US Budget 'Sequester'

Originally posted by lynxpilot
reply to post by Hopechest

 

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

Absolutely it does.

He asked what authorizes the government to levy a tax and I showed him where in the Constitution.

Not sure what more you want.

Originally posted by Hopechest
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?

Your very own quote restricts collection of taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for the purpose of paying debts and for common defense. Again, it has nothing to do with what was posted. Let's get our ducks in a row now instead of trying to mince words.

reply to post by Golf66

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":

Pretty much and the Supreme Court has a lot of precedence establishing this. They put it under "implied" powers which basically says that Congress can pass whatever they want if it helps them to perform their enumerated powers, of which, providing for the general welfare is one of them.

I'm not saying its right or wrong I'm just telling you how it is. You'll have to take it up with them if you have an issue with it.

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?

See my above comment.

As written in the The 10th Amendment:

Basically anything that Congress hasn't passed a law on will fall to the State or sometimes they simply delegate the responsibility to the State. You see this very clearly in regards to commerce. Congress has consistently won over States with rare exceptions. The Court simply rules that way.

This isn't my opinion its just a fact. Its very hard for someone to argue that Congress has overstepped its bounds when the Constitution is so unclear.

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?

Absolutely but you your looking at it the wrong way. The parts of the Constitution they wanted no mistake about they made explicitly clear. The parts they wanted to leave up to future Congress's to work out they left very vague. They did this for a reason, so that in the future the Congress wouldn't be hampered by things they wrote in a different era that may not apply a few hundred years down the road.

The left Congress wiggle room if you will.

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.

I am not saying I agree with it, I'm only saying that it is constitutional. I believe the federal government goes way beyond what they were intended to do but nothing they are doing is outside of the scope of what they are allowed.

Originally posted by lynxpilot

Originally posted by Hopechest
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?

Your very own quote restricts collection of taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for the purpose of paying debts and for common defense. Again, it has nothing to do with what was posted. Let's get our ducks in a row now instead of trying to mince words.

I guess you skipped over this part.

and general Welfare of the United States

Originally posted by Golf66

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?

This is the quote. And reference to collection of taxes in his/her quote refers to items that are selective and not general, therefore do not fall under 'general welfare'. "General Welfare" to me means that every man, woman, and child within the US benefits equally. Everything Golf66 referred to was selective.

Originally posted by lynxpilot

Originally posted by Golf66

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?

This is the quote. And reference to collection of taxes in his/her quote refers to items that are selective and not general, therefore do not fall under 'general welfare'. "General Welfare" to me means that every man, woman, and child within the US benefits equally. Everything Golf66 referred to was selective.

Your opinion.

As I've stated we are looking for justification that Congress would use to authorize their action. They could easily justify it by saying education and energy promote the general welfare.

How many people in this country do not take advantage of education and energy on a daily basis? Very few. How many are not affected by others that have had their lives changed by education or welfare? Very few.

Your looking for grounds to claim unconstitutionality and you haven't presented one yet. A first year lawyer could defend the constitutionality of these acts.

reply to post by lynxpilot


Sequestration will hit DoD personnel the hardest.

Furloughs, hiring freezes, lay-offs are already in the works.

reply to post by beezzer


No doubt about that.

Though I'm not sure thats a bad thing really.

They have excessive waste from what I hear so it might do them some good to be forced to get their house in order and get rid of people they don't necessarily need.

reply to post by Hopechest


Someone posted a graph that showed that even with sequestration, military spending would still be above post-war levels from Vietnam.

As a former military member, I still would be for sequestration.

It's time to pack up our toys and go home. Everyone needs to come home.

Seemingly off topic, but surprisingly not so, the following:

As an aging man, nearing his half a century mark, I've learned that few things are certain. However, one of the things that experience has taught me is this: Whenever the budget becomes this big of a story - it's by design and means that something really, really insidious is actually brewing.

This, friends, is the bad stage magician trying oh so desperately to entice the entire audience to look at his right hand so nobody sees what the left is doing.

Actually between this and the Second Amendment issue, I think this time around it's full on David Copperfield and we're supposed to watch both hands so we don't see the other 800 people hoisting the elephant into the rafters.

reply to post by Hefficide


What might we be missing?

Originally posted by beezzer
It's time to pack up our toys and go home. Everyone needs to come home.

reply to post by Hefficide

reply to post by lynxpilot


It's going to be interesting. Especially since the Engineering Supervisor already has more work than he can handle and a hiring freeze so he can't replace engineers and techs that have left.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by lynxpilot

Originally posted by Golf66

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?

This is the quote. And reference to collection of taxes in his/her quote refers to items that are selective and not general, therefore do not fall under 'general welfare'. "General Welfare" to me means that every man, woman, and child within the US benefits equally. Everything Golf66 referred to was selective.

Your opinion.

As I've stated we are looking for justification that Congress would use to authorize their action. They could easily justify it by saying education and energy promote the general welfare.

How many people in this country do not take advantage of education and energy on a daily basis? Very few. How many are not affected by others that have had their lives changed by education or welfare? Very few.

Your looking for grounds to claim unconstitutionality and you haven't presented one yet. A first year lawyer could defend the constitutionality of these acts.

Not my opinion. Fact. It's right there in front of your eyes. Strawman.

Originally posted by Mountainmeg
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.

The truth leaked out a few days ago.

With the sequester kicked in, the U.S. Government will spend the same amount of money
in 2013 as it did in 2012 plus $15 Billion more !

Oh, okay! So much for the end of the world scenario being vomited forth by Obama!

Lets cut spending!

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Someone posted a graph that showed that even with sequestration, military spending would still be above post-war levels from Vietnam.

As a former military member, I still would be for sequestration.

It's time to pack up our toys and go home. Everyone needs to come home.

Maybe the guys in charge should float the idea of maybe raising the retirement age?
Address the Big 3.
Social Security - MediCare - MediCaid

What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened?
The finger-pointing began during the third presidential debate last fall, on Oct. 22, when President Obama blamed Congress. “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”

www.washingtonpost.com...

“The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”

O really Barry?

The Liar-in-Chief strikes again and the sycophants and low information voters have swallowed it hook line and sinker…I wish there were a way to inflict his lack of integrity on only those idiots who voted for him.

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Well played Barry - you are channeling the NAZI's a lot lately.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by lynxpilot

Originally posted by Hopechest
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?

Your very own quote restricts collection of taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for the purpose of paying debts and for common defense. Again, it has nothing to do with what was posted. Let's get our ducks in a row now instead of trying to mince words.

I guess you skipped over this part.

and general Welfare of the United States

Such an interpretation as your is overbroad and would in effect grant the federal government unlimited powers.

This is simplistic, against common sense and grammar, and incorrect.

[T]he clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … 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. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.

United States v. Butler, 297 u.s. 1 (1936

Interpreting the Constitution requires, above all, a firm grasp of reality and the abiolity to understand the English langguage.

Research the writings of Charles Allan Wright and Lino A. Graglia (my professors and mentors).

jw

SAVE BULLETS

This is what I was talking about. Hef mentioned as well. You are watching the right hand but you don't know what the left hand is doing. There will be no cuts in domestic control forces that can be used to overpower domestic uprising (FBI, BATFE, CIA, NSA, DHS) in areas that might limit their increasing control over the US population.