Obama: God wants us to put people back to work

[jwreck]

Stumping for his jobs bill today, President Obama invoked a unique source of support: God.

Obama's theological appeal came while protesting that House Republicans have ignored his $447 billion American Jobs Act, even while approving legislation re-affirming "In God We Trust" as the national motto.

"That's not putting people back to work," Obama said during a jobs speech at a bridge in Washington, D.C. "I trust in God, but God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work."

"There's work to be done, there are workers ready to do it," Obama added, also criticizing House Republicans for debating a memorial coin to celebrate baseball.

House Republican aides said the baseball and the "In God We Trust" items were procedural matters that took less than 20 minutes -- and that the GOP-run House has also passed some 20 pieces that would promote job creation through reduced regulations and tax changes.

"At this point, the White House will create any sideshow they can to distract from the fact the House has sent jobs bill after jobs bill over to the Democrat-run Senate, only to see them collect dust," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.link (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/11/obama-god-wants-us-to-put-people-back-to-work/1?loc=interstitialskip)
At what point does this go from funny to pathetic?

[Dick Tator]

At what point does this go from funny to pathetic?

Perhaps Obama could do a Cover of this song? GF could help with the music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wx0bp7G90k

[Archaix]

For once we agree. Hell, if it existed in the first place, must have frozen over.

[jwreck]

We actually agree on quite a bit.

[Dick Tator]

We actually agree on quite a bit.

He would be surprised... he's just too hung up on the left/right shit to see clearly.

[jwreck]

He would be surprised... he's just too hung up on the left/right shit to see clearly.Not to mention the ever pressing need to prove superiority...

[302Riz]

Obama truly is Bush II.

But will people mock Obama about invoking god? No.

Will TT say HOLIER THAN THOU ALERT? No.

[xxcliffxx]

SO WHO'S GONNA WIN THE FOOTBALL GAME OF THE CENTURY. GREAT ALABAMA OR LOWLY L.S.U.?

[xxcliffxx]

SO, WHO'S GONNA WIN THE COLLEGE FOOTBALL GAME OF THE CENTURY?

[soylentgreen]

Obama spends 30 minutes complaing about Republicans wasting 20 minutes.

Hey, all you atheist amoral liberals...why don't you jump on Obama for invoking God? Remember how you're always bitching about Republicans trying to force religion into politics?

'God wants us to go into insurmoutable debt in order to create make-work do-nothing government jobs.' I think that's what Obama meant to say.

[Archaix]

Not to mention the ever pressing need to prove superiority...
Not to mention sniping from the sidelines...

[302Riz]

SO WHO'S GONNA WIN THE FOOTBALL GAME OF THE CENTURY. GREAT ALABAMA OR LOWLY L.S.U.?


The Bears

[soylentgreen]

The Bears

DAAAAAA BEARS!

[Dick Tator]

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/034/f/3/Chicago__PEDO__Bears_by_xXbloodyXromanceXx.jpg

[Cd.]

Hey, all you atheist amoral liberals...why don't you jump on Obama for invoking God? Remember how you're always bitching about Republicans trying to force religion into politics?

I see no harm in invoking God's name. I am not an athiest but even if it were, its everyone's right to have faith.

The problem I had with Bush is that, like Rick Perry he talks about faith while demonstrating that he in fact knows nothing about Christ's teachings. At least Obama has compassion for the poor and believes in fairness.

[Cd.]

Double post.
Please delete.

[DamnYankee]

The problem I had with Bush is that, like Rick Perry he talks about faith while demonstrating that he in fact knows nothing about Christ's teachings. At least Obama has compassion for the poor and believes in fairness.

What is Christ's teachings?

[Cd.]

What is Christ's teachings?
Do you have a Bible at home?
If so than do read it sometime.
I will give you a few places to start....
Matthew 19:16-24
Luke 6.20
Acts 2:42–47

[hadit]

I see no harm in invoking God's name. I am not an athiest but even if it were, its everyone's right to have faith.

The problem I had with Bush is that, like Rick Perry he talks about faith while demonstrating that he in fact knows nothing about Christ's teachings. At least Obama has compassion for the poor and believes in fairness.

