California just lost another 8 billion due to 'recession' - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Marcus1124 · #91 (**permalink**) 06-25-2009

Quote:

danielpalos
This is the phrase I am referring to: "general welfare".

Which you misunderstand the meaning of within the context of the Constitution, but I was referring to your 'official poverty' blather.

Kijana · #92 (**permalink**) 06-25-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

It would be completely unneccesary if the state didn't subsidize them in the first place. Tuition and other non-tax revenues for institutions of higher learning should be enough to cover the costs. Then the only thing that would require cuts would be a lack of demand.

You are obviously not very familiar with how the community college system works. My college has a mandate to offer classes at a reduced rate to students here because it is a very low income area. They cannot just raise unit rates arbitrarily, and a lot of students here could not afford it even if they could. So, when funds are cut, classes and class space are cut.

It's definitely not a great set-up and needs to be reorganized. But, the mission of the system is to provide educational and/or vocational training for people who cannot afford the 4-year college system. If people cannot afford to go here, they can't afford to go anywhere. And I see it as an investment in the community, not simply a cost.

Every investment needs money, though. I'm completely aware of that.

danielpalos · #93 (**permalink**) 06-25-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

Which you misunderstand the meaning of within the context of the Constitution, but I was referring to your 'official poverty' blather.

I subscribe to the federalist doctrine, not the republican doctrine concerning our Constitution.

Marcus1124 · #94 (**permalink**) 06-25-2009

Quote:

danielpalos
I subscribe to the federalist doctrine, not the republican doctrine concerning our Constitution.

Then why don't you explain what you think that is, just for clarity

danielpalos · #95 (**permalink**) 06-25-2009

I think Madison explains it very well in the Federalist Papers number forty-one.

Quote:

"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? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? 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. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

Source: Federalist Papers Index

Quote:

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
Offenses 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.

Imperator · #96 (**permalink**) 06-25-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kijana

Yup, it's pretty scary. I work at a community college and we almost had to cut all summer classes due to the budget. There are going to be some very deep cuts this fall. I might have to look for another job.

Yes my wifes best freind is a teacher with 17 years in, shes not to worried but there are several of her cohorts that have been laid off already, one had 13 years in.....

Its a friggin mess aint it? and it aint gonna get better any time soon, this has been brewing for years.

what area of cali do you work in?

Kijana · #97 (**permalink**) 06-26-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

Yes my wifes best freind is a teacher with 17 years in, shes not to worried but there are several of her cohorts that have been laid off already, one had 13 years in.....

Its a friggin mess aint it? and it aint gonna get better any time soon, this has been brewing for years.

what area of cali do you work in?

I work and go to school next to Monterey Bay. I teach over in Salinas.

Yup, it's gonna be bad when the cuts hit. There is no avoiding it now.

danielpalos · #98 (**permalink**) 06-26-2009

The drug war is no longer Constitutional since the repeal of the Prohibition amendment.

We have McCarthy era phrase in our pledge that claims a form of divinely inspired moral tradition.

Yet, how many people of Morals claim to want to end an extra-Constitutional drug war instead of social services that can ameliorate poverty in our republic?

Where is there any specifically enumerated power to Prohibit Commerce in our federal Constitution? If we were a truly moral people, we would be more faithful to our own Constitution.

Imperator · #99 (**permalink**) 06-26-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kijana

I work and go to school next to Monterey Bay. I teach over in Salinas.

Yup, it's gonna be bad when the cuts hit. There is no avoiding it now.

well I hope you survive, let us know how it turns out....

danielpalos · #**100** (**permalink**) 06-26-2009

Do we really need the expense of a Drug War? We could be eliminating poverty as a form of economic stimulus, via unemployment compensation, at-will. This will also help local governments due to an increase in the circulation and velocity of money in our own money-based, mixed-market political-economy. It could be considered as a form of trickle down theory for local governments instead of individuals, due to the routine bureaucracy of statism, that also benefits local economies.

The several States have delegated the power to pay for the Debts of the United States in their provision of their several and sovereign welfare.

Imperator · #**101** (**permalink**) 06-26-2009

this topic is-

California just lost another 8 billion due to 'recession'

danielpalos · #**102** (**permalink**) 06-26-2009

Would we have lost eight billion if we had legalized drug Commerce sooner rather than later? We could still be enjoying massive surpluses if either party had been that market friendly.

Marcus1124 · #**103** (**permalink**) 06-27-2009

Quote:

danielpalos
Would we have lost eight billion if we had legalized drug Commerce sooner rather than later? We could still be enjoying massive surpluses if either party had been that market friendly.

Why are you so irrationally fixated on something that, regardless of the merits of, is an insignificant portion of our government expenditures and resources. YES, California would still be a mess financially if it had always had legal drugs and taxed them. Why, because the fools running California would have spent all that money and more, just like they have with every other penny they have taxed.

danielpalos · #**104** (**permalink**) 06-27-2009

I think we would be better off with recourse to the revenue provided from the lawful Commerce of drugs.

It is comparable in expense to grow pot as tobacco, and can be taxed at a much higher rate since it is mostly a recreational drug.

I think it depends on the economic climate. We could have had more revenue to potentially reduce any invasive and direct income tax instead of a sales tax.

Quote:

California's Record Surpluses Trigger Reduction in State Sales Tax.

Publication: San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, California) (via Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News)
Publication Date: 26-OCT-00

Source: California's Record Surpluses Trigger Reduction in State Sales Tax. (26-OCT-00) San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, California) (via Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News)

Marcus1124 · #**105** (**permalink**) 06-27-2009

Quote:

danielpalos
I think we would be better off with recourse to the revenue provided from the lawful Commerce of drugs.

It is comparable in expense to grow pot as tobacco, and can be taxed at a much higher rate since it is mostly a recreational drug.

I think it depends on the economic climate. We could have had more revenue to potentially reduce any invasive and direct income tax instead of a sales tax.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about, even if legal, revenue from taxes on currently illegal drugs would be a mere fraction of what we currently collect in direct income taxes.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode