BREAKING: House-Senate Dems overcome stimulus snag…


Yup… they came together on the big bone of contention… how to spend the increased $10 bil on education….

The question? Does that extra money go thru the Governors? (Reid/Senate) Or should it go thru Title I? (Pelosi/House)

Whew! Rough battle there! Thank gawd… I couldn’t stand such a partisan gridlock before passing the bill.


Read it and weep at our “tax dollars at work”. It’s a joke thru and thru.

Negotiators have worked out a disagreement between the Senate and House over education funding in the economic stimulus bill, Democratic leadership sources said Wednesday evening.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to iron out a snag in the bill.

Details on how they settled it were not immediately available. Word that the final snags were being untangled came after back-and-forth reports Wednesday on the massive relief package’s status.


After Reid announced the first compromise, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, said it could be taken up by the two houses as early as Friday, meeting Obama’s timetable of having the bill on his desk by Monday.

“The bills were really quite similar, and I’m pleased to announce that we’ve been able to bridge those differences,” Reid said. “Like any negotiation, this involved give and take, and if you don’t mind my saying so, that’s an understatement.”

He praised the three “brave” GOP senators who broke ranks to support the bill: Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.


“Today we have shown that, working together, we can address the enormous economic crisis facing our country,” Collins said.

She said the compromise bill has a price of $789 billion, less than both the House and Senate versions.

Reid said this middle ground creates more jobs than the original Senate bill, and spends less than the original House bill.

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, summed it up as a “jobs bill.”

“Today you might call us the ‘jobs squad,’ ” said Nelson, one of the key negotiators on the compromise. “Because that’s what we’re attempting to do: to make sure that people will have the opportunity to hang on to their jobs that they have today, and they’ll be able to get jobs if they lose their jobs.”


Collins on Wednesday provided details of some of the measures she expects to be in the final bill:

The homeowner tax credit has been kept but significantly reduced. The Senate version proposed a $15,000 credit, double that of the House bill.

A tax credit for people who buy a car in 2009 has been reduced.

Funding to patch the Alternative Minimum Tax is included. The tax was intended to target the wealthy but now hits many middle-class families.

$90 billion of increased Medicaid match to states.

$150 billion for infrastructure, including $49.6 for transportation infrastructure. [Mata Musing: uh, how many Caterpillar jobs would that be?]

Nelson confirmed that tax breaks for workers that had been set at $1,000 per family or $500 per individual would be scaled back to $800 per family and $400 per individual.

Multiple Democratic sources said 35 percent of the bill deals with tax cuts, 65 percent with spending.


Noting those numbers, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said the agreement is hardly bipartisan.

“You couldn’t pick up one Republican in the House, and you lost 11 Democrats. You’ve lost more Democrats than you’ve picked up Republicans. That’s not bipartisanship,” he said Wednesday on CNN’s “The Situation Room.”

INRE Lindsey… well no shit Sherlock!

UPDATE: Here’s WaPo’s version…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

this waste is disgusting. these people aren’t economists, they are doctors, teachers, lawyers, farmers, maybe even a mechanic or two. these people hardly know what to do to fix the economy. they wouldn’t let me do brain surgery because i think it sounds cool and i can cut a straight line. this is insane. whent he CBO says they are fucked up you would think they would pull their heads out of their asses and realize they aren’t equiped for this type of project. when obama signs this and we see the fruits, spoiled of course, of congress’ labor and the nation is worse off i will laugh. i will tell my lib friends that they voted for the fucks who did this. i can actually say that i voted for not one of those retards that are in washington d.c. when you work hard all of your life, you save, you spend responsibly and then you get kicked in the gut like this it pisses you off. one thing is for sure, obama, pelosi and reid are going to own this, they will go down in history as the retards who brought socialism into the nations hallowed halls.

Mata, you say “it’s a joke, through and through.”

You are now on record as being against the $70 billion reduction in the alternative minimum tax.

