Why does the government need to buy jobs?

>
> The money was paid back

NO.

>
>> This is Socialism, our economy will NOT do what it is supposed to do.
>
> THre is NO SUCH THING as “socialism” you halfwitted twat.

Now whose sounding like an idiot?

>>
>>> Hasn’t it dawned on you yet —the argument that “high taxes” have
>>> nothing to do with high unemployment.
>>
>> Actually they have a lot to do with it, otherwise we would have been a
>> basket case before the 1913 Income tax was created. Yet they were some
>> really good times for America. America started from a nasty war and
>> grew to a real power without those HIGH TAXES.
>
> America grew to a huge industrial power for many reasons—one of
> which was the policy of government which allowed, or even enforced
> business laws against the people it represented.

And look where that took us?

>
> While it lasted–it created a huge underclass, misery, sickness,
> disfranchised and disallusioned people who eventually “looked at”
> Communism as a valid answer to counter the squalor and mistreatment
> they were getting here.

People rob banks because they are too lazy to work.

>
> Fortunately PROGRESSIVES (like T.R Roosevelt) started the ball rolling
> and by the early 30′s—the National government “got smart” and began
> to side with people.

And those people are still standing with their out, it’s pitiful that
they’re so useless they can’t even keep themselves alive…. the
government has to give them everything. And now the government can’t
steal enough to take care of them all, how smart is that?

When people are hanging government politicians from lamp posts I laugh
at you….

> The fortunes, wealth, leadership that emerged along with a huge
> growing middle class was due to economic, tax, regulatory, and
> enforcement policy which the expanding industrial base did VERY WELL
> with

until it didn’t.

>
> The advent of your raygun “trickle-down” c&*$?%p is why the middle class
> is broke, wages are stagnate, 15,000,000 without jobs, 60,000,000 w/0
> HC and approaching $16 Trillion debt.

That’s the government you just said was wonderful…. so what you
really mean is that government under “your” control can be utopia or it
can be evil and hellish under a Reagan. This is what you created,
didn’t we stop the Germans from achieving another government created
Utopia by banning the NAZI party from doing what you want to do and have
done to America?

The problem is you can’t guarantee that utopia, that’s why you have to
settle for either reasonably benign limited government or swing from the
extreme Utopia to back to extreme evil…..

The best idea it to pull the teeth of government so it can NOT be
Utopian or Hellish.

We were capitalists then.

Explain why Obama is buying GM and running it and that was never done in
the past?

This is Socialism, our economy will NOT do what it is supposed to do.
This is NOT Capitalism like it once was. Back when we had fewer
regulations and smaller government things were better.

> Hasn’t it dawned on you yet —the argument that “high taxes” have
> nothing to do with high unemployment.

Actually they have a lot to do with it, otherwise we would have been a
basket case before the 1913 Income tax was created. Yet they were some
really good times for America. America started from a nasty war and
grew to a real power without those HIGH TAXES.

I’m telling you what the document says, you are telling us what you
think the white space in the document contains. You conjure up all sorts
of things that don’t exist anywhere in the document and yet all you need
to do is pass an amendment to get it in there, but it’s easier to add to
the constitution by getting 5 Justices to vote your way than to get 2/3
of the Legislature and 3/4 of the States to pass and ratify the amendment.

You Progressives think that sidestepping the 2/3 rule in the
constitution in Article 5 is somehow a legitimate way to make changes to
the constitution, I’m here telling you it is NOT constitutional. The
fact you won’t listen doesn’t surprise me, in fact I expected it because
I’ve studied the Progressives behavior, a piss poor group of worthless
human debris if there ever was any…..

["Article. V.
*The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses* shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case,
shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this
Constitution, *when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths* of
the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the
one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate."]

SO why don’t you get that the Government has NO powers other than those
we assign to them?

Powers are assigned to the federal government BY the constitution.

That means any powers NOT assigned to the government still belong to the
people.

That is “MY” point, when the wording is lacking(NOT THERE) and there is
no power delegated, the Federal Government has no power for that. So
you are agreeing with me!

You keep telling me I have nothing in writing banning the spending and I
keep telling you that I don’t need it because the constitution is
structured so that “you” need the wording that delegates the powers you
say exist. I don’t *need* to have wording that strips Federal powers.

The federal government has NO powers except those;
*powers from the consent of the governed*

That means the FEDERAL government MUST have those powers delegated to
it, in the constitution. So just show me where those FEDERAL powers you
say exist, have been delegated.

(DoI)
["We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "]

HERE IT SAYS…. the reason for government is to *secure my RIGHTS*

You’re in a “stupid” loop….

again I need no specific words banning taxes, but I was and you were
discussing *SPENDING* just above.

And the Spending is limited just as taxing is limited, by what *is*
delegated. We don’t need to list what is *NOT* delegated.

