I've observed that conservatives generally have more praise for America and liberals tend to have more criticism. That isn't to say I don't think America deserves some criticism, but on the whole, I still think it's by far the best nation on Earth. Our citizens produce the most wealth, create more inventions, give more money to charity, etc than any other country.

In any case, please participate in the poll...

can you be more specific about what the problem/solution is?

can you be more specific about what the problem/solution is?That's for you to define. Basically, does America cause more problems than it solves? Would the world be better off without any America ever existing?

That's for you to define. Basically, does America cause more problems than it solves? Would the world be better off without any America ever existing?

I tend to hold individuals responsible more so than an entire country, but I guess we're using broad strokes here. I say Nay, I heart 'Merica. :)

I've observed that conservatives generally have more praise for America and liberals tend to have more criticism. That isn't to say I don't think America deserves some criticism, but on the whole, I still think it's by far the best nation on Earth. Our citizens produce the most wealth, create more inventions, give more money to charity, etc than any other country.

In any case, please participate in the poll...The primary difference is that conservatives believe that the people should be trusted to make their own decisions. Liberals think that the people are to stupid to be trusted, so government has to do it for them. The conservative approach is far more positive.

The primary difference is that conservatives believe that the people should be trusted to make their own decisions.

Does that include allowing people to openly express their own sexual orientation, to choose what they put into their own bodies (e.g. marijuana) without the government telling them they can't and allowing women to make choices involving their own bodies?

Im a libertarian and I believe America causes more problems than solutions. Too many social programs, too much wealth redistribution, too much foreign intervention.

Does that include allowing people to openly express their own sexual orientation, to choose what they put into their own bodies (e.g. marijuana) without the government telling them they can't and allowing women to make choices involving their own bodies?

No. What he means by "allowed to make their own decisions" is "allowed to do whatever the government tells you to do." He's funny like that.

Does that include allowing people to openly express their own sexual orientation, to choose what they put into their own bodies (e.g. marijuana) without the government telling them they can't and allowing women to make choices involving their own bodies?I personally have no problem with any of those. To me it's simply a freedom issue. There are conservatives who want government to force their religious morals on society. They obviously haven't been successful since expressing ones sexual orientation and abortion are currently legal activities. The percentage of liberals who support the legalization of marijuana is likely higher than the conservative percentage, but both still exhibit opposition to it.

Liberals think that the people are to stupid to be trusted, so government has to do it(make decisions) for them. Why don't liberals trust people to plan for their own retirement and health care, to carefully use guns and to determine how and where their children should be educated?

Does that include allowing people to openly express their own sexual orientation, to choose what they put into their own bodies (e.g. marijuana) without the government telling them they can't and allowing women to make choices involving their own bodies?

Yes. It does. It even includes allowing people to keep their own money and not getting a guilt trip for doing so, or being accused of having that fatal character flaw called "greed", which is somehow okay for government, and even seen as a virtue by many from that side.

I'm not for abortion for personal reasons, but I wouldn't ever fight to outlaw it. It's not my business and no one would obey the laws anyway. There have always been abortions. The ancient Romans were doing it.

The primary reason I vote against liberals is because of high taxes and idiotic laws that limit my liberty. They also insult my intelligence with their condescending views on my own ability to run my own life. It's that simple.

Oh, and I love the 2nd amendment, and that's one thing I will fight for if it's truly threatened.

I also believe that we're never going to destroy the planet, and that it doesn't need us to "save" it. It was here before we were, and will still be here when we're gone, as 99.9% of every species that ever lived here already is. It's actually funny that in our arrogance, we (some of us) pretend that we can destroy what has basically created us.

Even if we were to nuke the entire planet and we all died, Earth wouldn't die. It would come back and thrive. A few million years of radiation is absolutely nothing in geological time.

Yes. It does.

F&L said that conservatives hold that "the people should be trusted to make their own decisions" yet it is conservatives that force their ideas of morality on others, that tell others what they may ingest or smoke and that tell women what they can do with their bodies. Conservatives like to make decisions for the population as a whole at the cost of personal liberty. They think it's "good" to erode personal freedoms by allowing the government to snoop bank accounts and wire tap telephones under the guise of "national security." Conservatives talk a big game when it comes to things fiscal yet consistently it has been leaders of their ilk that have repeatedly been the more reckless spenders and deficit-financers. They reward their rich friends with tax breaks and tell those struggling at the other end of the spectrum they're lazy and deserve the stead they're in. Conservatives, while eroding the personal freedoms of citizens, strive for an under-regulated free-market that tramples on workers' rights, farms out jobs to 3rd world countries and results in fiascos like WorldCom and Enron.