“The Alternative Minimum Tax, a stealth levy on the middle-class that unduly targets large families, must be repealed.”

Where did the above come from? The 2008 National GOP platform.

You are now on record as being against increased eligibility for the child tax credit.

American families with children are the hardest hit during any economic downturn. Republicans will lower their tax burden by doubling the exemption for dependents.

No, the tax credit wasn’t doubled, but it was extended to families previously not eligible for it. And to those families hardest hit by the economic downturn.

Republicans support tax credits for health care and medical expenses.

Now we get into both semantics and political philosophy. What’s going on now? A recession. What’s the biggest problem in a recession? Job loss. What happens when people lose their jobs? They can’t pay for health insurance. What is your solution, Mata, for hard-working Americans who lost their jobs because of the recession and now can’t afford the average $1,000 per month cost of health insurance under COBRA or other insurance plans? I want you to answer this. Don’t duck it. What precisely would you do about this? This has everything to do with the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Here’s what the “stimulus” bill does:

Health insurance help for the jobless: The bill includes provisions to help eligible jobless workers pay for health insurance under Cobra. Cobra coverage allows newly laid off workers to keep health insurance provided by their former employers for a period of time.

One of the provisions offers a government subsidy — 50% of premiums for 12 months — to help out-of-work Americans pay for healthcare. Estimated cost: $20 billion.

Another provides states funding to help pay for expanded Medicaid rolls for workers who’ve lost their jobs and can’t afford health care on their own or can’t get Cobra coverage because their former employer doesn’t offer a health care plan. Estimated cost: $87 billion.

I assume that you are against the above provisions, as being part of the “joke, through and through.” So, what is your alternative idea for dealing with this problem? I’d really like to know. I’d like you to spell it out for me.

The points are these: Of course there are a lot of provisions in this bill that Republicans don’t like. But to claim that there is no bipartisanship in this bill, simply because Republicans won’t vote for it in its entirety (there’s no line item veto and no line item vote) is just plain wrong. And the second thing to be said is what Obama said. The Democrats won the election. Many features in the plan are right out of Obama’s campaign promises. He was elected, and he’s keeping his campaign promises. The big ones, if not “gotcha” things like not having his web site organized in the first month and taking Tom Daschle at his word about having not cheated on his income tax returns.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Needed just a little extra patronage loose change for the teachers unions.


While I would not trust the current crop of congressional Republicans to get it right if they were in control, I expect that any conservative’s answer to you would be to pass measures that actually create jobs, not spend hundreds of billions on permanent programs in response to temporary conditions. You can give people welfare checks and crappy government healthcare all day long, but if you do nothing to make the business environment friendlier, they will still be unemployed drones weighing like an anchor on our economy. A conservative might also tell you that endowments for ACORN, and just about every other liberal group in existence is more properly handled in a spending bill than in an emergency economic stimulus package.

What you seem to be saying is that we must spend the %90 pork to get at the %10 effective measures. Can we list the ridiculous pork items and claim with authority that they represent what you value most about this bill?

Ladies and gentleman, Conservatives & Liberals, republicans & democrats, Libertarian’s & Independents…… Today, please call speaker Pelosi’s office and demand that this new bill be placed on the Internet to demand disclosure!! According to my senate representation, Speaker Pelosi is having the contents of this bill be assembled behind closed doors not by senators but by her “People” and the body of this bill is still unknown to your representation. The congress will be required to hotshot a vote on this bill without having the chance to read the damn thing (as usual). This is the largest spending bill in the history of the World and we need to be able to see what is in it. She claims that we have the most “Transparent and moral” congress under her leadership yet she doesn’t want us all to see what she snuck into the bill at the last minute. Call her AND email her and demand that the contents of this bill be put on the Internet for all to see at least 72 hours before the bill is to be voted on. Don’t just take Obama’s and Nancy’s word that this is the best thing for the “Masses”. Demand that we read the bill for ourselves so we can see what potential issues this bill can and will force on our day to day lives (like the backhanded socialization of medical care). We are out of time but the power of the people can and has made a difference. She is terrified of her constituents and wants to keep your vote so she maintains her “sweetheart” deal. Force her to listen and do her job. It is time for the silent majority to finally speak up.
Nancy Pelosi contact info:

