That's easy to fix, end the federal funding of welfare. Each state is responsible for their own welfare programs and to what extent they want to support the poor in their state. Some states with high social awareness like California want to give a living wage, go for it, but the residents of California pay for it.

 

Do they also get to place a tariff on goods coming from states that don't?

 

See, that's the problem with the Republican piecemeal way of doing things.

 

The constitution makes it illegal for states to do anything to impede trade between each other, but states are allowed to do things that harm the trade interests of other states, such as giving out massive tax breaks or destroying union protections to get industries to move there.

 

Nope, it's time to abandon the republican plan of playing everyone against each other and time to get back to the days of a UNITED States of America where the playing field is level no matter which state you happen to find yourself born in.

---

Do they also get to place a tariff on goods coming from states that don't?

 

See, that's the problem with the Republican piecemeal way of doing things.

 

The constitution makes it illegal for states to do anything to impede trade between each other, but states are allowed to do things that harm the trade interests of other states, such as giving out massive tax breaks or destroying union protections to get industries to move there.

 

Nope, it's time to abandon the republican plan of playing everyone against each other and time to get back to the days of a UNITED States of America where the playing field is level no matter which state you happen to find yourself born in.

 

How is that a "republican" plan, I'm not republican and I've never seen ANY republican suggest it?

 

Changing who funds welfare doesn't break any laws, Tariffs have nothing to do with the idea, you're trying the typical topic shift.

 

The Constitution states specifically powers not granted to the union DEFAULT to the STATES, so show me the constitutional authority to have any federal welfare programs.

---

How is that a "republican" plan, I'm not republican and I've never seen ANY republican suggest it?

 

Changing who funds welfare doesn't break any laws, Tariffs have nothing to do with the idea, you're trying the typical topic shift.

 

The Constitution states specifically powers not granted to the union DEFAULT to the STATES, so show me the constitutional authority to have any federal welfare programs.

 

Switching programs from federal blanket to state patchwork is an old republican chestnut intended to allow for the destruction of social programs.

 

It's why the country has had a 70 year march from high unionization and every state being closed shop to more than half of the nation being right to get screwed at work due to the Taft-Hartley act that allows for states to choose busting unions.

---

Switching programs from federal blanket to state patchwork is an old republican chestnut intended to allow for the destruction of social programs.

 

It's why the country has had a 70 year march from high unionization and every state being closed shop to more than half of the nation being right to get screwed at work due to the Taft-Hartley act that allows for states to choose busting unions.

It's not a "Old Republican Chestnut". Whatever that is.

 

It's the 10th Amendment. If it isn't specifically defined in the Constitution, it's for up to the States. 

 

 

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.

---

How is that a "republican" plan, I'm not republican and I've never seen ANY republican suggest it?

 

Changing who funds welfare doesn't break any laws, Tariffs have nothing to do with the idea, you're trying the typical topic shift.

 

The Constitution states specifically powers not granted to the union DEFAULT to the STATES, so show me the constitutional authority to have any federal welfare programs.

 

It's there bro, they just didn't write it in the margins yet.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It's not a "Old Republican Chestnut". Whatever that is.

 

It's the 10th Amendment. If it isn't specifically defined in the Constitution, it's for up to the States. 

 

The tenth amendment is a paper tiger. The constitution allows for almost unlimited expansion of federal power and even specifically mentions the general welfare as one of the responsibilities of congress.

 

The only thing the tenth amendment basically says is that anything the federal government has yet to decide to oversee is up for the states to govern, not that there is some limit on what the federal government can do as nut-jobs think.

---

Nut jobs? Like the guys who wrote it? I think you're reading what you want out of it. Ridiculous.

---

Nut jobs? Like the guys who wrote it? I think you're reading what you want out of it. Ridiculous.

The guys who wrote the constitution only added on the 10th amendment as part of the ratification process. The intentions of the framers was clear, to create a strong federal government.

 

If they had wanted a modern day republican style federal government they'd have just stuck with the toothless articles of confederacy.

---

The guys who wrote the constitution only added on the 10th amendment as part of the ratification process. The intentions of the framers was clear, to create a strong federal government.

 

If they had wanted a modern day republican style federal government they'd have just stuck with the toothless articles of confederacy.

 

The entire Constitution is a list of things the government CAN NOT do, not a list of powers!

 

You have some warped sense of history, they framed the entire first 10 amendments around limiting the federal government in every way conceivable during that time period. Talk about trying to re-write history......

---

The entire Constitution is a list of things the government CAN NOT do, not a list of powers!

 

You have some warped sense of history, they framed the entire first 10 amendments around limiting the federal government in every way conceivable during that time period. Talk about trying to re-write history......

I'm sure he agrees with Executive orders and Obama's I have a pen and a phone...whatever the hell the phone is gonna do for him.

---

The entire Constitution is a list of things the government CAN NOT do, not a list of powers!

 

You have some warped sense of history, they framed the entire first 10 amendments around limiting the federal government in every way conceivable during that time period. Talk about trying to re-write history......

 

Please, stop, your posts are so wrong so often it saddens me that you're not retaining any of the knowledge I've shared with you.

---

Please, stop, your posts are so wrong so often it saddens me that you're not retaining any of the knowledge I've shared with you.

I wish ignorance was painful.

 

This is from your beloved government's own mouth.

 

<p style="font-family:'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px;color:rgb(70,62,62);"><b>Q. The United States government is frequently described as one of limited powers. Is this true?</b>

A. Yes. The United States government possesses only such powers as are specifically granted to it by the Constitution.

<p style="font-family:'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px;color:rgb(70,62,62);"><b>Q. Then how does it happen that the government constantly exercises powers not mentioned by the Constitution?</b>

A. Those powers simply flow from general provisions. To take a simple example, the Constitution gives to the United States the right to coin money. It would certainly follow, therefore, that the government had the right to make the design for the coinage. This is what the Supreme Court calls "reasonable construction" of the Constitution (Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 18).

