PDA

View Full Version : Teddy Roosevelt: No Friend of the Constitution


Taco John
03-19-2008, 12:35 AM
Thought this was a good read on one of the most over-rated presidents in our history...


http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v24n6/chapman.pdf

Mr. Kotter
03-19-2008, 12:36 AM
GFY...such stupidity doesn't deserve a measured response. Read, dude; read.

And not just the conspiracy/revisionist historian bullshit you seem so fond of.

FTR, this has nothing to do with you being under "my skin"....but more to do with the pure silly-assed and irrational and uneducated attempt to "stir the pot" as trolls, such as yourself, are so fond of doing.

:rolleyes:

Taco John
03-19-2008, 12:39 AM
Haha! One minute later! Didn't even bother to read it!

Face it. Roosevelt was terrible.

I get that you liked the fact that he carried himself larger than life. As a personality, he was quite a character. As a president, he damaged America considerably.

Mr. Kotter
03-19-2008, 12:41 AM
Haha! One minute later! Didn't even bother to read it!

Face it. Roosevelt was terrible.

I get that you liked the fact that he carried himself larger than life. As a personality, he was quite a character. As a president, he damaged America considerably.

I've already read the stupid revisionist/conspiracy B.S.

Due diligence, moron. Again....g.f.y. and the horse you rode in on, you ignorant bastard. :shake:

CHIEF4EVER
03-19-2008, 12:42 AM
Interesting stuff. Good read.

Taco John
03-19-2008, 12:44 AM
I've already read the stupid revisionist/conspiracy B.S.


Conspiracy?

Hahaha! You read it in one minute and you somehow got "conspiracy" out of it?

What's the conspiracy?

Taco John
03-19-2008, 12:49 AM
HAHA! BUSTED!


Kotter is still using multiple accounts! What a loser!

CHIEF4EVER
03-19-2008, 12:51 AM
LMAO

Mr. Kotter
03-19-2008, 12:53 AM
HAHA! BUSTED!


Kotter is still using multiple accounts! What a loser!

You must be drinkin' tonight....upside-down-Margaritas, pehaps...Paco? :spock:

Mr. Kotter
03-19-2008, 12:56 AM
Considering the date on the site you linked was December 2002....is it surprising we may have already READ it? :shrug:

I mean, seriously...

2002?

ROFL

Taco John
03-19-2008, 12:57 AM
You refer to you and your alter-ego Lurch as "we?"

Taco John
03-19-2008, 01:00 AM
What's so funny about an article being posted from 2002? It's about a president from almost 100 years ago. What's happened in the last 5 years that would make it any less relevant today than when it was originally posted, Lurch? Er, Kotter... Or whatever account you and your shadow are posting from.

CHIEF4EVER
03-19-2008, 01:22 AM
<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY id=collapseobj_usercp_reputation><TR><TD class=alt2>http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif</TD><TD class=alt1Active id=p4638087 width="50%">Teddy Roosevelt: No... (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4638087#post4638087) </TD><TD class=alt2 noWrap>03-18-2008 11:54 PM</TD><TD class=alt1 noWrap>Mr. Kotter (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=571) </TD><TD class=alt2 width="50%">If you wanna join TJ, here ya go...</TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt2>http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif</TD><TD class=alt1Active id=p4638083 width="50%">Teddy Roosevelt: No... (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4638083#post4638083) </TD><TD class=alt2 noWrap>03-18-2008 11:47 PM</TD><TD class=alt1 noWrap>Lurch (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=6603) </TD><TD class=alt2 width="50%">Interesting? If you are not very bright, maybe....



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
LMAO

Busted.

|Zach|
03-19-2008, 01:38 AM
Silly.

Amnorix
03-19-2008, 06:50 AM
I agree and understand why conservatives, and especially Libertarians, might not love TR upon close review. He had many liberal bents to his philosophy. One of his most enduring causes was the founding of the National Park system.

Of course, none of that changes the fact that TR was clearly among the very best Presidents we ever had.

banyon
03-19-2008, 08:28 AM
TR angered the moneyed interests that the libertarian/anarchists seek to unwittingly re-implant atop society, so it's understandable he'd anger them too.

Also funny that with a title like "no friend of the Constitution", there's not a word about the Consitution other than a lot of hand wringing about how mean he was to the poor capitalists and South American dictators.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2008, 09:12 AM
Actually, one of the reasons limited govt types don't like TR is because he actually entrenched the big money interests more firmly leading us more toward cartel capitalism instead—now that we know more about markets. If you study the actual results of anti-trust some of them ended up with bigger market shares and their beloved govt subsidies. Many of these folks funded the elitist intellectuals too. Anything, to get rid of the competition. That and he loved war if you read what he wrote about his adventures in the Spanish-American War. He was an do-goodin' imperialist.

StcChief
03-19-2008, 09:20 AM
without TR we might all be speaking spanish.... oh wait they are here now illegally and speakin' plenty of it.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2008, 09:34 AM
without TR we might all be speaking spanish.... oh wait they are here now illegally and speakin' plenty of it.

I can't believe you actually believe that.

StcChief
03-19-2008, 09:49 AM
I can't believe you actually believe that. bashers of TR bother me.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2008, 09:55 AM
bashers of TR bother me.

I would imagine it would.

"I believe in nationalism as the absolute prerequisite to internationalism. I believe in patriotism as the absolute prerequisite to the larger Americanism. I believe in Americanism because unless our people are good Americans first, America can accomplish little or nothing worth accomplishing for the good of the world as a whole."—TR

Sounds like the American exceptionalism that the NCs love.

Taco John
03-19-2008, 10:00 AM
I don't know if he was the first, but he was definitely a RINO. He'd be a left wing extrimist by today's standards.

banyon
03-19-2008, 10:25 AM
Actually, one of the reasons limited govt types don't like TR is because he actually entrenched the big money interests more firmly leading us more toward cartel capitalism instead—now that we know more about markets. If you study the actual results of anti-trust some of them ended up with bigger market shares and their beloved govt subsidies. Many of these folks funded the elitist intellectuals too. Anything, to get rid of the competition. That and he loved war if you read what he wrote about his adventures in the Spanish-American War. He was an do-goodin' imperialist.

Actually, you've made the bolded unfounded claim a couple of times before and couldn't substantiate it then (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4519430&postcount=89) (on either occasion (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4595254&highlight=sherman#post4595254)). Market share went down after Sherman was enforced, not up.

I won't dispute that he believed serving in the armed forces was a duty of manhood.

Amnorix
03-19-2008, 10:31 AM
I don't know if he was the first, but he was definitely a RINO. He'd be a left wing extrimist by today's standards.

You libertarians and your whacky terms. Fine. I'll play. What the hll is a RINO.

And no, he definitely would not be a "left wing extremist". The views of the political spectrum from waaaaaay over there where you hang out are a bit skewed.

banyon
03-19-2008, 10:41 AM
Republican (In Name Only).

Like that's a bad thing these days.

StcChief
03-19-2008, 10:46 AM
I would imagine it would.

"I believe in nationalism as the absolute prerequisite to internationalism. I believe in patriotism as the absolute prerequisite to the larger Americanism. I believe in Americanism because unless our people are good Americans first, America can accomplish little or nothing worth accomplishing for the good of the world as a whole."—TR

Sounds like the American exceptionalism that the NCs love.I'm not a NC. (assuming that means neo-con).

I guess the last century we should have left Europe/Asia etc to fend for themselves with Germany in WWI, Germany/Italy/Japan in WWII.
and Communists in USSR/China after WWII

and wonder what the world would look like today.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2008, 11:59 AM
I'm not a NC. (assuming that means neo-con).

I guess the last century we should have left Europe/Asia etc to fend for themselves with Germany in WWI, Germany/Italy/Japan in WWII.
and Communists in USSR/China after WWII

and wonder what the world would look like today.

You still don't get it. WWII was our fight since we were directly attacked. Cold War I can agree mostly. But...
TR believed in intervening in the Latin countries of our hemisphere not for security reasons but just if they were corrupt. The Spanish American war during it's time was criticized as imperialist as was the Phillipinne intervention...not to mention Hawaii was because big business wanted it. That's an imperialist. Meaning unecessary for our security. Economically he as a liberal.

banyon
03-19-2008, 01:02 PM
You still don't get it. WWII was our fight since we were directly attacked. Cold War I can agree mostly. But...
TR believed in intervening in the Latin countries of our hemisphere not for security reasons but just if they were corrupt.

:BS: Proof?

The Spanish American war during it's time was criticized as imperialist as was the Phillipinne intervention...not to mention Hawaii was because big business wanted it. That's an imperialist. Meaning unecessary for our security. Economically he as a liberal.

Roosevelt wasn't President during the Spanish-American War, nor during our initial involvement in the Phillipines or Hawaii.

Amnorix
03-19-2008, 01:15 PM
:BS: Proof?



Roosevelt wasn't President during the Spanish-American War, nor during our initial involvement in the Phillipines or Hawaii.


Will you please STOP with all these irritating facts. They only confuse her argument.

Donger
03-19-2008, 01:20 PM
The Spanish American war during it's time was criticized as imperialist as was the Phillipinne intervention

Errr....

Amnorix
03-19-2008, 01:22 PM
Errr....


ROFL Don't tell her -- you'll just ruin the fun.

SBK
03-19-2008, 01:33 PM
:BS: Proof?



Roosevelt wasn't President during the Spanish-American War, nor during our initial involvement in the Phillipines or Hawaii.

