In article ,
says...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:29:09 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You want a balanced budget? Privatize social security,
get rid of Medicare and return the Federal government to it's
Consitutionally mandated limits.

last I heard, SS was still taking in more money than its paying out. If
not, it'd be taken "off budget" as it has been in the past.

As far as Medicare, it's the least effective health care plan of all the
industrialized nations.

....and you want that for everyone? No thanks!

But at least it's a start. When we have a health
care system where nobody goes bankrupt from medical bills I'll be a lot
happier.

You'll be happy when we're all bankrupt, and nobody has health care.
That's what your asking for.

But that won't happen because the
mooching public wants what it has not earned, does not deserve,
cannot pay for, and will not work for.

I paid close to the maximum into SS throughout my working life. I DID
earn it. I'll have to live past 90 to get back what I and my employers
paid in. And for much of the time I was self-employed and paid both
halves.

Except for one year (last year) I've paid the maximum too. However,
you're not getting *anything* "back", except off the backs of those
currently working. If you were "allowed" to save that money, you'd
have some nice nest egg.

And I still pay close to $300 a month for Medicare and a supplement policy
and I still don't have dental coverage or decent drug coverage.

....and you want the federal government to nationalize the entire
health care industry. Amazing.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:39:30 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:


Oh no, this is absolutely the issue. Up to the time of conception, a
woman is perfectly free to do with her body as she chooses. After
conception, there is another living being, the utmost definition of
innocence and vulnerability that must be considered.


That's your opinion. Mine is that a fetus is not a human being until
it can survive outside the womb. Until then, it is a potential human
being. That does not make abortion a process to undergo lightly, but it
should be the woman's right to make that decision.

So you believe that "late-term" abortions should be illegal. Indeed
any past, say, 5 months gestation should be illegal. I'm *sure*
you're against Obama's infanticide. Right?

It's funny that none of the "pro choice" crowd want to force people to
have abortions, but the "pro-life" crowd seems to think they have the
right to force their beliefs on others.

Silly argument. False, and silly to boot.

You must not have read/heard the news lately. The population is projected
to increase from 300 million to 400 million in about 30 years, mostly
driven by immigration and the immigrants large families. Sounds like a
lot of "younger generation" to me.


If your issue here is the illegal immigration issue and the problems
regarding the failure to assimilate even legal immigrants into our society,
then we agree on something.

No, my issue is overpopulation. At present, it seems to be driven by
immigration, but that may just be a temporary condition. I've seen the
changes wrought over my lifetime resulting from a US population that has
more than doubled already and they aren't good.

Simple answer then. Stop emigration. Deport all non-citizens.
Right?

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
Jim Behning wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:12:50 -0700, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:12:52 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

The graduated income tax in
which the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.9% of taxes, the top 10% pay 70.3%
and the top 1% pay 39.4%

And what percent of earnings do these groups have?

If wikipedia is to be believed, the top 10% earned 54%, top 50% earned
85%

FWIW, Keith Olberman recently said that the top 1% who pay the 39.4%
taxes earn 22% of the income.

Some dated (it's only gotten worse), but relevant data:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/53xx/doc5...2-TaxRates.htm

--
Keith

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:12:52 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

The graduated income tax in
which the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.9% of taxes, the top 10% pay
70.3% and the top 1% pay 39.4%

And what percent of earnings do these groups have?

OK, that was painful, the IRS web site is a bit harder to navigate than it
used to be, however, from: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in01etr.xls,
for tax year 2006:

Top Total Income Tax Revenue (%) Adjusted Gross Income Share (%)
50% 97.01 87.49
25% 86.27 68.16
10% 70.79 47.32
5% 60.14 36.66
1% 39.89 22.06

So, from the IRS data: the bottom 50% are making 12.5% of adjusted gross
income and paying less than 3% of all income taxes while the top 1% are
making 22% of adjusted gross income while paying nearly 40% of all federal
income taxes.

Bet that's not where you were going with this, was it?