Spending is the same as taxing, government added an amendment to
delegate INCOME TAX to be a constitutional tax. The congress must amend
the constitution to to delegate the power to spend money on “EDUCATION”
and spend money to on “Social Security“.

*YOU REALLY DON‘T UNDERSTAND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT DO YOU* ?

Yes it is a laugh that you don’t understand the concept of how the
constitution works…..

Let me help you.

["Amendment X
*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."]

I NEED NO WORDS THAT PROHIBIT… YOU DO NEED SPECIFIC WORDS THAT
DELEGATE THOSE POWERS SPECIFICALLY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

It was the Syrian embassy, the whole region is full of Muslims…. I
wasn’t selecting any one Nation, Obama also gave Egypt and Libya to the
Muslim Brotherhood with a *BIG RED BOW ON IT* to further destroy our
chance for getting oil from the region.

It is looking like Obama might as well have been the Ayatollah elected
to the Presidency. Obama is consolidating the entire Middle east for them.

It was probably better for us when Osama Bin Laden still alive and other
Muslims were NOT so interested in consolidating their power.

Obama will kill off Assad in Syria soon and another domino will fall
into the Islamic line. Obama is the best CHANG the Iranians could have
ever HOPED for.

And congress has decided that they will pay welfare and the bills of the
States and the People, by the fact they have decided to pay everyone
welfare they made the decision of what “United States” means and that
decision also decided whose bills are paid.

*Typical Liberal-Progressive Village Idiot* “you” want to have it both
ways.

Thanks for making me look good.

Here you say NO, but then you tell us your opinions and they say *YES*.

Then sending in all my bills to congress is OK since they are directed
to pay them and if they won’t pay then the BILL collectors can take the
congress to collections.

Until you prove that “Welfare” and “paying bills” are are NOT held to
the same qualifier at the end of the sentence “United States” it is
plain to see that the congress pays these for the same entities.

That means as long as they pay *welfare* for the States and the People,
that means congress is also accepting to *pay the bills* of the States
and the People.

I will be Hence forth forward all my bills to congress…..

I suggest that all the people also send their bills to congress until it
decides that “United States” does NOT include “States” and NOT include
“the People”.

That would leave only the Federal Government that congress pays the
welfare and pays the bills for, doesn’t it?

Which was the way it was written, but NOT how the US Supreme Court reads
it. Sad that we have a Supreme court full of Progressive Village
Idiots like Obama the Harvard Village Idiot.

You need to ignore these Progressives and treat them as the Village
idiots they truly are.

That’s a lie…. the thousand page laws are written to hide the true
intent of the law, and that intent is to try to use the courts to steal
your RIGHTS that can’t be stolen so easily by elected officials in a
short concise amendment to the constitution without raising National
attention on themselves.

You scum of the EARTH Progressive-Socialist types have learned how to be
slimy but you still don’t get that you are the dumbest MFers on the
planet. You remind me of the Snake Oil Salesmen…..

People would do well to treat Progressives as the mentally deficient
village idiots that they are.

Well yes they do, they take away all the viable options and all that is
left it to load the oil onto tankers, the shipping billionaires will
love you.

> Piping to the ocean is what they are doing now.

It is the only other viable way to get the oil to an international market.

>> it can pollute
>> Alaska/Washington State like the spill at Prince William Sound. When
>> loaded into a tanker ship. Remember they sink and spill.
>
> That would happen just as easily in Texas as in British Columbia.
> Maybe easier, given the anti-regulatory attitudes in the US.

What a tool and loser you are…. you’re an Eco Socialist moron.

>
>> The stupidity of the ECO-Socialists is incredible.
>>
>> If they wanted to stop a spill the first thing is to get control of the
>> project
>
> How would that stop a spill?

You require better technology and better qualified people, and then the
requirements can be set by you, and there would be fewer miles and less
handling to get it to the refinery and eventually customers, simple odds
says the more you ship and handle the oil the more likely a spill will
occur.

> And how would they get “control of the project”. The oil companies
> will be in control of the project.

If the pipe is on U.S. soil, you have better control to require and sue
in court, now with the tankers they can spill and they can spill in
international waters and the U.S. could get Nothing after having the
shoreline destroyed.

>> NOT chase them away to do it without critical expertise and oversight.
>
> You presume that expertise and oversight is only possible in the US?

NO… I presume the best expertise and oversight of a U.S. oil pipeline
can be found, in America.

>> Then you make sure the project is environmentally safe and it would also
>> have been a National security win/win.
>
> There is no benefit to national security. It is CANADIAN oil, not
> ours. The purpose of the pipeline is to allow CANADIANS to sell more
> oil, not to us, but to others. “American” multinational oil companies
> might get a cut of the profits because some of the oil might be
> refined in Texas or Oklahoma. But otherwise, we are trading territory
> for nothing.
>

You’re too stupid to argue National security and probably hate America
like all Socialists. I was obviously correct and you are obviously
full of s&*$?%t.