DC Address: The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
United States House of Representatives
235 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0508
DC Phone: 202-225-4965
DC Fax: 202-225-4188
Electronic Correspondence:
WWW Homepage:

Sure, there are things in the package that are excessive. You’ll find this in any bill, no matter the party. Why? It’s the nature of politics. “I’ll give you this, if you give me this…” There’s no avoiding it, if you want to move forward with anything. Tit for tat.

But personally, I don’t see how helping hard working people, who’ve lost jobs and income, get back on their feet and support their families as pork. It’s only when these people do get on their feet that they’ll be able to put money back into the economy and get it moving again, which will then increase the demand on businesses and create more jobs to keep up with supply. This is just what makes sense to me.

The economy tanked by design, shortly after the Democrats took control of both houses. The economy will continue to decline until there are enough hungry(see the new water restrictions in Ca. that put’s farms out of business, and George Soros buying all the farm land he can, world wide) jobless people rioting all over the country, that the ONE can declare a national emergency and put all the Executive Orders and The provisions of the Biden Crime bill in effect, and America becomes a Communist Police State, with a Puppet Dictator.

When you have allowed the Government to convince you that only they can solve your problems, and only they can provide what you need. You become their slave, and can only exist by cowering before the Master.


Larry W is so desperate to believe that obama is the messiah, that
even when the truth to the contrary stares him in the face he isn’t
capable of seeing it. Cary as well.
Larry and cary are walking examples of pathological denial.

@Hard Right:

Well my feelings are hurt. Good job.

Please take note that when there’s a debate with MataHarley, she actually has well researched and intelligent points to refute what Larry and Cary bring up. I may disagree with her on many topics, but she has my respect for this reason, enough for me to consider her side and understand it. Perhaps you could take a lesson from her, instead of reverting to ad hominen meaningless rhetoric which is of no use to anyone. Thanks.

Obama’s betrayal and American uprising!
By Rev. Lainie Dowell

Barack Obama-Rahm Emanuel and the gang stimulus plan

This is a great article from The Canada Free Press.
Also posted on my site.

[Mata add: This is the link to the Canadian Free Press article. Marion’s URL is easy to get to by clicking on his name above, in red (meaning URL)]

Mata Harley:

Yes the bill is a joke and contains waste and outright theft. But the big question is how much farther down the road to Socialism does this bill take us when enacted.

For the record:

I have read many of the concerns about this package on this blog, and share many of these concerns with you guys. I don’t think, however, that our government should let “the chips fall where they may.”

The point I made in my above comment was purely about the point I made. I don’t see welfare and food stamps as pork. I know that many people abuse these systems, but I think that that should be dealt with separately, rather than eliminating them altogether. And I do believe they should be part of a stimulus package, if we are to have one, for the reasons I stated.

Now, you may be surprised to know that I DO find funding for The National Endowment for the Arts as unnecessary pork, as I do have a vested interest in funding for the arts. Personally, I don’t think government should fund the arts at all, but rather arts education in schools so that children can grow up appreciating the arts and fund it privately. For when government funds our art, they also get to define it, opening the doors to censorship. However, this is quite another topic. None of this should be included in a Stimulus package, but a separate bill. Though, I still understand tit for tat in politics.

And for the record, I don’t see Obama as “The Messiah” – that’s insulting to my spiritual faith. I voted for him because I thought he was the better candidate, probably the best the Dems have come up in many years, but he’s a man and I’m not going to agree with him on everything nor follow him blindly. I don’t know a whole lot of people who will, despite what you see in media or merchandising.