Oh, and just to further emphasize how the Bush tax cuts have so benefited
the rich, the following are the data for the tax years from 2000 to 2006

Year Total Income Tax (%) AGI Share (%) Ratio (Tax/AGI)
2000 37.42 20.81 1.80
2001 33.89 17.53 1.93
2002 33.71 16.12 2.09
2003 34.27 16.77 2.04
2004 36.89 19.00 1.94
2005 39.38 21.20 1.86
2006 39.89 22.06 1.81

So, despite the "massive tax cuts to benefit the wealthy", the % share of
taxes relative to the % share of AGI has hardly moved, and during the years
immediately following 9/11 when the left-wing was bleating about how the
rich were benefiting from the tax cuts for the wealthy, the top 1% were
actually paying a greater share of their income to the treasury than they
were during the last year of the Clinton presidency.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:29:52 -0500, krw wrote:

I paid close to the maximum into SS throughout my working life. I DID
earn it. I'll have to live past 90 to get back what I and my employers
paid in. And for much of the time I was self-employed and paid both
halves.

Except for one year (last year) I've paid the maximum too. However,
you're not getting *anything* "back", except off the backs of those
currently working.


If I put money in the bank, the money I take out in the future isn't the
same money. I still put money in and got money back. Your argument is
ridiculous.

And I still pay close to $300 a month for Medicare and a supplement policy
and I still don't have dental coverage or decent drug coverage.

...and you want the federal government to nationalize the entire
health care industry. Amazing.

My wife is not yet eligible for Medicare. Her insurance costs over twice
what I pay and has a high deductible. I complained that Medicare wasn't
as good as the health care plans in other nations. I certainly didn't
mean that it was worse than the "health care industry" and their predatory
pricing.

Sometimes I have trouble believing that posts like yours are sincere. Do
you really believe the party line you (and others) are spouting, or do you
just like to stir the pot and watch the bubbles?

In either case, I broke my resolution not to get involved in one of these
silly back and forth arguments again. My mistake.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:17:23 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Top Total Income Tax Revenue (%) Adjusted Gross Income Share (%)
50% 97.01 87.49
25% 86.27 68.16
10% 70.79 47.32
5% 60.14 36.66
1% 39.89 22.06

So, from the IRS data: the bottom 50% are making 12.5% of adjusted gross
income and paying less than 3% of all income taxes while the top 1% are
making 22% of adjusted gross income while paying nearly 40% of all federal
income taxes.

I may be wrong on the numbers, but I seem to recall a recent article that
said about 10-15% of the population is living in poverty. So they would
make up 20-30% of the bottom 50%. I doubt they, or even the group
directly above them, pay any income taxes, given that there is a standard
deduction. That helps to explain some of the discrepancies. And if you
add in other taxes, like sales taxes, that helps even more.

At least Warren Buffet had the decency to complain that his secretary paid
more income taxes than he did :-).

On Sep 1, 12:30*pm, Larry Blanchard wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

In either case, I broke my resolution not to get involved in one of these
silly back and forth arguments again. *My mistake.

It's hard, eh? I am really, really trying to stay out of ****ing
contests, especially when it is obvious that many participants rather
generate heat than light (to quote Morris).

r

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:29:52 -0500, krw wrote:

I paid close to the maximum into SS throughout my working life. I DID
earn it. I'll have to live past 90 to get back what I and my employers
paid in. And for much of the time I was self-employed and paid both
halves.

Except for one year (last year) I've paid the maximum too. However,
you're not getting *anything* "back", except off the backs of those
currently working.


If I put money in the bank, the money I take out in the future isn't the
same money. I still put money in and got money back. Your argument is
ridiculous.

Only a financial fool would believe such. Ever hear of compound
interest? It isn't taking money away from others, rather wealth
that has been created.

And I still pay close to $300 a month for Medicare and a supplement policy
and I still don't have dental coverage or decent drug coverage.

...and you want the federal government to nationalize the entire
health care industry. Amazing.

My wife is not yet eligible for Medicare. Her insurance costs over twice
what I pay and has a high deductible. I complained that Medicare wasn't
as good as the health care plans in other nations. I certainly didn't
mean that it was worse than the "health care industry" and their predatory
pricing.

