one of the problems with the current leadership in the Republican
party, it is lacking the fortitude to actually take a stand for something.
Instead, it is lettingthe left frame the debate, set the debate premises,
and then just apply "left light" to the problem.

> I too have noticed the winds of change blowing around Hillary. I
> don't know why, as the Republicans haven't had much to do with it at
> all. They aren't sure who they are fighting for the Pres job, and
> with the Dems starting to hammer on each other, they don't have to do
> much at this time. I can't see where Hillary's message or politics
> have changed, so I am left to guess that Obama became the favorite of
> the press behind closed doors somewhere, for some reason.
>

Seems like a number things have affected this. Hillary herself is just
plain not likeable as born out by various polling numbers. She comes
across as manipulative and opportunistic. She really hasn't *done*
anything (besides making a great deal of money in some shady deals) upon
which she could be thought to have the qualifications for the office she
seeks. She is not credible, you can't tell at any time whether she is
telling a lie or the truth; she has been caught in so many lies (out and
out lies, not the kinds of things that the left flings at Bush and calls
lies -- hers are real lies). What is amazing is that the media used to
look at Bill and marvel at how well he was able to tell lies -- the media
adored him. Hillary isn't getting the same free pass.

> In the end though, I don't know that any of it matters. I will go to
> work, pay my taxes, and get up the next day and do it again. The
> politicians don't, and have not represented me in so long I don't
> remember.
>

No, but they can certainly affect your life. They can deem you one of
the "rich" and raise your taxes or take away your deductions. They can
deem that the materials with which you work are carcinogenic or
not "carbon-neutral" and ban those materials, making you use something that
costs more, is less readily available, and will in the end reduce the
number of total units you will be able to produce or sell because you can't
get enough material, assemble it efficiently, or raise your prices to the
point some of your customers won't be able to afford your products --
driving down your total business. Don't underestimate the power of
statists to affect your quality of life. These are real impacts, not some
silly thing about being worried about your phone calls to Afghanistan or
Pakistan being monitored.

> For those that can't sleep at night because of the political climate
> (from which ever way the wind blows- left to right, right to left), I
> feel bad for you. I was like you once... no more.
>

Not losing sleep over things I can't do anything about. But I'm not
becoming apathetic either.

> I sure did think if Rob though when I saw that pic. I though it was
> funny.
>

It was. Not just the picture, but the fact the press printed it. The
bloom has definitely gone off the rose.

> Some of the folks around here are just as old, cranky and mean as any
> of the denizens here, you just don't see it because you are on the
> other side of the fence.
>
> Lighten up.
>
> Robert

One certainly has to approach this with good humor.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Dave in Houston wrote:

>
> "Limp Arbor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:a3c9adaa-fba9-44a2-ac8e-e76880e0c1ad@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 29, 1:34 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> What socialist measures are you talking about?
>
> Single-payer, AKA taxpayer funded national health care
> five year lock on interest rates
>
> I don't understand this argument. We are already paying through the
> nose for health insurance. If the government RAISED my taxes $5,000/year
> and then provided socialist, single-payer coverage it would SAVE me
> $8500/year. When I left the railroad, the company was having me pony up
> more than $200/month of my own money. That was 1994 and people that are
> still railroading are shelling out hundreds more [per month] than that
> now. -
> Dave in Houston

Nope you really don't get it. What you are paying for is through a
private enterprise, that in most cases for which you are perfectly free to
seek other competitive sources. Government run health care will be owned
and run by the government, the same place with the speed of the Post Office
and Department of Motor Vehicles and the compassion of the IRS. You won't
have any other alternatives. Health care costs may be high now, but having
the government take over the industry is not going to solve any problems
(ask the people in Great Britain). Next comes rationing and other
government intrusions into your life in order to reduce the costs.

Health care is just the current incremental socialist meme. Do you think
that after health care is nationalized, the left will go away happy in
their victory while the health care system goes down the drain? They've
already telegraphed the next move -- some form of guaranteed housing.
After all, if health care is a right, then how much more so should be the
right to adequate shelter? The lock on interest rates is a start, next
will come some form of government subsidized interest or other form of
assistance (paid for of course, by the evil rich) followed by some form of
government housing program.

These people are statists who believe that the state is the ultimate form
of equalizer and dispenser of good. They ignore all the places where this
hasn't worked, can't find a single place where it does work for any period
of time, yet continue to push their agenda under the mantra that "they will
do it right this time." All the while, the capitalist society that they
are attempting to destroy has delivered a standard of living that is
unparallelled -- even our so called poor live better than many people
considered middle-class in developing countries.


Someone once penned the comment that socialism is misery shared equally.
Doesn't seem like a great system to me and I sure don't want people in
power who believe it is their destiny to wrest the fruits of someone's work
in order to give it away to someone else.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Jeff wrote:

... snip
>
> In light of the fraudulent ratings Moody's, Standard, et al, recently
> affixed to some mortgage backed securities, some would say there isn't
> enough regulation in the financial markets.
>

Interesting statement you make there. You use the word "fraudulent" which
implies illegal and against some law. Then you imply that what is needed
is more regulation (i.e., more laws) to make sure those breaking the law
don't.

You have no idea the amount of trouble that the so-called fixes like
Sarbanes-Oxley have imposed on business all because of Enron and MCI. The
cure is costing a huge amount that ultimately must be passed on to
consumers.

Would seem to be more effective to just enforce the laws we already have.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Jeff wrote:

> On Feb 29, 5:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> > (Or something like that, if my details are wrong, pls correct them.)
>> > Medicare is funded by tax payer dollars. Is it "socialism"? If so,
>> > should we abolish that program?
>>
>> Yes ... it (and Social Security) should be slowly phased out - say
>> over 25 years or so. The Feds have no enumerated power to be in
>> the healthcare business.
>>
>
> That's fine. I figure old people who can't support themselves after
> their employer shows 'em the door will pose little threat since, well,
> they're old and poor. And if my neighbor's house is repossessed due to
> medical debt, well that's an opportunity for me to expand my
> empire....
>
> Seriously, I'm not upset with America's entitlements programs. They're
> the least generous in the western world and our taxes are by far the
> lowest. I'll pay more taxes if they were guaranteed to go to
> infrastructure. It's our country. We ought to maintain it. I feel like
> we're more concerned with Iraq's infrastructure than our own.

You do remember the huge gas tax increase of the 90's? It was meant to go
to fix the "crumbling infrastructure". Same with numerous other tax
increases that some have willingly accepted to "improve our
infrastructure". How about we find out where that money is going before
letting the congresscritters take more of the money we have left?



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Jeff wrote:

> On Feb 29, 5:39 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>> > On Feb 29, 5:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> >>> (Or something like that, if my details are wrong, pls correct them.)
>> >>> Medicare is funded by tax payer dollars. Is it "socialism"? If so,
>> >>> should we abolish that program?
>> >> Yes ... it (and Social Security) should be slowly phased out - say
>> >> over 25 years or so. The Feds have no enumerated power to be in
>> >> the healthcare business.
>>
>> > That's fine. I figure old people who can't support themselves after
>> > their employer shows 'em the door will pose little threat since, well,
>> > they're old and poor. And if my neighbor's house is repossessed due to
>> > medical debt, well that's an opportunity for me to expand my
>> > empire....
>>
>> And just how did these people get "old" ... they once were young.
>> And when they were, they bore the responsibility of preparing
>> for the day when they no longer worked - just like everyone else.
>> To look at the end game without looking at the opening moves is
>> naive.
>
> I'm just doing group level analysis. While the market system is the
> best we have for determining pricing, it's also a zero sum game, i.e.,
> they are winners and losers. In a sample of Americans over 65, I will


You keep touting that tired communist meme. The market is *not* a
zero-sum game. If it were, our economy could not have grown as it has
during the course of history.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> NoOne N Particular wrote:
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> You guys take this election much to seriously.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where the presidential election stands now, I would tend to agree.
>>> The
>>> key is going to be the House and Senate. A socialist-leaning statist in
>>> the White House coupled with a legislature controlled by similar leaning
>>> socialist statists is going to lead to bad things happening, and those
>>> bad
>>> things are going to trickle down.
>>
>> Trickle? IF the Dems get control of the Congress AND the presidency, it
>> won't be a trickle.
>>
>
> You gotta be kidding me. You think W and the Republic-controlled
> legislature didn't already bequeath us with a *deluge* of statist
> actions, spending, and so forth? I'm not talking about the Iraq
> war here, either. I'm talking about the execrable "Drug Benefits
> Program", the similarly vile "No Child Left Behind" nonsense,
> the funding of "Faith Based Charities" and a host of other Statist /
> Collectivist programs that are neither sane nor Constitutional.
>

Tim, did you ever see anywhere that I have supported any of the actions
you mention above? IIRC, my comments have been something along the lines
of "letting Kennedy write his education plan" and some of the other
comments similar to yours. Why do you think the Republicans lost in 2006,
because they had become Democrat Lite. Why would people wanting handouts
vote for fake democrats when they could vote for the real thing?



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:34:50 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> The next election will have a statist in some form as President of
>> the U.S. We have the Republicans to thank for that - they proved
>> that fiscal restraint is now irrelevant - now it's just a race to
>> the bottom of the socialist sewer..
>
> Tim, your constant use of "socialist" reminds me of Joe McCarthy. Perhaps
> you aren't aware that labor unions were once considered"socialist" if not
> "communist". As were the FDA, the minimum wage, and a host of other
> things. It has forever been the cry of the ruling classes to anything
> they, and those they have fooled, think threatens them.
>

Perhaps you have a better definition for the currently advocated policies
of "redistributing wealth". i.e. the government taking something from the
productive in society and giving it to others who didn't work for it? Or,
the act of the government completely taking over 1/7 of the US economy in
the form of national health care. Seems socialism describes the situation
pretty well. As well as Hillary's comments regarding how she is going
to "take those oil company profits" and invest them in ...


> And have you forgotten "and provide for the common welfare"?

That phrase has been abused and misused by statists for the past 6 decades
that it has lost its original meaning. Nowhere in the federalist or
anti-federalist papers would you find anything supporting the idea that
providing for the common welfare meant wealth re-distribution.

LBJ did good, by calling his program "welfare", he gave it the aura of
constitutional approval despite the fact it flies in the face of the
constitutional republic.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Robert Allison wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:34:50 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The next election will have a statist in some form as President of
>>>>the U.S. We have the Republicans to thank for that - they proved
>>>>that fiscal restraint is now irrelevant - now it's just a race to
>>>>the bottom of the socialist sewer..
>>>
>>>Tim, your constant use of "socialist" reminds me of Joe McCarthy.
>>>Perhaps you aren't aware that labor unions were once
>>>considered"socialist" if not
>>>"communist". As were the FDA, the minimum wage, and a host of other
>>>things. It has forever been the cry of the ruling classes to anything
>>>they, and those they have fooled, think threatens them.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps you have a better definition for the currently advocated
>> policies
>> of "redistributing wealth". i.e. the government taking something from
>> the
>> productive in society and giving it to others who didn't work for it?
>> Or, the act of the government completely taking over 1/7 of the US
>> economy in
>> the form of national health care. Seems socialism describes the
>> situation
>> pretty well. As well as Hillary's comments regarding how she is going
>> to "take those oil company profits" and invest them in ...
>
> So does shared liability, but that just isn't scary enough is it?
> Are you also opposed to insurance plans?
>
>>>And have you forgotten "and provide for the common welfare"?
>>
>>
>> That phrase has been abused and misused by statists for the past 6
>> decades
>> that it has lost its original meaning. Nowhere in the federalist or
>> anti-federalist papers would you find anything supporting the idea that
>> providing for the common welfare meant wealth re-distribution.
>>
>> LBJ did good, by calling his program "welfare", he gave it the aura of
>> constitutional approval despite the fact it flies in the face of the
>> constitutional republic.
>
> Rigid people require rigid reasons, I guess.
>
> Here is a quote for you from the Constitutional Conventions
> general instructions to the midsummer Committee of Detail, which
> took upon itself the task of translating these instructions into
> the specific enumerations of Article I, Congress was to enjoy
> authority to "legislate in all Cases for the general Interests of
> the Union, and also in those Cases to which the States are
> separately incompetent, or in which the Harmony of the United
> States may be interrupted by the Exercise of individual Legislation."
>

Which has nothing to do with entitlement programs. Remember that the
constitution was formulated after the original approach failed because
states were taxing commerce between themselves in the same manner of
countries and were enacting legislation that was endangering the harmony of
the states.

