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
124 days ago.
by Ohwiseone
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

"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 582 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 582 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 582 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 582 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 582 days ago.

And?

Posted 582 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 582 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 582 days ago.

harryanderson

That’s the big picture. Now we need to delve into the details and see where we want to cut. You’ve already mentioned one place, Libya, which falls under defense spending.

I think we should cut SS. We can “means test” it and use the “chained CPI.”

I also think we can save Medicare and Medicaid money by requiring recipients to live more healthy lifestyles. If we’re paying for their healthcare, we have the right to demand that they contribute to their own health.

I think unemployment has grown too much.

I personally know people who manipulate their circumstances in order to qualify for government payments, even Earned Income Credits. We need to encourage honesty.

I favor reducing our military presence in the world. We’re already on the hook for tons of veterans’ benefits.

Posted 582 days ago.

harryanderson

I’m not attempting to, as you say, “defend” government spending. I think we should try to economize, and that it’s useful to look at where the money was spent.

We can find that information at

htt p://cbo.gov/publication/43904

This site provides a link to a book of spreadsheets. Of particular interest are the “mandatory outlays” and “discretionary outlays” sheets.

Under mandatory outlays, more was spent on SS than anything else. From 2000-2012, income security grew the most. Income security pays people with limited resources, and includes unemployment, SSI, etc.

Discretionary outlays are divided into defense and non-defense spending. In 2000, defense spending was lower than nondefense. In 2012, defense spending was higher. So defense spending accounted for a lot of the growth during that time.

Mandatory outlays grew from 0.95T to 2.0T. Discretionary outlays grew from 0.61T to 1.29T.

Posted 582 days ago.

It’s really too bad because it has the makings of a good debate. It seems that no liberal I encounter can defend our government’s annual trillion dollar deficits over a time when revenues increased so drastically. Even with the dip in 2008, by 2009 revenues were back on a positive trend and by 2010, the US was once again seeing near record level revenues.

With so much money coming in then, why was President Obama forced to impose the Sequester on American finances? Why couldn’t cuts have been made in areas like the billion plus we spent on the Libyan revolution arming rebels to fight against Gadaffi? After all, those rebels we armed in 2010 fought against and killed Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan prior to 2010.

In all likelihood those very rebels were responsible for the dozens of attacks in and around Benghazi leading up to the 9/11/12 attack on our Consulate. The bad part is we likely provided the weapons and bullets used in that attack.

Posted 582 days ago.

Thank you Harry. I apologize for allowing this conversation to get this far off track. I should have ignored Scott a long time ago. While I enjoy interactions with reasonable people, sometimes I just can't let people like Scott get the last word. Enough is enough though. I apologize for allowing it to go this far.

Posted 583 days ago.

I'm done here Scott. We all know you're a joke as all of your posts demonstrate. Even your fellow liberal posters ignore you. You have added nothing to this or any other conversation and the reason is simple; you are not intelligent.

Occasionally you can forth a decent point that has the potential to spark a healthy debate, as was the case with the Sewell link but when you have to respond to legitimate questions, you have no clue thus you resort to obfuscation and whimsical nonsense.

It really is too bad because what we need is intelligent people from both sides of the spectrum willing to engage in reasonable dialogue, to meet in the middle when possible and when it’s clear the two cannot agree, to disagree agreeably. Instead, we get the likes you. Despite numerous opportunities to add to the conversation, we get “show your work.” Sad.

Now you can have the final word which I’m sure you believe makes you the winner. Sadder.

Posted 583 days ago.

harryanderson

AaronS has shown ample evidence to satisfy any reasonable person.

Posted 583 days ago.

I'm not the one Scott whose actions were so atrocious thEy warranted my being banned nor am I so childish that were I banned from a site where a dozen or so people routinely post that I would feel the need to reemerge under the guise of a poorly written 30 year old pop tune.

So when can I expect those numbers from you?

Posted 583 days ago.

My work? You are not a smart man Scott. No wonder you were banned.

Posted 583 days ago.

I'll tell you what Scott, if you can definitively prove me wrong, I'll skim out of my account and never post on this site again, under any moniker.

Posted 583 days ago.

L M A O, is that all you have Scott?

Seriously?

Posted 583 days ago.

What was the revenue in 2001 skippy, what will it be this year and what's the percentage increase?

Lack of intelligence got your fingers?

Posted 583 days ago.

Am I mad? Not in the least. I rather enjoy when I interact with people like you and I get to show them for what that are.

You say I'm wrong on the revenue increase but you've offered no numbers to counter my statement.

Why is that Scooter. Make it a good one because I'm putting your responses on a couple of sites. So far they think you're funnier then armature night at the Appolo.

Posted 583 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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