House Republicans Take Action to Fix the Deficit

[matt0611]

To all that support funding of NPR: Can anyone point to a clause in the constitution that allows congress to fund a news organization?

 

[RightIsWrong]

I'll agree the Repubs are incompetent at governence, which only makes me wonder, why do the Dems keep helping them get into office? After all, what I've always said before remained true in 2010 - few people actually vote for Republicans; most only vote against Democrats.

When you have a country that has a collective average IQ of 98, it isn't hard to understand why they can be duped into voting against their own self interests time after time after time.

 

[Mursilis]

When you have a country that has a collective average IQ of 98, it isn't hard to understand why they can be duped into voting against their own self interests time after time after time.

You mean the Dem's disingenuous sales pitch of "Freebies! Freebies! Freebies!!" isn't working?!?

The stupid are equally represented in both parties.

 

[dmcowen674]

Here is a chart of the resident AT P&N Republicans not paying their fair share of taxes:

11-17-2011

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...helookout/chart-shows-low-tax-burden-for-rich

Chart shows low tax burden for rich


Those making more than roughly $200,000 a year saw a sharp decrease in their tax burden starting in the 80s. That trend has continued to this day.

Those making $1 million or more per year--that is, roughly the top 1 percent--enjoy the lowest burden.

 

[Mursilis]

Those making $1 million or more per year--that is, roughly the top 1 percent--enjoy the lowest burden.

The real, more complete quote is:

As you can see, no one's taxes today are particularly high by historical standards, but those making $1 million or more per year--that is, roughly the top 1 percent--enjoy the lowest burden, relative to past rates.

Nice selective editing, Dave.

 

[Craig234]

To all that support funding of NPR: Can anyone point to a clause in the constitution that allows congress to fund a news organization?

Go sue in federal court and get this unconstitutional travesty overturned, since you're so clearly right.

 

[Craig234]

I'll agree the Repubs are incompetent at governence, which only makes me wonder, why do the Dems keep helping them get into office? After all, what I've always said before remained true in 2010 - few people actually vote for Republicans; most only vote against Democrats.

That's the people's and the propagandists' fault, not the Democrats' fault.

Harry Truman said, give the people choice between a Democrat who acts like a Republican and a Republicans, and they'll pick the real thing every time.

People who are fed and fall for straw men about Democrats are nt a flaw in Democrats.

The people have chosen very poorly in many elections.

 

[matt0611]

Go sue in federal court and get this unconstitutional travesty overturned, since you're so clearly right.

Thats what I thought. You got nothing, thanks.
That was easy. Defund.

 

[Craig234]

2) Your comments on beat production clearly shows that you never once listened to NPR because it is so far from the typical content.

He heard a story about the 2008 elections being very productive for Democrats who beat Republicans and got confused.

 

[Craig234]

Thats what I thought. You got nothing, thanks.
That was easy. Defund.

You have nothing, for your point about constitutionality, which has nothing to do with 'defund'. You dodge when your error is pointed out.

 

[MotF Bane]

Not yet. First, the bill fairies come out and sprinkle magic dust on it, then Captain Hook shows up and tries to skewer the bill on his hook hand but then you wake up and realize it was all a dream brought on by the flouride overdose the liberal conspiracy overlords poisoned your water with, then the storks fly the bill to the senate and when in the vicinity of McConnell his toad-like tongue snaps out and grabs the bill, which he then rolls around on employing his secretion sacs which glaze the bill with mindcontrol enzymes forcing the dems into a somnambulist state under which they sign the bill and send it to Obama, who will sign it because ending NPR public funding is a top three priority of his Kenyan sleeper cell masters.

And that's how it becomes a law.

Okay, next time, don't watch Discovery and Fox at the same time.

 

[matt0611]

You have nothing, for your point about constitutionality, which has nothing to do with 'defund'. You dodge when your error is pointed out.

Try to follow me on this, if its unconstitutional for congress to fund NPR then they should not be doing it, it has no place and its illegal.

Now, go ahead and point to me the clause in the Constitution that permits congress to fund NPR. Until you or someone can point it out to me NPR should not be funded.

You pointed out no error. Stop with your bullshit smoke and mirrors. You don't fool anyone.

 

[Craig234]

I'm pretty certain in your version of utopia there would only be one station. Just one, spouting 24 hours of propaganda with the biggest story of the day being the increase in beet production.

95% of what is said about liberals here is wrong or lies, I can't remember the other 5%.

Your comment is ironically wrong, since liberals are the ones fighting for diversity in media ownership and content.

Nearly all media in the US are now owned by five mega-corporations, all adding a corporatist bias to the news, which you on the right back, always attacking public media.

 

[Craig234]

Try to follow me on this, if its unconstitutional for congress to fund NPR then they should not be doing it, it has no place and its illegal.

Oh, so if a Republican majority defunds anything, that's all the proof needed it's unconstitutional.

