Seriously, not so much a "who" as much as "what" type of person would make your ideal President.
I am genuinely curious. Some of my "likes" are directly related to this forum, and let's say pondering a bit over past presidents, what made me like/dislike them.
For instance, I liked Ronald Reagan, he was inspiring, suffered a continual onslaught from his political enemies, yet was always genuine & optimistic. Years later, I really grew to appreciate him even more, thanks to Bill Clinton.
Now that "Conservative" means little, "Constitutional Conservative" is my primary qualifier.
What do you look for in a potential President?
Quote from: Hoofer on July 17, 2016, 10:59:44 AM
Seriously, not so much a "who" as much as "what" type of person would make your ideal President.
I am genuinely curious. Some of my "likes" are directly related to this forum, and let's say pondering a bit over past presidents, what made me like/dislike them.
For instance, I liked Ronald Reagan, he was inspiring, suffered a continual onslaught from his political enemies, yet was always genuine & optimistic. Years later, I really grew to appreciate him even more, thanks to Bill Clinton.
Now that "Conservative" means little, "Constitutional Conservative" is my primary qualifier.
What do you look for in a potential President?
That about sums me up as well. I used to be a social Conservative, but all that changed when the party used it to help split the base about 20 years ago.
No, screw that, first things first, we need to return to our Founding ideals, morality will check itself when govt is out of the equation.
Quote from: Hoofer on July 17, 2016, 10:59:44 AM
Seriously, not so much a "who" as much as "what" type of person would make your ideal President.
I am genuinely curious. Some of my "likes" are directly related to this forum, and let's say pondering a bit over past presidents, what made me like/dislike them.
For instance, I liked Ronald Reagan, he was inspiring, suffered a continual onslaught from his political enemies, yet was always genuine & optimistic. Years later, I really grew to appreciate him even more, thanks to Bill Clinton.
Now that "Conservative" means little, "Constitutional Conservative" is my primary qualifier.
What do you look for in a potential President?
Very interesting question, Hoofer.
For me I look at what can make the biggest impact on our nation and here is what I see.
1. Someone who understands what Colin Powell said years ago on Face the Nation (more or less): "Look I am not for big government, I am not for small government, I am for 'right size' government that can get done what we need to get done."
That being said I want a President who can get Congress to get serious and make responsible budget cuts, not wasting time with political posturing, but real cuts, first I don't see why every department cannot cut 10% from their budget annually for 4 years. The exception would be entitlements that our seniors depend on, we promised them that we should keep that promise, although I am in favor of a "Means Test" so the money goes only to those that need it.
2. Someone who understands that the more intertwined our economies are with other nations the more dependent they become on US, and so will build strong trade deals with those nations we want to use to further American interests. The next World War will not be fought on the battlefield but by Corporaations so the stronger economy we have and the more dependent other nations are on us to buy their junk, the better position America will be to dictate the terms of the New Economy we are headed to.
3. Someone who can convince Congress to pass Immigration Reform. The answer is already written it was done so by the "Gang of Eight" and passed by the Senate a few years ago before languishing in the House until dead. This Bill would generate some $50 to $75 BILLION in fines that could be used to build a wall and hire more Federal Agents. It would pay for itself! Why we don't do that is beyond me.
4. This is not so much anything any President can do but what we need more than anything else. We need to change ALL leadership in Congress on both sides except for Paul Ryan. Congress needs to start addressing these issues and getting things done!!! Doing nothing is not governing! That is the biggest problem we have a Legislative Branch that is dysfunctional and does no work. Without that, no President can every help us.
I do not believe the problems of this nation are complicated at all and we know the answers in one form or another. The problem Congress has is the simple inability to get anything done. It's not like the 'old days' when a roadblock arose the leadership would go behind closed doors and a few hours later meerge with a deal.
Now the leadership goes in front of the cameras and tries to out insult the other guy.
