Senator John Thune Discusses Federal Spending, Elena Kagan, and the new START treaty

[hahawowza]

this guy is hot. im just sayin.

[MrMindfucker]

This guy's right! I wonder if his momma ever told him that the one that has the gold makes the rules or that one monkey dont make the show? I bet she did!

[helltrackrider]

Why not remove non-descretionary spending as the Constitution strictly prohibits the Federal Government to fund or regulate any programs of the such?

[mcap52]

@helltrackrider How dare you even think of asking the federal government to follow the Constitution!!!! They have been doing so well without it,right??

[yellowkrux]

@helltrackrider What clause prohibits that?

[helltrackrider]

@yellowkrux

The answer is within your question...there isnt a clause to prohibit it, but there is the 10th Amendment...Social Security, Healthcare, Unemployment, Welfare, Foregin Aid, Medicare...the list goes on...are not specifically mentioned as powers of the Federal Government; hence, they are illegal for the Federal Government to assume as powers and provide funding for...

understand?

[yellowkrux]

@helltrackrider Okay ,SO in other words the constitution doesn't prohibit discretionary spending, you just felt like saying it does? & SS,Medicare,medicaid, & foreign aid all qualify under the common good clause.

You should really read the constitution.... understand?

[helltrackrider]

@yellowkrux

Your ignorance is paralleled throughout America...it is really ashame.

The Federal Government can ONLY do what is specified in the Constitution...and sorry, there is no such "common good clause"...you are thinking of a Government founded on a Collectivist ideology...not Individualism, as America was founded.

Seeing as i understand your arguement, you are referring to the "General Welfare" clause i presume...

(cont.)

[helltrackrider]

@yellowkrux

If you "interpretation" of this clause is to take property from another person to redistribute it throughout the Nation to those, Specific - not "Generally" - individuals whom need it; then your logic is twisted when it comes to the limitations and purpose of the Federal Government that was drafted in 1787...

How come it took until World War I for ANY direct aide to private citizens to be accepted as "Constitutional" by our Government?...why not before?

[helltrackrider]

@yellowkrux

Do a little research on the PRogressive movement, Labor Union movements and the concept of "Crisis induced growth of government" to understand where you are wrong...

Prior to the Civil War - a "crisis" (and unjust war by the North) - the Federal Government had NO ties to the Individuals of the State - escept for the census which only counted heads every 10 years...then the 14th Amendment was passed creating a "US Citizen" - a Federal Citizen first, State Citizen second.

[helltrackrider]

@yellowkrux

After the 14th...the Federal Government now had constituents - rather than just the States; and you wonder why so many regulations, taxes, increased government spending and size, decreased liberty and privacy...all this exist?...

And to justify the existence of measures like these...you feel the need to slander the ideology of our founders by encompassing that all these are Constitutional measures?...get a clue...seriously, educate yourself - the Federal Government will not.

[helltrackrider]

@yellowkrux

FYI...look up the word "General"..."of or pertaining to ALL persons or things belonging to a group or category"...

Also, re-read the "General Welfare Clause" - "...to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States..."

of the United States...not the of the People whom live within the United States; as when this was enscribed the United States had NO jurisdiction over the Individual - only the States did - but, the 14th changed that.

[yellowkrux]

@helltrackrider The United States is made up of the people of the united states & the general welfare clause does cover foreign aid, SS, Medicaid, Medicare,etc... The reason being that none of those programs violate the constitution, & all fall with in the enumerated powers (now if they forced you to collect SS, or use Medicaid then it would be a violation).

Also again,I see nothing in the constitution forbidding discretionary spending (as a matter of fact I think it's kind of necessary)

[helltrackrider]

@yellowkrux

Typical thought process these days.

What part of "General" do you not understand?...General means ALL...how is SS, Medicare/Medicaid/Foreign Aid/Unemployment directly beneficial to the "General" (ALL) population?...it is not.

These programs are "Specific" in nature as all they are intended to do in ideology is redistribute the wealth from one group of people to another group of people..

You really need to learn the Constitution before trying to debate about it.

[yellowkrux]

@helltrackrider

SS is not made to redistribute income.

& No definition of the term General has it as a synonym of all.

& if it did, every single one of those programs, could still be supported by general welfare.

& Again, how is discretionary spending unconstitutional?

Why do I get the feeling you've never read the constitution & somehow believe your an expert on it?

[helltrackrider]

@yellowkrux

SS...I get taxed presently to pay people presently with the promise that when i am eligeble, i will be repayed...that is redistribution, anyway you slice it.

Per the Dictionary: General - "of or pertaining to all persons or things belonging to a group or category"...notice the word ALL.

This programs cannot be supported the General Welfare for the reason above, they do not pertain to "ALL persons" and it is a taking of one persons property (income) without due process...

[yellowkrux]

@helltrackrider "Per the Dictionary: General - "of or pertaining to all persons or things belonging to a group or category"...notice the word ALL."

All those programs qualify. & Discretionary spending is constitutional, spending is (well basically) an enumerated power. You're pretty much just stating something that even the first congress did was unconstitutional.

[helltrackrider]

@yellowkrux

Furthermore, the "General Welfare" clause is specifically for the United States; not for the People...even further, the General Welfare clause is only to be utilized in the spirit of the enumerated powers; "providing for the General Welfare" is not an enumerated power - this clause lies within the "power of taxation" and is an adjective to describe why taxation may be leveed; the following enumerated powers explain what the "General Welfare" entails...

[helltrackrider]

@yellowkrux

As for "Discretionary sprending" - it is unconstitutional due to it NOT being enumerated as a power of the Federal Government...if a State wished to implement a retirement or medical system; so be it...BUT, the taxation method would have to comply with the Bill of Rights - more specifically, the right to property and due process.

[helltrackrider]

@yellowkrux

I have read the Constitution, and numerous books of the time; the Federalist Papers which explain the PURPOSE of the Constitution...you will not find any notion of todays form of Government within the Federalist Papers, nor within the typical Federal Government structure or practices of the 1800's...until the Civil War when big central government ideology took hold - even Hamilton couldnt accomplish this during the drafting and debating of the Constitution.

[helltrackrider]

@yellowkrux

As for the "expert" comment...it doesnt take a genuis to read the Constitution...but, it does take someone with more than a 65 IQ to know that the Constitution was written as an effect for a cause; and that cause didnt happen yesterday...so, you have to understand "why" it was written before you can try to do as todays morons do and "interpret" it as a living document...

[helltrackrider]

@yellowkrux

Read about the history leading up to the Constitution to understand it...I can assure you, nowhere will you find that SS, Medicare, Unemploment, and other Socially beneficially redistributive programs were of much concern for the Federal Government.

So, to answer your final question..i have read it MANY of times, but I have also gotten a good background for WHY it exist from reading of the history and events prior to the Colonies, the Articles and ultimately the Constitution.