So, IOW, you DON'T believe in the separation of church and state as long as the state is invoking church teachings of which you approve?

[Freedom&Liberty]

Hmmmmm ....... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

[Cyclone Ranger]

At what point does this go from funny to pathetic?
When God says he doesn't want people going back to work.

[Cyclone Ranger]

So, IOW, you DON'T believe in the separation of church and state as long as the state is invoking church teachings of which you approve?

LOL! The POTUS expressing his personal opinion regarding the divine will is not a violation of church/state separation

[Freedom&Liberty]

But it would be if a school principle did it, huh.

[NJ Refugee]

link (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/11/obama-god-wants-us-to-put-people-back-to-work/1?loc=interstitialskip)
At what point does this go from funny to pathetic?

At what point does this go from funny to pathetic ?

Easy.

November, 2008.

[Cyclone Ranger]

But it would be if a school principle did it, huh.
Not necessarily. Depends on the totality of circumstances.

[hadit]

LOL! The POTUS expressing his personal opinion regarding the divine will is not a violation of church/state separation

Read what he said.

[soylentgreen]

Not necessarily. Depends on the totality of circumstances.

Don't lie. What if the principal said he believes God wants teachers salaries and benefits reduced? What if he or she said God wanted all the students in the school to get straight As?

[soylentgreen]

I see no harm in invoking God's name.
What about all the non-Christian children in this country who have their self-esteem harmed by Obama's invoking his god and his religion?


I am not an athiest but even if it were, its everyone's right to have faith.I agree with that. Unfortunately, not everyone does because when public displays of faith are made by a public figure, there's always plenty of criticism/lawsuits/etc.


The problem I had with Bush is that, like Rick Perry he talks about faith while demonstrating that he in fact knows nothing about Christ's teachings. At least Obama has compassion for the poor and believes in fairness.
That's your perception, anyway. I don't remember Christ saying anything about using the power of government to confiscate wealth in order to take care of the poor. People should give out of their own free will.

[Cd.]

So, IOW, you DON'T believe in the separation of church and state as long as the state is invoking church teachings of which you approve?
There is a huge difference between citing God in a speech and basing public law on scripture.

[Dick Tator]

There is a huge difference between citing God in a speech and basing public law on scripture.

Does it really matter what a law is based on if it's right?

[TopsyTurvy]

God features high in American politics, it's rather pathetic.

[hadit]

There is a huge difference between citing God in a speech and basing public law on scripture.

And yet the left has fainting spells whenever a conservative dares to cite God in a speech.

[hadit]

Does it really matter what a law is based on if it's right?

It shouldn't. The fact that much of our law IS based on Scripture must br very inconvenient for them.

[hadit]

God features high in American politics, it's rather pathetic.

Given that God inspired such things as the ending of slavery, The Civil Rights movement, and the fight for fredom, why is that a bad thing?

[9ball8]

People with twisted concepts of religion used them to justify slavery, Jim Crow laws, and despotism. Until we're certain that religious people are constantly marginalizing the twisted within their ranks, and constantly ensuring that their numbers are minimal, I want to make sure a secular state is the sole enforcer of ethics in society.

Thus everyone is protected and obligated to contribute to that end, whether diest or athiest.

[AlbertJ]

There is a huge difference between citing God in a speech and basing public law on scripture.

There is really not much difference at all. Think about it.

[AlbertJ]

Given that God inspired such things as the ending of slavery, The Civil Rights movement, and the fight for fredom, why is that a bad thing?

Does this mean God could inspire such things as the end of social and economic inequality, corporate greed, corruption and influence over government?

Is this a bad thing?

[Dick Tator]

Does this mean God could inspire such things as the end of social and economic inequality, corporate greed, corruption and influence over government?

Is this a bad thing?

God can also inspire honor killings of misbehaving family members and random acts of terror against nonbelievers.

Is this a bad thing?

[Cyclone Ranger]

Don't lie. What if the principal said he believes God wants teachers salaries and benefits reduced? What if he or she said God wanted all the students in the school to get straight As?
Again, it depends.

[Cyclone Ranger]

And yet the left has fainting spells whenever a conservative dares to cite God in a speech.
Evidence?

