Look, most of them probably voted for Obama, so why shouldn't they get checks, too?

 

Bah-humbug! Dead people are always voting. Stop living at the margins. Dead people voting has only made a real difference--maybe--once or twice. Illinois 1960 and Florida 2000. Maybe. And half the Florida population is undead anyway.

 

Meh, it's a computer system so it happens. The programers should have put in age calculation because someone born in 1890 and still alive today in 2009 would be 119 years old. Better to send 1000 less checks and have them call than 1000 more checks and have them cashed.

 

So why are dead people getting checks even when they're dead?

 

So why are dead people getting checks even when they're dead?

Because if they were alive, they wouldn't be dead. Then they might get two checks; one for when they were alive, and another for when they die.

I can't wait until these guys get a hold of the healthcare system. Better start stocking my own plasma now. Does anyone know if I can get a centrifuge on ebay?

 

Look, most of them probably voted for Obama, so why shouldn't they get checks, too?

Good one!!!!

 

The really bad thing was that the gentleman in the article was not just dead; but that he never qualified for social security. It would be understandable if someone who worked and paid into Social Security for years passed away and their account was just not tagged correctly, but by the account I read the gentlemen should have NEVER been in the computer. Perhaps that was an error in an article I read.

 

Democrat voters always amaze me.

What will they vote for next?

 

I think the person that should be getting the checks is the next of kin.

 

Democrat voters always amaze me.

What will they vote for next?

I'm only using this as an example, not to single you out. In my opinion this is why our political "System" will continue "Business as usual" for the foreseeable future.

You show me an individual who is staunchly a Republican or Democrat and I will show you someone who's head is buried in the sand.

While we, you and I, us and them, argue about who's right, (or left) and who's wrong, our political system is corrupt to it's core!

Multinational corporations and a few fabulously wealthy individuals split their bribes,....ah excuse me "Contributions" equally between the two political parties. Our political system has been reduced to legislation to the highest bidder.

It's so bad the only argument many can use against the above statements is that it's not as corrupt as other governments! (or "It's still the best system out there.")

My Father, a retired Naval Aviator, recently asked me what are my political affiliations are. (after he'd just told me another story about how crazy the left was)

I told him I just want our government, at all levels, to follow the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Then he said, but what political party do you support?

I said, "Dad, the only thing I hate worse than a Republican is a Democrat." (politically speaking,...after all I don't want to end up on some "list.")

Bill Woodward
Portland, Oregon

 

You show me an individual who is staunchly a Republican or Democrat and I will show you someone who's head is buried in the sand.....

I told him I just want our government, at all levels, to follow the Constitution and Bill of Rights....

Bill Woodward
Portland, Oregon

Dear Bill,

Our government has operated outside of the Constitution since the time of the Great Depression. Too many people want to sight how president #43 violated the Constitution, while ignoring how #44 is destroying the fabric of our society by constructing a huge welfare state!

We have a two party system in this country and a third party just dilutes the votes, usually benefitting the liberals.

To have a voice beyond the polling booth, you must take it upon yourself to write your representative in Congress, regardless of party affiliation, and your state Senators, too.

Perhaps if they hear enough dissent they might consider their constituents above special interests and PACs.

 

Dear Bill,

Our government has operated outside of the Constitution since the time of the Great Depression. Too many people want to sight how president #43 violated the Constitution, while ignoring how #44 is destroying the fabric of our society by constructing a huge welfare state!

We have a two party system in this country and a third party just dilutes the votes, usually benefitting the liberals.

To have a voice beyond the polling booth, you must take it upon yourself to write your representative in Congress, regardless of party affiliation, and your state Senators, too.

Perhaps if they hear enough dissent they might consider their constituents above special interests and PACs.

Are you saying the construction of a huge welfare state equals violating the Constitution? Please clarify your comparision.

 

Dear Bill,

Our government has operated outside of the Constitution since the time of the Great Depression. Too many people want to sight how president #43 violated the Constitution, while ignoring how #44 is destroying the fabric of our society by constructing a huge welfare state!

We have a two party system in this country and a third party just dilutes the votes, usually benefitting the liberals.

To have a voice beyond the polling booth, you must take it upon yourself to write your representative in Congress, regardless of party affiliation, and your state Senators, too.

Perhaps if they hear enough dissent they might consider their constituents above special interests and PACs.

We both agree and disagree.

