Re: USA History

[Transition Zone]

On Jun 12, 6:20 pm, Ginger <gin...@german.ru> wrote:
> The parasites are outnumbering the workers. The parasites don't want
> work, they want workers to support them.
> They voted for Obama because he promised them free stuff while Romney
> promised them jobs.

But, Romney gave all Massachussets health care - but supported by
their workers.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Actually Romney signed a Progressive BILL INTO law.


And NOW Romney lost his campaign and was hit with the Saul Alinsky
tactics but the main point is that Passing a very Progressive law was
the end of Romney's career in politics.


I tell Republicans all the time, that you can't out-Spend a Liberal.
When these RINO Republicans start passing Progressive laws, it's the end
of their career. They Stop moving up the ladder.


The Republicans get less Republican support and the real Progressive
Liberals can always find a Liberal that's more Liberal than the
Republican can promise to be.


Romney deserved to lose as do all Progressive Republicans.

[The truth will set you free]

But Obama shoved socialism down everyone's throat.

[The truth will set you free]

So..you decided to vote for a Kenyan illegal who is a Muslim. Good move
- hopey changey..

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:59:57 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>On 6/13/2013 4:19 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 6:20 pm, Ginger <gin...@german.ru> wrote:
>>> The parasites are outnumbering the workers. The parasites don't want
>>> work, they want workers to support them.
>>> They voted for Obama because he promised them free stuff while Romney
>>> promised them jobs.
>>
>> But, Romney gave all Massachussets health care - but supported by
>> their workers.
>>
>
>Actually Romney signed a Progressive BILL INTO law.
>
>
>And NOW Romney lost his campaign and was hit with the Saul Alinsky
>tactics but the main point is that Passing a very Progressive law was
>the end of Romney's career in politics.

Romney didn't run in 2006. He knew he would lose -- the Republican got
his clocked cleaned badly -- but he didn't even try. He was getting
ready for the 2008 presidential run,

>
>
>I tell Republicans all the time, that you can't out-Spend a Liberal.
>When these RINO Republicans start passing Progressive laws, it's the end
>of their career. They Stop moving up the ladder.
>
>
>The Republicans get less Republican support and the real Progressive
>Liberals can always find a Liberal that's more Liberal than the
>Republican can promise to be.
>
>
>Romney deserved to lose as do all Progressive Republicans.

Romney lost because he's a flip-flopping weasel who thought that half
the country didn't deserve his elitist Republican attention -- he gave
up on them.

No matter that most of them are working.

--
Ed Huntress

[jane]

On Jun 13, 7:20 pm, The truth will set you free <deutsc...@mutter.com>
wrote:

In 2033, just 20 short years from now, the SS Trust Fund will be
empty, we will interest on the debt AND there will be only 2 workers
for each retiree.

Think about that. Two children who are in Kindergarten today will, in
20 short years, be starting a family, paying their mortgage, paying
off student loans, trying to save for their children's college fund,
trying to add to their retirement fund (401K) trying to make ends
meet, PLUS paying their taxes, PLUS paying the interest on the debt,
PLUS paying the SS benefits and ALL of the medical bills for their
very own retiree.

[Richard]

On 6/13/2013 6:30 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


>
> Romney lost because he's a flip-flopping weasel who thought that half
> the country didn't deserve his elitist Republican attention -- he gave
> up on them.
>
> No matter that most of them are working.
>

As far as I can tell he was selected because he had the biggest ego in
the party. And the most money. Not that did him any good.
But it seemed to be the top selection criteria...

[Richard]

Don't swallow!

[RD Sandman]

jane <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4268cab2-a851-4e51...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:

Some bad shit, isn't it.

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

Old Air Force adage..The only time you have too
much fuel is when you are on fire!!

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 13, 8:00 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 13, 7:20 pm, The truth will set you free <deutsc...@mutter.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 6/13/2013 1:19 PM, Transition Zone wrote:> On Jun 12, 6:20 pm, Ginger <gin...@german.ru> wrote:
> > >> The parasites are outnumbering the workers. The parasites don't want
> > >> work, they want workers to support them.
> > >> They voted for Obama because he promised them free stuff while Romney
> > >> promised them jobs.
>
> > > But, Romney gave all Massachussets health care - but supported by
> > > their workers.
>
> > But Obama shoved socialism down everyone's throat.
>
> In 2033, just 20 short years from now, the SS Trust Fund will be
> empty,

lie.

we will interest on the debt AND there will be only 2 workers
> for each retiree.

S.S. does not add one penny to the deficit, you know this shill.


>


S.S. is a self funded, fully funded insurance program, that can pay
out its full benefits for at least 2 decades, then can pay out 75% of
its benefits for many many decades to come, that is if no adjustments
to the program are made. just to give you a idea how well s.s. works,
the last time any adjustments were made, was 3 decades ago, that is
thirty years. if nothing is done to adjust the program, it will have
gone 50 years or more, with no adjustments made.
show me a private for profit insurance program that can brag about
that, and also see if they can brag about the efficiency of s.s., it
takes around a 3% over head, but you know that shill, its why the
private sector is drooling over s.s., you simply wish to drain it by
excessive fee's, just as you have done with 401k's, or theft of
private sector pensions.
but there is a simple fix, simply raise the cap, and of course you
know this shill.

> Think about that.  Two children who are in Kindergarten today will, in
> 20 short years, be starting a family, paying their mortgage, paying
> off student loans, trying to save for their children's college fund,
> trying to add to their retirement fund (401K) trying to make ends
> meet, PLUS paying their taxes, PLUS paying the interest on the debt,
> PLUS paying the SS benefits and ALL of the medical bills for their
> very own retiree.

just lift the cap shill. its well know.

it is relatively easy to deny history, logic and facts when one's
continuing income depends upon one doing so!

[Nickname unavailable]

the idiot has never understood article one, section eight of the
constitution.

[Richard]

The charade won't last that long...

[Richard]

He didn't have to.

All he had to do was get elected.

[Nickname unavailable]

there is no charade.

S.S. is a self funded, fully funded insurance program, that can pay
out its full benefits for at least 2 decades, then can pay out 75% of
its benefits for many many decades to come, that is if no adjustments
to the program are made. just to give you a idea how well s.s. works,
the last time any adjustments were made, was 3 decades ago, that is
thirty years. if nothing is done to adjust the program, it will have
gone 50 years or more, with no adjustments made.
show me a private for profit insurance program that can brag about
that, and also see if they can brag about the efficiency of s.s., it

takes around a 3% over head, its why the
private sector is drooling over s.s., they simply wish to drain it by

excessive fee's, just as you have done with 401k's, or theft of
private sector pensions.

but there is a simple fix, simply raise the cap.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Jun 14, 12:03 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:24:08 -0500, RD Sandman

>
> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> In 2033, just 20 short years from now, the SS Trust Fund will be
> >> empty, we will interest on the debt AND there will be only 2 workers
> >> for each retiree.

> >Some bad shit, isn't it.
>

> Only if you don't think, RDLOON
>
> solvency is accomplished by a small increase in percentage
> contributed, a raise in contribution cutoff, and no cap on the wealth
> class ( who now own 80% of all wealth)
>
> That's why it's called SOCIAL SECURITY
>
> The price the wealthy pay for complete stability of their empires---a
> few dollars compared to their massive fortunes

The problem with Social Security is that it on average pays out less
that it takes in. Which means that the average person will pay in
more than they will collect in benefits. As a way to provide for
retirement , it sucks.

Alll the proposed solutions by the Democrats just make it worse for
anyone that makes a decent salary. And for the average wage earner it
makes it harder to save for retirement.


Dan

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:00:58 -0500, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

He was selected because he was the only one that wasn't certifiably
insane or as stupid as a tree stump. From here, the Republican
primaries really did look like a clown show, without the tiny bicycles
or the big noses.

I voted for him in the primary for those reasons -- not because I
wanted him to win, but because, if a Republican got elected, he was
the one who was least likely to destroy the country.

--
Ed Huntress

[Yak]

On Jun 14, 12:00 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> The GOP lost for the reason they cannot win kissing the ass of the
> demographic coalitions they engendered in the 70's.
>
> The Dixiecrats are racist
>
> The Social conservatives are poison pills
>
> The wealthy elite are scumbags
>
> and the assortment of idiot teawhackoffs, rightwing extremists,
> gunloons and general haters have decimated the foundation of the
> republican party.

You left out the most important reason: The party that promised the
most goodies in exchange for the least amount of effort (if any at
all) won.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:10:02 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:37:08 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>I voted for him in the primary for those reasons -- not because I
>>wanted him to win, but because, if a Republican got elected, he was
>>the one who was least likely to destroy the country.
>

>Then YOU need to read a new insider book that's being talked about
>related to what Rumney intended his government to "be like"
>
>Based on massive privatization of as much govt services to the extent
>that it's actually worse than those who thought he was a ruthless
>venture capitalist.
>
>Don't know the name of the book---but I'll eventually find it.

It doesn't surprise me that he would want to do that, but a
president's ability to make such changes are limited. I doubt if he
could do much damage.

The US, like every other advanced economy, is a mixed economy. We tend
toward the capitalist end of that broad scale, overall -- quite far
removed from the welfare-state economies of Scandanavia, for example.
There aren't a lot of opportunities in the US for further
privatization. The real ideologues want to unravel the safety net
itself, but as we've seen, there is so much resistance to that -- even
by the Tea Party, which goes nuts when anyone hints at privatizing
Medicare or Social Security -- that it seems unlikely that Romney or
anyone else would succeed.

So I think we could tolerate a Romney presidency without any
fundamental shakeups. I don't think it would be beneficial, however,
because we're already on the edge of one underappreciated dynamic: the
minimal levels of health and financial security that encourage
risk-taking by people who aren't already rich. That kind of
risk-taking is one of our greatest strengths, and it's pretty clear
that the optimum relationship of security versus laissez-faire is
somewhere around where are now, or possibly slightly to the left of
it.

But no other country has our level of risk-taking entrepreneurship, so
it's not something we'd want to knock far off of our present state of
balance. Again, I don't think there are many opportunities for Romney
or any other potential president to do that.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

And what examples of "goodies" are you thinking of? What specific
"promises" were made in that regard?

--
Ed Huntress

[Yak]

Uh...obamacare?

>
> --
> Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

But don't conservatives keep pointing out that most people in the
country oppose it? So if most oppose it, and that's what you think the
big "promise" is, how did Obama get elected by a majority of 5 million
voters?

--
Ed Huntress

[678.714.5764]

On 6/13/2013 7:31 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Jun 13, 8:00 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 13, 7:20 pm, The truth will set you free <deutsc...@mutter.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/13/2013 1:19 PM, Transition Zone wrote:> On Jun 12, 6:20 pm, Ginger <gin...@german.ru> wrote:
>>>>> The parasites are outnumbering the workers. The parasites don't want
>>>>> work, they want workers to support them.
>>>>> They voted for Obama because he promised them free stuff while Romney
>>>>> promised them jobs.
>>
>>>> But, Romney gave all Massachussets health care - but supported by
>>>> their workers.
>>
>>> But Obama shoved socialism down everyone's throat.
>>
>> In 2033, just 20 short years from now, the SS Trust Fund will be
>> empty,
>
> lie.
>
> we will interest on the debt AND there will be only 2 workers
>> for each retiree.
>
> S.S. does not add one penny to the deficit, you know this shill.

Of course Social Security adds to the deficit, you fuckwitted lying
Democrap shill. They're spending more in benefits than they're taking
in as payroll taxes. The money has to come from somewhere. It's coming
from the fake "interest" they receive on the fake "bonds" they were
forced to buy to fund the main federal budget deficit. The federal
budget deficit is bigger than it would otherwise be, because the
government has raided the fake "trust funds" in order to fund current
spending, but that money has to be repaid.

You're a fucking goddamned lying whore who will say anything to try to
preserve out of control federal spending and gouging productive Americans.

[Yak]

You do realize that what the incompetent buffoon promised and
campaigned on is far different than what is actually materializing,
don't you? He sold you a bill of goods and you fell for it.

>
> --
> Ed Huntress

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/14/2013 10:10 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:37:08 -0400, Ed Huntress
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>

>> I voted for him in the primary for those reasons -- not because I
>> wanted him to win, but because, if a Republican got elected, he was
>> the one who was least likely to destroy the country.
>

> Then YOU need to read a new insider book that's being talked about
> related to what Rumney intended his government to "be like"
>
> Based on massive privatization of as much govt services to the extent
> that it's actually worse than those who thought he was a ruthless
> venture capitalist.
>
> Don't know the name of the book---but I'll eventually find it.
>

The book of Mormon..... Bible.

Romney was a progressive-Republican, he was Obama lite.

[Ed Huntress]

Disregarding the question of how accurate your assertion may be,
you're still locked in a logical contradiction.

If the majority of people oppose it, and he campaigned on it, how did
he win by 5 million votes?

--
Ed Huntress

[Yak]

They oppose it now. They didn't at the time the incompetent buffoon
lied/campaigned on it. This isn't that hard to figure out, ed.

>
> --
> Ed Huntress

[Carol Kinsey Goman]

It's leftists who never understood the proper meaning of it it and have
mangled that part of the Constitution into a power it never was intended
to provide. The Butler decision is an utter perversion of the
Constitution, given to us by a socialist Supreme Court. It was one of
the more important decisions that have repudiated the Constitution.

[George Plimpton]

It isn't. It is currently operating in deficit.

[Max Boot]

On 6/13/2013 8:57 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:00:06 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In 2033, just 20 short years from now, the SS Trust Fund will be
>> empty, we will interest on the debt AND there will be only 2 workers
>> for each retiree.
>
>

> Then all we have to do is raise the top cutoff and have an unlimited
> ceiling for those who own, or make, 80% of ALL wealth and income in
> America

Wrong. There is no provision for taxing wealth.

[Sid9]

"Yak" <y...@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:1aa5f9bb-b5c2-4a90...@b4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

.
.
.

You might want to read this by Paul Krugman....especially the last two
paragraphs. Look up any long words you do not understand:

June 13, 2013

Sympathy for the Luddites

By PAUL KRUGMAN

In 1786, the cloth workers of Leeds, a wool-industry center in northern
England, issued a protest against the growing use of "scribbling" machines,
which were taking over a task formerly performed by skilled labor. "How are
those men, thus thrown out of employ to provide for their families?" asked
the petitioners. "And what are they to put their children apprentice to?"

Those weren't foolish questions. Mechanization eventually - that is, after a
couple of generations - led to a broad rise in British living standards. But
it's far from clear whether typical workers reaped any benefits during the
early stages of the Industrial Revolution; many workers were clearly hurt.
And often the workers hurt most were those who had, with effort, acquired
valuable skills - only to find those skills suddenly devalued.

So are we living in another such era? And, if we are, what are we going to
do about it?
Until recently, the conventional wisdom about the effects of technology on
workers was, in a way, comforting. Clearly, many workers weren't sharing
fully - or, in many cases, at all - in the benefits of rising productivity;
instead, the bulk of the gains were going to a minority of the work force.
But this, the story went, was because modern technology was raising the
demand for highly educated workers while reducing the demand for less
educated workers. And the solution was more education.

Now, there were always problems with this story. Notably, while it could
account for a rising gap in wages between those with college degrees and
those without, it couldn't explain why a small group - the famous "one
percent" - was experiencing much bigger gains than highly educated workers
in general. Still, there may have been something to this story a decade ago.

Today, however, a much darker picture of the effects of technology on labor
is emerging. In this picture, highly educated workers are as likely as less
educated workers to find themselves displaced and devalued, and pushing for
more education may create as many problems as it solves.

I've noted before that the nature of rising inequality in America changed
around 2000. Until then, it was all about worker versus worker; the
distribution of income between labor and capital - between wages and
profits, if you like - had been stable for decades. Since then, however,
labor's share of the pie has fallen sharply. As it turns out, this is not a
uniquely American phenomenon. A new report from the International Labor
Organization points out that the same thing has been happening in many other
countries, which is what you'd expect to see if global technological trends
were turning against workers.