That's just rich.

Sometimes I have trouble believing that posts like yours are sincere. Do
you really believe the party line you (and others) are spouting, or do you
just like to stir the pot and watch the bubbles?

Are you a communist?

In either case, I broke my resolution not to get involved in one of these
silly back and forth arguments again. My mistake.

You really should try sitting on your hands if you can't control
yourself. If you don't want a discussion, don't start one.

--
Keith

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:17:23 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Top Total Income Tax Revenue (%) Adjusted Gross Income Share (%)
50% 97.01 87.49
25% 86.27 68.16
10% 70.79 47.32
5% 60.14 36.66
1% 39.89 22.06

So, from the IRS data: the bottom 50% are making 12.5% of adjusted
gross
income and paying less than 3% of all income taxes while the top 1% are
making 22% of adjusted gross income while paying nearly 40% of all
federal income taxes.

I may be wrong on the numbers, but I seem to recall a recent article that
said about 10-15% of the population is living in poverty. So they would
make up 20-30% of the bottom 50%. I doubt they, or even the group
directly above them, pay any income taxes, given that there is a standard
deduction. That helps to explain some of the discrepancies. And if you
add in other taxes, like sales taxes, that helps even more.

At least Warren Buffet had the decency to complain that his secretary paid
more income taxes than he did :-).

I think the statement was that she paid a higher rate than he did. This is
based upon his paying at the capital gains rate on a significant portion of
his income rather than the personal income rate. I would seriously doubt
she paid more in total dollars than he. His argument is somewhat specious
as, for the bulk of those who benefit from capital gains rates, this is a
recognition of the risk at which their money is placed when investing.
There is no assurance that one will make money, there is a chance one could
lose the full investment (K-mart, Enron) or a significant portion of it
(Krispy Kreme, Circuit City). The idea of the capital gains rate is to
provide some incentive to invest.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Robatoy" wrote:

It's hard, eh? I am really, really trying to stay out of ****ing
contests, especially when it is obvious that many participants rather
generate heat than light (to quote Morris).

I plead guilty to being your basic **** disturber.

I posted "A Milestone", simply noting an historic moment.

That thread has taken a rather convoluted trail to arrive here.

BUT,

I knew that would happen, that's one of the reasons I wrote it.

Kind'a like spreading chum on the water.

Lew

In article ,
says...
Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:17:23 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Top Total Income Tax Revenue (%) Adjusted Gross Income Share (%)
50% 97.01 87.49
25% 86.27 68.16
10% 70.79 47.32
5% 60.14 36.66
1% 39.89 22.06

So, from the IRS data: the bottom 50% are making 12.5% of adjusted
gross
income and paying less than 3% of all income taxes while the top 1% are
making 22% of adjusted gross income while paying nearly 40% of all
federal income taxes.

I may be wrong on the numbers, but I seem to recall a recent article that
said about 10-15% of the population is living in poverty. So they would
make up 20-30% of the bottom 50%. I doubt they, or even the group
directly above them, pay any income taxes, given that there is a standard
deduction. That helps to explain some of the discrepancies. And if you
add in other taxes, like sales taxes, that helps even more.

At least Warren Buffet had the decency to complain that his secretary paid
more income taxes than he did :-).

I think the statement was that she paid a higher rate than he did. This is
based upon his paying at the capital gains rate on a significant portion of
his income rather than the personal income rate. I would seriously doubt
she paid more in total dollars than he. His argument is somewhat specious
as, for the bulk of those who benefit from capital gains rates, this is a
recognition of the risk at which their money is placed when investing.
There is no assurance that one will make money, there is a chance one could
lose the full investment (K-mart, Enron) or a significant portion of it
(Krispy Kreme, Circuit City). The idea of the capital gains rate is to
provide some incentive to invest.

Not to mention that the corporation pays taxes on profits in
addition to the capital gains tax.

--
Keith

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


(Big business does not pay taxes - NO business pays taxes - they merely
pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices.)

