Presidents don't raise taxes, Congress does. (Though Congress can go along with what the President wants, as the Senate is currently doing. And note that Obama's lockstep House leader, Nancy Pelosi, wants to raise taxes more than they just did!)
Bush did call for higher spending, and we did complain about it.
As for Reagan, he opposed increasing spending, but Congress backed him into a corner. If you recall that Reagan speech Markadelphia distorted by taking things out of context, it was one where Reagan was complaining about that fact and explaining why he had no choice in the matter.
Neither the excerpt or the full transcript are in conflict with my point. In fact, the full excerpt supports my point even more: President Reagan would have never been so moronic as to play chicken with the debt ceiling. Whether it's Congress then or Congress now doing it doesn't matter. Each time it was bullshit. So, I don't get what your point is here, NMN. Reagan was a huge spender in terms of defense and warned of the consequences of default. That's what this address says. You can make up whatever you want and are certainly entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
If Congress does not raise the debt ceiling, we will default on money we already have spent. Since you only listen to those that are pure...
Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility -- two things that set us apart from much of the world.
From the same speech, you know, the part you keep ignoring so you can lie about what he said:
For those who say further responsible spending reductions are not possible, they are wrong. … For those who say more taxes will solve our deficit problem, they are wrong. Every time Congress increases taxes, the deficit does not decrease, spending increases. It's time for a clear and consistent policy to reduce the Federal budget deficit.
you know, the part you keep ignoring so you can lie about what he said:
Yet, Reagan did not want to actually reduce spending but increase it in terms of military spending. So, no, not lying.
By what mechanism does 'hitting' the debt ceiling cause default?
Yeah, I know what you're up to, GD, so let's just skip the part that we both know you already know (but are being weasely about with questions again) and have you (and NMN) explain exactly where you are going to cut spending and what effect you anticipate that will have on the economy.
So, rather than the perpetual lofty sermons about spending that have no there there, put your money where your mouth is...both of you.
Also, the game is rigged when it only presents you with a canned set of choices.
I wasn't given the option to completely eliminate agricultural subsidies, Dept of Education, etc. - lots of things. Nor was I offered options I would be interested in on taxation. Where was the choice to pull the military entirely out of Germany and Korea, and reduce active manpower by say 1/3rd? Crock of shit - so no doubt you just ate it up.
Reagan did not want to actually reduce spending but increase it in terms of military spending.
So your argument is that military spending is ALL government spending? Or is that when he argued against increased spending, he wasn't (magically) arguing against increased spending?
My argument is that when President Reagan railed against government spending, defense spending (the largest piece of the pie) was not included in that assertion. If he had said, "This type of spending is good and this type is bad. Let's get rid of the bad type," then that would have been different. The fact is that he ran very high deficits due to military spending so his comments run contrary to his actions.
Did you notice the ellipse (…) when I quoted Reagan's speech? Did you check out what I trimmed? (I did it to save space because I thought it wasn't relevant.)
Here's what I thought was unnecessary.
For those who say the only choice is undermining our national security at a time when the United States is close to an agreement with the Soviet Union on reducing nuclear weapons, they are wrong.
In other words, he was saying that we need the military spending because of our confrontation with the Soviet Union. But overall spending is too high.
In short, he DID differentiate between the two.
I linked directly to his speech above. (And again here.) You have access to what he actually said. Yet, despite that, you just tried to say that he did not say what he DID say!! Once again, that makes you a liar.
----------
For the record, here is the full paragraph again, with nothing trimmed:
For those who say further responsible spending reductions are not possible, they are wrong. For those who say the only choice is undermining our national security at a time when the United States is close to an agreement with the Soviet Union on reducing nuclear weapons, they are wrong. For those who say more taxes will solve our deficit problem, they are wrong. Every time Congress increases taxes, the deficit does not decrease, spending increases. It's time for a clear and consistent policy to reduce the Federal budget deficit.
Look, NMN, I have no problem with defense spending. It helps support families around the country in addition to maintaining a solid defense. But it does contribute a great deal to the deficit. At least be honest about that.
In 1962, Defense was %51.7 percent of the budget. In 1987 (during Reagan's term) it was %29.7. In 2011 it was %22.6.
Of those breakout items which areas does the Government have Constitutional authority to spend money in? (Hint: Defense is one, but not the way it's done now.) If all the unconstitutional spending was cut today (not a realistic proposal, but this is a thought experiment) what would the deficit be by the end of the year?
And what the heck makes you think the primary Constitutionally authorized area for spending is the only place where spending can be cut?
