Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[Olo401]

There's also a very easy fix to SSI that has been discussed earlier in this thread.

But that's not the whole point. SSI was established by the Social Security Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, in accordance with their respective powers under the Constitution. So when Swampy argues the view that it or any other law passed by Congress in the same manner goes against the Constitution, that argument is fundamentally flawed.

Edit: damn that last sentence i wrote is a grammatical nightmare.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Swamp, implied powers were reaffirmed by the supreme court.
If we only follow the constitution to the exact word, we would lose many things such as interstate roads and the air force.

Uh no. States can't get together and make interstate roads? Air Force sounds like it might fall under maintaining an army or something no?

And Olo, the fact that congress has the power to pass laws doesn't give it the power to pass any laws. Otherwise congress would have unlimited powers.

[Neosutra]

the fact that congress has the power to pass laws doesn't give it the power to pass any laws.

wut

[Aerin]

Uh no. States can't get together and make interstate roads? Air Force sounds like it might fall under maintaining an army or something no?

I find it odd when people want to stick to the "letter of the law" especially when it's based on something that was written over 200 years ago. Problem is that in the real world things change and you need to adapt with the rest of the world and not stay fixated on just the past.

[Neosutra]

I find it odd when people want to stick to the "letter of the law" especially when it's based on something that was written over 200 years ago. Problem is that in the real world things change and you need to adapt with the rest of the world and not stay fixated on just the past.

The greatest part of our constitution/government structure is that it was meant to change/adapt to the time, and to be re-examined and interpreted to serve the nation as it changes and evolves.

I wonder what country swamp really lives in, as he knows very little about america.

[Plow]

wut

he means because they have the power to create laws doesn't just mean they can create whatever law they want because they follow the constitution for getting it enacted


i.e. Just because they followed the system in making the law, would not make a law that stated "Anything a person says in public must begin 'All hail lord Cheney'" constitutional.

[Olo401]

And Olo, the fact that congress has the power to pass laws doesn't give it the power to pass any laws. Otherwise congress would have unlimited powers.

Uhh..

....passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, in accordance with their respective powers under the Constitution.

Hi. I'm reading. I'm fundamental.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You must not have read Plow's post.

[Aerin]

And Olo, the fact that congress has the power to pass laws doesn't give it the power to pass any laws. Otherwise congress would have unlimited powers.

The sentence can vary depending on how you read 'any'

You can read it as:

A) The fact that congress has the power to pass laws doesn't give it the power to pass laws.

or

B) The fact that congress has the power to pass laws, doesn't give it the power to pass laws that violate the constitution.

Least I think that's what he means.

[Olo401]

The sentence can vary depending on how you read 'any'

You can read it as:

A) The fact that congress has the power to pass laws doesn't give it the power to pass laws.

or

B) The fact that congress has the power to pass laws, doesn't give it the power to pass laws that violate the constitution.

Least I think that's what he means.

It's the latter.

And yeah, I said it - that sentence was so ridiculously worded that it could've been interpreted as a cake recipe. I really shouldn't be blaming Swampy for not figuring that out on his own..

[Olo401]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sle...l_make-up.html

Holy John Edwards Haircut.

[Valisk]

the thing is, Social Security isn't gonna be in serious trouble until what, 2047? And by then we should be getting over the baby boomer generation

Huh? 2047? Baby Boomer generation was what? 1943-1960? So THIS year is when the first of that generation can start drawing out social security. I think social security will be in big trouble over the next 17 years (especially in 7ish when it peaked).

[Maxxthepenguin]

Comment posted on a fox news blog entitled "Is Obama trying to buy the election?"

$600,000,000.00 divided by 32,000,000 registered Democrats equals $9,523.80 per registered Democrat. I smell a fish. He will not list his doners. He is dishonest.

fucking lol

[Dantrag]

Comment posted on a fox news blog entitled "Is Obama trying to buy the election?"



fucking lol

...

[Correction]

Man what I could do with 300 billion dollars...

[Olo401]

Ya know..

McCain helped write the fucking campaign finance reform law. If anyone knows that there's a line in the law where any donor under $200 doesn't have to be itemized by name, it's John fucking McCain.

Let me help ol' Mr. Magoo - I donated $100 during the general election campaign to Obama, $100 to the DCCC, $100 yesterday to the opponent of that insane rep in Minnesota, and gave $50 to John Edwards in the primaries.

[Zosi]

The most amazing thing is that the result number literally appears to have come out of thin air, the closest thing I can find that would produce anything even close to $9523.80 would be (600,000,000 / 32,000) / 2, but that's still not the same.

[Beckwin]

Huh? 2047? Baby Boomer generation was what? 1943-1960? So THIS year is when the first of that generation can start drawing out social security. I think social security will be in big trouble over the next 17 years (especially in 7ish when it peaked).

We can sustain social security for a few more decades without going into the red according to studies, and by that time the baby boom generation won't be a crisis.

[Saphirea]

Since you guys are a lot smarter than I am especially with economy stuff. Can any of you guys explain to me what the fuck Barney Franks is saying here?

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/2...ts-more-taxes/

Changenism? And how more spending and avoiding deficit fear is a good thing? I've watched it and read a few blogs and no one seems to be able to explain it in a way that I can figure out. This seems to be the only site that has the whole before what he said and after what he said, everything else is just making fun of his "changenism" sentence.

[Plow]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sle...l_make-up.html

Holy John Edwards Haircut.

wow, afk putting make up on old guys for 100k a year