He punted. Biden slept.I can't take this shit-for-brains president seriously.
Where's the plan? All he did was give a speech. And a partisan, 'hey! I'm back on the campaign trail,' one at that! His plan, from all I've heard, doesn't even exist on paper... yet. Ryan's budget is real. Obama's is a phantom, a hat trick. It raises the deficit by twelve trillion in spite of it's 4 trillion in cuts?
WTF!?
This man is supposed to be smart! That's what they all tell us. But I see no evidence of it. What I do see is the worst president in American history. The biggest liar. A racist. And a man with a lot to hide.
At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, if this man wins reelection, this country will cease to be the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave. America will be shat out the dark puckered hole of history, and Obama will have been the catalyst-- that final grunt and push, if you will --if not the direct cause. And I say, 'if not' because we too share culpability in this nation's coming demise. If we do not get a hold of our finances, cut spending, reform entitlements, and simplify as well as plug up the loops holes in the tax code the United States of America I grew up to respect and adore will be gone.
Obama is not so stupid he can't see this. He see's it, and doesn't care. It sickens me to know that this country has so successfully been undermined-- primarily by public education --that near half the nation would sooner drink piss and eat shit rather than vote this buffoon out of office.
This is one reason senators make poor presidents! What is wrong with America if it thinks a man with less than 60 days in-house experience in the Senate prior to declaring his candidacy has what it takes to run this nation? Is America so F\[*ed in the head stupid that this sounded like a good idea?
I firmly believe that Obama will be remembered-- assuming there is an America TO remember --as the worst president in American history.
I'm too angry right now to be rational. So take this post for what it is... the rantings of an extremely pissed conservative who has been slapped in the face by president Obama one too many times.
From the Washington Examiner...
ReplyDelete"In his Internet video explaining President Obama's fiscal 2012 budget proposal, White House budget director Jack Lew told viewers that as of 2001, "we were running a surplus of $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years." That surplus never actually existed outside of the imaginations of Washington politicians and the green-eyeshade bureaucrats who work for them in the government. Lew's claim is a typical example of how officials mislead the public by using imagined numbers from a fiscal future that may or may not exist, depending on what is done by future politicians. American families don't base their current budgets on possible windfalls or setbacks that may or may not come eight years from now, but our government does.
So, as you pore over Obama's new budget, beware the budgeters' tricky talk. When you hear liberal journalists in the mainstream media repeat the line that Obama's new budget "reduces the deficit by $1.1 trillion over 10 years," don't believe it for a second. Obama is not actually reducing the current $1.65 trillion deficit by $1.1 trillion. Rather, Obama plans to borrow $1.1 trillion less than he would have under earlier projections. Those projections, contained on page 174 of the document the White House released Monday, assumed vast expenditures -- trillion or near-trillion-dollar deficits every year through 2021 -- so Obama is clearing a very low bar.
Here is a more accurate description of what Obama's 2012 budget plan does: It adds $8.8 trillion in new debt between today and October 2021. That number would be even larger, except that Obama's budget also raises taxes by $1.5 trillion on corporations and high-income earners..."
Obama ADDS 8.8 Trillion to the debt by 2021. Can America survive this fool?
I'm sorry you're disappointed that Pres. Obama didn't have a written down, complete multi-year plan, with footnotes for solving our federal financial problems.Obama laid out bullet points for his plan for addressing the budget deficit and debt in his speech Wednesday. There were lots of bloggers pulling those out and writing comparisons. I you don't know what he said it's your own fault.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it the end of the world that yours and your party's priorities aren't his? He's not a Republican. Why should he be responsible for instantly, painlessly, and completely solving a fiscal mess that took decades to accumulate? Why do his solutions have to match your expectations?
America is the benchmark by which the rest of the world's creditworthiness is measured. That's not an opinion its a fact. Our economy is three times the size of the nearest neighbor(China). It is only the gamesmanship and political grandstanding by conservatives that have made our debt and deficit such a current issue.
But if we are going to have a conversation about fiscal probity then lets do it like adults. Obama's second term will not mean the rise of thunderdome. It will mean that Obama is the candidate most in line with mainstream America.
You do know that all the authors of this blog are very far to the right of mainstream America?
Perhaps I should say it even more plainly: Others may disagree with you and still be moral, rational, free-thinking, patriotic Americans.