Mata Harley;
I really don’t believe I’m a crazy loon, and with the resent tests (the VA was concerned about the posibility of me becoming depressed because i am now virtually housebound) They say I have an IQ of 138 and am functioning at that level, and the only flaw is that i want everything done that needs to be done, done yesterday.;
I still believe this is the long time planning and patient training of generations of students, and unfortunately Most have already accepted Socialism, the next step is a Communist Dictator, which Obama was selected, tutored, scripted, and sold by his propaganda arm the MSN to be.

Mata Harley

Lol i may be crazy but am not stupid…am just sane enough to know i am a crazy nut, but harmless till cracxked.



You can’t square the provisions and principles of this legislation with the provisions and principles of the US Constitution.

Nor can you square this legislation with the Founding Fathers or their original intent.

Gov’t was originally intended to be small and unobtrusive.

This bill takes the gov’t even further in the wrong direction.

It’s not the job of gov’t to provide a safety net for anyone. Those needs are to be met by family, friends, churches, and charities.

While I am not in favor of outright elimination of those programs I am more in favor of allowing gov’t support of charities and faith-based organizations. That approach has been proven to be more effective and less wasteful than a purely gov’t run effort.

Growing gov’t and taking the approach that gov’t knows better how to spend MY money than I do is the wrong direction to take.

Get the gov’t out of the free market, reduce the tax burden on individuals and businesses, cut gov’t spending and let the economy work the way it is supposed to work.

The solutions are very simple.

Wasting billions and billions and billions of dollars on unnecessary projects is just that, wasteful and unnecessary.

Mata Harley
If I am wrong, and the economy does not further decline, and there is no food shortage which causes riots, and no National emergency is declared. i will kiss your….uhhh…foot on the Whit House steps, and give you 30 minutes to draw a crowd.

Cary, when you say something worth debating I’ll do so.
As long as you continue to be little more than an obamabot, I won’t bother.

@Aye Chihuahua:

Your interpretation of what the Founding Fathers intended in this regard is debatable. But given your stance, I’m curious as to why, and on what grounds, you wouldn’t be in favor of eliminating social programs altogether.

“While I am not in favor of outright elimination of those programs I am more in favor of allowing gov’t support of charities and faith-based organizations. That approach has been proven to be more effective and less wasteful than a purely gov’t run effort.”

Actually, Obama agrees with you here, or at least he did while he was campaigning. Hopefully, he’ll get back to that idea at some point soon.

Personally, my problem with leaving faith based charities and churches to do the work, is that many of these charities require conversion on the part of the receiver (tit for tat is everywhere). I once attended a church that boasted of using collection money to bring Bibles to people of poor, starving nations. There was no mention at all of bringing them food, clean water, education, clothing, or medicine! There are also the obvious Constitutional issues involved with Church and State working together.

@Hard Right:

If that’s how you feel, then why bother with the name calling? I assure you that’s even a bigger waste time than making any thoughtful points.


Which part would you like to debate regarding the views of the Founders?

The role/size/scope of gov’t?

Is “charity” found in the Constitution? James Madison says no. Do you have a better source?

The gov’t is notoriously inept at handling money and effectively managing programs. The private sector, charities, and faith-based organizations are much more effective. Do I need to cite examples of gov’t failure when it comes to money handling?

The response time and effectiveness of organizations like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army are a prime example of why they are a better option.

A gradual phase down, and eventual elimination, of gov’t involvement in social programs would suit me just fine. Realistically, however, the gov’t will always have to have a role because the those tentacles are already deeply entwined.

There are also the obvious Constitutional issues involved with Church and State working together.

As long as there is no effort on behalf of the Fed Gov’t to establish a national religion then there are no issues with the two working together.

Mata, I’m not twisting your words. It’s a direct quote. You said it was a “joke, through and through.”

You dodged my question, which, as stated, goes to the heart of what it means to be a Democrat versus what it means to be a Republican.

