United States Presidential Election 2008

[Verran]

Call it what you want- Slavery, involuntary servitude, impressment, whatever. It's unconstitutional, just like the Fairness Doctrine, and just like the "Assault Weapons Ban."

 

I say stop debating the severity of the noun he chose to use, and instead concentrate on the issue underlying it. This guy has proposed some scary stuff, and a lot of it is going to happen. When it does, the last thing on my mind is going to be what word "best describes it." -_-

Did you even read the last few posts? It's not slavery at all. It's not about using different words. Rehit was totally wrong. It's a program that offers kids money for college in exchange for community service. There's nothing required about it!

 

You want to talk about how bad Obama's tax plans are, or how he's more than a bit socialist? I'm right there with you. But you guys are completely wrong on this one and I thought we had already acknowledged that over the last few posts.

[suchuwato]

Even if it was required, it would be a good thing... maybe help kids get a sense of social responsibility, and maybe then there would be so many people like some in here, who think anything even mildly socialist is the work of the devil <_<

[LoArmistead]

Did you even read the last few posts? It's not slavery at all. It's not about using different words. Rehit was totally wrong. It's a program that offers kids money for college in exchange for community service. There's nothing required about it!

 

I know that, my point was look at the issue underlying it and stop concentrating on the word used to describe it. You want to talk about taxes? Let's do it! This is a tax issue! What's the government going to do to send these "little slaves" to college? I know Obama is the Second Coming and a miracle worker and all that, but I haven't seen him pull money out of his .... yet...

[LoArmistead]

Even if it was required, it would be a good thing... maybe help kids get a sense of social responsibility, and maybe then there would be so many people like some in here, who think anything even mildly socialist is the work of the devil <_<

 

Who says those who hate socialism don't have a sense of social responsibility? Maybe some people see the freest and most open marketplace of ideas as the most socially responsible idea of all? Our next government will be trying to limit that, and instead will define for us what social responsibility is.

[Verran]

If all you care about is where the money for this program will come from, then why did you say this?:

Call it what you want- Slavery, involuntary servitude, impressment, whatever. It's unconstitutional, just like the Fairness Doctrine, and just like the "Assault Weapons Ban."

And why are you still calling them "little slaves". Sounds like you're just as interested in spinning this as much as possible too. What's "unconstitutional" about this plan? It's an OFFER. It's not required. So how is it unconstitutional?

[LoArmistead]

If all you care about is where the money for this program will come from, then why did you say this?:

 

And why are you still calling them "little slaves". Sounds like you're just as interested in spinning this as much as possible too. What's "unconstitutional" about this plan? It's an OFFER. It's not required. So how is it unconstitutional?

 

Well it's probably going to take the conversation down a path most people aren't interested in... but if we must...

 

the Constitution only grants the federal government authority to make expenditures that promote the general welfare. At the time it was written, it was meant literally (according to the Madison's view - the predominant anti-federalist view at the time) - if you dish out money, it goes to everyone who gave it to you or no one at all. Throughout the more "open-minded" era of the 60's and 70's (particularly in 1965 when the previously unconstitutional Pell grants became constitutional through legislative fiat), the 'general welfare' clause was skewed to represent a more indirect general welfare. Their logic was, if the federal government pays to send a kid to college, he will in theory get a better job, which will pay more money, while means he pays more income taxes, and the 'general welfare' of the country is enhanced. Not bad logic, but also not constitutional logic. Our little Obama Youth Brigades are no different. The founding fathers didn't intend for the federal government to have this direct power of individuals, and it's just one more step down the slippery slope to socialism.

 

On the other hand, if states want to offer these little scholarship programs, there's nothing stopping them. Nothing in the world. We've seen time after time what happens to things the federal government takes control of - public education and No Child Left Behind is one very small example. No man spends your money better than you spend your own, so what's wrong with the individual state sponsoring these programs? What would be better than having 50 little separate enterprises competing for people and economic success? If one state finds a working method, the other states can mimick it. On the other hand, if the solitary federal government runs the show, and it fails... then we have the Department of Education. We also learn what can happen to federal programs by using states that have instituted it as guinea pigs. For instance - universal child health care in Hawaii. Epic Fail. Yet we still want to do it at the federal level?

 

EDIT: and to expound on the theory of "no man spends his money better than he spends his own," if the states want to try Hitler Youth Brigades or universal healthcare, they can. The individual citizens of that state can vote on whether they are willing to do what it takes to fund it. If a person doesn't like it, they can move to the next state that has government more in-line with their views. The guys who wrote our Constitution were really smart. I think politicians nowadays should give them, and their ideas, more credit.