When you express such apocalyptic rhetoric above, you take on the mein of a juvenile. "Oh the world will end because I didn't get what I want!" "I hate you!" "You're stupid!" "You're a poopyhead!" "Please God let me have my way!"
Some light reading:
ReplyDelete1) Obama's Numbers Don't Add Up
by Grover Norquist
The speech today seemed to endorse the handiwork a commission appointed by Obama a year or so ago. Sort of. You can read the whole speech and remain unclear about where the president plans to cut spending and which and how much taxes will go up.
But if he means to enact his original budget and mesh it with the Simpson-Bowles Commission proposals, it results in the following:
-- The tax revenue target will rise from 18-19 percent of the economy (historical) to 21 percent of the economy.
-- Net taxes will be raised by $1 - $3 trillion over the next decade. (According to Simpson-Bowles itself, their proposal is a net tax hike of $1 trillion. Paul Ryan believed the actual tax hike was closer to $2 trillion. The Heritage Foundation said $3 trillion.)
--A tax hike “trigger” will take effect to pay for higher levels of government spending.
-- The rate at which two-thirds of small business profits face taxation will rise from 35% to 39.6%. You can’t raise the tax rate on households making more than $250,000 per year without also raising the tax rate at which most small business profits face taxation.
-- The tax rate on capital gains and dividends will rise from 15% to 23.8%. The combination of the Obama budget tax hike and the Obamacare “surtax” on investment results in the highest capital gains tax in a generation.
-- The death tax rate will rise from 35% to 45%, and the exemption will be cut from $10 million to $3.5 million. This is the result of Obama’s budget, and would certainly be needed to raise taxes by as much as he would like to.
-- The higher taxes of Obamacare will be kept in place. By cementing Obamacare in place, President Obama’s plan keeps the 20 new or higher taxes in that jobs-killing law.
You do know that Rep. Paul Ryan's budget doesn't start to reduce the deficit until 2030?
ReplyDeleteHis plan makes the same sorts of assumptions as Obama's. He makes wildly, unprecedented assumptions about job growth and economic growth to make his numbers balance by 2030. But hey! it's different because he's a republican.
2) Why the Markets Don’t Buy Obama’s Four-trillion Deficit Cut
ReplyDeleteby Michael Lombardi
Why don’t the markets believe him?
Yesterday, President Obama said that he would cut $4.0 trillion from annual deficits over the next 12 years. He plans to raise taxes and cut government spending.
The stock market hardly budged. The U.S. dollar and U.S. Treasuries hardly moved. You’d think all three would rally on the news of trillions to be cut from our debt.
Gold, which has been rising in price for the past 10 years as the greenback has declined in value, actually rose in price yesterday. One would think that, on hearing that the government is finally doing something about its debt nightmare, the precious metals would fall in price. The opposite happened.
So why did the markets yawn?
Maybe the markets don’t believe that the Republicans will work with Obama on his proposed $4.0 trillion in deficit cuts, or maybe they feel Obama will not be in power in two years to see them through.
But here’s the real reason we got yawns from the markets yesterday on the proposed trillions of dollars in deficit cuts:
As we all know, the U.S. debt will sit at $14.29 trillion by about May 16, 2011. The Obama Administration predicts that the government will pile on another $3.8 trillion in debt over the next five years (a number I find far too conservative). When you add the two together, we will be sitting on $18.09 trillion in debt by 2016.
We’d surely surpass $20.0 trillion to $21.0 trillion in debt by 2020—150% of GDP in a rising interest rate environment.
But those numbers don’t take into consideration interest rates rising at the pace I believe they will rise, unexpected natural catastrophes, wars, or economic deterioration as opposed to economic growth. Bottom line: the picture could get much worse; maybe downright ugly.
Economic analysis: More people are employed by government in the U.S. today than by the U.S. manufacturing and U.S. construction industry combined. Take a trillion from high-income earners and they will spend less, hurting the economy. Cut expenses by trillions and you will get more unemployment, hurting the economy. It’s one of those “damned if you, damned if don’t” situations, and the markets know it all too well.
“How can you call it a debt reduction proposal when it adds $8 trillion to the debt? All he's basically saying is he thinks it's a bad idea to add $12 trillion, instead we should add 8 and we need to raise taxes on job creators. The plan won't work, and it's not even a plan.”
ReplyDelete--Senator Marco Rubio
April 14, 2011, Fox & Friends
This 'anti-budget' is about one thing, and one thing only... maintaining a status quo for liberal agenda policies agendas. It pays mere lip service to reducing the debt; there's a lot of funny math being bandied about, but the sad part is, a whole lot of Americans aren't savvy enough to see the 'math' for what it is: lies and subterfuge.
