Thoughts on a Second Stimulus Package?

[Inkstain82]

I believe you to be wrong on this issue. You treat the constitution as if it was written specifically for the 18th century. It wasn't.

Thomas Jefferson is on my side.

The constitution is based on concepts, not time-specific data or decisions. If you read the constitution from start to finish, it does not sound dated or unusable. Instead, it sounds like a document we should still be following.

That is your opinion restated, yes. You are begging the question, not presenting evidence or arguments with this paragraph.

The amendment capabilities make it a customizable and updatable document.

The amendment capability is one of its *most* outdated features. 9/13 is much easier to get than 34/50.

There is not much written in the Constitution that is no less relevant today than it was in the 18th century.

Begging the question again.

I believe the problem lies in the fact that you love the federal government and the constitution does not. If you didn't love the federal government, or think it necessary to provide for us, you would not see the constitution as outdated. The constitution, and those who wrote it, don't agree with you. Therefore, you pretend like it's an unimportant document in today's times.

The people who wrote the Constitution don't agree with me?

1) They are dead.

2) I've referenced one of the primary writers who *did* agree with me. You ignored that and presented no evidence of your own.

That's like saying the 10 commandments hold no weight because they were written thousands of years ago for people that existed thousands of years ago.

Yeah, that six-day workweek in the 10 Commandments is totally relevant today.... *eyeroll*

That's your reality, but it's not the truth.

I'm not even sure what that means.

[KGeary]

Thomas Jefferson is on my side.

Are you talking about this quote:

"Periodic revolution, “at least once every 20 years,” was “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”"

You're going to have to source your claim because that quote doesn't back you up.

The amendment capability is one of its *most* outdated features. 9/13 is much easier to get than 34/50.

What do you suggest as a replacement or fix?

The people who wrote the Constitution don't agree with me?

1) They are dead.

It's a logical fallacy to assume that because someone is dead, what they said or did doesn't matter.

2) I've referenced one of the primary writers who *did* agree with me. You ignored that and presented no evidence of your own.

You didn't reference anything, you made a claim.

Yeah, that six-day workweek in the 10 Commandments is totally relevant today.... *eyeroll*

You are taking that completely out of context. It doesn't call for a six day work week, it says:

"Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.
10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns."

Basically, you do what do you six days of the week, but the seventh day is a holy day. Your suggestion is foolish.

And even if that was irrelevant today, it's a logical fallacy to use that as proof that the rest of the 10 commandments are also irrelevant, so you're wrong either way.

The 10 commandments (much like the constitution) are conceptual; they are not period-sensitive beliefs.

[Inkstain82]

"Logical fallacy" doesn't mean what you think it means. You seem to think it just means any statement you disagree with. If you'd like to point out the specific logical fallacy in any of my statements, here's a good list of them:

Fallacies


Mr. Jefferson's belief that each generation should decide its own form of government without interference from previous isn't a single quote, it's a belief he espoused many times. Perhaps you do not know the wishes of the Founding Fathers as well as you think you do if you are not familiar with this?



Thomas Jefferson Quotes

"We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country. "

And this:

"By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure."
Thomas Jefferson

How can you possibly claim that we should listen to the wishes of the writers of the Constitution when one of the most important writers is quoted repeatedly as saying we should *not* listen to him (and them) and should instead write a new government that would work best for us?

The 10 commandments (much like the constitution) are conceptual; they are not period-sensitive beliefs.

Disagree. There are some important concepts in the Constitution that should be respected and are eternal: Government power being derived from the consent of the governed and limited to explicit grants of power, a system of checks and balances, explicit freedoms. The whole of the Constitution, though, including its focus on a balance between federal and state governments was a response to the specific problem of how to unify the 13 colonies at that place and time and (as Mr. Jefferson would attest) was never meant to have such a long lifespan.

[KGeary]

"Logical fallacy" doesn't mean what you think it means. You seem to think it just means any statement you disagree with. If you'd like to point out the specific logical fallacy in any of my statements, here's a good list of them:

Fallacies


Mr. Jefferson's belief that each generation should decide its own form of government without interference from previous isn't a single quote, it's a belief he espoused many times. Perhaps you do not know the wishes of the Founding Fathers as well as you think you do if you are not familiar with this?



Thomas Jefferson Quotes

"We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country. "

And this:

"By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure."
Thomas Jefferson

How can you possibly claim that we should listen to the wishes of the writers of the Constitution when one of the most important writers is quoted repeatedly as saying we should *not* listen to him (and them) and should instead write a new government that would work best for us?



Disagree. There are some important concepts in the Constitution that should be respected and are eternal: Government power being derived from the consent of the governed and limited to explicit grants of power, a system of checks and balances, explicit freedoms. The whole of the Constitution, though, including its focus on a balance between federal and state governments was a response to the specific problem of how to unify the 13 colonies at that place and time and (as Mr. Jefferson would attest) was never meant to have such a long lifespan.

The logical fallacies I charged you with are real logical fallacies...I'm not going to go look them up for you; that's a waste of my time.