My argument is that when President Reagan railed against government spending, defense spending (the largest piece of the pie) was not included in that assertion.
So for the sake of argument, let me stipulate to that being true. Is there a reason why?
[Hint: 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;] What are the three overarching things Congress is authorized to spend money on?
If all the unconstitutional spending was cut today
Here's the problem, NMN. The spending that you have deemed unconstitutional isn't.
Hamilton.
The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper.
Now that was something almost intelligent (the quote that is, not your conclusion). Actually Hamilton wasn't an architect of the Constitution, and he in fact argued against the Bill of Rights - because his view was that the federal govt had no power to interfere with such and he reasoned (quite correctly) that any Bill of Rights would fall short. The 9th Amdt was an attempt to address that particular aspect. You do know about the 9th right? Probably not, progressives just don't really like the Constitution - gets in the way of their good intentions.
His draft of the Constitution (which he never presented) ended up being a blueprint for what was actually used which is why I said "helped." My point in bringing it up was to illustrate that Alexander Hamilton was more of an authority on the Constitution than NMN. His vigorous defense of it was second to none.
So your response is to quote a man who, by your own admission, violated the Constitution?
Truly, a dizzying intellect.
Hamilton wanted a stronger Federal government than what got written into the Constitution. In other words, his ideas were rejected by the Framers.
The ideas which prevailed where those of a man known as the "Father of the Constitution", James Madison.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." — James Madison, On the Cod Fishery Bill, February 7, 1792 (Note: Right AFTER the passage of the Constitution.)
"With respect to the words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." — James Madison, letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
Actually Hamilton wasn't an architect of the Constitution
It depends on how you define "architect."
There goes the Marxaphasia tactic* again. Just redefine words to mean what ever you need them to mean to avoid admitting error.
James Madison was the chief architect. The Federal Constitution was based on the Virginia Constitution, which was Madison's work.
Classic M, just classic. Do you have any idea how predictable you are - and not in a good way.
You attempt to redefine architect after having chosen the word to convey a specific meaning. You ignore that Hamilton opposed the Bill of Rights (which I'm guessing you realize is a tough position to defend). All so you can defend the progressive desire to govern in ways that are not consistent with the Constitution.
So your response is to quote a man who, by your own admission, violated the Constitution?
By your interpretation he did, not mine. Given modern day concerns, the Constitution, like the Bible, doesn't have all the answers. And the ones you don't like don't directly translate into something "unconstitutional." That's your emotions.
Truly, a dizzying intellect.
Why does it take two of you to respond to me? It's interesting to note how your post can be divided into two categories. The first would be ones like this, which sound an awful lot like Unix Jedi. The second type would be ones with quote from the Bible that sound an awful lot like an old TSM poster (whose name I will refrain from writing out of respect for anonymity). Of course, I could be wrong and this second person could simply be paying homage to Unix by copying his lines and style:)
Getting back to the Constitution, no doubt that Madison felt that way but he, along with Jefferson, were continually in the minority when faced with the realities of beginning a country. So, really, when you are talking about what is "Constitutional" you are excluding nearly all of the founding fathers save Madison and Jefferson, right? All of these men, just as we are now, had disagreements over how to proceed based on the Constitution. There was no "right" or "wrong" even from the very beginning.
Even in their disagreement, Madison and Hamilton (along with John Jay) wrote the Federalists Papers together which are the most detailed explanation for what the Constitution means, don't you agree?
You attempt to redefine architect after having chosen the word to convey a specific meaning.
The facts speak for themselves. Since you don't like Hamilton's views, now you are attempting to shut him out of the conversation by playing the semantics game. None of his ideas, effort, input or writings played any significant part in the Constitution...that about right?
You ignore that Hamilton opposed the Bill of Rights
So did the "Father" of the Constitution, James Madison (a Federalist) but he changed his mind and wrote the draft that ultimately became the Bill of Rights.
going beyond the enumerated powers of The Constitution.
...in looking at it from your perception. If that was unclear, than that's my mistake.
What do you mean by that?
Well, I could be wrong but it seems like I'm having a conversation with two different people posting under one name. No real worries if that's the way you want to play it but ganging up shouldn't really be the style for rugged individuals. It also seems an awful lot like bullying which would confirm what I have been saying all along about juvenile behavior.
Given modern day concerns, the Constitution, like the Bible, doesn't have all the answers.
Your dubious theology aside, the huge difference between the two is that one may be amended to account for "modern day concerns". That part was written in right from the beginning - but proglodytes refuse to honestly address their desires as Constitutional amendments. Much like your theological flights of fancy, they imagine that words can have any meaning to suit at any time. That is less than childish and more than dishonest.
