Cracked article: US credit card report

http://www.cracked.com/funny-4136-national-debt/

Article not safe for Texans

Funny and also scary. Might want to double-check all your post-apocalypse gear.

The public hardly says boo when the War Dept. needs/wants something to fight two wars or not. But when it comes to providing everyone with health care, oh my.

iceracer wrote: The public hardly says boo when the War Dept. needs/wants something to fight two wars or not. But when it comes to providing everyone with health care, oh my.

1. Modern military spending is retarded.
2. Military is a constitutionally mandated function of the government. Health care is not.

Man that was tough to read and get any content out of.

1) As far as health care vs military spending. Military spending keeps us free and health care doesn't. Without military spending we wouldn't even be a country in the first place.

2) The govt isn't your mommy and has no mandate to tuck you into bed each night or take your temmpie.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

iceracer wrote: The public hardly says boo when the War Dept. needs/wants something to fight two wars or not. But when it comes to providing everyone with health care, oh my.

1. Modern military spending is retarded. 2. Military is a constitutionally mandated function of the government. Health care is not.

Uh, yes it is, may want to read that "general welfare" thing in section 8. it's right next to "common defence." Or at least it's just as mandated as military is (or just as optional- however you want to look at it). There are some specifics on what must be spent for common defence, true, but there are also no restrictions on what general welfare means, either.

Why people choose to ignore those two words is beyond me.

Eric

^ + 1. (Currently in the Army)

I understand “general welfare” to mean the prevention of hindrance rather than the provision of assistance.

In other words, we’re committed to defending each others stuff but we’re under no obligation to give each other stuff.

Recent bumper stick win:

If you can read this, thank a teacher…if you can read this in English, thank a soldier.

alfadriver wrote: Why people choose to ignore those two words is beyond me. Eric

People do not ignore those two words, Eric, they have a different interpretation.

To "promote" is not the same as "provide", as an example.

That's why there is a worthy and robust debate. That and the creation of another budget-busting program that government has always proven itself incapable of administering.

It does say common welfare, but how anyone could ever interpret that to mean borrow so much money that we all become slaves to the banksters is beyond me.

Over $13 trillion in debt plus another $50-$90 Trillion in unfunded liabilities doesn't promote the general welfare. It only benefits the banksters.

Agree on the difference between promote and provide.

carguy123 wrote: 1) Military spending keeps us free

None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. --Goethe

Warning: amateur legal ramblings follow... The General Welfare Clause outlines the goals/purposes of Congress' Enumerated Powers. It is not an Enumerated Power in and of itself.

Article I, 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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; The remainder of Section 8 enumerates the powers of Congress.

Consider what James Madison wrote in Federalist #41 [thomas.loc.gov], edited to make my point. Follow the link to read the full text if you wish.

It has been urged and echoed, that the 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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

Founders CLEARLY wanted to limit the power of the Federal Government and delegate that power to the States. Why bother to enumerate the powers of Congress if the General Welfare Clause means Congress can do anything it wants?

To put it into prespective, the defecit for Feb 2010 was so big that it equals the Federal debt accumulated over 169 years (1776 to 1945 ). This is an example of how our unsustainable exponential growth requiring monetary system works. It is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue, they both will dutifully borrow enough money to feed the beast, and neither has the courage to openly admit there is a problem much less try to fix it.

What used to take 169 years now takes 28 days. And, based on mathematical facts it will just keep coming faster and faster until the system collapses or we change it.

TJ wrote: To put it into prespective, the defecit for Feb 2010 was so big that it equals the Federal debt accumulated over 169 years (1776 to 1945 ).

Getting rid of that pesky gold standard was an awesome idea!

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

TJ wrote: To put it into prespective, the defecit for Feb 2010 was so big that it equals the Federal debt accumulated over 169 years (1776 to 1945 ).

Getting rid of that pesky gold standard was an awesome idea!

It really was a great deal - for the bankers who now own pretty much everything and all of us. It was also good for the short-term for the politicians as they could essentially spend whatever they want while not raising taxes to keep us happy.

Before this takes a bad turn you all realize the original post is from Cracked magazine, yes?

On another board a while back someone posted a faux video from the Onion that was lampooning Ford. Another board member who happens to be a Ford engineer, and who also has no sense of humor, got all bent out of shape thinking it was real.

I have to admit, I didn't even click on the link, just saw that it was concerning the national debt.

stuart in mn wrote: Before this takes a bad turn you all realize the original post is from Cracked magazine, yes?

"Cracked" has some wickedly funny entries.

But, the ballooning national debt is no joke:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=a0a8xAghPS8I

oldsaw wrote: "Cracked" has some wickedly funny entries. But, the ballooning national debt is no joke:

But that's a different topic for a different discussion.

oldsaw wrote: But, the ballooning national debt is no joke:

It depends... I mean, the last time we had a ballooning tragedy it turned out to be a a hoax. How do we even know that national debt was IN the balloon at all? Maybe its hiding in the barn.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

oldsaw wrote: But, the ballooning national debt is no joke:

It depends... I mean, the last time we had a ballooning tragedy it turned out to be a a hoax. How do we even know that national debt was IN the balloon at all? Maybe its hiding in the barn.

The national debt was camouflaged as the balloon.

The barn is a mis-direct, deflecting attention away from those who made the balloon.