> That became the general welfare clause. I think that that is
> evidence of the general intentions. And it was used by the
> supreme court in deciding that, indeed, congress has the power to
> enact laws for the general welfare.
>

Which has zip to do with wealth re-distribution and entitlement programs.


> Just can't get over it can you?
>

Can't get over the fact that people have used this term to abuse the
intent of the founders and the federal republic form of government? Nope.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote:

> Robert Allison wrote:
>
... snip
>>
>>>>And have you forgotten "and provide for the common welfare"?
>>>
>>>
>>> That phrase has been abused and misused by statists for the past 6
>>> decades
>>> that it has lost its original meaning. Nowhere in the federalist or
>>> anti-federalist papers would you find anything supporting the idea that
>>> providing for the common welfare meant wealth re-distribution.
>>>
>>> LBJ did good, by calling his program "welfare", he gave it the aura of
>>> constitutional approval despite the fact it flies in the face of the
>>> constitutional republic.
>>
>> Rigid people require rigid reasons, I guess.
>>
>> Here is a quote for you from the Constitutional Conventions
>> general instructions to the midsummer Committee of Detail, which
>> took upon itself the task of translating these instructions into
>> the specific enumerations of Article I, Congress was to enjoy
>> authority to "legislate in all Cases for the general Interests of
>> the Union, and also in those Cases to which the States are
>> separately incompetent, or in which the Harmony of the United
>> States may be interrupted by the Exercise of individual Legislation."
>>
>

Just one other thought. I assume by the reasoning you provide, and since
the general welfare clause is in the preamble, you wholeheartedly support
Bush's terrorist surveillance program. After all, it is being done to
promote the general welfare and ensure peace and domestic tranquility (if
you are not a terrorist). Should fit completely within your definition of
the scope of the federal government.

One other thought, given your rationale above, is there *anything* that
Congress could not do if they used the argument it was being done for
the "general welfare"?

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Robert Allison wrote:

> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
... snip
> So you are one of those who claim to have special knowledge about
> the intent of the framers of the constitution. You live in
> opposition to the corruption of our government by the federalists
> that managed to overcome even the well thought out and reasoned
> Constitution by enabling the government to pass laws that provide
> for the general welfare.
>

... and you are one who apparently believes that if Congress passes it,
and the Supreme court agrees, it is right. How do you feel about Dred
Scott? After all, it met all your criteria.

> How quaint.

How arrogant and condescending. Just because the current mad rush toward
a nanny state seems to be the current rage doesn't mean people should just
roll over and accept it as inevitable. Just because an activist supreme
court has abrogated rights where they exist and read rights into the
constitution where they don't doesn't mean we should not oppose those. The
intent and rationale of the founders is not hard to find, they left plenty
of documentation behind. You claim to have read the federalist and
anti-federalist papers, yet you still claim that the Constitution grants
the federal government pretty much any power it cares to claim as long as
it wraps that power in the penumbra of the general welfare clause. The
founders had just emerged from a tyranny and were determined to establish a
government that minimized the possibility of the recurrence of such a
tyranny. Seems to me that making the top 5% of wage earners pay 55% of all
taxes, the majority of which go to wealth redistribution would not exactly
meet the limited government that the founders had in mind. ... and yes, I
think based upon my readings of their writings, I am pretty well valid in
making that claim.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Robert Allison wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Robert Allison wrote:
... snip
>>>
>>
>> Just one other thought. I assume by the reasoning you provide, and
>> since
>> the general welfare clause is in the preamble, you wholeheartedly support
>> Bush's terrorist surveillance program. After all, it is being done to
>> promote the general welfare and ensure peace and domestic tranquility (if
>> you are not a terrorist). Should fit completely within your definition
>> of the scope of the federal government.
>
> The violations in the patriot act are enumerated in our bill of
> rights, so they are expressly prohibited.
>

Are you really sure that was the intent of those who wrote the bill of
rights? After all, your perceived violations in the patriot act are really
there for the general welfare and are not directed at "we the people" of
the US, but at foreigners.

>> One other thought, given your rationale above, is there *anything* that
>> Congress could not do if they used the argument it was being done for
>> the "general welfare"?
>
> Sure. Anything that is NOT for the general welfare or otherwise
> violates the constitution. We have that nasty old USSC to watch
> out for that, plus numerous groups whose sole purpose in existing
> is to watch for stuff like that.
>

That's what I thought. Anything someone can wrap a "general welfare"
claim around is pretty much allowable. Kind of like the Clinton
administration attempt at gun control near schools under the interstate
commerce clause. The argument they made was that since educated citizens
were vital to interstate commerce, the ability of the federal government to
enforce gun-free areas around schools was a reasonable application of the
interstate commerce clause. The judge who heard the case laughed them out
of court asking, "with that rationale, is there *anything* that would not
fit into that clause?"




--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Jeff wrote:

> On Feb 29, 7:53 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> > On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:34:50 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>> >> The next election will have a statist in some form as President of
>> >> the U.S. We have the Republicans to thank for that - they proved
>> >> that fiscal restraint is now irrelevant - now it's just a race to
>> >> the bottom of the socialist sewer..
>>
>> > Tim, your constant use of "socialist" reminds me of Joe McCarthy.
>> > Perhaps you aren't aware that labor unions were once
>> > considered"socialist" if not
>> > "communist". As were the FDA, the minimum wage, and a host of other
>> > things. It has forever been the cry of the ruling classes to anything
>> > they, and those they have fooled, think threatens them.
>>
>> Perhaps you have a better definition for the currently advocated
>> policies
>> of "redistributing wealth". i.e. the government taking something from
>> the
>> productive in society and giving it to others who didn't work for it?
>> Or, the act of the government completely taking over 1/7 of the US
>> economy in
>> the form of national health care. Seems socialism describes the
>> situation
>> pretty well. As well as Hillary's comments regarding how she is going
>> to "take those oil company profits" and invest them in ...
>
> I'd have sympathy for your argument if not for the fact that US is a
> representative democracy. The ppl tax themselves and their
> representatives decide how it shall be spent. Look, I don't agree with
> all expenditures. Bush wants to attach abstinence training to every
> health care program despite no collaborating evidence to demonstrate
> its merits. If he adds it within the rules, there's not much I can do
> but try better in the next round.


Nice try, but the U.S. is a representative Republic. It was deliberately
designed that way to prevent a tyranny of the majority from doing what you
have described. It is not the people who are taxing themselves -- the
problem is that the top 50% of income earners are paying 86% of all federal
income taxes. By your description, that means the bottom 50% have the
power to take the wealth of the top 50%. When you factor in the fact that
the top 10% are paying about 66% of all income taxes and throw in a media
and political party to wage class warfare, you can get a solid part of 90%
of the populace voting to increase taxes on a small but highly productive
segment of society. The time is coming when this will all break down and
that upper n% is going to say, "screw it, this isn't worth it, and throw in
the towel" Then, your zero-sum game economy is really going to become a
reality.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Jeff wrote:

... snip

>
> Clearly I don't know as much as you. Can you list every Founder and
> his intent WRT this issue?

Nice try at a condescending remark. I don't have to list every founder
and his intent, they were kind enough to do that for all of us in their
writings. They are contained in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers,
copious writings by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Payne, and others.
It's not a mystery and the rationale for why they set things up the way
they did makes just as much sense now as it did then; we are seeing the
fruits of what happens when their sage advice is ignored.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> On Mar 1, 12:52 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Nice try, but the U.S. is a representative Republic.
>
> A republic may take many forms. A representative Democracy
> is the form used by the United States.
>
> 'Representative Republic' is a term that is new to me.
>

I meant Federal Republic; i.e. a republic of states in which the states
are the members of the republic. The founders were rightly concerned that
a representative democracy would lead to the condition we have today where
the "majority" would be able to elect leaders who would take from one
segment of society to give to themselves. i.e., DeTouqueville's concern
with the "people voting themselves the treasury" is becoming a reality.

>
>> It was deliberately
>> designed that way to prevent a tyranny of the majority from doing what
>> you
>> have described. It is not the people who are taxing themselves -- the
>> problem is that the top 50% of income earners are paying 86% of all
>> federal income taxes.
>

Need to issue a correction to the above. The top 50% does not pay 86% of
all federal taxes, it pays 97% of all income taxes. I was looking at the
wrong lines in my source document.

> Doh! The top 50% of income earners are also earning
> a lot more than 86% of all income. I'll bet they also use
> a lot more than 86% of all government infrastructure and
> resources though that would be a LOT tougher to
> measure.
>

Doh yourself! The top 50% earns 87% of all income and pays 96% of all
income taxes (see correction above). From the IRS statistics for 2005
(last year available)

Top % %of Federal Income Tax paid % of Income
1 39.4% 21.2%
5 60.0% 35.8%
10 70.3% 46.4%
50 96.9% 87.1%

So, it is pretty apparent that the upper levels of income are paying
disproportionately larger amounts of the federal burden relative to their
income.

> Even with a flat tax the upper 50% are gong to pay more
> income tax than the lower.

>
> --
>
> FF

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Robert Allison wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
... snip
>> Nice try, but the U.S. is a representative Republic. It was
>> deliberately
>> designed that way to prevent a tyranny of the majority from doing what
>> you
>> have described. It is not the people who are taxing themselves -- the
>> problem is that the top 50% of income earners are paying 86% of all
>> federal
>> income taxes. By your description, that means the bottom 50% have the
>> power to take the wealth of the top 50%. When you factor in the fact
>> that the top 10% are paying about 66% of all income taxes and throw in a
>> media and political party to wage class warfare, you can get a solid part
>> of 90% of the populace voting to increase taxes on a small but highly
>> productive
>> segment of society. The time is coming when this will all break down and
>> that upper n% is going to say, "screw it, this isn't worth it, and throw
>> in
>> the towel" Then, your zero-sum game economy is really going to become a
>> reality.
>>
>
> Doom and gloom! Oh my! I am trying real hard to picture Paris
> Hilton as part of the "highly productive" segment of society.
> And you claim that the left is the one that foments "class
> warfare". If you don't stop we are leaving! How funny!
>

Didn't say leaving, said "quitting" As in, those 50-60 hour weeks aren't
worth it; I'm going to work 40 hours like everybody else, the company can
figure out how to deal with the decreased productivity, it's not worth
giving up the family time if 60+% of what I do in that extra effort is
going to taxes anyway.

> The fact is that we are the government and we do tax ourselves.
> You are about to see an example of how a government can change
> when the people get tired of how it is acting. The bums are
> actually about to be voted out. ... snip BDS
>

Yeah, I can't wait.


> We elect representatives to (of all things) represent us. They
> are supposed to do what we want, while tempering their actions
> with their intelligence and understanding of the law and our
> system of government. So when they pass revenue bills, it is at
> our bequest whether we like it or not. They are representing us.
>

Yep, voting us the treasury. Good move.

> So when the congress passes legislation that initiates a program
> such as TANF, or medicare, they are doing it for our benefit,
> because we have reached, as a society, the consensus that that
> promotes our general welfare. And I agree.
>
> Mark or Juanita do not. They do not want to help those in need,
> because someone may abuse the system and get something for free.
> They do not believe in our society banding together and making
> a pact for each of us to share the burden of caring for those
> that cannot care for themselves. They wish everyone to be on
> their own and if you can't survive, you die.
>
> Hard to believe, isn't it?
>

You really are a condescending and arrogant @$$hole, aren't you? I never
said that I don't believe in helping people, you have no idea what I do or
do not contribute to charitable causes. HERE'S A BIG CLUE FOR YOU:
GOVERNMENT IS NOT A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION! It's not charity when you are
using other peoples' money. Since you are making arrogant assumptions
about me, I'll do the same for you, I bet you pay very little in federal
income taxes and you really want the rest of us to pick up your benefits.