If all the founding fathers believed that Jefferson quote, why wasn't that concept included in the constitution?

The founding fathers of this country knew that Democracy was a failed system and they were afraid of it. Why were they afraid of Democracy? Because they did not believe that--generally speaking--the will of the majority of people was right; they didn't believe the majority of people would make the right decisions regarding government.

What you fail to realize is that generations do change, but human nature does not (at least not as fast as generations do). The founding fathers understood this.

If you look back, you'll note that a lot of them also proposed a very strong central government. This also was not included in the constitution because they eventually decided against it and instead gave the most power to the states.

Their beliefs are not necessarily what they decided to do; they set aside some of their beliefs for the good of the country.

So you can't use a quote from Thomas Jefferson to suggest that "the founding fathers" wanted it his way or that it should be done his way.

Thomas Jefferson also said that liberty and ignorance cannot co-exist. So his idea of the new generation choosing their own form of government contradicts his other closely held belief because the general population is ignorant. The majority of the founding fathers feared the common man for this reason.

The bottom line is that the Jefferson concept you quoted was never included in the Constitution for a very good reason. A reason you choose to ignore.

Now...you still haven't answered my question...

What is your solution? What should we follow instead of the constitution?

[simpletron]

back to the topic of second stimilus,

I don't really see a point to extending unemployment benefits even in this economy. if you are trying, 6 months is plenty of time to find an entry level position. and if you need/want a higher position then you were in a higher position to begin with and should have some savings to hold you over. I still get a call every 2-3 months about my resume that i post online 3 years ago and haven't look at since, so don't say it it hard to find a job.

if the government wants to help, then give the people jobs with work projects. fully fund the DOT so there are plenty of construction jobs repairing roads and bridges, this helps offset the lost of construction jobs in the housing market. I'm sure that the electric grid could use some work, too. work projects are cheaper for the government and better for the economy long term than a rebate program.

the only problem with doing work projects is the fact that the government is slow. so it would be at least a year before there is any effect.

[Inkstain82]

What is your solution? What should we follow instead of the constitution?

Rather than go over your post point by point as I usually do, I think we're at the point where you are just repeating that you believe in a conservative philosophy and I'm saying I find that philosophy lacking. We're just going in circles.

But I will answer your last question. We should have a Constitutional Convention every 20-40 years in which we write a new form of government that fits the needs of the people at that time. Obviously lots of the biggies would stay in, such as free speech and religion, limited government, etc., but the details would be more appropriate to modern times.

It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to consider Balkanizing the U.S. either, either breaking it up or combining some of the states into larger groups. The country's regions are too diverse to be adequately served by a monolithic government, and expecting 50 individual states to outweigh a single federal government is a bit much.

[KGeary]

Rather than go over your post point by point as I usually do, I think we're at the point where you are just repeating that you believe in a conservative philosophy and I'm saying I find that philosophy lacking. We're just going in circles.

But I will answer your last question. We should have a Constitutional Convention every 20-40 years in which we write a new form of government that fits the needs of the people at that time. Obviously lots of the biggies would stay in, such as free speech and religion, limited government, etc., but the details would be more appropriate to modern times.

It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to consider Balkanizing the U.S. either, either breaking it up or combining some of the states into larger groups. The country's regions are too diverse to be adequately served by a monolithic government, and expecting 50 individual states to outweigh a single federal government is a bit much.

By the way, you took Jefferson's quote out of context. He was talking about debt.

[jIM_Ohio]

But I will answer your last question. We should have a Constitutional Convention every 20-40 years in which we write a new form of government that fits the needs of the people at that time. Obviously lots of the biggies would stay in, such as free speech and religion, limited government, etc., but the details would be more appropriate to modern times.

It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to consider Balkanizing the U.S. either, either breaking it up or combining some of the states into larger groups. The country's regions are too diverse to be adequately served by a monolithic government, and expecting 50 individual states to outweigh a single federal government is a bit much.

If we changed the constitution every 40 years, too many lawyers would need to retake the bar. Not sure if that is a bad idea or not...

but the bigger problem is something illegal the first 40 might be legal in the 41st year and someone imprisoned in such a situation would clog courts with appeals. We do not want to increase demand for Lawyers.

I have often thought that the legilative branch of the federal government is misguided in its design for 21st century globalization.

When the constitution was written there were around 13 states and 13 different currencies (each state had it's own). Each state had its own taxes and economy.

Now all those things are either gone (only 1 national currency) or muddied (state taxes are less than 1/4 of the taxes people pay in most cases).

Yet the whole legislative branch is based on the states. If a third organization is added (Congress, Senate and new division). Have only 4 members of this new division, with one position opening each year. Have these 4 positions be elected nationally by a popular vote. Then come up with some division of legislative labor- for example new branch can only propose legislation- the other two houses vote on it. The House and Senate can be on committees headed by the top 4, but cannot modify legislation once proposed (remove ability to add small spending things to otherwise good bills moving through house and senate already).

