How’s he going to cut spending if he plans to move the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan?
[quote]malonetd wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
tom63 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Then go ahead and feed them. No one is stopping you or anyone else from feeding hungry grandmothers.
I’m just stating my preference if I had a choice what my money were to be spent on. I don’t get to choose when it comes to how my money should be spent on defense.
Spending money on defense is what we are supposed to do according to the constitution. Social programs are not mentioned in the constitution.
You might have forgotten or never learned, but it goes like this: We the People of the Unite States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
now the rest of it specifically spells stuff out. It doesn’t say free health care, money for lazy asses that could work but don’t because they’re lazy asses, bailing out banks who made stupid loans and dumbasses who took out the loans.
But it does call for defense spending. Funny how all the libs love all the things that it doesn’t call for spending money on and hate the thing that we are supposed to spend on.
Question for you. What does “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare” mean to you? Since you brought this up. Just curious.
I think he was just alluding to the Constitution in general, not specifically the preamble. Article 1 Section 8 covers defense spending pretty well.
Some lines taken directly from Sec. 8:
[i]The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
To raise and support armies
To provide and maintain a navy
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States[/i][/quote]
In all fairness, it may specifically state that what you said, but in the opening lines of Article 1, Section 8 it states: Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
It says common defense and general welfare. General welfare can be interpreted to mean many things. If there is a large amount of people in this country that are not doing well for whatever reason, you don’t have general welfare. I’m not taking sides. I’m just pointing out that this is where there is room for interpretation.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
tom63 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Then go ahead and feed them. No one is stopping you or anyone else from feeding hungry grandmothers.
I’m just stating my preference if I had a choice what my money were to be spent on. I don’t get to choose when it comes to how my money should be spent on defense.
Spending money on defense is what we are supposed to do according to the constitution. Social programs are not mentioned in the constitution.
You might have forgotten or never learned, but it goes like this: We the People of the Unite States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
now the rest of it specifically spells stuff out. It doesn’t say free health care, money for lazy asses that could work but don’t because they’re lazy asses, bailing out banks who made stupid loans and dumbasses who took out the loans.
But it does call for defense spending. Funny how all the libs love all the things that it doesn’t call for spending money on and hate the thing that we are supposed to spend on.
Question for you. What does “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare” mean to you? Since you brought this up. Just curious.
I think he was just alluding to the Constitution in general, not specifically the preamble. Article 1 Section 8 covers defense spending pretty well.
Some lines taken directly from Sec. 8:
[i]The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
To raise and support armies
To provide and maintain a navy
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States[/i][/quote]
In all fairness, it may specifically state that what you said, but in the opening lines of Article 1, Section 8 it states: Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
It says common defense and general welfare. General welfare can be interpreted to mean many things. If there is a large amount of people in this country that are not doing well for whatever reason, you don’t have general welfare. I’m not taking sides. I’m just pointing out that this is where there is room for interpretation.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
How’s he going to cut spending if he plans to move the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan?[/quote]
I don’t know. Ask Rockscar. He is the one who originally said he is going to cut defense spending.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
malonetd wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
tom63 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Then go ahead and feed them. No one is stopping you or anyone else from feeding hungry grandmothers.
I’m just stating my preference if I had a choice what my money were to be spent on. I don’t get to choose when it comes to how my money should be spent on defense.
Spending money on defense is what we are supposed to do according to the constitution. Social programs are not mentioned in the constitution.
You might have forgotten or never learned, but it goes like this: We the People of the Unite States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
now the rest of it specifically spells stuff out. It doesn’t say free health care, money for lazy asses that could work but don’t because they’re lazy asses, bailing out banks who made stupid loans and dumbasses who took out the loans.
But it does call for defense spending. Funny how all the libs love all the things that it doesn’t call for spending money on and hate the thing that we are supposed to spend on.
Question for you. What does “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare” mean to you? Since you brought this up. Just curious.
I think he was just alluding to the Constitution in general, not specifically the preamble. Article 1 Section 8 covers defense spending pretty well.
Some lines taken directly from Sec. 8:
[i]The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
To raise and support armies
To provide and maintain a navy
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States[/i]
In all fairness, it may specifically state that what you said, but in the opening lines of Article 1, Section 8 it states: Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
It says common defense and general welfare. General welfare can be interpreted to mean many things. If there is a large amount of people in this country that are not doing well for whatever reason, you don’t have general welfare. I’m not taking sides. I’m just pointing out that this is where there is room for interpretation.[/quote]
How is it promoting GENERAL welfare, when you’re harming one group of people to provide for another sub-set of people? That’s not GENERAL welfare. Protecting the country from being invaded and conquered? Aboslutely. Wealth redistribution doesn’t promote our General Welfare.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Gael wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Why someone would stard a thread that defense spending is a BAD thing must live in Berkely, or la la land.
Our nuts will be totally cut off when Obama takes office, we will all be forced to learn French and how to say Pock-E-Ston correctly so as not to offend others.