And some of those turns may well be sudden. The McKinsey Global Institute
recently released a report on a dozen major new technologies that it
considers likely to be "disruptive," upsetting existing market and social
arrangements. Even a quick scan of the report's list suggests that some of
the victims of disruption will be workers who are currently considered
highly skilled, and who invested a lot of time and money in acquiring those
skills. For example, the report suggests that we're going to be seeing a lot
of "automation of knowledge work," with software doing things that used to
require college graduates. Advanced robotics could further diminish
employment in manufacturing, but it could also replace some medical
professionals.

So should workers simply be prepared to acquire new skills? The woolworkers
of 18th-century Leeds addressed this issue back in 1786: "Who will maintain
our families, whilst we undertake the arduous task" of learning a new trade?
Also, they asked, what will happen if the new trade, in turn, gets devalued
by further technological advance?
And the modern counterparts of those woolworkers might well ask further,
what will happen to us if, like so many students, we go deep into debt to
acquire the skills we're told we need, only to learn that the economy no
longer wants those skills?

Education, then, is no longer the answer to rising inequality, if it ever
was (which I doubt).

So what is the answer? If the picture I've drawn is at all right, the only
way we could have anything resembling a middle-class society - a society in
which ordinary citizens have a reasonable assurance of maintaining a decent
life as long as they work hard and play by the rules - would be by having a
strong social safety net, one that guarantees not just health care but a
minimum income, too. And with an ever-rising share of income going to
capital rather than labor, that safety net would have to be paid for to an
important extent via taxes on profits and/or investment income.

I can already hear conservatives shouting about the evils of
"redistribution." But what, exactly, would they propose instead?




--



"Consider a 1998 study in the "Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery"
that found that every time a gun was used in a house in a self defense or
legally justifiable shooting there were four unintentional shootings , seven
criminal assaults, or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides"
from Scientific American May 2013




"We've got to stop being the stupid party,"
the Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal explained.
"It's time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults.




"Facts." John Adams argued "are stubborn things,
and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations,
or of the dictates of our passion, they cannot
alter the state of facts and evidence.

[Max Boot]

On 6/13/2013 9:03 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:24:08 -0500, RD Sandman

> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> In 2033, just 20 short years from now, the SS Trust Fund will be
>>> empty, we will interest on the debt AND there will be only 2 workers
>>> for each retiree.
>
>

>> Some bad shit, isn't it.
>
> Only if you don't think, RDLOON
>
> solvency is accomplished by a small increase in percentage
> contributed, a raise in contribution cutoff, and no cap on the wealth
> class ( who now own 80% of all wealth)

In other words, by still more economy-killing redistribution. It won't
work. It won't happen.

Social Security can only be "saved" by privatising it.

[Yak]

Yeah, so Krugman agrees with me. Thanks for posting that sid.

[Ed Huntress]

It isn't hard to figure out, but you're having some trouble here
"figuring it out."

That's because a majority has opposed it every time it's been polled
since June 2009. This is the timeline on the Wall Street Journal/NBC
poll on Obamacare (click on the link three lines into the story; open
the Word file; go to page 25 for the full timeline):

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/06/18781204-health-care-laws-unpopularity-reaches-new-highs?lite

So that isn't it. 'Want to try again to explain why Romney lost?

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

What "Butler decision" are you talking about here? U.S. v. Butler
(1936)?

If so, you got it backwards. The Court said the law was
unconstitutional.

--
Ed Huntress

[Yak]

> http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/06/18781204-health-care-la...

>
> So that isn't it. 'Want to try again to explain why Romney lost?
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

Your numbers cover after the incompetent buffoon was elected. How
about prior to that time...when the incompetent buffoon was
campaigning? You know...under the premise that healthcare would be
affordable and you'll be able to keep your current plan and whatnot.
Look, the incompetent buffoon fooled you. You fell for it. How's
that working out for you now?

Romney lost because of he could not surpass the false promises that
the incompetent buffoon made. Incompetent buffooncare is but one of
them. Romney didn't help himself with his "47%" crack, in spite of
the fact that he was right. Move on. Your guy won...to the detriment
of us all.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:00:53 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
wrote:

FWIW, a negative income tax to accomplish the purpose of alleviating
poverty, structural or otherwise, was proposed by conservative
economist/icon Milton Friedman in his 1962 book, _Capitalism and
Freedom_.

http://books.cat-v.org/economics/capitalism-and-freedom/chapter_12

The plan was adopted by Barry Goldwater in his 1964 presidential
campaign.

How things have changed, eh?

--
Ed Huntress

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Getting more money back than you paid into the IRS.... is NOT TAX that
is WELFARE.

This attempt to HIDE WELFARE in a tax credit is unconstitutional.


Taxes pay for government debt while
*tax credits create government debt* .

If it is a negative in the Revenue column it is NOT a tax revenue it's a
liability that goes in the government expense/spending column.


As with all Liberal programs *UP IS DOWN AND RIGHT IS LEFT* they
corrupt the meanings of everything and redefine the meanings to their
own purpose, what ever that is at that moment.


The Constitution won't work if the language used to create it and the
language used to enforce it are NOT the same language.


Which is why Liberalism always fails when applied to the constitution,
Liberalish is NOT the same language that was used to write the Constitution.

--



*Rumination*
#60 - "Our constitution protects criminals, sexual deviants and U.S.
Senators.... which at times are, one and the same."

[George Plimpton]

Jesus, what a fucking simpleton you are even as you try to play the
world-weary cynic. First, a majority *do* oppose Obamacare. Your own
side acknowledges it:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/05/27/poll_majority_of_americans_are_still_opposed_to_obamacare.html

The juxtaposition of a majority opposing Obamacare with Obama winning a
slim majority of the popular vote - he got a mere 51.1%, down from 52.9%
in 2008 - is easily understood by people who have a real understanding
of politics, like me but excluding you.

First, there is a substantial share of people who "oppose" Obamacare
because they think it doesn't go far enough - i.e., isn't sufficiently
socialist. Those people weren't going to vote for Romney, you fuckwit.
They're still going to vote for the socialist, not the capitalist
freedom fighter, even if said socialist isn't delivering as much
socialism as they want.

Second, some people who oppose the socialization of medical care might
still vote for the socialist because they support him for other reasons,
and they care more about those other issues than they do about
socialized medicine.

[Ed Huntress]

Yak, the question was why Romney lost -- in 2012. The poll results
from the WSJ show that pluralities have OPPOSED Obamacare since June
2009.

So how did the "goodies" promised by Obamacare cause Romney to lose in
2012, when support for Obamacare has ALWAYS been opposed for more than
three years prior to the election?

> How
>about prior to that time...when the incompetent buffoon was
>campaigning? You know...under the premise that healthcare would be
>affordable and you'll be able to keep your current plan and whatnot.
>Look, the incompetent buffoon fooled you. You fell for it. How's
>that working out for you now?

It's working great for me. As Obamacare promised, it's had no effect
at all on my private insurance. I have the same coverage I've had for
years. And it will continue.

Now, back to your claim: How did all of that opposition result in
Obama's re-election, by 5 million popular votes, three years after
most people started opposing it?

Could it be that you've seized on the wrong reason that Romney lost?
Are you willing to reconsider your assertion, in light of the public
rejection -- for years -- of the "goody" that you claim resulted in
Obama being re-elected?

Or are you going to keep ignoring that the facts flatly contradict
what you're saying?

>
>Romney lost because of he could not surpass the false promises that
>the incompetent buffoon made. Incompetent buffooncare is but one of
>them.

It's the one you gave as an example. And your example was dead wrong
-- it was actually opposed by more people than those who supported it.

So, what else is in your bag of "goodies" here? Your first one didn't
work out so well. Do you have better ones?

> Romney didn't help himself with his "47%" crack, in spite of
>the fact that he was right.

It was more than brain-dead on his part. Most of those 47% have jobs
and work. They pay taxes -- sales taxes, state income taxes, and
payroll taxes. 74% of those who don't pay *federal* income taxes are
the elderly and young families with children and moderate incomes;
most of the remainder just have very low incomes and standard
deductions reduce their fed. income tax liabilities to zero.

> Move on.

Well, I've long ago moved on. But listening to nonsense like that
you're promoting does incline me to revisit the reasons for Romney's
loss, because last election's bullshit can affect the next one.

And your inaccurate assessment is a good example of the excuse-making
that's screwing up the Republican Party.

You need to look a little deeper, or you're just going to forfeit the
very constructive function of having two viable, sensible parties in
our political system.

>Your guy won...to the detriment
>of us all.

I disagree with your opinion.

--
Ed Huntress

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 14, 6:39 am, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

> On Jun 14, 12:03 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:24:08 -0500, RD Sandman
>
> > <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> In 2033, just 20 short years from now, the SS Trust Fund will be
> > >> empty, we will interest on the debt AND there will be only 2 workers
> > >> for each retiree.
> > >Some bad shit, isn't it.
>
> > Only if you don't think, RDLOON
>
> > solvency is accomplished by a small increase in percentage
> > contributed, a raise in contribution cutoff, and no cap on the wealth
> > class ( who now own 80% of all wealth)
>

> > That's why it's called SOCIAL SECURITY
>
> > The price the wealthy pay for complete stability of their empires---a
> > few dollars compared to their massive fortunes
>
> The problem with Social Security is that it on average pays out less
> that it takes in.  Which means that the average person will pay in
> more than they will collect in benefits.  As a way to provide for
> retirement , it sucks.
>


no, it works well. private for profit insurance works the same way.
if you insure your house, there is a real good chance you will pay in
more than you will ever collect.


> Alll the proposed solutions by the Democrats just make it worse for
> anyone that makes a decent salary.  And for the average wage earner it
> makes it harder to save for retirement.
>


no, the average wage earner has been ripped off in their 401ks and
private pensions. s.s. is a god send. its why the tea party says hands
of my s.s.:)))


> Dan

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 14, 9:12 am, Yak <y...@inbox.com> wrote:

> On Jun 14, 12:00 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:00:58 -0500, Richard <cavel...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On 6/13/2013 6:30 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> > >> Romney lost because he's a flip-flopping weasel who thought that half
> > >> the country didn't deserve his elitist Republican attention -- he gave
> > >> up on them.
>
> > >> No matter that most of them are working.
>
> > >As far as I can tell he was selected because he had the biggest ego in
> > >the party.  And the most money.  Not that did him any good.
> > >But it seemed to be the top selection criteria...
>
> > The GOP lost for the reason they cannot win kissing the ass of the
> > demographic coalitions they engendered in the 70's.
>
> > The Dixiecrats are racist
>
> > The Social conservatives are poison pills
>
> > The wealthy elite are scumbags
>
> > and the assortment of idiot teawhackoffs, rightwing extremists,
> > gunloons and general haters have decimated the foundation of the
> > republican party.
>
> You left out the most important reason: The party that promised the
> most goodies in exchange for the least amount of effort (if any at
> all) won.

no,

i am getting sick of red state/red district parasites: Seventy % of
counties with the fastest-growth in food-stamp aid during the last 4
years voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008: there
are 47 percent who are dependent on government.” They “believe that
they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing.” they are
"CONSERVATIVES"


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-05/republican-heavy-counties-eat-up-most-food-stamp-growth.html
Republican-Heavy Counties Eat Up Most Food-Stamp Growth
By Frank Bass - Nov 4, 2012 11:00 PM CT

Obama, Romney Both See Good News on Election Eve
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said in May that he’d
written off votes from 47 percent of Americans who are collecting
government aid. Turns out many of them are part of his political base.
Republican Counties Defy Romney in Leading Food-Stamp Growth

Mitt Romney speaks during a campaign event at the Newport News
International Airport, on Nov. 4, 2012, in Newport News, Va.
Mitt Romney speaks during a campaign event at the Newport News
International Airport, on Nov. 4, 2012, in Newport News, Va.
Photographer: David Goldman/AP Photo
Seventy percent of counties with the fastest-growth in food-stamp aid
during the last four years voted for the Republican presidential
candidate in 2008, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data
compiled by Bloomberg. They include Republican strongholds like King
County, Texas, which in 2008 backed Republican John McCain by 92.6
percent, his largest share in the nation; and fast-growing Douglas
County, Colorado.
That means Romney is counting on votes from areas where lower-income
people have become more reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, known as food stamps. Mark Baisley, who heads
Douglas County’s Republican Party, said many recipients will back
Romney in hopes he’ll improve the economy.
“Would you rather be sitting at home wishing you had a job and relying
upon the kindness of neighbors?” Baisley said in a telephone interview
from Colorado, one of the swing states that Romney and President
Barack Obama are battling over. “Or would you rather be self-
supporting, with a job that sustains your family?”
In a video from a May fundraiser, Romney said “there are 47 percent
who are with him,” referring to Obama, “who are dependent on
government.” They “believe that they are entitled to health care, to
food, to housing.”
Feeding Families
In an August report, Nicholas Colas, chief market strategist at
ConvergEx Group LLC in New York, predicted that risk-averse voters in
competitive states may side with the presidential candidate who would
extend benefits, even if it means a slower recovery from the worst
economic downturn since the Great Depression.
“You have a lot of people who are relying upon the government to put
food on the table for themselves or their families,” Colas said in an
interview. “That’s going to have to inform a lot of decisions.”
Romney has suggested transferring control of food stamps and other
federal programs to states. The change would save money and make the
programs more effective, the former Massachusetts governor argues.
“If the question is what is best for low-income Ohioans, shouldn’t we
let Ohioans make that call?” Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate, said in
an Oct. 24 speech in Cleveland.
Democrats and hunger-relief groups say the Republican plan would
deprive millions of Americans of the food aid.
$80 Billion
More than 16 million additional people have gone on food stamps in the
last four years, according to the USDA. The $80 billion program has
grown from an initial 2.9 million beneficiaries in 1969 to 46.7
million at the end of July, the latest month for which figures are
available.
It now provides food to one in every five U.S. households, largely as
a result of 2009 economic-stimulus legislation backed by Obama that
waived limits on program benefits and opened food- stamp participation
to people without children.
The number of food-stamp recipients in Pitkin County, which includes
the Aspen Ski Resort, has increased faster than any other reported
county in the nation during the last four years. It climbed to 270
households, a 463 percent increase over the 48 that received food
stamps in 2008.
Downhill Industry
LIFT-UP, a 30-year-old interfaith humanitarian program in Rifle,
Colorado, about 70 miles northwest of Aspen, helped provide food to
more than 5,100 families this year after a poor ski season hurt
tourism-industry workers and the collapse of natural-gas prices
devastated the region’s energy sector, said Mike Powell, LIFT-UP’s
executive director.
Powell said he doubts people struggling to put food on the table are
paying too much attention to politics. The number of families asking
for help has actually fallen slightly over the first nine months of
the year for the first time in three years, he said.
Countering the national trend, food-stamp participation rates have
increased fastest in Colorado counties that voted for Obama in 2008.
Still, those rates have doubled in Douglas, which gave 58 percent of
its 2008 vote to McCain even as Obama won the state by almost 9
points. Located between Denver and Colorado Springs, Douglas reported
6,014 households getting nutritional help in 2011, a 102 percent
increase from 2008.
Temporary Hand-Up
The increase in food-stamp recipients also was pronounced in
Republican bastions such as Collin County, Texas, which registered a
128 percent increase to 47,102 households in 2011, and Gwinnett
County, Georgia, where usage climbed 117 percent to 101,815
households. Collin County, a Dallas suburb, gave McCain 62 percent of
its 2008 vote. Gwinnett, part of the Atlanta metro area, supported the
Republican with 55 percent of its ballots.
The increase in food stamps in those strongholds doesn’t mean Romney
will lose votes, said Michael Franc, vice president for governmental
studies at the Heritage Foundation, a Republican-leaning research
organization in Washington.
“We’re talking about people who got pretty hammered by the economic
meltdown,” he said. “It’s a temporary hand-up, not a permanent
condition of life. They’ve gotten help, but it’s been something
they’ve requested very reluctantly.”

[Nickname unavailable]

you mean nixon care, heritage foundation care, romney
care:)))))))))))


>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Ed Huntress

[Yak]

The premise (faulty, I might add) of your argument is that incompetent
buffooncare is the only reason people voted for the incompetent
buffoon.

[Ed Huntress]

I guess those old flaming liberals, Barry Goldwater and Milton
Friedman, just didn't get it, huh?

