The Constitution Mandates That The Federal Government Be A Fraction Of What It is.

Robo

Verified User
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both are campaigning claiming they’ll spend federal taxpayer’s dollars on America’s infrastructure. Do America’s uninformed apathetic politically brain-dead people that actually participate in the duopoly’s rigged elections even know that there’s no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to spend a dime of taxpayer’s money on the national infrastructure?

The 10th amendment makes it perfectly clear that only the things enumerated in the Constitution as a power of the federal government are authorized for the feds to do. Otherwise, such powers are reserved to the States, or to the people. The States and the people are responsible for their State and local infrastructure and thereby the nation’s infrastructure through interstate cooperation.

The federal government’s overriding, avoiding and ignoring the Constitution is why America has a 20 trillion dollar national debt and it’s exploding annually. The federal government should be a fraction of what it is.

Correct me if I'm wrong!
 
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both are campaigning claiming they’ll spend federal taxpayer’s dollars on America’s infrastructure. Do America’s uninformed apathetic politically brain-dead people that actually participate in the duopoly’s rigged elections even know that there’s no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to spend a dime of taxpayer’s money on the national infrastructure?

Yeah....there are definitely a lot o' uninformed apathetic politically brain-dead taxpayers, in this Country, who prefer to be ignorant of our long-term problems.....until it impacts THEM!!!


 
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both are campaigning claiming they’ll spend federal taxpayer’s dollars on America’s infrastructure. Do America’s uninformed apathetic politically brain-dead people that actually participate in the duopoly’s rigged elections even know that there’s no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to spend a dime of taxpayer’s money on the national infrastructure?

The 10th amendment makes it perfectly clear that only the things enumerated in the Constitution as a power of the federal government are authorized for the feds to do. Otherwise, such powers are reserved to the States, or to the people. The States and the people are responsible for their State and local infrastructure and thereby the nation’s infrastructure through interstate cooperation.

The federal government’s overriding, avoiding and ignoring the Constitution is why America has a 20 trillion dollar national debt and it’s exploding annually. The federal government should be a fraction of what it is.

Correct me if I'm wrong!

Let me think. Okay I thought, and I think you are wrong. FDR thought that government could pull us out of the great depression. And he was right. Eisenhower thought that building infrastructure, including interstate highways would benefit our country. And he was right. Reagan thought that the rich would tinkle down the legs of big business into the middle class. And he was wrong. Reagan slashed taxes for the rich, and it shrank the middle class. You cons want to think that Reagan pulled us out of Carter's mismanagement, but the reality is that it took Bill Clinton to set America's sails full again.
 
Yeah....there are definitely a lot o' uninformed apathetic politically brain-dead taxpayers, in this Country, who prefer to be ignorant of our long-term problems.....until it impacts THEM!!!



See what I mean?? The professor shares his opinions, not one fact is presented & supported.. Enjoy schooling him.:D
 
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both are campaigning claiming they’ll spend federal taxpayer’s dollars on America’s infrastructure. Do America’s uninformed apathetic politically brain-dead people that actually participate in the duopoly’s rigged elections even know that there’s no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to spend a dime of taxpayer’s money on the national infrastructure?

The 10th amendment makes it perfectly clear that only the things enumerated in the Constitution as a power of the federal government are authorized for the feds to do. Otherwise, such powers are reserved to the States, or to the people. The States and the people are responsible for their State and local infrastructure and thereby the nation’s infrastructure through interstate cooperation.

The federal government’s overriding, avoiding and ignoring the Constitution is why America has a 20 trillion dollar national debt and it’s exploding annually. The federal government should be a fraction of what it is.

Correct me if I'm wrong!

The only tax payer monies to be spent on "infrastructure" would have to be spent on INTERSTATE construction and maintenance...as the Feds do have the authority to "regulate interstate commerce" under Article 1, Section, Clause 3.

There is no constitutional authority to spend federal tax dollars on projects that fall under the power and scope of State or Local governments....billions of dollars are funneled into many wasteful projects each year where Big Brother has no constitutional authority to mandate how state and local governments build and maintain their STATE and LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURES.

For instance Mass Transit, Bike Trails, Side Walk walking paths...etc., with these state and local projects the Fed overreaches and goes way beyond the enumerated powers established by the Constitution...particularly the "general welfare clause" where the Fed should only step in when there is a NATIONAL CONCERN with defense or commerce....not to dictate to every community where and how they must construct their local infrastructures. Its the power of the purse string....the Feds have become addicted to spending in order to maintain their supposed temporary positions as Congress critters....and they hold this self professed power over the States to used as a hammer when they determine some state is out line with their ideology...."do as WE say or lose your funding..." its an all to many times used practice at the federal level.

Now when any FEDERAL MONEY is sent down to any state or local government....the local authorities "rush" to spend the money before the Federally mandated time limit expires....the majority is simply wasted not on important projects but superfluous projects to simply SPEND THE MONEY...while the important time consuming projects like bridge maintenance...and major highway repairs go to hell.

Big Brother is simply out of control. For instance: Where I live (right off a county highway)...the road is going to pot...literally, but did that stop the state from coming in and painting lines on the deteriorating road? I asked the supervisor, "Why are you painting new lines on such a road?" His response? We have Federal Funding in the form of a grant but we only have until the end of the month to spend it....so.........we had to spend it somewhere and we did not have enough federal funds to resurface. I asked another question, "What about our local and state dollars earmarked to maintain our roads...where did it go?" Response? "You'all have to ask your politicians that question."

