PDA

View Full Version : H. L. Mencken Quote



llotter
07-21-2011, 08:51 AM
H.L. Mencken quipped that the New Deal divided America into "those who work for a living and those who vote for a living."

So, today, the biggest activity of our government is sending out checks that now total $2.3 trillion our of the 2010 budget, going to 70 million of us or about 23% of the population.

http://o.aolcdn.com/photo-hub/news_gallery/7/0/706239/1298051725085.JPEG

LWW
07-21-2011, 02:46 PM
And the O-cult has no comprehension of why you would see that as a problem.

Soflasnapper
07-21-2011, 05:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">H.L. Mencken quipped that the New Deal divided America into "those who work for a living and those who vote for a living."

So, today, the biggest activity of our government is sending out checks that now total $2.3 trillion our of the 2010 budget, going to 70 million of us or about 23% of the population.

http://o.aolcdn.com/photo-hub/news_gallery/7/0/706239/1298051725085.JPEG </div></div>

That's right. The way things have gone, the government is a military, with an insurance company division. Not much else going on.

Gayle in MD
07-22-2011, 06:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">H.L. Mencken quipped that the New Deal divided America into "those who work for a living and those who vote for a living."

So, today, the biggest activity of our government is sending out checks that now total $2.3 trillion our of the 2010 budget, going to 70 million of us or about 23% of the population.

http://o.aolcdn.com/photo-hub/news_gallery/7/0/706239/1298051725085.JPEG </div></div>

And the Right Wing fascists, are so out of it they refuse to acknowledge that the vast majority of Americans, do not subscribe to the economically damaging, launch un-necessry wars while cutting taxes while breaking spending records and borrowing records, IOW, the failed economic policies and philosophy of the radical right, which currently is representative of the entire Repiglican Party.

Yes, we have a country where the old, the poor and the ill, get some aid from their own money, which they worked for and contributed some of it to invest in America's social insurances.

Thank God we have had some Liberal Presidents, and legislators, who don't want to live in a country where those who are impacted by old age, poor health, or horrendous bad luck, are ignored, hungry and living in the streets, like third world countries.

Too bad we have about one in five people in this country who are either too stupid, too Godless, or too greedy and corrupt, to appreciate it, and too short sighted to imagine what kind of country they would be living in without those social insurances.

G.

LWW
07-22-2011, 07:01 AM
The COTUS authorizes the military ... not the insurance.

LWW
07-22-2011, 07:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And the O-cult has no comprehension of why you would see that as a problem. </div></div>

Did I call it or what.

llotter
07-22-2011, 08:09 AM
I don't think that 'insurance' is listed in those Enumerated Powers and for good reason.

Soflasnapper
07-22-2011, 01:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The COTUS authorizes the military ... not the insurance. </div></div>

Obviously, opinions vary on that. When old age insurance reached a SCOTUS challenge, it was ruled legitimate under the Constitution, per one of the pesky clauses you say don't exist or are not clauses, or some alleged argument or another.

In our world, this has been settled law by the only competent authority to rule on it, since the '30s or something.

I've heard there are some dead-enders on the matter.

LWW
07-22-2011, 02:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The COTUS authorizes the military ... not the insurance. </div></div>

Obviously, opinions vary on that. When old age insurance reached a SCOTUS challenge, it was ruled legitimate under the Constitution, per one of the pesky clauses you say don't exist or are not clauses, or some alleged argument or another. </div></div>

Actually, that's a myth.

The SCOTUS has ruled more than once that SS is simply a tax and you are entitled to nothing.

Soflasnapper
07-22-2011, 05:06 PM
Not that it's unConstitutional, however.

Don't change the subject. You asserted the military was authorized by the Constitution, and that the insurance programs of the government were not.

That is technically correct, just as the COTUS specifically authorizes by mention a navy and an army, but not an air force.

But just as the air force is Constitutional as part of the authorized government job of national defense, so too has the high court ruled that SS is also authorized as part of the COTUS which says the government should provide for the general welfare. Not required, surely, but certainly allowed.