Or their employees in the form of lower wages. Or their stockholders in the
form of lower dividends. Or their suppliers in the form of lower prices. But
your core point is correct. Ultimately, taxes are always paid by people of the
two legged variety as opposed to people of the incorporated variety.
-- Doug

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:29:09 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You want a balanced budget? Privatize social security,
get rid of Medicare and return the Federal government to it's
Consitutionally mandated limits.

last I heard, SS was still taking in more money than its paying out. If
not, it'd be taken "off budget" as it has been in the past.

The reality is that the trajectory it is on is toward large amounts
of red ink, today's numbers nothwithstanding.


As far as Medicare, it's the least effective health care plan of all the
industrialized nations. But at least it's a start. When we have a health
care system where nobody goes bankrupt from medical bills I'll be a lot
happier.

Then you will never be happy. No law can change a simple economic
fact: There is more demand for healthcare than there is supply.
Federalizing it does not change this fact (but it does violate
the Constitution which just multiplies the injury to a free people).
You want to see healthcare professionals leave in droves - or never
enter the profession in the first place? Make it a government
run program. For a good example, see how many of our best and
brightest choose to be government union employees as teachers. Not
all that many.


But that won't happen because the
mooching public wants what it has not earned, does not deserve,
cannot pay for, and will not work for.

I paid close to the maximum into SS throughout my working life. I DID
earn it. I'll have to live past 90 to get back what I and my employers
paid in. And for much of the time I was self-employed and paid both
halves.

And for every person like you (and me) in this situation there are many
tens of thousands more who have the inverse situation: They will collect
more than they ever contributed. SS is a ponzi scheme that only worked
so long as people had lots of children. Those days are over and it's
the day of reckoning. Should you be treated fairly? Yes, of course.
But we *have* to get rid of this albatross that is gutting our Federal
coffers and return responsibility for retirement and healthcare where it
belongs: The individual. This should be done gradually and fairly, but
it needs to start now. Like I said, over 50% of the Federal budget is
entitlements. Entitlements that are bankrupting us at many times the
rate of military spending. Entitlements that are flatly non-Constitutional.
Entitlements that are just cheap election fodder for both parties.


And I still pay close to $300 a month for Medicare and a supplement policy
and I still don't have dental coverage or decent drug coverage.

From your postings here, I know you to be thoughtful and well read.
Please cite a single example in American legal history that would
ever lead you to believe any of this is the responsibility of the
Federal government?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Aug 30, 3:53*pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
...

We know that he was willing to cut, run and accept defeat in Iraq when the
surge or 30,000 troops could and did turn the tide and place the country and
our efforts well on the way to success.

We know that his cut and run policy would have as well given the Iraq al
Qaeda a major victory instead of the sound defeat they received.

We know that al Queda followed us into Iraq. We know that only
reason
any significant number of Iraqis supported al Queda was because they
had a common enemy--US.

We know that since we occupied Iraq, we have been fighting against
Iraqis over control of their own country. We know that the indigenous
Iraqi reiligious extremists are Shia, sworn enemies of al Queda, so
that even if Iraq were to become another Islamic Republic, it would be
one opposed to al Queda. It was also be Arab, thus predisposed to
not ally with Iran, unless facing a common enemy, such as-- US.


We know from the get go that he was in favor of leaving Saddam in power,
free to continue his murder , plunder and disregard for 17 UN sanctions. To
also continue the corrupt oil for food UN program and to watch over a ever
strained Iraq embargo/containment effort.

We know that, while the Taliban and Al Queda were still undefeated in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, he opposed starting a new war, with a
country
that did not harbor or support al Queda or bin Laden and which was
demonstrably not a threat to the US or even the weakest of its
neighbors.


We know that he does not respect Pakistani sovereignty and has openly
suggested violating their borders thereby possibly encouraging a inspired
enemy pool exceeding 100 million people.

We know he made that statement when Pakistan was ruled by one of the
Worlds worst dictators, and when Pakistan harbored and protected
al Queda and Osama bin Laden.

We also know that the present administration did not respect Iraqi
Sovereignty despite the fact that Iraq did not harbor al Queda or
bin Laden and had not been implicated in any attacks on Americans
outside of it's own borders for at least ten years.