And with respect to "destroying the planet", of course the planet will still be here when we're gone. Earth has survived stupendous asteroid impacts that resulted in mass extinctions; when the dust settled and the fires went out, Earth was still there though it wasn't a particularly nice place to try to live. We're altering the climate and damaging our home. There's no threat of us "destroying" -- a term showing the intellectual dishonesty of the typically-conservative Flat Earthers -- the Earth but it's likely that millions and millions and countless species will increasingly find their stead untenable as regions dry out or are inundated with water, where temperatures soar and plummet as the disruptive effects of climate change are felt more and more deeply as time goes on. In millions of years, Earth will reach some new equilibrium but in the short term, things are going to really suck for a lot of people and animals.

I also believe that we're never going to destroy the planet, and that it doesn't need us to "save" it. It was here before we were, and will still be here when we're gone, as 99.9% of every species that ever lived here already is. It's actually funny that in our arrogance, we (some of us) pretend that we can destroy what has basically created us.

Even if we were to nuke the entire planet and we all died, Earth wouldn't die. It would come back and thrive. A few million years of radiation is absolutely nothing in geological time.

kind of a strange arguement, i think. people who want to 'save' the planet, wnat to save monekys tigers and whatever there is NOW. that nucleair winter would surely destroy most of that. incuding us. youre sure you think we dont need anything to stop that from happening?

but on topic, i dont think america is bad for the world. or good. its just one country. in fact, it could be a lot worse on earth, if other regiemes were as big and dominant as the US is right now.
i do think americas progress is beeing held back by conservative thinking. you guys basically dont trust your gouvernment, thats the problem. not social programs or tax.

but on topic, i dont think america is bad for the world. or good. its just one country. in fact, it could be a lot worse on earth, if other regiemes were as big and dominant as the US is right now.
i do think americas progress is beeing held back by conservative thinking. you guys basically dont trust your gouvernment, thats the problem. not social programs or tax.

Well said. It's not just that Americans don't trust their government...it's that they don't trust each other. So much divisiveness... :nonono:

I think the US is, historically, has been "good" for the world. Lately, I'm not so sure.

F&L said that conservatives hold that "the people should be trusted to make their own decisions" yet it is conservatives that force their ideas of morality on others, that tell others what they may ingest or smoke and that tell women what they can do with their bodies. Conservatives like to make decisions for the population as a whole at the cost of personal liberty. They think it's "good" to erode personal freedoms by allowing the government to snoop bank accounts and wire tap telephones under the guise of "national security." Conservatives talk a big game when it comes to things fiscal yet consistently it has been leaders of their ilk that have repeatedly been the more reckless spenders and deficit-financers. They reward their rich friends with tax breaks and tell those struggling at the other end of the spectrum they're lazy and deserve the stead they're in. Conservatives, while eroding the personal freedoms of citizens, strive for an under-regulated free-market that tramples on workers' rights, farms out jobs to 3rd world countries and results in fiascos like WorldCom and Enron.You act like conservatives are the only ones causing problems. Have you ever considered the personal liberties that have been stripped away by liberals?

Since you avoided answering this before -
Why don't liberals trust people to plan for their own retirement and health care, to carefully use guns and to determine how and where their children should be educated?


We're altering the climate and damaging our home. There's no threat of us "destroying" -- a term showing the intellectual dishonesty of the typically-conservative Flat Earthers -- the Earth but it's likely that millions and millions and countless species will increasingly find their stead untenable as regions dry out or are inundated with water, where temperatures soar and plummet as the disruptive effects of climate change are felt more and more deeply as time goes on. In millions of years, Earth will reach some new equilibrium but in the short term, things are going to really suck for a lot of people and animals.We've been hearing that BS on and off for a hundred years. Saying it again isn't going to make it happen.