Since you don't like Hamilton's views
Did I say that? Hamilton was very much distrusted by Democratic-Republicans (i.e. Anti-Federalists) of his day. I can see one reason you so admire Hamilton - he co-opted the word Federalist and inverted its meaning as part of the Constitutional debate. Hamilton though was right about how the country would develop economically - contrary to Jefferson's pastoral predictions. Hamilton was wrong about the Bill of Rights, wasn't he?
The Founders were a rather contentious lot - distrustful of one another. That is why they created a limited federal govt. You don't like those limits but you just can't be honest and forthright about that.
Well, I could be wrong but it seems like I'm having a conversation with two different people posting under one name.
You are wrong, you aren't conversing with one person (under two handles). I don't play that game. What you can't quite wrap your head around is that two people can disagree with you for similar reasons without being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Unpossible, huh?
Oh, one other thing to note about Hamilton. He wanted an even more powerful central state and lost that argument in the drafting of the Constitution. It wasn't hard for him to argue for it against the govt under the AoC, since it was a big move in the direction he wanted. So is it any surprise that he should endorse extra-Constitutional measures that ran to strengthening the central state (since that was his original objective)?
32 comments:
Oh wow! The Voices In His Head have a Cone Of Silence!
Lest we forget the factual errors here too:
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;
— United States Constitution, Article I, Section 7
Presidents don't raise taxes, Congress does. (Though Congress can go along with what the President wants, as the Senate is currently doing. And note that Obama's lockstep House leader, Nancy Pelosi, wants to raise taxes more than they just did!)
Bush did call for higher spending, and we did complain about it.
As for Reagan, he opposed increasing spending, but Congress backed him into a corner. If you recall that Reagan speech Markadelphia distorted by taking things out of context, it was one where Reagan was complaining about that fact and explaining why he had no choice in the matter.
But then again, what are mere facts to an unrepentant liar like Markadelphia?
he opposed increasing spending
That include military spending?
As far as Reagan's speech goes, it was put up in its entirety so how a whole speech can be taken out of context is a mystery to me.
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2011/10/ah-gip.html
Ronald Reagan wouldn't make it through a GOP primary today with any sort of talk of tax fairness.
That would be right here where you lied about his speech.
The full transcript of that speech is here.
Neither the excerpt or the full transcript are in conflict with my point. In fact, the full excerpt supports my point even more: President Reagan would have never been so moronic as to play chicken with the debt ceiling. Whether it's Congress then or Congress now doing it doesn't matter. Each time it was bullshit. So, I don't get what your point is here, NMN. Reagan was a huge spender in terms of defense and warned of the consequences of default. That's what this address says. You can make up whatever you want and are certainly entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
play chicken with the debt ceiling.
warned of the consequences of default
Are you intimating that hitting the debt ceiling causes default?
If Congress does not raise the debt ceiling, we will default on money we already have spent. Since you only listen to those that are pure...
Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility -- two things that set us apart from much of the world.
From the same speech, you know, the part you keep ignoring so you can lie about what he said:
For those who say further responsible spending reductions are not possible, they are wrong. … For those who say more taxes will solve our deficit problem, they are wrong. Every time Congress increases taxes, the deficit does not decrease, spending increases. It's time for a clear and consistent policy to reduce the Federal budget deficit.
That quote doesn't say what you think it does.
By what mechanism does 'hitting' the debt ceiling cause default?
you know, the part you keep ignoring so you can lie about what he said:
Yet, Reagan did not want to actually reduce spending but increase it in terms of military spending. So, no, not lying.
By what mechanism does 'hitting' the debt ceiling cause default?
Yeah, I know what you're up to, GD, so let's just skip the part that we both know you already know (but are being weasely about with questions again) and have you (and NMN) explain exactly where you are going to cut spending and what effect you anticipate that will have on the economy.
So, rather than the perpetual lofty sermons about spending that have no there there, put your money where your mouth is...both of you.
http://kexo1230.com/could-you-balance-the-budget-federal-budget-challenge/
Let me know how you did.
That website is screwed up, the Future Combat System already was canceled. You can't save money canceling something already gone.
Here's another one I found...
http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/
Also, the game is rigged when it only presents you with a canned set of choices.
I wasn't given the option to completely eliminate agricultural subsidies, Dept of Education, etc. - lots of things. Nor was I offered options I would be interested in on taxation. Where was the choice to pull the military entirely out of Germany and Korea, and reduce active manpower by say 1/3rd? Crock of shit - so no doubt you just ate it up.