We know that the present administration did not respect Iraqi
sovereignty even after Saddam Hussein was overthrown, replacing
the Iraq coalition government with an American dictator who blocked
self government by the Iraqis and systematically destroyed the nations
infrastructure plunging the country into a civil war.


We know he's in favor of significant U.S. Afghanistan military escalation in
spite of the stark historical minefield Afghanistan has held for world
powers.

We know that the battleground against al Quaida is in Afghanistan
and Pakistan.


We know that he readily confused the propriety of countries simply talking
to each other with the power and prestige of state visits
.. .

You mean like claiming that negotiations over a good will visit
by the President of Niger to Baghdad was actually a negotiation
to purchase more yellowcake, despite the fact that Iraq had 500
plus tonnes of yellowcake stored at Tuwaitha for the past 20 years,
and had SOLD 30 to 50 tonnes of it just a few years earlier?



...

We know (thankfully) that he has a ever evolving energy policy but $150
billion over 10 years on a vague green energy plan is more posture than
possible benefit. Albeit good publicly funded jobs till the money runs out.

In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:46:45 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

From your postings here, I know you to be thoughtful and well read.
Please cite a single example in American legal history that would
ever lead you to believe any of this is the responsibility of the
Federal government?

How about "promote the general welfare"?

Please note that "promot[ing] the general welfare" is not among the powers
granted by the Constitution to the federal government -- and therefore is
"reserved to the States respectively or to the People".

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:18:31 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:46:45 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

From your postings here, I know you to be thoughtful and well read.
Please cite a single example in American legal history that would
ever lead you to believe any of this is the responsibility of the
Federal government?

How about "promote the general welfare"?

Please note that "promot[ing] the general welfare" is not among the powers
granted by the Constitution to the federal government -- and therefore is
"reserved to the States respectively or to the People".

The section you quote reads:

"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."

Since the "promote" clause is in the preamble, it could be held to be
"delegated to the United states". But yes, there is room for disagreement
on the meaning and scope.

But those who claim to be strict Constitutionalists (wow, I managed to
spell that!) are somewhat akin to strict Scripturalists. Very few of them
cut off offending parts, and those who handle serpents are considered a
wee bit off in the head. Old testament rules don't apply well today.

Likewise, many of the Constitutional provisions that made obvious sense in
a lightly populated agrarian society where power rested on white male
landowners lose something in today's society. For example:

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein,
be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim
of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Yes, it's been abrogated by the 13th amendment, but the verbiage is still
in there :-). But the ultimate argument is that the Constitution says
that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is or is not
constitutional. So by definition anything they agree with is
constitutional. It may be reversed in the future, but for now you and I
are stuck with it.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution,..."

But

Larry Blanchard wrote:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under this Constitution,..."

But


Would you care re-ink your quill and try again? :-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:46:45 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

From your postings here, I know you to be thoughtful and well read.
Please cite a single example in American legal history that would
ever lead you to believe any of this is the responsibility of the
Federal government?

How about "promote the general welfare"?


Madison commented on this clause specifically, knowing that people
would try to read it as you have: A Get Out Of Jail Free card for
all manner of Federal government action. He specifically said it
was *not* that - that reading it this way would undermine the doctrine
of enumerated powers that animates the entire Constitution.

"Promote the general welfare" is properly (in terms of the Framers'
intent) read to be a statement of *purpose for creating a Constitution*.
It is not a grant of unlimited power, but a *justification* for
a limited Federalist system bounded by very narrow enumerated powers -
the exact opposite of what you're trying to pry out of it.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:18:31 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Larry Blanchard
wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:46:45 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

From your postings here, I know you to be thoughtful and well read.
Please cite a single example in American legal history that would
ever lead you to believe any of this is the responsibility of the
Federal government?

How about "promote the general welfare"?

Please note that "promot[ing] the general welfare" is not among the powers
granted by the Constitution to the federal government -- and therefore is
"reserved to the States respectively or to the People".

The section you quote reads:

"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."