My view is since FDR every President we have had (every one) has led us well, kept us safe, and tried to make our nation better for our people. Our Congress is the most disappointing thing about our government. Now, we need Congress as a vital check and balance but Congress is what is holding us back.
Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 11:30:17 AM
Very interesting question, Hoofer.
For me I look at what can make the biggest impact on our nation and here is what I see.
Here's the Conservative take.
Quote1. Someone who understands what Colin Powell said years ago on Face the Nation (more or less): "Look I am not for big government, I am not for small government, I am for 'right size' government that can get done what we need to get done."
Powell was a deluded RINO. He actually thinks a behemoth govt is the right size. The guy truly is a lib with an (R) next to his name.
QuoteThat being said I want a President who can get Congress to get serious and make responsible budget cuts, not wasting time with political posturing, but real cuts, first I don't see why every department cannot cut 10% from their budget annually for 4 years. The exception would be entitlements that our seniors depend on, we promised them that we should keep that promise, although I am in favor of a "Means Test" so the money goes only to those that need it.
Conservatives want to rid the govt of redundancy, kill off worthless Depts. that do nothing but hinder growth and free mkt entrepreneurship.
Quote2. Someone who understands that the more intertwined our economies are with other nations the more dependent they become on US, and so will build strong trade deals with those nations we want to use to further American interests. The next World War will not be fought on the battlefield but by Corporaations so the stronger economy we have and the more dependent other nations are on us to buy their junk, the better position America will be to dictate the terms of the New Economy we are headed to.
The less influence govt has over corporations and vice versa the less chance there will be of war.
Quote3. Someone who can convince Congress to pass Immigration Reform. The answer is already written it was done so by the "Gang of Eight" and passed by the Senate a few years ago before languishing in the House until dead. This Bill would generate some $50 to $75 BILLION in fines that could be used to build a wall and hire more Federal Agents. It would pay for itself! Why we don't do that is beyond me.
No need for reform. All the laws are, and have been in place for decades, they simply need enforcing.
Quote4. This is not so much anything any President can do but what we need more than anything else. We need to change ALL leadership in Congress on both sides except for Paul Ryan. Congress needs to start addressing these issues and getting things done!!! Doing nothing is not governing! That is the biggest problem we have a Legislative Branch that is dysfunctional and does no work. Without that, no President can every help us.
Ryan is a sell out, period!
The best thing that Congress can do for the country is......
Gridlock! Neither party has the best interests of the nation in mind, all they ever do is grow govt, pick winners and losers and leave the American public stuck footing the Bill with less in Liberties to show for it.
QuoteI do not believe the problems of this nation are complicated at all and we know the answers in one form or another. The problem Congress has is the simple inability to get anything done.
They get too much done as it is.
QuoteIt's not like the 'old days' when a roadblock arose the leadership would go behind closed doors and a few hours later meerge with a deal.
Now the leadership goes in front of the cameras and tries to out insult the other guy.
Don't kid yourself, they still do backroom deals, the "in front of the cameras" stuff is for the drone masses consumption.
It's all staged.
QuoteMy view is since FDR every President we have had (every one) has led us well, kept us safe, and tried to make our nation better for our people. Our Congress is the most disappointing thing about our government. Now, we need Congress as a vital check and balance but Congress is what is holding us back.
Partially correct. POTUS is a creation of the party's, with one exception, Reagan.
Quote from: Solar on July 17, 2016, 11:51:42 AM
No need for reform. All the laws are, and have been in place for decades, they simply need enforcing.
Thanks for your perspectives, Solar. I never heard anyone say Gridlock was good. But hearing that made me go "hmmm" and as I thought about it it makes sense if you think government is too involved as it is. That kind of perspective is what I am looking for I had never thought of it that way before.
As far as immigration goes, I have heard some say we have as many as 23 million illegals, if we say half are good, pay taxes, work, do not break any laws other than the civil misdemeanor of entering the country illegally then most countries want people like that, so why don't we make some money off them??