Do you do these thought exercises at home, alone in the dark, or is
there a group of you that come up with these things?

--
Ed Huntress

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 14, 9:37 am, "678.714.5764"

<willie.den...@holiday.marina.buford.ga> wrote:
> On 6/13/2013 7:31 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 8:00 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 13, 7:20 pm, The truth will set you free <deutsc...@mutter.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 6/13/2013 1:19 PM, Transition Zone wrote:> On Jun 12, 6:20 pm, Ginger <gin...@german.ru> wrote:
> >>>>> The parasites are outnumbering the workers. The parasites don't want
> >>>>> work, they want workers to support them.
> >>>>> They voted for Obama because he promised them free stuff while Romney
> >>>>> promised them jobs.
>
> >>>> But, Romney gave all Massachussets health care - but supported by
> >>>> their workers.
>
> >>> But Obama shoved socialism down everyone's throat.
>
> >> In 2033, just 20 short years from now, the SS Trust Fund will be
> >> empty,
>
> >   lie.
>
> > we will interest on the debt AND there will be only 2 workers
> >> for each retiree.
>
> >   S.S. does not add one penny to the deficit, you know this shill.
>
> Of course Social Security adds to the deficit, you fuckwitted lying
> Democrap shill.

that is a lie stupid. show me how it does, i cannot wait for your
fact filled response. this will be good:))) i always enjoy taking down
a stupid sociopath(CONSERVATIVE").

 They're spending more in benefits than they're taking
> in as payroll taxes.

ROTFLOL!!!!!!! what a fucking moron, you "CONSERVATIVES" are the
worlds finest comedians. the fund is fully funded for at least two
more decades, prove to me its not. i will of course need fact filled
empirical evidence, i cannot wait for your response!!!!

The money has to come from somewhere.  It's coming
> from the fake "interest" they receive on the fake "bonds" they were
> forced to buy to fund the main federal budget deficit.

ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


s.s. is a fully stand alone, self funded, fully funded insurance
program. s.s. took out no loans, in fact the opposite happened.
americans elected cranks and charlatans that instituted pee'ed on
economics. this was the third time americans shot themselves in the
foot instituting urinated on economics.
because shit on economics always produces massive deficits, the
cranks and charlatans borrowed from s.s. to cover up for the massive
failures tinkled on economics always produces, and the bonds are the
repayment. crapped on economics always produce hyper-inflated super
speculative bubbles that always pop and create serious recessions, or
depressions, this also puts pressure on governments.
here is the definition of a bond.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bond.asp#axzz2FGaii0mR



Definition of 'Bond'
A debt investment in which an investor loans money to an entity
(corporate or governmental) that borrows the funds for a defined
period of time at a fixed interest rate. Bonds are used by companies,
municipalities, states and U.S. and foreign governments to finance a
variety of projects and activities.

Bonds are commonly referred to as fixed-income securities and are one
of the three main asset classes, along with stocks and cash
equivalents.

Investopedia explains 'Bond'
The indebted entity (issuer) issues a bond that states the interest
rate (coupon) that will be paid and when the loaned funds (bond
principal) are to be returned (maturity date). Interest on bonds is
usually paid every six months (semi-annually). The main categories of
bonds are corporate bonds, municipal bonds, and U.S. Treasury bonds,
notes and bills, which are collectively referred to as simply
"Treasuries."

Two features of a bond - credit quality and duration - are the
principal determinants of a bond's interest rate. Bond maturities
range from a 90-day Treasury bill to a 30-year government bond.
Corporate and municipals are typically in the three to 10-year range.

 The federal
> budget deficit is bigger than it would otherwise be, because the
> government has raided the fake "trust funds" in order to fund current
> spending, but that money has to be repaid.
>

ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! s.s. did not borrow the money "STUPID
CONSERVATIVE", the money was borrowed from s.s. "STUPID CONSERVATIVE".
now here is how it works dummy, when you borrow money, you have to pay
it back, that is how it works. but in "THE CONSERVATIVE" world, you
borrow money to cover up your idiotic polices like pee'ed on
economics, then you blame the debt onto the one who issued you the
loan, and you attempt to weasel out of paying. s.s. did not take out
the loan, the loan was taken out from s.s.
s.s. does not add one cent to the deficit stupid, geesh, the utter
ignorance.

> You're a fucking goddamned lying whore who will say anything to try to
> preserve out of control federal spending and gouging productive Americans.

ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!


blue states subsidize most red state moron. there are far more
millionaires in blue states moron. bushs last year deficit was the
record breaking doozy moron.


Trying to see the world through the lens of supply-side economics is
looking at it in a fun-house mirror; everything’s backwards and
distorted:Policies that favored a small but powerful elite were sold
to the voters with an explicit promise that the benefits would
trickle
down to the rest of us. Cut taxes on the job creators, we were told,
and they’ll give you a job:Well? We’re still waiting for the trickle.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-failure-of-supply-side-tax-cuts-...
Aug. 13, 2012, 12:01 a.m. EDT 
The failure of supply-side tax cuts
Commentary: We’re still waiting for the benefits to trickle down
By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch 
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Some 30 years
after the Republican Party 
was smitten by supply-side economics, the
Grand Old Party remains 
faithful to the creed, even if history hasn’t
been kind to the idea 
that tax cuts and deregulation alone will lead
to a wondrous new era 
of American prosperity. 
Mitt Romney’s economic
platform is little changed from George W. 
Bush’s or Ronald Reagan’s.
It’s sparse on details, likely because it 
can be summed up in four
powerful words: Government IS the problem. 
Like Reagan and Bush,
Romney says he’s positive that the American 
economy would thrive if
we’d only liberate businesses (that is, “job 
creators”) from pesky
regulations and onerous taxes.
Marginal tax rates have been lowered three times in the past 30 or so
years, and increased twice, with little impact on the level of
investment in the economy. 
Read Romney’s campaign literature, or skim
a pro-Romney letter written 
by four economists and you’ll see how
much supply-side rhetoric still 
dominates Republican policy even
though it hasn’t delivered on its 
promises. Read the white paper by
Glenn Hubbard, Greg Mankiw, John 
Taylor, and Kevin Hassett. 
In the
past 31 years, we’ve had three major supply-side tax cuts, 
which had
the effect of reducing the top marginal rate from 70% to as 
low as
28%. The top rate is currently 35%, and it could go up to 40.9% 
if
President Barack Obama gets his way.
If the supply-siders were right, then investment should have boomed
when tax rates were low, and faltered when Presidents George H.W.
Bush 
and Bill Clinton raised the top marginal rate in the early
1990s. 
But that didn’t happen: Investment increased in the mid-1980s
as the 
economy improved, then faded even as tax rates were lowered
further. 
Investment boomed after the Bush-Clinton tax hikes, and
increased 
again after the tax cuts early in President George W.
Bush’s first 
term. 
Is it cyclical or structural? 
It appears
investment is driven largely by economic forces, not by 
marginal tax
rates as claimed by the supply-siders. The tax rate isn’t 
totally
irrelevant, but it’s not that important either. 
What do we mean by
“supply-side” economics? Supply-side economists put 
a primacy on the
production of goods and services, rather than on 
demand for those
goods and services. To them, economic imbalances, 
high unemployment
and tepid growth are due to barriers that stop 
producers from hiring,
investing and growing their businesses. 
By contrast, Keynesian
economics puts the blame for short-term 
fluctuations in the economy
on disruptions in demand, although even 
Keynesians acknowledge the
importance of supply-side factors in the 
longer run.
Supply-siders say our economy’s problems are more structural than
cyclical. Poorly designed tax and regulatory policies prevent capital
and labor from being deployed efficiently. Unemployment persists
because available would-be workers don’t have the skills that
producers need. High tax rates discourage both work and saving, thus
reducing the economy’s overall potential output. Taxes on capital
income, at any level, reduce incentives to invest in productive
enterprises. 
Such ideas may have had a certain appeal back in the
1980s, when the 
top marginal income tax rate was 70%, and vast
sectors of the economy 
(communications, transportation, financials)
were tightly regulated by 
Washington. But now, after years of tax
cutting and deregulating, we 
know better. And least, we should know
better. Not all problems in the 
economy can be fixed with supply-side
solutions. 
Especially short-term problems like the ones we are now
facing. 
Trying to see the world through the lens of supply-side
economics is 
looking at it in a fun-house mirror; everything’s
backwards and 
distorted. 
For instance, how can anyone argue that
high taxes and massive 
regulations are the cause of our depression?
Tax rates remain 
relatively low, historically and in comparison with
our trading 
rivals. Companies have rarely been more profitable, and
the share of 
income going to the uber-rich has rarely been higher.
The regulatory structure has changed very little, and there’s ample
evidence that in some areas — banking, for instance — it was the lack
of adequate regulation, enforcement and prosecution that caused our
economic downturn. 
Supply-siders argue that unemployment persists
because the unemployed 
lack the skills needed. But they ignore the
fact that even the highly 
educated are having trouble finding work.
The unemployment rate has 
roughly doubled for college graduates, just
as it has roughly doubled 
for high school drop-outs. 
Desperately
seeking demand 
Anyone with a clear view of the economy can see that
our immediate 
problems are rooted in lack of demand, not a lack of
supply: The 
consumer sector took a huge hit to its wealth and income,
and taking 
on debt no longer seems wise. It’s no surprise that
consumption is 
weak. 
The housing sector is depressed because of too
much supply. Capital 
spending by businesses surged just after the
recession ended, but has 
slowed recently because there’s little
reason to expand a business if 
there are few new customers. Exporters
are finding slower growth in 
global markets. Government spending has
declined for eight quarters in 
a row. 
In other words, demand is
weak. 
We can make up entertaining stories about how all these
problems are 
really the result of too much government interference,
but why bother? 
The obvious answer — lack of demand — fits the
evidence much better. 
The Republican Party has a lot invested in the
supply-side story. 
Policies that favored a small but powerful elite
were sold to the 
voters with an explicit promise that the benefits
would trickle down 
to the rest of us. Cut taxes on the job creators,
we were told, and 
they’ll give you a job. 
Well? We’re still waiting
for the trickle.
Rex Nutting is a columnist and MarketWatch's international commentary
editor, based in Washington.

[Nickname unavailable]

yet madison and the other american liberal founders, clearly
enshrined those powers into the constitution, with the clear reasoning
of them being used. they are not there for no reason, they are there
to be used, in fact, its mandated that they be used.
you see, the majority of the founding fathers were american liberals,
who despised "CONSERVATISM". madison and others clearly won in the
construction of the constitution, they set out to destroy the
worthless articles of confederation, they set out to clearly construct
a strong centralized government, and no amount of blubbering from the
right can change that.

madison the father of the constitution clearly wanted a strong central
government with authority to regulate commerce, and subordinate state
law to federal law: "Let it be tried then he wrote, whether any middle
ground can be taken which will at once support a due supremacy of the
national authority, while maintaining state power only when
"subordinately useful


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html






 www.archives.gov
June 13, 2013



A More Perfect Union:
The Creation of the U.S. Constitution
May 25, 1787, Freshly spread dirt covered the cobblestone street in
front of the Pennsylvania State House, protecting the men inside from
the sound of passing carriages and carts. Guards stood at the
entrances to ensure that the curious were kept at a distance. Robert
Morris of Pennsylvania, the "financier" of the Revolution, opened the
proceedings with a nomination--Gen. George Washington for the
presidency of the Constitutional Convention. The vote was unanimous.
With characteristic ceremonial modesty, the general expressed his
embarrassment at his lack of qualifications to preside over such an
august body and apologized for any errors into which he might fall in
the course of its deliberations.
To many of those assembled, especially to the small, boyish-looking,
36-year-old delegate from Virginia, James Madison, the general's mere
presence boded well for the convention, for the illustrious Washington
gave to the gathering an air of importance and legitimacy But his
decision to attend the convention had been an agonizing one. The
Father of the Country had almost remained at home.
Suffering from rheumatism, despondent over the loss of a brother,
absorbed in the management of Mount Vernon, and doubting that the
convention would accomplish very much or that many men of stature
would attend, Washington delayed accepting the invitation to attend
for several months. Torn between the hazards of lending his reputation
to a gathering perhaps doomed to failure and the chance that the
public would view his reluctance to attend with a critical eye, the
general finally agreed to make the trip. James Madison was pleased.



General George Washington was unanimously elected presidentof the
Philadelphia convention.

