""While these ideas are certainly important, the gov't is (ideally anyway) supposed to be of, by, and FOR the people, and is there to address their problems, not be limited by the ideas of the past.""

You must have missed the part where the cocks being washed are not US citizens, nor taxpayers.

This type of spending is the direct result of the liberal interpretation to the US Constitution.

...that Paine would have paid no heed whatever to the framework and intent of the Constitution & Bill of Rights?

But he certainly would have weighed its imporance to a far lesser extent then you seem to.

Hamilton wasn't addressing economics in Federalist 84, but rather politics. However, he did have quite a lot to say on the subject of economics, being that he was the father of the American School of Economics.

The three major planks of the American School are:

1. protecting industry through high tariffs.
2. government investments in infrastructure.
3. a national bank.

Since 1980, the United States has declined economically, and our debt has exploded, largely because the first two planks were abandoned. Take note that prior to then, these ideas were strictly adhered to, and resulted in the rural wasteland of the United States turning into the strongest economic power the world had ever seen.

...because there isn't a judge on the court that wouldn't laugh you out of their courtroom.

I certainly agree that our current income to spending ratio is unsustainable. And I'm certainly in favor of cutting spending significantly. We should focus those cuts were the most waste exists, particularly in our intelligence and defense agencies. But given that this program is only 0.024% of the federal budget, I don't think it's going to break our backs.

It's interesting that you quoted Paine here. It appears to have come from The Rights of Man, Paine's response to Sir Edmund Burke.

Of course, when read in context, you see that Paine was referring to monarchial governments, and would have little to no bearing on the discussion at hand.

One page later, Paine says "All the monarchical governments are military. War is their trade, plunder and revenue their objects." This is the kind of gov't he was referring to in the quote you sited.

However, Paine has hope for something different.

"Government founded on a moral theory, on a system of universal peace, on the indefeasible hereditary Rights of Man, is now revolving from west to east by a stronger impulse than the government of the sword revolved from east to west. It interests not particular individuals, but nations in its progress, and promises a new era to the human race."

-- Modified on 9/15/2010 12:21:25 PM

I see no problem with a Union protection racket, since such a thing would only benefit us in the long term. But I think you're being a little melodramatic here.

I highly disagree with the Austrian theory of market cycles. Austrian theory is so filled with hate of government, that they fail to see the root causes of market cycles.

In reality, the Fed is more or less forced to respond to imbalances that markets naturally produce (the wage to productivity gap). Such imbalances can be mitigated by higer unionization, tying the minimum wage to the inflation rate, and repealing the Reagan top marginal income tax cuts.

I don't disagree. But if you asked those same 300 million Americans, "should we spend 0.024% of the Federal Budget to try to reduce the spread of HIV in Africa" I'm sure the answer would be "Hell Yes!"

I'm no lawyer, so I wouldn't have a clue about what it takes to go before any court. I figure that's what lawyers are for. I'm all ears if you'd like to enlighten me on the subject.

"They artifically inflated cost of doing business"

Which is the same as saying that they divert profits to the wages of workers. I see no problem with this.

"which drives domestic companies wanting to manufacture here for export, to go there and deliver direct...I won't even get into how government regulations, taxes, and environmental concerns drive manufacture overseas as well. These are economic realities which must be taken into consideration unless it is your plan to seize private capital like Castro."

2nd point here first. I have no desire to live in a society as "free" as China. I don't desire the freedom to breathe in deadly pollution, or buy products contaminated with lead. I'm quite happy we have some modicum of regulations that prevent that. We need more of them.

As for those regulations and higher wages driving companies overseas, there's a simple solution to that. Raise tarriffs to the point where that would cease to be profitable.

I don't believe in playing nice to private capital. Leave them to do what they're going to do, but we should keep them on a short leash. If necessary, bashing them in the head to remind them who's boss doesn't hurt either. If Widgets Incorporation wants to tell us that they're going to move operations overseas, we should tell them that we'll bar them from importing their products to the United States. After that, I think the "invisible hand of the market" would take care of itself.

...you'd go to a lower court first. So I'm not sure that would apply.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I find it rather impractical. Dontcha think?

However, due to the unsustainable trajectory of the spending to income ratio of government, the solution to our national solvency clearly lies in my approach, not yours.

As to your concernn about Americans contracting AIDS from an unwashed African's cock, I'd say we've done enough on the educational front that it comes down to Boner Beware. There does'nt seem to be a limit to that which you think is the governments responibility.

such a thing, it is inconcievable to any rational person that he was suggesting that future generations should pay no heed whatever to the framework and intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

As to Hamilton, it is clear that our current economic condition has far more to do with too much Hamilton, and not enough Madison.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."
-- James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
-- Professor Alexander Tytler over 200 years ago

Tytler was precient.

-- Modified on 9/15/2010 8:50:28 AM

However,  government spending on infrastructure has turned into a Union protection racket and boondoggle.

And Federal intervention in monetary policy has upset the natural balances of supply and demand and is the primary cause of the boom bust cylces of the last 30 years.

1 out of three aint so hot. though in baseball it gets ya to the hall of fame.

on whether or not we should be taxing them in order to teach Congo tribesman how to wash their johnsons after boning chicks bareback in the ass, the vast majority would say "Hell No"!

There are at least 4-5 Justices who would not laugh at the concept of taxation without representation.

Familiarize yourself with what it takes to even be able to present an arguement before the court and then consider the practicality of your suggetsion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

2 harms. They artifically inflated cost of doing business which drives domestic companies wanting to manufacture here for export, to go there and deliver direct.

They also divert capital, which is not unlimited (unless you have a printing press like the Fed) from projects that are truly needed to ones which will continue to ensure Democrat voting union members remain employed.

I won't even get into how government regulations, taxes, and environmental concerns drive manufacture overseas as well.

These are economic realities which must be taken into consideration unless it is your plan to seize private capital like Castro.

We all know what a paradise he's got goin....