The reality as concluded by logic and reason? The state has become addicted to Federal Dollars to do everything they should be doing for themselves...while our taxes are being wasted elsewhere instead of being used to maintain our local and state infrastructure systems.
 
Last edited:
Let me think. Okay I thought, and I think you are wrong. FDR thought that government could pull us out of the great depression. And he was right. Eisenhower thought that building infrastructure, including interstate highways would benefit our country. And he was right. Reagan thought that the rich would tinkle down the legs of big business into the middle class. And he was wrong. Reagan slashed taxes for the rich, and it shrank the middle class. You cons want to think that Reagan pulled us out of Carter's mismanagement, but the reality is that it took Bill Clinton to set America's sails full again.

You mean when Clinton cut taxes for the rich?
 
The only tax payer monies to be spent on "infrastructure" would have to be spent on INTERSTATE construction and maintenance...as the Feds do have the authority to "regulate interstate commerce" under Article 1, Section, Clause 3.

There is no constitutional authority to spend federal tax dollars on projects that fall under the power and scope of State or Local governments....

Yeah.....that'd definitely create WAAAAAAY-too-many jobs!!!!!

The next thing you'd know......those wages would be spent, LOCALLY.....and, CREATE MORE JOBS!!!!!!

IT'D BE ANARCHY!!!!!!

latest


 
Last edited:
You mean when Clinton cut taxes for the rich?

Yeah.....THAT'S what happened......

"Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."

 
Yeah....there are definitely a lot o' uninformed apathetic politically brain-dead taxpayers, in this Country, who prefer to be ignorant of our long-term problems.....until it impacts THEM!!!


Who's responsibility do you say infrastructure is? Make a constitutional argument.​
 
The only tax payer monies to be spent on "infrastructure" would have to be spent on INTERSTATE construction and maintenance...as the Feds do have the authority to "regulate interstate commerce" under Article 1, Section, Clause 3..

By what article or amendment do you expand the power to “regulate interstate commerce” to spending taxpayer’s dollars on interstate highway maintenance and construction? The power to regulate commerce is simply to regulate taxes and duties between the States to assure equilibrium of same between the States. It takes a BIG government imagination to turn that into spending taxpayer’s dollars on projects that the States can and should do themselves.
 
Let me think. Okay I thought, and I think you are wrong. FDR thought that government could pull us out of the great depression. And he was right.

Of course that’s why Henry Morgenthau Jr. secretary of the Treasury to President Franklin D. Roosevelt said the following.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises.

I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!"

Henry Morgenthau Jr. secretary of the Treasury to President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

You cons want to think that Reagan pulled us out of Carter's mismanagement, but the reality is that it took Bill Clinton to set America's sails full again.

What credit do you give the “Republican controlled Congress” during the Clinton watch for the economic conditions during the Clinton watch since the Congress actually decides the spending of the money and the legislation relative to economic actions?

Actually neither Clinton or the Congress during the Clinton watch had much of anything to do with the economic conditions during that period. The end of the Cold War produced an economic dividend for government through less military spending and then there was the “DOT-COM” BOOM that produced major tax receipts coming into the government that was the major reason for the so called “Clinton economy.”

“The truth shall set ye free!”
 
The only tax payer monies to be spent on "infrastructure" would have to be spent on INTERSTATE construction and maintenance...as the Feds do have the authority to "regulate interstate commerce" under Article 1, Section, Clause 3.


By what article or amendment do you expand the power to “regulate interstate commerce” to spending taxpayer’s dollars on interstate highway maintenance and construction? The power to regulate commerce is simply to regulate taxes and duties between the States to assure equilibrium of same between the States.


.....aka Federal Regulations.

male31-male-smiley-whistle-smiley-emoticon-000073-large.gif
 
What credit do you give the “Republican controlled Congress” during the Clinton watch for the economic conditions during the Clinton watch since the Congress actually decides the spending of the money and the legislation relative to economic actions?

Actually neither Clinton or the Congress during the Clinton watch had much of anything to do with the economic conditions during that period. The end of the Cold War produced an economic dividend for government......


Gee......I guess The Heritage Foundation forgot about that......


May 16, 1996 - "Presidential advisor James Carville, the highly regarded Democratic political operative from Louisiana's bayou country, helped keep the 1992 Clinton campaign in focus and "on message" with a simple four-word phrase, "It's the economy, stupid."

If the White House is smart, this will not be its theme in 1996.

Now it's Bill Clinton's turn to run for re-election. And though the economy is not moving backward (the definition of a recession), it's not setting any speed records either. Fifty percent of major U.S. companies trimmed their payrolls in the 12 months ending June 1995, some of them significantly. Indeed, from March 1995 to March 1996, 325,000 high-paying manufacturing jobs disappeared, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The public -- especially the nearly 8 million people who are working two or more jobs to make ends meet -- know something is amiss. And they are concerned.

The administration's initial response was a mix of denial and cheerleading: the silly claim that the economy is the healthiest it's been in 30 years. The White House has had the good sense to back off a bit from this claim."



 
Back
Top