US Budget 'Sequester'

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
The looming sequester may take place as early as April. This will involve furloughs of federal employees. I'd like to see specifically where they pick people they are going to send packing (for a while). I wonder if they'll take people from the following:

CIA, FBI, USDA, IRS, FDA, NSA, BATFE, House, Senate, Supreme Court

You think?

We'd do just fine without any one of those for an indefinite period. Probably pretty much the lot of them too, so they wouldn't have to worry about being selective.

Oh, and apparently whitehouse appointed positions are exempted because they are '24-hour' jobs. Yup




posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Sounds like you want to live in a place like this.





posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by lynxpilot
 


Well somebody that wants to remove the parts of government that make laws and collect taxes obviously has no use or want for a government at all.

Therefore a deserted island would be perfect since there is no one to tell you what to do. You can horde all your coconuts and sleep all day!



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Why an island? Why not right here?

We already have a state government. I just don't want the parts of the federal government that aren't authorized by law.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by lynxpilot
 


There are no parts of government that are not authorized by law.

Every single part of it is legal.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
There are no parts of government that are not authorized by law.

Every single part of it is legal.


There are only 18 legitimate and enumerated powers for the Federal Government. The rest according to the Constitution are the purview of the States and the people respectively.

However, if you are suggesting that the some 80,0000 pages of "regulations and codes" are legal - well I ask if the organizations making such determination are a part of the very Government that imposes them what other answer do you think they are going to give? Of course they will say it’s all legit - they benefit from it.

The States don't fight it because of the protection racket the Federal Government has going.

You send us all your taxes and as long as you agree to follow our rules we might give some back to you. If you don't we'll send your portion of the federal monies (that your citizens paid in) to a State that will. Like seatbelt laws, speed limits, drinking age ad nauseum.

Bully tactics...period. I am all for secession.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Hubby is an electrical engineer and engineering supervisor. He's facing a 2 week furlough - though apparently they can only furlough the employees one day per week, not all at once. Funny, unlike Pelosi, my hubby doesn't think that handing him a pay cut does anything to his "dignity".

There were some politicians threatening that the USDA meat inspectors would be furloughed for two weeks straight and that this would be a disaster. "Two weeks straight! It'll close down factories! No meat for two weeks! Prices will skyrocket!" Idiots - they're limited to one furlough day per week. Any intelligent person (which does discriminate against politicians of either stripe) would have 20% of the inspectors off on Monday, 20% off on Tuesday and so forth.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by lynxpilot
 


There are no parts of government that are not authorized by law.

Every single part of it is legal.


'Fraid not! For more one which powers ARE legally enumerated, please see the document titled United States Constitution. Please do pay particular attention to one Amendment known as the Tenth. It explains it all.


Thanks.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I was so dumbfounded by the earlier reply (and laughing a little too hard) to be able to respond, but a lot of you took care of that. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
However, back on topic, I think it's important to see where they target the furloughs. That was my original point before the interruption. For example, would the feds furlough an electrical engineering supervisor before they would furlough a CIA operations agent? I dare say we could do without the CIA dude for a while (if not permanently).



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Regarding the sequester - probably the BEST thing that could happen right now. I love how Obama and the Democrats are railing on Republicans about it when THEY were the ones that demanded it be a part of the debt ceiling negotiation last go-around.

We live in a world where up is down, right is wrong, black is white and smart is stupid! I've had just about enough of it all!



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


I challenge you to find one aspect of the Federal Government that is against the Constitution and I will prove you wrong.

I study this thing for a living and have had this discussion multiple times. You will lose but go ahead.

Balls in your court friend.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by kozmo
 


I challenge you to find one aspect of the Federal Government that is against the Constitution and I will prove you wrong.


1) The Department of Education - where in the Constitution does it State the Federal government can levy a tax for the purpose of funding a department that oversees education in America and regulate the content and methods of instruction and use that leverage to reapportion moneys to those organizations who will follow those methods and views and withhold those collected monies from districts that do not?

2) Department of Energy - same.

4) Environmental Protection Agency - same.