Since the "promote" clause is in the preamble, it could be held to be
"delegated to the United states".

Hardly -- the preamble merely sets forth the _reasons_ for the establishment
of the Constitution. It's quite a stretch to claim that the language of the
preamble is describing the _powers_granted_ by the Constitution, since those
powers are enumerated quite specifically in the numbered Articles.

But yes, there is room for disagreement
on the meaning and scope.

Not much, IMHO...

But those who claim to be strict Constitutionalists (wow, I managed to
spell that!) are somewhat akin to strict Scripturalists. Very few of them
cut off offending parts, and those who handle serpents are considered a
wee bit off in the head. Old testament rules don't apply well today.

There's at least one major difference: the doctrine of "strict Scripturalism"
is found nowhere in Scripture, and is therefore logically inconsistent.

Likewise, many of the Constitutional provisions that made obvious sense in
a lightly populated agrarian society where power rested on white male
landowners lose something in today's society. For example:

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein,
be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim
of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Yes, it's been abrogated by the 13th amendment, but the verbiage is still
in there :-).

Actually, one could argue that it has not been abrogated: the 13th Amendment
doesn't prohibit *voluntary* servitude, and this language would certainly
appear to apply to any contracts thus involved. g

But the ultimate argument is that the Constitution says
that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is or is not
constitutional. So by definition anything they agree with is
constitutional. It may be reversed in the future, but for now you and I
are stuck with it.

No, _by_definition_ "Constitutional" is what the Constitution says;
_for_practical_purposes_ "Constitutional" is what the S.C. agrees with. A
small disctinction, perhaps, but nonetheless a crucial one.


"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution,..."

Yep. And that's the limit. Unfortunately, the S.C. often forgets that.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Join the UseNet Improvement Project: killfile Google Groups.
http://www.improve-usenet.org

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Download Nfilter at http://www.milmac.com/np-120.exe

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:40:49 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Madison commented on this clause specifically, knowing that people
would try to read it as you have: A Get Out Of Jail Free card for
all manner of Federal government action. He specifically said it
was *not* that - that reading it this way would undermine the doctrine
of enumerated powers that animates the entire Constitution.

Could be. OTOH, it could be only Madison's personal view of the matter.
There were a lot of differing opinions at that convention and a lot of
language was purposely left vague to achieve a consensus. Not that I know
this clause is one of those, just that it could be.

BTW, I accidentally deleted Doug Miller's post, so I'll comment on it
here. He stated something along the lines of "The Constitution is what it
says it is" and goes on to say that the Supreme Court is often wrong in
its interpretation.

Well, I'd sure rather trust some experienced judicial minds to tell me
what the Constitution means than to trust Doug's interpretation. Or my
own for that matter.

If I misquoted you DOug, I apologize.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Agreed, most ear marks could stand a little more time in the light of
day.

That sentiment is echoed in today's Des Moines Register on page 6A,
where the normally slightly-right-of-center newspaper had a list of
not-quite-factual Palin statements including:

8 ----------
Palin: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ...
and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress."

The Facts: As mayer of Wasilla [population 6375], Palin hired a lobbyist
and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town
totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested
nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest
per-capita request in the nation.
---------- 8

Sunshine is good!

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Larry Blanchard wrote:
But the ultimate argument is that the Constitution says
that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is or is not
constitutional.

Uh, the Constitution says no such thing. The organization of the federal
government under the Constitution implies that result, but the
Constitution does not expressly give the Supreme Court that power.

In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:40:49 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Madison commented on this clause specifically, knowing that people
would try to read it as you have: A Get Out Of Jail Free card for
all manner of Federal government action. He specifically said it
was *not* that - that reading it this way would undermine the doctrine
of enumerated powers that animates the entire Constitution.

Could be. OTOH, it could be only Madison's personal view of the matter.

Madison *wrote* it -- and his comments on its meaning are only his "personal
view"??