You must be some kind of evil neocon. :D

Sully
03-19-2008, 01:37 PM
You ugys are just begging to be put on ignore!!!

Amnorix
03-19-2008, 01:47 PM
You ugys are just begging to be put on ignore!!!


I think I'm already there. I didn't see her say anything, but I can't remember the last time she responded to one of my posts. :D

StcChief
03-19-2008, 01:56 PM
ROFL Don't tell her -- you'll just ruin the fun.
facts, historical timelines, they all blur when you go back 100+ years.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2008, 03:31 PM
Roosevelt fought in the Spanish American war, agitated for it and supported it with gusto.

n March, Theodore Roosevelt wrote to his sister: "McKinley is bent on peace, I fear."

How is this any different than someone like Norman Podhoretz advising our VP and President to strike Iran?
It isn't.

banyon
03-19-2008, 03:34 PM
Roosevelt fought in the Spanish American war and supported it with gusto.

No s***.

But you implied he was responsible for all of it, which clearly he wasn't.

You still don't get it. WWII was our fight since we were directly attacked. Cold War I can agree mostly. But...
TR believed in intervening in the Latin countries of our hemisphere not for security reasons but just if they were corrupt. The Spanish American war during it's time was criticized as imperialist as was the Phillipinne intervention...not to mention Hawaii was because big business wanted it. That's an imperialist. Meaning unecessary for our security. Economically he as a liberal.

Taco John
03-19-2008, 03:37 PM
But you implied he was responsible for all of it, which clearly he wasn't.


She didn't imply it any more than StcChief implied that he was solely responsible for winning it. She seemed to be responding to the issue at the level that he was. I didn't see you getting so ticky tacky with his original statement.

without TR we might all be speaking spanish.... oh wait they are here now illegally and speakin' plenty of it.

banyon
03-19-2008, 03:44 PM
She didn't imply it any more than StcChief implied that he was solely responsible for winning it. She seemed to be responding to the issue at the level that he was. I didn't see you getting so ticky tacky with his original statement.

That's true. His statement is inaccurate as well. Good catch.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2008, 03:51 PM
Bully Boy: The The Truth about TR's legacy (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo106.html) by Jim Powell

Why he's the nc's favorite president beside Lincoln:
Powell describes how, as an assistant secretary of the Navy in the McKinley administration, Roosevelt helped manipulate the media and Congress into declaring war with Spain.

Unlike today’s cowardly cheerleaders for war (William and Irving Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Sean Hannity, New Gingrich, William Bennett, and most of the employees of the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Weekly Standard and National Review magazines come to mind), TR did volunteer to participate in the war, and he did so in Cuba. He did have the courage to put his own life at risk.


TR was "the most outspoken advocate of an interventionist foreign policy" and lusted for war and killing. The more the better. The reason for this, Roosevelt once explained, is that "All the great masterful races have been fighting races . . ." Master Race. National Greatness Conservativism. What’s the difference?

Roosevelt warned of "the menace of peace," and was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize!

"His many targets [for war] over the years included Cuba, Hawaii, Venezuela, China, the Philippines, Panama, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Canada." He always masked his imperialistic impulses with humanitarian rhetoric, says Powell, in the dishonorable tradition of the Party of Lincoln. The U.S. couldn’t admit that it was seizing territory simply because it wanted it, for example, so "he asserted that the United States must intervene . . . when a nation failed to behave." This was a philosophy of unlimited foreign policy interventionism, not unlike the Bush administration’s claim to be busy eradicating evil from the planet.

His enemies of his foreign policy were: Anti-Imperialist League members such Grover Cleveland, Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie, and William Graham Sumner. Roosevelt dismissed all of these men as "men of a bygone era."[--sound familiar? Same line used back then.]

Synopsis on book (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo106.html)

banyon
03-19-2008, 04:07 PM
LOL a book review from lewrockwell.com.

Could it get any more slanted and misleading than this:

TR was "the most outspoken advocate of an interventionist foreign policy" and lusted for war and killing. The more the better. The reason for this, Roosevelt once explained, is that "All the great masterful races have been fighting races . . ." Master Race. National Greatness Conservativism. What’s the difference?

1st, he thought war was a partiotic duty and a manly virtue. Unless we're talking animals, then there's ZERO evidence that he thought "the more killing the better".

2nd, saying the "great and masterful races" is an antiquated way (the writing is 100 years old) of describing historically successful cultures, not a way of indicating he wanted there to be a "Master race" as the author fraudulently equates.

Essentially, this guy is saying that TR was like putting Hannibal Lecter together with Heinrich Himmler. Does that mean he raped more or less people than Lincoln?

Reading only garbage like this ad nauseam, it's no wonder your ideas are so outlandish yet inflexible at the same time.

HonestChieffan
03-19-2008, 04:19 PM
Its time to impeach this Teddy dude. I see a call to action here.

Taco John
03-19-2008, 04:27 PM
Essentially, this guy is saying that TR was like putting Hannibal Lecter together with Heinrich Himmler.

Your exaggerations show how insecure you are with your arguments. The guy is definitely saying that Roosevelt was a psycopath, but he's not putting together a charicature of TR as a cannibal mixed with the architect of the worst genocide of the last century.

I find it amusing that people who disdain George W. Bush would find Teddy Roosevelt to be a great man.

Amnorix
03-19-2008, 04:35 PM
Your exaggerations show how insecure you are with your arguments. The guy is definitely saying that Roosevelt was a psycopath, but he's not putting together a charicature of TR as a cannibal mixed with the architect of the worst genocide of the last century.

I find it amusing that people who disdain George W. Bush would find Teddy Roosevelt to be a great man.


I don't recall Teddy putting us at such tremendous risk in foreign interventionism at such tremendous cost.

While I oppose some of the imperailistic dogma that served as a backdrop for the event of the very late 19th and early 20th century under McKinley/TR on principle, nothing they did was anywhere near as risky or costly as Iraq.

I also approve of TR's domestic agenda much moreso than Bush's.

Mr. Kotter
03-19-2008, 04:36 PM
LOL a book review from lewrockwell.com.

Could it get any more slanted and misleading than this:

1st, he thought war was a partiotic duty and a manly virtue. Unless we're talking animals, then there's ZERO evidence that he thought "the more killing the better".

2nd, saying the "great and masterful races" is an antiquated way (the writing is 100 years old) of describing historically successful cultures, not a way of indicating he wanted there to be a "Master race" as the author fraudulently equates.

Essentially, this guy is saying that TR was like putting Hannibal Lecter together with Heinrich Himmler. Does that mean he raped more or less people than Lincoln?

Reading only garbage like this ad nauseam, it's no wonder your ideas are so outlandish yet inflexible at the same time.

No kidding; somehow we are suppose to believe Lew Rockwell, TJ, and BEP...over the opinions of dozens of scholars, political scientists, and other much more well-educated and well-respected experts on the topic who represent the entire range of the political spectrum....

:rolleyes:

In each of the last 10 major studies and rankings of the President's, Teddy has come in 3rd, 4th, or 5th. That's about as consistent as one could possibly want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

Get a life...people.

banyon
03-19-2008, 04:37 PM
Your exaggerations show how insecure you are with your arguments. The guy is definitely saying that Roosevelt was a psycopath, but he's not putting together a charicature of TR as a cannibal mixed with the architect of the worst genocide of the last century.

Yeah that was literal. :rolleyes:

I find it amusing that people who disdain George W. Bush would find Teddy Roosevelt to be a great man.



GWB is a puppet of the elites. The elites despised TR with a passion. GWB was a coward whose dad's connections got him out of Vietnam, TR volunteered for everything that he could until the Army told him he wasn't fit to serve for WWI. Other than being aggressive in foreign policy they had few other similarities.

Amnorix
03-19-2008, 04:37 PM
Wow. This is just wrong.

He was a reckless, frenetic interventionist who displayed little knowledge (especially on economic issues) or even concern about the likely consequences of his interventions.

Taco John
03-19-2008, 04:44 PM
I don't recall Teddy putting us at such tremendous risk in foreign interventionism at such tremendous cost.

He didn't have the opportunity to. How do you imagine he would have reacted if he were put in GWB's shoes? There's plenty of his statements on the record to give us a pretty good idea.

HonestChieffan
03-19-2008, 04:47 PM
Teddy would be more worried about this upcoming Turkey season and weather he would us 3 or 3 1/2 shells.

Amnorix
03-19-2008, 04:57 PM
He didn't have the opportunity to. How do you imagine he would have reacted if he were put in GWB's shoes? There's plenty of his statements on the record to give us a pretty good idea.


I have no idea, and neither do you. I'm sure he would not have been passive about it, but would he have invaded on a shoestring manpower basis and suffer the imbecility of Rummy for so long? I doubt it.

Would he have invaded Iraq to redeem the perceived sins of GWB 1 instead of focusing solely on Al Qaida? I have no idea.

Your'e right, he would not have been passive. We can definitely say that, but I have no idea what he would've done, and neither do you.

Keep in mind that TR was very knowledgeable about history and I doubt he would've ignored the systemic problems that clearly were going to result from beheading Iraqi leadership the way BushCo did.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2008, 05:10 PM
No kidding; somehow we are suppose to believe Lew Rockwell, TJ, and BEP...over the opinions of dozens of scholars, political scientists, and other much more well-educated and well-respected experts on the topic who represent the entire range of the political spectrum....

:rolleyes:

In each of the last 10 major studies and rankings of the President's, Teddy has come in 3rd, 4th, or 5th. That's about as consistent as one could possibly want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

Get a life...people.