I seem to recall it was Bush who had a fainting spell when the Dems didn't cite God in a speech.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Does it really matter what a law is based on if it's right?
Not if it's only "right" for the sectarian.

[Cyclone Ranger]

What about all the non-Christian children in this country who have their self-esteem harmed by Obama's invoking his god and his religion?
Evidence? I doubt children spend much time watching news interviews.


That's your perception, anyway. I don't remember Christ saying anything about using the power of government to confiscate wealth in order to take care of the poor. People should give out of their own free will.
Good thing we don't base public policy on Christ!

[AlbertJ]

Good thing we don't base public policy on Christ!

Who says we don't?

[hadit]

Evidence?

I seem to recall it was Bush who had a fainting spell when the Dems didn't cite God in a speech.

You weren't paying much attention then.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Who says we don't?
The Constitution.

[Cyclone Ranger]

You weren't paying much attention then.
Evidence?

[Freedom&Liberty]

Not necessarily. Depends on the totality of circumstances.Bullshit! Liberal atheists would be all over it.

Obama is just trying to put a guilt trip on the right because he's a shameless bitch.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Bullshit. If a school principal made such remarks as expression of his private opinions in an interview with a journalist, no one would think it was unconstitutional.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Tell that nonsense to your atheist buddies.

[DamnYankee]

Obama: God wants us to put people back to work

The only thing BO knows about God is what was drilled into his head by his Black Liberation Theologist preacher, and that is, God is damming America.

Which is fine with BO because he is too.

[9ball8]

If there were a god, I'd be convinced it would want humans to pull their collective heads out of their asses.

Gotta do that as a first step, before any jobs can be created, god or not.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Tell that nonsense to your atheist buddies.

I have no atheist buddies.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Gotta do that as a first step, before any jobs can be created, god or not.
According to statistics, jobs are being created every day, so we must be doing okay

[Cyclone Ranger]

The only thing BO knows about God is what was drilled into his head by his Black Liberation Theologist preacher, and that is, God is damming America.
Evidence?

[hadit]

According to statistics, jobs are being created every day, so we must be doing okay

TFO has given us a net loss of many, many jobs, and the few that are being created are not enough to even cope with the increase in the labor force every year. We're not doing okay.

[Cyclone Ranger]

TFO has given us a net loss of many, many jobs,
Evidence?

[hadit]

Evidence?

What you said.

[Cyclone Ranger]

When exactly did I say that?

[DamnYankee]

Evidence?

Evidence of what?

The only thing BO knows about God? Or what was drilled into his head? Or God damming America?

[hadit]

Evidence?

Dude, are you REALLY trying to convince us that we have had a net gain of jobs since TFO was inaugurated? Really?

[hadit]

When exactly did I say that?

What you said is evidence you weren't paying much attention.

[jwreck]

I have no atheist buddies.What are you, some kind of intolerant bigot?

[Cyclone Ranger]

No, really. Some of my best friends are athiests.

[Cyclone Ranger]

What you said is evidence you weren't paying much attention.
This attempt at a tactic didn't work last time either.

[indago]

No, really. Some of my best friends are athiests.

So, just what are "athiests"?

[Cyclone Ranger]

People who are not theists, of course.

[jwreck]

I have no atheist buddies.


No, really. Some of my best friends are athiests.
:scratch:

[DamnYankee]

I have no atheist buddies.


No, really. Some of my best friends are athiests.

Evidence?

LOL- Lies and deceit.

[soylentgreen]

There is a huge difference between citing God in a speech and basing public law on scripture.
Huh? Are you not paying attention? He's not just citing God. He's claiming to know that God supports his jobs bill...and therefore it should be implemented.

[soylentgreen]

Good thing we don't base public policy on Christ!

I thought you were meaning to equate Obama's compassion for the poor and belief in fairness with Christianity when you said: "The problem I had with Bush is that, like Rick Perry he talks about faith while demonstrating that he in fact knows nothing about Christ's teachings. At least Obama has compassion for the poor and believes in fairness."