F&L said that conservatives hold that "the people should be trusted to make their own decisions" yet it is conservatives that force their ideas of morality on others, that tell others what they may ingest or smoke and that tell women what they can do with their bodies. Conservatives like to make decisions for the population as a whole at the cost of personal liberty. They think it's "good" to erode personal freedoms by allowing the government to snoop bank accounts and wire tap telephones under the guise of "national security." Conservatives talk a big game when it comes to things fiscal yet consistently it has been leaders of their ilk that have repeatedly been the more reckless spenders and deficit-financers. They reward their rich friends with tax breaks and tell those struggling at the other end of the spectrum they're lazy and deserve the stead they're in. Conservatives, while eroding the personal freedoms of citizens, strive for an under-regulated free-market that tramples on workers' rights, farms out jobs to 3rd world countries and results in fiascos like WorldCom and Enron.

And with respect to "destroying the planet", of course the planet will still be here when we're gone. Earth has survived stupendous asteroid impacts that resulted in mass extinctions; when the dust settled and the fires went out, Earth was still there though it wasn't a particularly nice place to try to live. We're altering the climate and damaging our home. There's no threat of us "destroying" -- a term showing the intellectual dishonesty of the typically-conservative Flat Earthers -- the Earth but it's likely that millions and millions and countless species will increasingly find their stead untenable as regions dry out or are inundated with water, where temperatures soar and plummet as the disruptive effects of climate change are felt more and more deeply as time goes on. In millions of years, Earth will reach some new equilibrium but in the short term, things are going to really suck for a lot of people and animals.

Liberals try force their morality as well, but never admit it. Promoting gay marriage, abortion, etc. on people who disagree with it is exactly the same thing as promoting the right to carry, lowering taxes, etc. to liberals. Why is it okay for the left, but if the right does it, it's bad?? What's the difference??

I always hear that you can't legislate morality. That's perhaps one of the most untrue statements I have ever heard. If we can't, then why is murder illegal?? We all agree that it's wrong (well, almost all of us), so we made it a crime, as we have done with thousands of issues.

Liberals have forced the population to participate in all sorts of programs that they don't support, and have no desire to be a part of. These are mostly social programs that shift capital from one segment of the population to another, and most liberals don't see anything wrong with this. It's legalized extortion.

Talk about eroding freedoms?? How about the freedom to earn a living without being taxed on your labor, or freedom not to participate in the world's worst retirement investment in human history; Social Security. You pay into it for 40 or 50 years, retire, go broke and die. That's what happens to the overwhelming majority of Americans who could have retired relatively wealthy had they put that money in a simple saving account and left it alone.

If the same monies were invested in in a sound, diversified portfolio utilizing calculated risk and dollar cost averaging, the average worker could do very, very well, yet we're forced to accept an average 1% rate of return on our so called investment, and there's no guarantee that we'll even receive it. Then it's taxed on the back end for those who choose to work in order to supplement their income and earn 30 grand a year. This program is forced upon us, and it's a completely left wing scheme. It's also in trouble.

These (SS and the income tax) are mandatory payments that must be made if we want to legally work, and we can be jailed for non compliance. They're both liberal, left wing programs, and when they're threatened, the left goes absolutely nuts. The left would rather see Social Security go broke than privatize even 4% of it, or at least give the payer the option. Why does the payee get to call the shots and decide what's best for my finances?? That's not freedom.

It works two ways and both sides have their beliefs in how things should be done. The end result is usually some type of compromise, and overall, it has served the country pretty well, but this notion that only the right tries to "force" it's views on the country is ridiculous. The left has gotten it's way on many issues, especially over the last 70 years or so, and we who disagree are forced to participate in things we want nothing to do with.

I've observed that conservatives generally have more praise for America and liberals tend to have more criticism. That isn't to say I don't think America deserves some criticism, but on the whole, I still think it's by far the best nation on Earth. Our citizens produce the most wealth, create more inventions, give more money to charity, etc than any other country.

In any case, please participate in the poll...

Wealth, USA=nr6 link (http://www.aneki.com/richest.html) (America's debt, 53 trillion)

Charity, USA=nr2 link (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_mem_of_vol_org_cha-lifestyle-members-voluntary-organisations-charity)

Most innovative country, Japan link (http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2007/05/16/afx3725835.html)

Happiest place in the world; Denmark link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/60minutes/main3833797.shtml)
:)

Liberals try force their morality as well, but never admit it. Promoting gay marriage, abortion, etc. on people who disagree with it is exactly the same thing...