Who cares what wiki says. I think I'll edit their entry on him.

Those are the acceptable court historians who leave out the unfavorable things TR said and stood for. And of course they're probably interventionist and statist too. It's called state propaganda and public relations. The stuff that fills most people's heads. It kinda like telling everyone what to think and then polling the right people with the correct political views. But there have always been bios that are pro/con and in between on any president.

Mr. Kotter
03-19-2008, 05:15 PM
Who cares what wiki says. I think I'll edit their entry on him.

Those are the acceptable court historians who leave out the unfavorable things TR said and stood for. And of course they're probably interventionist and statist too. It's called state propaganda and public relations. The stuff that fills most people's heads. It kinda like telling everyone what to think and then polling the right people with the correct political views.

I know you aren't THIS stupid. :rolleyes:

If you'd bothered to LOOK at the wiki citation, you'd KNOW these are well-respected studies....by academics from a variety of disciplines and from diverse ideological backgrounds. Wiki is merely citing them.

Yet, you expect us to accept your silly perspective, which folks who are much more qualified than you or I, would clearly disagree with.

Yeah, right..... :doh!:

BucEyedPea
03-19-2008, 05:18 PM
Oh yeah! Before I forget that synopsis was not written by Lew Rockwell. It was by Thomas DiLorenzo professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and an author of some books on Lincoln if anyone bothered to look carefully. And it was about the book by a Jim Powell which is sold on Amazon.com. It was only on LR's website. They feature many other people not just Lew.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2008, 05:19 PM
I know you aren't THIS stupid. :rolleyes:

If you'd bothered to LOOK at the wiki citation, you'd KNOW these are well-respected studies....by academics from a variety of disciplines and from diverse ideological backgrounds. Wiki is merely citing them.

Yet, you expect us to accept your silly perspective, which folks who are much more qualified than you or I, would clearly disagree with.

Yeah, right..... :doh!:

Your position on this is authoritarian. That we can only agree with the opinions of the "respected" or "accepted." An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy as is the ad hominem. Can you refute any of those specific points about TR? I guess not.

Mr. Kotter
03-19-2008, 05:21 PM
Your position on this is authoritarian. That we can only agree with the opinions of the "respected" or "accepted." An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

If it were one or two, you'd have a point. It's not; it's dozens. And the vast majority disagree with you. Because you are wrong; but apparently lack the logical skills to realize it.

Mr. Kotter
03-19-2008, 05:28 PM
Your position on this is authoritarian. That we can only agree with the opinions of the "respected" or "accepted." An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy as is the ad hominem. Can you refute any of those specific points about TR? I guess not.

Nice try in your edit....but you are still wrong. As wrong as one can be in such subjective assessments like this, anyway. :rolleyes:

Criteria for what constitutes a "good" president in your mind, and in the mind of anyone who would agree with you on this....has to be very twisted. I'll stick with my own assessment of him....which happens to concur with the assessments of dozens of widely respected scholars, whose criteria for a good president....is, obviously, not as twisted as yours.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2008, 05:40 PM
I just checked out an entry on wiki under TR and they don't even disagree with certain points I posted. They do however write it from a nonchalant pov on interventionism and war with Spain—a period where many thought it was imperialist and unconstitutional. And of course he would be popular with the masses because he was a progressive even advocating for universal healthcare and national health insurance.

• As Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt prepared for and advocated war with Spain in 1898 [no disagreement there]
• He organized and helped command the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, the Rough Riders, during the Spanish-American War [they leave out that his RR suffered a 70% casualty rate]
• He was a Progressive reformer who sought to move the dominant Republican Party into the Progressive camp [ sounds like a libeal RINO to me, combined with his views on war even a NC. Even the Christian Science Monitor said he could be considered the first NC]
•He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved forty monopolistic corporations as a "trust buster" [ new studies show these resulted in more control of markets in cases like Rockefeller's Standard Oil]
• His "Square Deal" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through regulation of railroad rates and pure food and drugs) and the businessmen. [LMAO wage and price controls are pure socialism]
• He was the first U.S. president to call for universal health care and national health insurance
• After 1906 he attacked big business and suggested the courts were biased against labor unions. [Because the courts up until then defended capitalism. Yup! Sounds like a RINO to me]
•He beat Taft in the popular vote and pulled so many Progressives out of the Republican Party that Democrat Woodrow Wilson won in 1912, and the conservative faction took control of the Republican Party for the next two decades. [Yay! See someone got it even then. Seems to me their were some people that didn't like him. I think they were the smart ones. Any one can rabble rouse the masses with price controls and freebies.]


Sure sounds like a RINO to me. He was a liberal hawk.

patteeu
03-19-2008, 06:05 PM
LOL a book review from lewrockwell.com.

Could it get any more slanted and misleading than this:



1st, he thought war was a partiotic duty and a manly virtue. Unless we're talking animals, then there's ZERO evidence that he thought "the more killing the better".

2nd, saying the "great and masterful races" is an antiquated way (the writing is 100 years old) of describing historically successful cultures, not a way of indicating he wanted there to be a "Master race" as the author fraudulently equates.

Essentially, this guy is saying that TR was like putting Hannibal Lecter together with Heinrich Himmler. Does that mean he raped more or less people than Lincoln?

Reading only garbage like this ad nauseam, it's no wonder your ideas are so outlandish yet inflexible at the same time.

:LOL: @ "outlandish yet inflexible at the same time"

BucEyedPea
03-19-2008, 06:08 PM
Now let me see what a conservative site thinks of TR, now that we have had a link to Cato ( not exactly purely libertarian) and one to Lew about a book review on TR. I'm just googlin'. I know nothing about this site but it does sound like traditional, limited govt conservatism to me.

Intellectual Conservative (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/11/17/teddy-roosevelt-progressive-president/)

His legacy is an American public that labors under the delusion that a President can run the nation as if it were a private company. [I'd agree with this notion. I call it the "Moses Complex."]

In the political sphere, Progressivism is a synonym for socialism, and for our sect called liberalism. Socialism necessitates collectivized power at the highest levels of the political state, leaving open a pathway to totalitarianism. Teddy Roosevelt was the first President to march along that pathway...

The founding generation were essentially unanimous in their understanding that humans are almost ungovernable, that human nature is far from the imagined perfection of the state of nature theorized in the 18th and 19th centuries by French predecessors of today's liberal-socialists. [Do the words "Social Contract" ring a bell?]...

Teddy Roosevelt, and later to some extent Woodrow Wilson, were the answers to academic intellectuals’ prayers.

A damn-the-Constitution activist, Teddy Roosevelt became President after William McKinley’s assassination by social-justice anarchist Leon Czolgosz in 1901. Without pre-approval from Congress, for example, Teddy committed the nation to the cost of building the Panama Canal and started a civil war in Central America to obtain territorial rights. When asked where in the Constitution he found authority for these actions, Roosevelt said that he knew what the situation required and simply did it, whether Congress would concur or not. The Constitution, of course, requires that the Senate advise and consent on treaty matters and reserves to Congress the exclusive right to authorize expenditures of Federal funds.

In the Bismarckian mold, Teddy Roosevelt was a President prepared to take the bull by the horns and overthrow the entrenched ideas of Jeffersonian individuality that stood in the way of intellectuals' conception of social justice and progress.

While he was not a devout believer in the religion of socialism, the effect of Teddy Roosevelt’s terms in office was to promote the liberal-socialist cause. Like all college-educated persons of that era, Roosevelt had been thoroughly exposed to the secular and materialistic doctrine of socialism, first as a Harvard undergraduate, then in public life. [ Well geez! Folks are still being exposed to this doctrine in school even lower than college now.]...

In power, Teddy was a headstrong man who consulted only his personal ideas of good, with indifference to legal precedent and the inherent rights of individuals under the Bill of Rights. It was the beginning of the “implied powers” doctrine that Teddy’s young cousin Franklin Roosevelt was to use twenty years later to impose a thoroughgoing system of socialism.

Teddy also set the pattern for our present-day expectation that the President is to be the dominant figure in national politics, grasping ever-greater measures of power at the expense of constitutional checks and balances. His legacy is an American public that labors under the delusion that a President can run the nation as if it were a private company. This, of course, is precisely the collectivized management and social-engineering demanded by liberal-socialists.


The whole thing is a good read. I flinch when I hear Republicans cite TR as their favorite prez. I expect it of those who are on the left ( except the war part).

BucEyedPea
03-19-2008, 06:20 PM
Teddy Roosevelt in his own words from his autobiography:

Social and Industrial Justice: Socialism (http://www.bartleby.com/55/13a.html)

On the Monroe Doctrine and Panama Canal (ttp://www.bartleby.com/55/14.html)
And that goes into his views on the Phillipines which was nation building as it sounds to me:

Within a few months of my assuming office we had stamped out the last armed resistance in the Philippines that was not of merely sporadic character; [Isn't that nice!] and as soon as peace was secured we turned our energies to developing the islands in the interests of the natives.

Looks like he had an insurgency too.

As a legacy of the Spanish War we were left with peculiar relations to the Philippines, Cuba, and Porto Rico, and with an immensely added interest in Central America and the Caribbean Sea. As regards the Philippines my belief was that we should train them for self-government as rapidly as possible, and then leave them free to decide their own fate. I did not believe in setting the time-limit within which we would give them independence, because I did not believe it wise to try to forecast how soon they would be fit for self-government [ sounds like George Bush and setting no time table in Iraq.]