The Articles of Confederation
The determined Madison had for several years insatiably studied
history and political theory searching for a solution to the political
and economic dilemmas he saw plaguing America. The Virginian's labors
convinced him of the futility and weakness of confederacies of
independent states. America's own government under the Articles of
Confederation, Madison was convinced, had to be replaced. In force
since 1781, established as a "league of friendship" and a constitution
for the 13 sovereign and independent states after the Revolution, the
articles seemed to Madison woefully inadequate. With the states
retaining considerable power, the central government, he believed, had
insufficient power to regulate commerce. It could not tax and was
generally impotent in setting commercial policy It could not
effectively support a war effort. It had little power to settle
quarrels between states. Saddled with this weak government, the states
were on the brink of economic disaster. The evidence was overwhelming.
Congress was attempting to function with a depleted treasury; paper
money was flooding the country, creating extraordinary inflation--a
pound of tea in some areas could be purchased for a tidy $100; and the
depressed condition of business was taking its toll on many small
farmers. Some of them were being thrown in jail for debt, and numerous
farms were being confiscated and sold for taxes.
In 1786 some of the farmers had fought back. Led by Daniel Shays, a
former captain in the Continental army, a group of armed men, sporting
evergreen twigs in their hats, prevented the circuit court from
sitting at Northampton, MA, and threatened to seize muskets stored in
the arsenal at Springfield. Although the insurrection was put down by
state troops, the incident confirmed the fears of many wealthy men
that anarchy was just around the corner. Embellished day after day in
the press, the uprising made upper-class Americans shudder as they
imagined hordes of vicious outlaws descending upon innocent citizens.
From his idyllic Mount Vernon setting, Washington wrote to Madison:
"Wisdom and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the
political machine from the impending storm."
Madison thought he had the answer. He wanted a strong central
government to provide order and stability. "Let it be tried then," he
wrote, "whether any middle ground can be taken which will at once
support a due supremacy of the national authority," while maintaining
state power only when "subordinately useful." The resolute Virginian
looked to the Constitutional Convention to forge a new government in
this mold.
The convention had its specific origins in a proposal offered by
Madison and John Tyler in the Virginia assembly that the Continental
Congress be given power to regulate commerce throughout the
Confederation. Through their efforts in the assembly a plan was
devised inviting the several states to attend a convention at
Annapolis, MD, in September 1786 to discuss commercial problems.
Madison and a young lawyer from New York named Alexander Hamilton
issued a report on the meeting in Annapolis, calling upon Congress to
summon delegates of all of the states to meet for the purpose of
revising the Articles of Confederation. Although the report was widely
viewed as a usurpation of congressional authority, the Congress did
issue a formal call to the states for a convention. To Madison it
represented the supreme chance to reverse the country's trend. And as
the delegations gathered in Philadelphia, its importance was not lost
to others. The squire of Gunston Hall, George Mason, wrote to his son,
"The Eyes of the United States are turned upon this Assembly and their
Expectations raised to a very anxious Degree. May God Grant that we
may be able to gratify them, by establishing a wise and just
Government."
The Delegates
Seventy-four delegates were appointed to the convention, of which 55
actually attended sessions. Rhode Island was the only state that
refused to send delegates. Dominated by men wedded to paper currency,
low taxes, and popular government, Rhode Island's leaders refused to
participate in what they saw as a conspiracy to overthrow the
established government. Other Americans also had their suspicions.
Patrick Henry, of the flowing red Glasgow cloak and the magnetic
oratory, refused to attend, declaring he "smelt a rat." He suspected,
correctly, that Madison had in mind the creation of a powerful central
government and the subversion of the authority of the state
legislatures. Henry along with many other political leaders, believed
that the state governments offered the chief protection for personal
liberties. He was determined not to lend a hand to any proceeding that
seemed to pose a threat to that protection.
With Henry absent, with such towering figures as Jefferson and Adams
abroad on foreign missions, and with John Jay in New York at the
Foreign Office, the convention was without some of the country's major
political leaders. It was, nevertheless, an impressive assemblage. In
addition to Madison and Washington, there were Benjamin Franklin of
Pennsylvania--crippled by gout, the 81-year-old Franklin was a man of
many dimensions printer, storekeeper, publisher, scientist, public
official, philosopher, diplomat, and ladies' man; James Wilson of
Pennsylvania--a distinguished lawyer with a penchant for ill-advised
land-jobbing schemes, which would force him late in life to flee from
state to state avoiding prosecution for debt, the Scotsman brought a
profound mind steeped in constitutional theory and law; Alexander
Hamilton of New York--a brilliant, ambitious former aide-de-camp and
secretary to Washington during the Revolution who had, after his
marriage into the Schuyler family of New York, become a powerful
political figure; George Mason of Virginia--the author of the Virginia
Bill of Rights whom Jefferson later called "the Cato of his country
without the avarice of the Roman"; John Dickinson of Delaware--the
quiet, reserved author of the "Farmers' Letters" and chairman of the
congressional committee that framed the articles; and Gouverneur
Morris of Pennsylvania-- well versed in French literature and
language, with a flair and bravado to match his keen intellect, who
had helped draft the New York State Constitution and had worked with
Robert Morris in the Finance Office.
There were others who played major roles - Oliver Ellsworth of
Connecticut; Edmund Randolph of Virginia; William Paterson of New
Jersey; John Rutledge of South Carolina; Elbridge Gerry of
Massachusetts; Roger Sherman of Connecticut; Luther Martin of
Maryland; and the Pinckneys, Charles and Charles Cotesworth, of South
Carolina. Franklin was the oldest member and Jonathan Dayton, the 27-
year-old delegate from New Jersey was the youngest. The average age
was 42. Most of the delegates had studied law, had served in colonial
or state legislatures, or had been in the Congress. Well versed in
philosophical theories of government advanced by such philosophers as
James Harrington, John Locke, and Montesquieu, profiting from
experience gained in state politics, the delegates composed an
exceptional body, one that left a remarkably learned record of debate.
Fortunately we have a relatively complete record of the proceedings,
thanks to the indefatigable James Madison. Day after day, the
Virginian sat in front of the presiding officer, compiling notes of
the debates, not missing a single day or a single major speech. He
later remarked that his self-confinement in the hall, which was often
oppressively hot in the Philadelphia summer, almost killed him.
The sessions of the convention were held in secret--no reporters or
visitors were permitted. Although many of the naturally loquacious
members were prodded in the pubs and on the streets, most remained
surprisingly discreet. To those suspicious of the convention, the
curtain of secrecy only served to confirm their anxieties. Luther
Martin of Maryland later charged that the conspiracy in Philadelphia
needed a quiet breeding ground. Thomas Jefferson wrote John Adams from
Paris, "I am sorry they began their deliberations by so abominable a
precedent as that of tying up the tongues of their members."
The Virginia Plan
On Tuesday morning, May 29, Edmund Randolph, the tall, 34-year- old
governor of Virginia, opened the debate with a long speech decrying
the evils that had befallen the country under the Articles of
Confederation and stressing the need for creating a strong national
government. Randolph then outlined a broad plan that he and his
Virginia compatriots had, through long sessions at the Indian Queen
tavern, put together in the days preceding the convention. James
Madison had such a plan on his mind for years. The proposed government
had three branches--legislative, executive, and judicial--each branch
structured to check the other. Highly centralized, the government
would have veto power over laws enacted by state legislatures. The
plan, Randolph confessed, "meant a strong consolidated union in which
the idea of states should be nearly annihilated." This was, indeed,
the rat so offensive to Patrick Henry.
The introduction of the so-called Virginia Plan at the beginning of
the convention was a tactical coup. The Virginians had forced the
debate into their own frame of reference and in their own terms.
For 10 days the members of the convention discussed the sweeping and,
to many delegates, startling Virginia resolutions. The critical issue,
described succinctly by Gouverneur Morris on May 30, was the
distinction between a federation and a national government, the
"former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties;
the latter having a compleat and compulsive operation." Morris favored
the latter, a "supreme power" capable of exercising necessary
authority not merely a shadow government, fragmented and hopelessly
ineffective.
The New Jersey Plan
This nationalist position revolted many delegates who cringed at the
vision of a central government swallowing state sovereignty. On June
13 delegates from smaller states rallied around proposals offered by
New Jersey delegate William Paterson. Railing against efforts to throw
the states into "hotchpot," Paterson proposed a "union of the States
merely federal." The "New Jersey resolutions" called only for a
revision of the articles to enable the Congress more easily to raise
revenues and regulate commerce. It also provided that acts of Congress
and ratified treaties be "the supreme law of the States."
For 3 days the convention debated Paterson's plan, finally voting for
rejection. With the defeat of the New Jersey resolutions, the
convention was moving toward creation of a new government, much to the
dismay of many small-state delegates. The nationalists, led by
Madison, appeared to have the proceedings in their grip. In addition,
they were able to persuade the members that any new constitution
should be ratified through conventions of the people and not by the
Congress and the state legislatures- -another tactical coup. Madison
and his allies believed that the constitution they had in mind would
likely be scuttled in the legislatures, where many state political
leaders stood to lose power. The nationalists wanted to bring the
issue before "the people," where ratification was more likely.
Hamilton's Plan
On June 18 Alexander Hamilton presented his own ideal plan of
government. Erudite and polished, the speech, nevertheless, failed to
win a following. It went too far. Calling the British government "the
best in the world," Hamilton proposed a model strikingly similar an
executive to serve during good behavior or life with veto power over
all laws; a senate with members serving during good behavior; the
legislature to have power to pass "all laws whatsoever." Hamilton
later wrote to Washington that the people were now willing to accept
"something not very remote from that which they have lately quitted."
What the people had "lately quitted," of course, was monarchy. Some
members of the convention fully expected the country to turn in this
direction. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina, a wealthy physician,
declared that it was "pretty certain . . . that we should at some time
or other have a king." Newspaper accounts appeared in the summer of
1787 alleging that a plot was under way to invite the second son of
George III, Frederick, Duke of York, the secular bishop of Osnaburgh
in Prussia, to become "king of the United States."



Alexander Hamilton on June 18 called the British government "the best
in the world" and proposed a model strikingly similar. The erudite New
Yorker, however, later became one of the most ardent spokesmen for the
new Constitution.