Beneath the thin veneer of our ostensible two party system is the reality of extreme right and left, (partisan) positions by our elected officials. Why?

Because our elected officials no longer represent us, the people. They are not beholden to us, we do not give them money to ensure they will get to keep their jobs. This is why incumbent politicians win elections the vast majority of the time. They have their entire elected term to build a "War chest" of bribes in order to defeat any challenger when it's election time again. They are beholden to the corporations who bribe them with political contributions.

(please understand I have no love whatsoever for so called liberals who like to think of themselves as freak,... I mean free thinkers)
But a persuasive argument can be made that welfare states have a cause and effect relationship in terms of the way they are created.

The argument goes, people will always seek to have less government involvement in their lives both in terms of legislation and in terms of what get monetarily from their government. So long as there is opportunity for them to improve their lives both in their own lifetime and on a generational level.

By dismantling almost our entire industrial infrastructure over the past thirty plus years much of the opportunity afforded the average Joe high school graduate is gone. Hence they want a handout. Something the left is all too happy to promise,...

While there's enough blame to go around it's been the right who's done the dismantling. (but it sure was good for stock prices!):aportnoy::crazy:

Finally, all elected officials who are supposed to represent me know who I am. I write at least one letter every year to my Senator and Congressman on the State and National level.

It's my opinion that they should not just be hearing dissent from us. Things are bad enough at this point where there should be demonstrations in every major city in the United States. 2009 should be a year our elected officials remember like 1968 and 1969 when the FBI drafted memos to the White House saying there is revolution in the air,...

Real change will occur when politicians fear. (all brands of fear)

Bill Woodward
Portland, Oregon

 

Are you saying the construction of a huge welfare state equals violating the Constitution? Please clarify your comparision.

I guess that will draw us into the endless debate as to what constitutes the "general welfare". Does Article I, section 8 shed any light on the definition?

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;
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 an 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 Offences 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, dock-Yards, 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.

Really, the down hill slide started at the time of the Great Depression.

Please refer to the following link: https://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/09/GreatMythsOfTheGreatDepression.pdf

From your posts you seem to be a student of economics. I prefer the lessons from Walter Williams. He is a free market thinker. I am not an economist, nor a professor. I am just a true conservative and I beleive our government is out of control.

Bashing past presidents won't change the mess we are in. We have to start with what faces us today and try everything within our rights and powers to keep this nation true to our founding principles.

 

Here is someone who gets it...

https://townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2009/02/09/back_on_uncle_sams_plantation

I just found aout about her, Star Parker, and I love her. The sad part is that most people on welfare and the liberals won't ever read or hear her message.

We have to remember that we are a nation of doers, not a nation that sucks at the teat of big government.

 

I guess that will draw us into the endless debate as to what constitutes the "general welfare". Does Article I, section 8 shed any light on the definition?

Not necessarily. You could just say "Yes or No; I do/do not find them morally or otherwise equivalent." :icon_smile_big:

While I disagree with the construction of the welfare state, it's not debatable (is it?) that it's been done without explicitly violating the Constitution. Your argument is very 'Ron Paul-like' and I don't disagree with that view except to say these are implicit limits, or omissions. I respect Mr. Paul's consistency and largely agree with his positions (not all of them.)

While I don't agree the accusations are supported that W did violate the Constitution, if those charges were true they would explicity violate the rights of individuals as specified in the Constitution.

These cannot possibly be moral equivalents in my view. Are they in yours?

I ask only because you observed they are 'harping on A while ignoring B'. If I believed both A and B were true; I'd still harp on A quite a bit more than B. I'm confused as to why that irritates you; or I guess how harping on A means they are required to harp on B just as often. Just an opinion ... the BDS bothers me too FWIW.

 

Some of your posts are cryptic and I am not following so well over two days of responses. Please don't associate me with Ron Paul. Although he is a constitionalist, he is a Libertarian and considered too far out.

I think you are saying that you are not too concerned with Obama pushing for greater governmental control in all aspects of our society. Is my assumption of your position correct?

What Bush did is done. It is over. We have a new regime. Are you an apparachik to the new socialism?

So please tell me why we are better off to have government violate financial contracts? Tell me why it is better that we have a national healthcare policy and all must suffer higher taxation to pay for that initiative. The rhetoric of Obama is a ruse for you to be coopted by feel-good words. The ends will be ruin and loss of freedom. We must restore the admiration of personal responsibility.

Please tell me how you personally were worse off under President Bush?