Sounds like an imperialist to me. The more things change the more they stay the same. I don't see that the book review on Lew's site written by a historian is at all at odds with TR's actual words. Nope!

Mr. Kotter
03-19-2008, 07:06 PM
I just checked out an entry on wiki under TR and they don't even disagree with certain points I posted. They do however write it from a nonchalant pov on interventionism and war with Spain—a period where many thought it was imperialist and unconstitutional. And of course he would be popular with the masses because he was a progressive even advocating for universal healthcare and national health insurance.

• As Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt prepared for and advocated war with Spain in 1898 [no disagreement there]
• He organized and helped command the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, the Rough Riders, during the Spanish-American War [they leave out that his RR suffered a 70% casualty rate]
• He was a Progressive reformer who sought to move the dominant Republican Party into the Progressive camp [ sounds like a libeal RINO to me, combined with his views on war even a NC. Even the Christian Science Monitor said he could be considered the first NC]
•He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved forty monopolistic corporations as a "trust buster" [ new studies show these resulted in more control of markets in cases like Rockefeller's Standard Oil]
• His "Square Deal" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through regulation of railroad rates and pure food and drugs) and the businessmen. [LMAO wage and price controls are pure socialism]
• He was the first U.S. president to call for universal health care and national health insurance
• After 1906 he attacked big business and suggested the courts were biased against labor unions. [Because the courts up until then defended capitalism. Yup! Sounds like a RINO to me]
•He beat Taft in the popular vote and pulled so many Progressives out of the Republican Party that Democrat Woodrow Wilson won in 1912, and the conservative faction took control of the Republican Party for the next two decades. [Yay! See someone got it even then. Seems to me their were some people that didn't like him. I think they were the smart ones. Any one can rabble rouse the masses with price controls and freebies.]


Sure sounds like a RINO to me. He was a liberal hawk.

You don't like his policies and ideals. Big friggin' whoop. :shrug:

That doesn't make him a bad President, except by your twisted and inflexible standard. The vast majortiy of scholarly opinion though, is at odds with your bizarre lunatic fringe assessment. Imperialism is only a pejorative with the benefit of hindsight; it was certainly accepted in TR's time. Revisionist historians can't superimpose values and culture, retroactively....and maintain any shred of credibility. Times have changed; good. However, you can't judge yesterday, by standards of contemporary society....especially one so silly and trite as isolationistic pacificism.

Historians, political scientists, journalists, and sociologists from diverse backgrounds understand his importance, his contributions, and his positive impact on history---even if you do not.

Taco John
03-19-2008, 07:18 PM
Kotter is about the most silly and trite person on the forum. Er, I mean, Lurch is... Er, whoever he's posting as at the moment is...

Taco John
03-19-2008, 07:21 PM
I'll put it simple:

He was a bad president because he put this country on course with a policy of endless war, economic interventionism (leading to corruption), and LIBERAL FUGGIN government that wont get out of our lives.

Woodrow Wilson shares some blame too. But Teddy was the guy who laid the first tracks. Aside from being insane, his achievements don't stand the test of history.

banyon
03-19-2008, 09:35 PM
Welcome to Bizzaro history class... The best presidents (Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR) are the worst... the worst presidents (Harding, Coolidge, probably Buchanan too since he also liked doing nothing) the best. Thanks for illustrating so definitively why Ron Paul could not attract mainstream voters.

banyon
03-19-2008, 09:40 PM
I just checked out an entry on wiki under TR and they don't even disagree with certain points I posted. They do however write it from a nonchalant pov on interventionism and war with Spain—a period where many thought it was imperialist and unconstitutional. And of course he would be popular with the masses because he was a progressive even advocating for universal healthcare and national health insurance.

• As Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt prepared for and advocated war with Spain in 1898 [no disagreement there]
• He organized and helped command the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, the Rough Riders, during the Spanish-American War [they leave out that his RR suffered a 70% casualty rate]
• He was a Progressive reformer who sought to move the dominant Republican Party into the Progressive camp [ sounds like a libeal RINO to me, combined with his views on war even a NC. Even the Christian Science Monitor said he could be considered the first NC]
•He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved forty monopolistic corporations as a "trust buster" [ new studies show these resulted in more control of markets in cases like Rockefeller's Standard Oil]
• His "Square Deal" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through regulation of railroad rates and pure food and drugs) and the businessmen. [LMAO wage and price controls are pure socialism]
• He was the first U.S. president to call for universal health care and national health insurance
• After 1906 he attacked big business and suggested the courts were biased against labor unions. [Because the courts up until then defended capitalism. Yup! Sounds like a RINO to me]
•He beat Taft in the popular vote and pulled so many Progressives out of the Republican Party that Democrat Woodrow Wilson won in 1912, and the conservative faction took control of the Republican Party for the next two decades. [Yay! See someone got it even then. Seems to me their were some people that didn't like him. I think they were the smart ones. Any one can rabble rouse the masses with price controls and freebies.]


Sure sounds like a RINO to me. He was a liberal hawk.

This stuff is all fairly well known and agreed to (besides your manic annotiations) anyone with a modicum of history knowledge. It doesn't, however, touch at all on your agreement that he wanted "the more killing the better" and to advance "the master race". Nor does anything else you tried to dig up. No surprise that you can't back up that tripe. My point that he was an enemy of the elites that you seek to assist with your radical laissez-fairism reveals the true source of your hatred for him.

StcChief
03-19-2008, 09:51 PM
Welcome to Bizzaro history class... The best presidents (Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR) are the worst... the worst presidents (Harding, Coolidge, probably Buchanan too since he also liked doing nothing) the best. Thanks for illustrating so definitively why Ron Paul could not attract mainstream voters.
No doubt. Glad they weren't my teachers.

Taco John
03-19-2008, 09:56 PM
Welcome to Bizzaro history class... The best presidents (Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR) are the worst... the worst presidents (Harding, Coolidge, probably Buchanan too since he also liked doing nothing) the best. Thanks for illustrating so definitively why Ron Paul could not attract mainstream voters.

Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and FDR were great presidents if you are a progressive liberal who doesn't care anything about the Constitution.

banyon
03-19-2008, 09:59 PM
• His "Square Deal" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen (through regulation of railroad rates and pure food and drugs) and the businessmen. [ wage and price controls are pure socialism LMAO]

Also what's this stuff that "wage and price controls are pure socialism"? They are just one type of regulation, that may sometimes be necessary and other times may not. it doesn't mean that "everything is controlled" or that there is a socialist system being advanced. Do you even know why the railroad rates were sought to be controlled? I doubt it. Probably just "Ew! a price control, icky, it must be socialist and bad, there can't be a good reason behind it).

Bush fixed the top adjustable rate on variable home loans temporarily, does that make him a "pure socialist" too? What about the Republican Congressmen that voted for it?

banyon
03-19-2008, 10:02 PM
Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and FDR were great presidents if you are a progressive liberal who doesn't care anything about the Constitution.

I've taken three different oaths to uphold the Constitution and just because you take a differing view on its flexibility or rigidity doesn't give you the right to denigrate my dedication to it. I am entrusted to ensure that people are afforded their Constitutional rights every day and it is a duty I don't take lightly.

Taco John
03-19-2008, 10:22 PM
I've taken three different oaths to uphold the Constitution and just because you take a differing view on its flexibility or rigidity doesn't give you the right to denigrate my dedication to it. I am entrusted to ensure that people are afforded their Constitutional rights every day and it is a duty I don't take lightly.


It has nothing to do with either flexibility or rigidity of Constitutional interpretation. It has everything to do with simply ignoring it altogether. The presidents that I mentioned simply ignored The Constitution.

I'm amused that you find my criticisms of their lack of diligence to the constitution as a personal affront. You can choose to make this a personal matter if you want. I've kept my criticisms to these liberal men who brought permanent damage to America by inflicting their own foundational cracks to our structure.

But since you've brought your own dedication into the picture, Mr. Constitutional Defender... Let's put it to the test: where do you stand on the constitutional mandate for congress to provide a sound money system backed by gold? As far as I've seen, you've never defended the constitution on this subject even once. As far as I can tell, you are OK with just ignoring this inconvenient constitutional law. Maybe I'm overstepping my guessing powers, but I'd wager a paper note or two that you're just as fine with our US government ignoring this as you are with the US Government overstepping its boundaries and forcing everyone into a socialist security system whether they want to be a slave to this system or not.

banyon
03-19-2008, 10:40 PM
But since you've brought your own dedication into the picture, Mr. Constitutional Defender... Let's put it to the test: where do you stand on the constitutional mandate for congress to provide a sound money system backed by gold? As far as I've seen, you've never defended the constitution on this subject even once. As far as I can tell, you are OK with just ignoring this inconvenient constitutional law.

I've never seen this "mandate' in my Constitution. This claim does seem to pop up in the libertarian literature, though. I welcome you to show this is in fact a Constitutional mandate. Hopefully it will go differently than last time (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4374006&postcount=12)

Also to the contrary, I share many of your concerns about the stability of the monetary system. Would the government acting on my concerns be consistent with an originalist, "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution? No way.


Maybe I'm overstepping my guessing powers, but I'd wager a paper note or two that you're just as fine with our US government ignoring this as you are with the US Government overstepping its boundaries and forcing everyone into a socialist security system whether they want to be a slave to this system or not.

If your question here is do I support Social Security as it has proven to be one of the most successful and popular government programs ever, then yes I do. Is the government empowered through the 16th Amendment and supporting legislation to enforce the SSA Act? Yes I think it is.

