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.

 

I'm sick and tired of Republicans in congress saying no to infrastructure spending

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Where does it EXACTLY state in the Constitution that infrastructure spending is authorized. No legalistist-weasel word twisting either. When something is NOT specified DIRECTLY in exact words in the Constitution it means NOT AUTHORIZED and the responsibilities goes to the states to hammer it out.




posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by tkwasny
Where does it EXACTLY state in the Constitution that infrastructure spending is authorized. No legalistist-weasel word twisting either. When something is NOT specified DIRECTLY in exact words in the Constitution it means NOT AUTHORIZED and the responsibilities goes to the states to hammer it out.


Where does it EXACTLY state in the Constitution that welfare checks, food stamps, healthcare, etc. spending is authorized. No legalistic-weasel word twisting either. When something is NOT specified DIRECTLY in exact words in the Constitution it means NOT AUTHORIZED and the responsibilities goes to the states to hammer it out.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastProphet527

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
And this is why> news.yahoo.com...

Tax the 1% to high heaven and fix America NOW!

I'm sick of ignorant inbred white [snip] evangelicals who are going to get a lot of Americans killed on U.S. highways because of their twisted political and economic ideologies that is all due to their eyes being glued to Fox"propaganda"News aka conman productions 24/7.

edit on 4/7/12 by masqua because: edited uncivil comment

What is infastructure to you.


Such as spending money on replacing bridges before they do this for instance.



Can't forget



Gotz to stay quite you know. Such discussions are only for "quite rooms" for the power brokers to decide. 1:10 in the video



Same with his tax returns too evidently.

"Don't tax the billionaires to save lives through investing in infrastructure" is the GOP motto.

Because... unfortunately what the Ned Beatty character is rattling on about in the second half of the video is true.

You know GPS is infrastructure. All paid for by the government.

I'd like to see what the world would be like the day after if it ever failed.

"Oh my gosh where is all our freight in transit?" screams CEOs from coast to coast.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I agree completely. The states should be responsible for nearly all of it.

There are exceptions to this though. Federal Jurisdiction on waterway management...i.e. The Corps of Engineers. Who should take care of Dams? Especially hydroelectric dams. The electric corporations generating power and selling it should be responsible for those...in my opinion. But...who is going to keep tabs on them to make sure the dams are safe?

The truth is, if it were not for the federal interstate projects, we would not have the interstate system that we all use and enjoy. It was a good thing. Shame it's in need of repair....



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
I agree completely. The states should be responsible for nearly all of it.

There are exceptions to this though. Federal Jurisdiction on waterway management...i.e. The Corps of Engineers. Who should take care of Dams? Especially hydroelectric dams. The electric corporations generating power and selling it should be responsible for those...in my opinion. But...who is going to keep tabs on them to make sure the dams are safe?

The truth is, if it were not for the federal interstate projects, we would not have the interstate system that we all use and enjoy. It was a good thing. Shame it's in need of repair....



Why must it be a federal controlling authority? Why can't multiple states govts negotiate contracts and co-op efforts? Where are the states forbidden from negotiating contracts with each other? I don't see it in the Constitution. Why does interstate efforts inspire some invisible constitutional authority to generate a cabinet level organization or office like EPA, etc.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
There is practical and there is impractical. As a Libertarian, I would prefer most issues to be handled by the states. I'm not going to argue, because, (in theory) issues of national concern, defense and disaster SHOULD be controlled by the Body whose job it is to take care of those things...I.e. The Fed (national guard, coast guard, military)

However, the Fed Gov't isn't efficient at anything. Waterways management and interstate systems were primarily designed and managed for troop and asset movement within the continental Unites States. The interstate system WAS NOT designed for you to take vacations or go see mom and pop...it was designed to mobilize troops.

Maintaining that ability IS the responsibility of those that it was designed to accommodate...actually...the military...(if you want to get totally specific)...that is why the dams and waterways fall under "The US Army Corps of Engineers"...see the connection now?



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by tkwasny
 


Because 'interstate efforts' are the responsibility of the federal government...


When something is NOT specified DIRECTLY in exact words in the Constitution it means NOT AUTHORIZED and the responsibilities goes to the states to hammer it out.


Since when? Are you trying to argue that the only laws the federal government has are the words in the US constitution? Why have a congress if that were the case? Why have government at all if all we needed was three pages of constitution?



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by tkwasny
 


Because 'interstate efforts' are the responsibility of the federal government...


When something is NOT specified DIRECTLY in exact words in the Constitution it means NOT AUTHORIZED and the responsibilities goes to the states to hammer it out.


Since when? Are you trying to argue that the only laws the federal government has are the words in the US constitution? Why have a congress if that were the case? Why have government at all if all we needed was three pages of constitution?


Congress was never intended to be a full time job, that's why. Congress was supposed to only meet when there were pressing international issues or constitutionally valid powers to be considered. We've gotten so embedded with this idea that congress is supposed to dwell over every breath we take and penny that changes hands. The FedGov is supposed to be TINY and insignificant with all the powers and activities at the states level. At least 90% of the FedGov should not exist and never should have come into power.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by tkwasny
 


Maybe under the Articles of Confederation but then we passed the largest federal power grab ever seen in the history of the nation, the US Constitution. Things changed and the federal government grew and grew and grew. You don't like it? Go argue with the first congress.




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join