Strongly militating against any serious attempt to establish monarchy
was the enmity so prevalent in the revolutionary period toward royalty
and the privileged classes. Some state constitutions had even
prohibited titles of nobility. In the same year as the Philadelphia
convention, Royall Tyler, a revolutionary war veteran, in his play The
Contract, gave his own jaundiced view of the upper classes:
Exult each patriot heart! this night is shewn
A piece, which we may
fairly call our own;
Where the proud titles of "My Lord!" "Your
Grace!"
To humble Mr. and plain Sir give place.
Most delegates were well aware that there were too many Royall Tylers
in the country, with too many memories of British rule and too many
ties to a recent bloody war, to accept a king. As the debate moved
into the specifics of the new government, Alexander Hamilton and
others of his persuasion would have to accept something less.
By the end of June, debate between the large and small states over the
issue of representation in the first chamber of the legislature was
becoming increasingly acrimonious. Delegates from Virginia and other
large states demanded that voting in Congress be according to
population; representatives of smaller states insisted upon the
equality they had enjoyed under the articles. With the oratory
degenerating into threats and accusations, Benjamin Franklin appealed
for daily prayers. Dressed in his customary gray homespun, the aged
philosopher pleaded that "the Father of lights . . . illuminate our
understandings." Franklin's appeal for prayers was never fulfilled;
the convention, as Hugh Williamson noted, had no funds to pay a
preacher.
On June 29 the delegates from the small states lost the first battle.
The convention approved a resolution establishing population as the
basis for representation in the House of Representatives, thus
favoring the larger states. On a subsequent small-state proposal that
the states have equal representation in the Senate, the vote resulted
in a tie. With large-state delegates unwilling to compromise on this
issue, one member thought that the convention "was on the verge of
dissolution, scarce held together by the strength of an hair."
By July 10 George Washington was so frustrated over the deadlock that
he bemoaned "having had any agency" in the proceedings and called the
opponents of a strong central government "narrow minded
politicians . . . under the influence of local views." Luther Martin
of Maryland, perhaps one whom Washington saw as "narrow minded,"
thought otherwise. A tiger in debate, not content merely to parry an
opponent's argument but determined to bludgeon it into eternal rest,
Martin had become perhaps the small states' most effective, if
irascible, orator. The Marylander leaped eagerly into the battle on
the representation issue declaring, "The States have a right to an
equality of representation. This is secured to us by our present
articles of confederation; we are in possession of this privilege."
The Great Compromise
Also crowding into this complicated and divisive discussion over
representation was the North-South division over the method by which
slaves were to be counted for purposes of taxation and representation.
On July 12 Oliver Ellsworth proposed that representation for the lower
house be based on the number of free persons and three-fifths of "all
other persons," a euphemism for slaves. In the following week the
members finally compromised, agreeing that direct taxation be
according to representation and that the representation of the lower
house be based on the white inhabitants and three-fifths of the "other
people." With this compromise and with the growing realization that
such compromise was necessary to avoid a complete breakdown of the
convention, the members then approved Senate equality. Roger Sherman
had remarked that it was the wish of the delegates "that some general
government should be established." With the crisis over representation
now settled, it began to look again as if this wish might be
fulfilled.
For the next few days the air in the City of Brotherly Love, although
insufferably muggy and swarming with blue-bottle flies, had the clean
scent of conciliation. In this period of welcome calm, the members
decided to appoint a Committee of Detail to draw up a draft
constitution. The convention would now at last have something on
paper. As Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, John Rutledge, Edmund
Randolph, James Wilson, and Oliver Ellsworth went to work, the other
delegates voted themselves a much needed 10-day vacation.
During the adjournment, Gouverneur Morris and George Washington rode
out along a creek that ran through land that had been part of the
Valley Forge encampment 10 years earlier. While Morris cast for trout,
Washington pensively looked over the now lush ground where his
freezing troops had suffered, at a time when it had seemed as if the
American Revolution had reached its end. The country had come a long
way.
The First Draft
On Monday August 6, 1787, the convention accepted the first draft of
the Constitution. Here was the article-by-article model from which the
final document would result some 5 weeks later. As the members began
to consider the various sections, the willingness to compromise of the
previous days quickly evaporated. The most serious controversy erupted
over the question of regulation of commerce. The southern states,
exporters of raw materials, rice, indigo, and tobacco, were fearful
that a New England-dominated Congress might, through export taxes,
severely damage the South's economic life. C. C. Pinckney declared
that if Congress had the power to regulate trade, the southern states
would be "nothing more than overseers for the Northern States."
On August 21 the debate over the issue of commerce became very closely
linked to another explosive issue--slavery. When Martin of Maryland
proposed a tax on slave importation, the convention was thrust into a
strident discussion of the institution of slavery and its moral and
economic relationship to the new government. Rutledge of South
Carolina, asserting that slavery had nothing at all to do with
morality, declared, "Interest alone is the governing principle with
nations." Sherman of Connecticut was for dropping the tender issue
altogether before it jeopardized the convention. Mason of Virginia
expressed concern over unlimited importation of slaves but later
indicated that he also favored federal protection of slave property
already held. This nagging issue of possible federal intervention in
slave traffic, which Sherman and others feared could irrevocably split
northern and southern delegates, was settled by, in Mason's words, "a
bargain." Mason later wrote that delegates from South Carolina and
Georgia, who most feared federal meddling in the slave trade, made a
deal with delegates from the New England states. In exchange for the
New Englanders' support for continuing slave importation for 20 years,
the southerners accepted a clause that required only a simple majority
vote on navigation laws, a crippling blow to southern economic
interests.
The bargain was also a crippling blow to those working to abolish
slavery. Congregationalist minister and abolitionist Samuel Hopkins of
Connecticut charged that the convention had sold out: "How does it
appear . . . that these States, who have been fighting for liberty and
consider themselves as the highest and most noble example of zeal for
it, cannot agree in any political Constitution, unless it indulge and
authorize them to enslave their fellow men . . . Ah! these unclean
spirits, like frogs, they, like the Furies of the poets are spreading
discord, and exciting men to contention and war." Hopkins considered
the Constitution a document fit for the flames.
On August 31 a weary George Mason, who had 3 months earlier written so
expectantly to his son about the "great Business now before us,"
bitterly exclaimed that he "would sooner chop off his right hand than
put it to the Constitution as it now stands." Mason despaired that the
convention was rushing to saddle the country with an ill-advised,
potentially ruinous central authority He was concerned that a "bill of
rights," ensuring individual liberties, had not been made part of the
Constitution. Mason called for a new convention to reconsider the
whole question of the formation of a new government. Although Mason's
motion was overwhelmingly voted down, opponents of the Constitution
did not abandon the idea of a new convention. It was futilely
suggested again and again for over 2 years.
One of the last major unresolved problems was the method of electing
the executive. A number of proposals, including direct election by the
people, by state legislatures, by state governors, and by the national
legislature, were considered. The result was the electoral college, a
master stroke of compromise, quaint and curious but politically
expedient. The large states got proportional strength in the number of
delegates, the state legislatures got the right of selecting
delegates, and the House the right to choose the president in the
event no candidate received a majority of electoral votes. Mason later
predicted that the House would probably choose the president 19 times
out of 20.
In the early days of September, with the exhausted delegates anxious
to return home, compromise came easily. On September 8 the convention
was ready to turn the Constitution over to a Committee of Style and
Arrangement. Gouverneur Morris was the chief architect. Years later he
wrote to Timothy Pickering: "That Instrument was written by the
Fingers which wrote this letter." The Constitution was presented to
the convention on September 12, and the delegates methodically began
to consider each section. Although close votes followed on several
articles, it was clear that the grueling work of the convention in the
historic summer of 1787 was reaching its end.
Before the final vote on the Constitution on September 15, Edmund
Randolph proposed that amendments be made by the state conventions and
then turned over to another general convention for consideration. He
was joined by George Mason and Elbridge Gerry. The three lonely allies
were soundly rebuffed. Late in the afternoon the roll of the states
was called on the Constitution, and from every delegation the word was
"Aye."
On September 17 the members met for the last time, and the venerable
Franklin had written a speech that was delivered by his colleague
James Wilson. Appealing for unity behind the Constitution, Franklin
declared, "I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with
confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the
builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation,
only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's
throats." With Mason, Gerry, and Randolph withstanding appeals to
attach their signatures, the other delegates in the hall formally
signed the Constitution, and the convention adjourned at 4 o'clock in
the afternoon.
Weary from weeks of intense pressure but generally satisfied with
their work, the delegates shared a farewell dinner at City Tavern. Two
blocks away on Market Street, printers John Dunlap and David Claypoole
worked into the night on the final imprint of the six-page
Constitution, copies of which would leave Philadelphia on the morning
stage. The debate over the nation's form of government was now set for
the larger arena.
As the members of the convention returned home in the following days,
Alexander Hamilton privately assessed the chances of the Constitution
for ratification. In its favor were the support of Washington,
commercial interests, men of property, creditors, and the belief among
many Americans that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate.
Against it were the opposition of a few influential men in the
convention and state politicians fearful of losing power, the general
revulsion against taxation, the suspicion that a centralized
government would be insensitive to local interests, and the fear among
debtors that a new government would "restrain the means of cheating
Creditors."
The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists
Because of its size, wealth, and influence and because it was the
first state to call a ratifying convention, Pennsylvania was the focus
of national attention. The positions of the Federalists, those who
supported the Constitution, and the anti-Federalists, those who
opposed it, were printed and reprinted by scores of newspapers across
the country. And passions in the state were most warm. When the
Federalist-dominated Pennsylvania assembly lacked a quorum on
September 29 to call a state ratifying convention, a Philadelphia mob,
in order to provide the necessary numbers, dragged two anti-Federalist
members from their lodgings through the streets to the State House
where the bedraggled representatives were forced to stay while the
assembly voted. It was a curious example of participatory democracy.
On October 5 anti-Federalist Samuel Bryan published the first of his
"Centinel" essays in Philadelphia's Independent Gazetteer. Republished
in newspapers in various states, the essays assailed the sweeping
power of the central government, the usurpation of state sovereignty,
and the absence of a bill of rights guaranteeing individual liberties
such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. "The United States
are to be melted down," Bryan declared, into a despotic empire
dominated by "well-born" aristocrats. Bryan was echoing the fear of
many anti-Federalists that the new government would become one
controlled by the wealthy established families and the culturally
refined. The common working people, Bryan believed, were in danger of
being subjugated to the will of an all-powerful authority remote and
inaccessible to the people. It was this kind of authority, he
believed, that Americans had fought a war against only a few years
earlier.
The next day James Wilson, delivering a stirring defense of the
Constitution to a large crowd gathered in the yard of the State House,
praised the new government as the best "which has ever been offered to
the world." The Scotsman's view prevailed. Led by Wilson, Federalists
dominated in the Pennsylvania convention, carrying the vote on
December 12 by a healthy 46 to 23.
The vote for ratification in Pennsylvania did not end the rancor and
bitterness. Franklin declared that scurrilous articles in the press
were giving the impression that Pennsylvania was "peopled by a set of
the most unprincipled, wicked, rascally and quarrelsome scoundrels
upon the face of the globe." And in Carlisle, on December 26, anti-
Federalist rioters broke up a Federalist celebration and hung Wilson
and the Federalist chief justice of Pennsylvania, Thomas McKean, in
effigy; put the torch to a copy of the Constitution; and busted a few
Federalist heads.
In New York the Constitution was under siege in the press by a series
of essays signed "Cato." Mounting a counterattack, Alexander Hamilton
and John Jay enlisted help from Madison and, in late 1787, they
published the first of a series of essays now known as the Federalist
Papers. The 85 essays, most of which were penned by Hamilton himself,
probed the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and the need
for an energetic national government. Thomas Jefferson later called
the Federalist Papers the "best commentary on the principles of
government ever written."
Against this kind of Federalist leadership and determination, the
opposition in most states was disorganized and generally inert. The
leading spokesmen were largely state-centered men with regional and
local interests and loyalties. Madison wrote of the Massachusetts anti-
Federalists, "There was not a single character capable of uniting
their wills or directing their measures. . . . They had no plan
whatever." The anti-Federalists attacked wildly on several fronts: the
lack of a bill of rights, discrimination against southern states in
navigation legislation, direct taxation, the loss of state
sovereignty. Many charged that the Constitution represented the work
of aristocratic politicians bent on protecting their own class
interests. At the Massachusetts convention one delegate declared,
"These lawyers, and men of learning and moneyed men, that . . . make
us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill . . . they will
swallow up all us little folks like the great Leviathan; yes, just as
the whale swallowed up Jonah!" Some newspaper articles, presumably
written by anti-Federalists, resorted to fanciful predictions of the
horrors that might emerge under the new Constitution pagans and deists
could control the government; the use of Inquisition-like torture
could be instituted as punishment for federal crimes; even the pope
could be elected president.
One anti-Federalist argument gave opponents some genuine difficulty--
the claim that the territory of the 13 states was too extensive for a
representative government. In a republic embracing a large area, anti-
Federalists argued, government would be impersonal, unrepresentative,
dominated by men of wealth, and oppressive of the poor and working
classes. Had not the illustrious Montesquieu himself ridiculed the
notion that an extensive territory composed of varying climates and
people, could be a single republican state? James Madison, always
ready with the Federalist volley, turned the argument completely
around and insisted that the vastness of the country would itself be a
strong argument in favor of a republic. Claiming that a large republic
would counterbalance various political interest groups vying for
power, Madison wrote, "The smaller the society the fewer probably will
be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the
distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be
found of the same party and the more easily will they concert and
execute their plans of oppression." Extend the size of the republic,
Madison argued, and the country would be less vulnerable to separate
factions within it.
Ratification
By January 9, 1788, five states of the nine necessary for ratification
had approved the Constitution--Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Georgia, and Connecticut. But the eventual outcome remained uncertain
in pivotal states such as Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. On
February 6, withFederalists agreeing to recommend a list of amendments
amounting to a bill of rights, Massachusetts ratified by a vote of 187
to 168. The revolutionary leader, John Hancock, elected to preside
over the Massachusetts ratifying convention but unable to make up his
mind on the Constitution, took to his bed with a convenient case of
gout. Later seduced by the Federalists with visions of the vice
presidency and possibly the presidency, Hancock, whom Madison noted as
"an idolater of popularity," suddenly experienced a miraculous cure
and delivered a critical block of votes. Although Massachusetts was
now safely in the Federalist column, the recommendation of a bill of
rights was a significant victory for the anti-Federalists. Six of the
remaining states later appended similar recommendations.
When the New Hampshire convention was adjourned by Federalists who
sensed imminent defeat and when Rhode Island on March 24 turned down
the Constitution in a popular referendum by an overwhelming vote of 10
to 1, Federalist leaders were apprehensive. Looking ahead to the
Maryland convention, Madison wrote to Washington, "The difference
between even a postponement and adoption in Maryland may . . .
possibly give a fatal advantage to that which opposes the
constitution." Madison had little reason to worry. The final vote on
April 28 63 for, 11 against. In Baltimore, a huge parade celebrating
the Federalist victory rolled. through the downtown streets,
highlighted by a 15-foot float called "Ship Federalist." The
symbolically seaworthy craft was later launched in the waters off
Baltimore and sailed down the Potomac to Mount Vernon.
On July 2, 1788, the Confederation Congress, meeting in New York,
received word that a reconvened New Hampshire ratifying convention had
approved the Constitution. With South Carolina's acceptance of the
Constitution in May, New Hampshire thus became the ninth state to
ratify. The Congress appointed a committee "for putting the said
Constitution into operation."
In the next 2 months, thanks largely to the efforts of Madison and
Hamilton in their own states, Virginia and New York both ratified
while adding their own amendments. The margin for the Federalists in
both states, however, was extremely close. Hamilton figured that the
majority of the people in New York actually opposed the Constitution,
and it is probable that a majority of people in the entire country
opposed it. Only the promise of amendments had ensured a Federalist
victory.
The Bill of Rights
The call for a bill of rights had been the anti-Federalists' most
powerful weapon. Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness
and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked
the Virginia convention, "What can avail your specious, imaginary
balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks
and contrivances." The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise,
unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right
of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that
the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard
Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect "those
essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist."
Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights,
Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis.
A bill of rights had been barely mentioned in the Philadelphia
convention, most delegates holding that the fundamental rights of
individuals had been secured in the state constitutions. James Wilson
maintained that a bill of rights was superfluous because all power not
expressly delegated to thenew government was reserved to the people.
It was clear, however, that in this argument the anti-Federalists held
the upper hand. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new
government, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was "what the
people are entitled to against every government on earth."
By the fall of 1788 Madison had been convinced that not only was a
bill of rights necessary to ensure acceptance of the Constitution but
that it would have positive effects. He wrote, on October 17, that
such "fundamental maxims of free Government" would be "a good ground
for an appeal to the sense of community" against potential oppression
and would "counteract the impulses of interest and passion."
Madison's support of the bill of rights was of critical significance.
One of the new representatives from Virginia to the First Federal
Congress, as established by the new Constitution, he worked tirelessly
to persuade the House to enact amendments. Defusing the anti-
Federalists' objections to the Constitution, Madison was able to
shepherd through 17 amendments in the early months of the Congress, a
list that was later trimmed to 12 in the Senate. On October 2, 1789,
President Washington sent to each of the states a copy of the 12
amendments adopted by the Congress in September. By December 15, 1791,
three-fourths of the states had ratified the 10 amendments now so
familiar to Americans as the "Bill of Rights."
Benjamin Franklin told a French correspondent in 1788 that the
formation of the new government had been like a game of dice, with
many players of diverse prejudices and interests unable to make any
uncontested moves. Madison wrote to Jefferson that the welding of
these clashing interests was "a task more difficult than can be well
conceived by those who were not concerned in the execution of it."
When the delegates left Philadelphia after the convention, few, if
any, were convinced that the Constitution they had approved outlined
the ideal form of government for the country. But late in his life
James Madison scrawled out another letter, one never addressed. In it
he declared that no government can be perfect, and "that which is the
least imperfect is therefore the best government."
The Document Enshrined
The fate of the United States Constitution after its signing on
September 17, 1787, can be contrasted sharply to the travels and
physical abuse of America's other great parchment, the Declaration of
Independence. As the Continental Congress, during the years of the
revolutionary war, scurried from town to town, the rolled-up
Declaration was carried along. After the formation of the new
government under the Constitution, the one-page Declaration, eminently
suited for display purposes, graced the walls of various government
buildings in Washington, exposing it to prolonged damaging sunlight.
It was also subjected to the work of early calligraphers responding to
a demand for reproductions of the revered document. As any visitor to
the National Archives can readily observe, the early treatment of the
now barely legible Declaration took a disastrous toll. The
Constitution, in excellent physical condition after more than 200
years, has enjoyed a more serene existence. By 1796 the Constitution
was in the custody of the Department of State along with the
Declaration and traveled with the federal government from New York to
Philadelphia to Washington. Both documents were secretly moved to
Leesburg, VA, before the imminent attack by the British on Washington
in 1814. Following the war, the Constitution remained in the State
Department while the Declaration continued its travels--to the Patent
Office Building from 1841 to 1876, to Independence Hall in
Philadelphia during the Centennial celebration, and back to Washington
in 1877. On September 29, 1921, President Warren Harding issued an
Executive order transferring the Constitution and the Declaration to
the Library of Congress for preservation and exhibition. The next day
Librarian of Congress Herbert Putnam, acting on authority of Secretary
of State Charles Evans Hughes, carried the Constitution and the
Declaration in a Model-T Ford truck to the library and placed them in
his office safe until an appropriate exhibit area could be
constructed. The documents were officially put on display at a
ceremony in the library on February 28, 1924. On February 20, 1933, at
the laying of the cornerstone of the future National Archives
Building, President Herbert Hoover remarked, "There will be aggregated
here the most sacred documents of our history--the originals of the
Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution of the United
States." The two documents however, were not immediately transferred
to the Archives. During World War II both were moved from the library
to Fort Knox for protection and returned to the library in 1944. It
was not until successful negotiations were completed between Librarian
of Congress Luther Evans and Archivist of the United States Wayne
Grover that the transfer to the National Archives was finally
accomplished by special direction of the Joint Congressional Committee
on the Library.
On December 13, 1952, the Constitution and the Declaration were placed
in helium-filled cases, enclosed in wooden crates, laid on mattresses
in an armored Marine Corps personnel carrier, and escorted by
ceremonial troops, two tanks, and four servicemen carrying submachine
guns down Pennsylvania and Constitution avenues to the National
Archives. Two days later, President Harry Truman declared at a formal
ceremony in the Archives Exhibition Hall.
"We are engaged here today in a symbolic act. We are enshrining these
documents for future ages. This magnificent hall has been constructed
to exhibit them, and the vault beneath, that we have built to protect
them, is as safe from destruction as anything that the wit of modern
man can devise. All this is an honorable effort, based upon reverence
for the great past, and our generation can take just pride in it."

[Nickname unavailable]

no, its fully funded for at least 2 more decades, now dummy, prove me
wrong!!!!!!! ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 14, 9:59 am, Max Boot <max.b...@lathymes.com> wrote:
> On 6/13/2013 8:57 PM, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:00:06 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >> In 2033, just 20 short years from now, the SS Trust Fund will be
> >> empty, we will interest on the debt AND there will be only 2 workers
> >> for each retiree.
>
> > Then all we have to do is raise the top cutoff and have an unlimited
> > ceiling for those who own, or make, 80% of ALL wealth and income in
> > America
>
> Wrong.  There is no provision for taxing wealth.

snicker:))))))))


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States

The origins of American liberalism lie in the political ideals of The
Enlightenment.[4] The Constitution of the United States of 1787 set up
the first modern republic, with sovereignty in the people (not in a
monarch) and no hereditary ruling aristocracy. However, the
Constitution limited liberty by accepting slavery. The Founding
Fathers recognized the contradiction, and most expected slavery to
wither away. Indeed it was abolished in all the Northern states by
1804, but due to the demand for raw cotton by the Industrial
Revolution, plantation slavery continued to flourish in the Deep
South.
From the time of the Revolution to the present day, America has
extended liberty to ever broader classes of people. The states
abolished restrictions on voting in the early 19th century. The
Constitution was amended in 1865 to abolish slavery, in 1870 to extend
the vote to Black men, in 1920 to extend the vote to women, and in
1971 to lower the voting age to 18. The Jim Crow system of the South
between the 1890s and 1960s relegated blacks to second class
citizenship, until it was overthrown by the Civil Rights Movement and
new federal laws in 1964 and 1965.[5]
Thomas Jefferson believed that America should remain a nation of small
farmers.[6] As America became more and more a nation of businessmen,
liberals began to fear threats to liberty from corruption and
monopolies (called "trusts" at the time).[7][8] Wealth was
concentrated in the hands of a few—especially in the new fast-growing
cities—raised questions whether political democracy could survive the
power of the rich.
The dominance of the Republican Party for most of the era 1860-1932,
the Third Party System, and the Fourth Party System, prevented any
major reversal of the concentration of wealth. During the Progressive
Era of the early 20th century, laws were passed restricting monopolies
(the antitrust movement) and regulating railroad rates.[9][10]
After 1933, modern liberals used the New Deal to provide jobs during
the Great Depression. The Social Security act of 1935 provided
retirement and disability income for Americans unable to work or
unable to find jobs.[11] In the Social Security Act of 1965, this was
extended to provide benefits for Americans unable to work due to
illness.
In the 1960s, liberals fought for the rights of blacks and women, and
for protection of the environment. They split on the issue of the
Vietnam War.
A reaction against modern American liberalism began with Barry
Goldwater, which led to the eventual election of Ronald Reagan in
1980. The intellectual foundations of this conservative resurgence
included the works of free-market economists Milton Friedman and the
Chicago School of Economics, who argued against central economic
planning (with the notable exception of the Federal Reserve),
regulation of business, and Keynesian economics. Deregulation began in
the mid-1970s and had broad support from both liberals and
conservatives. Reagan successfully lowered marginal tax rates, most
notably for those at the top of the income distribution, while his
Social Security reforms raised taxes on the middle and bottom of the
income distribution, leaving their total tax burden unchanged. [12]
Democratic president Bill Clinton (1993–2001) worked with
conservatives, against strong liberal opposition, to end some of the
main welfare programs and to implement NAFTA, linking the economies of
the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Clinton pushed to extend modern liberal
ideals especially in the areas of health care (where he failed) and
environmental protection (where he had more success).[13]
According to Louis Hartz, liberalism was the only significant
political tradition in the United States. However in the 1970s,
Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood and J. G. A. Pocock saw republicanism as
the main political tradition.[clarification needed] In the 1980s, J.
David Green returned to Hartz's thesis, but saw two different types of
liberalism in the tradition, which he called humanist and reform. More
recently, writers have seen a multitude of traditions, including
liberalism, republicanism and protestantism.[14][dubious – discuss]
[clarification needed]


as you can see, jefferson was a liberal, as well as thomas paine.
the declaration of independence, the preamble, and the constitution
are all based on the writings of thomas paine. paine advocated for a
social democracy.
in fact a majority of the founders were liberals, they despised
conservatism, and blamed conservatives for almost losing the
revolution.


The Constitution of the United States
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.


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; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;
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, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI.
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,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.


The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.

so any law, treaty or regulation that is deemed constitutional, shall
be the law of the land. its really quite simple. the constitution was
crafted by liberals, who gave the constitution broad powers to
legislate, tax, regulate, negate state law, mandate, tariff, to
promote and provide for the general welfare, to ensure domestic
tranquility:)))

[Nickname unavailable]

On Jun 14, 10:01 am, Max Boot <max.b...@lathymes.com> wrote:

ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you f**king nazis never give up.


http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/09/the_origins_of_.html

Monday, September 11, 2006

The Origins of the Term "Privatization"

Michael Perelman on the origins of the term "privatization." I first
met Michael many, many years ago as an undergraduate at CSU Chico
where he was teaching:

The Nazi Heritage of Privatization, by Michael Perelman: Privatization
is very popular among laissez-faire types today. The recent issue of
the Journal of Economic Perspectives offers a ... tale in which the
term privatization is falsely credited to Peter Drucker. In fact,
Nazis coined the term. Their intent was to skew the distribution of
income toward the rich, with the objective of reducing consumption.
After all, the rich have a lower marginal propensity to consume.