ClevelandBronco
03-19-2008, 10:53 PM
I've taken three different oaths to uphold the Constitution and just because you take a differing view on its flexibility or rigidity doesn't give you the right to denigrate my dedication to it.

No, I'm pretty sure that he has that right. You may want to punch him in the mouth for denigrating your dedication, but you wouldn't have that right. He's just talking, and that's well within his rights. You should argue that perhaps he shouldn't exercise that right.

I am entrusted to ensure that people are afforded their Constitutional rights every day and it is a duty I don't take lightly.

Thanks for your service. (I'm not kidding. There are many ways to serve our system, and I'm sure that you could take advantage of more lucrative options.)

banyon
03-19-2008, 10:56 PM
No, I'm pretty sure that he has that right. You may want to punch him in the mouth for denigrating your dedication, but you wouldn't have that right. He's just talking, and that's well within his rights. You should argue that perhaps he shouldn't exercise that right.

Agreed, I didn't mean that in a First Amendment sense. Just a colloquial "where do you come off, by gum!" type of sense.


Thanks for your service. (I'm not kidding. There are many ways to serve our system, and I'm sure that you could take advantage of more lucrative options.)

Thanks, maybe I will one day. :D

Taco John
03-19-2008, 11:13 PM
I've never seen this "mandate' in my Constitution. This claim does seem to pop up in the libertarian literature, though. I welcome you to show this is in fact a Constitutional mandate. Hopefully it will go differently than last time (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4374006&postcount=12)

Article I Section 8 and Section 10.



Also to the contrary, I share many of your concerns about the stability of the monetary system. Would the government acting on my concerns be consistent with an originalist, "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution? No way.

Then the government shouldn't be acting on your concerns until the base foundational law was changed to accommodate them. The problem that I have with these presidents is that they ignored the Constitution to enact laws that operate outside of its guidelines.



If your question here is do I support Social Security as it has proven to be one of the most successful and popular government programs ever, then yes I do. Is the government empowered through the 16th Amendment and supporting legislation to enforce the SSA Act? Yes I think it is.


You take a very liberal view of what the 16th Amendment provides. Which part of the 16th Amendment forces me into a socialist security system with no options to be free from its systemic clutches?

I just want to be a free man. I don't want to be burdened with your (or anybody's) socialist guilt.

banyon
03-19-2008, 11:21 PM
Article I Section 8 and Section 10.

Why don't you quote the section that supports your claim.:hmmm:



Then the government shouldn't be acting on your concerns until the base foundational law was changed to accommodate them. The problem that I have with these presidents is that they ignored the Constitution to enact laws that operate outside of its guidelines.

Why not? I'm not a strict constructionist. Which guidelines, specifically, did they ignore that doesn't require such a literalist interpretation (which coincidentally is the opposite view that most Founders took about the permanency of the document)?



You take a very liberal view of what the 16th Amendment provides. Which part of the 16th Amendment forces me into a socialist security system with no options to be free from its systemic clutches?

I just want to be a free man. I don't want to be burdened with your (or anybody's) socialist guilt.


No part of it. You're not forced to stay here or to have a job. If you are going to earn wages in this country, though, they are subject to taxation, pursuant to that Amendment and the organizing act for SSA.

ClevelandBronco
03-19-2008, 11:25 PM
You take a very liberal view of what the 16th Amendment provides. Which part of the 16th Amendment forces me into a socialist security system with no options to be free from its systemic clutches?

I just want to be a free man. I don't want to be burdened with your (or anybody's) socialist guilt.

Frankly, I have to agree with T.J.'s opinion of the Social Security system. It's not funded at all by a "tax." It's a forced insurance premium with an unsustainable (IMO) defined benefit. The scheme will not work over the long term. I'd bet that a substantial percentage of our younger members here are opposed to its existence.

banyon
03-19-2008, 11:35 PM
Frankly, I have to agree with T.J.'s opinion of the Social Security system. It's not funded at all by a "tax." It's a forced insurance premium with an unsustainable (IMO) defined benefit. The scheme will not work over the long term. I'd bet that a substantial percentage of our younger members here are opposed to its existence.

Probably they are (they never lived through a Depression), and universal health care too, until they have to start paying the bills for Mom and Dad's nursing home @ $153.00 per day (http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/longterm/Articles/a2003-10-30-dailycost.html).

Also with savings at an all-time low (negative rate), I'm sure they'll have plenty to retire on no sweat.

HonestChieffan
03-19-2008, 11:39 PM
Nationalized health care wont make nursing homes cheaper, it will just make someone else pay for it.

ClevelandBronco
03-19-2008, 11:52 PM
Probably they are (they never lived through a Depression), and universal health care too, until they have to start paying the bills for Mom and Dad's nursing home @ $153.00 per day (http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/longterm/Articles/a2003-10-30-dailycost.html).

Also with savings at an all-time low (negative rate), I'm sure they'll have plenty to retire on no sweat.

So do you really consider our contributions to the SS system to be a tax? I don't. IMO, it's an pyramid insurance scheme. I can't find anyway to support it Constitutionally (nor to sustain it economically).

Taco John
03-20-2008, 12:13 AM
Why don't you quote the section that supports your claim.:hmmm:



Come on... You're not Penchief. I gave you the references. You're the Constitutional Defender. Surely you are capable of taking it from there and not forcing me to teach remedial Constitution class.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 12:14 AM
Probably they are (they never lived through a Depression), and universal health care too, until they have to start paying the bills for Mom and Dad's nursing home @ $153.00 per day (http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/longterm/Articles/a2003-10-30-dailycost.html).


Now it's a Constitutional guarantee that you can put your folks in a nursing home? Is this another one that you have interpreted Article 16 to cover?

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 06:04 AM
Oh yeah! Before I forget that synopsis was not written by Lew Rockwell. It was by Thomas DiLorenzo professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and an author of some books on Lincoln if anyone bothered to look carefully. And it was about the book by a Jim Powell which is sold on Amazon.com. It was only on LR's website. They feature many other people not just Lew.

Right -- DiLorenzo's Wiki entry:

Thomas J. DiLorenzo (born 1954 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954)) is an American economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics) professor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor) at Loyola College in Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyola_College_in_Maryland). He is an adherent of the Austrian School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School) of Economics. He is a senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute) and an affiliated scholar of the League of the South Institute, the research arm of the League of the South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_South) and the Abbeville Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbeville_Institute).[1] (http://www.lsinstitute.org/) He holds a Ph.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph.D.) in Economics from Virginia Tech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech).
DiLorenzo has authored at least ten books, including
Thomas J. DiLorenzo (born 1954 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954)) is an American economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics) professor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor) at Loyola College in Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyola_College_in_Maryland). He is an adherent of the Austrian School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School) of Economics. He is a senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute) and an affiliated scholar of the League of the South Institute, the research arm of the League of the South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_South) and the Abbeville Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbeville_Institute).[1] (http://www.lsinstitute.org/) He holds a Ph.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph.D.) in Economics from Virginia Tech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech).
DiLorenzo has authored at least ten books, including The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Lincoln), How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, From the Pilgrims to the Present (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=How_Capitalism_Saved_America:_The_Untold_Story_of_Our_Country%27s_History%2C_from_th e_Pilgrims_to_the_Present&action=edit&redlink=1), and Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lincoln_Unmasked&action=edit&redlink=1). DiLorenzo has spoken out in favor of the secession of the Confederate States of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America), defending its decision to preserve chattel slavery in a view similar to that of abolitionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionist) Lysander Spooner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner).[2] (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo82.html) He has also criticized the crediting of the New Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal) for ending the Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression).[3] (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1623)
DiLorenzo lectures widely, and is a frequent speaker at Mises Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute) events.
, How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, From the Pilgrims to the Present (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=How_Capitalism_Saved_America:_The_Untold_Story_of_Our_Country%27s_History%2C_from_th e_Pilgrims_to_the_Present&action=edit&redlink=1), and Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lincoln_Unmasked&action=edit&redlink=1). DiLorenzo has spoken out in favor of the secession of the Confederate States of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America), defending its decision to preserve chattel slavery in a view similar to that of abolitionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionist)Lysander Spooner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner).[2] (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo82.html) He has also criticized the crediting of the New Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal) for ending the Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression).[3] (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1623)
DiLorenzo lectures widely, and is a frequent speaker at Mises Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute) events.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 06:06 AM
But Teddy was the guy who laid the first tracks. Aside from being insane, his achievements don't stand the test of history.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of American scholars and historians would disagree with you.

Just saying...

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 06:06 AM
Welcome to Bizzaro history class... The best presidents (Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR) are the worst... the worst presidents (Harding, Coolidge, probably Buchanan too since he also liked doing nothing) the best. Thanks for illustrating so definitively why Ron Paul could not attract mainstream voters.


Quoted for truth.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 06:15 AM
It has nothing to do with either flexibility or rigidity of Constitutional interpretation. It has everything to do with simply ignoring it altogether. The presidents that I mentioned simply ignored The Constitution.

They only ignored the Constitution if it's interpreted the way that YOU interpret it.

Lincoln pretty much ignored it no matter how you look at it, but that's only because of the extreme circumstances of his times.

But since you've brought your own dedication into the picture, Mr. Constitutional Defender... Let's put it to the test: where do you stand on the constitutional mandate for congress to provide a sound money system backed by gold? [/quote]

Where does the word gold appear in the US Constitution? Oh right, it does not. And since you libertarians are SO firm in focusing on the Constitution AS WRITTEN, then I would think you'd have quite a bit of trouble "interpreting" it to mean taht gold is somehow required.