Everyone is worse off under the buffoon who is POTUS #44. A quadrupled deficit is absolutely unnecessary and was avoidable. It is all about a grab for more power.

I don't think it was wrong for our government to listen to the cellular phone calls of known terrorists. I don't believe it was wrong to waterboard terrorists or combatants. We didn't break anyones arms or subject them to the horror suffered by any American POW in Vietnam war.

Tell me where do you stand.

 

But no one can get a stimulus check when you're deceased maybe to pay for the grave stone but that's about it.

 

EDITED FOR ORGANIZATION

Some of your posts are cryptic and I am not following so well over two days of responses.

Tell me where do you stand.

I asked you one simple question to which you don't seem able to give a straight answer and then I answered it with my view ... So, how am I being "cryptic" or not telling you where I stand?

To recap:

After you said, "Too many people want to sight how president #43 violated the Constitution, while ignoring how #44 is destroying the fabric of our society by constructing a huge welfare state!"

I asked, "Are you saying the construction of a huge welfare state equals violating the Constitution?"

There; nothing to follow over two days. If you don't want endless debate just answer the question sensibly; Yes or No.

As I said; it seems to me you were implying they are equivalents. I said (if true) they are not even close to moral or other equivalents and your implication fails.

Just because I disagree with Obama's policies does not mean I support demagogueing him or making unsupported moral equivalency arguments.

 

EDITED FOR ORGANIZATION

Please don't associate me with Ron Paul.
OK, I won't associate you with Ron Paul.

I think you are saying that you are not too concerned with Obama pushing for greater governmental control in all aspects of our society. Is my assumption of your position correct?
No; what I said was clear; it was, "While I disagree with the construction of the welfare state, it's not debatable (is it?) that it's been done without explicitly violating the Constitution."

What Bush did is done. It is over. We have a new regime. Are you an apparachik to the new socialism?
Clearly not. How is that relevant to the discussion at hand?

So please tell me why we are better off to have government violate financial contracts?
No thanks. How is that relevant to the discussion at hand?

Tell me why it is better that we have a national healthcare policy and all must suffer higher taxation to pay for that initiative.
No thanks. How is that relevant to the discussion at hand?

The rhetoric of Obama is a ruse for you to be coopted by feel-good words.
You have the wrong person. How is that relevant to the discussion at hand?

We must restore the admiration of personal responsibility.
Who do you mean by "we?" I see why you need me, but I don't see why I need you.

Please tell me how you personally were worse off under President Bush?
Everyone is worse off under the buffoon who is POTUS #44. A quadrupled deficit is absolutely unnecessary and was avoidable. It is all about a grab for more power.
I was never "under" Bush and I'm not "under" Obama. My well-being is not dependent on who is the President. I'm the same today as I was yesterday and will be tomorrow.

See bolded parts in-line above for responses. I hope this is sufficiently deciphered.

 

I asked, "Are you saying the construction of a huge welfare state equals violating the Constitution?"

There; nothing to follow over two days. If you don't want endless debate just answer the question sensibly; Yes or No.

Yes.

As I said; it seems to me you were implying they are equivalents. I said (if true) they are not even close to moral or other equivalents and your implication fails.

I don't believe they are moral equivalents. They are separate things; however, the media and supporters of Obama try to make them equivalents.

Just because I disagree with Obama's policies does not mean I support demagogueing him or making unsupported moral equivalency arguments.

Also, if you don't need me, then you are a man alone. I beleive that people who share ideals should band together and fight the type of tyranny of taxes that we haven't seen since Hoover and FDR.

 

Also, if you don't need me, then you are a man alone. I beleive that people who share ideals should band together and fight the type of tyranny of taxes that we haven't seen since Hoover and FDR.

Sure, we can band together to fight tyranny, but that's not how can you help me restore my admiration of personal responsibility; is it?

IF it needed restoring...

Thanks for the clear answer to the other. I agree they are not moral equivalents. I agree with what you are saying, it bothers me when the answer to some question about, for example, Obama's budget deficit is "well, Bush ran up deficits too."

 

We have a two party system in this country and a third party just dilutes the votes, usually benefitting the liberals.

Every other "western style" democracy/republic has multiple parties represented in their legislative branch. Britain, Germany, Austria, Israel, Canada, Japan, Italy.

I've yet to find an individual enamored of the Republocrat/Demopublican duopoly who can engage in a political discussion at a level above that of a gibbon.