The term seems to have been first introduced into academic social
science by Maxine Yaple Sweezy, wife of the distinguished Marxist
economist, Paul Sweezy.

Bel, Germa'. 2006. ""The Coining of "Privatization" and Germany's
National Socialist Party." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20: 3
(Summer): pp. 187-94 [author web page link]: 187-8: "The standard
story on the coining of "privatization" reports that in 1969 Peter
Drucker used the term "reprivatization" in the sense that economists
understand it today. In The Age of Discontinuity (1969, p. 229),
Drucker makes a negative appraisal on the managerial capabilities of
the public sector: "Government is a poor manager …. It has no choice
but to be 'bureaucratic.'" Drucker's (p. 233) analysis of how
government works leads him to what he takes as "the main lesson of the
last fifty years: the government is not a doer." Thus, Drucker (p.
234) proposed adopting a "systematic policy of using the other, the
nongovernmental institutions of the society of organizations, for the
actual 'doing,' i.e., for performance, operations, execution. Such a
policy might be called 'reprivatization.'" Drucker referred to
"reprivatization" because he proposed giving back to the private
sector executive responsibilities that had been private before the
public sector took them over through nationalization and
municipalization starting in the last decades of the nineteenth
century."

189-90: "In the late 1930s and the early 1940s, a number of works were
devoted to the analysis of economic policy in Germany under the rule
of the National Socialist Party. One major work was Maxine Yaple
Sweezy's (1941) The Structure of the Nazi Economy. Sweezy stated that
industrialists supported Hitler's accession to power and his economic
policies: "In return for business assistance, the Nazis hastened to
give evidence of their good will by restoring to private capitalism a
number of monopolies held or controlled by the state" (p. 27). This
policy implied a large-scale program by which "the government
transferred ownership to private hands" (p. 28). One of the main
objectives for this policy was to stimulate the propensity to save,
since a war economy required low levels of private consumption. High
levels of savings were thought to depend on inequality of income,
which would be increased by inequality of wealth. This, according to
Sweezy (p. 28), "was thus secured by 'reprivatization' …. The
practical significance of the transference of government enterprises
into private hands was thus that the capitalist class continued to
serve as a vessel for the accumulation of income. Profit-making and
the return of property to private hands, moreover, have assisted the
consolidation of Nazi party power." Sweezy (p. 30) again uses the
concept when giving concrete examples of transference of government
ownership to private hands: "The United Steel Trust is an outstanding
example of 'reprivatization.'" This may be the first use of the term
"reprivatization" in the academic literature in English, at least
within the domain of the social sciences."

192-3: "The primary modern argument against privatization is that it
only enriches and entrenches business and political elites, without
benefiting consumers or taxpayers. The discussion here suggests a rich
historical irony: these modern arguments against privatization are
strikingly similar to the arguments made in favor of privatization in
Germany in the 1930s. As Sweezy (1941) and Merlin (1943) explicitly
point out, German privatization of the 1930s was intended to benefit
the wealthiest sectors and enhance the economic position and political
support of the elite. Of course, this historical connection does not
prove that privatization is always a sound or an unsound policy, only
that the effects of privatization may depend considerably on the
political, social and economic contexts. German privatization in the
1930s differed from the privatization of Volkswagen in the 1950s, and
both of these situations differ from, say, the British privatizations
of the 1980s, the Russian privatizations of the 1990s, or the
privatizations across Latin America over the last two decades."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bel, Germà (2006). "Retrospectives: The Coining of 'Privatisation'
and 
Germany's National Socialist Party". Journal of Economic
Perspectives 
20 (3): 187–194.
Two locations
http://www.ub.edu/graap/JEP.pdf
http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.20.3.187
 However, in the next sections I will document the word
"privatization" in 
 works published in the 1930s and early 1940s on
German economic policy, 
 and its recurrence in the 1950s and 1960s.
 One major work was Maxine Yaple Sweezy's (1941) The Structure of the
Nazi 
 Economy. Sweezy stated that industrialists supported Hitler's
accession to 
 power and his economic policies: "In return for
business assistance, the 
 Nazis hastened to give evidence of their
good will by restoring to private 
 capitalism a number of monopolies
held or controlled by the state" (p. 27). 
 This policy implied a
large-scale program by which "the government 
 transferred ownership
to private hands" (p. 28). One of the main objectives 
 for this
policy was to stimulate the propensity to save, since a war economy
 required low levels of private consumption. High levels of savings
were 
 thought to depend on inequality of income, which would be
increased by 
 inequality of wealth. This, according to Sweezy (p.
28), "was thus secured 
 by 'reprivatization'. . . . The practical
significance of the transference 
 of government enterprises into
private hands was thus that the capitalist 
 class continued to serve
as a vessel for the accumulation of income. 
 Profit-making and the
return of property to private hands, moreover, have 
 assisted the
consolidation of Nazi party power."

[BeamMeUpScotty]

nice to know you think I'm so productive that I do the work that a whole
group might do.


This is all my personal intellectual property.


of course all the people in my head might say the same thing.



I notice very few try to disprove what I say, they take the Alinskyite
path and try to destroy me personally.


Looks like attacking my ideas is much tougher than just spewing a few
personal insults.




--



*Rumination*
#19 - Deciding how much Socialism is too much, is like deciding how much
dog shit in your ice cream is too much.

[678.714.5764]

On 6/14/2013 9:25 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Jun 14, 9:37 am, "678.714.5764"
> <willie.den...@holiday.marina.buford.ga> wrote:
>> On 6/13/2013 7:31 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 13, 8:00 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 13, 7:20 pm, The truth will set you free <deutsc...@mutter.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 6/13/2013 1:19 PM, Transition Zone wrote:> On Jun 12, 6:20 pm, Ginger <gin...@german.ru> wrote:
>>>>>>> The parasites are outnumbering the workers. The parasites don't want
>>>>>>> work, they want workers to support them.
>>>>>>> They voted for Obama because he promised them free stuff while Romney
>>>>>>> promised them jobs.
>>
>>>>>> But, Romney gave all Massachussets health care - but supported by
>>>>>> their workers.
>>
>>>>> But Obama shoved socialism down everyone's throat.
>>
>>>> In 2033, just 20 short years from now, the SS Trust Fund will be
>>>> empty,
>>
>>> lie.
>>
>>> we will interest on the debt AND there will be only 2 workers
>>>> for each retiree.
>>
>>> S.S. does not add one penny to the deficit, you know this shill.
>>
>> Of course Social Security adds to the deficit, you fuckwitted lying
>> Democrap shill.
>
>
> that is a lie

Not a lie, stupid.

>> They're spending more in benefits than they're taking
>> in as payroll taxes.
>
>
> ROTFLOL!!!!!!! what a fucking moron, you "CONSERVATIVES" are the
> worlds finest comedians. the fund is fully funded for at least two
> more decades

It's not fully funded. It *can't* be. They're spending more on
benefits than they're collecting in payroll taxes. If Social Security
were "fully funded", their combined interest receipts plus collected
payroll taxes in a period would exactly fund the benefits paid out in
that period - but they don't.

The "trust funds" are a fiction - they are *fully* invested in
government bonds that are part of the national debt, and the government
is having to *add to* the federal budget deficit in order to pay the
interest on those fake bonds.

>> The money has to come from somewhere. It's coming
>> from the fake "interest" they receive on the fake "bonds" they were
>> forced to buy to fund the main federal budget deficit.
>
>
>
> ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's not a reubuttal. In fact, you *can't* rebut it, because it's a fact.

> s.s. is a fully stand alone, self funded, fully funded insurance
> program

It is nothing of the kind. It is a tax-and-transfer program, and the
current taxes aren't enough to pay for the current transfers, and the
problem is worsening.

You're a fucking socialist liar.

[Max Boot]

On 6/14/2013 9:35 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Jun 14, 10:01 am, Max Boot <max.b...@lathymes.com> wrote:
>> On 6/13/2013 9:03 PM, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:24:08 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> In 2033, just 20 short years from now, the SS Trust Fund will be
>>>>> empty, we will interest on the debt AND there will be only 2 workers
>>>>> for each retiree.
>>
>>>> Some bad shit, isn't it.
>>
>>> Only if you don't think, RDLOON
>>
>>> solvency is accomplished by a small increase in percentage
>>> contributed, a raise in contribution cutoff, and no cap on the wealth
>>> class ( who now own 80% of all wealth)
>>
>> In other words, by still more economy-killing redistribution. It won't
>> work. It won't happen.
>>
>> Social Security can only be "saved" by privatising it.
>
> ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's not a rebuttal. You *can't* rebut anything.



> you [educated economists] never give up.

Right. That's because we're knowledgeable about this, and you
spendocrats aren't.

[Carol Kinsey Goman]

On 6/14/2013 9:32 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Jun 14, 9:51 am, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote:
>> On 6/13/2013 7:32 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 13, 9:01 pm, Richard <cavel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/2013 6:20 PM, The truth will set you free wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 6/13/2013 1:19 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 12, 6:20 pm, Ginger <gin...@german.ru> wrote:
>>>>>>> The parasites are outnumbering the workers. The parasites don't want
>>>>>>> work, they want workers to support them.
>>>>>>> They voted for Obama because he promised them free stuff while Romney
>>>>>>> promised them jobs.
>>
>>>>>> But, Romney gave all Massachussets health care - but supported by
>>>>>> their workers.
>>
>>>>> But Obama shoved socialism down everyone's throat.
>>
>>>> Don't swallow!
>>
>>> the idiot has never understood article one, section eight of the
>>> constitution.
>>
>> It's leftists who never understood the proper meaning of it it and have
>> mangled that part of the Constitution into a power it never was intended
>> to provide. The Butler decision is an utter perversion of the
>> Constitution, given to us by a socialist Supreme Court. It was one of
>> the more important decisions that have repudiated the Constitution.
>
> yet madison and the other american liberal founders, clearly
> enshrined those powers into the constitution,

No, just the opposite. Madison *absolutely* rejected the notion that
the general welfare clause provided an independent spending power to
Congress. The whole reason we're in this intractable, unconstitutional
mess - the belief that Congress can tax and spend for whatever purpose
they wish - is because the Madisonian view was thrown out by a rogue court.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Max Boot]

It is operating at a deficit, which is increasing the federal budget
deficit. Not in rational dispute.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:50:55 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

That's what I've been saying all along, Plumper. Don't you read posts
before replying to them?

What a snit you're in! Did you miss your fresh-squeezed orange juice
this morning? You're in a lousy mood to start off the weekend.

>
>The juxtaposition of a majority opposing Obamacare with Obama winning a
>slim majority of the popular vote - he got a mere 51.1%, down from 52.9%
>in 2008 - is easily understood by people who have a real understanding
>of politics, like me but excluding you.

Sometimes you have too much politics and too little sense, Plumper. If
most people oppose Obamacare (and they do), and most voters voted for
Obama (they did), then, by applying elementary arithemetic and a
little reason, it becomes obvious that Yak's claim that Obamacare was
a big "goody" they'd get for "little effort," and that won him the
vote is not only wrong, but is FLATLY CONTRADICTORY to the numbers we
all agree with.

>
>First, there is a substantial share of people who "oppose" Obamacare
>because they think it doesn't go far enough - i.e., isn't sufficiently
>socialist.

Now you're getting warmer. But it isn't generally "socialist." It IS
definitely liberal. In any case, it's philosophical, not a case of
going directly for a financial benefit that one expects to receive.

That was where Yak and I were going to go, if he got down to figuring
out what was wrong with his arithmetic and we took it to the next
step.

>Those people weren't going to vote for Romney, you fuckwit.
> They're still going to vote for the socialist, not the capitalist
>freedom fighter, even if said socialist isn't delivering as much
>socialism as they want.

Now you're getting close. You still haven't fixed Yak's assertion: it
isn't because it's a "goody." It's partly because most people aren't
going to vote for a flip-flopping elitist who doesn't give a damn
about ordinary people. Most people are more centrist or liberal than
what they read from Romney's statements and positions. Corporations
are not "people," for example The idea is repugnant to most people,
for good reason. And most people favor the key provisions in
Obamacare, even if hardly anyone has actually read the whole bill.
Many just dislike the *idea* of Obamacare. In many cases, it's because
it has the word "Obama" in it. I only read about 265 pages of it
before I couldn't stand the legalise or stay awake. How many pages did
you read?

>
>Second, some people who oppose the socialization of medical care might
>still vote for the socialist because they support him for other reasons,
>and they care more about those other issues than they do about
>socialized medicine.

Well, now, you've just made my point, which we were having trouble
reaching with Yak.

Most of the people I know who voted for Obama have no hope of getting
any "goodies." They make a lot of money. The median household income
in my town was $87,944 in 2009. The median for the US that year was
$51,190.

So they aren't looking for handouts -- they have no chance of getting
any. Their opposition to Romney is philosophical, and maybe personal.
In my case, I don't trust the s.o.b. Massachusetts Flounder speak with
forked tongue. I'm not a big fan of his ideas, but then, I'm not a big
fan of some of Obama's ideas, either.

Romney lost the philosophical battle. He didn't lose a battle for
"goodies." The people who think the program isn't liberal enough
include many of my neighbors -- a very liberal crowd -- not because it
isn't enough of a handout, but because a lot of them work in health
care and insurance fields, and they know that either a single-payer
system, or a not-for-profit private insurance industry, like
Switzerland's, are more likely to be successful and less likely to
contain loopholes for the insurance pirates to rip us off.

People in the economic bottom tiers probably don't know much about
those alternative payment systems. The liberal opposition to Obamacare
is based on well-educated, often world-traveling, liberals who want
something better.

I don't have any polls on that but most of that opposition came from
the Northeast, where I've lived almost all my life, and I can give you
a pretty good idea of what the feelings are about politics in this
tri-state area. You can see them yourself, in election results.

BTW, they think that paleo-conservative freaks like you are nuts. And
they're largely right.

Have a good weekend!

--
Ed Huntress

[RD Sandman]

Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
news:8c584a54-321b-49ef...@c3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 13, 8:00 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 13, 7:20 pm, The truth will set you free
>> <deutsc...@mutter.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 6/13/2013 1:19 PM, Transition Zone wrote:> On Jun 12, 6:20 pm,
>> > Ginge

> r <gin...@german.ru> wrote:
>> > >> The parasites are outnumbering the workers. The parasites don't
>> > >> want work, they want workers to support them.
>> > >> They voted for Obama because he promised them free stuff while
>> > >> Romne
> y
>> > >> promised them jobs.
>>
>> > > But, Romney gave all Massachussets health care - but supported by
>> > > their workers.
>>
>> > But Obama shoved socialism down everyone's throat.
>>
>> In 2033, just 20 short years from now, the SS Trust Fund will be
>> empty,
>

> lie.

It will be when it is down to 2 workers supporting each person on SS.
Benefits will need to be cut, the age will have to be raised to over 70,
the cap will have to be removed from the payroll tax. It should also
move to a means eligibility not just age.

> we will interest on the debt AND there will be only 2 workers
>> for each retiree.
>

> S.S. does not add one penny to the deficit, you know this shill.

> S.S. is a self funded, fully funded insurance program, that can pay
> out its full benefits for at least 2 decades,

As he noted above when he said 20 years. I believe that amounts to two
decades.

then can pay out 75% of
> its benefits for many many decades to come,

IOW, a 25% reduction in benefits per your statement.

that is if no adjustments
> to the program are made. just to give you a idea how well s.s. works,
> the last time any adjustments were made, was 3 decades ago, that is
> thirty years. if nothing is done to adjust the program, it will have
> gone 50 years or more, with no adjustments made

Yep and changes will be severely needed.
.
> show me a private for profit insurance program that can brag about
> that, and also see if they can brag about the efficiency of s.s., it
> takes around a 3% over head, but you know that shill, its why the
> private sector is drooling over s.s., you simply wish to drain it by
> excessive fee's, just as you have done with 401k's, or theft of
> private sector pensions.
> but there is a simple fix, simply raise the cap, and of course you
> know this shill.