Unless, of course, you only look outside the four corners of the written document when it suits you.

As far as I've seen, you've never defended the constitution on this subject even once. As far as I can tell, you are OK with just ignoring this inconvenient constitutional law. Maybe I'm overstepping my guessing powers, but I'd wager a paper note or two that you're just as fine with our US government ignoring this as you are with the US Government overstepping its boundaries and forcing everyone into a socialist security system whether they want to be a slave to this system or not.

First, where is this gold provision?

Second, where does the Constitution prohibit social security? Or have any requirements regarding economic systems whatsoever. Did I miss the "thou shalt maintain a strict capitalistic system with no socialistic programs whatsoever" provision as well?

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 06:18 AM
[quote=Taco John;4640136]Article I Section 8 and Section 10.[quote]

Nope, don't see "gold" in either place.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 06:19 AM
Frankly, It's a forced insurance premium with an unsustainable (IMO) defined benefit. The scheme will not work over the long term. I'd bet that a substantial percentage of our younger members here are opposed to its existence.

This is true, but only because of changing demographics in this country.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 06:21 AM
So do you really consider our contributions to the SS system to be a tax? I don't. IMO, it's an pyramid insurance scheme. I can't find anyway to support it Constitutionally (nor to sustain it economically).

Well, you can call it a pyramid scheme, but it's not a pyramid INSURANCE scheme. It has nothing to do with insurance, and is not related to wealth or income in terms of receiving benefits. It is certainly a wealth redistribution scheme, from income receiving workers to retired workers.

Economically -- it is not indefinitely sustainable due to the changing demographics in this country (reduced ratio of workers to retirees).

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 06:22 AM
Come on... You're not Penchief. I gave you the references. You're the Constitutional Defender. Surely you are capable of taking it from there and not forcing me to teach bizarro Constitution class.

FYP.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 06:28 AM
Now it's a Constitutional guarantee that you can put your folks in a nursing home? Is this another one that you have interpreted Article 16 to cover?

No, and Social Security has nothing to do with nursing homes anyway.

It must be terribly inconvenient for you living with all these laws passed by Congress, signed by the PResident, and then AFFIRMED AS CONSTITUTIONAL by the United States Supreme Court, and thereby having passed Constitutional must under the SCHEME DICTATED BY THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.

The Constitution does not, I don't believe, state that any citizen believing that a law passed pursuant to this system can be a "conscious objector" and ignore such law as being unconstitutional. Once it goes through this process, it is by definition Constitutional. Why, becuase the Constitution ITSELF SAYS SO.

Does that mean all decisions are right and perfect forever? Of course not. Dred Scott stands as a shining example of that. But fundamentally, that's the system the Founders established, and frankly, while we all may decry Dred Scott, since the Constitution itself permitted/contemplated slavery...

BucEyedPea
03-20-2008, 07:07 AM
Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and FDR were great presidents if you are a progressive liberal who doesn't care anything about the Constitution.

Of course these would be popular since the state has anointed and enshrined them as g-r-e-a-t!! Men of the "people." It also shows why democracy is more popular than a constitutional republic....because the masses get hand outs or saved by some Moses. They're made to feel they couldn't have done it alone. Fact is all these men had people against them too. We rarely hear of that. The conservative movement was born under these men. And we now know, that FDR kept us in the depression far longer with a war lowering the unemployment rate only. That still didn't mean the private sector was revitalized. I will give FDR credit for one thing: he successfully steered us through a war. Except I hate his fondness for good ole "Uncle Joe."

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 07:18 AM
Of course these would be popular since the state has anointed and enshrined them as g-r-e-a-t!! Men of the "people."

Independent scholars and historians have also labeled them as great. This isn't the land of Herr Dr. Goebbels...

It also shows why democracy is more popular than a constitutional republic....because the masses get hand outs or saved by some Moses. They're made to feel they couldn't have done it alone. Fact is all these men had people against them too. We rarely hear of that. [/quote]

What great men in all of history were unanimously popular? Had nobody against them? Oh right -- nobody....ever.

The conservative movement was born under these men.

What are you talking about? Madison/Jefferson/Hamilton and others were fighting over the Constitution before the ink was dry. Meanwhile men as great as Patrick Henry had fought the ratification of the Constitution itself with all of his considerable oratory and political skills.

And we now know, that FDR kept us in the depression far longer with a war lowering the unemployment rate only. That still didn't mean the private sector was revitalized. I will give FDR credit for one thing: he successfully steered us through a war. Except I hate his fondness for good ole "Uncle Joe."

No, we don't "know". "You believe" is the best that can be said. You and the rest of the fringe economic adherents of Mises/Austrian School.

Nor do I think it's fair to say he was very "fond" of Uncle Joe. He understimated Stalin, and the USSR in general, but other than giving him military support (which Churchill, who detested the Soviets, fully supported), he didn't show them too many favors.

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2008, 07:23 AM
Welcome to Bizzaro history class... The best presidents (Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR) are the worst... the worst presidents (Harding, Coolidge, probably Buchanan too since he also liked doing nothing) the best. Thanks for illustrating so definitively why Ron Paul could not attract mainstream voters.

Rep..... :clap:

LMAO LMAO LMAO

Taco John
03-20-2008, 08:18 AM
Where does the word gold appear in the US Constitution? Oh right, it does not.


Just like I thought. You've no idea what you're talking about.

Article 1, Section 10.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 08:20 AM
Nope, don't see "gold" in either place.


Then you didn't look.

banyon
03-20-2008, 08:30 AM
Just like I thought. You've no idea what you're talking about.

Article 1, Section 10.

Article 1 Section 10 is a limitation on the powers of States to coin non-gold or silver money. It doesn't limit the power granted to Congress to coin Money in Section 8 one iota.

banyon
03-20-2008, 08:33 AM
So do you really consider our contributions to the SS system to be a tax? I don't. IMO, it's an pyramid insurance scheme. I can't find anyway to support it Constitutionally (nor to sustain it economically).

Sustaining it economically is easy- just raise the exemption rate above $90k where it currently sits. Why should people making $200k not have to pay in and then get to rely on the same safety net as people who made the full contribution?

Constitutionally? I've never looked into any challenges, but I'll dig and see what's there.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 08:34 AM
Just like I thought. You've no idea what you're talking about.

Article 1, Section 10.

Sorry, I only glanced at Section 10, as it's clearly entirely irrelevant, but upon closer look, the word "gold" does appear within it's utterly meaningless context.

What part of the section heading "Powers prohibited of STATES (i.e. not the federal government) and "No State shall...." are you not getting.

This section has nothign to do with limits on federal powers.


Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#MARQUE) and Reprisal (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REPRISAL); coin Money; emit Bills of Credit (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#CREDIT); make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ATTAINDER), ex post facto (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXPOST) Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#NOBILITY).

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 08:37 AM
Sustaining it economically is easy- just raise the exemption rate above $90k where it currently sits. Why should people making $200k not have to pay in and then get to rely on the same safety net as people who made the full contribution?

Conceptually, the current system is more sound by limiting income and outflows. Who wants to support Bill Gates getting $50,000 SS Checks every month, which he might be entitled to if he had paid in at his full number.

Capping both the tax and the payments made at the back end is more in keeping with Social Security's original intentions.

Constitutionally? I've never looked into any challenges, but I'll dig and see what's there.


Helvering versus whoever. mid 1930s. Cardozo I seem to recall, but there's a million Helvering cases, so that' snot much help. :)

banyon
03-20-2008, 08:37 AM
Now it's a Constitutional guarantee that you can put your folks in a nursing home? Is this another one that you have interpreted Article 16 to cover?

No, it's not guaranteed. It's just not prohibited. It's legislatively guaranteed. In most cases, Social Security isn't enough to cover it either, so most people wind up doing a Medicare Division of Assets, which I'm sure you'd find to be even worse. It bothers me a bit too, but mainly because the cost of this care is out of control and people shouldn't be forced into that situation.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 08:38 AM
Well, you can call it a pyramid scheme, but it's not a pyramid INSURANCE scheme. It has nothing to do with insurance, and is not related to wealth or income in terms of receiving benefits. It is certainly a wealth redistribution scheme, from income receiving workers to retired workers.



Of course, it's no suprise to me that you are unaware that Social Security was sold to the American people as an "old age insurance" program.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 08:38 AM
No, it's not guaranteed. It's just not prohibited. It's legislatively guaranteed. In most cases, Social Security isn't enough to cover it either, so most people wind up doing a Medicare Division of Assets, which I'm sure you'd find to be even worse. It bothers me a bit too, but mainly because the cost of this care is out of control and people shouldn't be forced into that situation.