If we allow them to stay and pay a fine we can generate enough money to secure the border and maintain it annually virtually in perpetuity.
Frankly, I think we are missing an opportunity here. We cant round them all up. They are here to stay. Why not have them pay something to do it?
Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 11:30:17 AM
Very interesting question, Hoofer.
For me I look at what can make the biggest impact on our nation and here is what I see.
1. A dictator could very easily do what you ask.
2. There is no balance between socializing the economy and free market capitalism, government cannot make the economy grow by any kind of intervention, the two are mutually exclusive. Nixon tried wage & price controls - I lived under that, inflation was the ticking time bomb, all he did was delay it. Carter's capping oil wells in Alaska for a fake energy crisis & OPEC caused gas prices to soar, deepening & the recession. Economic Globalism was tried in the EU... without satisfactory results. I need not go into Obama's bailouts (some forced). But, that's not an ideal for a president...
3. Immigration reform isn't needed when the laws in place are enforced. Just like gun control, laws are meaningless without enforcement. If immigration reform was passed, and unenforced, would that make a difference? Instead, how about a President who would simply call for law enforcement of what's already been passed? I could go for that, and we could probably do better with less laws & regulations.
4. How could Ronald Reagan do so well as a leader with practically zero support from the legislative branch? He must have had other skills besides Oratory, right? One could easily argue House Speaker Tip O'Neill was running the country, yet failed miserably because the Executive branch was so stubborn. Reagan was savaged in the press, and cruelly criticized by O'Neill, but still prevailed most of the time. Those are vivid memories for many of us, O'Neill live on TV proclaiming budgets Dead-On-Arrival and then viciously attacking Reagan.
At the risk of going off-da-rails quickly, what kind of individual be your IDEAL Presidential candidate?
Go ahead, imagine and describe his/her character, personality, etc.
Quote from: Hoofer on July 17, 2016, 12:16:18 PM
At the risk of going off-da-rails quickly, what kind of individual be your IDEAL Presidential candidate?
Go ahead, imagine and describe his/her character, personality, etc.
Good question Hoofer.
President Obama has been cruelly attacked without reason as well. The difference is Tip O'Neil worked very closely with President Reagan and they did get a lot done, together. Not so today although John Boehner tried every time he came close to a deal with President Obama his caucus would reel him back it. It was frustrating to watch.
As far and ideal candidate I would say someone with the domestic policy of President Obama. Someone with the foreign policy of President Reagan. And the character of person of both.
Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 11:30:17 AM
Very interesting question, Hoofer.
For me I look at what can make the biggest impact on our nation and here is what I see.
1. Someone who understands what Colin Powell said years ago on Face the Nation (more or less): "Look I am not for big government, I am not for small government, I am for 'right size' government that can get done what we need to get done."
That being said I want a President who can get Congress to get serious and make responsible budget cuts, not wasting time with political posturing, but real cuts, first I don't see why every department cannot cut 10% from their budget annually for 4 years. The exception would be entitlements that our seniors depend on, we promised them that we should keep that promise, although I am in favor of a "Means Test" so the money goes only to those that need it.
2. Someone who understands that the more intertwined our economies are with other nations the more dependent they become on US, and so will build strong trade deals with those nations we want to use to further American interests. The next World War will not be fought on the battlefield but by Corporaations so the stronger economy we have and the more dependent other nations are on us to buy their junk, the better position America will be to dictate the terms of the New Economy we are headed to.
3. Someone who can convince Congress to pass Immigration Reform. The answer is already written it was done so by the "Gang of Eight" and passed by the Senate a few years ago before languishing in the House until dead. This Bill would generate some $50 to $75 BILLION in fines that could be used to build a wall and hire more Federal Agents. It would pay for itself! Why we don't do that is beyond me.