LOL

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Join the UseNet Improvement Project: killfile Google Groups.
http://www.improve-usenet.org

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Download Nfilter at http://www.milmac.com/np-120.exe

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:40:49 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Madison commented on this clause specifically, knowing that people
would try to read it as you have: A Get Out Of Jail Free card for
all manner of Federal government action. He specifically said it
was *not* that - that reading it this way would undermine the doctrine
of enumerated powers that animates the entire Constitution.

Could be. OTOH, it could be only Madison's personal view of the matter.
There were a lot of differing opinions at that convention and a lot of
language was purposely left vague to achieve a consensus. Not that I know
this clause is one of those, just that it could be.

BTW, I accidentally deleted Doug Miller's post, so I'll comment on it
here. He stated something along the lines of "The Constitution is what it
says it is" and goes on to say that the Supreme Court is often wrong in
its interpretation.

Well, I'd sure rather trust some experienced judicial minds to tell me
what the Constitution means than to trust Doug's interpretation. Or my
own for that matter.

If I misquoted you DOug, I apologize.


You miss the point methinks. We are either a nation of laws or not. If
we are, then we should both abide by the existing laws AND use the
lawful mechanisms already in place to change laws that are archaic,
irrelevant, or just plain wrong. Even the Constitution itself is open
to such changes.

What we should not be doing is *ignoring* our laws just because we
don't like the outcome for the moment. You want stronger Federal
action? Fine - convince a supermajority of states to approve it and
modify the Constitution. But cheating the way FDR and all the
so-called "progressives" have done for some 8 decades is neither good
for the nation nor honorable. The US Constitution and indeed the
entire system is built on the doctrine of Enumerated Powers - That the
Feds only get to do something with *specific permission for that
action*. This is not a matter of legal interpretation or some
technical subtlety of law. This is one of the large, unambiguous
cornerstones of our entire government. Attempts to read the exact
inverse of this are obnoxious, wrong, and destructive to both
rule-of-law and liberty itself.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Agreed, most ear marks could stand a little more time in the light of
day.

That sentiment is echoed in today's Des Moines Register on page 6A, where
the normally slightly-right-of-center newspaper had a list of
not-quite-factual Palin statements including:

8 ----------
Palin: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ...
and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress."

The Facts: As mayer of Wasilla [population 6375], Palin hired a lobbyist
and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town
totaling $27 million.

Isn't that part the Mayor's job and a very basic Mayor responsibility to get
funding for their own town? And you know these were wasteful because?

In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested
nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest
per-capita request in the nation.
---------- 8

Sunshine is good!

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

And these requests were important because? Alaska is a very unique place in
light of significant energy and other natural resource production. Its
proximity to Russia, it long border with Canada. The current oil production
and the 40 billion dollar natural gas pipeline will significantly impact the
lower 48 states. I don't think per capita federal spending is a significant
barometer of much of anything. Rod

On Aug 30, 4:55*pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
Richard Evans wrote:
Neither did George Bush. Just the opposite: He had a record of
failure. Yet you seem staisfied with his administration.

Had a successful gig managing a baseball team, made $15 million and had two
terms as a popular Texas Governor....I just wish we all could fail half that
bad....Rod

He was 'successful' managing a baseball team in large
measure because he successfully lobbied to have a
ball park built for his team at public expense. Basicly
welfare for the wealthy.

Of course he's not the only one. Art Model made out even
better at the expense of Maryland taxpayers, as did the
owners of the new Cleveland Browns and the old Cleveland
Indians.

--

FF

On Aug 30, 3:53*pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
...
We know that he [Obama, FF] does not respect Pakistani sovereignty and has openly
suggested violating their borders thereby possibly encouraging a inspired
enemy pool exceeding 100 million people.
...


http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...49120720080911

I approve.

(Not that anyone asked for my approval.)

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...
On Aug 30, 3:53 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
...
We know that he [Obama, FF] does not respect Pakistani sovereignty and has
openly
suggested violating their borders thereby possibly encouraging a inspired
enemy pool exceeding 100 million people.
...


http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...49120720080911

I approve.

(Not that anyone asked for my approval.)