[Rehit]

when i first posted the word used was required...

that is where the comment about slavery came from.

there was initially no mention of any "tax reward" for the service.

what was there initially was required servitude.

it most have rung some bells somewhere since they went back and edited the web page.

i did not spin anything...

it was there before they changed it.

since they changed it you expect me to go back and take away what i said about what was there.

i will not do so.

they said it, and i called them out on it.

of course i am going to attack the socialist messiah when he sticks his foot in his mouth (hi Kash).

he stuck his foot in his mouth, not me.

you do not see some big flowery speech about them realizing the mistake and changing it.

they know they screwed up when they told the truth about what they want to do and people started raising hell.

some of you are going to continue to blindly defend him from even the words that come out of his own mouth.

if i did not have a point with my initial comment about the service being required, why then did they remove that from their website?

you people are going to get what you asked for when you elected him.

i hope for the sake of all of us that he is not actually what he appears to be.

if it looks like a turd, it probably is a turd.

[Compxpert]

Well it's probably going to take the conversation down a path most people aren't interested in... but if we must...

 

the Constitution only grants the federal government authority to make expenditures that promote the general welfare. At the time it was written, it was meant literally (according to the Madison's view - the predominant anti-federalist view at the time) - if you dish out money, it goes to everyone who gave it to you or no one at all. Throughout the more "open-minded" era of the 60's and 70's (particularly in 1965 when the previously unconstitutional Pell grants became constitutional through legislative fiat), the 'general welfare' clause was skewed to represent a more indirect general welfare. Their logic was, if the federal government pays to send a kid to college, he will in theory get a better job, which will pay more money, while means he pays more income taxes, and the 'general welfare' of the country is enhanced. Not bad logic, but also not constitutional logic. Our little Obama Youth Brigades are no different. The founding fathers didn't intend for the federal government to have this direct power of individuals, and it's just one more step down the slippery slope to socialism.

 

On the other hand, if states want to offer these little scholarship programs, there's nothing stopping them. Nothing in the world. We've seen time after time what happens to things the federal government takes control of - public education and No Child Left Behind is one very small example. No man spends your money better than you spend your own, so what's wrong with the individual state sponsoring these programs? What would be better than having 50 little separate enterprises competing for people and economic success? If one state finds a working method, the other states can mimick it. On the other hand, if the solitary federal government runs the show, and it fails... then we have the Department of Education. We also learn what can happen to federal programs by using states that have instituted it as guinea pigs. For instance - universal child health care in Hawaii. Epic Fail. Yet we still want to do it at the federal level?

 

EDIT: and to expound on the theory of "no man spends his money better than he spends his own," if the states want to try Hitler Youth Brigades or universal healthcare, they can. The individual citizens of that state can vote on whether they are willing to do what it takes to fund it. If a person doesn't like it, they can move to the next state that has government more in-line with their views. The guys who wrote our Constitution were really smart. I think politicians nowadays should give them, and their ideas, more credit.

Hence why our government as specified by the constitution is supposed to be conservative. They aren't supposed to have all of these agencies, have all theses taxes, or even have a control on the country's currency but gradually the government has been taking more and more control year by year. In essence our government is only supposed to provide for the common defense and raise money in order to do so. Eventually it will probably get to the point where we lose any control period.

[Verran]

Lo, that's a gigantic stretch IMO. If you go by that definition of "unconstitutional", most of what our government does these days is unconstitutional.

 

You guys don't like the program? Great! But these arguments are seriously laughable. If I exaggerated some of Bush's proposals to this degree, I could make him look like Hitler in a heartbeat.

 

Yet again I'll say. If people twisted McCain's proposals half as bad as this, you'd be SCREAMING "drive-by-media"...

[Rehit]

why do you continue to say we are twisting things?

are they not the ones doing the twisting when they go back and edit their statements when they are called out on them?

they have to be very careful not to post their actual intent since it scares the crap out of people.

this is why they had to edit the word "required" out of the original statement, and add in their "tax reward" bait...

they are the ones spinning things...

you guys just will not admit it when it is painfully obvious.

[Verran]

they have to be very careful not to post their actual intent since it scares the crap out of people.

OK, let's say you're right. Let's go with the statement I quoted above, OK?

 

So if they are SO scared of what people will think of their ideas that they can't even post them on a website as ideas, then why do you assume that they will not only put them into an official bill but also that it will pass?

 

You logic doesn't work.

 

Besides, I don't know what the site -supposedly- said before they ninja-editted it, but did you ever stop to think that maybe they changed it because people like you took it WAY out of context and they decided to clarify it?

[Rehit]

how can you take the word "required" out of context?

how can you also not understand that the "tax credit" bait was added as an afterthought?

you are correct that they may not have thought things thru completely before they posted it on "THEIR WEBSITE".

why should i assume that they are not going to follow thru with the ideas that they post?

why i am supposed to asume they will not put it into a bill when they posted the information?

i guess you just want to admit that the idea was stupid but they posted it anyway?

it is easier for you to attack me for what they posted, than it is for you to admit they posted a stupid, unconstitutional idea...