4. This is not so much anything any President can do but what we need more than anything else. We need to change ALL leadership in Congress on both sides except for Paul Ryan. Congress needs to start addressing these issues and getting things done!!! Doing nothing is not governing! That is the biggest problem we have a Legislative Branch that is dysfunctional and does no work. Without that, no President can every help us.
I do not believe the problems of this nation are complicated at all and we know the answers in one form or another. The problem Congress has is the simple inability to get anything done. It's not like the 'old days' when a roadblock arose the leadership would go behind closed doors and a few hours later meerge with a deal.
Now the leadership goes in front of the cameras and tries to out insult the other guy.
My view is since FDR every President we have had (every one) has led us well, kept us safe, and tried to make our nation better for our people. Our Congress is the most disappointing thing about our government. Now, we need Congress as a vital check and balance but Congress is what is holding us back.
Are you a registered democrat? If not you should be based on the above post.
Quote from: supsalemgr on July 17, 2016, 12:34:56 PM
Are you a registered democrat? If not you should be based on the above post.
I thought Nixon did a good job except for little dust up he had.
I thought Reagan did a good job.
I thought H.W. did a good job and is a good man.
I though W did the best he could under difficult circumstances.
I will not criticize any of them.
For Republicans I have voted for
Gov. Bill Weld, Twice.
Gov. Paul Cellucci,
Gov. Jane Swift (what a mess that was)
Gov. Mitt Romney.
Sen. Scott Brown. (Couldn't stand Martha Coakley).
Gov. Charlie Baker (see above).
All Republicans although being from Massachusetts these are not really true Conservatives, I realize its all relative.
:smile:
Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 12:31:58 PM
Good question Hoofer.
President Obama has been cruelly attacked without reason as well. The difference is Tip O'Neil worked very closely with President Reagan and they did get a lot done, together.
Reagan repeatedly went directly to the American people to put the squeeze on Tip & Congress and get his agenda through. Tip and the MSM was vicious & relentless attacking Reagan.
Quote
As far and ideal candidate I would say someone with the domestic policy of President Obama. Someone with the foreign policy of President Reagan. And the character of person of both.
Reagan loved America, Obama openly stokes racial tension here, and criticizes America in foreign countries... I don't understand any similarities, sorry. When Reagan was shot, he didn't push for gun control measures, but Obama seems to have this motto, "Never let a crisis go to waste" and champions abridging our constitutional rights. Sorry, I can't see any similarities between Reagan and Obama.
Carter and Obama - yes, absolutely, grow government, grow regulations, top-down governmental controls, re-education of the populace to adopt new environmental & food restrictions, - those two are quite similar, despite a generation apart.
Quote from: Hoofer on July 17, 2016, 12:53:06 PM
Carter and Obama - yes, absolutely, grow government, grow regulations, top-down governmental controls, re-education of the populace to adopt new environmental & food restrictions, - those two are quite similar, despite a generation apart.
I am a Kensyian Economist supporter so I believe governments function is to grow and pump money into the economy and cut taxes in times of crises, and then shrink and raise taxes in order to pay down debt during good times (like the 1990's) and prepare for the next crises.
We are good at the growing and spending part, both sides have tax and spend as their motto's. But we are not as good at the shrinking part although, while still too bloated President Obama has shrunk the overall size of government since its high point during his first term.
But we do have to do more to reduce size AND cost. We're not far apart in what we want, we just have different ways to go about getting it.
Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 01:03:12 PM
I am a Kensyian Economist supporter so I believe governments function is to grow and pump money into the economy and cut taxes in times of crises, and then shrink and raise taxes in order to pay down debt during good times (like the 1990's) and prepare for the next crises.
We are good at the growing and spending part, both sides have tax and spend as their motto's. But we are not as good at the shrinking part although, while still too bloated President Obama has shrunk the overall size of government since its high point during his first term.
But we do have to do more to reduce size AND cost. We're not far apart in what we want, we just have different ways to go about getting it.