Reagan did not want to actually reduce spending but increase it in terms of military spending.
So your argument is that military spending is ALL government spending? Or is that when he argued against increased spending, he wasn't (magically) arguing against increased spending?
Truly, a dizzying intellect.
My argument is that when President Reagan railed against government spending, defense spending (the largest piece of the pie) was not included in that assertion. If he had said, "This type of spending is good and this type is bad. Let's get rid of the bad type," then that would have been different. The fact is that he ran very high deficits due to military spending so his comments run contrary to his actions.
Did you notice the ellipse (…) when I quoted Reagan's speech? Did you check out what I trimmed? (I did it to save space because I thought it wasn't relevant.)
Here's what I thought was unnecessary.
For those who say the only choice is undermining our national security at a time when the United States is close to an agreement with the Soviet Union on reducing nuclear weapons, they are wrong.
In other words, he was saying that we need the military spending because of our confrontation with the Soviet Union. But overall spending is too high.
In short, he DID differentiate between the two.
I linked directly to his speech above. (And again here.) You have access to what he actually said. Yet, despite that, you just tried to say that he did not say what he DID say!! Once again, that makes you a liar.
----------
For the record, here is the full paragraph again, with nothing trimmed:
For those who say further responsible spending reductions are not possible, they are wrong. For those who say the only choice is undermining our national security at a time when the United States is close to an agreement with the Soviet Union on reducing nuclear weapons, they are wrong. For those who say more taxes will solve our deficit problem, they are wrong. Every time Congress increases taxes, the deficit does not decrease, spending increases. It's time for a clear and consistent policy to reduce the Federal budget deficit.
Look, NMN, I have no problem with defense spending. It helps support families around the country in addition to maintaining a solid defense. But it does contribute a great deal to the deficit. At least be honest about that.
But it does contribute a great deal to the deficit. At least be honest about that.
Yes, let's be honest about how much of the budget is for defense spending:
50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph
In 1962, Defense was %51.7 percent of the budget. In 1987 (during Reagan's term) it was %29.7. In 2011 it was %22.6.
Of those breakout items which areas does the Government have Constitutional authority to spend money in? (Hint: Defense is one, but not the way it's done now.) If all the unconstitutional spending was cut today (not a realistic proposal, but this is a thought experiment) what would the deficit be by the end of the year?
And what the heck makes you think the primary Constitutionally authorized area for spending is the only place where spending can be cut?
Are you finally being honest yet?
My argument is that when President Reagan railed against government spending, defense spending (the largest piece of the pie) was not included in that assertion.
So for the sake of argument, let me stipulate to that being true. Is there a reason why?
[Hint: 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;] What are the three overarching things Congress is authorized to spend money on?
If all the unconstitutional spending was cut today
Here's the problem, NMN. The spending that you have deemed unconstitutional isn't.
Hamilton.
The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s21.html
He helped write the Constitution. You didn't. So, he's an authority on what is or is not unconstitutional and you are not.
Now that was something almost intelligent (the quote that is, not your conclusion). Actually Hamilton wasn't an architect of the Constitution, and he in fact argued against the Bill of Rights - because his view was that the federal govt had no power to interfere with such and he reasoned (quite correctly) that any Bill of Rights would fall short. The 9th Amdt was an attempt to address that particular aspect. You do know about the 9th right? Probably not, progressives just don't really like the Constitution - gets in the way of their good intentions.
Actually Hamilton wasn't an architect of the Constitution
It depends on how you define "architect."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature/hamiltonusconstituion.html
His draft of the Constitution (which he never presented) ended up being a blueprint for what was actually used which is why I said "helped." My point in bringing it up was to illustrate that Alexander Hamilton was more of an authority on the Constitution than NMN. His vigorous defense of it was second to none.
So your response is to quote a man who, by your own admission, violated the Constitution?
Truly, a dizzying intellect.
Hamilton wanted a stronger Federal government than what got written into the Constitution. In other words, his ideas were rejected by the Framers.
The ideas which prevailed where those of a man known as the "Father of the Constitution", James Madison.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
— James Madison, On the Cod Fishery Bill, February 7, 1792 (Note: Right AFTER the passage of the Constitution.)
"With respect to the words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
— James Madison, letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
Actually Hamilton wasn't an architect of the Constitution
It depends on how you define "architect."
There goes the Marxaphasia tactic* again. Just redefine words to mean what ever you need them to mean to avoid admitting error.
James Madison was the chief architect. The Federal Constitution was based on the Virginia Constitution, which was Madison's work.