<p style="font-family:'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px;color:rgb(70,62,62);"><b>Q. Where, in the Constitution, is there mention of education?</b>

A. There is none; education is a matter reserved for the States.

<p style="font-family:'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px;color:rgb(70,62,62);">http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charter...and_a.html

<p style="font-family:'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px;color:rgb(70,62,62);"> 

<p style="font-family:'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px;color:rgb(70,62,62);">Why don't you do some reading. Or continue to flap your jaws about things you clearly are uneducated about.

---

I wish ignorance was painful.

 

This is from your beloved government's own mouth.

 

<p style="font-family:'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px;color:rgb(70,62,62);"><b>Q. The United States government is frequently described as one of limited powers. Is this true?</b>

A. Yes. The United States government possesses only such powers as are specifically granted to it by the Constitution.

<p style="font-family:'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px;color:rgb(70,62,62);"><b>Q. Then how does it happen that the government constantly exercises powers not mentioned by the Constitution?</b>

A. Those powers simply flow from general provisions. To take a simple example, the Constitution gives to the United States the right to coin money. It would certainly follow, therefore, that the government had the right to make the design for the coinage. This is what the Supreme Court calls "reasonable construction" of the Constitution (Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 18).

<p style="font-family:'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px;color:rgb(70,62,62);"><b>Q. Where, in the Constitution, is there mention of education?</b>

A. There is none; education is a matter reserved for the States.

<p style="font-family:'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px;color:rgb(70,62,62);">http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charter...and_a.html

<p style="font-family:'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px;color:rgb(70,62,62);"> 

<p style="font-family:'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px;color:rgb(70,62,62);">Why don't you do some reading. Or continue to flap your jaws about things you clearly are uneducated about.

 

 

<b>Section. 8.</b>

<a></a>The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charter...cript.html

 

Really, just stop, you clearly have no knowledge of the constitution or of case law.

 

As I already stated, the constitution grants practically limitless power to the federal government via the legislative process. There is no constitutional constraint of the federal government's power except the procedural and structural stipulations it places on the form of the legislature.

---

You're beyond reproach. I just hope while you are posting that you are "working" and paying taxes, not living off the teet of your socialist utopia.

---

You're beyond reproach.

 

Thank you, I'm glad you're starting to understand things.

---

Good call

 

In my view there are numerous problems that need to addressed.

 

Foreign aid- especially for countries that despise us. We've got plenty of our own problems. The US remains the biggest spender with a total of $30.2bn, the largest aid disbursement ever recorded by a single donor. (2010) I'm sure the number is higher now.

 

Wheat and grains- why do we give it away? Why don't we trade it for oil. That will keep costs lower for everything in the US.

 

The constant wars with no real end game - this is going on and on. Either we are in it to win it, or we need to isolate ourselves from them. Let them do what what they want, and secure the border.

 

The complete and utter bloat of the Federal government- All things not covered in the Constitution, are to be handled by the states. There should be no federal department of education, FDA, DEA, NSA, etc etc etc. We could save sooo much money in getting rid of all the unnecessary, and unconstitutional "government".

 

I'm sure there are more, I'm just tired of typing...

 

The problem with debt is that eventually the debtors come calling. If you keep piling it up, eventually you're going to default. Then, you know what China is not going to want...our worthless dollar. They're going to want land, resources, and favors. 

The problem starts and ends in Washington DC. Those fools no longer are held accountable for this mess (ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE). They should all be fired. The whole system needs overhaul. The greatest lie going is the two party system. Each side blames the other, and half the country digs in with their respective side. All the while, the politicians get filthy rich, and American dream boat inches just a little farther over the waterfall.

 

Honestly, most politicians should be taken out back and shot.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

Anyone who runs for office, shouldn't be elected.

---

The problem starts and ends in Washington DC. Those fools no longer are held accountable for this mess (ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE). They should all be fired. The whole system needs overhaul. The greatest lie going is the two party system. Each side blames the other, and half the country digs in with their respective side. All the while, the politicians get filthy rich, and American dream boat inches just a little farther over the waterfall.

 

Honestly, most politicians should be taken out back and shot.

 

So true.


 


If The US Govt was an actual business it would have been burned down for insurance money decades ago.  That or sold to a foreign conglomerate as the higher-ups jumped out with golden parachutes. 


 

We have a terrible system in place and it is not getting better.

---

Being a retiree of Corporate America I can attest to the vulgarities companies practice to avoid paying their fair share of taxes that every Mom and Pop company have to pay. I will give you one disgusting example we did, which was legal.

 

We manufactured a powdered product sold in the U.S. in 50 lb bags to industrial customers. To ship that product out of the U.S. we added water to it so we could claim that it was not a "finished" product, therefore we avoided paying taxes on it. We had facilities in other nations that dried it, then sold it. Our margins were better on the export material even after we paid transportation costs.

 

Oh, by the way, we saved $250 million in taxes on this single product. My company produced over 1300 different products. Do the math.

 

Regards..........................the Chiefjag

---

The problem starts and ends in Washington DC. Those fools no longer are held accountable for this mess (ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE). They should all be fired. The whole system needs overhaul. The greatest lie going is the two party system. Each side blames the other, and half the country digs in with their respective side. All the while, the politicians get filthy rich, and American dream boat inches just a little farther over the waterfall.


Honestly, most politicians should be taken out back and shot.

It's beyond corrupt. They all need to go, and should have term limits. How long has Reid and Pelosy been in there? 2 terms and done , without life long retirement.

---