I would consider a prerequisite for the office the individual both
loves this country and the
founding documents. Anything short of that, MEH, move somewhere else, America already has undergone a "fundamental transformation" in the Revolution. We don't want to go back to the ages of Rulers and Kings, do we?
Now that you've reminded me, I kinda like that "rugged individualism" and "personal responsibility" we use to hear of, those are sweet music to a small businessman's ears. Government intervention just seems to punish achievement and innovation, often when we as a country need it the most.
Quote from: Hoofer on July 17, 2016, 01:11:43 PM
I would consider a prerequisite for the office the individual both loves this country and the founding documents. Anything short of that, MEH, move somewhere else, America already has undergone a "fundamental transformation" in the Revolution. We don't want to go back to the ages of Rulers and Kings, do we?
Good points Hoofer. Thanks for the thought provoking questions.
I came here because I didn't want a board where everyone agreed with me. I spent several days reading the board and I chose this board because I really liked the passion the posters have and I wanted to find a place where people would challenge me. I have been told I will have no shortage here. :biggrin:
I think all of our Presidents certainly since FDR were/are very aware of the weight of the office and I think they all want(ed) this nation to be the best possible land of opportunity for all people while protecting the rights of all people, and there may arise conflicts there sometimes.
Land of rules and Kings? Good point. I don't think any of us want that. And managing by Executive Order is somewhat concerning. However, this goes back to our views on the role of Congress. I believe Congress has an obligation and DUTY to handle the "business of the people" and that gridlock is not an acceptable strategy.
You may not agree.
I see the role of Congress as being one of the biggest divides Conservatives have with other views. And based on what SOLAR said earlier I had never thought of it that way, it is an interesting view, and I would agree makes sense sometimes.
I just don't agree gridlock should be the main way to run the country.
IMO.
I have come to realize that too often we want perfection in our candidates and so called leaders. We think they are what we want them to be and when they turn out not to be we are disappointed. We must remember that they are just men....and women....and they are subject to every human foible and character flaw that man in his weakness is afflicted with....same as you and I.
So my Presidential choice is one who is NOT perfect, because perfection doesn't exist. Every President I admire and respect from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan, were not perfect, they all had some weaknesses that shone through.
BUT in each one of those I named they all had these two important Traits: STRENGTH OF CHARACTER and STRENGTH OF RESOLVE. In a world full of Ayatollah's, Kim Jong Ill's Putin's and a bunch of other Human sharks we need a leader who will stand behind their word and back it up with a bloody fist if need be. The Wolves can smell it on you or not and will act accordingly.
I also think a President should have the strength of Moral Character, I don't expect them to be on the knees Praying every minute with a Halo over the head but a basic belief in CHRISTIANITY and the Moral Compass of Gods Ten Commandments is sorely needed.
Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 12:12:55 PM
Thanks for your perspectives, Solar. I never heard anyone say Gridlock was good.
Our government was structured a certain way, with checks and balances.
Quote
But hearing that made me go "hmmm" and as I thought about it it makes sense if you think government is too involved as it is. That kind of perspective is what I am looking for I had never thought of it that way before.
"Too involved"? Maybe just a little.
Quote
As far as immigration goes, I have heard some say we have as many as 23 million illegals, if we say half are good, pay taxes, work, do not break any laws other than the civil misdemeanor of entering the country illegally then most countries want people like that, so why don't we make some money off them??
Why can't they do that in their country?
Quote
If we allow them to stay and pay a fine we can generate enough money to secure the border and maintain it annually virtually in perpetuity.
Pay a fine for what?
Quote
Frankly, I think we are missing an opportunity here. We cant round them all up. They are here to stay. Why not have them pay something to do it?