This is a looming nightmare for Americans and the gubment.

banyon
03-20-2008, 08:38 AM
Right -- DiLorenzo's Wiki entry:

Thomas J. DiLorenzo (born 1954 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954)) is an American economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics) professor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor) at Loyola College in Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyola_College_in_Maryland). He is an adherent of the Austrian School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School) of Economics. He is a senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute) and an affiliated scholar of the League of the South Institute, the research arm of the League of the South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_South) and the Abbeville Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbeville_Institute).[1] (http://www.lsinstitute.org/) He holds a Ph.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph.D.) in Economics from Virginia Tech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech).
DiLorenzo has authored at least ten books, including
Thomas J. DiLorenzo (born 1954 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954)) is an American economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics) professor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor) at Loyola College in Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyola_College_in_Maryland). He is an adherent of the Austrian School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School) of Economics. He is a senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute) and an affiliated scholar of the League of the South Institute, the research arm of the League of the South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_South) and the Abbeville Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbeville_Institute).[1] (http://www.lsinstitute.org/) He holds a Ph.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph.D.) in Economics from Virginia Tech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech).
DiLorenzo has authored at least ten books, including The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Lincoln), How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, From the Pilgrims to the Present (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=How_Capitalism_Saved_America:_The_Untold_Story_of_Our_Country%27s_History%2C_from_th e_Pilgrims_to_the_Present&action=edit&redlink=1), and Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lincoln_Unmasked&action=edit&redlink=1). DiLorenzo has spoken out in favor of the secession of the Confederate States of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America), defending its decision to preserve chattel slavery in a view similar to that of abolitionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionist) Lysander Spooner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner).[2] (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo82.html) He has also criticized the crediting of the New Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal) for ending the Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression).[3] (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1623)
DiLorenzo lectures widely, and is a frequent speaker at Mises Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute) events.
, How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, From the Pilgrims to the Present (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=How_Capitalism_Saved_America:_The_Untold_Story_of_Our_Country%27s_History%2C_from_th e_Pilgrims_to_the_Present&action=edit&redlink=1), and Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lincoln_Unmasked&action=edit&redlink=1). DiLorenzo has spoken out in favor of the secession of the Confederate States of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America), defending its decision to preserve chattel slavery in a view similar to that of abolitionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionist)Lysander Spooner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner).[2] (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo82.html) He has also criticized the crediting of the New Deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal) for ending the Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression).[3] (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1623)
DiLorenzo lectures widely, and is a frequent speaker at Mises Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute) events.

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

patteeu
03-20-2008, 08:39 AM
Well, you can call it a pyramid scheme, but it's not a pyramid INSURANCE scheme. It has nothing to do with insurance, and is not related to wealth or income in terms of receiving benefits. It is certainly a wealth redistribution scheme, from income receiving workers to retired workers.

Economically -- it is not indefinitely sustainable due to the changing demographics in this country (reduced ratio of workers to retirees).

Why do you say it has nothing to do with insurance? I don't see anything to distinguish it from insurance in terms of result. It's insurance against living past age 65 with the proceeds paid out in the form of an annuity.

It is related to income in terms of receiving benefits though. The formula for calculating benefits is based on your highest annual income or your highest X years of income or something like that. The more you made, the more you will end up getting (but the smaller percentage of your high income it will be).

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 08:40 AM
Of course, it's no suprise to me that you are unaware that Social Security was sold to the American people as an "old age insurance" program.


Sure, but that's just marketing. Conceptually it's not any type of insurance.

Look, call it socialistic and I'll agree. Call it wealth distribution, and I agree. Call it mandatory redistribution of wealth/income, and that's fine by me.

But insurance isn't really right. I guess in the vague sense that it protects against total loss of income upon retirement, it's "insurance", but that's a pretty silly way to describe it really. Insurance typically means protecting against catastrophic or adverse events. SS isn't tied into any of that.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 08:42 AM
Sorry, I only glanced at Section 10, as it's clearly entirely irrelevant, but upon closer look, the word "gold" does appear within it's utterly meaningless context.

What part of the section heading "Powers prohibited of STATES (i.e. not the federal government) and "No State shall...." are you not getting.

This section has nothign to do with limits on federal powers.


Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#MARQUE) and Reprisal (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REPRISAL); coin Money; emit Bills of Credit (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#CREDIT); make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ATTAINDER), ex post facto (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXPOST) Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#NOBILITY).



Whipped it out and pissed all over the Constitution... Not that I didn't think you would. I just didn't think you'd be so brazen about it. Section 8 and section 10 can be taken together in context, believe it or not. Don't even try to pretend that I don't have an argument here.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 08:43 AM
Why do you say it has nothing to do with insurance? I don't see anything to distinguish it from insurance in terms of result. It's insurance against living past age 65 with the proceeds paid out in the form of an annuity.

It is related to income in terms of receiving benefits though. The formula for calculating benefits is based on your highest annual income or your highest X years of income or something like that. The more you made, the more you will end up getting (but the smaller percentage of your high income it will be).


It doesn't fit well within my concept of the meaning of the word "insurance", which are payments made as a result of catastrophic or adverse events. I guess you could say aging is an adverse event, but that's a stretch in my mind.

Annuity is ok, but annuities are a payment strucutre, and not related to insurance (except that sometimes you can take insurance payments AS an annuity).

"Social Safety Net", or "Wealth Redistribution to the Elderly" -- those are all fine to me. I'm not trying to say it's not socialistic or anything. Just being hypertechnical about what the word "insurance" means.

But maybe it's just me. :shrug:

Taco John
03-20-2008, 08:43 AM
Amnorix idea of a good argument...


"Gold isn't even mentioned in the constitution! Oh! I guess it is! Well it doesn't mean anything!"

banyon
03-20-2008, 08:46 AM
Conceptually, the current system is more sound by limiting income and outflows. Who wants to support Bill Gates getting $50,000 SS Checks every month, which he might be entitled to if he had paid in at his full number.

Capping both the tax and the payments made at the back end is more in keeping with Social Security's original intentions.


Helvering versus whoever. mid 1930s. Cardozo I seem to recall, but there's a million Helvering cases, so that' snot much help. :)

Yeah limiting the payment to what's needed would be preferable, I agree.

I'll check on Mr. Helvering.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 08:48 AM
Whipped it out and pissed all over the Constitution... Not that I didn't think you would. I just didn't think you'd be so brazen about it. Section 8 and section 10 can be taken together in context, believe it or not. Don't even try to pretend that I don't have an argument here.

Sure you've got an argument. An extremely lousy argument, but an argument.

You can't use Expressio Unius or any other rule of contract construction that I can think of to make this work. You can't apply a specific limitation on the states that is worded somewhat differently to argue that the same limitation (or the exact inverse of it) should apply to the federal government where different words were used.

In fact, the rules of contract construction would tend to go the other way -- the fact that the founders thought to include the words "gold and silver" in Section 10, but not Section 8, means that they INTENTIONALLY didn't limit the federal powers in Section 8.

I'm being honest and objective here (as objective as I can be anyway). I don't see it.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 08:49 AM
Amnorix idea of a good argument...


"Gold isn't even mentioned in the constitution! Oh! I guess it is! Well it doesn't mean anything!"


Does mean anything OVER THERE in that totally unrelated section that limits someone other than the federal government. I was solely focused on Article 8, I fully admit, for hte silly reason that that is the only section that appears to matter in the context of this debate.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 08:50 AM
Yeah limiting the payment to what's needed would be preferable, I agree.

I'll check on Mr. Helvering.


Helvering v Davis

Edit: (http://supreme.justia.com/us/301/619/) better link: http://www.ssa.gov/history/supreme1.html

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 08:54 AM
I love Cardozo:


Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare". Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been greatstatesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground or certainly a penumbra in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power is not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law. "When such a contention comes here we naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress." United States v. Butler, supra, p. 67 Cf. Cincinnati Soap Co. v United States, May 3,1937,--U. S.--; United States v. Realty Co. 163 U. S. 427, 440; Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580, 595. Nor is the concept of the general welfare static. Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well-being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.

patteeu
03-20-2008, 08:59 AM
It doesn't fit well within my concept of the meaning of the word "insurance", which are payments made as a result of catastrophic or adverse events. I guess you could say aging is an adverse event, but that's a stretch in my mind.

Annuity is ok, but annuities are a payment strucutre, and not related to insurance (except that sometimes you can take insurance payments AS an annuity).

"Social Safety Net", or "Wealth Redistribution to the Elderly" -- those are all fine to me. I'm not trying to say it's not socialistic or anything. Just being hypertechnical about what the word "insurance" means.

But maybe it's just me. :shrug:

OK

BucEyedPea
03-20-2008, 08:59 AM
The Butler case is the case that overturned a lot of limitations on our federal govt regarding the "general welfare" clause which took the Hamiltonian view of it. It's shame really since Hamilton, the man who would given us a king and a parliamentary system instead, had his ideas completely rejected at the CC. He had his advocates and followers. This is definitely not an originalist construction and conflicts with other parts of the Constitution: the enumerated powers doctrine. Of course this happened under FDR.

The only way to overturn Butler is with an amendment. But the people would have to change and that would take a massive re-education project. Not something statists who hold power will ever do.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 09:01 AM
Sure, but that's just marketing. Conceptually it's not any type of insurance.

Look, call it socialistic and I'll agree. Call it wealth distribution, and I agree. Call it mandatory redistribution of wealth/income, and that's fine by me.

But insurance isn't really right. I guess in the vague sense that it protects against total loss of income upon retirement, it's "insurance", but that's a pretty silly way to describe it really. Insurance typically means protecting against catastrophic or adverse events. SS isn't tied into any of that.

It wasn't silly to describe it that way. It was smart of them. They were able to deceive a lot of people into thinking that it was something other than what it really was. Few in America would have gone for it if they understood it to be socialism. By calling it "insurance," they were able to put an American face on a socialist program.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 09:03 AM
The Butler case is the case that overturned a lot of limitations on our federal govt regarding the "general welfare" clause which took the Hamiltonian view of it. It's shame really since Hamilton, the man who would given us a king and a parliamentary system instead, had his ideas completely rejected at the CC. He had his advocates and followers. This is definitely not an originalist construction and conflicts with other parts of the Constitution: the enumerated powers doctrine. Of course this happened under FDR.

