It is? When did I miss the republicans taking over?

No they shouldn't do anything because there is an election coming up. Who cares what their constituents want.

This has been going on for the entire term, at least according to ron, they didn't do anything because of the fear of the presidential veto, which from my limited knowledge can be overturned by a 2/3 vote of congress, with the dems in control, I wouldn't think this would be a problem

just because you told somebody in your office doesn't mean that i can hear it.

btw, is your name sobran? if so, welfare is not the same as defense. one is proactive in scope, the other is reactive in scope.

did i miss their votes not counting?

ok, we're back to the top: when they try to do what their constituents want, they are beaten back by the president and the republicans in congress.

either way, the approval rating is for congress, not democrats in congress.

As suspected, you have no explanation, just like the corporate tax issue.

Why do you discuss these topics?

you should go back and count the # of dems and repugs in the respective chambers of congress, kms.

Because, as Ron once alluded to a long time ago, he fancies himself being Socrates and utilizing the socratic method of questioning people to get them to think (like him).

Really, when is he going to start utilizing that?

straw, you need to answer first. you said you did but you didn't. i'll wait.

And you called me a child, what a joke. What answer would you like Ron?

how about the one to my questions. that's always the first place i look when figuring out what to answer.

Ok, I will satisfy your ego, even though I know full well you will never answer my question.

Every appropriation bill needs to state the purpose the money is being spent for, even today. In fact, any bill must state what constitutional power the bill is in furtherance of. Therefore, the appropriation (spending for Ron) bill would have to be tied to an enumerated power in the list, since there is no point to the list if all is for the general welfare.

As a check on Congress not exceeding its enumerated powers, the courts have the power to review the bills for constitionality.

Now, I dare you to answer my question.

No, not quite Socratic Ron, but keep trying I am sure you can get there someday.

just because i am sick of the useless banter back and forth:

the word welfare means the same now as it did then.

well, i answered this already but one is reactive in scope and the other is proactive in scope.

nuts and bolts

straw, how is bolts somehow modifying nuts?

i wonder how many reference the general welfare clause...

Here is the section of the Constitution Ron is referring to, for anyone reading along.

"Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. "

Ron is saying that the first paragraph is a catch all that allows Congress to take any action it deems to be serving the general welfare.

If this is true, it would certainly seem to be superfluous that the framers intended to grant that wide latitude to the federal government, but then took the time to specifically list the powers that follow.

As I said, makes perfect ronsense.

Any time you want to answer why they would take the time to list the specific powers after granting an unlimited power is fine with me.

If the first part is a catchall, why would they even write anything beyond it?

what is this deja vu? listen, i can repost the constitution, too.


again, how do you spend to create rules for piracy for example?

That is the question I am daring, now twice, Mr. Mexico to answer. Of course, I have shown him the courtesy and respect to answer his question, posited after mine, not once, but twice.

Being the elitist snob he is, he cannot return that same courtesy and respect.

who said it was a catchall?

Answer this question. Without an answer, the discussion on my side is over

If Congress can enact laws for anything in furtherance of the general welfare, why did they write anything about specific powers?

Can't even answer a simple question.

i f****** answer you! twice!!!