Three Blue States on the Brink

[grasping the after wind]

One of it's delineated powers is passing laws as needed.

AS NEEDED? How many of the laws that they pass would honestly fit this description?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Question: Does the Federal Spending rundown quoted earlier include all money spent in the state or only money given to the state to spend?
If it is all federal money spent, which I suspect that it is, then it really doesn't give you a good idea of the amount of money the federal government gives to the states for the state to use for its own budget purposes. Much of the money could go to things like military bases, federal office buildings etc. which would not impact the state's budget.

 

[Nathan Poe]

AS NEEDED? How many of the laws that they pass would honestly fit this description?

Well, that's just it -- who gets to decide what's needed and what's not?

 

[SOAD]

AS NEEDED? How many of the laws that they pass would honestly fit this description?

As many as needed. How many automobile driving laws did America need in 1800? Should we abolish driving laws because there were none in 1800?

 

[grasping the after wind]

As many as needed. How many automobile driving laws did America need in 1800? Should we abolish driving laws because there were none in 1800?

What kind of point are you trying to make here? I don't know of any federal driving laws, but if there are any, my hope is that they would be needed at present even if they weren't needed in the past but my experience tells me that there would be many more laws about driving that were not needed than laws that were needed. What relevance the year 1800 has escapes me completely. I think my point was that most of the laws congress passes are not needed at the present time. It seems that Congresspersons feel they need to pass laws because it is in their job description and they must feel like they are not earning their pay if legislation is not passed. It really doesn't seem to matter what the legislation is as long as they "get something done". Heck, they don't even have to know what is a the bill to pass it.

 

[SOAD]

What kind of point are you trying to make here? I don't know of any federal driving laws, but if there are any, my hope is that they would be needed at present even if they weren't needed in the past but my experience tells me that there would be many more laws about driving that were not needed than laws that were needed. What relevance the year 1800 has escapes me completely.

You dont know of any federal driving laws?
I guess the point did escape you. The point is there were no automobile laws in 1800 because there were no automobiles. When cars came around, then so did the laws. Laws are made as they are needed.

I think my point was that most of the laws congress passes are not needed at the present time. It seems that Congresspersons feel they need to pass laws because it is in their job description and they must feel like they are not earning their pay if legislation is not passed. It really doesn't seem to matter what the legislation is as long as they "get something done". Heck, they don't even have to know what is a the bill to pass it.

I disagree. I believe the legislation passes laws because there is a need for the laws. They aren't just passing laws to keep busy

 

[questftbest]

Once again, these states have spent and spent and spent and spent and spent and spent and are blue. They represent the failed policy of the tax and spend democrat party.

 

[Pommer]

Once again, these states have spent and spent and spent and spent and spent and spent and are blue. They represent the failed policy of the tax and spend democrat party.

As opposed to the "borrow and spend" philosophy of our party?

 

[brindisi]

So why not cut off federal funds to all the states, not just the blue ones?

Federal expenditures of any nature should be limited to only those functions authorized by the enumerated powers of the constitution.

 

[brindisi]

OH sure it has something to do with relationships between the states. It's a fact that red states take more money than they put in. I imagine if they got a more fair share, their budget wouldn't be so great, and if the blue states got more back from what they put in, theirs might be a little better.

You can try and ignore the issue, but the fact of the matter is red states are benefitting more from blue states. Not unlike Kermit's brother analogy.

I'm not ignoring your issue, just telling you that it is only tangentially related to state debt burdens.

 

[brindisi]

One of it's delineated powers is passing laws as needed.

It sounds as if that one sentence would serve as the entire constitution for you. Get rid of that troublesome limited powers thing once and for all.

 

[ScottBot]

As many as needed. How many automobile driving laws did America need in 1800? Should we abolish driving laws because there were none in 1800?

Some countries in south america operate with no driving laws and their accident and fatality rates are way lower than ours. YOu seem to be under the impression that laws actually protect people. They don't, laws are created to control people.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Some countries in south america operate with no driving laws and their accident and fatality rates are way lower than ours. YOu seem to be under the impression that laws actually protect people. They don't, laws are created to control people.

Yeah, let's get rid of those pesky laws. Then we'll see who gets to control people (after-all... there will be no laws to stop them).