It will take more than that. See my comments above.

>> Think about that.  Two children who are in Kindergarten today will,
>> in 20 short years, be starting a family, paying their mortgage,
>> paying off student loans, trying to save for their children's college
>> fund, trying to add to their retirement fund (401K) trying to make
>> ends meet, PLUS paying their taxes, PLUS paying the interest on the
>> debt, PLUS paying the SS benefits and ALL of the medical bills for
>> their very own retiree.
>

> just lift the cap shill. its well know.
>
> it is relatively easy to deny history, logic and facts when one's
> continuing income depends upon one doing so!
>



--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

Old Air Force adage..The only time you have too
much fuel is when you are on fire!!

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:03:01 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

Well, copyright it, quick. You don't want anyone else repeating it
without crediting you for it. d8-)

>
>
>of course all the people in my head might say the same thing.

...a frightening thought...

>
>
>
>I notice very few try to disprove what I say, they take the Alinskyite
>path and try to destroy me personally.

Most probably don't think it's worth "disproving." Any tax system
takes money from one place (or person) and spends it on something else
(or person). What you're describing is every tax system in existence.

If using different words for the inflows and outflows make you feel
better, go for it. But assigning a different meaning to something that
is obvious and universal doesn't appear to be very useful.

>
>
>Looks like attacking my ideas is much tougher than just spewing a few
>personal insults.

This idea is pretty vapid. If you have a better one, I'll be glad to
look at it.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:08:45 -0700 (PDT), Yak <y...@inbox.com> wrote:

Actually, that was what YOU said, when I asked you what "goodies" you
thought drove people to vote for Obama. My opinion is that it wasn't.

--
Ed Huntress

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Wrong.... a tax collects revenue.... spending is a very different
process. Any tax that hands out money is NOT a tax at all.



And yet this tax system is doing both.... its spending without passing
an appropriations bill into law that is unconstitutional.


A tax law is NOT a spending law. If a law spends it isn't tax and a law
that taxes doesn't spend.

ObamaCare proved this when the USSC determined tax laws are different
from commerce laws. Obama Care is ONLY constitutional as a tax law.


A tax is NOT a law that produces negative revenue or (spending). Because
a tax "is a revenue" according to the constitution.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:07:16 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

I think the fundamental idea here is that, if you tax something, the
intent is to spend it on something. d8-)

It's a system of transferring money from one place to another. I doubt
if most of us care what you call it, as long as you recognize that
what comes in must go out -- or you get constipated.

>
>
>
>And yet this tax system is doing both.... its spending without passing
>an appropriations bill into law that is unconstitutional.

I'm not sure what "this" tax system is that you're referring to. If
we're still talking about the system proposed by Milton Friedman and
adopted by Barry Goldwater, I suspect that they intended that it would
be done lawfully. Some kid of law would have to be passed to implement
it.

>
>
>A tax law is NOT a spending law. If a law spends it isn't tax and a law
>that taxes doesn't spend.

Well, that's true. You need both.

>
>ObamaCare proved this when the USSC determined tax laws are different
>from commerce laws. Obama Care is ONLY constitutional as a tax law.
>
>
>A tax is NOT a law that produces negative revenue or (spending). Because
>a tax "is a revenue" according to the constitution.

Please clear up for me what we're talking about here -- Friedman's
negative income tax, or Obamacare?

And, whichever it is, what is your constitutional objection to it,
specifically?

--
Ed Huntress

[Yak]

You asked me for an example. I gave it to you. So, our opinions
differ.

[Yak]

On Jun 14, 12:08 pm, Nickname unavailable

Call it what you want. I could care less who sponsored it.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > --
> > > Ed Huntress

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:jZIut.153163$97.1...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com:

True but it is part of the tax system. If you don't intend to spend the
money why are you laying on taxes to raise revenue?

> And yet this tax system is doing both.... its spending without
> passing an appropriations bill into law that is unconstitutional.

I don't where that is in the constitution. Constitutionally it is legal
for the government to tax and it is also legal for the government to
spend. I don't know where this spending without an appropriations bill
is coming from. It is wise to do that but I don't see where it is
spelled out in the Constitution that you can't do one without the other.

> A tax law is NOT a spending law. If a law spends it isn't tax and a
> law that taxes doesn't spend.

But it may indicate where those monies collected are to be spent.

> ObamaCare proved this when the USSC determined tax laws are different
> from commerce laws. Obama Care is ONLY constitutional as a tax law.

Not quite. The individual mandate for Obamacare is what was ruled as
constitional as a tax in lieu of a penalty. It is pretty much the
linchpin of the bill. Without it OBamacare nosedives.

> A tax is NOT a law that produces negative revenue or (spending).
> Because a tax "is a revenue" according to the constitution.

A revenue without which Obamacare could not survive.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Lets use any tax credit that pays someone $2500 cash back even if they
paid in zero tax and earned minimal income.

They file and get a Treasury check yet they paid no tax, that is a net
Treasury expenditure NOT a Revenue.

>
> And, whichever it is, what is your constitutional objection to it,
> specifically?

You have to write an Appropriations bill and pass it to spend money.
Any time you hand someone more money than they handed into the Treasury,
that is "SPENDING" NOT a "REVENUE".


Otherwise fraud would be simple and people could hand in $100 and then
have a friend inside the IRS give them a return payment of $1000 and
since there was no law written to allow it or stop it, it's
unconstitutional but it's NOT legally fraud. There would be no limits
on the IRS handing out money. The way the IRS is kept from simply
writing Obama a check for $1,000,000 for a weekend party is to make all
the money spent have a spending law passed that must be voted on by
congress. There is no money allowed to be spent by the IRS before the
Congress authorizes it and a tax law doesn't spend money an
appropriations law spends money. So the IRS can give you back your own
money when you deserve it but they can't give anyone back more than they
paid in unless there is a law and appropriations set up to allow and
over see it.


That violates the procedural process needed to spend money that is in
our U.S. Treasury. They need to pass another law, appropriations law
that says the Treasury can give money away to people with children,
which they have already done but the money is supposed to be handed out
via the WELFARE PROGRAMS.....

Basically the IRS handing out more than someone paid in is a welfare
check from the Federal government and that is unconstitutional. There
is NO Federal welfare powers delegated.


The problem is the Feds have no powers that allow them to hand out any
welfare checks either. That system also violates the separation of
powers between the Feds the States and We The People. The Feds are NOT
delegated any power to give money to pay the debts of the States or pay
the DEBTS of the people.


All they are authorized to pay debts for is the "United States".

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:08:37 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

I don't see what the problem is here. It's all spelled out in the tax
laws, which are passed by Congress.

>
>
>Otherwise fraud would be simple and people could hand in $100 and then
>have a friend inside the IRS give them a return payment of $1000 and
>since there was no law written to allow it or stop it, it's
>unconstitutional but it's NOT legally fraud.

Again, I don't understand why you're saying there is no law written to
allow it. What case are you referring to? Any payments that I know of
are approved by Congress, either directly in laws or indirectly in
funding and authorities for executive agencies.

> There would be no limits
>on the IRS handing out money. The way the IRS is kept from simply
>writing Obama a check for $1,000,000 for a weekend party is to make all
>the money spent have a spending law passed that must be voted on by
>congress. There is no money allowed to be spent by the IRS before the
>Congress authorizes it and a tax law doesn't spend money an
>appropriations law spends money. So the IRS can give you back your own
>money when you deserve it but they can't give anyone back more than they
>paid in unless there is a law and appropriations set up to allow and
>over see it.
>
>
>That violates the procedural process needed to spend money that is in
>our U.S. Treasury. They need to pass another law, appropriations law
>that says the Treasury can give money away to people with children,
>which they have already done but the money is supposed to be handed out
>via the WELFARE PROGRAMS.....
>
>Basically the IRS handing out more than someone paid in is a welfare
>check from the Federal government and that is unconstitutional. There
>is NO Federal welfare powers delegated.

Again, an example, please. If there are such payments I'm not aware of
what they are.

>
>
>The problem is the Feds have no powers that allow them to hand out any
>welfare checks either. That system also violates the separation of
>powers between the Feds the States and We The People. The Feds are NOT
>delegated any power to give money to pay the debts of the States or pay
>the DEBTS of the people.

Example?

>
>
>All they are authorized to pay debts for is the "United States".

And everything lumped under the Necessary and Proper clause, which
includes every expenditure for every function authorized by the
Constitution and all Amendments (including the 14th), and "provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,"

Now, let me guess: You're going to bring up the Butler case, which
struck down Congress's power to pay subsidies, but which enabled
payments within limits under the General Welfare clause -- which would
make this the second such example today.

Are you guys talking to each other about which Supreme Court cases to
attack? <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[BeamMeUpScotty]

You spend it constitutionally.

Simply sending it out and the IRS doing both collecting and handing out
is a conflict of interest and creates constitutional violations.

Congress spends with laws.

The House of Representatives initiates ALL NEW taxes.

>> And yet this tax system is doing both.... its spending without
>> passing an appropriations bill into law that is unconstitutional.
>
> I don't where that is in the constitution. Constitutionally it is legal
> for the government to tax and it is also legal for the government to
> spend.

Limited spending, they have specific things listed as power to spend
on.... It's NOT just a big slush fund like your paycheck.


If and only if they follow the constitution and laws.

> I don't know where this spending without an appropriations bill
> is coming from.

["...
7: *No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury* , but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the
Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from
time to time....."]



Read the constitution. All spending requires a law called an
appropriations law. A tax "regulation/law is NOT sufficient" Some
IRS Bureaucrat deciding to give people money before congress writes a
law to spend it is NOT constitutional.


To begin with, having the same people collect and hand out the money in
the treasury is a bad idea. Spending and Revenue is separate in the
constitution for a reason.

> It is wise to do that but I don't see where it is
> spelled out in the Constitution that you can't do one without the other.

I posted it above look at Article 1 Section 8 sub-part will be the 7th item.

>> A tax law is NOT a spending law. If a law spends it isn't tax and a
>> law that taxes doesn't spend.
>
> But it may indicate where those monies collected are to be spent.

I'm sure.

But what is important is that a tax law isn't a spending law they are
different and the Supreme court said so when they decided to re submit
ObamaCare as a tax but the Congress never voted on a tax law called
ObamaCare(Affordable Care Act). Since they didn't re vote and Obama
never signed that TAX Bill into law it isn't really a tax.

Obama and Congress voted on and signed a commerce law... And the
Supreme Court called it a tax law. So there is absolutely a difference
and a tax law is NOT an appropriations law.

>> ObamaCare proved this when the USSC determined tax laws are different
>> from commerce laws. Obama Care is ONLY constitutional as a tax law.
>
> Not quite. The individual mandate for Obamacare is what was ruled as
> constitional as a tax in lieu of a penalty. It is pretty much the
> linchpin of the bill. Without it OBamacare nosedives.

It is NOT able to be seperated it's all one law that took one vote.

>> A tax is NOT a law that produces negative revenue or (spending).
>> Because a tax "is a revenue" according to the constitution.
>
> A revenue without which Obamacare could not survive.

ObamaCare won't survive because it's a piece of shit.

But yes I agree it is NOT going to survive without being a tax and it
was never a tax bill so it could NOT have been voted on or signed into
law as a tax law.

If it's a commerce BILL that was voted on.... then it can't be tax LAW
later. That would be akin to passing a tax law and using it to spit out
trillion of dollars to the military without voting to fund the military
with an appropriations bill. You can't do that any more than you can
use tax laws to spit out billions of dollars for tax refunds larger than
what taxes a person paid.


The ObamaCare BILL was unconstitutional that they voted on and the BILL
that Obama signed was unconstitutional and the whole year or two is was
a Commerce law (before the Supreme Court case) it was still
unconstitutional.


HOW did the Supreme court take a law that they already deemed an
unconstitutional commerce law and re-pass that law as a tax law.
The supreme court has no power to change any laws. How did the Supreme
Court change a commerce law into a tax law? I say there was a
government coup and our government is NO longer a legitimate government
of the people.

And congress can't pass a poison pill tax law. The founders knew that
taxes needed to be kept separate and we need representation for taxes
and ALL TAX LAW/BILLS must begin in the House of Representatives.
Remember "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" when taxes are passed in
the dark on Christmas Eve, and called a commerce bill and rushed and
done as they were, then the peoples sovereign rights were violated.

SO the purpose of that constitutional mandate is to make sure that we
see any BILL that *is a tax BILL* otherwise it's doing like the King
did and passing laws in the dark of night and in locations or times far
from any opposition to the Kings NEW taxes.

What they have done is to do the exact thing the Revolution was seeking
to STOP from ever happening again. A stealth tax that is rammed through
without anyone knowing we were being taxed.


The Supreme court can *NOT* vote on a law or sign it into law. They had
to have it resubmitted in congress for a new vote as a tax law and then
it would have to be signed by Obama as a tax law, then it would be a
constitutional law. As it sits now, the law is NOT even a law. There
was no TAX bill voted on or signed by the President, the Obamacare law
that did go through was found to be unconstitutional "end of story".


A new ObamaCare tax bill needs to be passed.



Time for civil disobedience.... FIGHT the Federal Government COUP !

[Tom Gardner]

On 6/14/2013 12:00 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> Your guy won...to the detriment
>> of us all.
>
> I disagree with your opinion.
>

Your #3 macro. "Obama is god." How come *ALL* your posts can be
reduced to your three keyboard macros? Your a wordsmith and restate
those macros but I think you should have at least one other thought
expressed if possible.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 18:26:24 -0400, Tom Gardner <Mars@Tacks> wrote:

>On 6/14/2013 12:00 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>> Your guy won...to the detriment
>>> of us all.
>>
>> I disagree with your opinion.
>>
>
>
>Your #3 macro. "Obama is god."

Up yours, Tawwwm

> How come *ALL* your posts can be
>reduced to your three keyboard macros?

Baloney.

Note this example. The Yak says that Obama's victory is "to the
detriment of us all." After implying that I foolishly "fell for it" --
and after incorrectly saying that we were "fooled" into believing we
could keep our current plan.

All I said is that I disagree. Then you took off with your snotty
little remark.

What's wrong with you, Tom?

>Your a wordsmith and restate
>those macros but I think you should have at least one other thought
>expressed if possible.

Huh?

--
Ed Huntress

[Stormin Mormon]

I've been noticing that the present admin is doing
many of the same things we didn't like when King
George did it, from the distant English government.
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in message news:MGLut.19250$0y7....@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...

[Stormin Mormon]

Trim Technique:
Use this after typing your reply in the email window.
This works both with web browsers, and most email clients.

1) Use "down" arrow to move cursor to a spot in the email below the
text which is necessary to the email.
2) Press and hold shift key.
3) Press arrow "down" key to highlight text below the relevant
message.
4) Release arrow down key.
5) Touch "delete" key and highlighted text should disappear.

For folks who like using a mouse, scroll down. Put the cursor in the
text below the relevant message.

Hold left mouse key down, and slide cursor down. This will highlight
text, which can then be deleted using the delete button.

As an alternative, put the indicator below the useful text. Pres cntrl + shift + end to highlight the trailing text, and then touch delete.

--

.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.

"Yak" <y...@inbox.com> wrote in message news:27015626-01bf-4f67...@2g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...

[Stormin Mormon]

When someone types an email message, the information is turned into electronic code. The smallest unit of information is a "byte". A thousand bytes is a "kilobyte" like a thousand grams is a kilogram. And a million bytes is a MB, and a billion bytes is a gigabyte, or GB.

When an emailer leaves the old text on the bottom, the message takes up more. More what? Well,
more time to squeeze the message through the telephone wire. More down load time. Because the computer had to get (in effect) three or four messages through the phone wire. Your new message, plus the other messages that you left in the email.

When computers were first connected to each other, it was often a long distance call to get the messages. So, leaving an old message on the bottom was incredibly bad manners -- because it cost the other guys on the list money to send the old message through the phone wire. And in the early days, it was a near certainty that anyone who left old text in a message would be criticized by others who had to pay long distance to download the old text.

It's still bad manners, because it still takes time to send the messages.

