Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Halliburton and Bechtel Are Nothing
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 298726" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>The question? Well declaring war isn't the question but I take your answer is the same conclusion as mine in that Congress has not in fact declared war. We both agree on that although we may disagree on where and who to declare war on.</p><p> </p><p>My point goes back to your comment of limited gov't and to what I assumed was the assertion that gov't should limit itself to it'd duties within the Constitution provided and those left to the States accordingly. In the case of military force or war declaration, it's very specific and the process to follow very clear. </p><p> </p><p>The process of constitutional limitation is on such things as SS, Education, energy and farm subsidy, in fact no authority under the organic constitution for it so would you also stipulate to the same limitations as applies to the Congress in these areas and speicifcally the executive branch of gov't would also apply to other areas where there is equally no expressed authority? If not, why the overstepping of constitutional process and then openly object on the same grounds when the "democrats, liberals" or flavor of the day do the same thing just according to their own agenda and in other areas of which you disagree. Don't sneak and reach in the cookie jar and steal cookies and then tell others what they are doing is wrong. </p><p> </p><p>And to reverse roles, I'd ask the same of the otherside of the isle when the "republicans, neo-cons" etc. go their own way on matters? Why can't they when you've done the same thing? Don't crack a door open and then get mad when someone knocks it off the hinges after you having peaked inside and exclaimed it's wonders!</p><p> </p><p>As for SS being privatized. Maybe you an I see things different on this. Ending SS is about ending the tax, letting each person do with that money as they see fit and whatever effects of your decision you live with. Privatizing as you see doesn't mean an ending of the program. SS is funded via a tax on income to the employee and an excise tax on the employer. OK, you idea which is the general idea presented by democrats and republicans is to allow some portion of you tax to be place in private accounts. Those companies providing those accounts will be selected and approved and so also will what you can invest the money in. So several generations from now, these select companies having been firmly established for years with almost monopoly status will of of a sudden give that up to the higher ideal of freedom for everyone in choosing where their money goes. They will stand up and lobby to end the federal taxation in this area and now grant the removal of many accounts to other free market no monopoly status companies after all the effect they went to. SS would no longer be needed as a law?</p><p> </p><p>Ever heard of the REA or Rural Electrication Act from FDR's 1930's? FDR believed electricity in every home and business would change America for the better and I'd agree. With that the REA was passed and electricians on the federal payroll went about the land installing electricity in homes. It also provided jobs during the depression so it had a 2 fold effect. Would be safe to say that goal was accomplished and the need for the REA no longer needed but guess again. Check this legislation out from the US Dept. of Agriculture who now holds jurisdiction over REA. <a href="http://www.usda.gov/rus/regs/info/100-1/title_i.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usda.gov/rus/regs/info/100-1/title_i.htm</a> It's a modification to the 1936' act taking effect 12/31/2000' and is codified in US Title 7.</p><p> </p><p>Ironically the healthcare ideas of Hillary, Obama, Newt and others of the republican side all propose the same idea in this one respect. A federal law would be passed mandating everyone to take part in a health insurance program and within the legislation I'm sure that either certain comapnies will be named as the only provider or a list of requirements to be a federal provider will be listed. How then is this freedom and free market economics if the gov't is mandating how the individual spends his/her own money and where that money is spent? This is still big gov't outside the scope and bounds of Constitutional authority.</p><p> </p><p>AV, nothing of gov't ever goes away but get's recycled into a new and improved version. Privatizing SS will not ensure it's end and I'd contend the politicians know this and have no intention of letting that happen. Privatization is nothing more that a slop trough in Washington for the fat hogs on K Street and their business clients. Once they set the legislation and get the folks to push it through, they will have monopolized this industry as well and they will never give it up. Sorry but I just don't buy that smoke and mirrors.</p><p> </p><p>BTW: I heard good one yesterday at a Super Bowl party. Got some buddies of mine who one is Alabama and the other one Auburn and they go at it all the time. Well the Alabama guy to me that the Auburn folks are being set up by Hillary to not vote for Obama. Seems Hillary was seen in and around Auburn putting out Obama yard signs but writting a Big G before the O to read, </p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 18px">GO BAMA!