 

[grasping the after wind]

You dont know of any federal driving laws?

No Can you name some.

I guess the point did escape you. The point is there were no automobile laws in 1800 because there were no automobiles. When cars came around, then so did the laws. Laws are made as they are needed.

and how is that in any way relevant to the discussion? I don't recall claiming that laws are never needed or that all the needed laws are already in place. Your argument addresses a point I have not made just as many of the laws Congress passes address problems that don't exist.

I disagree. I believe the legislation passes laws because there is a need for the laws. They aren't just passing laws to keep busy

I believe differently and cite the fact that Congresspersons are continually voting to pass legislation that they have never read and don't understand yet they don't seem to be embarrassed by that fact at all. So the mere fact that they have passed legislation seems to be more important to them than what is actually contained within the laws they pass.

 

[SOAD]

No Can you name some.

I can

and how is that in any way relevant to the discussion? I don't recall claiming that laws are never needed or that all the needed laws are already in place. Your argument addresses a point I have not made just as many of the laws Congress passes address problems that don't exist.

I answered, IMO, the question in post# 41

I believe differently and cite the fact that Congresspersons are continually voting to pass legislation that they have never read and don't understand yet they don't seem to be embarrassed by that fact at all. So the mere fact that they have passed legislation seems to be more important to them than what is actually contained within the laws they pass.

Never reading the legislation does not mean they do not know what is in the bill. Your logic is flawed.

 

[SOAD]

Some countries in south america operate with no driving laws and their accident and fatality rates are way lower than ours. YOu seem to be under the impression that laws actually protect people. They don't, laws are created to control people.

How can something be protected without exerting some kind of control? You seem to be under the impression that you know something I don't.

 

[ScottBot]

How can something be protected without exerting some kind of control? You seem to be under the impression that you know something I don't.

We are the most litigious and soon to be regulated and controlled body politic on the planet, and yet we are no safer here with all the burdensome laws, statutes, codes, orders, and mandates than some farmer in Costa Rica who rarely if ever gives thought to the government and vice versa. As I said, government (by way of law) is "supposed" to exist to protect life and liberty, not control it.

I see life as a division between 2 kinds of people, those who love freedom and liberty, and those who love power and control. Which one are you? You can't be both. You either favor freedom or you favor power. You either want liberty or you want control.

 

[SOAD]

We are the most litigious and soon to be regulated and controlled body politic on the planet, and yet we are no safer here with all the burdensome laws, statutes, codes, orders, and mandates than some farmer in Costa Rica who rarely if ever gives thought to the government and vice versa. As I said, government (by way of law) is "supposed" to exist to protect life and liberty, not control it.

I see life as a division between 2 kinds of people, those who love freedom and liberty, and those who love power and control. Which one are you? You can't be both. You either favor freedom or you favor power. You either want liberty or you want control.

lol's

You are either with us or against us.

(Apparently, somebody thinks that everybody would just get along without control)

 

[ScottBot]

lol's

You are either with us or against us.

(Apparently, somebody thinks that everybody would just get along without control)

I am sorry that you feel the need for a government to make decisions for you.

And yes, life does boil down to either/or paradigm choices.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I can

Will you? I would like to know some

I answered, IMO, the question in post# 41

"AS NEEDED? How many of the laws that they pass would honestly fit this description?" How does the year 1800 relate to this question? The invention of the auto may have necessitated new laws but that doesn't address the larger point.

Never reading the legislation does not mean they do not know what is in the bill. Your logic is flawed.

My assertion was not based on logic but on evidence as many have admitted that they didn't know everything that was in the health care bill when they voted for it and Congressman Rangel (Bless his soul) scoffed at the idea the idea that they should know what was in the bill. Speaker Pelosi said they needed to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it. Logic would also dictate that if one does not read a bill one does not have a full first hand working knowledge of what is contained in the bill. You can assert that you know the story of "War and Peace" by Lev Tolstoi because someone told you what was in the story or you read the Classics Illustrated version but you would be fooling yourself.It seems to me that when dealing with laws that will affect the entire country one should know every jot and title of the legislation. Now, if the above was the attitude of these legislators toward passing a bill of such significance and scope as the health care bill, how can you assert that these legislators would only pass bills that were needed?