(* Also called the Humpty Dumpty tactic.)
Classic M, just classic. Do you have any idea how predictable you are - and not in a good way.
You attempt to redefine architect after having chosen the word to convey a specific meaning. You ignore that Hamilton opposed the Bill of Rights (which I'm guessing you realize is a tough position to defend). All so you can defend the progressive desire to govern in ways that are not consistent with the Constitution.
So your response is to quote a man who, by your own admission, violated the Constitution?
By your interpretation he did, not mine. Given modern day concerns, the Constitution, like the Bible, doesn't have all the answers. And the ones you don't like don't directly translate into something "unconstitutional." That's your emotions.
Truly, a dizzying intellect.
Why does it take two of you to respond to me? It's interesting to note how your post can be divided into two categories. The first would be ones like this, which sound an awful lot like Unix Jedi. The second type would be ones with quote from the Bible that sound an awful lot like an old TSM poster (whose name I will refrain from writing out of respect for anonymity). Of course, I could be wrong and this second person could simply be paying homage to Unix by copying his lines and style:)
Getting back to the Constitution, no doubt that Madison felt that way but he, along with Jefferson, were continually in the minority when faced with the realities of beginning a country. So, really, when you are talking about what is "Constitutional" you are excluding nearly all of the founding fathers save Madison and Jefferson, right? All of these men, just as we are now, had disagreements over how to proceed based on the Constitution. There was no "right" or "wrong" even from the very beginning.
Even in their disagreement, Madison and Hamilton (along with John Jay) wrote the Federalists Papers together which are the most detailed explanation for what the Constitution means, don't you agree?
You attempt to redefine architect after having chosen the word to convey a specific meaning.
The facts speak for themselves. Since you don't like Hamilton's views, now you are attempting to shut him out of the conversation by playing the semantics game. None of his ideas, effort, input or writings played any significant part in the Constitution...that about right?
You ignore that Hamilton opposed the Bill of Rights
So did the "Father" of the Constitution, James Madison (a Federalist) but he changed his mind and wrote the draft that ultimately became the Bill of Rights.
Yes, he did oppose a Bill of Rights? WHY? What was his reasoning?
By your interpretation he did, not mine
YOU keep bringing up his actions as an example of going beyond the enumerated powers of The Constitution.
Why does it take two of you to respond to me?
What do you mean by that?
going beyond the enumerated powers of The Constitution.
...in looking at it from your perception. If that was unclear, than that's my mistake.
What do you mean by that?
Well, I could be wrong but it seems like I'm having a conversation with two different people posting under one name. No real worries if that's the way you want to play it but ganging up shouldn't really be the style for rugged individuals. It also seems an awful lot like bullying which would confirm what I have been saying all along about juvenile behavior.
Given modern day concerns, the Constitution, like the Bible, doesn't have all the answers.
Your dubious theology aside, the huge difference between the two is that one may be amended to account for "modern day concerns". That part was written in right from the beginning - but proglodytes refuse to honestly address their desires as Constitutional amendments. Much like your theological flights of fancy, they imagine that words can have any meaning to suit at any time. That is less than childish and more than dishonest.
Since you don't like Hamilton's views
Did I say that? Hamilton was very much distrusted by Democratic-Republicans (i.e. Anti-Federalists) of his day. I can see one reason you so admire Hamilton - he co-opted the word Federalist and inverted its meaning as part of the Constitutional debate. Hamilton though was right about how the country would develop economically - contrary to Jefferson's pastoral predictions. Hamilton was wrong about the Bill of Rights, wasn't he?
The Founders were a rather contentious lot - distrustful of one another. That is why they created a limited federal govt. You don't like those limits but you just can't be honest and forthright about that.
Well, I could be wrong but it seems like I'm having a conversation with two different people posting under one name.
You are wrong, you aren't conversing with one person (under two handles). I don't play that game. What you can't quite wrap your head around is that two people can disagree with you for similar reasons without being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Unpossible, huh?
Oh, one other thing to note about Hamilton. He wanted an even more powerful central state and lost that argument in the drafting of the Constitution. It wasn't hard for him to argue for it against the govt under the AoC, since it was a big move in the direction he wanted. So is it any surprise that he should endorse extra-Constitutional measures that ran to strengthening the central state (since that was his original objective)?
you aren't conversing with one person (under two handles). I don't play that game.
I think what he's saying is that I am two people working under one handle. He's still wrong, though.
Apparently another question needs to be repeated:
Yes, he [Madison] did oppose a Bill of Rights? WHY? What was his reasoning?
Post a Comment