> And this is the really crazy part; They don't believe in doing
> that because; 1) it is socialist, 2)it is illegal, or; 3) it
> promotes laziness.
>

Government is not a charitable organization. When laws are established, it
ought to be from a guiding philosophical basis, not because it "feels good"
or seems compassionate at the time.

> They don't care whether it is really good or bad for the country,
> it is (pick one) of those three things and that alone, makes it bad.
>
> Sorry, Mark or Juanita. I have heard all of this before and it
> still makes no sense, whatsoever.
>

What makes no sense is your idea that "the people" can pick and choose
among various intrusive statist policies. Here's a clue, statism, at first
is done ostensibly under the guise of improving the lot of the "people",
who could object to that after all? I mean, if you object you are labeled
as someone who doesn't want to help those in need and if people can't
survive on their own they should die. So, the people who object on
principle and philosophically are marginalized as mean and uncaring and
the "compassionate" policies are implemented. Then, after those policies
are implemented and the real costs can no longer be hidden, statism starts
implementing rationing and various policies for the "benefit of the people"
in order to keep costs down so taxes don't incite a revolution. Great
Britain's health care system is approaching that point. Statism starts
extending into what you eat, what you drink, the kinds of activities in
which you can participate. At some point, even that becomes untenable and
you have the state taking even greater control in order to preserve its
power.

Your position sounds good, feels good, and is going to lead us all off the
cliff into totalitarianism. It's been done before, been proven to happen
every time.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Robert Allison wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Robert Allison wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>
>>
>> ... snip
>>
.. snip
>>>Doom and gloom! Oh my! I am trying real hard to picture Paris
>>>Hilton as part of the "highly productive" segment of society.
>>>And you claim that the left is the one that foments "class
>>>warfare". If you don't stop we are leaving! How funny!
>>>
>>
>>
>> Didn't say leaving, said "quitting" As in, those 50-60 hour weeks
>> aren't
>> worth it; I'm going to work 40 hours like everybody else, the company can
>> figure out how to deal with the decreased productivity, it's not worth
>> giving up the family time if 60+% of what I do in that extra effort is
>> going to taxes anyway.
>
> Good for you! I wish that I could cut back to just sixty, but I
> own my own business and I have to keep at it.
>

You know, this took me aback for a bit and I was about to call
shenanigans; I know of few, scratch that, no independent business people
who would espouse the "tax me more", "I want a government that is free to
write whatever regulations it wants to" views you have put forth in this
thread. Then it struck me, you want the rest of *us* to pay for *your*
health care plan. So it comes down to you wanting your neighbors to pay
for your benefits.

... snip

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

[email protected] wrote:

> I don't know if this will link up correctly or not. But I though this
> was something Robatoy should see.
>
> Apparently this picture was taken on a stage with a plain blue curtain
> background. But when back at the lab.... what happened? Is someone
> looking over her shoulder? Were you correct in your suspicions?
>
> I had to laugh when I saw this, and didn't actually read the caption.
> Sure thought of you, though.
>
> Robert

Another interesting tidbit. As the poster says, why Obama will not be
president in 52 seconds or less:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs>

Yep, that's the way to assure peace and prosperity, disarm ourselves
first.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:43:19 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Are you really sure that was the intent of those who wrote the bill of
>> rights? After all, your perceived violations in the patriot act are
>> really there for the general welfare and are not directed at "we the
>> people" of the US, but at foreigners.
>
> The intent may well have been good, but the fact remains that the act
> gives the feds the right to hold anyone they deem dangerous without habeus
> corpus. You're depending on the good intentions of a government? Doesn't
> sound like you :-).

My comment was more meant as a poke at the comment that legislation to
promote the general welfare was legitimate, regardless of whether the
legislation is an enumerated power or not. The OP's position seems to be
that if it promotes "the general welfare", just about any and all
legislation is just fine.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 03:02:40 -0800, Charlie Self wrote:
>
>> DMV is state run. Around here, it's pretty efficient. Over the years,
>> I've been a fairly heavy user of the postal services, and have found
>> them on the whole to be quite efficient.
>
> And it's been shown many times that the amount of overhead involved in the
> Social Security agency is lower than most private industry.

That may be so, but how easy is it to deal with the Social Security
Administration, or to my original comment, the Post Office or DMV? Ever
stood in line at the Post Office? Are the clerks anxious to keep things
moving? There's a good reason for that: customer service is *not* their
prime motivator -- if you stand in line 45 minutes, they don't have any
career status lost unlike if they were in private industry. Their prime
directive is to not screw up. If you wait 45 minutes, that has no affect
upon their job security; if they hurry things up in order to make sure the
line moves through in a timely manner and are 45 cents short in their
drawer at the end of the day -- *that's* a career detriment to them.

My point was that when you give something to the government, its
motivations and approaches are completely different than dealing with a
private company. It's already not an enjoyable experience dealing with
health care providers now when having to work with a bureaucratic insurance
system. People who think that turning that degree of power and authority
to the government will make the situation better are wildly naive.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> On Mar 2, 1:03 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> > On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 03:02:40 -0800, Charlie Self wrote:
>>
>> >> DMV is state run. Around here, it's pretty efficient. Over the years,
>> >> I've been a fairly heavy user of the postal services, and have found
>> >> them on the whole to be quite efficient.
>>
>> > And it's been shown many times that the amount of overhead involved in
>> > the Social Security agency is lower than most private industry.
>>
>> That may be so, but how easy is it to deal with the Social Security
>> Administration, or to my original comment, the Post Office or DMV? Ever
>> stood in line at the Post Office? Are the clerks anxious to keep things
>> moving? There's a good reason for that: customer service is *not* their
>> prime motivator -- if you stand in line 45 minutes, they don't have any
>> career status lost unlike if they were in private industry. Their prime
>> directive is to not screw up. If you wait 45 minutes, that has no affect
>> upon their job security; if they hurry things up in order to make sure
>> the line moves through in a timely manner and are 45 cents short in their
>> drawer at the end of the day -- *that's* a career detriment to them.
>>
>
> My experience with over-the-counter services at assorted
> Post offices has been almost universally excellent, both
> before and after privatization--much better than my experiences
> with UPS.
>

We have a post office here (unfortunately the one that handles our mail)
where 30 to 45 minute waits are not unusual. Same was true of our post
office in Texas -- suburb outside of Dallas.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote:

> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>> On Mar 2, 1:03 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> > On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 03:02:40 -0800, Charlie Self wrote:
>>>
>>> >> DMV is state run. Around here, it's pretty efficient. Over the years,
>>> >> I've been a fairly heavy user of the postal services, and have found
>>> >> them on the whole to be quite efficient.
>>>
>>> > And it's been shown many times that the amount of overhead involved in
>>> > the Social Security agency is lower than most private industry.
>>>
>>> That may be so, but how easy is it to deal with the Social Security
>>> Administration, or to my original comment, the Post Office or DMV? Ever
>>> stood in line at the Post Office? Are the clerks anxious to keep things
>>> moving? There's a good reason for that: customer service is *not* their
>>> prime motivator -- if you stand in line 45 minutes, they don't have any
>>> career status lost unlike if they were in private industry. Their prime
>>> directive is to not screw up. If you wait 45 minutes, that has no
>>> affect upon their job security; if they hurry things up in order to make
>>> sure the line moves through in a timely manner and are 45 cents short in
>>> their drawer at the end of the day -- *that's* a career detriment to
>>> them.
>>>
>>
>> My experience with over-the-counter services at assorted
>> Post offices has been almost universally excellent, both
>> before and after privatization--much better than my experiences
>> with UPS.
>>
>
> We have a post office here (unfortunately the one that handles our
> mail)
> where 30 to 45 minute waits are not unusual. Same was true of our post
> office in Texas -- suburb outside of Dallas.
>

Just to clarify further, the speed and dispatch with which the clerks
moved (or move in the current case) was truly awe-inspiring. Any slower
and they would be moving backwards. As I mentioned, there is a perfectly
rational explanation for this -- it's not that these people are necessarily
lazy or inefficient, they just spent a huge amount of time checking and
double-checking themselves. There's no penalty to them if they make people
wait a few extra minutes -- there's a significant penalty to them if they
make a mistake somewhere along the way. That is my point, when the
government or quasi-government agency runs something, the motivations and
metrics by which they work is *not* going to be speed, efficiency, or
customer service; it will be something more esoteric and that makes sense
only to government officialdom. I sure don't want somebody handling *my*
health care that way.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> On Mar 2, 12:16 am, Robert Allison <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Mar 1, 6:48 pm, Robert Allison <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>>...
>>
>>>>>That was in the Articles of Confederation? Where?
>>
>>>>I meant the paper prescedant to the Constitution;
>>
>>>That paper was (were) the Article of Confederation.
>>
>>>>The Declaration of Independence.
>>
>>>Preceded the Articles of Confederation.
>>
>>But I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the Declaration.
>>
>>Didn't you recognize the words?
>
>
> Of course I did.
>
> The context in which you quoted them led to an inference
> that you had forgotten about the Articles of Confederation.

Sorry. I would not refer to a document that was no longer in
effect to bolster my position about what was in effect.

But I thought that anyone would recognize where those words came
from.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Robert Allison wrote:
>
>
>>Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>
> ... snip
>
>>So you are one of those who claim to have special knowledge about
>>the intent of the framers of the constitution. You live in
>>opposition to the corruption of our government by the federalists
>>that managed to overcome even the well thought out and reasoned
>>Constitution by enabling the government to pass laws that provide
>>for the general welfare.
>>
>
>
> ... and you are one who apparently believes that if Congress passes it,
> and the Supreme court agrees, it is right. How do you feel about Dred
> Scott? After all, it met all your criteria.

A terrible decision, but not unexpected for the times. Kind of
like a lot of those old beliefs held by people of that time.
Like the idea that the government had no power to act under the
general welfare clause. Quaint old harmful ideas. Thank heavens
that we have ways to correct those early mistakes, huh?

>>How quaint.
>
>
> How arrogant and condescending. Just because the current mad rush toward
> a nanny state seems to be the current rage doesn't mean people should just
> roll over and accept it as inevitable. Just because an activist supreme
> court has abrogated rights where they exist and read rights into the
> constitution where they don't doesn't mean we should not oppose those. The
> intent and rationale of the founders is not hard to find, they left plenty
> of documentation behind. You claim to have read the federalist and
> anti-federalist papers, yet you still claim that the Constitution grants
> the federal government pretty much any power it cares to claim as long as
> it wraps that power in the penumbra of the general welfare clause. The
> founders had just emerged from a tyranny and were determined to establish a
> government that minimized the possibility of the recurrence of such a
> tyranny. Seems to me that making the top 5% of wage earners pay 55% of all
> taxes, the majority of which go to wealth redistribution would not exactly
> meet the limited government that the founders had in mind. ... and yes, I
> think based upon my readings of their writings, I am pretty well valid in
> making that claim.

How arrogant and condescending.

You think that you have a better grasp of the law and the
constitution than the Supreme Court? They are the ones that
determined that the constitution is indeed a living document that
is subject to change with the times. That the founders in no way
wanted to shackle the government in such a way as to deny it the
power to promote the general welfare. The words are right in the
document, TWICE. That is how important the founders thought that
concept was.

Yet, you accuse the supreme court judges of being activist when
they interpret the constituion. That is their job. What would
you have them do? The constitution set our government up so that
that is ALL that they do. How can you call them activists when
they do what they are called to do by the constitution? Not
getting your way does not make them activists. It just makes you
wrong. If they should decide to overturn their previous
decisions and find for your position, are they still activists?
Or do they become good men doing their job? Will you rail
against their activism then?