No it's not. Gay marriage or abortion are issues that directly affect individuals: if two consenting adults want to be married what business is that of the state or the religious right? They are not personally jeopardized in any way shape or form by gay marriage yet oppose it vehemently. As I said earlier, conservatives like to make decisions for the population as a whole at the cost of personal liberty. They want to outlaw gay marriage, even to the extent of seeking a Constitutional amendment, trampling on the human rights of individuals to in their goal of saving the "institution of marriage" for the collective. To the conservative, this notion is more important than individual rights, sort of like wire tapping and bank snooping.

I'll agree that the liberal wants tax dollars to spread the wealth some seeking to better the stead of the most vulnerable of society: the conservative fights this tooth and nail. The liberal isn't a big fan of guns because he recognizes the cost-benefit ratio is dismal when the statistics are analyzed at the end of the day but the conservative doesn't care about the comparatively enormous rates of death associated with a country being awash in weapons: to him, the old, revolutionary-era of gun ownership trumps common sense in the modern context.

I always hear that you can't legislate morality. That's perhaps one of the most untrue statements I have ever heard. If we can't, then why is murder illegal??

Everyone, liberal and conservative, Asian, European, Muslim and Jew alike, agrees that murder is bad, mmkay? Some issues transcend every political, societal and religious boundary. But not everyone agrees with issues of morality involving, say, consenting adults. Not everyone believes that because Yahweh allegedly said that doing something is bad we should all be forced under religious-right conservativism to live under that flying spaghetti monster's rules.

Liberals have forced the population to participate in all sorts of programs...

And conservatives haven't?

It's legalized extortion.

That's indeed how the conservative sees lending a hand to the vulnerable and disenfranchised. Of course it's okay to extort funds from the populace to fight your imperial wars and to subsidize rich and giant corporations, right?

Talk about eroding freedoms?? How about the freedom to earn a living without being taxed on your labor, or freedom not to participate in the world's worst retirement investment in human history; Social Security.

Poor management does not automatically make a notion bad. You drive on public roads, roads paid for by contributions from your taxes. Police and fire departments and indeed, your hulking military are all paid for by citizens pooling resources together to make them happen. What a country it would be if everyone had the selfish conservative mindset of wishing to opt-out of contributing to publicly funded entities...

How many American seniors have benefited from SS? They paid their share back in the day, right? I'm not saying that SS isn't broken or that it isn't due for changes, but the principle stands: The Selfish Conservative can't see past the end of his nose unless he wants to force his morality on others or tap their phones to see who they're talking to or spy on their bank accounts. Because they don't directly benefit financially from something they want out of it.

This program is forced upon us...

So are many other publicly funded "schemes." Which ones do you support and why?

You act like conservatives are the only ones causing problems. Have you ever considered the personal liberties that have been stripped away by liberals?

Such as?

Why don't liberals trust people to plan for their own retirement and health care...

As far as I know Liberals haven't advocated stripping people of any of these rights.

What Liberals want is to help ensure that the members of society that conservatives wish would just die already -- the poor, the disenfranchised etc -- have access to a decent standard of living and healthcare. Of course, to the Almighty Dollar worshipping conservative, contributing a few tax dollars to this end is worse than two gays getting married... Conservatives have no problem funneling billions of dollars into Big Oil giants making $1500/sec profit or into a hulking military but when it comes to helping out the poor through government programs, no way Jose!

Such as?I gave you three already. Liberals have remove many freedoms and have caused irreparable damage to this country.

The freedom to plan my own retirement and health care without being forced to participate in government programs.
The freedom to own guns without restriction.
The freedom to determine how and where children should be educated.

As far as I know Liberals haven't advocated stripping people of any of these rights. Really? Can I opt out of Social Security or Medicare? Can I buy an automatic weapon? Can I use a voucher to send my kid to a better school?

What Liberals want is to help ensure that the members of society that conservatives wish would just die alreadyWrong. No one wants to see them die and most people are willing to help. We just think helping them should be voluntary instead of forced. Your morals are your own, stop forcing them upon the entire population

-- the poor, the disenfranchised etc -- have access to a decent standard of living and healthcare. At taxpayer expense. Liberals have removed the right to economic liberty. This is essentially a property rights issue. Government has no business dealing with social issues and yet nearly 60% of the federal budget is currently spent on retirement and health care. Theft is a moral issue as well and obviously one that you are too blind or emotional to recognize.