5) Where does it authorize the Federal government to collect taxes from citizens to provide a social safety net for those who are deemed in need relative to those deemed to have too much? Where does it say that the government can organize a charity at the point of a gun, decide who gets the charity and collect mandatory contributions from citizens to fund that charity?

I don't see it in there...

Having the SCOTUS (a branch of the Federal Government) decide what is legal is like allowing Wal-Mart's legal department rule on whether its own contracts are binding. What do you think they will say?



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
The vast majority of what the BATFE does is illegal by virtue of being unconstitutional. Since the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, then any regulation restricting the keeping or bearing of arms is clearly unconsitutional. The BATFE enforces all sorts of laws, imposes taxes, conducts raids, and kills innocent people under an entirely illegal premise.
edit on 17-2-2013 by lynxpilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


Really?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Got anything else?



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by lynxpilot
The vast majority of what the BATFE does is illegal by virtue of being unconstitutional. Since the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, then any regulation restricting the keeping or bearing of arms is clearly unconsitutional. The BATFE enforces all sorts of laws, imposes taxes, conducts raids, and kills innocent people under an entirely illegal premise.
edit on 17-2-2013 by lynxpilot because: (no reason given)


Where in the Constitution does it say that arms cannot be regulated?

The second amendment makes no such claim, it only states you have the right to bear them. It doesn't say any and all of them.

This clearly in not unconstitutional. And besides, the Supreme Court has already upheld gun restrictions and since they have all the power of the judiciary in the nation you have no other recourse other than to amend the Constitution to write the second amendment more clearly.

The larger point is that it is not unconstitutional by any definition of the word.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


That response didn't apply to ANYTHING Golf66 listed. This is a waste of time.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by lynxpilot
The vast majority of what the BATFE does is illegal by virtue of being unconstitutional. Since the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, then any regulation restricting the keeping or bearing of arms is clearly unconsitutional. The BATFE enforces all sorts of laws, imposes taxes, conducts raids, and kills innocent people under an entirely illegal premise.
edit on 17-2-2013 by lynxpilot because: (no reason given)


Where in the Constitution does it say that arms cannot be regulated?

The second amendment makes no such claim, it only states you have the right to bear them. It doesn't say any and all of them.

This clearly in not unconstitutional. And besides, the Supreme Court has already upheld gun restrictions and since they have all the power of the judiciary in the nation you have no other recourse other than to amend the Constitution to write the second amendment more clearly.

The larger point is that it is not unconstitutional by any definition of the word.


It says "shall not be infringed". Another waste of time.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
Really?


Yeah, really. You really believe that the men who were so meticulous as to write out the clause below which could be interpreted as to allow the Federal government to do whatever the hell it wants without limit as long as the Congress felt it was done in the name of the "general welfare of the United States":

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Then they took the time to write out the specifically enumerated powers (below) for what reason? Just for #s and grins? Was there a special on ink and parchment or were they paid by the word?


• To collect taxes and duties;
• To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
• To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
• To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
• To establish Post Offices and post roads.
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
• To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• 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;
• To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Seems to me they were being really specific and meticulous on purpose to me. However, there is the last sentence there which is not a power all its own but is so-called "elastic clause" that vaguely states that other new laws may be enacted based on the other 17 powers - it doesn't allow them to grant themselves new powers or those not specifically enumerated. Any other powers are reserved for the States to handle.

As written in the The 10th Amendment:


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


So you are one of those people who believe that the founders wrote some intentionally vague clause with the phrase "for the general welfare" then took all the time to specifically enumerate their powers that are clearly and intentionally also "for the general welfare" just for filler? Why write them out?


Originally posted by Hopechest
Got anything else?


The SCOTUS and the Congress interpret the clause you mentioned to allow themselves to do almost anything - of course they do who doesn't want the authority to do whatever they wish? Your gullibility in going along with it is the reason the Federal government gets away with pretty much regulating anything and everything they want in a tyrannical fashion.

If you choose to allow this interpretation to stand - by all means you are free to but I think it is lazy governance and a misuse of their authority through a rather convenient and liberal interpretation of a predicating clause.

I do not accept it at all.
edit on 17/2/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17/2/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join