The biggest problem with a recession is that you have millions of previously hard-working, good Americans, now unemployed. Because private health care in this country costs almost twice as much as anywhere else, private insurance, under COBRA or not under COBRA, costs $1,000 per month. So you have millions of workers, and their families, without health insurance, in a country where the costs of medical care is the number one cause of bankruptcy.

We’ll see the precise details of the bill Obama signs within a couple of days or so. Be we already know what it is going to be, relating to the problem of health care. This is what Democrats do.

So I’m asking you a straight question, and I’m again asking you not to dodge it: what would be your solution to this problem, or would you just pretend that it doesn’t exist?

And can you not acknowledge that there are important things in this bill which are straight out of the GOP platform (e.g. the $70 billion fix for the alternative minimum tax)?

And can you not acknowledge that most of the big ticket items with which you disagree come straight out of Obama’s campaign promises. And that he and the Dems did, indeed, win the election. And they are now fulfilling some of their most important campaign promises to the people who elected them?

But I am most of all interested in knowing what you would do about the problem of providing health care for the newly unemployed victims of the recession. Or would you just ignore the problem? Straight answer, please.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@Aye Chihuahua:

It’s a well know fact that the Founding Fathers didn’t always agree on everything. I need not dig around for quotes on how they felt, for we are discussing the actual document.

No, there is no provision for “charity” in the US Constitution, nor are there any provisions excluding it. If their were, FDR would’ve never been able to pass his New Deal.

I recently worked a dinner for which the speaker was General Colin Powell. I was especially honored to be the one chosen to serve him. In his speech, he spoke of the Founding Fathers as not giving us an ocean liner to success, but rather a life raft. An ocean liner may be stronger, and get us there faster, but when it hits an iceberg, down it sinks. A life raft may be a rougher ride, with waves splashing the cold water, and take us longer to get there, but we get there. I wish I could remember his entire speech, because it choked me up and made me swell with pride as an American. My co-workers all felt the same way. It’s the only event I’ve ever worked where the catering staff stayed to listen to the speaker, rather than breaking in the kitchen, and we all applauded him ferfently.

For you see, it’s this fighting, this working it out, this quid pro quo is what the Founding Fathers intended. They wanted us to work things out like this, to compromise, it’s the very reason our system of government has lasted as long as it has.

As far as your stance on government and faith based organizations working together, I’m glad that there at least one issue where you can support our President. I just wish I was a little less skeptical on this one:

Mata…are you out there?

Ran across this:

I know how you feel about conspiracies…I wish you’d check the site out and see if you find anything worthwhile. It seems to have stirred some interest. It’s new to me, but the more eyes the better.


You’re right. The Founding Fathers did not agree on everything.

However, they were all in harmony on charity, work, welfare, wealth redistribution, and giving handouts to those who will not do for themselves.

Even Thomas Paine, arguably the most liberal of the Founders, felt the same.

I could provide you with pages and pages and pages of the thoughts of the Founders on this matter but I will limit myself to Thomas Jefferson. (All of the quotes are from this source as well as “The Real Thomas Jefferson” by Allison, Skousen, and Maxfield)

Jefferson said the government should keep its’ hands off the poor:

“If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.”

Jefferson said that charity was an individual responsibility:

“I deem it the duty of every man to devote a certain portion of his income for charitable proposes; and that it is his further duty to see it so applied; to do the most good of which it is capable.”

Jefferson said that charity would be best handled by the individual, not the gov’t:

“We are all doubtless bound to contribute a certain portion of our income to the support of charitable and other useful public institutions. But it is a part of our duty also to apply our contributions in the most effectual way we can to secure their object. The question, then, is whether this will not be better done by each of us appropriating our whole contributions to the institutions within our reach, under our own eye; and over which we can exercise some useful control? Or, would it be better that each should divide the sum he can spare among all the institutions of his State, or of the United States? Reason, and the interest of
these institutions themselves, certainly decide in favor of the former practice.”