I gave you three already. Liberals have remove many freedoms and have caused irreparable damage to this country.

The freedom to plan my own retirement and health care without being forced to participate in government programs.
The freedom to own guns without restriction.
The freedom to determine how and where children should be educated.

The only thing stopping most Americans from private schooling their kids or going with private insurance is a lack of money. There is no rights-removal going on preventing you from doing anything you can afford.

Good thing a well-funded public education system is there as a "safety net" huh?

Really? Can I opt out of Social Security or Medicare?

Can others opt out of military spending or tax breaks for corporations? Where does one draw the line?

Wrong. No one wants to see them die and most people are willing to help. We just think helping them should be voluntary instead of forced. Your morals are your own, stop forcing them upon the entire population

:rofl: Said by a conservative no less!

At taxpayer expense.

Perhaps. Again, how many other taxpayer-funded, non-social programs are out there that you're okay with?

Theft is a moral issue as well and obviously one that you are too blind or emotional to recognize.

Who's being the emotional crybaby here? All I see are conservatives crying into their milk because a few of their precious dollars might actually help some underprivileged child in Compton have a breakfast at school or help a senior not have to decide between turning the lights on and eating cat food.

I'm simply stating the facts; that conservatives always put their love of dollars before everything else, even the welfare of others, despite the negligible impact on their daily lives of taxes levied to help others. Apparently it's amoral to help the poor in this way. Likewise, conservatives like to tell others what morality is and they like to foist their religion on the masses, even in supposedly secular areas like courtrooms. Conservatives have no problem paying for bombs and missiles and tanks and wasteful wars but when asked to help the poor with some tax dollars, all of a sudden it's theft...

Typical conservatism.

The only thing stopping most Americans from private schooling their kids or going with private insurance is a lack of money. There is no rights-removal going on preventing you from doing anything you can afford. Rights have nothing to do with money.

Good thing a well-funded public education system is there as a "safety net" huh?No. Government has no business educating anybody.

Can others opt out of military spending or tax breaks for corporations? Where does one draw the line?One draws the line at the constitution. Military spending is mandated, social spending is not.

:rofl: Said by a conservative no less!Damn skippy. Liberals have their own version of morality and they've been forcing it down the throats of Americans for 70 + years.

Perhaps. Again, how many other taxpayer-funded, non-social programs are out there that you're okay with?
I'm only okay with what the constitution allows.

Who's being the emotional crybaby here? All I see are conservatives crying into their milk because a few of their precious dollars might actually help some underprivileged child in Compton have a breakfast at school or help a senior not have to decide between turning the lights on and eating cat food. Thanks for proving my point.

I'm simply stating the facts; that conservatives always put their love of dollars before everything else, even the welfare of others, despite the negligible impact on their daily lives of taxes levied to help others. Apparently it's amoral to help the poor in this way. Likewise, conservatives like to tell others what morality is and they like to foist their religion on the masses, even in supposedly secular areas like courtrooms. Conservatives have no problem paying for bombs and missiles and tanks and wasteful wars but when asked to help the poor with some tax dollars, all of a sudden it's theft...

Typical conservatism.I've helped plenty of people, but I would never force you to. That's the difference. The right to retain my property is far greater than your emotional desire to save the world using other peoples money.

Such as? As far as I know Liberals haven't advocated stripping people of any of these rights.

FISA, enacted 1978 by a democratic congress and signed into law by a democratic President, Jimmy Carter. The most famous case it was ever used in against an American was Aldrich Ames in 1993 by Bill Clinton.

What Liberals want is to help ensure that the members of society that conservatives wish would just die already -- the poor, the disenfranchised etc -- have access to a decent standard of living and healthcare. Of course, to the Almighty Dollar worshipping conservative, contributing a few tax dollars to this end is worse than two gays getting married... Conservatives have no problem funneling billions of dollars into Big Oil giants making $1500/sec profit or into a hulking military but when it comes to helping out the poor through government programs, no way Jose!

That is a pretty funny statement considering the Medical establishment in the US profits were higher than the oil companies. And yes we funnel billion of dollars into them through government programs into hundreds of research programs and including the drug companies R & R.