</span></strong></p><p> </p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/emoticons/rofl.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":rofl:" title="Rofl :rofl:" data-shortname=":rofl:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 298726, member: 2189"] The question? Well declaring war isn't the question but I take your answer is the same conclusion as mine in that Congress has not in fact declared war. We both agree on that although we may disagree on where and who to declare war on. My point goes back to your comment of limited gov't and to what I assumed was the assertion that gov't should limit itself to it'd duties within the Constitution provided and those left to the States accordingly. In the case of military force or war declaration, it's very specific and the process to follow very clear. The process of constitutional limitation is on such things as SS, Education, energy and farm subsidy, in fact no authority under the organic constitution for it so would you also stipulate to the same limitations as applies to the Congress in these areas and speicifcally the executive branch of gov't would also apply to other areas where there is equally no expressed authority? If not, why the overstepping of constitutional process and then openly object on the same grounds when the "democrats, liberals" or flavor of the day do the same thing just according to their own agenda and in other areas of which you disagree. Don't sneak and reach in the cookie jar and steal cookies and then tell others what they are doing is wrong. And to reverse roles, I'd ask the same of the otherside of the isle when the "republicans, neo-cons" etc. go their own way on matters? Why can't they when you've done the same thing? Don't crack a door open and then get mad when someone knocks it off the hinges after you having peaked inside and exclaimed it's wonders! As for SS being privatized. Maybe you an I see things different on this. Ending SS is about ending the tax, letting each person do with that money as they see fit and whatever effects of your decision you live with. Privatizing as you see doesn't mean an ending of the program. SS is funded via a tax on income to the employee and an excise tax on the employer. OK, you idea which is the general idea presented by democrats and republicans is to allow some portion of you tax to be place in private accounts. Those companies providing those accounts will be selected and approved and so also will what you can invest the money in. So several generations from now, these select companies having been firmly established for years with almost monopoly status will of of a sudden give that up to the higher ideal of freedom for everyone in choosing where their money goes. They will stand up and lobby to end the federal taxation in this area and now grant the removal of many accounts to other free market no monopoly status companies after all the effect they went to. SS would no longer be needed as a law? Ever heard of the REA or Rural Electrication Act from FDR's 1930's? FDR believed electricity in every home and business would change America for the better and I'd agree. With that the REA was passed and electricians on the federal payroll went about the land installing electricity in homes. It also provided jobs during the depression so it had a 2 fold effect. Would be safe to say that goal was accomplished and the need for the REA no longer needed but guess again. Check this legislation out from the US Dept. of Agriculture who now holds jurisdiction over REA. [URL]http://www.usda.gov/rus/regs/info/100-1/title_i.htm[/URL] It's a modification to the 1936' act taking effect 12/31/2000' and is codified in US Title 7. Ironically the healthcare ideas of Hillary, Obama, Newt and others of the republican side all propose the same idea in this one respect. A federal law would be passed mandating everyone to take part in a health insurance program and within the legislation I'm sure that either certain comapnies will be named as the only provider or a list of requirements to be a federal provider will be listed. How then is this freedom and free market economics if the gov't is mandating how the individual spends his/her own money and where that money is spent? This is still big gov't outside the scope and bounds of Constitutional authority. AV, nothing of gov't ever goes away but get's recycled into a new and improved version. Privatizing SS will not ensure it's end and I'd contend the politicians know this and have no intention of letting that happen. Privatization is nothing more that a slop trough in Washington for the fat hogs on K Street and their business clients. Once they set the legislation and get the folks to push it through, they will have monopolized this industry as well and they will never give it up. Sorry but I just don't buy that smoke and mirrors. BTW: I heard good one yesterday at a Super Bowl party. Got some buddies of mine who one is Alabama and the other one Auburn and they go at it all the time. Well the Alabama guy to me that the Auburn folks are being set up by Hillary to not vote for Obama. Seems Hillary was seen in and around Auburn putting out Obama yard signs but writting a Big G before the O to read, [B][SIZE=5]GO BAMA![/SIZE][/B] [B][/B] :rofl: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Halliburton and Bechtel Are Nothing
Top