No need for any court to rule it is - the 45 year history of funding means nothing, but if radical Republicans defund it, you don't need a court ruling for proof.

Now, go ahead and point to me the clause in the Constitution that permits congress to fund NPR. Until you or someone can point it out to me NPR should not be funded.

You pointed out no error. Stop with your bullshit smoke and mirrors. You don't fool anyone.

Since you're so obviously right that it's unconstitutional, go sue in federal court that it's *unconstitutional* to fund it.

You have an incredible lack of common sense not to understand that constitutional is what the court says it is as a practical matter, and if Republicans could win in court that it's unconstitutional, they would have. They can't win the issue in court, because your opinion about constitutional is at odds with the Supreme Court who decides that.

If you want more of an answer you have to do better than a half-assed question.

 

[Matt1970]

The real, more complete quote is:

As you can see, no one's taxes today are particularly high by historical standards, but those making $1 million or more per year--that is, roughly the top 1 percent--enjoy the lowest burden, relative to past rates.

Nice selective editing, Dave.

As compared to the 70% rate in the 70's. Strange, it dropped to 50% in the 80's yet tax revenue actually increased.

 

[matt0611]

Oh, so if a Republican majority defunds anything, that's all the proof needed it's unconstitutional.

No need for any court to rule it is - the 45 year history of funding means nothing, but if radical Republicans defund it, you don't need a court ruling for proof.



Since you're so obviously right that it's unconstitutional, go sue in federal court that it's *unconstitutional* to fund it.

You have an incredible lack of common sense not to understand that constitutional is what the court says it is as a practical matter, and if Republicans could win in court that it's unconstitutional, they would have. They can't win the issue in court, because your opinion about constitutional is at odds with the Supreme Court who decides that.

If you want more of an answer you have to do better than a half-assed question.

Again you dodge the question. You can't point to anything in the constitution that allows for this as I suspected.

I don't give a shit what the current republicans are doing, it has no impact on my view that the federal government of the united states should not be funding a news agency, its wrong and illegal.

I neither have the time or the resources to sue the federal government for every unconstitutional thing that they do. Even if I was Bill Gate that could not be accomplished.

Therefore I lobby for my congressman to take action to fix things that are at odds with the supreme law of the United States.

Since I have not been persuaded that the Constitution allows for this I take the position that NPR should not be funded by my tax dollars.

Though some may disagree with my opinion, I don't think anyone could disagree with my logic for defunding NPR.

Also, all the members of congress and the president take an oath to uphold the constitution. You don't pass laws that violate it just because the supreme court has not ruled on it.

 

[MovingTarget]

Try to follow me on this, if its unconstitutional for congress to fund NPR then they should not be doing it, it has no place and its illegal.

Now, go ahead and point to me the clause in the Constitution that permits congress to fund NPR. Until you or someone can point it out to me NPR should not be funded.

You pointed out no error. Stop with your bullshit smoke and mirrors. You don't fool anyone.

First tell us where the constitution forbids it. If something is unconstitional, it must directly contradict something in the constitution. Delegated powers for congress are broad for a reason - so that it can effectively conduct the people's business. A specific constitutional power is not required for Rep. Boehner to go take a shit. That is how constitutional law works. So, if it is unconstitutional - show me where the constitution prevents the government funding CPB.

 

[matt0611]

First tell us where the constitution forbids it. If something is unconstitional, it must directly contradict something in the constitution. Delegated powers for congress are broad for a reason - so that it can effectively conduct the people's business. A specific constitutional power is not required for Rep. Boehner to go take a shit. That is how constitutional law works. So, if it is unconstitutional - show me where the constitution prevents the government funding CPB.

Negative, thats not how the constitution works.
The delegated powers are not broad at all.

The Federal government is delegated some powers and by the tenth amendment the rest are reserved for the states or to the people.

For instance it gives the federal government the power to establish post offices and post roads. It does NOT give it the authority to fund news agencies.

So no, I don't have to show you where it forbids it, YOU have to show ME, where it ALLOWS it.

 

[comptr6]

Again you dodge the question. You can't point to anything in the constitution that allows for this as I suspected.

I don't give a shit what the current republicans are doing, it has no impact on my view that the federal government of the united states should not be funding a news agency, its wrong and illegal.

I neither have the time or the resources to sue the federal government for every unconstitutional thing that they do. Even if I was Bill Gate that could not be accomplished.

Therefore I lobby for my congressman to take action to fix things that are at odds with the supreme law of the United States.

Since I have not been persuaded that the Constitution allows for this I take the position that NPR should not be funded by my tax dollars.

Though some may disagree with my opinion, I don't think anyone could disagree with my logic for defunding NPR.

No intelligent person can disagree with that logic, it's airtight. I'm sure some idiot libtard will whine about how Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution would apply and that until something is ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court it's not considerded unconstitutional, but we all know that you are 100% correct.

 

[matt0611]

No intelligent person can disagree with that logic, it's airtight. I'm sure some idiot libtard will whine about how Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution would apply and that until something is ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court it's not considerded unconstitutional, but we all know that you are 100% correct.