ReplyDelete"Why is it the end of the world that yours and your party's priorities aren't his? He's not a Republican. Why should he be responsible for instantly, painlessly, and completely solving a fiscal mess that took decades to accumulate? Why do his solutions have to match your expectations?"
ReplyDeleteFirst off, Obama is president of the United States, not of the democrat party. Secondly, I don't care that he's a democrat, I care that his inexperience, ignorance, and hyper-partisanship blinds him to what has to be done. HAS to be done, and soon. There are nations talking of dumping the dollar as the world reserve currency. It that happens, this country is financial toast.
"It is only the gamesmanship and political grandstanding by conservatives that have made our debt and deficit such a current issue."
What? Have you not been paying attention these last couple of years? What? When Bush was president it was terrible (according to democrats) that the debt was rising and rising? But now, because Obama is president it's okay that he's destroyed our economy and ladled on to our debt double portions, and now wants to give us a third? Political grandstanding by conservatives!!?? What? Bush had his spending spree so it's only fair Obama gets his? Obama isn't bright enough to see that something serious has to be done now? Can't you see that?
The only grandstanding I see are democrats acting as though they didn't just suffer the worst election losses in 70 years! The only thing I see coming out of the democrat party is the same dog and pony show they were performing before they got their asses handed to them. THEIR spending spree frightened the American people so much they gave they lost the most important house in congress.
Obama's second term. I don't see how he has the remotest chance of winning. But if he does, as I stated above, the America I grew to love and appreciate (obviously we grew up in two different education cultures) will die. Thanks to the like of Obama and the ignoramuses which voted for him.
This soon-to-be-reached debt ceiling? So be it. If the democrats had done their job in first place, when they WERE in charge, we wouldn't be in this mess. If government shuts down, it's on their heads. Shut it down, I say, and let chips fall where they may.
Your perspective is skewed by your refusal to hear voices outside your preferred punditry.
ReplyDeleteIn three recent polls more than 60% of Americans said that their preferred solution to the fiscal imbalance is a mix of tax increases and expenditure cuts. Why have conservatives taken tax increases off the table? Why are they proposing tax cuts that are not offset? Pres Obama has a higher approval rating than either Pres. Clinton or Pres. Reagan at this point in his presidency.
His best point from his speech Wednesday.
"America’s finances were in great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus. America was actually on track to becoming completely debt free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers.
But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program — but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts — tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade."
Yes, I heard all that too. What you seem to have NOT heard is...
ReplyDelete"...unpaid-for tax cuts."
This is where you and I part serious company.
To say that tax cuts must be "paid for" is to affirm the belief that all monies earned by all workers belongs first and entirely to the government; what we take home in net wages reflects what government deigns to allow us to keep.
If this is the case, and all wages belong to the government FIRST, then we are all slaves. No one is free. If Government owns our very labor, how are we any better than plantation slaves, beyond the distraction of personal possessions?
But if it is true that our labor belongs to us first and foremost, then tax-cuts are not something to be "paid for." Taxes are what we, the people, allow the government to take, via the permissions granted through free and fair elections. If (as Bush decided to do early on in his first term) tax breaks are given to wage earners, it is not something that must be "paid for," because those monies didn't belong to the federal government in the first place.
Taxation is not a system wherein government OWNS your wages and allows you to keep a percentage. Taxation is a system wherein government TAKES a portion from what you've earned.
Obama believes that tax-cuts must be paid for? This is a dangerous lie. And I can't believe you don't see it as such.
You say my perspective is skewed by my "refusal to hear voices outside [my] preferred punditry." What about your preferred punditry? Because your admiration for that one statement shows your own skewed beliefs... namely that government owns every penny I produce; that any amount more, which government decides to let me keep, must be paid for someone else. This is called income redistribution. Well, I'm sorry to have to disagree with, Ben, but I earned the money. Not Barack Obama. I earned it. President Obama, democrats, and the government at large needs to learn how to live within their means BEFORE they come to me demanding tax increases.