Hamilton never advocated for a king and parliament. Those rumors are overblown. See the predominant work on Hamilton by Ron Chernow.

Nor did Hamilton have "his ideas completely rejected at the CC". That notion is utterly absurd since he passionately advocated for the adoption of the Constitution. If his ideas were utterly rejected, it's more than doubtful that he would have supported the ratification of the Constitution, or that he woul dhave immediately joined Washington's cabinet.

Where in hell do you get these ideas...?

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 09:03 AM
It wasn't silly to describe it that way. It was smart of them. They were able to deceive a lot of people into thinking that it was something other than what it really was. Few in America would have gone for it if they understood it to be socialism. By calling it "insurance," they were able to put an American face on a socialist program.

As I say, it's marketing. I don't view it as "insurance", but this debate isn't worth having.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 09:04 AM
You don't if you insist on being a strict constructionist. Otherwise, you can argue that that's one way to interpret the two clauses jointly. Of course, since Colonial scrip had been around for sometime before that and accepted without being backed by gold, it's not necessarily the most natural interpretation, partiuclarly when it comes in separate lists of things that Congress is explicitly allowed to do and the States are explicitly prohibited from doing. Were the Founders too dumb to make the limitation in one place and not the other?

Strict construction is only required when it supports their notions of how things should work. Otherwise, it's inconvenient.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 09:08 AM
Am I supposed to believe that it's only coinicidence that the Constitution says only Gold and silver can be used for legal tender, and our dollar was attached to a gold standard until Nixon de-linked it?


Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power . . . To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin . . . ; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States . . . .

Article 1, Section 10:
No State shall . . . coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts....


It's not a suprise to me that our socialist friends on this board have no concept of the constitutional doctrine of enumerated powers.

Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland:

This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 09:12 AM
Am I supposed to believe that it's only coinicidence that the Constitution says only Gold and silver can be used for legal tender, and our dollar was attached to a gold standard until Nixon de-linked it?

The Constitution DOES NOT SAY THIS.


Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power . . . To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin . . . ; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States . . . .

Article 1, Section 10:
No State shall . . . coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts....


It's not a suprise to me that our socialist friends on this board have no concept of the constitutional doctrine of enumerated powers.

As strict as you construe things, paper money wouldn't be permitted because it's not "coin". No?

Reread my post. You have abjected failed to refute it.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 09:13 AM
Were the Founders too dumb to make the limitation in one place and not the other?

They made it very clear what they would have us using for currency in Article 1 Section 10. They didn't see the United States as one major federal entity. They saw it as a collection of states, and thus they ENUMERATED what those states should use for currency.

banyon
03-20-2008, 09:13 AM
It wasn't silly to describe it that way. It was smart of them. They were able to deceive a lot of people into thinking that it was something other than what it really was. Few in America would have gone for it if they understood it to be socialism. By calling it "insurance," they were able to put an American face on a socialist program.

Those suckers. If only they had just continued to let over 1/2 of the elderly die in poverty like before so we could avoid people being able to call us icky socialists.

Again, you characterize this stuff as full-blown socialism, but in actuality, it prevented full-blown socialism that would've probably been achieved through other (perhaps violent) means if the problems had been allowed to fester.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 09:14 AM
The Constitution DOES NOT SAY THIS.




The Constitution:
No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.

banyon
03-20-2008, 09:14 AM
They made it very clear what they would have us using for currency in Article 1 Section 10. They didn't see the United States as one major federal entity. They saw it as a collection of states, and thus they ENUMERATED what those states should use for currency.

Even though this only applied to the states, you've still got it backwards, a prohibition is the opposite of an endorsement.

banyon
03-20-2008, 09:16 AM
Hamilton never advocated for a king and parliament. Those rumors are overblown. See the predominant work on Hamilton by Ron Chernow.

Nor did Hamilton have "his ideas completely rejected at the CC". That notion is utterly absurd since he passionately advocated for the adoption of the Constitution. If his ideas were utterly rejected, it's more than doubtful that he would have supported the ratification of the Constitution, or that he woul dhave immediately joined Washington's cabinet.

Where in hell do you get these ideas...?

Wait for another link from a "Mises" "scholar".

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 09:17 AM
They made it very clear what they would have us using for currency in Article 1 Section 10. They didn't see the United States as one major federal entity. They saw it as a collection of states, and thus they ENUMERATED what those states should use for currency.


You want to reread the title of Section 10 again. And then reread the title of Section 8.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 09:17 AM
Those suckers. If only they had just continued to let over 1/2 of the elderly die in poverty like before so we could avoid people being able to call us icky socialists.

Again, you characterize this stuff as full-blown socialism, but in actuality, it prevented full-blown socialism that would've probably been achieved through other (perhaps violent) means if the problems had been allowed to fester.


"Full blown" socialism? You either have socialism, or you don't. There's no such thing as "half blown" socialism.

And I reject the assertion that the people were demanding socialism so much that they'd have revolted in order to get it. What a ridiculous thought.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 09:18 AM
The Constitution:
No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.


Right. "No State shall" I'm glad you're focused on this. How it says what the STATES cannot do.

Glad we're in agreement then.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 09:18 AM
You want to reread the title of Section 10 again. And then reread the title of Section 8.


You want to reread Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland. And then reread the Constitution.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 09:22 AM
You want to reread Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland. And then reread the Constitution.

Tell me in your heart of hearts that you think CJ Marshall would agree with you and not me.

It's a joke. Nobody ever sought to expand federal power more than Marshall. You think he'd give this your weird interpretation. It's patently absurd.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 09:24 AM
Ah... Looks like you're going to make me divert my attention to another thread and defend myself over there.

You wouldn't have done that if you didn't think you were losing this debate.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 09:34 AM
Ah... Looks like you're going to make me divert my attention to another thread and defend myself over there.

You wouldn't have done that if you didn't think you were losing this debate.


Fight here or there or both. I actually need to get to work.

But it really struck home this morning just how different your worldview is. I don't mean it as a cheap shot (as you said over there), but it's true, at least IMHO.

Anyway, I do need to do work. Be back 'round lunchtime'ish no doubt.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2008, 09:46 AM
You wouldn't have done that if you didn't think you were losing this debate.
Bingo! He's frustrated.

banyon
03-20-2008, 09:50 AM
Bingo! He's frustrated.

Er, no, that's you. The position that the limitations on the states somehow constrains the explicit powers granted to Congress wasn't defended. What's to be frustrated about?

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 11:07 AM
Bingo! He's frustrated.


Spare me.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 11:10 AM
Ah... Looks like you're going to make me divert my attention to another thread and defend myself over there.

You wouldn't have done that if you didn't think you were losing this debate.


Give me a break. Your argument barely holds water at all. Not only was the entire premise on which you base this argument rejected by the Supreme Court, it doesn't even make sense employing standard rules of contractual interpretation.

Other than those minor points, you're right -- you're killing me!!

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 11:19 AM
Ah... Looks like you're going to make me divert my attention to another thread and defend myself over there.

You wouldn't have done that if you didn't think you were losing this debate.


I should also note that I'm happy and capable to argue on both threads, if you can keep up...

This afternoon is a bit tight for me, but I'm sure I'll float by.

ClevelandBronco
03-20-2008, 02:38 PM
Sustaining it economically is easy- just raise the exemption rate above $90k where it currently sits. Why should people making $200k not have to pay in and then get to rely on the same safety net as people who made the full contribution?

Constitutionally? I've never looked into any challenges, but I'll dig and see what's there.

You can raise the exemption level to infinity as long as you raise the benefit level to infinity. There is a capped payout, and for that reason there should be a capped contribution.

ClevelandBronco
03-20-2008, 02:39 PM
Why do you say it has nothing to do with insurance? I don't see anything to distinguish it from insurance in terms of result. It's insurance against living past age 65 with the proceeds paid out in the form of an annuity.

It is related to income in terms of receiving benefits though. The formula for calculating benefits is based on your highest annual income or your highest X years of income or something like that. The more you made, the more you will end up getting (but the smaller percentage of your high income it will be).

Yes. That's exactly why it's an insurance scheme.

ClevelandBronco
03-20-2008, 02:41 PM
Conceptually, the current system is more sound by limiting income and outflows. Who wants to support Bill Gates getting $50,000 SS Checks every month, which he might be entitled to if he had paid in at his full number.

Capping both the tax and the payments made at the back end is more in keeping with Social Security's original intentions.

Amnorix is on it. I guess I need to show up earlier in the day.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 04:57 PM
I'm reviving this thread for the benefit of TJ, who apparently is incapable of posting on two threads at once, and also seems to like taking a beating.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 05:00 PM
TJ,

Last we left off, in case you forget, you were trying to pretend that because the words "gold" and "silver" appeared in ARticle I, Section 10, it somehow meant that those words should be read into Section 8 also, even though those words don't appear in that section at all.

As I pointed out, standard rules of contract interpretion would suggest that the ABSENCE of those words was INTENTIONAL (since they were included elsewhere) and that your limitation was merely the product of your wishful thinking.

You answered soemthing akin to "waaah....no, I want it the other way, I don't like this result, you're wrong!".

I then pointed out that your own strict method of reading the Constitution further limits your ability to "add words" in the manner you wanted here. Your answer was soemthing like "but....but....but......waaaaah, I don't like that answer, I want it the other way, you're wrong!"

Carry on from there....

Amnorix
03-26-2008, 04:51 PM
http://buzz.ifas.ufl.edu/sound.gif