Incorrect. They aren't "here to stay". They are here because we important and incentivized them to invade our country. Simply reducing opportunity by enforcing laws already on the books would make them self-deport.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on July 17, 2016, 06:18:59 PM
I have come to realize that too often we want perfection in our candidates and so called leaders. We think they are what we want them to be and when they turn out not to be we are disappointed. We must remember that they are just men....and women....and they are subject to every human foible and character flaw that man in his weakness is afflicted with....same as you and I.
So my Presidential choice is one who is NOT perfect, because perfection doesn't exist. Every President I admire and respect from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan, were not perfect, they all had some weaknesses that shone through.
BUT in each one of those I named they all had these two important Traits: STRENGTH OF CHARACTER and STRENGTH OF RESOLVE. In a world full of Ayatollah's, Kim Jong Ill's Putin's and a bunch of other Human sharks we need a leader who will stand behind their word and back it up with a bloody fist if need be. The Wolves can smell it on you or not and will act accordingly.
I also think a President should have the strength of Moral Character, I don't expect them to be on the knees Praying every minute with a Halo over the head but a basic belief in CHRISTIANITY and the Moral Compass of Gods Ten Commandments is sorely needed.
Ditto.....
Have split this thread. The money part will be in Financial.
Honesty
Integrity
A constitutionalist
My presidential choice would possess these qualities:
1) Deep knowledge and respect of the Constitution
2) Christian beliefs and core conservative values
3) Integrity and honor
4) Knowledge of the functionality of our government
5) A commitment to the 'people' of the United States to crush the Washington cartel
6) Backbone and tenacity
7) Proven conservative record
8) Experience in dealing with the Supreme Court
9) Plans that will replace our current tax codes, bolster our economy and repeal and replace Obamacare
10) A patriot with abiding love for country and a natural born leader
TED CRUZ. Reigniting the Promise of America!!
Quote from: The Boo Man... on July 17, 2016, 10:22:58 PM
Honesty
Integrity
A constitutionalist
Essentially the opposite of Trump..
Mine is simple. A PROVEN Constitutional Conservative.
Quote from: tac on July 18, 2016, 07:38:19 AM
Mine is simple. A PROVEN Constitutional Conservative.
Same here. I don't demand much as long as they follow the Constitution, but if they did, they wouldn't be a Dim or a RINO either, just like all the other pieces of the shit the party throws at us, claims it's our only option.
Ya know, I've never seen this much vitriol against the party in my lifetime, and at this level of vitriol, yet amazingly the party is aloof and acts as if nothing has changed as they collapse into a footnote in history.
Is this what the Dim party planned when they infected the GOP? Personally, I don't think it was a good idea to completely destroy the party, but that's the direction it's headed.
Quote from: tac on July 18, 2016, 07:38:19 AM
Mine is simple. A PROVEN Constitutional Conservative.
That automatically includes of good character, honesty & integrity. In order to faithfully follow the Constitution, it takes a clear moral character.
STRENGTH OF CHARACTER and STRENGTH OF RESOLVE - absolutely!
What president has not sworn to uphold & defend the nation, constitution from enemies without and within - just to back off and attempt to cut deals with known enemies? Jimmy Carter appealed to Russia for help, and both Carter and Obama have been fawning over Israel's enemies (who are also ours!).
Quote from: Hoofer on July 18, 2016, 02:40:20 PM
That automatically includes of good character, honesty & integrity. In order to faithfully follow the Constitution, it takes a clear moral character.
STRENGTH OF CHARACTER and STRENGTH OF RESOLVE - absolutely!
What president has not sworn to uphold & defend the nation, constitution from enemies without and within - just to back off and attempt to cut deals with known enemies? Jimmy Carter appealed to Russia for help, and both Carter and Obama have been fawning over Israel's enemies (who are also ours!).
Exactly! Listening to politicians telling us what they will do is a waste of time. Look at what they have done and supported in the past. That is what defines them. The oath of office is a joke.
Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 17, 2016, 01:03:12 PM
I am a Kensyian Economist supporter so I believe governments function is to grow and pump money into the economy and cut taxes in times of crises, and then shrink and raise taxes in order to pay down debt during good times (like the 1990's) and prepare for the next crises.
We are good at the growing and spending part, both sides have tax and spend as their motto's. But we are not as good at the shrinking part although, while still too bloated President Obama has shrunk the overall size of government since its high point during his first term.
But we do have to do more to reduce size AND cost. We're not far apart in what we want, we just have different ways to go about getting it.
Can you show me where the Founders stated the Fed was designated with power to regulate the economy?
Yeah, I know, libs always point to the Commerce Clause, but that's not what the founders intended, but what activist courts wanted.
The Commerce Power: [Art. I, Section 8]
The Congress shall have Power To...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes;
Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2016, 05:08:22 PM
Can you show me where the Founders stated the Fed was designated with power to regulate the economy?
Yeah, I know, libs always point to the Commerce Clause, but that's not what the founders intended, but what activist courts wanted.
The Commerce Power: [Art. I, Section 8]
The Congress shall have Power To...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes;
Hi Solar,
Excellent question. Seriously. Many of my kind do point to the Commerce Clause or the Equal protection amendment (14th) and it all comes down the sad fact we as a people simply cannot do what is right without a law or executive action.
-Slavery needed a Executive Action.
-Woman's Suffrage needed an Amendment.
-Child Labor needed a Law.
-Fair Labor Standards Act needed a Law.
-Civil Rights needed a Law.
-A Woman's Right needed a Law (I will admit this is a very complex issue I respect all sides).
-Equal Rights.
-Health Care needed TWO Supreme Court Rulings.
-Gay Rights needed TWO Supreme Court Rulings.
We sadly have a history of not being able to agree on things on our own. That is a fact. If WE as the STATES had been able to address these issues then there would have been no need for the Fed to get involved. That is the problem I see, we need to keep ahead of the curve.
Now, I get our views are 180 degrees OPPOSITE, but you know what...I am ok with that. In FACT I did come here to listen to what you guys and gals have to say and I have found you all to be very passionate and I have learned some things. I'm actually starting to like some of you. (I don't know why.) :biggrin:
we may not change minds but that is not my purpose here NOR is it to insult anyone. I simply and frankly enjoy the discussion with this group who is so completely different than me. I like hearing what you have to say.
I will add a bit on a following post just to make it easier to read I can get long winded but I am sensitive that it is not my intention to take over any discussions. Just to put my view out there and read what you all think about it.
Thanks for asking the question Solar it is one of the most important questions we have.
I enjoy discussing things with you. For what it is worth.
Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2016, 05:08:22 PM
Can you show me where the Founders stated the Fed was designated with power to regulate the economy?
Yeah, I know, libs always point to the Commerce Clause, but that's not what the founders intended, but what activist courts wanted.
The Commerce Power: [Art. I, Section 8]
The Congress shall have Power To...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes;
So I'm not going to post ad nauseum here (make you guys gag for my posts as it is) :biggrin:just a few snippets so you see what my point is and the thread flow can decide how much you guys want to discuss it. I always look forward to what you guys think of this.
So I agree the Constitution is clear. I believe it is a Living Document that should reflect the times. I understand many like former Justice Scalia believed the Constitution IS a firm document that says what it means. I can respect that.
However, our Founding Fathers did leave us a template for what they believed (really in their hearts) thru the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers. That is my point here.
"The Men who oppose a strong & energetic government are, in my opinion, narrow minded politicians..."
-George Washington, letter to Alexander Hamilton, July 10, 1787
Alexander Hamilton also pushed for a "Strong Central Government" and noted it as follows:
""I agree to the proposition. I did not intend yesterday a total extinguishment of state governments; but my meaning was, that a national government ought to be able to support itself without the aid or interference of the state governments, and that therefore it was necessary to have full sovereignty. Even with corporate rights the states will be dangerous to the national government, and ought to be extinguished, new modified, or reduced to a smaller scale."