We have no mandate to have the air force, but it's allowed. Similarly for the various insurance programs.

ugotda7
07-22-2011, 11:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not that it's unConstitutional, however.

Don't change the subject. You asserted the military was authorized by the Constitution, and that the insurance programs of the government were not.

That is technically correct, just as the COTUS specifically authorizes by mention a navy and an army, but not an air force.

But just as the air force is Constitutional as part of the authorized government job of national defense, so too has the high court ruled that SS is also authorized as part of the COTUS which says the government should provide for the general welfare. Not required, surely, but certainly allowed.

We have no mandate to have the air force, but it's allowed. Similarly for the various insurance programs. </div></div>

This is crazy, but follow me here - it just might have something to do with the fact that airplanes hadn't been invented yet. And the Air Force was originally part of the Army anyway. And that's quite a stretch of the general welfare intent.....is there anything that isn't general welfare then?

LWW
07-23-2011, 03:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">COTUS specifically authorizes by mention a navy and an army, but not an air force.</div></div>

Of all the stupid leftist arguments, that one is definite top ten material.

What is an "AIR FORCE" ... other a land based weapons system. Your own argument betrays you in that the navy use a sea bases weapons system use air power.

Next ridiculous argument in defense of your beloved state?

Gayle in MD
07-23-2011, 07:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The COTUS authorizes the military ... not the insurance. </div></div>

Obviously, opinions vary on that. When old age insurance reached a SCOTUS challenge, it was ruled legitimate under the Constitution, per one of the pesky clauses you say don't exist or are not clauses, or some alleged argument or another.

In our world, this has been settled law by the only competent authority to rule on it, since the '30s or something.

I've heard there are some dead-enders on the matter. </div></div>

Conservatives, (an oxymoron for sure) have been fighting settle Constitutional Law, for as long as I can remember!

They have their own fantasy constitution, their own unConstitutional "Pledge" to obstruct progress.

Rememmber, they already proved they couldn't accurately read the COTUS, on the very first day they took the majority!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Boehner held up the wrong document for the Tea Baggers, on the capital step, and called it COTUS! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Stretch
07-23-2011, 07:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The COTUS authorizes the military ... not the insurance. </div></div>

Obviously, opinions vary on that. When old age insurance reached a SCOTUS challenge, it was ruled legitimate under the Constitution, per one of the pesky clauses you say don't exist or are not clauses, or some alleged argument or another.

In our world, this has been settled law by the only competent authority to rule on it, since the '30s or something.

I've heard there are some dead-enders on the matter. </div></div>

Conservatives, (an oxymoron for sure) have been fighting settle Constitutional Law, for as long as I can remember!

They have their own fantasy constitution, their own unConstitutional "Pledge" to obstruct progress.

Rememmber, they already proved they couldn't accurately read the COTUS, on the very first day they took the majority!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Boehner held up the wrong document for the Tea Baggers, on the capital step, and called it COTUS! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Ya, i remember that. They skiped over whole sections that they didn't like claiming later that those pages where stuck together....probably as a result of the parts they realy realy liked. St.

Gayle in MD
07-23-2011, 08:52 AM
LOL, all one has to do to understand their stupidity, and ugly philosophies, is just read their "Pledge". /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif They are racist, misogynists, and liars.

Or, better yet, just review their bahavior over the last thirty years, and track the disastrous results!

A quick look at their current presidential candidates, along with their RW pundits, and their failed policies, is more than enough for reasonable, informed Americans, to shudder at the thought of more stunningly ignorant representative frm the right!

"We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem."

Got to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard in my life!!!! Does anyone with half a brain think that when you owe money, and have debts, that increasing revenues, isn't going to help you dig your way out of Bush's crashed economy?

Proof, they have absolutely NO grasp of economics, particularly since they spent eight years under the Bush/Cheney National economic disaster, saying that deficits didn't matter, a they were driving this country straight into a deficit ditch....BW HA HA HA!

You could cut the hypocrisy with a chain saw!