All things are not constitutional just because the supreme court has not ruled they are not.
They are either constitutional or not.

Point me to the clause, not the section, I'll be waiting.

 

[Craig234]

First tell us where the constitution forbids it. If something is unconstitional, it must directly contradict something in the constitution. Delegated powers for congress are broad for a reason - so that it can effectively conduct the people's business. A specific constitutional power is not required for Rep. Boehner to go take a shit. That is how constitutional law works. So, if it is unconstitutional - show me where the constitution prevents the government funding CPB.

Actually, to be fair, the constitution does work on the principle that the government only has the powers granted to it in the constitution.

So in form, his question is right.

The thing is, the powers are broader than his ideology would like, and so he posts trying to draw you into a pointless exchange where he gets to pontificate his ideology.

The fact it's at odds with the Supreme Court and bad for society are irrelevant to him.

So instead of that waste of time, it's fine to point out how obviously, 45 years of Republicans have not understood the constitution as well as him to challenge it.

He should go right this wrong in the courts, but he refuses.

 

[matt0611]

Actually, to be fair, the constitution does work on the principle that the government only has the powers granted to it in the constitution.

So in form, his question is right.

The thing is, the powers are broader than his ideology would like, and so he posts trying to draw you into a pointless exchange where he gets to pontificate his ideology.

The fact it's at odds with the Supreme Court and bad for society are irrelevant to him.

So instead of that waste of time, it's fine to point out how obviously, 45 years of Republicans have not understood the constitution as well as him to challenge it.

He should go right this wrong in the courts, but he refuses.

Again, you show your lack of logic with, "well if they're doing it it must be fine! The government would never do ANYTHING that its not supposed to right?"

And again with the" if you don't like it go sue them in court." argument.

Like thats actually even possible.

Yes, I'm sure if GWB tortured your family and the supreme court did not rule it unconstitutional you'd be satisfied with the response. "Don't like it? Go sue in federal court bitch!"

So just because republicans have not done anything about it makes it perfectly legal and good? Lol yeah, we all know that logic will hold up to a test!

You again fail to justify the funding of NPR under the powers Article 1 Section 8 in the US Constitution. Get back to me when you can do that. If you can't, then NPR should be defunded.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Negative, thats not how the constitution works.
The delegated powers are not broad at all.

The Federal government is delegated some powers and by the tenth amendment the rest are reserved for the states or to the people.

For instance it gives the federal government the power to establish post offices and post roads. It does NOT give it the authority to fund news agencies.

So no, I don't have to show you where it forbids it, YOU have to show ME, where it ALLOWS it.

That's nice that you seem to have a very radical and restrictive interpretation of the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has already established that Congress has very broad and almost plenary power in its spending ability. So, I guess whether it's constitutional to fund NPR or many other things that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, it's your radical interpretation versus 200 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.

I think that Supreme Court jurisprudence wins out over the ramblings of some random person on an internet forum.

 

[matt0611]

That's nice that you seem to have a very radical and restrictive interpretation of the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has already established that Congress has very broad and almost plenary power in its spending ability. So, I guess whether it's constitutional to fund NPR or many other things that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, it's your radical interpretation versus 200 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.

I think that Supreme Court jurisprudence wins out over the ramblings of some random person on an internet forum.

Yes, it does seem so radical to believe the constitution actually means what it says. And we wonder why this country is going down the tubes.

And no, not until this century has the Constitution been so ignored and thrown out the window with so much disregard.

The people on the supreme court are humans and not demi-gods and are not infallible.
Excuse me for having individual thoughts of my own.

Carry on sheep.

 

[MovingTarget]

Actually, to be fair, the constitution does work on the principle that the government only has the powers granted to it in the constitution.

So in form, his question is right.

The thing is, the powers are broader than his ideology would like, and so he posts trying to draw you into a pointless exchange where he gets to pontificate his ideology.

The fact it's at odds with the Supreme Court and bad for society are irrelevant to him.

So instead of that waste of time, it's fine to point out how obviously, 45 years of Republicans have not understood the constitution as well as him to challenge it.

He should go right this wrong in the courts, but he refuses.

Fair enough. Government must operate within the powers granted to it. What this will boil down to is how things like the commerce clause are interpreted - which the SCOTUS has interpreted broadly. Most people find that narrow interpretations of the constitution lead to a government and society that is largely unpalatable. We've seen this fight before - with things like Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, NEA, FDA, and overall funding of things like education, research/development, etc. etc.

For the purposes of this discussion though, he does not necessarily have to personally try to bring a SCOTUS case about CPB. I'm sure that in teh past 40+years of CPB's existence that there has been some case before at least a lower court challenging the law. Perhaps he can show us that. If he wants people to cede its alleged unconstitutionality, he must show where the activities of the laws funding CPB are in conflict with the constitution - either with delegated powers or other prohibitions on federal/state action.