It baffles me how people like you choose such a way to fight
against things that you don't like. Can't you argue on the
merits of the programs themselves without having to resort to
alarmist tactics such as activist judges, illegal government and
socialism? Are those terms designed to inspire an emotion or reason?

This is an example where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
You read a few papers from the founding fathers, listen to some
arguments from those with an agenda, and a movement to right the
wrongs of an illegal regime begins.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:59:44 -0800 (PST), Jeff <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Feb 29, 2:24 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> I knew I should have been in bed an hour ago.
>>
>> This might work:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ypmcvc
>>
>> Robert
>
>She's not likely to win the nomination so I suppose this is pointless,
>but what is it specifically that you guys don't like about her?
>Here's her voting record. What do you find so objectionable:
>
>http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463
>
>I decided to back Barry Obama a few months ago so I can't be
>characterized as a Clinton supporter. But some of the attacks she
>faces seems unwarranted. There's an angry old man running around this
>group with a signature that declares her the terrorists' choice. I'm
>sorry, but on policy alone, that preference has to belong to Bush. If
>FDR has followed the Bush doctrine, he would have attacked Peru after
>Pearl Harbor but I digress.

Thank god, another voice of reason. I was beginning to feel very
alone.

I happen to think that angry old man sig is despicable, by the way.


--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

On Feb 29, 2:04=A0pm, Kenneth <[email protected]> wrote:

> For example, would you prefer to see the interstate highway
> system privatized?

Read the constitution, the federal government should provide for the
common defense and support interstate commerce.

Bombs & roads is all they should be doing.

On Feb 29, 5:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > (Or something like that, if my details are wrong, pls correct them.)
> > Medicare is funded by tax payer dollars. Is it "socialism"? If so,
> > should we abolish that program?
>
> Yes ... it (and Social Security) should be slowly phased out - say
> over 25 years or so. The Feds have no enumerated power to be in
> the healthcare business.
>

That's fine. I figure old people who can't support themselves after
their employer shows 'em the door will pose little threat since, well,
they're old and poor. And if my neighbor's house is repossessed due to
medical debt, well that's an opportunity for me to expand my
empire....

Seriously, I'm not upset with America's entitlements programs. They're
the least generous in the western world and our taxes are by far the
lowest. I'll pay more taxes if they were guaranteed to go to
infrastructure. It's our country. We ought to maintain it. I feel like
we're more concerned with Iraq's infrastructure than our own.

Robert Allison wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> Kenneth wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:41:48 -0800 (PST), Limp Arbor
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 29, 2:04 pm, Kenneth <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For example, would you prefer to see the interstate highway
>>>>> system privatized?
>>>>
>>>> Read the constitution, the federal government should provide for the
>>>> common defense and support interstate commerce.
>>>>
>>>> Bombs & roads is all they should be doing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi again,
>>>
>>> I had written:
>>>
>>>> Howdy,
>>>
>>>
>>>> Could you say something more about which sorts of Socialism
>>>> you oppose?
>>>
>>>
>>>> For example, would you prefer to see the interstate highway
>>>> system privatized?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> I've read the Constitution, but was trying to find out
>>> something about your views, not those of the founders.
>>>
>>> So, from your comment above, I take it that you do favor
>>> having a socialized road system.
>>>
>>> Would that be correct?
>>>
>>> Thanks again,
>>
>>
>> There are two reasons why interstate highways are legitimately
>> the purview of the Federal Government:
>>
>> 1) There is a Constitutional enumerated power to "to establish post
>> offices and post roads". To the
>> extent that roads are needed to move mail, having the
>> Feds build and maintain them is legit.
>>
>> 2) There is a Constitutional enumerated power to
>> "provide for the common defense" [of the several States].
>> The U.S. interstate system as we know it today was originally
>> built as a part of the Cold War defense machinery. Parts of
>> it were poured extra thick so that a B-52 bomber could
>> land on them in time of national emergency. To the
>> extent we need interstate highways to defend the nation,
>> having the Feds build and maintain them is legit.
>>
>> By contrast, there is NO Constitutional enumerated power for
>> the Feds to be involved in many (financially speaking, *most*)
>> of the things they do today:
>>
>> Retirement funds
>> Healthcare
>> Elder care
>> Social services for the impoverished
>> Education
>>
>> It makes no difference how "good" or "desirable" or "humane"
>> such activities might be, the Constitution does not give
>> the Feds permission to do these things. Such activities
>> are left to "the States and the people".
>
> So, if we passed a constitutional amendment giving congress the power to
> enact these, you would be fine with them?
>

It would at least be legal. I would oppose such a change on
ideological grounds, but at the very least, I think it is not
wrong to demand that our government obey its own laws.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Jeff wrote:
> On Feb 29, 2:41 pm, Limp Arbor <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 29, 2:04 pm, Kenneth <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> For example, would you prefer to see the interstate highway
>>> system privatized?
>> Read the constitution, the federal government should provide for the
>> common defense and support interstate commerce.
>>
>> Bombs & roads is all they should be doing.
>
> The constitution also says blacks are 3/5ths of a person or whatever.
> Fortunately, the Framers provided the mechanisms necessary to change
> their intent. If a successful challenge is mounted to non-bomb and
> road appropriations bills, then I'm pretty confident we'll be able to
> pass the necessary amendment. Frankly, I doubt such a challenge would
> ever make it to the SCOTUS.
>

That mechanism for change does indeed exist. It is called an
*Amendment* to the Constitution and requires a supermajority of
States to approve. Short of that, there is no enumerated power
for the Feds to be in the healthcare business. The courts, of
course, have arrogated power to themselves over the past several
hundred years and now routinely grant power to the Feds that
isn't actually Constitutional. So much for rule of law ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

J. Clarke wrote:

> Robert Allison wrote:
>
>>J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Robert Allison wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Robert Allison wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Robert Allison wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>... snip
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just one other thought. I assume by the reasoning you provide,
>>>>>>>and since
>>>>>>>the general welfare clause is in the preamble, you
>>>>>>>wholeheartedly
>>>>>>>support Bush's terrorist surveillance program. After all, it
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>being done to promote the general welfare and ensure peace and
>>>>>>>domestic tranquility (if you are not a terrorist). Should fit
>>>>>>>completely within your definition of the scope of the federal
>>>>>>>government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The violations in the patriot act are enumerated in our bill of
>>>>>>rights, so they are expressly prohibited.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you really sure that was the intent of those who wrote the
>>>>>bill of rights? After all, your perceived violations in the
>>>>>patriot
>>>>>act are really there for the general welfare and are not directed
>>>>>at
>>>>>"we the people" of the US, but at foreigners.
>>>>
>>>>Do you discount the Declarations words that say "We hold these
>>>>truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that
>>>>they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>>>>Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
>>>>Happiness..."
>>>>
>>>>Not all americans, but all men.
>>>>
>>>>"We, the people" describes the ones writing the Constitution and
>>>>the people of the new country. Its predecessor stated that all
>>>>men have certain rights. Liberty is one of them.
>>>
>>>
>>>That was in the Articles of Confederation? Where?
>>
>>I meant the paper prescedant to the Constitution; The
>>Declaration of Independence. Not the system of governance.
>>
>>
>>>>The
>>>>constitution then states that liberty cannot be deprived without
>>>>due process of law. If liberty is an unalienable right of men,
>>>>and it cannot be deprived of them without due process, then why
>>>>does the patriot act suspend habeus corpus, even for US citizens?
>>>
>>>
>>>What provision of "the patriot act" that has not been overturned by
>>>the Supreme Court suspends habeas corpus for US citizens?
>>>Incidentally the Declaration of Independence has little force in
>>>law,
>>>quoting from it is irrelevant.
>>
>>I did not say that the provision had not been overturned, I said
>>the patriot act suspended it. Nonetheless, our President, with
>>consent of his Counsel Mr. Gonzales, has locked people up, "per
>>speciale Mandatum Domini Regis." Some of their names are familiar
>>to us - US citizens Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, for example -
>>but there are hundreds whose names we are not even allowed to
>>know. Perhaps thousands. It's a state secret, after all. Per
>>speciale Mandatum Domini Regis.
>>
>>
>>>>It does the general welfare of the US no good to deprive the
>>>>citizens of the rights guaranteed by the constitution. So, in
>>>>answer to your question; no, the general welfare clause cannot be
>>>>used to justify the patriot act.
>>>
>>>
>>>Of what specific rights guaranteed by the Constitution have
>>>citizens
>>>been deprived?
>>
>>Ask Mr. Padilla if he thinks that his rights as a US citizen have
>>been deprived. According to the patriot act, if you are
>>suspected of terrorist activities, you may be detained
>>indefinitely, without charges, without trial, without
>>representation, regardless of whether you are a US citizen or
>>not. Is that enough for you?
>>
>>
>>>>>>>One other thought, given your rationale above, is there
>>>>>>>*anything* that Congress could not do if they used the argument
>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>was being done for the "general welfare"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sure. Anything that is NOT for the general welfare or otherwise
>>>>>>violates the constitution. We have that nasty old USSC to watch
>>>>>>out for that, plus numerous groups whose sole purpose in
>>>>>>existing
>>>>>>is to watch for stuff like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what I thought. Anything someone can wrap a "general
>>>>>welfare" claim around is pretty much allowable. Kind of like the
>>>>>Clinton administration attempt at gun control near schools under
>>>>>the
>>>>>interstate commerce clause. The argument they made was that
>>>>>since
>>>>>educated citizens were vital to interstate commerce, the ability
>>>>>of
>>>>>the federal government to enforce gun-free areas around schools
>>>>>was
>>>>>a reasonable application of the interstate commerce clause. The
>>>>>judge who heard the case laughed them out of court asking, "with
>>>>>that rationale, is there *anything* that would not fit into that
>>>>>clause?"
>>>>
>>>>Exactly! You can see that the limits are still there and must be
>>>>justified. You can try anything you want, and the lawyers and
>>>>legislators do. But they usually do not get through, or they are
>>>>overturned on appeal. See how great the system works?
>>>
>>>
>>>Or the court gets threatened with packing, which is how Social
>>>Security was forced through--Roosevelt threatened to double the
>>>number of Justices and make sure that all the new ones agreed with
>>>his program and the Court caved. One mistake the Founders made was
>>>not specifying the number of Justices or providing some limit on
>>>changes in their number intended to prevent such activity.
>>
>>Have their decisions been overturned? FDR is dead. There is no
>>further threat from him and I think the justices made the right
>>decision. Why have the incorrect decisions not been overturned
>>by subsequent courts if they are so egregious? I think it is
>>because the decisions were correct and needed. FDR just provided
>>the leverage the court needed to do the right thing.
>
>
> Has anyone figured out a way to challenge those rulings? The court
> can only rule on those cases that come before it.

Don't pay your taxes and claim that the law is illegal when it
compels you to pay for services provided under the general
welfare clause. Take it all the way to the USSC. Stand up for
your beliefs! Or do you just like to argue?


--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

Mark & Juanita wrote:

> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:34:50 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The next election will have a statist in some form as President of
>>>the U.S. We have the Republicans to thank for that - they proved
>>>that fiscal restraint is now irrelevant - now it's just a race to
>>>the bottom of the socialist sewer..
>>
>>Tim, your constant use of "socialist" reminds me of Joe McCarthy. Perhaps
>>you aren't aware that labor unions were once considered"socialist" if not
>>"communist". As were the FDA, the minimum wage, and a host of other
>>things. It has forever been the cry of the ruling classes to anything
>>they, and those they have fooled, think threatens them.
>>
>
>
> Perhaps you have a better definition for the currently advocated policies
> of "redistributing wealth". i.e. the government taking something from the
> productive in society and giving it to others who didn't work for it? Or,
> the act of the government completely taking over 1/7 of the US economy in
> the form of national health care. Seems socialism describes the situation
> pretty well. As well as Hillary's comments regarding how she is going
> to "take those oil company profits" and invest them in ...

