My position on spending cuts is that when someone suggests an alternative to someone else’s spending cuts (and it always happens), I would say, “Great. Cut them both.” There’s spending Rand Paul doesn’t like. And there’s spending you don’t like. And there’s spending Hakeem Jeffries doesn’t like. And there’s spending so many others don’t like. It shouldn’t become an either-or tug of war. It should become an “and-also” solution.
1 Like
Well, I take the position that spending ought to be confined to those objects agreed to by our Founders, approved of by the States, and are written into our Constitution.
And what is written is, “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”, and our founders went on to subjoin to these words a specific list of agreed upon particulars for which Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes:
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;
And it is worthy to take note that Hamilton in Federalist No. 83, while explaining the meaning of this constitutional provision, refers to a “specification of particulars” found beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, which Hamilton goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“.
So, as I correctly indicated above in the thread, Speaker Johnson has given a finger to our Constitution and its defined and limited grants of spending power, and approved a massive bi-partisan deficit spending bill which plunders the American Taxpayer’s Treasury for objects not authorized by our Founders, or the States which ratified our Constitution.
And when comparing Johnson’s list of particulars found in his spending bill with that of our Founders authorized list, we find Johnson’s bill is not designed and limited to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, but rather, it makes a mockery of our Constitution and its defined and limited spending powers, and is a blueprint for plundering the Treasury of the United States and fattening the fortunes of the politically well connected. For this, Johnson, and those approving the Bill, ought to be removed from Congress and severely punished for their willful plundering of the American People’s federal Treasury . . . no appropriate punishment to be left off the table!
JWK
Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
Huh??
That makes even less sense than most of your rants, and that is saying something.
4 Likes
I suggest you run for office, since you are so passionate about it. Instead of posting walls of text here you should be reading it in the House.
2 Likes
It’s called “elections.”
3 Likes
That subsequent whole wall of text could have been avoided. You could have stopped after writing the above, and your post would have said the same thing. (Assuming all the rest just babbled on that point. I didn’t actually read it.)
And you’re correct on that point.
Well one good thing came from it:
LOL if Republicans really want to take that as a win they are welcome to it.
Next up lets make sure Kurt Vonnegut books are banned from schools. 
2 Likes
Walls of text?
Are you talking about THIS, which documents and confirms that Speaker Mike Johnson, and every member of the House who voted in favor of his $1.2 trillion spending Bill, is acting in rebellion to our Constitution and its defined and limited spending powers?
You seem upset over my taking the time to provide documentation supporting my contention. Why?
JWK
They are not “liberals” or “progressives”. They are Authoritarian Revolutionaries, the very kind who took over Cuba, stole people’s property, and now rule over the people with an iron fist.
So, as it turns out, your comment about our Constitution and its recall provision was absurd to begin with.
.
Not absurd at all. There are no provisions for recall of members of Congress in the Constitution.
There certainly is, and it is our election process provisions.
Then wait until election time. The voters will decide.
1 Like
With all the election interference going on and directed towards Trump, is it not obvious the Democrat Party Leadership is working to obstruct voters from getting to “decide”?
1 Like
Sorry, but that doesn’t document or confirm anything.
It’s an opinion post on a message board.
Or maybe Trump is a genuinely corrupt individual who is reaping what he sowed.
We can go round and round with this argument.
1 Like
You are the one who goes around the truth and facts. And, the self-evident truth is, the authoritarian revolutionary leadership, which has taken over the democrat party, is working to obstruct voters from getting to “decide” who they want as their next President.
But they are not. The last election was free and fair and this election will be as well. If Trump wins so be it, if Biden wins so be it.
However, we know today that any time a Republican loses its not because the voters decided but because the election was stolen or some other nefarious reason.
1 Like
There is no “but” about it.
The authoritarian revolutionary leadership, which has taken over the democrat party leadership, is working to obstruct voters from getting to “decide” who they want as their next President.
