fuheel
Well-known member
No words necessary.
[insert obligatory chart showing entitlement spending dwarfing defense spending here]
Let me guess -- you wish we could spend even more on the military but the entitlements gobbled up all the damn money. Have I got that right?
Entitlements in their current form are driving our country into insolvency. They are completely unsustainable and are criminal acts of intergenerational theft. I think that's a problem, mainly because I am opposed to stealing things from the defenseless.
Further, what clause in our Constitution justifies spending one dime on entitlements? I can point to the authorization to spend money on defense.
We need to reform spending but calling entitlements theft while putting a halo on defense spending makes no sense.
Not trying to be a jerk, but that is really simple con law question: taxing and spending
(see also necessary and proper)
There is no such thing as a "taxing and spending" clause that would stretch far enough to impoverish our country and threaten its national security to the degree that our entitlements do. If that's the case, then why not just call it the "blank check" clause?
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;..."
There's nothing about bankrupting our country buying E.D. drugs for old people that will fit in that box.
taking care of old folks would fall under the "general welfare" category.
Not trying to be a jerk, but that is really simple con law question: taxing and spending
(see also necessary and proper)
Incorrect in both spirit, meaning and application.
Voting to borrow money and burdening our grandchild with repayment is a) taxation without representation, and b) "specific", rather than "general" welfare. Please keep reading, until you get to the point about requiring "uniformity." "Uniformity" could just as easily be read to apply to "time" as well as "space."
Further, any time our spending gets so excessive it threatens our solvency as a country, we've achieved neither "specific" nor "general" welfare: indeed, it is to our general detriment.
Incorrect in both spirit, meaning and application.
Voting to borrow money and burdening our grandchild with repayment is a) taxation without representation, and b) "specific", rather than "general" welfare. Please keep reading, until you get to the point about requiring "uniformity." "Uniformity" could just as easily be read to apply to "time" as well as "space."
Further, any time our spending gets so excessive it threatens our solvency as a country, we've achieved neither "specific" nor "general" welfare: indeed, it is to our general detriment.
But building schools and hospitals in foreign countries (when ours are deteriorating), paying off warlords(known criminals who are fleecing us), and paying private contractors tremendously more than our volunteer warriors isn't?
Dollars are dollars. All spending is on track to bankrupt the country.
I hope everyone on this thread that is concerned about government spending is a Ron Paul supporter.
He's the only candidate on either side that has shown any commitment to legitimately downsizing government.