So does shared liability, but that just isn't scary enough is it?
Are you also opposed to insurance plans?

>>And have you forgotten "and provide for the common welfare"?
>
>
> That phrase has been abused and misused by statists for the past 6 decades
> that it has lost its original meaning. Nowhere in the federalist or
> anti-federalist papers would you find anything supporting the idea that
> providing for the common welfare meant wealth re-distribution.
>
> LBJ did good, by calling his program "welfare", he gave it the aura of
> constitutional approval despite the fact it flies in the face of the
> constitutional republic.

Rigid people require rigid reasons, I guess.

Here is a quote for you from the Constitutional Conventions
general instructions to the midsummer Committee of Detail, which
took upon itself the task of translating these instructions into
the specific enumerations of Article I, Congress was to enjoy
authority to "legislate in all Cases for the general Interests of
the Union, and also in those Cases to which the States are
separately incompetent, or in which the Harmony of the United
States may be interrupted by the Exercise of individual Legislation."

That became the general welfare clause. I think that that is
evidence of the general intentions. And it was used by the
supreme court in deciding that, indeed, congress has the power to
enact laws for the general welfare.

Just can't get over it can you?

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

On Feb 29, 2:56=A0pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Please itemize our lost freedoms. I'd like to know.

Have you read the Patriot Act?

On Feb 29, 10:05 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robert Allison wrote:
> > Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> >> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> >>>On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:34:50 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> >>>>The next election will have a statist in some form as President of
> >>>>the U.S. We have the Republicans to thank for that - they proved
> >>>>that fiscal restraint is now irrelevant - now it's just a race to
> >>>>the bottom of the socialist sewer..
>
> >>>Tim, your constant use of "socialist" reminds me of Joe McCarthy.
> >>>Perhaps you aren't aware that labor unions were once
> >>>considered"socialist" if not
> >>>"communist". As were the FDA, the minimum wage, and a host of other
> >>>things. It has forever been the cry of the ruling classes to anything
> >>>they, and those they have fooled, think threatens them.
>
> >> Perhaps you have a better definition for the currently advocated
> >> policies
> >> of "redistributing wealth". i.e. the government taking something from
> >> the
> >> productive in society and giving it to others who didn't work for it?
> >> Or, the act of the government completely taking over 1/7 of the US
> >> economy in
> >> the form of national health care. Seems socialism describes the
> >> situation
> >> pretty well. As well as Hillary's comments regarding how she is going
> >> to "take those oil company profits" and invest them in ...
>
> > So does shared liability, but that just isn't scary enough is it?
> > Are you also opposed to insurance plans?
>
> >>>And have you forgotten "and provide for the common welfare"?
>
> >> That phrase has been abused and misused by statists for the past 6
> >> decades
> >> that it has lost its original meaning. Nowhere in the federalist or
> >> anti-federalist papers would you find anything supporting the idea that
> >> providing for the common welfare meant wealth re-distribution.
>
> >> LBJ did good, by calling his program "welfare", he gave it the aura of
> >> constitutional approval despite the fact it flies in the face of the
> >> constitutional republic.
>
> > Rigid people require rigid reasons, I guess.
>
> > Here is a quote for you from the Constitutional Conventions
> > general instructions to the midsummer Committee of Detail, which
> > took upon itself the task of translating these instructions into
> > the specific enumerations of Article I, Congress was to enjoy
> > authority to "legislate in all Cases for the general Interests of
> > the Union, and also in those Cases to which the States are
> > separately incompetent, or in which the Harmony of the United
> > States may be interrupted by the Exercise of individual Legislation."
>
> Which has nothing to do with entitlement programs. Remember that the
> constitution was formulated after the original approach failed because
> states were taxing commerce between themselves in the same manner of
> countries and were enacting legislation that was endangering the harmony of
> the states.
>
> > That became the general welfare clause. I think that that is
> > evidence of the general intentions. And it was used by the
> > supreme court in deciding that, indeed, congress has the power to
> > enact laws for the general welfare.
>
> Which has zip to do with wealth re-distribution and entitlement programs.
>
> > Just can't get over it can you?
>
> Can't get over the fact that people have used this term to abuse the
> intent of the founders and the federal republic form of government? Nope.
>

Clearly I don't know as much as you. Can you list every Founder and
his intent WRT this issue?

On Feb 29, 7:42 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > On Feb 29, 5:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Jeff wrote:
>
> >> > (Or something like that, if my details are wrong, pls correct them.)
> >> > Medicare is funded by tax payer dollars. Is it "socialism"? If so,
> >> > should we abolish that program?
>
> >> Yes ... it (and Social Security) should be slowly phased out - say
> >> over 25 years or so. The Feds have no enumerated power to be in
> >> the healthcare business.
>
> > That's fine. I figure old people who can't support themselves after
> > their employer shows 'em the door will pose little threat since, well,
> > they're old and poor. And if my neighbor's house is repossessed due to
> > medical debt, well that's an opportunity for me to expand my
> > empire....
>
> > Seriously, I'm not upset with America's entitlements programs. They're
> > the least generous in the western world and our taxes are by far the
> > lowest. I'll pay more taxes if they were guaranteed to go to
> > infrastructure. It's our country. We ought to maintain it. I feel like
> > we're more concerned with Iraq's infrastructure than our own.
>
> You do remember the huge gas tax increase of the 90's? It was meant to go
> to fix the "crumbling infrastructure". Same with numerous other tax
> increases that some have willingly accepted to "improve our
> infrastructure". How about we find out where that money is going before
> letting the congresscritters take more of the money we have left?
>

Can you provide a source and context for that quote? I remember it as
a measure to fill the budget deficit. And it did. Now suddenly we have
another budget deficit. These ppl can't be trusted with a fork.

J. Clarke wrote:

> Robert Allison wrote:
>
>>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Robert Allison" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>The fact is that we are the government and we do tax ourselves.
>>>>You
>>>>are about to see an example of how a government can change when
>>>>the
>>>>people get tired of how it is acting. The bums are actually about
>>>>to be voted out.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wish you were correct. If so, Teddy Kennedy, Dodd, and a bunch of
>>>other political hacks would have been long gone.
>>
>>The inertia of the people is hard to reverse, but it is finally
>>being reversed. The last mid term election was the beginning of
>>the reversal of the pendulum. It will continue. Just because it
>>is your side of the aisle that is having to pack up, does not
>>make my statements any less valid.
>
>
> You're what, nineteen?

54

There was supposed to be this huge change when
> the Republicans came in. No change. If a Democratic President is
> elected this time around (which seems unlikely--the Democrats seem to
> be determined to shoot themselves in the foot and Nader has decided to
> stick his nose in it again) you think that there's going to be some
> huge change in our society?
>
> They are politicians. They behave like politicians. The party
> doesn't matter--the difference between a Democrat and a Republican is
> in the lies they tell, not in the actions they take.

Could I interest you in voting for Barack Obama, then? I mean,
since it doesn't matter, what could it hurt?


>>>>We elect representatives to (of all things) represent us. They
>>>>are
>>>>supposed to do what we want, while tempering their actions with
>>>>their intelligence and understanding of the law and our system of
>>>>government. So when they pass revenue bills, it is at our bequest
>>>>whether we like it or not. They are representing us.
>>>
>>>
>>>In theory yo are correct. In reality, special interest groups and
>>>lobbyists have more power and more influence than constituents.
>>
>>And those lobbyists and special interest groups are representing
>>the people of the US for the most part, and they are able to
>>exert more influence due to the apathy of the general public. I
>>think that apathy is dissipating to the point where they will
>>have less influence, and the will of the general public will
>>become more important to our legislators.
>
>
> So you don't object to NRA-ILA? Why do I find that surprising.

I am a member of the NRA. Why would I object to it?

>>>>So when the congress passes legislation that initiates a program
>>>>such as TANF, or medicare, they are doing it for our benefit,
>>>>because we have reached, as a society, the consensus that that
>>>>promotes our general welfare. And I agree.
>>>
>>>
>>>Good for you, I disagree. Lobbyists prevail too often.
>>
>>I don't disagree, but I think that is changing.
>>
>>
>>>>Mark or Juanita do not. They do not want to help those in need,
>>>>because someone may abuse the system and get something for free.
>>>>They do not believe in our society banding together and making a
>>>>pact for each of us to share the burden of caring for those that
>>>>cannot care for themselves. They wish everyone to be on their own
>>>>and if you can't survive, you die.
>>>>
>>>>Hard to believe, isn't it?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, not at all. Helping people is one thing, giving away my hard
>>>earned money to lazy people milking the system is entirely
>>>different. Spending in all phases of government is out of control
>>>and they just keep adding taxes instead of restraint in spending.
>>
>>So, because there are some that abuse the system, we should get
>>rid of it and let it go back to every man for himself? I agree
>>that spending MUST be brought under control. My argument is for
>>a smarter application of our dollars spent by congress so that we
>>get more bang for the buck, thus needing less of those dollars
>>and accomplishing more.
>
>
> Uh huh. Same old tired rhetoric. Find a way to do it. You can't?
> But you think that a bunch of politicans can?

I think that it can be done. But it can't be just the
politicians. It has to be all of us, or at least most of us.
Have you noticed that there is a lot more participation in
politics this year? In some places it has increased 10 fold. I
find that to be a good sign.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

On Mar 3, 1:45=A0pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> The world is nibbling on its own ass right now. WIthin half a century,
> that nibble will be a gobble and may well reach the vitals. Over-
> population is the problem. Period. [snip]

I once took all the square miles of land in the Province of Ontario,
Canada, deducted a certain percentage for lakes/water etc. and
multiplied to get square feet.
I then divided by 6.5 billion (Population estimate).
Each man, woman, child would have a parcel of land approx. 60' x 150'.
Each family of 5 would have an acre. (Please do NOT nit-pick over
square inches!)

I know I didn't include farm land, roads... it only serves as a
talking point.

Now take a look at how small Ontario is on a globe.

Overpopulation is only an issue when everybody wants to live on the
same spot.

WHICH is why the busses in Belgium are 20 feet wide and only 4 feet
long. Because everybody wants to sit up front.

Discuss.

On Mar 1, 11:29 am, "Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I feel for you Dave in Houston. You had to deal with this man as
> > 1. President
> > 2. Governor
> > 3. Baseball team owner
>
> > I know he failed miserably in at least two of those efforts...
>
> The "sweetheart" deal he was handed [getting into the Texas Rangers
> baseball organization] paid off handsomely in the end, the only "business"
> deal he was involved with that didn't crater.
> I've been feeling sorry for myself for the last seven plus years.
>

Like many if not most sports franchises the Rangers received
an enormous government subsidy in the form of a stadium built
at taxpayer expense. Nothing unusual about that, the point merely
is that it would take really, really bad management to lose money
with a deal a like that.

--

FF

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> And perhaps you also see no problem with eavesdropping without a warrant?

A form of this has been around for years. It's called CCTV.

> How about asking libraries to keep a record of what you take out?

If it means for a better, more effficient and an increased selection for a
particular section of books (fiction, woodworking, reference, etc), I'm all
for it.

You guys take this election much to seriously.

I don't see much difference between any of the candidates regardless
of the party or their affiliations.

It is odd to see the Democrats turn against Hillary, and the same
machine that made the Clinton duo media darlings practically ignore
her and her husband. Somehow they fell out of fashion with the press
and now it appears that the fourth estate has anointed Obama the heir
apparent.

After realizing how ineffective, lazy, self serving and sanctimonious
The House and The Senate are, I quit worrying as much as I used to.
It was just a year ago that my conservative friends were in tears
because the Dems were declaring that they "took back America" and the
first 100 days of their control would see sweeping changes to our laws
and country.

To date, the report of their changes is nil. Even with the most
unpopular president in history, they can't muster enough votes in
their own party faithful to pass significant legislation.

As for Bush, he is no conservative. I don't know what he aspires to,
or how he decided party affiliation. Even without the war budget, I
read that he has vetoed any piece of legislation that has spending
attached to it if it doesn't have unrelated crap attached. Money
flows from his hands like water.