I'm simply saying that Christ-like compassion is great...but I don't believe it's a good motivation to use the power of government to force people to take care of the poor.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Sorry, don't see any logical reason the government has the power to make war but not help the poor. It certainly does a lot to help the rich.

[soylentgreen]

Sorry, don't see any logical reason the government has the power to make war but not help the poor.
Regardless of your logic, the constitution specifically grants the federal government the power to make war. I don't see the power to act as Robin Hood. I know you don't like the constitution when it interferes with your wants and desires.

That being said, I actually don't have a problem helping out the truly helpless. But, grown able-bodied people should not be allowed to milk off the taxpayers their whole lives. Period.


It certainly does a lot to help the rich.Is there a point you wanted to make? I don't have any sympathy for rich people. I'm not certain what argument you want me to make here.

[Cyclone Ranger]

It also grants the fed powers to uphold the general welfare. Moreover, you're acting as if the welfare reform act was never passed, time-limiting assistance.

[DamnYankee]

Sorry...

Ah, yeah. Evidence please.

You do, or do not, have atheists friend...we're waiting.

[soylentgreen]

It also grants the fed powers to uphold the general welfare.

"General welfare" and "welfare" don't mean the same thing. "General welfare" means "for the good of all". "Welfare" benefits only those who recieve payments.


Moreover, you're acting as if the welfare reform act was never passed, time-limiting assistance.
I understand that it was passed...but there is still plenty of assistance. Such as the case of the woman who is collecting more money for having more kids. That I know of, there's no limit on the term of benefits paid for children...even though the payments really help support the woman becoming a baby-making machine.

Of course, you oppose the reforms, right?

[Cyclone Ranger]

Ah, yeah. Evidence please.

You do, or do not, have atheists friend...we're waiting.

I have atheist friends, but no athiest buddies. The latter implies an additional level of intimacy not connoted by the former. Thanks for playing.

[Cyclone Ranger]

"General welfare" and "welfare" don't mean the same thing. "General welfare" means "for the good of all". "Welfare" benefits only those who recieve payments.
One, general welfare does not necessarily mean for the good of all.

Two, a social safety net benefits the entire nation by keeping poverty from destabilizing society.


I understand that it was passed...but there is still plenty of assistance. Such as the case of the woman who is collecting more money for having more kids. That I know of, there's no limit on the term of benefits paid for children...even though the payments really help support the woman becoming a baby-making machine.
Opinion, not fact.

Child support should only be limited at adulthood for existing children.


Of course, you oppose the reforms, right?
I don't oppose reforms generally, but I do oppose cutting off aid to children.

[Dick Tator]

I don't oppose reforms generally, but I do oppose cutting off aid to children.

Sooo... if we can somehow tie it to helping children, anything is justifiable, huh?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lWwVx55_M3o/TfwNSU3DfII/AAAAAAAABLg/lMTH1hYW6q8/s1600/think_of_the_children_186.jpg

[Powerboss]

link (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/11/obama-god-wants-us-to-put-people-back-to-work/1?loc=interstitialskip)
At what point does this go from funny to pathetic?

OMG!!! OBAMER IS CREATING A THEOCRACY!!!

Isn't that what we'd hear if Bush said something like the statement Obama made?

[Freedom&Liberty]

One, general welfare does not necessarily mean for the good of all. The general welfare of the union has nothing to do with saving society from itself.


Two, a social safety net benefits the entire nation by keeping poverty from destabilizing society.Safety nets have created more poverty and have destabilized society and the economy. Obviously your theory is completely flawed.

[9ball8]

The general welfare of the union has nothing to do with saving society from itself.

Safety nets have created more poverty and have destabilized society and the economy. Obviously your theory is completely flawed.
-Why, if that homeless person would just devote his time to collecting aluminum cans or other job within his poverty-stricken means, he could put himself thru tech school and become a plumber or something. All he has to do is find a place that will pay him $2.50/pound for aluminum, collect 300 pounds of it every month, and he could afford the shelter/food/books & fees necessary to get certified as a novice plumber.