Why? Do you think that Obama wants to reduce the military budget?
He vowed on camera to reduce military spending and totally cut military development. so… Yes. [/quote]
Can you be more specific? How recently did he say this?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
How’s he going to cut spending if he plans to move the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan?[/quote]
Just logistics. He’s a big idea guy, someone else will take care of the details.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
malonetd wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
tom63 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Then go ahead and feed them. No one is stopping you or anyone else from feeding hungry grandmothers.
I’m just stating my preference if I had a choice what my money were to be spent on. I don’t get to choose when it comes to how my money should be spent on defense.
Spending money on defense is what we are supposed to do according to the constitution. Social programs are not mentioned in the constitution.
You might have forgotten or never learned, but it goes like this: We the People of the Unite States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
now the rest of it specifically spells stuff out. It doesn’t say free health care, money for lazy asses that could work but don’t because they’re lazy asses, bailing out banks who made stupid loans and dumbasses who took out the loans.
But it does call for defense spending. Funny how all the libs love all the things that it doesn’t call for spending money on and hate the thing that we are supposed to spend on.
Question for you. What does “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare” mean to you? Since you brought this up. Just curious.
I think he was just alluding to the Constitution in general, not specifically the preamble. Article 1 Section 8 covers defense spending pretty well.
Some lines taken directly from Sec. 8:
[i]The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
To raise and support armies
To provide and maintain a navy
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States[/i]
In all fairness, it may specifically state that what you said, but in the opening lines of Article 1, Section 8 it states: Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
It says common defense and general welfare. General welfare can be interpreted to mean many things. If there is a large amount of people in this country that are not doing well for whatever reason, you don’t have general welfare. I’m not taking sides. I’m just pointing out that this is where there is room for interpretation.
How is it promoting GENERAL welfare, when you’re harming one group of people to provide for another sub-set of people? That’s not GENERAL welfare. Protecting the country from being invaded and conquered? Aboslutely. Wealth redistribution doesn’t promote our General Welfare.[/quote]
I said large amount of people, not sub-set. And speaking about wealth redistribution, how’s $700 billion dollars of your tax money being given to Wall Street cover their fuck ups strike you? The last time I checked, Wall Street is a sub-set of people, but what they do affects the larger majority of people in this country. Is this general welfare or socialist wealth redistribution?
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
malonetd wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
tom63 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Then go ahead and feed them. No one is stopping you or anyone else from feeding hungry grandmothers.
I’m just stating my preference if I had a choice what my money were to be spent on. I don’t get to choose when it comes to how my money should be spent on defense.
Spending money on defense is what we are supposed to do according to the constitution. Social programs are not mentioned in the constitution.
You might have forgotten or never learned, but it goes like this: We the People of the Unite States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
now the rest of it specifically spells stuff out. It doesn’t say free health care, money for lazy asses that could work but don’t because they’re lazy asses, bailing out banks who made stupid loans and dumbasses who took out the loans.
But it does call for defense spending. Funny how all the libs love all the things that it doesn’t call for spending money on and hate the thing that we are supposed to spend on.
Question for you. What does “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare” mean to you? Since you brought this up. Just curious.
I think he was just alluding to the Constitution in general, not specifically the preamble. Article 1 Section 8 covers defense spending pretty well.
Some lines taken directly from Sec. 8:
[i]The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
To raise and support armies
To provide and maintain a navy
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States[/i]
In all fairness, it may specifically state that what you said, but in the opening lines of Article 1, Section 8 it states: Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
It says common defense and general welfare. General welfare can be interpreted to mean many things. If there is a large amount of people in this country that are not doing well for whatever reason, you don’t have general welfare. I’m not taking sides. I’m just pointing out that this is where there is room for interpretation.
How is it promoting GENERAL welfare, when you’re harming one group of people to provide for another sub-set of people? That’s not GENERAL welfare. Protecting the country from being invaded and conquered? Aboslutely. Wealth redistribution doesn’t promote our General Welfare.
I said large amount of people, not sub-set. And speaking about wealth redistribution, how’s $700 billion dollars of your tax money being given to Wall Street cover their fuck ups strike you? The last time I checked, Wall Street is a sub-set of people, but what they do affects the larger majority of people in this country. Is this general welfare or socialist wealth redistribution?
[/quote]
-
Attempting to people into homes, that the free-market alone wouldn’t have put him them in. Risky.
-
Socializing the risk of doing the above.
-
And yes, the bailout is wealth redistribution.
I oppose the government tinkering with the economy for socialist ideals “Everyone owns a home!” And, I oppose taxpayers bailing out the mess.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
malonetd wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
tom63 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Then go ahead and feed them. No one is stopping you or anyone else from feeding hungry grandmothers.
I’m just stating my preference if I had a choice what my money were to be spent on. I don’t get to choose when it comes to how my money should be spent on defense.