McCain used to be considered a moderate Democrat. Now he is a
Republican lefty. And take a look at Schwarzenegger; now fully
embraced by Dems, but increasingly rejected by Republicans because he
is driving up the debt of the state beyond the capability of paying
off even part of it by championing his own social programs, while
taking away from those he doesn't like.

I too have noticed the winds of change blowing around Hillary. I
don't know why, as the Republicans haven't had much to do with it at
all. They aren't sure who they are fighting for the Pres job, and
with the Dems starting to hammer on each other, they don't have to do
much at this time. I can't see where Hillary's message or politics
have changed, so I am left to guess that Obama became the favorite of
the press behind closed doors somewhere, for some reason.

In the end though, I don't know that any of it matters. I will go to
work, pay my taxes, and get up the next day and do it again. The
politicians don't, and have not represented me in so long I don't
remember.

For those that can't sleep at night because of the political climate
(from which ever way the wind blows- left to right, right to left), I
feel bad for you. I was like you once... no more.

I sure did think if Rob though when I saw that pic. I though it was
funny.

Some of the folks around here are just as old, cranky and mean as any
of the denizens here, you just don't see it because you are on the
other side of the fence.

Lighten up.

Robert

On Mar 1, 12:23 am, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > Can you provide a source and context for that quote? I remember it as
> > a measure to fill the budget deficit. And it did. Now suddenly we have
> > another budget deficit. These ppl can't be trusted with a fork.
>
> You seem to imply that we recently had a budget surplus or at least a
> balanced budget. If that is so, I wonder why the national debt has
> increased each and every year since 1960?

We had a balanced federal budget but I certainly didn't mean to imply
deficit reduction. But you must agree that the former must precede the
latter. Unfortunately, the current administration did take fiscal
responsibility too seriously ... okay, they weren't serious at all.

On Feb 29, 1:37 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> efgh wrote:
> > "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> There is this little problem of our freedom gradually being eroded away.
> >> If you can ignore that, you deserve to lose it.
>
> > What freedom have you lost?
>
> About all of 'em, if you haven't been paying 'tenshun... :(
>

Please itemize our lost freedoms. I'd like to know.

On Mar 1, 6:47 am, Robert Allison <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>
> "We, the people" describes the ones writing the Constitution and
> the people of the new country. Its predecessor stated that all
> men have certain rights. Liberty is one of them. The
> constitution then states that liberty cannot be deprived without
> due process of law. If liberty is an unalienable right of men,
> and it cannot be deprived of them without due process, then why
> does the patriot act suspend habeus corpus, even for US citizens?
> ...

AFAIK no part of the Patriot Act suspended the writ of hadeas
corpus protected in the Constitution, which is sometimes called
the "Great Writ", to distinguish it from federal habeas corpus.
Federal habeas corpus is created by federal law and thus
may be modified or set aside by federal law.

The Great Writ may only be suspended in time of invasion
or rebellion, (and then only by the Congress--its in Article I)
and thus cannot be suspended by the Patriot
Act as neither circumstance is present.

--

FF

On Feb 29, 5:03 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > On Feb 29, 2:41 pm, Limp Arbor <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Feb 29, 2:04 pm, Kenneth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> For example, would you prefer to see the interstate highway
> >>> system privatized?
> >> Read the constitution, the federal government should provide for the
> >> common defense and support interstate commerce.
>
> >> Bombs & roads is all they should be doing.
>
> > The constitution also says blacks are 3/5ths of a person or whatever.
> > Fortunately, the Framers provided the mechanisms necessary to change
> > their intent. If a successful challenge is mounted to non-bomb and
> > road appropriations bills, then I'm pretty confident we'll be able to
> > pass the necessary amendment. Frankly, I doubt such a challenge would
> > ever make it to the SCOTUS.
>
> That mechanism for change does indeed exist. It is called an
> *Amendment* to the Constitution and requires a supermajority of
> States to approve. Short of that, there is no enumerated power
> for the Feds to be in the healthcare business. The courts, of
> course, have arrogated power to themselves over the past several
> hundred years and now routinely grant power to the Feds that
> isn't actually Constitutional. So much for rule of law ...
>

I'm not a lawyer so you may be right. The courts may be wrong. The
legislature may be wrong. Most Americans may be wrong. That might be
true, but this much I'm certain: President Bush is *always* wrong.

The Constitution vested power in the appropriate place, we the people.
If government has no business in health care, then we'll eventually
yank that service. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

On Feb 29, 2:40 pm, Limp Arbor <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 29, 1:34 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What socialist measures are you talking about?
>
> Single-payer, AKA taxpayer funded national health care
> five year lock on interest rates

Certainly I can see reasons to oppose that but unfortunately, we
currently pick up the tab for catastrophic illness. Once a person is
too sick to work - after six months of limbo - medicare picks them up.
(Or something like that, if my details are wrong, pls correct them.)
Medicare is funded by tax payer dollars. Is it "socialism"? If so,
should we abolish that program?

On Feb 29, 10:48 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
>
> I'm not a lawyer so you may be right. The courts may be wrong. The
> legislature may be wrong. Most Americans may be wrong. That might be
> true, but this much I'm certain: President Bush is *always* wrong.

It is widely reported that the US helped to negotiate the return of
Banizir Bhutto to Pakistan, which has been a catalyst for the
resurgence of Democracy in Pakistan.

It's not the only thing he's done right, but the most recent thing
for which he deserves credit.

--

FF

On Feb 29, 9:37 am, Limp Arbor <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 29, 7:59 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 29, 2:24 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I knew I should have been in bed an hour ago.
>
> > > This might work:
>
> > > http://tinyurl.com/ypmcvc
>
> > > Robert
>
> > She's not likely to win the nomination so I suppose this is pointless,
> > but what is it specifically that you guys don't like about her?
>
> Socialism

What socialist measures are you talking about?

On Mar 1, 3:19 am, Mark &orJuanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> One other thought, given your rationale above, is there *anything* that
> Congress could not do if they used the argument it was being done for
> the "general welfare"?
>

Substitute 'interstate commerce' for 'general welfare' and you have
the gist of a fair number of USSC rulings.

--

FF

On Feb 29, 1:54 pm, "efgh" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
> > efgh wrote:
> >> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> There is this little problem of our freedom gradually being eroded away.
> >>> If you can ignore that, you deserve to lose it.
>
> >> What freedom have you lost?
>
> > About all of 'em, if you haven't been paying 'tenshun... :(
>
> Could you be a little more specific please.

It used to be that if an American Citizen was
detained in a foreign country, he was guaranteed
the right receive visits from officials representing
the US State Department.

A couple of years ago, (shortly before I left for a
visit to Libya) The Bush administration quietly
withdrew from that treaty.

For all intents and purposes, the privilege of the
writ of Habeas Corpus is gone. If the government
can hold an American citizen incommunicado
from even his own attorney, and without a showing
of evidence, for four years during the appeal process
the writ is effectively denied.

--

FF

On Feb 29, 11:37 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Feb 29, 10:38 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 29, 3:22 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 29, 2:56 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Please itemize our lost freedoms. I'd like to know.
>
> > > Have you read the Patriot Act?
>
> > Parts of it and I have problems with the law. The most distasteful
> > things are usually wrapped in appeals to patriotism. As I understand
> > it, it requires legislative renewal. That's a Good Thing. More than
> > anything, I can't help but wonder what its supporters will say after
> > its powers are wielded by President Barry HUSSEIN Obama.
>
> Husein may not be as common as 'Smith', but it is a pretty
> common name. It's the surname of the Royal Family
> of Jordan, as you may recall.
>

Joke, dude. Read it in context.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:34:50 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> The next election will have a statist in some form as President of
>> the U.S. We have the Republicans to thank for that - they proved
>> that fiscal restraint is now irrelevant - now it's just a race to
>> the bottom of the socialist sewer..
>
> Tim, your constant use of "socialist" reminds me of Joe McCarthy. Perhaps
> you aren't aware that labor unions were once considered"socialist" if not
> "communist". As were the FDA, the minimum wage, and a host of other
> things. It has forever been the cry of the ruling classes to anything
> they, and those they have fooled, think threatens them.
>
> And have you forgotten "and provide for the common welfare"?
>

Go read some James Madison - he spoke quite specifically about
the General Welfare clause - it is NOT and was NOT intended to
be a "get out of jail free" card for government action.
Specifically, Madison pointed out that this clause should NOT
be read as an abrogation of enumerated rights. But ... it doesn't
matter any more. You and the rest of the do-gooders want lots and
lots of government. You got it. Don't whine when they peek in
your bedroom, your boardroom, your wallet, and you life. You're
getting what you asked for.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I feel for you Dave in Houston. You had to deal with this man as
> 1. President
> 2. Governor
> 3. Baseball team owner
>
> I know he failed miserably in at least two of those efforts...

The "sweetheart" deal he was handed [getting into the Texas Rangers
baseball organization] paid off handsomely in the end, the only "business"
deal he was involved with that didn't crater.
I've been feeling sorry for myself for the last seven plus years.

-
Dave in Houston

On Feb 29, 2:38 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> You guys take this election much to seriously.
>
> > Where the presidential election stands now, I would tend to agree.
> > The key is going to be the House and Senate. A socialist-leaning
> > statist in the White House coupled with a legislature controlled by
> > similar leaning
>
> Say, like George W. Bush, who's spent more on social entitlements both
> in real dollars and per capita than *any* other president? For the
> record, I supported W on pounding Iraq (and still do - it was the
> staying there that irritates me), but this guy's fiscal
> irresponsibility is at the same level as people like Kennedy and his
> horrid Leftie cronies.
>

Sorry. GWB's spending is at a level that no one else has ever come
close to reaching. He not only spent his political capital, he's spent
the country's fiscal capital for years to come. How are your great-
great grandkids doing? Well, I hope, as they're the ones who will be
paying off his wonderful MBA touch.

On Mar 1, 12:52 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Nice try, but the U.S. is a representative Republic.

A republic may take many forms. A representative Democracy
is the form used by the United States.

'Representative Republic' is a term that is new to me.


> It was deliberately
> designed that way to prevent a tyranny of the majority from doing what you
> have described. It is not the people who are taxing themselves -- the
> problem is that the top 50% of income earners are paying 86% of all federal
> income taxes.

Doh! The top 50% of income earners are also earning
a lot more than 86% of all income. I'll bet they also use
a lot more than 86% of all government infrastructure and
resources though that would be a LOT tougher to
measure.

Even with a flat tax the upper 50% are gong to pay more
income tax than the lower.

--

FF

On Feb 29, 7:59 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 29, 2:24 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I knew I should have been in bed an hour ago.
>
> > This might work:
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/ypmcvc
>
> > Robert
>
> She's not likely to win the nomination so I suppose this is pointless,
> but what is it specifically that you guys don't like about her?
> Here's her voting record. What do you find so objectionable:
>
> http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463
>
> I decided to back Barry Obama a few months ago so I can't be
> characterized as a Clinton supporter. But some of the attacks she
> faces seems unwarranted. There's an angry old man running around this
> group with a signature that declares her the terrorists' choice. I'm
> sorry, but on policy alone, that preference has to belong to Bush. If
> FDR has followed the Bush doctrine, he would have attacked Peru after
> Pearl Harbor but I digress.
>


I've got to agree. It baffles me. Around here, it's all Tammy
Wynette's "Stand By Your Man" (at least in the churches..divorce rate
is just as high as anywhere else, maybe higher), but the local papers
published a slew of angry letters about how that "woman" stayed with
her philandering husband, going into a lot of rationales that they
cannot possibly know for sure. It has gone on from there.

I'm not particularly wild about Barry, but McCain has started to make
me very, very nervous. Huckabee would be laughable if I didn't live in
the midst of the kind of zombies who find him lovable.

