Do progressives understand this quote?

Are you sure Jefferson actually wrote it.

 

What was Jefferson's view as to Government's role in Enron? The "Love Canal"? Madoff? The subprime mortgage?

Do Libertarians understand this quote?

“I would propose that…the national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity; such as the regulation of trade, including the right of taxing both exports and imports, the fixing the terms and forms of naturalization, etc. etc.” James Madison in a letter to George Washington in April of 1787.

While the founding fathers rightly were concerned about a government with unchecked powers, in fact the Constitution was written with the intent of strengthening the federal government after the lived through the failure of a weak government provide under the Articles of Confederation.

 

Well, that has hardly happened in America; there is enough evidence of that.

I (for one) prefer having the "Republic" operate as it does (messy though it may often be).

 

What most conservatives fail to note is that the growth in government has been in direct response to a actual issue. No one decided to expand the government for the sake of some ideology. Does anyone really believe that if the government contracted the problems would not return or they would go away on there own?

The current issues of the GOP focus on tax cuts and smaller government. That's all well and good, everyone would prefer to pay less in taxes and no one wants a government to be larger than necessary. However, I rarely hear specific programs targeted in thsi search for these ideological goals.

 

Everything they believe in is diametrically opposed to what this country was founded on. And they don't understand why they get called anti-American. It's sad,really.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. I talked to him yesterday. He confirmed it.

 

Yes. Unless you have any evidence he didn't? It tells specifically when it occurred and how after the quote.

 

What about it? Let me guess. You're one of these folks who thinks Libertarians don't believe in government......

 

What about it? Did you read my post?

While the founding fathers rightly were concerned about a government with unchecked powers, in fact the Constitution was written with the intent of strengthening the federal government after the lived through the failure of a weak government provide under the Articles of Confederation.

 

Sorry. Didn't bite on your strawman argument that Libertarians want zero government. Better luck next time!

 

Didn't bite your strawman that I argued any such thing. Better luck next time.

 

Well, find us private companies that are willing to do the same thing.

Find us a private company that can provide the same level of service for food stamps and liberals will be happy to get rid of the government program.

This exercise will help you notice that no private company can do the same thing. Not doing this exercise will help you learn nothing. Let's see if you actually try to learn or if your hands are tied when it comes to learning.

Let's see how you go about learning...........if that's even possible!

 

Here's the problem with your argument. You're ASSUMING we created this government to hand out FOOD STAMPS........ There's a REASON the federal government has NO entitlement rights contained within the constitution.....

BECAUSE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ENTITLEMENT RIGHTS YOU HAVE TO TAKE FROM ONE WHO EARNS AND HAND TO ANOTHER WHO DIDN'T. WHEN YOU USE FORCE TO DO IT, IT'S CALLED ARMED ROBBERY.

It's YOUR responsibility to provide food for yourself, shelter for yourself, clothing for yourself, transportation for yourself, ad infinitum. It's governments responsibility to take care of what you CAN'T provide yourself such as national defense......

 

Taxes aren't robbery at all and they are provided for in the constitution. Try reading it.

 

I'm not referring to legitimate enumerated powers. I'm referring to the taking from one who earned and the handing to another who didn't by government force.

 

Taxes aren't robbery at all and they are provided for in the constitution. Try reading it.

 

I'm not referring to legitimate enumerated powers. I'm referring to the taking from one who earned and the handing to another who didn't by government force.

 

This is not such a good argument. So much of social services are provided by 'private' charities.

 

But find me a private company to provide food stamps. I know you CANT and that was the point of the exercise.

Since there are no private companies providing food to the needy................its no wonder we have a gov't program that does it. Liberals don't always look to government to solve our problems, we just recognize that there are no private companies providing food for the needy.

 

Nope, try again! Read the general welfare clause in that constitution that you carry around laminated in your breast pocket. If you are going to carry it around with you, you should at least use it.

This has been debunked so many times!

 

They assume start ups have mountains of cash on hand for attorneys and compliance people just like any other big corporation with in house counsel. I mean, the very existence of "in house counsel" should alert them to the fact that yes their regulatory scheming does cost lots of money. Now they reply "but it is worth it", but have they read any of the federal registrar? Blind obedience.

 

You mean something other than taxes? What are you talking about?

 

The progressives see it as not your money. The left should decide what portion you should be able to use and only the left should have this power.
Next the progressive will push a flat wage. Where no matter what job you do everyone gets the same wages. Except of course Reid's staffers.

 

What progressive has ever advocated that? Can you say "straw man"?

 

Not sure if you seen the word WILL or maybe the meaning is lost on you.

 

If it referred to social welfare then we would have had social welfare at that time.....but we didn't..... Why is that you think?

Then you won't mind debunking it again. So?