It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congressman : Let's install a ticking debt clock on the House floor

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





Oh yes, let's waste more money on political gimmicks and props.



Id rather see money spent on " gimmicks and props " as you claim, rather than see green light funding for worthless causes like ACORN,or clearing the way for worthless earmarks for Napa Valley Wine train. 11,320 earmarks noted for a combined expenditure of 32 billion into last year alone.

Doesn't seem like a worthy cause.


Oh, I see, so if YOU believe its a worthy cause (like a giant clock), then the money can be spent.
So please, tell me [snip], how shall we spend the country's money that belongs to all of us?

also, about all of those "evil" earmarks: half of them were filed by Republicans, for more total money than the ones filed by Democrats. But no need to actually dirty your pretty little propaganda story with the truth, right?

www.hanlonsrazor.org...
edit on 18-4-2011 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)

edit on 19/4/11 by masqua because: Removed childish name-calling



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 





"liberals" are the ones who argue for social programs,



Unconstitutional social programs. Are those the ones you wish to decry?



When "your side" gives up wars of conquest,


You do realize that it is your beloved liberal messiah that went into Libya right?





Its always back to Obama with you people.


Answer me this. When do you suppose Obama and his trustees are going to take responsibility for their actions, or lack there of?


edit on 18-4-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-4-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 





"liberals" are the ones who argue for social programs,



Unconstitutional social programs. Are those the ones you wish to decry?


Again, another lie, just like the earmarks. I dont know of any instance recently where the Supreme Court has struck down any programs. Just because YOU believe they are unconstitutional doesnt make it so, [snip].
edit on 18-4-2011 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)

edit on 19/4/11 by masqua because: Removed childish name-calling



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Then show me under Article 1 section 8 of the Consitution that grants powers to Congress that suggests they can implement social welfare.

Hint: it doesnt, thus void.





just like the earmarks


Are yo suggesting earmarks don't exist?

edit on 18-4-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-4-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Well there's your problem. You misunderstood the general welfare clause.

[ general welfare clause]


A General Welfare clause is a section that appears in many constitutions, as well as in some charters and statutes, which provides that the governing body empowered by the document may enact laws as it sees fit to promote or provide for the general welfare of the people. In some countries, this has been used as a basis for legislation promoting the health, safety, morals, and well-being of the people governed thereunder


Re-read the fine print:




this has been used as a basis for legislation promoting the health, safety, morals, and well-being of the people governed thereunder



No where in the text does it suggest establishing social welfare that allows for a user to stay on state funded money there entire lives. It specifically discusses those in need of health issues, ( ie Medicare /Medicaid), safety, ( thats a given ), and morals , ( which really has nothing to do with this clause, just something those emotionally driven liberals threw in there )

Further, if you look even deeper, you will this:



this has been used as a basis for legislation


see the keyword? " Basis".




this has been used as a basis for legislation promoting the health, safety, morals, and well-being of the people governed thereunder


Read again, enact laws to provide for the welfare of the people as stated in the text.

Nice try, but reading the Constitution would do you loads of good!


edit on 18-4-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Only that debt has been the desired result since 1933 when America went bankrupt and was under bankruptcy managment by the federal reserve since. Countries do not have the money because the central banks syphon off the income tax to who knows whom.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 





See, its thought like that that make me disregard everything else you say, because you are obviously mentally ill


Unable to address my questions presented I see. Wonder why that is?


Wouldn't be because I " tapped " into a discussion that you know Im right now would it?

As soon as you answer my questions, then you may have merit, until then troll along!


I have answered all your questions, and provided proof. What have I been "unable to address"? Every time I prove something, you and your buddy just keep moving on to another topic without even stopping to contemplate what i said.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Well there's your problem. You misunderstood the general welfare clause.

[ general welfare clause]




Wow, Im glad to see that you solved an argument that has been raging in our country for over 200 years since the Constituion was written.

Dont worry about voting, and arguing on the floor of Congress everyone, whereweheaded has decided for all of us that he has the correct interpretation of the Constitution!

Thank you [snip]!

ETA: also, nice to see you keep ignoring all my proof and just truck on to the next argument, as I noted previously. I can keep owning you all day, its pretty easy, because you just keep posting opinions, whereas I am posting FACTS.
edit on 18-4-2011 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)

edit on 19/4/11 by masqua because: Removed childish name-calling



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 





Answer me this. When do you suppose Obama and his trustees are going to take responsibility for their actions, or lack there of?


Here is one of a few you haven't addressed...start here!



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I will answer that as soon as you admit that Republicans ask for as much money as Democrats in earmarks, as proven here:
www.hanlonsrazor.org...

Can you actaully look at unbiased facts, and admit that you have been spreading a lie?

If you can do that, I will answer your question.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   




Uh, my point is that this argument has been going on for 200 years....just because YOUR interpretation of the Constitution doesnt allow for this doesnt make it so for all of us.

YOUR interpretation is not the end all be all. The Supreme Court has never struck down these social programs, so they are legal and Constitutional in the US of A. If you dont like the law, leave.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   





You do realize that the Supreme Courts justices are liberally biased dont you? Just because their rulings in favor of these programs doesn't make them legal.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Then show me under Article 1 section 8 of the Consitution that grants powers to Congress that suggests they can implement social welfare.


Why does it have to be under Article one, Section 8?

You know that congress has the constitutional power under Article 1, Section 1 to create laws, right? Any you do understand that Welfare is a provision of the Social Security Act, right? And, you do realize that congress passed the Social Security Act and that it was signed into law by the POTUS, right?

So, I ask you, what is unconstitutional about it?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join