Yes the liberals want a decent standard of living for all, on the backs of those who have earned it and already pay the largest share of individual income tax. The democrats, lead by Obama, want even more of that wealth distribution through higher taxes on anyone making more than mean wages. The corporation tax in the US is the second highest tax on business in the world and Obama wants to raise it higher. The high corporate tax is one reason that business are fleeing overseas and taking jobs with them.

Rights have nothing to do with money.

Liberals and liberalism have not stripped you of any rights with regard to saving for your own retirement or where you send your kids to school.

One draws the line at the constitution. Military spending is mandated, social spending is not.

Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to spend for the "general welfare" of the union. Jefferson wrote the "laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union." in US v. Butler, Justice Roberts wrote "While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. [b]It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/18-spending-for-general-welfare.html#01

In Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, didn't a court ruling include that "To the argument that the tax and credit in combination were ''weapons of coercion, destroying or impairing the autonomy of the States,'' the Court replied that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal expenditure under the ''general welfare'' clause"?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/26.html

If Congress approves social program expenditures, are these expenditures in contravention of the Constitution? If relief of unemployment is a legit expenditure under the general welfare clause, why wouldn't educating the young and feeding the poor?

I'm not a lawyer but it seems that social spending is allowed under the Constitution. Certainly, if it weren't, it surely would have been stopped by now, no?

Thanks for proving my point.

You're welcome. :nice:

Im a libertarian and I believe America causes more problems than solutions. Too many social programs, too much wealth redistribution, too much foreign intervention.


:yeahthat:




So true..


Sad, but VERY true!!:hmm:





The Retired Badge # 88 has SPOKEN!!

One draws the line at the constitution. Military spending is mandated, social spending is not.


Bullshit. The Constituion says to provide for the common defense and the general welfare. It doesn't mandate any specific weapons programs any more than it mandates any specific welfare programs. If providing for the common defense and the general welfare mandates stealth bombers, then it also mandates school lunch programs.

Liberals and liberalism have not stripped you of any rights with regard to saving for your own retirement or where you send your kids to school.Bullshit. Liberals have asked government to remove economic freedom through taxation. That's money that could have been used to save for retirement or send kids to school. I don't need or want government to do these things for me.

If Congress approves social program expenditures, are these expenditures in contravention of the Constitution? Absolutely. Government should never be used for inurance. The supreme court intially voted against the New Deal because it is unconstitutional. It wasn't until FDR threatened to increase the size of the court and pack it with liberals, that they passed it.

The general welfare clause wasn't put there so that congress could do whatever it wants. The federal government is supposed to function within the confines of the constitution. Congress can only do what is enumerated and nothing more.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

If relief of unemployment is a legit expenditure under the general welfare clause, why wouldn't educating the young and feeding the poor?No government program that benefits subsets of society is legit. Where does it end? How long before liberals ask government to provide jobs, cars and homes too? You don't seem to understand the socialistic door that liberals opened.

I'm not a lawyer but it seems that social spending is allowed under the Constitution. Certainly, if it weren't, it surely would have been stopped by now, no?Once the door is opened, it's about impossible to close it. When a high percentage of the people become dependant on government to survive, they'll never vote to remove it. This liberal misinterpretation of the constitution will eventually destroy the United States.

dup post

Bullshit. The Constituion says to provide for the common defense and the general welfare. It doesn't mandate any specific weapons programs any more than it mandates any specific welfare programs. If providing for the common defense and the general welfare mandates stealth bombers, then it also mandates school lunch programs.The constitution mandates a military and military's need equipment. Whether the stealth bomber was a worthwhile investment, is a whole other debate. Subsidized school lunch programs benefit a subset of the population which is unconstitutional.

The constitution mandates a military and military's need equipment. Whether the stealth bomber was a worthwhile investment, is a whole other debate. Subsidized school lunch programs benefit a subset of the population which is unconstitutional.

It provides for the general welfare. The only place the the Constition mandates that the Federal Government maintain an army is in the preamble:

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.

Claiming that this means that unlimited military spending is mandated by the Constitution is bullshit, just as much as claiming it mandates unlimited social spending. Some people think we need nuclear subs to provide for the common defense, and some people think that we need lunch programs to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for our children - - neither claim is any more valid than the other.

Trying to claim that hundreds of billions given to weapons manufactures is untouchable and Constitutionally mandated is bullshit.

