March 1, 2011 11:53:00 AM
The "Concentrate on essentials" column, from Sunday''s Washington Post, appeared in Monday''s Dispatch, and I take issue with part of it. The writer states that the jobs of the Federal government are first, protecting the nation and preserving the peace (ours, agreed); second, no one goes hungry, homeless, or uncared for when sick (show me where to find that in the Constitution); third, support economic growth by maintaining ports, roads, rails, subways, and airports, plus educating the next generation and supporting science (wait a minute! our infrastructure is one thing, but the Dept. of Education is about teachers'' "rights" & not about presenting the best education possible to students. Witness the "sickouts" in Wisconsin); fourth, lessen inequality (nowhere in my copy of the Constitution does the government, federal or lower, have the authority to confiscate money from the "rich" to help the "poor" get better off); and finally, provide a safe supply of food & medicine, clean air & water, national parks, & a capital of which the country can be proud.
Again, nowhere in the Constitution do we find these duties assigned to the Federal or any other government. We have become so dependent on Uncle Sam to provide for us that we do not realize the power we have allowed big brother to assume. As for a capital of which we can be proud, today Washington DC is the laughingstock of the world. This country better return to the principles and roots of the Founding Fathers.
Cameron Triplett Sr
hope commented at 3/2/2011 8:56:00 AM:
Is outsourcing our jobs to communist China to bring their standard of living up while at the same time putting Americans in poverty in the Constitution? My dad had a friend that was killed by the Chinese in the Korean war, and I've heard him say on more than one occasion that if he could come back today, he would say not only did they take my life, they took my job too. Is that in the Constitution?
hope commented at 3/2/2011 12:59:00 PM:
@Cameron:Is hiring an illegal immigrant in place of an American worker in the Constitution? When you answer my first comment, how about answering this one also!
hope commented at 3/2/2011 3:23:00 PM:
@Cameron:Having a law that requires MS. drivers to purchase liability insurance, is that in the Constitution? When you answer the first two comments, how about answering this one also.
hope commented at 3/2/2011 3:38:00 PM:
@Cameron:When the banks and Wall Sreet gamble and lose their clients money, while making a few rich and making a lot more poor, and the taxpayers have to bail them out to keep from having a depression, and making more people poor, is that in the Constitution? When you answer the other three comments, answer this one also.
hope commented at 3/2/2011 6:10:00 PM:
@Cameron:Declaring war under false pretenses -(IRAQ)-is that in the constitution? When you answer the other comments, answer this one also.
hope commented at 3/2/2011 6:16:00 PM:
When the Federal government spends social security for other purposes of government (2.5 trillion dollars) that started under Reagan and replaced it with IOU's, with no interest, is that in the Constitution? When you answer the other comments, answer this one also.
zenreaper commented at 3/2/2011 6:48:00 PM:
The Preamble to our Constitution lays out, in clear terms, the FIVE things that the FEDERAL government is responsible for:
"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, (1) establish justice, (2) insure domestic tranquility, (3) provide for the common defense, (4) promote the general welfare, and (5) secure the blessings of liberty..."
That is IT.
"Is outsourcing our jobs to communist China to bring their standard of living up while at the same time putting Americans in poverty in the Constitution?"
Far as I know, the Federal government is not doing this, BUSINESSES are doing this, and they are doing it because the work is CHEAPER there. Tell you what, you take the most REMOTE gas station in the county, drop gas by a dollar a gallon at that station, and it will become the busiest station in the state.
"My dad had a friend that was killed by the Chinese in the Korean war, and I've heard him say on more than one occasion that if he could come back today, he would say not only did they take my life, they took my job too."
So when Mississippi fights other states to get a business here, are we taking the JOBS of other states, or are we looking out for our own?
"Is hiring an illegal immigrant in place of an American worker in the Constitution?"
Please show where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (as that is the body that is governed by the Constitution) is hiring illegal aliens.
"Having a law that requires MS. drivers to purchase liability insurance, is that in the Constitution?"
States rights, has nothing to do with the US Constitution.
"When the banks and Wall Sreet gamble and lose their clients money, while making a few rich and making a lot more poor, and the taxpayers have to bail them out to keep from having a depression, and making more people poor, is that in the Constitution?"
A number of tacks can be taken in response to this. First, NO< it is NOT the government's job to bail out private companies, bad investments or not. Second, investing is RISKY, which is why its called investing. You CAN and DO lose money, deal with it.
"Declaring war under false pretenses -(IRAQ)-is that in the constitution?"
Actually, they don't NEED a reason to declare war. Of course, I assume you arer referring to the WMD thing. Well, there WERE chemical weapons in Iraq. Don't believe me, ask the Northern Iraqi people who had the gas USED on them. Look at the PICTURES of the AFTERMATH of the chemical attacks. It HAPPENED. Now, were there any when we went in? Intelligence said there were. He HAD used them, and was refusing to allow inspectors to search certain areas. DUH! He over played his hand and lost his country for it.
"When the Federal government spends social security for other purposes of government (2.5 trillion dollars) that started under Reagan and replaced it with IOU's, with no interest, is that in the Constitution?"
Yep. That is the downside of a government run retirement system. Just wait till they get ahold of healthcare.
hope commented at 3/3/2011 12:59:00 AM:
@zenreaper:I thank you for the info. I sure didn't know that we didn't need a cause to go to war. Everybody knew that Saddam had gassed the Kurds. In fact we gave him some when they were fighting Iran. The inspectors that were sent in before the war didn't find any and testified before congress that he didn't have any. When Bush saw that was not enough to persuade congress to vote to go to war, they claimed Saddam had purchased Nuclear material. He later claimed he had gotten bad information from his intelligent sources. But almost eight years later at war, he says he would do it again. It has made us safer.
I would imagine every state requires their drivers to acquire liability insurance. So why the big fuss when the federal government requires every body to have health insurance? Could it be that small business would have to pay some instead of the taxpayers paying for their employees medical bills by way of medicaid.
The Federal Government has helped some businesses move overseas.
The Federal Government may not be hiring illegal immigrants, but there is a Federal law saying businesses should not hire them also.
mr. jordan commented at 3/4/2011 9:17:00 AM:
Your mantra was followed completely for six of the eight years prior to the economic debacle and Republicans had the White House for the last year before the meltdown. Thanks for the memories, dude.
Republicans now say the federal government is profligate without saying most of that profligacy happened on their watch. Yet even though the drug giveaway to seniors and two interminable wars continue to drain our resources, Repubicans want to wreck education spending and delete programs they don't like, such as NPR and Planned Parenthood instead of curtailing their wars of choice.
Your pomposity in the face of the utter debacle you inflicted on us is astounding.
hope commented at 3/4/2011 10:26:00 AM:
@mr. jordan:What an excellent comment! Don't imagine you will be getting any feedback from FAUX on that one, because it's the truth. That would make the "Crier of the House" cringe.
Don't you just love doing this?
THANK YOU, BERNIE!
1. Our View: Debate, decision on billboard represent city's best interests DISPATCH EDITORIALS
2. Thomas Sowell: Tortured reasoning NATIONAL COLUMNS
3. Jamie Stiehm: The California lady lights the dark NATIONAL COLUMNS
4. Our View: More questions than answers on Cadence building for SPD DISPATCH EDITORIALS
5. Froma Harrop: Pottersville goes online NATIONAL COLUMNS