--

FF
Yeh Bush is finally going with Obama's plan And I approve too

on 9/11/2008 3:04 PM Rusty said the following:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...
On Aug 30, 3:53 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:

...
We know that he [Obama, FF] does not respect Pakistani sovereignty and has
openly
suggested violating their borders thereby possibly encouraging a inspired
enemy pool exceeding 100 million people.
...



http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...49120720080911

I approve.

(Not that anyone asked for my approval.).



I too approve. We should go anywhere to eliminate Al Qaeda, wherever
they are and without the host country's approval, even into England.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
in the original Orange County
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Sep 11, 3:09*pm, willshak wrote:
on 9/11/2008 3:04 PM Rusty said the following:



"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...
On Aug 30, 3:53 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:

...
We know that he [Obama, FF] does not respect Pakistani sovereignty and has
openly
suggested violating their borders thereby possibly encouraging a inspired
enemy pool exceeding 100 million people.
...

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...49120720080911

I approve.

(Not that anyone asked for my approval.).

I too approve. We should go anywhere to eliminate Al Qaeda, wherever
they are and without *the host country's approval, even into England.


Well. I'm not _opposed_ to obtaining the host country's permission,
Just not willing to accept inaction without it.

I also doubt that incursions into Waziristan are going to find
bin Laden. He is more likely in a major city where his couriers
have ready access to global communications.

--

FF

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:37:55 -0700 (PDT), Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:

I also doubt that incursions into Waziristan are going to find
bin Laden. He is more likely in a major city where his couriers
have ready access to global communications.

I predicted seven years ago that we will never truly know the
disposition of Bin Laden. Trust me, I am no conspiracy theorist, but
it's in a lot of people's interest to keep him "alive."

A war mongering leader (not just ours) needs to keep him "alive" to
justify the mongering.

A bloated bureaucracy created specifically to counter his effects
needs to keep him "alive" to justify its existence.

The intelligence community might need to keep him "alive" to prevent
creating a vacuum of leadership (or worse, a martyr) encouraging
potentially worse replacements eager to continue the jihad.

Al Qaeda needs to keep him "alive" to further its activities.

Some Middle Eastern regimes might have an interest in keeping him
"alive" to divert attention from their own, similar, nefarious
activities.

No, I'd say calculate a maximum of 100 years after Bin Laden's birth,
and that's about the soonest anyone will confidently assert he's gone.
I don't believe there will ever be a corpus delecti to demostrate it
sooner. Few of us will be left alive to be able to breathe easy at the
assurance of his passing.



--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

Didn't the Mandela's kill the bin laden's
Seriously though Bin Lawden's already in a "on topic" Pine box
There are some scattered followers that want America off there land and out
of there oil.
Just enough to keep you afraid.
I'm also sure if mcsame gets in we'll keep killing there sons and daughter's
bros and sisters ect. just so we can drive to the market to buy some
processed food.
creating more "buzz word" Al Qaeda.
Such a waste of time and money


Very funny Scotty now beam down my cloths


"LRod" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:37:55 -0700 (PDT), Fred the Red Shirt
wrote:

I also doubt that incursions into Waziristan are going to find
bin Laden. He is more likely in a major city where his couriers
have ready access to global communications.

I predicted seven years ago that we will never truly know the
disposition of Bin Laden. Trust me, I am no conspiracy theorist, but
it's in a lot of people's interest to keep him "alive."

A war mongering leader (not just ours) needs to keep him "alive" to
justify the mongering.

A bloated bureaucracy created specifically to counter his effects
needs to keep him "alive" to justify its existence.

The intelligence community might need to keep him "alive" to prevent
creating a vacuum of leadership (or worse, a martyr) encouraging
potentially worse replacements eager to continue the jihad.

Al Qaeda needs to keep him "alive" to further its activities.

Some Middle Eastern regimes might have an interest in keeping him
"alive" to divert attention from their own, similar, nefarious
activities.

No, I'd say calculate a maximum of 100 years after Bin Laden's birth,
and that's about the soonest anyone will confidently assert he's gone.
I don't believe there will ever be a corpus delecti to demostrate it
sooner. Few of us will be left alive to be able to breathe easy at the
assurance of his passing.



--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.