-So much for the "pull up by bootstraps" argument. :rolleyes: The hands-off approach to poverty has it's own flaws. How 'bout we lefties continue to fine-tune poverty programs, instead of going the "bootstrap stew" route that so many conservatives seem to favor? Here's an example: Don't like paying stupid poor women to have more babies? Simple reform: payments stop at 2 children, with a freebie tube-tie provided instead. It's a wonder the conservatives haven't proposed such a reform by now. Oh wait, that goes against (big) family values, maybe it interferes with the need for a growing population to feed a consumer-based economy.

Here's the real problem with a hands-off approach to poverty, combined with a hands-off approach to the economy. When a nation concentrates enuf wealth at the top, and ignores an exploding population of desperate poor, one gets chaos without fail.

[Dick Tator]

maybe it interferes with the need for a growing population to feed a consumer-based economy.

It also interferes with socialist ponzi-type schemes such as Social Security. But you couldn't mention that as it goes against your damnation of all things related to "family values", "conservative", and anything remotely related to capitalism....

[soylentgreen]

One, general welfare does not necessarily mean for the good of all.
Of course, you're wrong...as usual. The framers of the constitution meant "general welfare" to mean for the good of all.


Two, a social safety net benefits the entire nation by keeping poverty from destabilizing society.That may or may not be true, but I'm sure that it's not what the framers had in mind. To my knowledge, they had poor people among them in those days and they didn't pay cash to these poor folks from the treasury...yet society did not devolve into chaos. Can you explain that?

[Cyclone Ranger]

The general welfare of the union has nothing to do with saving society from itself.
Bullshit. That's exactly what it means. The fact you don't like it is immaterial.


Safety nets have created more poverty and have destabilized society and the economy.
No, they've relieved poverty and stabilized society, especially relative to your solution; that is, letting the poor starve to death or turn to crime so you can save a few bucks on your taxes.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Of course, you're wrong...as usual. The framers of the constitution meant "general welfare" to mean for the good of all.

That may or may not be true, but I'm sure that it's not what the framers had in mind.
Unless you can bring James Madison and co. back from thel dead and interrogate them, you have no business claiming to be an authority on their personal convictions, which is very unlikely to have been generally unanimous amongst Federalist and anti-federalists anyhow.


To my knowledge, they had poor people among them in those days and they didn't pay cash to these poor folks from the treasury...yet society did not devolve into chaos. Can you explain that?
Actually, it did devolve into chaos. ie, the Civil War. Most of the truly impoverished in that era were kept in line with leg irons and chains and forced to pick cotton and tobacco.

[Cyclone Ranger]

It also interferes with socialist ponzi-type schemes such as Social Security.

Unfortunately for your propaganda, troll, SS is neither socialst nor a Ponzi scheme. Carry on.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Bullshit. That's exactly what it means. The fact you don't like it is immaterial.Where does it end? Will government be providing everyone with a car, education, housing, food and clothing so that none of us want for anything? Is that what you call freedom? Is that REALLY what you think the founders intended? Why should anyone work if government is going to provide for all? Can you begin to explain yourself?


No, they've relieved poverty and stabilized society, especially relative to your solution; that is, letting the poor starve to death or turn to crime so you can save a few bucks on your taxes.Subsidize poverty and what do you get? More poverty. It's common knowledge that there are now more people in poverty than at any time in US history. So, WTF are you talking about? Why should anyone even consider your socialistic BS? It clearly doesn't work, it's unconstitutional as all hell, it removes incentive to work and it increases poverty. It only serves one real purpose - buying votes for democrats. And that's a far more hideous end of life scenario than giving the poor the freedom to die.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Unless you can bring James Madison and co. back from thel dead and interrogate them, you have no business claiming to be an authority on their personal convictions, which is very unlikely to have been generally unanimous amongst Federalist and anti-federalists anyhow.
He has more business claiming it than you ever will. Simply being a liberal excludes you from intelligent thought.

You lose again, fool.

If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare. James Madison

[hadit]

Where does it end? Will government be providing everyone with a car, education, housing, food and clothing so that none of us want for anything? Is that what you call freedom? Is that REALLY what you think the founders intended? Why should anyone work if government is going to provide for all? Can you begin to explain yourself?