Jeff wrote:

> Can you provide a source and context for that quote? I remember it as
> a measure to fill the budget deficit. And it did. Now suddenly we have
> another budget deficit. These ppl can't be trusted with a fork.
>

You seem to imply that we recently had a budget surplus or at least a
balanced budget. If that is so, I wonder why the national debt has
increased each and every year since 1960?

On Feb 29, 2:54 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 29, 2:40 pm, Limp Arbor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 29, 1:34 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > What socialist measures are you talking about?
>
> > Single-payer, AKA taxpayer funded national health care
> > five year lock on interest rates
>
> Certainly I can see reasons to oppose that but unfortunately, we
> currently pick up the tab for catastrophic illness. Once a person is
> too sick to work - after six months of limbo - medicare picks them up.
> (Or something like that, if my details are wrong, pls correct them.)
> Medicare is funded by tax payer dollars. Is it "socialism"? If so,
> should we abolish that program?

Not Medicare, Medicaid.

On Mar 2, 12:16 am, Robert Allison <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 6:48 pm, Robert Allison <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>J. Clarke wrote:
>
> >>...
>
> >>>That was in the Articles of Confederation? Where?
>
> >>I meant the paper prescedant to the Constitution;
>
> > That paper was (were) the Article of Confederation.
>
> >>The Declaration of Independence.
>
> > Preceded the Articles of Confederation.
>
> But I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the Declaration.
>
> Didn't you recognize the words?

Of course I did.

The context in which you quoted them led to an inference
that you had forgotten about the Articles of Confederation.

--

FF

On Feb 29, 10:38 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 29, 3:22 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 29, 2:56 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Please itemize our lost freedoms. I'd like to know.
>
> > Have you read the Patriot Act?
>
> Parts of it and I have problems with the law. The most distasteful
> things are usually wrapped in appeals to patriotism. As I understand
> it, it requires legislative renewal. That's a Good Thing. More than
> anything, I can't help but wonder what its supporters will say after
> its powers are wielded by President Barry HUSSEIN Obama.



Husein may not be as common as 'Smith', but it is a pretty
common name. It's the surname of the Royal Family
of Jordan, as you may recall.

--

FF

On Feb 29, 7:59=A0am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 29, 2:24 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I knew I should have been in bed an hour ago.
>
> > This might work:
>
> > =A0http://tinyurl.com/ypmcvc
>
> > Robert
>
> She's not likely to win the nomination so I suppose this is pointless,
> but what is it specifically that you guys don't like about her?

Socialism

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> "Robert Allison" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>The fact is that we are the government and we do tax ourselves. You are
>>about to see an example of how a government can change when the people get
>>tired of how it is acting. The bums are actually about to be voted out.
>
>
> Wish you were correct. If so, Teddy Kennedy, Dodd, and a bunch of other
> political hacks would have been long gone.

The inertia of the people is hard to reverse, but it is finally
being reversed. The last mid term election was the beginning of
the reversal of the pendulum. It will continue. Just because it
is your side of the aisle that is having to pack up, does not
make my statements any less valid.


>>We elect representatives to (of all things) represent us. They are
>>supposed to do what we want, while tempering their actions with their
>>intelligence and understanding of the law and our system of government.
>>So when they pass revenue bills, it is at our bequest whether we like it
>>or not. They are representing us.
>
>
> In theory yo are correct. In reality, special interest groups and lobbyists
> have more power and more influence than constituents.

And those lobbyists and special interest groups are representing
the people of the US for the most part, and they are able to
exert more influence due to the apathy of the general public. I
think that apathy is dissipating to the point where they will
have less influence, and the will of the general public will
become more important to our legislators.

>>So when the congress passes legislation that initiates a program such as
>>TANF, or medicare, they are doing it for our benefit, because we have
>>reached, as a society, the consensus that that promotes our general
>>welfare. And I agree.
>
>
> Good for you, I disagree. Lobbyists prevail too often.

I don't disagree, but I think that is changing.

>>Mark or Juanita do not. They do not want to help those in need, because
>>someone may abuse the system and get something for free. They do not
>>believe in our society banding together and making a pact for each of us
>>to share the burden of caring for those that cannot care for themselves.
>>They wish everyone to be on their own and if you can't survive, you die.
>>
>>Hard to believe, isn't it?
>
>
> No, not at all. Helping people is one thing, giving away my hard earned
> money to lazy people milking the system is entirely different. Spending in
> all phases of government is out of control and they just keep adding taxes
> instead of restraint in spending.

So, because there are some that abuse the system, we should get
rid of it and let it go back to every man for himself? I agree
that spending MUST be brought under control. My argument is for
a smarter application of our dollars spent by congress so that we
get more bang for the buck, thus needing less of those dollars
and accomplishing more.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> On Mar 1, 6:48 pm, Robert Allison <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>>That was in the Articles of Confederation? Where?
>>
>>I meant the paper prescedant to the Constitution;
>
>
> That paper was (were) the Article of Confederation.
>
>
>>The Declaration of Independence.
>
>
> Preceded the Articles of Confederation.

But I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the Declaration.

Didn't you recognize the words?

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

On Mar 1, 6:48 pm, Robert Allison <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > That was in the Articles of Confederation? Where?
>
> I meant the paper prescedant to the Constitution;

That paper was (were) the Article of Confederation.

> The Declaration of Independence.

Preceded the Articles of Confederation.

--

FF

"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fffb05b0-c653-4e48-b2e0-d3f5b429ce55@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>
> She's not likely to win the nomination so I suppose this is pointless,
> but what is it specifically that you guys don't like about her?
> Here's her voting record. What do you find so objectionable:


Number one reason, I don't know of any other reason that she is using to run
for office except to fix the health care system. About 16 years ago her
husband put her in charge of doing just that. Reason enough for me.

PCPaul wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:08:14 +0000, DS wrote:
>
>> Chris Friesen wrote:
>>> Phisherman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not a big deal, but I can't stand her grading voice.
>>> "grading"? She's a teacher? :)
>> Someone just got an F in grammar!
>
> ITYM spelling...

Depends on whether he used the wrong word, or misspelled the right word.

On Feb 29, 3:11 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > On Feb 29, 1:37 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> efgh wrote:
> >>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>> There is this little problem of our freedom gradually being eroded away.
> >>>> If you can ignore that, you deserve to lose it.
> >>> What freedom have you lost?
> >> About all of 'em, if you haven't been paying 'tenshun... :(
>
> > Please itemize our lost freedoms. I'd like to know.
>
> How about "serious erosion"...
>
> Everything from the intrusion on travel to financial dealings to library
> and other information sources to encroachment on 2nd Amendment to the
> increasing "nanny state" restrictions on personal behavior deemed
> politically incorrect by the "enlightened"...
>

I'm not a gun owner, so I have no idea. What guns would you like to
buy that you can't?

In light of the fraudulent ratings Moody's, Standard, et al, recently
affixed to some mortgage backed securities, some would say there isn't
enough regulation in the financial markets.

Specifically, what restrictions on personal behavior vis a vis
political correctness are you concerned about? AFAIK, the .gov
protects offensive speech. Your employer may have a different view....

On Feb 29, 11:42 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Feb 29, 10:48 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ...
>
> > I'm not a lawyer so you may be right. The courts may be wrong. The
> > legislature may be wrong. Most Americans may be wrong. That might be
> > true, but this much I'm certain: President Bush is *always* wrong.
>
> It is widely reported that the US helped to negotiate the return of
> Banizir Bhutto to Pakistan, which has been a catalyst for the
> resurgence of Democracy in Pakistan.
>
> It's not the only thing he's done right, but the most recent thing
> for which he deserves credit.
>

The Bush administration was trying to arrange a marriage from hell.
Certainly you can persuade me with evidence to the contrary but based
on what I know thus far, the resurgence seems to be in reaction to a
recent power grab by the man Bush looked in the eye and declared good.
Cos that lookin in the eye thing works so well for him. Just ask Pooty-
Poot.

Jeff wrote:
> On Mar 1, 12:23 am, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>>> Can you provide a source and context for that quote? I remember it as
>>> a measure to fill the budget deficit. And it did. Now suddenly we have
>>> another budget deficit. These ppl can't be trusted with a fork.
>> You seem to imply that we recently had a budget surplus or at least a
>> balanced budget. If that is so, I wonder why the national debt has
>> increased each and every year since 1960?
>
> We had a balanced federal budget but I certainly didn't mean to imply
> deficit reduction. But you must agree that the former must precede the
> latter. Unfortunately, the current administration did take fiscal
> responsibility too seriously ... okay, they weren't serious at all.

When did we recently (last 40 years) have a balanced federal budget? If
we did, the national debt would not have increased that year(s). If
there were a surplus, the debt would have decreased.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9c3b4365-4eb7-4604-b30e-7504af04cf31@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>I knew I should have been in bed an hour ago.
>
> This might work:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ypmcvc
>
> Robert


That may very well be real and not staged.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> You guys take this election much to seriously.
>>
>
> Where the presidential election stands now, I would tend to agree.
> The key is going to be the House and Senate. A socialist-leaning
> statist in the White House coupled with a legislature controlled by
> similar leaning

Say, like George W. Bush, who's spent more on social entitlements both
in real dollars and per capita than *any* other president? For the
record, I supported W on pounding Iraq (and still do - it was the
staying there that irritates me), but this guy's fiscal
irresponsibility is at the same level as people like Kennedy and his
horrid Leftie cronies.

> socialist statists is going to lead to bad things happening, and
> those bad things are going to trickle down.


You mean as opposed to the vigorously defended small central
government Federalism the current crop of "Conservatives" and "Neo
Conservatives" have managed to preserve? Government powers over the
citizenry have been substantially expanded under this "Conservative"
regime. I have no problem limiting civil liberties to invaders. I have
a big problem doing so to people who are here legitimately: Citizens
and legal guests. Why? Because We The Sheeple are Terror-fied.

If we ranked the risks to our health and wellbeing in order, and
treated them with the same intensity we do the terror threat, there'd
be National Guardsman at every exit ramp to try and reduce the some
40,000 highway deaths *per year*. But the bozo public and the power
mad politicians (on all sides) have trumped up the terror threat all
out of proportion to get their mitts on my freedoms. I don't like it
much, but we're now more-or-less at the mercy of a bunch of terrified
children instead of informed citizens... and W has happily exploited
this to increase the power of the Executive Branch.

I speak as someone not wholly opposed to things like Patriot I & II or
the NSA surveillance activities - some of this is inevitably
necessary. But the failure of our government - all parts of it - to do
this stuff transparently and with short sunsets on the laws that
permit them is unconscionable. We are waddling our way to slavery ...



>
>> I don't see much difference between any of the candidates regardless
>> of the party or their affiliations.
>>
>
> Unfortunate, but true. The Republicans let the media pick their
> candidate this time and the early primaries with significant cross-over
> voting by dems and independents have pretty well set up a candidate who
> could hardly be considered conservative.

No, the Republicans are intellectually and philosophically debauched.
They've bought into the Democrat/Liberal playbook page that says that
"the Federal government's job is to do good for the people". The
differ only in their respective definitions of the word "good". If
you're a Democrat, doing "good" means funding out-of-wedlock
pregnancies and then paying for abortions. If you're a Republican,
doing "good" means feeding money to "faith based charities" and
spending tax dollars to prevent people from doing naughty things:
drugs, sex, gambling, or carrying more than 3oz of perfume in
your carryon bag.

The two parties - and the apathetic culture that enables them -
deserve each other. While liberty is growing around the planet, it is
shrinking in the U.S., primarily due to the abandonment of our first
principles: Limited government bounded by enumerated powers, personal
liberty, and personal accountability.