Jefferson said that the gov’t must be very careful in protecting the money that is taken in by the Fed Gov’t in the form of taxation:

“In our care of the public contributions intrusted to our direction, it would be prudent to multiply barriers against their dissipation, by appropriating specific sums to every specific purpose susceptible of definition; by disallowing applications of money varying from the appropriation in object, or transcending it in amount; by reducing the undefined field of contingencies, and thereby circumscribing discretionary powers over money; and by bringing back to a single department all accountabilities for money where the examination may be prompt, efficacious, and uniform.”

Jefferson said charity should be handled locally:

“It is a duty certainly to give our sparings to those who want; but to see also that they are faithfully distributed, and duly apportioned to the respective wants of those receivers. And why give through agents whom we know not, to persons whom we know not, and in countries from which we get no account, when we can do it at short hand, to objects under our eye, through agents we know, and to supply wants we see?

Jefferson said that redistribution of wealth is a violation of fundamental rights:

“Our wish…is that the public efforts may be directed honestly to the public good, that peace be cultivated, civil and religious liberty unassailed, law and order preserved, equality of rights maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry, or that of his fathers.”

“To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it”. If the over grown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree ; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it. .”

Ben Franklin said that giving money to the idle and lazy is a violation of God’s law. Franklin also said that bare survival can become habitual with no desire to rise above it. Franklin said that welfare for the poor is ineffective and that incentives to work are easily lost.

Franklin also said that the best way to get people out of poverty is to make them uncomfortable or ashamed:

“I am for doing good for the poor. We just happen to disagree. I have a difference of opinion. I think the best way of doing good for the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading or driving them out of it”

I didn’t give the full quotes and source citations from Franklin but if you’re interested in those I can provide them as well.

I could go on and on and on with quotes from the other Founders as well.

Having studied these men extensively, I can assure you that none of them believed that gov’t should have ever become the behemoth that it is today.

None of them believed in the massive levels of wealth redistribution and gov’t handouts that we now have.

No, there is no provision for “charity” in the US Constitution, nor are there any provisions excluding it. If their were, FDR would’ve never been able to pass his New Deal.

The Tenth Amendment is pretty clear on this: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Large portions of the New Deal were ruled to be unconstitutional. Those rulings by the Supreme Court led to FDR’s efforts to pack the court with justices who would be more sympathetic to his efforts. Fortunately, he was rebuffed.

The Constitution was designed as a device by which the Fed Gov’t gets its’ power. If that power is not expressly given to the Fed Gov’t then it is not theirs.

If you examine the Founders original intent, as well as other documents, such as the Federalist papers. There is a wealth of information out there which provides a deep background not found in the Constitution itself.

If you choose to ignore the original intent of the Founders you limit yourself to the words on the parchment only and by strict interpretation of the structure and intent of the document the gov’t is limited in its’ scope and power.

In regard to faith based organizations, it is my desire that the gov’t phase down and, ideally, be eliminated from the picture entirely. Because the gov’t has no Constitutional role, and because of the inherent deficiencies that occur anytime the govt gets its fingers in something, the best thing is for the gov’t to get out entirely.

Realistically, we have come too far for that to ever happen, but that is my ideal scenario.

Suek & Mata,

I never used to be into conspiracy theories either – but I cannot explain the visitors I had on a blog that gets less than 1500 visitors a day. Yesterday I had 25,000 hits.

Suek – this is the post you should have linked to:

Please explain how I can have this many of this type of visitor and there not be anything to it? I would really like to believe that there isn’t anything to the CFR. Really I would, but the more I dig, the bigger and clearer the web becomes.

Thanks for letting me post the link.