Subsidize poverty and what do you get? More poverty. It's common knowledge that there are now more people in poverty than at any time in US history. So, WTF are you talking about? Why should anyone even consider your socialistic BS? It clearly doesn't work, it's unconstitutional as all hell, it removes incentive to work and it increases poverty. It only serves one real purpose - buying votes for democrats. And that's a far more hideous end of life scenario than giving the poor the freedom to die.

Now you know good and well that a big government acolyte will NEVER set a goal post, EVER. The ONLY acceptable answer is always more, more, more. You might as well ask how much is a "fair share". You'll get the same answer.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Thank God conservatives have all the guns and ammo.

[Dick Tator]

Thank God conservatives have all the guns and ammo.

You have more than your fair share. We should redistribute those....

[Freedom&Liberty]

One well placed round at a time.

[Dick Tator]

One well placed round at a time.

That's Gun Control we can believe in! :nice:

[9ball8]

It also interferes with socialist ponzi-type schemes such as Social Security. But you couldn't mention that as it goes against your damnation of all things related to "family values", "conservative", and anything remotely related to capitalism....

Actually, the first bastardization of Communism (Soviet Union, Red China) were also big on growing populations and Family Values. China is putting the brakes on that fallacy recently, but it proves to me that Big Family propaganda belongs in the "rigid thinker" category, whether right or left. Damnation belongs to any society that blindly multiplies without regard to limited resources.
Is that what you think capitalism is, ignoring your resource base while maximizing output? If there were a corporation whose business was to integrate population numbers with available resources, do you think it would use a hands-off population control policy? Or perhaps you believe the corporation would invent unlimited resource numbers, so it wouldn't need to limit population numbers. People don't naturally seek out misery. Pop control programs should be plenty successful when they are voluntary, but gov't or some other non-profit has to involve itself with population control -including poverty control. -Unless you can think of some way a for-profit company could prosper beyond selling birth control.
No one answered previous questions about all pension funds resembling Ponzi schemes, so there is no point in answering your argument on social security here.

[Dick Tator]

Damnation belongs to any society that blindly multiplies without regard to limited resources.

I'm sorry, but the amount of "multiplication" I do is personal and not up to society to determine. As such, it's up to me, and NOT society, to take care of my offspring.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Thank God conservatives have all the guns and ammo.
....which are useless because the state have a lot more.

[jwreck]

....which are useless because the state have a lot more.Yeah, tell that to the goat herders in Afghanistan.

[Cyclone Ranger]

He has more business claiming it than you ever will. Simply being a liberal excludes you from intelligent thought.
Which is, ironically, an incredibly unintelligent thought from an incredibly unintelligent, ignorant bigot like you.


If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands
No, because the COTUS specifically prohibits it.

Your argument regards what the Constitution, in your mind, indirectly prohibits, based on your assumption that the framers - liberal and conservative, Federalist and anti-Federalist, orthodox religionist and humanist - share your modern paleo-libertarian prejudices.

The right to spend tax dollars on public works does not logically undo the Bill of Rights just because you don't feel like paying for it.

[9ball8]

I'm sorry, but the amount of "multiplication" I do is personal and not up to society to determine. As such, it's up to me, and NOT society, to take care of my offspring.
Hence my statement, "...plenty successful when they are voluntary". The business plan for the gov't. and/or non profit should reflect this, as well as cutoff measures for those who stray from sustainable population numbers. A wealthy couple wishes to have 12 kids? No problem, but any tax breaks or other gov't incentives stop at 2 kids. That likely won't have any influence on the wealthy couple's decision. Apply that situation to a poor or middle class couple, however. Then it has an impact for the better.

[soylentgreen]

Unless you can bring James Madison and co. back from thel dead and interrogate them, you have no business claiming to be an authority on their personal convictions, which is very unlikely to have been generally unanimous amongst Federalist and anti-federalists anyhow.
Unlikely according to whose "authority"? You claim that my opinions are incorrect by inserting your own opinions.

These are not my "personal convictions". I base my opinion on the meaning of words as they were understood at the time of the framing of the constitution.