You decry the the tax cuts that went to millionaires and billionaires, but I'll bet you see the Earned Income Tax Credit-- the granting of monies to the poor, who did not pay in enough to receive what government gives them back --as a good, and righteous thing. I'll bet you see the the reductions in your own tax liability as a good thing too. How about the new "Making Work Pay" tax credit which gives you an extra $400 back? I'll bet that's good too. Who's going to pay for that, Ben? Some rich guy has to pay more just so you and I can get tax breaks? That money doesn't belong to government. It belongs to us. You need to remember that.
Despite the feeling of justice it gave us to see it done, it was still wrong when Robin Hood stole from the rich. Theft is theft is theft is theft.
Yesterday's speech was not about laying down a plan to solve our debt crisis. It was all about regaining his base. You know, the ones who're so pissed at him for extending what were the 'Bush' tax cuts, but are now the 'OBAMA' tax cuts? Yeah, that's right! Media was falling all over itself last December to give credit to Obama for giving us all tax breaks.
ReplyDeleteBent, never in our nations history has more taxes led to more revenue. Raising taxes is the typical liberal answer: "can't someone else do it"
ReplyDeleteIf you really thing it would work, then raise taxes on everyone. No more tax credits
If we have to be taxed, let's go with a flat 10% tax on everyone. No exceptions. That way, even evil corporations like GE will 'pay their fair share.'
ReplyDeleteArt Laffer, just now on Neil Cavuto, advocated a flat 12% VAT, and a flat 12% on unadjusted gross income (minus the home interest deduction, and another which has slipped my mind).
ReplyDeleteA 12 percent Value Added Tax on purchases other than food, medicine, and medical services, plus a 12 percent tax on unadjusted gross income? That doesn't sound like a bad deal at all.
But all these plans miss the point I think. Government has to learn to live within its means; we need to pass a balanced budget amendment. And, for those not able to figure it out for themselves, 'living within ones means' does NOT mean raising taxes every time decides its means are not sufficient to its wants. Any talk of raising taxes or instituting austerity measures (something democrats will never do no matter how bad the economy gets) must come AFTER government decides to live within its means.
In 1990, the US tax code consisted of 3.5 million words. Imagine where that number sits today.
TYPO ALERT!
ReplyDeleteInsert government between 'time' and 'decides'
When the populace demands more and more services, then government gets more and more expensive, so more funds are required or we must accept that government will provide fewer services. Take note though that EVERY survey for the last decade has shown Americans more willing to increase taxes than have fewer services. Also note any deal on reduced services will be moderate. Conservatives and Liberals will lose services.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand it's a bait and switch to say, "never in our nations history has more taxes led to more revenue." The government takes in more money today, because our economy has grown...but so has our population.
Thirdly you are completely out to sea on your assertion that tax cuts don't have to be accounted for. The federal government has a budget, larger than any corporation, larger than any other entity on Earth. When revenues do not meet expenses we have to borrow funds to continue operations. When the government passes a taxcut it's like you saying to your employer, "I'll work for 10% less money this year." But instead of adjusting to the income loss, conservatives for the last decade haven't cut expenses. They went out and bought two new cars(wars) and signed up for premium cable(Medicare Part D).
Was the United States prosperous in the 90's? Let's go back to the Clinton tax rates, when the capital gains tax was 35% (15% now). Or let's be revolutionary and go back to Reagan tax rates. You know he redistributed wealth (raised taxes) 7 out of 8 years to control deficits.
Raising taxes is not a betrayal of the American dream. It is the consequence of our federal policies, lots of them expensive conservative purchases.
"You decry the the tax cuts that went to millionaires and billionaires, but I'll bet you see the Earned Income Tax Credit-- the granting of monies to the poor, who did not pay in enough to receive what government gives them back --as a good, and righteous thing."
I support tax credits and deductions targeted to those who live near the poverty line and will take any money and inject it immediately back into the economy. For the well off government monies go into savings or the financial markets. Or they use their increasing wealth to earn more handouts and loopholes. Increasing income inequality is not a good thing for a democracy.
I feel like a kindergarten teacher having to keep making these simple statements.
•taxes pay for government services.
•government services MUST be paid for.
•many presidents have raised taxes.
•a growing middle class benefits the nation.
•none of the conservative flat-tax plans brings in enough revenue to reduce the deficit.
•if Congress does absolutely nothing, the Bush tax cuts expire in 3 years, the Medicare doc-fix expires, capital gains taxes rise, and the federal deficit is eliminated in five years.
Your assertion that your income is yours is true, but it skips over the obvious point that you receive numerous benefits from living in the greatest country on the earth. what do you call someone that tries to get something for free? ... a thief.