It makes NO difference who wins the upcoming election. Either party
and almost any of the candidates (other than Paul) will be only too
happy to slaughter freedom on the altar of their self-proclaimed
do-gooding...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Feb 29, 10:22=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> You guys take this election much to seriously.
>
> I don't see much difference between any of the candidates regardless
> of the party or their affiliations.
>
> It is odd to see the Democrats turn against Hillary, and the same
> machine that made the Clinton duo media darlings practically ignore
> her and her husband. =A0Somehow they fell out of fashion with the press
> and now it appears that the fourth estate has anointed Obama the heir
> apparent.
>
> After realizing how ineffective, lazy, self serving and sanctimonious
> The House and The Senate are, I quit worrying as much as I used to.
> It was just a year ago that my conservative friends were in tears
> because the Dems were declaring that they "took back America" and the
> first 100 days of their control would see sweeping changes to our laws
> and country.
>
> To date, the report of their changes is nil. =A0Even with the most
> unpopular president in history, they can't =A0muster enough votes in
> their own party faithful to pass significant legislation.
>
> As for Bush, he is no conservative. =A0I don't know what he aspires to,
> or how he decided party affiliation. =A0Even without the war budget, I
> read that he has vetoed any piece of legislation that has spending
> attached to it if it doesn't have unrelated crap attached. =A0Money
> flows from his hands like water.
>
> McCain used to be considered a moderate Democrat. =A0Now he is a
> Republican lefty. =A0 And take a look at Schwarzenegger; now fully
> embraced by Dems, but increasingly rejected by Republicans because he
> is driving up the debt of the state beyond the capability of paying
> off even part of it by championing his own social programs, while
> taking away from those he doesn't like.
>
> I too have noticed the winds of change blowing around Hillary. =A0I
> don't know why, as the Republicans haven't had much to do with it at
> all. =A0They aren't sure who they are fighting for the Pres job, and
> with the Dems starting to hammer on each other, they don't have to do
> much at this time. =A0I can't see where Hillary's message or politics
> have changed, so I am left to guess that Obama became the favorite of
> the press behind closed doors somewhere, for some reason.
>
> In the end though, I don't know that any of it matters. =A0I will go to
> work, pay my taxes, and get up the next day and do it again. =A0The
> politicians don't, and have not represented me in so long I don't
> remember.
>
> For those that can't sleep at night because of the political climate
> (from which ever way the wind blows- left to right, right to left), I
> feel bad for you. =A0I was like you once... no more.
>
> I sure did think if Rob though when I saw that pic. =A0 I though it was
> funny.
>
> Some of the folks around here are just as old, cranky and mean as any
> of the denizens here, you just don't see it because you are on the
> other side of the fence.
>
> Lighten up.
>
> Robert

Well said.

NoOne N Particular wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> You guys take this election much to seriously.
>>>
>>
>> Where the presidential election stands now, I would tend to agree. The
>> key is going to be the House and Senate. A socialist-leaning statist in
>> the White House coupled with a legislature controlled by similar leaning
>> socialist statists is going to lead to bad things happening, and those
>> bad
>> things are going to trickle down.
>
> Trickle? IF the Dems get control of the Congress AND the presidency, it
> won't be a trickle.
>

You gotta be kidding me. You think W and the Republic-controlled
legislature didn't already bequeath us with a *deluge* of statist
actions, spending, and so forth? I'm not talking about the Iraq
war here, either. I'm talking about the execrable "Drug Benefits
Program", the similarly vile "No Child Left Behind" nonsense,
the funding of "Faith Based Charities" and a host of other Statist /
Collectivist programs that are neither sane nor Constitutional.

The next election will have a statist in some form as President of
the U.S. We have the Republicans to thank for that - they proved
that fiscal restraint is now irrelevant - now it's just a race to
the bottom of the socialist sewer..


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Mar 3, 6:08 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 1:45 pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The world is nibbling on its own ass right now. WIthin half a century,
> > that nibble will be a gobble and may well reach the vitals. Over-
> > population is the problem. Period. [snip]
>
> I once took all the square miles of land in the Province of Ontario,
> Canada, deducted a certain percentage for lakes/water etc. and
> multiplied to get square feet.
> I then divided by 6.5 billion (Population estimate).
> Each man, woman, child would have a parcel of land approx. 60' x 150'.
> Each family of 5 would have an acre. (Please do NOT nit-pick over
> square inches!)
>
> I know I didn't include farm land, roads... it only serves as a
> talking point.
>
> Now take a look at how small Ontario is on a globe.
>
> Overpopulation is only an issue when everybody wants to live on the
> same spot.
>
> WHICH is why the busses in Belgium are 20 feet wide and only 4 feet
> long. Because everybody wants to sit up front.
>
> Discuss.

Overpopulation is an issue when everyone wants to live the way we
do...sit up front, in your words, but using Ontario as a base and
doing little else doesn't work, because someone has to grow food of
whatever type to feed those people, someone has to manufacture
clothing (and that's after growing the base material for the fabric--
polyester is doomed, as is gasoline as a fuel), and so on. Useful
land, arable land, all come into play. Not many sane people want to
set up shop and live in Arabia's Empty Quarter, and there simply isn't
room for more than a few gurus on the top of tall mountains.

On Feb 29, 6:34 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 29, 5:38 pm, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I can't help but wonder what its supporters will say after
> > its powers are wielded by President Barry HUSSEIN Obama.
>
> I suppose I can talk to you as JEFFRY Dahmer then?
>
> Been boiling any young boys lately, JEFF???
>
> get my drift?

Unfortunately, you missed mine...

On Mar 1, 12:43 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robert Allison wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Sure. Anything that is NOT for the general welfare or otherwise
> > violates the constitution. We have that nasty old USSC to watch
> > out for that, plus numerous groups whose sole purpose in existing
> > is to watch for stuff like that.
>
> That's what I thought. Anything someone can wrap a "general welfare"
> claim around is pretty much allowable. Kind of like the Clinton
> administration attempt at gun control near schools under the interstate
> commerce clause. The argument they made was that since educated citizens
> were vital to interstate commerce, the ability of the federal government to
> enforce gun-free areas around schools was a reasonable application of the
> interstate commerce clause. The judge who heard the case laughed them out
> of court asking, "with that rationale, is there *anything* that would not
> fit into that clause?"
>

I had thought the law, like all federal gun laws, applied to _guns_
sold in interstate commerce.

BTW, the ICC was used recently in the Medical Marijuana Case
before the USSC. Exactly how the ICC pemits regulation fo
an agricultural commodity that never crosses state borders,
and even in some cases, never leaves the possession of the
grower is a mystery to me.

Thomas agrees with you and I on the ridiculousness of that
argument. The other eight (8) justices I daresay, were more
concerned with whether or not medical marijuana was a good
idea, than with with the issues actually before the court.

--

FF

On Feb 29, 5:39 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > On Feb 29, 5:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Jeff wrote:
>
> >>> (Or something like that, if my details are wrong, pls correct them.)
> >>> Medicare is funded by tax payer dollars. Is it "socialism"? If so,
> >>> should we abolish that program?
> >> Yes ... it (and Social Security) should be slowly phased out - say
> >> over 25 years or so. The Feds have no enumerated power to be in
> >> the healthcare business.
>
> > That's fine. I figure old people who can't support themselves after
> > their employer shows 'em the door will pose little threat since, well,
> > they're old and poor. And if my neighbor's house is repossessed due to
> > medical debt, well that's an opportunity for me to expand my
> > empire....
>
> And just how did these people get "old" ... they once were young.
> And when they were, they bore the responsibility of preparing
> for the day when they no longer worked - just like everyone else.
> To look at the end game without looking at the opening moves is
> naive.

I'm just doing group level analysis. While the market system is the
best we have for determining pricing, it's also a zero sum game, i.e.,
they are winners and losers. In a sample of Americans over 65, I will
find some who can't support themselves. There are host of reasons why
they may fall in that category. Many may find themselves there due to
incompetence. Some will be there at no fault of their own.

The issue becomes what do we do about them? Sure, you and I may be
able to take care of ourselves, but do we really want a significant
group of unhealthy specimens in our mix? Infectious diseases know no
bounds. Personally, I take no offense, nor do I feel less free, due to
America's entitlements programs. (When my social security check
arrives, I plan to cash it.)

>
> If you feel compassion for people in this situation, you are
> entirely free to voluntarily help them via the myriad of
> charities setup just for that purpose. You are not morally
> entitled to hire the government to stick a gun in my ear to
> pay for what you believe needs doing (beyond the very narrow
> list of powers enumerated in the Constitution).
>

If you don't like democracy, there *are* other systems. Personally,
I'm kind of fond of ours...


>
> > Seriously, I'm not upset with America's entitlements programs. They're
> > the least generous in the western world and our taxes are by far the
> > lowest. I'll pay more taxes if they were guaranteed to go to
> > infrastructure. It's our country. We ought to maintain it. I feel like
> > we're more concerned with Iraq's infrastructure than our own.]
>
> Both are irresponsible activities by the Federal government.
>

Well, our history is characterized by a bunch of irresponsible and
often ill-advised acts but we've managed to do alright for ourselves.
I don't miss those Limeys one bit....

On Feb 29, 7:53 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:34:50 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> >> The next election will have a statist in some form as President of
> >> the U.S. We have the Republicans to thank for that - they proved
> >> that fiscal restraint is now irrelevant - now it's just a race to
> >> the bottom of the socialist sewer..
>
> > Tim, your constant use of "socialist" reminds me of Joe McCarthy. Perhaps
> > you aren't aware that labor unions were once considered"socialist" if not
> > "communist". As were the FDA, the minimum wage, and a host of other
> > things. It has forever been the cry of the ruling classes to anything
> > they, and those they have fooled, think threatens them.
>
> Perhaps you have a better definition for the currently advocated policies
> of "redistributing wealth". i.e. the government taking something from the
> productive in society and giving it to others who didn't work for it? Or,
> the act of the government completely taking over 1/7 of the US economy in
> the form of national health care. Seems socialism describes the situation
> pretty well. As well as Hillary's comments regarding how she is going
> to "take those oil company profits" and invest them in ...

I'd have sympathy for your argument if not for the fact that US is a
representative democracy. The ppl tax themselves and their
representatives decide how it shall be spent. Look, I don't agree with
all expenditures. Bush wants to attach abstinence training to every
health care program despite no collaborating evidence to demonstrate
its merits. If he adds it within the rules, there's not much I can do
but try better in the next round.

"Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:KD2yj.203$6R.14@trnddc04...
> Dave in Houston wrote:
>
>
>> I don't understand this argument. We are already paying through the
>> nose for health insurance. If the government RAISED my taxes $5,000/year
>> and then provided socialist, single-payer coverage it would SAVE me
>> $8500/year. When I left the railroad, the company was having me pony up
>> more than $200/month of my own money. That was 1994 and people that are
>> still railroading are shelling out hundreds more [per month] than that
>> now.
>> -
>> Dave in Houston
>
> My daughter last year was paying $750 per month for her single person
> medical coverage here in Buffalo. That was the least expensive plan
> available to her.
>
> IIRC aren't railroad employees exempt from paying into the government's
> social security program as the have their own "Railroad Retirement
> System"?

I paid into the Railroad Retirement System for 27 years including
the 14 years that I was a company supervisor/officer. IIRC railroad
employees along with the railroad paid a higher amount into the system than
those who pay into SS and also draw a higher retirement income than SS.
Since 1995 I've been self-employed and have paid FICA every year since.
None of that has anything to do with health care.

As with most companies back in the 70s and 80s health insurance (and
life insurance) was a paid benefit, part of your compensation just like paid
vacation time was a company-provided benefit. But the company reached a
point around 1990 where they capped how much they were going to expend for
health insurance; said we are not going to pay anymore into your health care
benefits than we are currently paying (nor any less as far as I know) so all
future increases will be borne
by the (non-union) employee. Because of the severance package I took when I
left the RR I kept my paid-up health insurance for the 24 months over which
I spread that package. But since 1997 I have struggled to find and keep
health insurance and because I had major surgery in 2004 no one else will
underwrite me for five years so I am hostage to my current provider which is
what the country has (certainly I have) come to expect from the private
[insurance] sector.
-
Dave in Houston

I knew I should have been in bed an hour ago.

This might work:

http://tinyurl.com/ypmcvc

Robert