[disneysteve]

We should have a Constitutional Convention every 20-40 years in which we write a new form of government that fits the needs of the people at that time. Obviously lots of the biggies would stay in, such as free speech and religion, limited government, etc., but the details would be more appropriate to modern times.

This actually isn't such a bad idea. We do this on a smaller scale at our temple. This year, there is a constitution and by-laws committee doing a total review of those documents and updating them as deemed appropriate. Our temple has been around for nearly 50 years and periodically, this needs to be done. As the size and demographics of the membership changes and other things change and evolve both within the organization and in society in general, policies and procedures occasionally need to be revised. The basic structure set forth 50 years ago stays intact, but various details need to be adjusted and new issues arise that simply weren't addressed in the original document. I can't imagine what it would be like if we were following a set of rules that were established well over 200 years ago.

[Angio333]

The problem is that the government gives benefits to people who never paid in. We're creating a welfare state step by step and it's not funny anymore.

The government was not designed to be a safety net. It was not designed to provide insurance, benefits, or anything else. It was design to protect us from foreign and domestic enemies, build transit systems, and limited other functions. If you check your copy of the constitution, it's all right there for everyone to plainly see.

We keep coming up with program after program and our hole keeps getting deeper. Nobody seems to have realized that it's because we're headed in the wrong direction. The closer we get to Socialism; the more we involve the government in our lives, the more screwed up we're going to be.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know this, you just have to open your eyes.

Exactly.

If Obama or any other politician really wanted to help people, they would give speeches about self-reliance, personal responsibility, and how government is NOT the answer instead of talking about what new government programthey want to start to solve this week's problem.

I fully agree with the old saying:

What are the 10 scariest words in the enlish language?

I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.

[cptacek]

Sort of. For one thing, I wouldn't put farmers on that list. Most of them would be out of business without government handouts and protection.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh yes. We just sit on our porches drinking moonshine waiting for the checks to show up. In fact, we have TWO mailboxes so we can get double the payments!

I know there are at least a couple people here who run farms, so they would know better than I... however, as I understand it, many farmers are actually paid by the government to NOT produce anything on their farms. Farmers are very much a part of those people that produce for society. They produce the very basis of society--the food that we survive upon.

From what I have seen, lots of old farmers are using the CRP payments and other government payments this way so they can retire. I know we are getting paid to "not farm" a portion of our land, as you put it, because we bought the land when it was already in the program. We are taking it out as soon as the contract expires because we want to actually farm it.

It could be produced a lot more efficiently by massive factory farm setups. But for traditional reasons, we try to keep smaller family farms in business through government protections.

Without seeing it, my guess would be that it was produced by the Organization of Family Farmers (fictitious, but you get my drift ) These days, you can find reports and studies showing just about anything.

Ok, at this point, I'm jumping off this portion of the thread. You obviously have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

[cptacek]

The government didn't have to do anything, that's where you're wrong. The government never has to do anything; the market solves it's own problems when people allow it to.

Keep in mind that the bank meltdown would never have happened if the government hadn't gotten involved in the first place.

The same thing happened during the Great Depression. FDR created the new deal and it prolonged the depression. Anytime the government messes with the market, bad things happen; that's a historical fact.

The second stimulus won't have any effect except to further bankrupt our government and stress our taxpayers. We can't afford this. Throwing money at problems doesn't solve them. The bailout was a sham that's done nothing and will continue to do nothing. When the market finally gets worked out it won't be because anyone in Washington wrote a check.

I agree completely with KGeary.

[cptacek]

The Constitution was a document written by 18th century minds to create a government suitable to fulfilling the needs of an 18th century nation of about 3 million people on the Eastern seaboard.

For tradition's sake we keep it around, but if taken literally, it has no chance of adequately addressing the governing needs of a 21st century nation of about 300 million people spanning the continent and running an economy that would have been unrecognizable to the colonials.

In short: The Constitution and the principles it was founded on are outdated.

The BEST part about the Constitution is that it can be rewritten! We could actually amend the Constitution right out of existence. But, because that hasn't happened, it must mean that we the people don't want it to happen. We could amend the Constitution so that we would have to rewrite it every x years. But, because that hasn't happened, it must mean that we the people don't want it to happen. We could what ever the heck we want in there, we just have to get the correct number of and kind of votes and signatures, and there it is.

Let me guess. Because you and others who think like you realize it could never be changed to what you want, you will hope for a couple Supreme Court openings that can force it upon us.

[geojen]

I think many would disagree with you on that.....I certainly do. To each his own I guess.

I think that depends on if you are the one paying it on the employees behalf or not. My brother (who is 21) owns his own lawn mowing business and recently hired his first employee. He pays the unemployment benefit because his employee will have to be laid off every winter. He certainly thinks of it as a benefit--if he didn't pay the insurance his employee would not be able to collect unemployment when looking for winter work.

[sweeps]

Amending the Constitution should not be taken lightly. It shouldn't be subject to short-term swings in public opinion. The Founders purposely made it difficult to amend and it should remain that way.