Something that I desperately need to add to this;

Following the U.S. Constitution, I would need to accept the fact that a major pandemic and natural disasters could fall under the ''General welfare'' clause as it was intended to be interpreted as, whereas the socialist entitlement programs are not covered under the ''GENERAL WELFARE'' clause as it was initially intended.

The U.S. Constitution was written to protect the individual rights of the U.S citizens against an over bearing federal fucking government, the U.S. Constitution was not written to protect a collective people for federal fucking government socialist handouts.

 

War bonds are still debt, tenguy.

 

The U.S. Constitution was written to protect the individual rights and economic interests of rich white men, many of whom owned slaves.

When the U.S. Constitution was written and signed many, perhaps most of those who fought in the Continental Army for independence against Great Britain were ineligible to vote because they were not rich enough.

The U.S. Constitution has lasted as long as it has because it was written vaguely enough to flex in the direction of changed values and concerns by a demographically changing electorate.

 

Of course they are, don't remember saying that they were not. Did I?

I also said that temporary debt in times of national emergency, is okay, just as it has in the past. Since 1931, there have been only 7 years where the federal budget was in surplus. Prior to that, the times of deficit spending were less than 15% of the times of a balanced or surplus budget. We are now in a viciously ever expanding circle, our debt is barely manageable only because of extremely low interest rates.

Western Europe and Japan are in similarly bad fiscal straits, watch what happens if those low interest rates increase just 2%. This is going to be very, very painful.

 

So you would have us do nothing because something will take some fortitude on Americas part? I guess you like the Obama way, keep spending money we don't have and don't address the problems. Then tell us how it is a Republican problem, that Democrats had nothing to do with the fix we're in. You sir are worse than the apathetic. They just don't care anymore, while you are hell bent on blame but offer no solutions.

 

No truer words could be spoken, from a true grit socialist, that has no clue what the idea of the U.S. of A. actually stands for.

Rich white men . . . blah, blah, blah,

Slave owners. . . . . . blah, blah blah.

This nations problems started when the mis-interpretors of the U.S. Constitution started the progressive movement, the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land, limiting the power of the federal fucking government, there was no other reason for this sacred document, the specific document that gave the individual inalienable rights from an over bearing, too powerful federal fucking government.

I'm also not too surprised that you have no understanding about this country, or what this country was supposed to stand for.

In short, you need better material to counter any debate, son, your falling way behind.

 

I like the Bernie Sanders way. Raise the top tax rate to what it was during the 1950's. For most Americans those were good years.

 

The United States is supposed to stand for democracy. Those who wrote and signed the United States Constitution were intelligent, and well educate for their time. Their time was over two centuries ago. They did not claim, and they certainly did not have, divine inspiration.

 

Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore.

The '50's are gone, the lifestyle of the '50's are gone, the attitudes of the '50's are gone, the value of the dollar in the '50's are gone, are you basing your concept of the '50's from the sitcom series ''Happy Days''?

Jobs and business were not shipped overseas in the '50's like they have been in the last 20 years, we didn't have lobbyists and interest groups controlling the federal fucking government in the '50's like we do today.

We certainly did not have a federal fucking government this size that they had in the '50's.

 

And here is another misconception of yours, this country was not founded as a democracy, it was founded as a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

AND. . yes it was written over 200 years ago, have individual rights changed since then?, NO, no those rights have not changed, the voters have allowed their liberties to diminish, simply because they have no idea what the concept of the U.S. Constitution truely stands for, they have been indoctrinated to believe that the federal fucking government is the sole entity that gives some people their rights, inwhich is totally ass backwards, just like some leftists are. . . . . . ass backwards.

 

According to a Gallup Survey released June 22, 2015 47% of the American people would vote for a socialist for president.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

I am sure it was not like that during the 1950's.

You are right about this, "the attitudes of the '50's are gone." On every issue I can think of the electorate has moved to the left since then.

 

That wasn't the point of the survey was it?,, 90% would vote for a Catholic, the least appealing to get voted for, would be a SOCIALIST POTUS.

A woman had a better chance of getting elected than. a Socialist, in your cherished poll. . . . Hell a Muslim has a better chance of getting elected, combine a black muslim and a socialist, you Barrack Hussien Obama.

In the '50's, folks recognized that socialism and communism were one in the same, AND DIDN'T WANT IT, today folks cant spell socialism or communism, they just understand ''FREE''

 

Those fuckers that love free everything basically sold their souls to the devil. By wanting free everything and not having a clue what freedom is, a lot of people*gladly* signed away many of their freedoms and liberty to the fucking government. As time went it went from the government asking for permission to trade freedom for whatever, to the government just taking it by writing the shit into law and being quiet about it. Now the government does not try to hide anything much, they tell people that they are taking whatever freedom, writing it into law and most people don't care long as the welfare is there, the you have the few people like myself that attempts to stand up against the freedom being taken to which the government threatens us with jail or fines for whatever bogus charge. Now the government has hone as far as to say we no longer have first amendment rights anywhere in America unless it is in a designated place selected by the government and the government must approve the protest, collect fees, approve the content of the protest, the dates and times must also be approved.


We have gotten to this point basically in part because all the lazy black and hispanics that refused to work were willing to give up everything in the constitution so as long as their free ride was not stopped. The current dicktator saw that and ran with it, now im guessing more than half of the country does not care if they have any rights and are to afraid to stand up against the government, unless of course their welfare is threatened then you see blacks and hispanics come from everywhere like goddamn cockroaches

 

Possibly, but raising the tax rate on the top earners isn't addressing nearly all the issues facing this country...and I don't believe that will even begin to touch our deficit or debt. There aren't enough rich fucks to bail us out...and why should they be held responsible for the governments wasteful ways that got us where we are today. The economy doesn't suck because of the upper class, nor are they the cure. I guess we will see what happens...by the way, what makes you think Sanders will get the nomination? Hillary doesn't have a plan, she can't even do the job she's being paid to do now.

 

]

Temporary debt is still debt, tenguy. That completely invalidates your balanced budget.

Welcome to the real world.

Although, honestly, I'm not sure you recognize the magnitude of what you just said.

 

+1

Good piece on national debt and deficit spending through the ages in the WSJ a couple days ago. (You've probably read it.)

It's nice to encounter other people here who still read real newspapers occasionally.

It troubles me when I see people try to equate the nation's fiscal state across various periods in history with no consideration of the context. As though financing an existential war (1941-1945) is no different from serving bread-and-circuses to the masses (2009-present).

 

No it doesn't.

 

Hmmm, did I say that all debt was bad? Did I say that a balanced BUDGET automatically converts to a deficit free balance sheet at the end of the fiscal year? However the term "temporary debt" implies that it is retired at some point in short term.

You are grasping for straws here, RoM.

For the record I KNOW that you don't understand the budgeting process in the real world.

 

Ah yes, I'm grasping at straws when I point out a glaring flaw in your ideology. You're totally right.

 

You sure have displayed that you are not as smart/intelligent as you have lead some to believe you are.

The real world can accept small debt, matter of fact, some debt is good, and when I say ''some'', I am referring to ''small percentages of debt'' , where as bankrupting debt is not good, there is nothing wrong with ''temporary debt'', just as tenguy has adroitly pointed out to you.