Spending money on defense is what we are supposed to do according to the constitution. Social programs are not mentioned in the constitution.
You might have forgotten or never learned, but it goes like this: We the People of the Unite States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
now the rest of it specifically spells stuff out. It doesn’t say free health care, money for lazy asses that could work but don’t because they’re lazy asses, bailing out banks who made stupid loans and dumbasses who took out the loans.
But it does call for defense spending. Funny how all the libs love all the things that it doesn’t call for spending money on and hate the thing that we are supposed to spend on.
Question for you. What does “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare” mean to you? Since you brought this up. Just curious.
I think he was just alluding to the Constitution in general, not specifically the preamble. Article 1 Section 8 covers defense spending pretty well.
Some lines taken directly from Sec. 8:
[i]The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
To raise and support armies
To provide and maintain a navy
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States[/i]
In all fairness, it may specifically state that what you said, but in the opening lines of Article 1, Section 8 it states: Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
It says common defense and general welfare. General welfare can be interpreted to mean many things. If there is a large amount of people in this country that are not doing well for whatever reason, you don’t have general welfare. I’m not taking sides. I’m just pointing out that this is where there is room for interpretation.
How is it promoting GENERAL welfare, when you’re harming one group of people to provide for another sub-set of people? That’s not GENERAL welfare. Protecting the country from being invaded and conquered? Aboslutely. Wealth redistribution doesn’t promote our General Welfare.
I said large amount of people, not sub-set. And speaking about wealth redistribution, how’s $700 billion dollars of your tax money being given to Wall Street cover their fuck ups strike you? The last time I checked, Wall Street is a sub-set of people, but what they do affects the larger majority of people in this country. Is this general welfare or socialist wealth redistribution?
-
Attempting to people into homes, that the free-market alone wouldn’t have put him them in. Risky.
-
Socializing the risk of doing the above.
-
And yes, the bailout is wealth redistribution.
I oppose the government tinkering with the economy for socialist ideals “Everyone owns a home!” And, I oppose taxpayers bailing out the mess. [/quote]
Believe it or not, I agree with you on this. All I was doing was pointing out how the constitution can be read and interpreted.
[quote]Gael wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Gael wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Why someone would stard a thread that defense spending is a BAD thing must live in Berkely, or la la land.
Our nuts will be totally cut off when Obama takes office, we will all be forced to learn French and how to say Pock-E-Ston correctly so as not to offend others.
Why? Do you think that Obama wants to reduce the military budget?
He vowed on camera to reduce military spending and totally cut military development. so… Yes.
Can you be more specific? How recently did he say this?[/quote]
This was in his primary days, it was shown during a news story as one of his many major stance changes throughout the campaign. I believe he is modifying what he’s saying to what the people want to hear, but I believe he will be for all the original stances he took when in office.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
malonetd wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
tom63 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Then go ahead and feed them. No one is stopping you or anyone else from feeding hungry grandmothers.
I’m just stating my preference if I had a choice what my money were to be spent on. I don’t get to choose when it comes to how my money should be spent on defense.
Spending money on defense is what we are supposed to do according to the constitution. Social programs are not mentioned in the constitution.
You might have forgotten or never learned, but it goes like this: We the People of the Unite States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
now the rest of it specifically spells stuff out. It doesn’t say free health care, money for lazy asses that could work but don’t because they’re lazy asses, bailing out banks who made stupid loans and dumbasses who took out the loans.
But it does call for defense spending. Funny how all the libs love all the things that it doesn’t call for spending money on and hate the thing that we are supposed to spend on.
Question for you. What does “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare” mean to you? Since you brought this up. Just curious.
I think he was just alluding to the Constitution in general, not specifically the preamble. Article 1 Section 8 covers defense spending pretty well.
Some lines taken directly from Sec. 8:
[i]The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
To raise and support armies
To provide and maintain a navy
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States[/i]
In all fairness, it may specifically state that what you said, but in the opening lines of Article 1, Section 8 it states: Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
It says common defense and general welfare. General welfare can be interpreted to mean many things. If there is a large amount of people in this country that are not doing well for whatever reason, you don’t have general welfare. I’m not taking sides. I’m just pointing out that this is where there is room for interpretation.[/quote]
Besides just the litteral inperpretation of this small portion you also have to take into account the intent of those that wrote, and more importantly, ratified the constitution. If know anything of the founding of this country you know that those who wrote and ratified the consistution has an all-consuming fear or overreaching gov’t. This show up in other parts of the constitution, Bill of Rights and other writings and history of the founders. I doubt very much that any of the states would have ratified the constitution if they new what would become of the federal gov’t and the soverienty of the states.
Like many liberal judges, you can make the constitution say whatever you want it to say, but this does not mean that you are not trampling the very spirit that formed this country.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
I believe he will be for all the original stances he took when in office.
[/quote]
Why? This has never been true in the past with any candidates that creep toward the middle during their campaigns.