I also want to say separately that I am willing to pay higher taxes to secure a financially sound future with great government services.
ReplyDeleteEvery other industrial nation has higher tax rates and comprehensive government services. They also have vibrant growing economies. The two are not mutually exclusive. (Another kindergarten statement. {sigh})
"At the risk of sounding hyperbolic" Ya think?
ReplyDelete"Obama's second term. I don't see how he has the remotest chance of winning." Really? You're really that ill-informed?
"Art Laffer" That Laffer? The curve guy? Did he ever tell you where on the curve the US is today?
"I also want to say separately that I am willing to pay higher taxes to secure a financially sound future with great government services."
Copy that.
•taxes pay for government services.
ReplyDelete"government services MUST be paid for."
We have way too many government services now. Most of them are superflous and unnecessary, and the ones we need are wasting money.
"many presidents have raised taxes."
Mostly Democrat Presidents.
"a growing middle class benefits the nation."
Not as much as a growing upper class. Without a healthy upper class, the middle class becomes unemployed. It is the so-called "upper class" who supplies the jobs.
"none of the conservative flat-tax plans brings in enough revenue to reduce the deficit."
A stupid statement. None of the flat tax plans have ever been implemented, so it's impossible to make such an assertion with any credibility.
"if Congress does absolutely nothing, the Bush tax cuts expire in 3 years, the Medicare doc-fix expires, capital gains taxes rise, and the federal deficit is eliminated in five years."
Again, a stupid statement. You cannot know that for certain. Nor will anyone ever know that, because it will not happen. But really, Do you really think that raising taxes will eliminate the deficit in 5 years? That's a lot of deficit to eliminate. I highly doubt we could raise taxes high enough to do that. As Edwin correctly pointed out, there is no evidence that raising taxes will increase revenue.
"I also want to say separately that I am willing to pay higher taxes to secure a financially sound future with great government services."
Fine. you pay higher taxes. But, leave my money alone. I prefer to keep what I earn, especially when so much of what I earn goes to pay for social programs and services that superfluous, unnecessary, and harmful to our country.
"When the populace demands more and more services,..."
ReplyDeleteThe populace didn't 'demand' Social Security
The populace didn't 'demand' Medicare & Medicaid
The populace didn't 'demand' Welfare
The populace didn't 'demand' Abortion Services
The populace didn't 'demand' Food Stamps or EBT
The populace didn't 'demand' Public Broadcasting
The populace didn't 'demand' NPR
The populace didn't 'demand' Section 8 housing
The populace didn't 'demand' EITC
The populace didn't 'demand' a Dept. of Education
The populace didn't 'demand' government employees be allowed to unionize
And so on...
The only demands by the populace in Democrat ears, are the programs they invent and push on their dumb mass constituents who can't see the danger in allowing their government to control every aspect of their lives. Many of these programs you tout are used to keep the populace on the plantation. Once one gets used to the government buying his groceries, why should one bother getting a job? His slothfulness is subsidized by government largesse; largesse stolen from the labor of the productive class.
The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
What part of that don't you democrats get?
NOWHERE in the constitution is the federal government granted power to give us social security, welfare, abortion services, public education, EBT, and a whole host of other programs. The states can implement these programs for their own citizens, but it is not the business of the federal government to do any of these things.
Jim, if you want to pay more taxes just to get 'free' stuff handed to you by the government gods you're a bigger fool than I've already named you. And you're an accomplice to theft. A financially sound future? From this president? Your head is so far up that buffoons ass it's a wonder you can even manage to figure out where to put your fingers on the keyboard.
"For the well off government monies go into savings or the financial markets. [emphasis mine]
ReplyDeleteAs I thought; you view all monies as belonging to the government FIRST. For whatever the 'well off' are allowed to keep they should be grateful, and whatever they decide to plonk into savings, to you, is somehow evil.
"Increasing income inequality is not a good thing for a democracy."
Again! We do not live in a democracy. We live in a republic-- or so our constitution describes. A democracy would allow our government to do everything you're describing here; all the power is given to the larger government. But in a Republic, we exist as member states with sovereign rights of their own.
Our constitution says the States have the greater say in government policy, and it's the federal government which is limited. But it appears you and others of like mind don't want to live in the America Benjamin Franklin and others fought to give us. You want a large federal government that takes care of your every want and need... at the expense of those who succeed, because you're too lazy to succeed for yourself.