And it takes up more space on everyone's computer. 36 KB is "thirty six thousand bytes of information space". And when you send an email to a mailing list, everyone on the mailing list has to download the large message. Some people do have fast intenet service. Fast or slow, the 36 KB message still takes up 36,000 bits of information on everyone else's computer. Or at least everyone who is on the email list, and got your message.

So, what to do about it? The polite thing to do is when you reply to scroll down into the message. Click the mouse pointer some where in the old text, and drag the pointer down to the bottom of the message. A bunch of old text will highlight (change color, or might turn into reverse -- white type on a colored background). Then press the "delete" key and
the highlighted text will disappear. Do this as many times as needed to remove all the old text from previous messages. On some email programs, you can hold the left click down, and slide the pointer off the bottom of the email window. And it will continue to highlight more and more text.

Well, can't you just read the message at the top? Sure. After my connection (very slowly) downloads your couple words, plus all the old text from earlier emails. And then I get to store your couple of words plus all the earlier messages.

Please leave enough of the old message so that we know what is the question you are answering. But highlight and delete any old text that isn't needed to make the point.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

www.mormons.com

.
.
"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in message news:MGLut.19250$0y7....@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...

[Michael A. Terrell]

Stormin Mormon wrote:
>
> When someone types an email message, the information is turned into electronic code. The smallest unit of information is a "byte". A thousand bytes is a "kilobyte" like a thousand grams is a kilogram. And a million bytes is a MB, and a billion bytes is a gigabyte, or GB.

WRONG, Missing Bits Breath! ;-)

1024 bytes is a Kilobyte.
1048576 bytes is a Megabyte.
1073741824 bytes is a Gigabyte.
1099511627776 bytes is a Terabyte.

Memory is Binary, not Decimal. Marketing drones at HD companies lie
about the actual size of a hard drive to make them look bigger.

[Stormin Mormon]

Hmm. You're telling me that size matters?

.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

.
.
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:fpednWOt5b_o0iHM...@earthlink.com...

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:12:17 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

No problem there.

>
>Simply sending it out and the IRS doing both collecting and handing out
>is a conflict of interest and creates constitutional violations.

Not.

>
>Congress spends with laws.

Which is exactly what is being done.

>
>The House of Representatives initiates ALL NEW taxes.
>
>
>>> And yet this tax system is doing both.... its spending without
>>> passing an appropriations bill into law that is unconstitutional.
>>
>> I don't where that is in the constitution. Constitutionally it is legal
>> for the government to tax and it is also legal for the government to
>> spend.
>
>Limited spending, they have specific things listed as power to spend
>on.... It's NOT just a big slush fund like your paycheck.

"Necessary and proper" is pretty broad.

>
>
>If and only if they follow the constitution and laws.

They do.

>
>
>
>> I don't know where this spending without an appropriations bill
>> is coming from.

It doesn't need one. It needs a LAW. Appropriations made by LAW, it
says.

If it includes provisions for spending, it is, by definition, an
appropriations bill:

An appropriation is "per se nothing more than the legislative
authorization prescribed by the Constitution for money to be paid out
at the Treasury." [Court of Claims] Campagna v. United States (1891).

The Congress may employ "wide discretion...in prescribing details of
expenditures," [USSC] Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States (1937).

>
>["...
>7: *No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury* , but in Consequence of
>Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the
>Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from
>time to time....."]
>
>
>
>Read the constitution. All spending requires a law called an
>appropriations law.

Which is any law that includes an appropriation. See above.

> A tax "regulation/law is NOT sufficient"

Yes it is, if it includes authorization for spending the money. Then
it is, by definition, an appropriation by Congress -- even if it's a
broad authorization.

> Some
>IRS Bureaucrat deciding to give people money before congress writes a
>law to spend it is NOT constitutional.

When has that happened? Where has it been proposed?

>
>
>To begin with, having the same people collect and hand out the money in
>the treasury is a bad idea. Spending and Revenue is separate in the
>constitution for a reason.

I'd still like to see where this has happened, without authorization
by Congress.

>
>
>> It is wise to do that but I don't see where it is
>> spelled out in the Constitution that you can't do one without the other.
>
>I posted it above look at Article 1 Section 8 sub-part will be the 7th item.
>
>
>>> A tax law is NOT a spending law. If a law spends it isn't tax and a
>>> law that taxes doesn't spend.
>>
>> But it may indicate where those monies collected are to be spent.
>
>I'm sure.
>
>But what is important is that a tax law isn't a spending law they are
>different and the Supreme court said so when they decided to re submit
>ObamaCare as a tax but the Congress never voted on a tax law called
>ObamaCare(Affordable Care Act). Since they didn't re vote and Obama
>never signed that TAX Bill into law it isn't really a tax.

They don't have to call it a tax. If it becomes a point of contention,
a court can decide. Which it did.

>
>Obama and Congress voted on and signed a commerce law... And the
>Supreme Court called it a tax law. So there is absolutely a difference
>and a tax law is NOT an appropriations law.

You can have both in the same law.

>
>
>>> ObamaCare proved this when the USSC determined tax laws are different
>>> from commerce laws. Obama Care is ONLY constitutional as a tax law.
>>
>> Not quite. The individual mandate for Obamacare is what was ruled as
>> constitional as a tax in lieu of a penalty. It is pretty much the
>> linchpin of the bill. Without it OBamacare nosedives.
>
>
>It is NOT able to be seperated it's all one law that took one vote.

That's all it needs.

>
>
>>> A tax is NOT a law that produces negative revenue or (spending).
>>> Because a tax "is a revenue" according to the constitution.
>>
>> A revenue without which Obamacare could not survive.
>
>ObamaCare won't survive because it's a piece of shit.
>
>But yes I agree it is NOT going to survive without being a tax and it
>was never a tax bill so it could NOT have been voted on or signed into
>law as a tax law.

If Congress approved it, and if a court decides they approved a tax,
then it's a tax.

>
>If it's a commerce BILL that was voted on.... then it can't be tax LAW
>later. That would be akin to passing a tax law and using it to spit out
>trillion of dollars to the military without voting to fund the military
>with an appropriations bill. You can't do that any more than you can
>use tax laws to spit out billions of dollars for tax refunds larger than
>what taxes a person paid.

Sure you can.

>
>
>The ObamaCare BILL was unconstitutional that they voted on and the BILL
>that Obama signed was unconstitutional and the whole year or two is was
>a Commerce law (before the Supreme Court case) it was still
>unconstitutional.

Nope.

>
>
>HOW did the Supreme court take a law that they already deemed an
>unconstitutional commerce law and re-pass that law as a tax law.

They didn't re-pass it. They adjudicated its effect and its meaning.

>The supreme court has no power to change any laws.

They didn't change it. They just decided what it was.

> How did the Supreme
>Court change a commerce law into a tax law?

By deciding that's what it really was.

> I say there was a
>government coup and our government is NO longer a legitimate government
>of the people.

I say you're wrong.

>
>And congress can't pass a poison pill tax law. The founders knew that
>taxes needed to be kept separate and we need representation for taxes
>and ALL TAX LAW/BILLS must begin in the House of Representatives.
>Remember "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" when taxes are passed in
>the dark on Christmas Eve, and called a commerce bill and rushed and
>done as they were, then the peoples sovereign rights were violated.

Throughout our history we've gotten around that by the Senate
"modifying" a House bill. It's called "strike-and-replace." The
Supreme Court has never ruled on it but neither have they ever
disallowed an appropriation because it strikes-and-replaces.

It will remain an open issue until the Court decides.

>
>SO the purpose of that constitutional mandate is to make sure that we
>see any BILL that *is a tax BILL* otherwise it's doing like the King
>did and passing laws in the dark of night and in locations or times far
>from any opposition to the Kings NEW taxes.
>
>What they have done is to do the exact thing the Revolution was seeking
>to STOP from ever happening again. A stealth tax that is rammed through
>without anyone knowing we were being taxed.

The Court has decided that the *penalty* actually is a tax. That part
of the case is closed.

>
>
>The Supreme court can *NOT* vote on a law or sign it into law. They had
>to have it resubmitted in congress for a new vote as a tax law and then
>it would have to be signed by Obama as a tax law, then it would be a
>constitutional law. As it sits now, the law is NOT even a law. There
>was no TAX bill voted on or signed by the President, the Obamacare law
>that did go through was found to be unconstitutional "end of story".

The Court's opinion stands as law now. Your argument(s) are largely
moot, and have been for decades.

The one remaining issue is whether "strike and replace" is
constitutional. This probably will be subject to further litigation.

>
>
>A new ObamaCare tax bill needs to be passed.

You've made several arguments here, including a revisiting of the
Necessary and Proper clause and the General Welfare clause, which have
established precedent -- which you apprently don't like.

Your argument about separate, labelled "appropriations bills" is so
feeble that it long ago was swept away. There is nothing stated or
implied in Article I Section 8 that requires it.

The one issue that is in contention is the Senate's ability to use a
House bill as an empty shell, and a ruse, in order to initiate a tax
bill. There is a lot of history behind it but the Court may yet
revisit it.

> Time for civil disobedience.... FIGHT the Federal Government COUP !

Good luck. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[BeamMeUpScotty]

We kicked the Kings ass once already didn't we?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

All are legitimate and I see zero proof that I am wrong.



The bigger point isn't that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, that's
already evident on so many levels and it only takes one.... the point
is that we are

*NO LONGER LIVING IN A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC*

The United States of America has been "fundamentally" changed and after
200 years of success with a constitution we are now just another
Thiefdom where the likes of Obama can get away with anything he wants.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:22:59 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

>On 6/15/2013 10:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

<snip>

>>> A new ObamaCare tax bill needs to be passed.
>>
>> You've made several arguments here, including a revisiting of the
>> Necessary and Proper clause and the General Welfare clause, which have
>> established precedent -- which you apprently don't like.
>>
>> Your argument about separate, labelled "appropriations bills" is so
>> feeble that it long ago was swept away. There is nothing stated or
>> implied in Article I Section 8 that requires it.
>>
>> The one issue that is in contention is the Senate's ability to use a
>> House bill as an empty shell, and a ruse, in order to initiate a tax
>> bill. There is a lot of history behind it but the Court may yet
>> revisit it.
>>
>>> Time for civil disobedience.... FIGHT the Federal Government COUP !
>>
>> Good luck. <g>
>>
>
>
>We kicked the Kings ass once already didn't we?

Yeah. If we ever have a hereditary monarch again, we'll know what to
do with him.

For example, Jeb Bush... d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:54:35 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

They're legitimate opinions, but, except possibly for the business
about initiating the bill in the Senate, they've all come out on the
short end of court decisions -- for good reasons.

>
>
>
>The bigger point isn't that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, that's
>already evident on so many levels and it only takes one.... the point
>is that we are
>
> *NO LONGER LIVING IN A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC*

If we're still electing representatives, and if those representatives
are still subject to being rejected in the next election, then I don't
think your assertion has any merit.

You just don't like the republic we have, apparently.

>
>The United States of America has been "fundamentally" changed and after
>200 years of success with a constitution we are now just another
>Thiefdom where the likes of Obama can get away with anything he wants.

There isn't any evidence that this is correct.

--
Ed Huntress

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I'd never vote for two people with the same last name or part of the
same family.

I don't want to live in an Oligarchy.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Are you electing them? Obama has the IRS suppressing my vote so I'm
NOT.....

>
> You just don't like the republic we have, apparently.

I like the Constitutional Republic that the founders created. It worked
and it was slowly improving as they had intended and suggested in the
Preamble.

This "fundamentally" changed government that ignores the RIGHTS we have
is crap.

>> The United States of America has been "fundamentally" changed and after
>> 200 years of success with a constitution we are now just another
>> Thiefdom where the likes of Obama can get away with anything he wants.
>
> There isn't any evidence that this is correct.

So then you say Obama has another failure? Obama is inept at running the
IRS and the NSA and the State Department and the wars and Health care
costs are up NOT down and he can't implement the changes he says when he
says he will fundamentally change America?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrefKCaV8m4

I'm telling you he did Fundamentally change America and changed it into
a Banana Republic. Obama says he will "change this world" ?
Did you elect Obama leader of the world?

You called Obama a liar when he says he is Fundamentally changing
America and you're telling me it never happened?



You Liberals LIE LIE LIE all the time don't you!

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:45:38 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

How are they suppressing your vote? Do they have someone in the voting
booth erasing your vote after you leave, or what?

>
>
>
>>
>> You just don't like the republic we have, apparently.
>
>I like the Constitutional Republic that the founders created. It worked
>and it was slowly improving as they had intended and suggested in the
>Preamble.
>
>This "fundamentally" changed government that ignores the RIGHTS we have
>is crap.

It would help if you gave a specific or two.

>
>
>>> The United States of America has been "fundamentally" changed and after
>>> 200 years of success with a constitution we are now just another
>>> Thiefdom where the likes of Obama can get away with anything he wants.
>>
>> There isn't any evidence that this is correct.
>
>So then you say Obama has another failure? Obama is inept at running the
>IRS and the NSA and the State Department and the wars and Health care
>costs are up NOT down and he can't implement the changes he says when he
>says he will fundamentally change America?
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrefKCaV8m4
>
>I'm telling you he did Fundamentally change America and changed it into
>a Banana Republic. Obama says he will "change this world" ?
>Did you elect Obama leader of the world?
>
>You called Obama a liar when he says he is Fundamentally changing
>America and you're telling me it never happened?

You've lost me, Scotty. None of the past few paragraphs have any
connection to reality that I can see.

>
>
>
>You Liberals LIE LIE LIE all the time don't you!

You sound a little delusional. But that seems to be an epidemic on
this NG.

I spend, or used to spend, a fair amount of time studying US history.
If there's anything specific you'd like to discuss, I'll give it a
try. But I can't react to these general accusations you're making.
They sound like opinions filtered through broken glass.

--
Ed Huntress

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Lost where the truth began.... HHhhhmmmm?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/15/2013 1:22 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:22:59 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>

>> We kicked the Kings ass once already didn't we?
>

> NO---"we" did not
>
> Those who sided WITH the King were people like you, ScottLoon
>
> Conservatives (tories) wanted to stop Progress (by
> liberal/progressives) in demanding "RIGHTS" (from the king)


And yet I'm demanding RIGHTS from THE NEW KING as we speak.... while you
argue for surrendering our rights.



O say Obama need to stop the attack on MY RIGHTS.... you support
Obama's attack on MY RIGHTS. You ignore and approve of the IRS being
used to suppress MY free speech and freedom of association and my voting.



Looks to me like you have put the shoes on the wrong feet.


a common mistake by the very young, the very stupid, or the very retarded.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/15/2013 1:23 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:58:15 -0400, Ed Huntress
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> We kicked the Kings ass once already didn't we?
>>
>> Yeah. If we ever have a hereditary monarch again, we'll know what to
>> do with him.
>

> No---"we" did not.
>
> See my previous snout-smack of Scotty-de-Lune
>


You're sucking shit through a straw.... and you don't know when to give-up.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 13:08:19 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

I have no idea what you're talking about. But then, neither do you.

--
Ed Huntress
>
>
>

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:23:18 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:58:15 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>

>>>We kicked the Kings ass once already didn't we?
>>
>>Yeah. If we ever have a hereditary monarch again, we'll know what to
>>do with him.
>

>No---"we" did not.
>
>See my previous snout-smack of Scotty-de-Lune

Three of my ancestors, then. Good enough?

We've been here since 1657. There's been a lot of ass-kicking since
then. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[GaryWillis]

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news:7napr8h3v5bcu5n84...@4ax.com...

####
Ed and Yoorghis have both been "here" THAT many years ago?

How special!

[Ed Huntress]

Hey, clean living and staying away from Mountain Dew leads to a long
and happy life. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[GaryWillis]

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

news:n6cpr8lekold8cch0...@4ax.com...

####
You two are homos.
That doesn't mean you are 'happy', you retard.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:04:59 -0400, "GaryWillis"

"Homos"? What are you, Rip van Winkle?

'Been living under a rock, Gary?

--
Ed Huntress

[Michael A. Terrell]

Stormin Mormon wrote:
>
> Hmm. You're telling me that size matters?

Are you telling that it doesn't, on a group that works to under a
mil?