Actually, it did devolve into chaos. ie, the Civil War. Most of the truly impoverished in that era were kept in line with leg irons and chains and forced to pick cotton and tobacco.
You're insane. The slaves didn't revolt en masse to claim their freedoms. And, they didn't do so because there were no government payments made to them. Other people saw the wrong and fought to right it. It had nothing to do with anything whatsoever that you're talking about.

[Dick Tator]

Hence my statement, "...plenty successful when they are voluntary". The business plan for the gov't. and/or non profit should reflect this, as well as cutoff measures for those who stray from sustainable population numbers. A wealthy couple wishes to have 12 kids? No problem, but any tax breaks or other gov't incentives stop at 2 kids. That likely won't have any influence on the wealthy couple's decision. Apply that situation to a poor or middle class couple, however. Then it has an impact for the better.

So you admit that we should get rid of the Child Tax Credit as it only serves to encourage poor people to shit out kids they can't afford? Not to mention the fact that we subsidize parents through other programs like sChip and such.

Ending all assistance and "credits" that encourages or allows people to have children they can't afford would be much more beneficial than "tax breaks" as poor people don't pay taxes.

[9ball8]

That portion of the gov't business plan should be very simple: "It ends at two kids". Whatever that might be, from tax credits to sChip. Should some agency be able to prove that a kid is deprived because the parents cannot provide for them, there is foster care or adoption. Since budget and staffing is limited, that also imposes a limit on how much can be provided to citizens, including children. One thing that kids have over adults, though. Protection from stupid behavior, whether their own or their parent/guardian. That would be an extra expense that has to be figured into gov't programs. Family service agents have to be paid, and they are in the front line in cases where abused children must be removed from their parents.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Yeah, tell that to the goat herders in Afghanistan.

What are you babbling about?

[Cyclone Ranger]

Unlikely according to whose "authority"? You claim that my opinions are incorrect by inserting your own opinions.
See Rakove's Original Meanings, for example.


These are not my "personal convictions". I base my opinion on the meaning of words as they were understood at the time of the framing of the constitution.
Even if we could reconstruct them, which is a big "if" in itself, the idea that texts have only one possible interpretation is a fiction, especially a text created by committee like the Constitution. That's the problem with "original meaning" constructionism.


You're insane. The slaves didn't revolt en masse to claim their freedoms. And, they didn't do so because there were no government payments made to them.
There were certainly slave revolts, actually. If society had a safety net that didn't involve forced servitude, they wouldn't have happened.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Which is, ironically, an incredibly unintelligent thought from an incredibly unintelligent, ignorant bigot like you.It's the most accurate thing you've ever read.


No, because the COTUS specifically prohibits it. Except for liberalism - the religion that allows congress to spend on whatever the hell it wants.

Your argument regards what the Constitution, in your mind, indirectly prohibits, based on your assumption that the framers - liberal and conservative, Federalist and anti-Federalist, orthodox religionist and humanist - share your modern paleo-libertarian prejudices.Clearly Madison agreed with me and that makes you a clown.

http://seeker401.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/obama-clown-and-sickle.jpg

[Cyclone Ranger]

It's the most accurate thing you've ever read.
Its the most accurate thing anyone's ever read vis a vis your ignorant, unintelligent bigotry


Except for liberalism - the religion that allows congress to spend on whatever the hell it wants.
Congress wants many things that don't constitute general welfare, and therefore go unfunded.


Clearly Madison agreed with me and that makes you a clown.
Alexander Hamilton, the other half of Publius, did not agree with you, dickhead.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Maybe someday you'll be able to express yourself in ways that aren't lame.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Maybe someday you'll stop using lame tactics like that as a cover for backing away from yet another argument you lost

[Freedom&Liberty]

Maybe someday you'll realize that what your ilk has done to this country has even Hamilton rolling in his grave. There isn't one founder who even remotely approve of what liberals have become.

[Cyclone Ranger]

What my ilk has done to this nation is make it the greatest country on Earth. If that means you (and I) have to pay out a few more bucks in taxes, tough shit.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Uh-huh. You keep telling yourself that.

[Cyclone Ranger]

And how your ilk fucked everyone with the deregulation mantra that caused the Great Recession

[Freedom&Liberty]

Everyone knows better than that. Your incredible penchant for lying can't make up for 100 years of liberal stupidity.