Woman: "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?"
Benjamin Franklin: "A Republic, if you can keep it." [source]
So I ask you Ben: what is it we have? A Republic or a Monarchy? Because the America you describe looks and acts more like a monarchy.
We do not live in a democracy, no matter how fervently you say or wish we do. We live in a Republic. And whether you understand it or not, many States have begun to realize they have lost too much to the federal government and are beginning to take back what's rightfully theirs. And all it took was the individual mandate in Obamacare to open their eyes.
That's right, "If we can keep it."
ReplyDeleteHalf of America wants to throw away what our founding fathers gave us, and supplant it with a monarchy; not one ruled by a king but by a parliament of fools.
"Your assertion that your income is yours is true, but it skips over the obvious point that you receive numerous benefits from living in the greatest country on the earth. what do you call someone that tries to get something for free?"
ReplyDelete"...but it skips over" -- we receive numerous benefits, yes, but are those benefits provided by government or are they endowed by our creator? Life? That's not something government grants (or protects, in America's case). Liberty? Governments don't 'grant' liberty, they take away liberty; liberty is yours in spite of government. The Pursuit of Happiness? Government doesn't grant this either; it hinders or takes away altogether this God-given right of man. The only benefits therefore which government grants are those that come at the cost and/or expense of the American taxpayers; many of which are not expressly granted by the constitution to the federal government. If I receive a benefit from the government, I thank God for it... not any president or political party. But I'm not 'trying' to get anything free.
"What do you call someone that tries to get something for free?" -- You mean all those evil poor folks who choose to be granted the government teat rather than learning to crawl, walk, and run for themselves toward personal and private prosperity? What a nation of thieves we've become, right? Including you and Jim? A bunch of lazy, petulant thieves. Wanting the successful to pay for your indolence? Tsk, tsk, tsk...
You and I Ben, Jim, neither live nor wish to live in the same America. You want to be taken care of, I wish to be free to take of myself.
Now, none of this should be taken to mean I believe no social safety net should exist. I only suggest it is not within the federal government's purview to PROVIDE for the general welfare. And surprise! That's exactly what the preamble to our Constitution says as well. It's the federal government's stated duty to 'provide' for the common DEFENSE, yes. But the federal government is only tasked with PROMOTING the general welfare... not providing it.
How then should and can the federal government PROMOTE the general welfare? And what specifically is meant by 'general welfare'? Well, that's a subject for another post.
"You and I Ben, Jim, neither live nor wish to live in the same America. You want to be taken care of, I wish to be free to take of myself."
ReplyDeleteDon't know about Ben, but I am quite adequately taking care of myself and my family. And I still have no problem paying my taxes.
"I only suggest it is not within the federal government's purview to PROVIDE for the general welfare. And surprise! That's exactly what the preamble to our Constitution says as well. It's the federal government's stated duty to 'provide' for the common DEFENSE, yes. But the federal government is only tasked with PROMOTING the general welfare... not providing it."
WRONG. There is actually MORE to the Constitution than the Preamble. See Article I Section 8: Powers of Congress:
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. [emphasis mine]
"...general welfare of the UNITED STATES."
ReplyDeleteNot social welfare programs.
There's more to the constitution than the preamble? Really? I didn't know that.
"Not as much as a growing upper class." But the upper class is not growing, only growing wealthier.
ReplyDelete"It is the so-called "upper class" who supplies the jobs." I work for a very large corporation. That corporation is owned by me and a lot of other people. I don't have a job because because some rich people have supplied me with one. I have a job because my company provides products that a lot of people want. And they want them and can afford them because they have jobs. They are the middle class. The middle class drives the economy. An economy isn't driven by sales of yachts, Lear jets, mansions, and Rolls Royces.
"There's more to the constitution than the preamble? Really? I didn't know that."
ReplyDeleteApparently not since you thought the Constitution only says "promote" the general welfare and not "provide" for the general welfare.
"Our constitution says the States have the greater say in government policy, and it's the federal government which is limited."
ReplyDeleteYou are constitutionally wrong again.
The Supremacy Clause of the constitution makes pretty clear that the laws of the federal government take precedence over the states.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
And that has been advanced even further by history. Before the civil war citizens may have seen themselves as citizens of their states before the nation. The civil war while also being about the issue of slavery, was a battle over whether states had the right to secede from the union. The south lost.
Today we are Americans, before Floridians, or New Yorkers, or New Englanders.