-Alexander Hamilton, Constitutional Convention: Remarks on the Abolition of the States, June 19, 1787.
Now the Anti-Federalists had several Founding Fathers as well such as Patrick Henry among them and they did not support a strong central government.
Finally, despite what the Founding Fathers wanted we know what the Constitution says. It is right there.
And we have to decide what it means. What was the intent. Our nation depends on what we decide.
Solar I want to thank you for asking this question. That made all the difference in this discussion. You opened it up!
I am very interested in what you and everyone has to say. Sadly again being on the east coast surrounded by liberals I have to run out for tonight but I would love continue this or any other discussion tomorrow.
Take care. (don't worry if I get the emolji's wrong I have no idea what I am doing with those anyway I just try to find something close to my intent)
:biggrin:
Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2016, 05:08:22 PM
Can you show me where the Founders stated the Fed was designated with power to regulate the economy?
Yeah, I know, libs always point to the Commerce Clause, but that's not what the founders intended, but what activist courts wanted.
The Commerce Power: [Art. I, Section 8]
The Congress shall have Power To...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes;
Solar,
I missed your main question about the economy. My apologies. Government regulates the economy by the tax code.
Using the tax code pushes levers across the nation via interest rates for business, home, and other lending.
I would say the authority of the Federal Government to tax (or not) would be big levers to move the ecnomy.
for example mortgage interest deductions make buying a house more attractive.
401k makes saving for retirement more attractive (thought too many take that money in loans and squander it)
all of the tax code modulates the economy.
since the Constitution gives the government the right to tax that is it.
Hopefully, we talk more tomorrow!
:smile:
Quote from: Steve,SPHR on July 20, 2016, 06:40:47 PM
So I'm not going to post ad nauseum here (make you guys gag for my posts as it is) :biggrin:just a few snippets so you see what my point is and the thread flow can decide how much you guys want to discuss it. I always look forward to what you guys think of this.
So I agree the Constitution is clear. I believe it is a Living Document that should reflect the times. I understand many like former Justice Scalia believed the Constitution IS a firm document that says what it means. I can respect that.
However, our Founding Fathers did leave us a template for what they believed (really in their hearts) thru the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers. That is my point here.
"The Men who oppose a strong & energetic government are, in my opinion, narrow minded politicians..."
-George Washington, letter to Alexander Hamilton, July 10, 1787
Alexander Hamilton also pushed for a "Strong Central Government" and noted it as follows:
""I agree to the proposition. I did not intend yesterday a total extinguishment of state governments; but my meaning was, that a national government ought to be able to support itself without the aid or interference of the state governments, and that therefore it was necessary to have full sovereignty. Even with corporate rights the states will be dangerous to the national government, and ought to be extinguished, new modified, or reduced to a smaller scale."
-Alexander Hamilton, Constitutional Convention: Remarks on the Abolition of the States, June 19, 1787.
Now the Anti-Federalists had several Founding Fathers as well such as Patrick Henry among them and they did not support a strong central government.
Finally, despite what the Founding Fathers wanted we know what the Constitution says. It is right there.
And we have to decide what it means. What was the intent. Our nation depends on what we decide.
Solar I want to thank you for asking this question. That made all the difference in this discussion. You opened it up!
I am very interested in what you and everyone has to say. Sadly again being on the east coast surrounded by liberals I have to run out for tonight but I would love continue this or any other discussion tomorrow.
Take care. (don't worry if I get the emolji's wrong I have no idea what I am doing with those anyway I just try to find something close to my intent)
:biggrin:
That was the issue with the Constitution, it was by it's very nature a suffocating force over States Rights as well as individual Liberties, so an addendum was necessary, and if not for the intellect and insight for the likes of James Madison in creating the Bill of Rights, we may very well have had the oppressive govt you so admire.