Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
80 days ago.
by Tiredofit
Ithink
#1

Who Lied About the Attack on 9/11/12?

It is incredible that democrats keep blathering about Romney lying, when we have the shock and disgust of seeing the president and his administration lying to us about the security of Americans. Unbelievable .

 
 

Member Comments

Kunectdots

Let's take a look at the incestuous relationship between Obama and the Liberal Media.

"News Organizations have “Ties” to the White House"

h ttp://catholicglasses.c om/2013/05/15/news-organizations-have-ties-to-the-white-house/

Posted 424 days ago.

Tiredofit

Scotty is afraid his check will go away and he really wants to get married. Nothing else matters to Nancy other than making it happen, computer hero

Posted 429 days ago.

McScot asks about a witch hunt. Is Hilary missing again???

I've been camping, and didn't have cell service, so I might be behind. So many scandals to catch up on.

Posted 429 days ago.

That's what McNixon said in Mc72.

Posted 429 days ago.

Depends on if you have the intelligence to look into legitimate questions.

Posted 429 days ago.

Who controlled the consulate and why were there so many changes to the talking points and disagreement between 2 federal agencies? And why did the Obama administration lie about the video for 2 weeks?

Posted 429 days ago.

Didn't Ike warn out the Military Industrial Complex? Is there any doubt that we now live in a society where fail to comprehend the total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual --of he MIC and that it is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government?

Is there also any doubt that this is not a party issue? All one has to do to understand that is remember the 130th closure.

Posted 431 days ago.

mythravere

One good way to cut spending is to reign in the defense contractors.

For an example just read up on the F-35 joint strike fighter. Cost overruns galore.

And to that I'll add that something needs to be done with politicians acting on behalf of companies in local sphere of interest and the government money the politicians get for them.

Frankly there is a lot of waste and pointless funding going on in regards to that subject.

But fixing that issue will be like treating an alcoholic.

Posted 431 days ago.

The general Welfare clause is the most prodtituted section of the Constitution. The intent of our Founding Fathers is clear to those willing to research the subject, which is what is required to understand the clause as it was written. If you want to know the truth, google Madison veto of public works bill and see how specific he was regarding the general Welfare Clause.

As for spending cuts, I'm a huge fan of Calvon Coolidge. He cut spending nearly in half, lowered the tax rate and avoided a depression that started as bad as the one in 1929. I say cut, cut, cut!!!

Posted 432 days ago.

harryanderson

Aaron,

I don’t think we can prove that the phrase “welfare” is specific by defining it in non-specific terms like unusual, calamity, enjoyment, peace, prosperity, ordinary, and blessings. Each of those terms means different things to different people and in different contexts.

I suggest we abandon this theoretical line of discussion for the time being. It’s more productive to focus on reducing real spending than to argue over hypothetical spending (or not spending, if you will). So far, I think we’ve agreed on several ways to economize. Got any more?

Posted 432 days ago.

"Phrases like “promote the general welfare” are ambiguous, not clear."

That's not true. If you study that phase, you will find that the founders were pretty clear in what they meant by the general Welfare clause. First, it's inclusion in Article 1 Section 8 was placed there as a means of explaining why a country that had declared independence a decade earlier partially because of taxes would grant a central government the authority to tax. Read the general Welfare clause and you will see what I mean. The word “for” tells why the government was given the authority to tax.

From there, you have to understand what they meant by welfare. That is best explained in Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

“Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government;

While Hamilton and Madison may have disagreed some on the gWC, they did agree that spending had to benefit all citizens.

Posted 432 days ago.

"Phrases like “promote the general welfare” are ambiguous, not clear."

That's not true. If you study that phase, you will find that the founders were pretty clear in what they meant by the general Welfare clause. First, it's inclusion in Article 1 Section 8 was placed there as a means of explaining why a country that had declared independence a decade earlier partially because of taxes would grant a central government the authority to tax. Read the general Welfare clause and you will see what I mean. The word “for” tells why the government was given the authority to tax.

From there, you have to understand what they meant by welfare. That is best explained in Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.

“Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government;

While Hamilton and Madison may have disagreed some on the gWC, they did agree that spending had to benefit all citizens.

Posted 432 days ago.

Besides the fact Tired that Social Security is already a tax and a social program, what taxes do we pay would you consider voluntarily payment? Perhaps there are some excise taxes in that we have the choice in whether or not we purchase a specific product but otherwise, taxes are imposed on each and every one of us, supposedly for the good of all of us.

The fact is, Social Security is nowhere near what it was when FDR forced the Old Age, Survivors and Retirement Fund on us through his court packing bill. It was never meant to be an end all retirement plan for all Americans, it was designed to aid a very limited number of Americans; women and minorities were precluded from receiving payment from the trust fund and the eligibility age was 3 years past the average life expectancy, it’s clear the program wasn’t meant for all.

Besides the plan has be changed hundreds of time so what promise has been made that already hasn’t been broken?

Posted 432 days ago.

harryanderson

The fact is, SS is not voluntary so if there is not a return on the forced extraction of funds, them its just another tax and social program.”

That’s exactly what it is and what it has always been.

Posted 432 days ago.

harryanderson

AaronS, I agree with raising the retirement age and that we can reduce both individual and corporate welfare.

For better or worse, we have decided to use our military to protect our interests (meaning mostly business interests) beyond our borders. Do you propose that corporations doing business in other countries assume full responsibility to protect their own interests? That’s an interesting line of thought that I hadn’t considered.

As for the Constitution “clearly” defining spending, I must differ somewhat. Phrases like “promote the general welfare” are ambiguous, not clear.

That minor point aside, it seems we agree that we can economize without causing unnecessary pain.

Thanks for a thought-provoking post.

Posted 432 days ago.

And?

Posted 432 days ago.

Tiredofit

The fact is, SS is not voluntary so if there is not a return on the forced extraction of funds, them its just another tax and social program

Posted 432 days ago.

I think it’s time we brought ALL of our troop’s home. It’s not our responsibility to police the world. Let our troops protect our borders and reduce the size and scope of the military through attrition until we have a manageable military that meets our needs, not the UN’s or the world’s needs.

I have no problem with means testing social security. When SS was set up, the average life expectancy was 62, the retirement age was 65. As such, can anyone reasonably argue that they everyone should expect a return on their investment? In addition to means testing, the retirement age should be raised to 70 and anyone working full time should be prevented from double dipping.

From there, I think we should vastly reduce all welfare, from the inner city recipient to large corporations that rake in millions via subsidies. If an individual is expected to make it without assistance, why isn’t a business?

Spending is clearly defined in the Constitution, we should stick to that.

Posted 432 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit:

Workers who pay into Social Security aren’t entering into a contract with the government that ensures them any particular benefits. Statutes govern the level of benefits, not contract. Congress and the President can change the benefit level at any time without the consent of workers. The government can also unilaterally change the tax rate at any time. In fact, it just did.

One might argue that there’s an implied social, moral contract, but there is no formal, legal contract. There is only current law.

It’s always been this way. When SS started, it paid out benefits immediately to retirees who had never paid in.

Some Republicans want to move SS towards a system such as you describe when they talk of “personal retirement accounts.” However, personal retirement accounts aren’t here yet.

We all need to understand what SS is and what it isn’t.

Posted 432 days ago.

Tiredofit

Harry, how can you means test social security? If you do that, its just another welfare program, people paid into that system with a reasonable expectation that they would get their money back at some point. To ask if they NEED it or not is unjustified.

Posted 432 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or