It provides for the general welfare. Yes, but not welfare to specific sets of people.

The only place the the Constition mandates that the Federal Government maintain an army is in the preamble: Wrong. -Congress has the power to:
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: 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;

Can you show me where it says that congress has the power to establish retirement, health, poverty or hunger insurance? Can you show where congress is mandated to provide an education to children or provide free lunches?

Claiming that this means that unlimited military spending is mandated by the Constitution is bullshit, just as much as claiming it mandates unlimited social spending. Some people think we need nuclear subs to provide for the common defense, and some people think that we need lunch programs to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for our children - - neither claim is any more valid than the other.

Trying to claim that hundreds of billions given to weapons manufactures is untouchable and Constitutionally mandated is bullshit.Why do you put words in my mouth? I never made these claims. Military spending is too high, but at least it's constitutional. Unconstitutional programs like social security and medicare alone represent nearly 60%($1.7 trillion) of the federal budget. The blessings of liberty are being destroyed by liberals. In our posterity, children will never know what liberty even is due to the gross misinterpretation of the constitution by liberals.

Wrong. -Congress has the power to:


"Has the power to . . ." not "Has an obligation to . . ."


Can you show me where it says that congress has the power to establish retirement, health, poverty or hunger insurance? Can you show where congress is mandated to provide an education to children or provide free lunches?


The exact same place it says Congress has either the obligation to maintain a fleet of nuclear subs and an army in Iraq. NOWHERE.


Why do you put words in my mouth? I never made these claims. Military spending is too high, but at least it's constitutional. Unconstitutional programs like social security and medicare alone represent nearly 60%($1.7 trillion) of the federal budget. The blessings of liberty are being destroyed by liberals. In our posterity, children will never know what liberty even is due to the gross misinterpretation of the constitution by liberals.

It's no more a misinterpretation that rationalizing the pork barrel that the military has become as "providing for the common defense".

You have a point, but the military protects all of us. Social programs only protect a portion of us. Which seems more "general"?

You have a point, but the military protects all of us. Social programs only protect a portion of us. Which seems more "general"?

If you can extrapolate spending more than the rest of the planet combined from 'provide for the common defense' (common to the whole planet?), then you can say that the general welfare is improved when the bottom line is raised. (Not that I believe that's what they meant, but I don't see any real difference between the two stretches).

How much is spent on the military compared to the rest of the planet is irrelevant. The constitution grants Congress the power to buy a fleet of nuclear subs.
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy; Navys have had submarines for over a century.
I don't like massive spending either, but it's a function of who we've elected, not the constitution.

then you can say that the general welfare is improved when the bottom line is raised.You can say that, I wouldn't. Everyone who pays FICA and Medicare taxes is having their bottom line lowered, at the point of a gun. Do you really think a government that forcibly extracts money from every wage earner and hands it out to the irresponsible is representative of "The General Welfare"? How can you possibly believe that the writers of the constitution intended for congress to have that kind of power?

a government that forcibly extracts money from every wage earner and hands it out to the irresponsible


Why do you think we attacked Iraq? Why do you think we take hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayes, then give it to other countries on the condition that they give it all back to US weapons dealers? You can't validate that then bitch about a poor 3rd grader getting a free sandwich at lunch.

I'm not trying to. Why are you?

That's what he was saying . . .

Conservatives have no problem paying for bombs and missiles and tanks and wasteful wars but when asked to help the poor with some tax dollars, all of a sudden it's theft...



Those hundreds of billions we spend arming other countries and doing things like attacking Iraq are nothing but a massive welfare program, but only to benefit people who are already extremely rich. We never hear anything about that, and it's commonly dismissed as "constitutionally mandated" by rightwingers (which it isn't). Yet, those same people have a fit when a fraction of that goes to lunch programs or welfare programs. Welfare for billionaires is okay, but not for poor people.

Does the Congress have the authority to create welfare programs? I don't know. States do, though.

Clearly a military is allowed by the constitution and we'd be fools not to have one. What happens after that is approved and funded by elected republicans and democrats. Obviously, we'd better start voting better.

Does the Congress have the authority to create welfare programs? I don't know. States do, though.State governments are much more easily controlled. I want all social programs out of the feds hands completely. They aren't worthy of that much power.