>> The only problems so far are, Obama isn’t getting a cut of the money for
>> his re-election and his pals in the unions and ACORN and others.
>
> Why do you see that as a problem? You don’t seem to be an Obama
> supporter.

It’s NOT MY PROBLEM, it is Obama’s problem and the real reason he has
stalled it.

>
>> And
>> Obama’s big problem is that it cuts out the planned redistribution of
>> wealth that has been planned for moving wealth from America to the rest
>> of the world.
>
> There is no evidence for such a plan.

Except that it is being done.

That would mean that Our government is making laws and Obama is loaning
and giving money and stopping domestic oil production, and the
government and Socialists have no plans to go in that direction it was
all coincidence?

Are you sure you want to stick to that story? That sounds worse than
planning stupid, they just accidentally fell into being stupid.

>> Interesting also is that the oil can then be shipped from BC the same as
>> oil is shipped from Valdez Alaska to American ports and the question
>> becomes, what will that do to the PRICE of oil and all that transporting
>> will also increase the odds of an oil spill……
>
> They wouldn’t ship Canadian oil from BC to American ports. They ship
> it to China.

But you have said it is sold on the international market and is not just
Canadian oil but will be sold on the international markets.

You are contradicting yourself.

>
>> So the oil will get to America regardless
>
> Why? Most of the time these days, we are exporting more oil than we
> are importing. Oil prices are high because others will pay those
> prices, not because of shortages.

Back to your lack of understanding of National Security.

Oil supply might be fine today but you have Iran and you have OPEC and
you have Russian oil pipelines, none of whom have any allegiance to America.

>
>> and we will still have the oil
>> spill problem, the oil will get here regardless
>
> The oil is already here. We don’t need more Canadian oil (we might in
> 20+ years, but not now).
>

We refuse to allow American drilling for Americas oil.

>> The wasted Diesel
>
> What wasted diesel?

to pipe the oil to British Columbia and then load it onto tankers that
run huge diesel engines to transport the tankers. You aren’t very
bright are you, you can’t see past your own nose. No wonder you’re a
Socialist and want everything given to you, you’re obviously too stupid
to think through a subject and figure out how to create any wealth or
security. I hope you get a great government job picking up trash,
because that’s about all you could ever do. Maybe with extensive
training you could ask people if they’d like fries with that burger?

>> Obama passes regulations that force you to buy cars that get better gas
>> mileage and at the same time Obama is going to force the oil producers
>> to use more fuel to get their oil to the refineries.
>
> Obama will force no such thing.
>

NOT bright at all are you? Obama closed the markets nearest to the
oil, that forces them to pipe it to the Ocean where it will still be
used but it will take more energy to get it to refineries and go to
places where they have no EPA fuel mileage requirements. That means
Obama is creating even less efficiency of that barrel of oil. The Oil
company and refineries use that oil more efficiently than anyone could
even imagine 100 years ago. Obama and the Government are wasting fuel
while the OIL companies have made a barrel of oil far more useful
efficiently used.

*PROOF THAT GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM*

If there is an oil pipe that runs from the oil field to the refinery,
then we get to make it into useful products and that means jobs.

It also means less transportation costs to get oil to the refineries.
And that means that local oil and the resulting gas is cheaper to
produce and it saves diesel fuel and that means less CO2 doesn’t it as
fuel use is more efficient.

Foreign oil companies will ship fewer OIL TANKER SHIPS to our ports. We
will still be buying foreign oil from Canada but it will be cheaper as
it will be cheaper than using diesel fuel to ship it across oceans.

Went right past you didn’t it.

What is fixed…. tell us.

Living longer is NOT a “measure” of a societies worthiness.

Are you that inane and vapid?

I know I won’t live as long as others, due to my grand father and my
father’s history, does that make me a failure?

Yet you would Use the Socialist plan of Social Security to strip me of
my income via a tax, and then give it to people that “determined by
their and my DNA” will live longer than I will.

Hoe is that a success in society, you steal from me who will by race and
sex and DNA be proven to die younger than most, and give what you stole
to other sexes and races that have DNA that will keep them alive longer.

*WHY IS THAT FAIR*

Explain how you are being *fair* to me?

You Socialists like to use the word fair…. Now you can defend your
tax and your fairness.

Living longer is NOT a “measure” of a societies worthiness.

Are you that inane and vapid?

I know I won’t live as long as others, due to my grand father and my
father’s history, does that make me a failure?

Yet you would Use the Socialist plan of Social Security to strip me of
my income via a tax, and then give it to people that “determined by
their and my DNA” will live longer than I will.

Hoe is that a success in society, you steal from me who will by race and
sex and DNA be proven to die younger than most, and give what you stole
to other sexes and races that have DNA that will keep them alive longer.

*WHY IS THAT FAIR*

Explain how you are being *fair* to me?

You Socialists like to use the word fair…. Now you can defend your
tax and your fairness.