Mata Note: Diamond, I’m not sure what the story is on your link, but here is my warning to all of you. DO NOT CLICK ON IT! I went there. First it hung my system up, and when I tried to close the window, went to infinite pop ups. I could not close any of the windows. It merely opened up a new browser on top of the others with more infinite pop ups. Maybe that’s where your “hits” are coming from. Dunno

To get out of it, I had to power out of the system completely.

You may want to check what’s going on there, Diamond.


I didn’t bother responding to your post, because it was clear to me that with all your research, you’re quite aware of what you’re leaving out. I don’t watch or read Michael Moore for the same reasons. But then I figure there may be a few lurkers out there. So, I’ll provide just one example:

And now I’m done. I encourage lurkers to google any other information which sounds possibly partial. It probably is, no matter which side it comes from.



If you’re so smart and confident as to accuse me of leaving things out then do please educate me.

I’m wide open to reading your opinion on the matter.

You haven’t presented one shred of support for an opposing position.

Not one shred.

So, if you want to present an argument feel free to do so.

If not, then I, and everyone else who is reading here will know that you’re operating from a position of weakness and that you’re unable to support your arguments with facts.

@Aye Chihuahua:

Don’t need to be all that smart in order to read and suspect that information is left out, and run a google search. So I typed in the words “New Deal Unconstitutional”. No, I didn’t leave a shred, I left a link to a government site. You can click and read, or not. I’ve no time or desire to argue with you, sorry. Especially when it it clear to me, with all of the vast information you have, that your omission is deliberate, so there’s no need to “educate” you. Of course, that’s my opinion, but you failed to deny so in your response. I’m not coming from a position of weakness, but rather from a position of more urgent matters to tend to. Respond how you will, I’ve stated all have have time for. I know with whom I can have an honest debate. Take care.


All right.

If that is the way you wish to play the game we can certainly do it your way.

Here’s what you wrote in post #28.

No, there is no provision for “charity” in the US Constitution, nor are there any provisions excluding it. If their were, FDR would’ve never been able to pass his New Deal.

Here’s how I responded in #30.

Large portions of the New Deal were ruled to be unconstitutional. Those rulings by the Supreme Court led to FDR’s efforts to pack the court with justices who would be more sympathetic to his efforts.

Then, in post #33 you dash in and accuse me of leaving things out. However, you’re never quite man enough to say what I’ve left out.

In post #34 I challenged you on your lack of substance.

You then say in post #35 that you “don’t have the time or the desire to argue”. “You can click and read, or not.”

Well, just so you know, I did read the item that you linked to. Thoroughly. You know what? It supports the argument that I presented in post #30.

I said:

Large portions of the New Deal were ruled to be unconstitutional. Those rulings by the Supreme Court led to FDR’s efforts to pack the court with justices who would be more sympathetic to his efforts.

From your link:

In 1935-36, the Court struck down eight of FDR’s New Deal programs, including the National Recovery Act (NRA) and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA).

Also from your link:

After his election victory, however, he submitted to Congress early in February 1937 a plan for “judicial reform,” which forever came to be known as his attempt to “pack” the Supreme Court. Given Roosevelt’s record for legislative success, it is interesting to discover why this plan to reconstitute the Court with Justices more favorable to the New Deal backfired.

Franklin Roosevelt and his Attorney General, Homer Cummings, had considered several options. They could have attacked the issue of judicial review head on, as Congress’s proposed amendments had sought to do, but they chose not to, perhaps anticipating the public’s attachment to the idea of the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution. Instead, they chose to change the number of Justices on the Court, which had been done six times since 1789. Their plan had a different twist, however, for it proposed adding a justice for every justice over the age of 70 who refused to retire, up to a maximum of 15 total.

So, there you have it.

You claim that I left some valuable piece of information out and, while you had time to type #35, you didn’t quite have the time nor the courage to simply lay out your opposing argument in that post.

I wonder why that is.

We’ve now come full circle, traveling all the way back to post #30, through your linked reference, and then into post #35.

Your linked information proves exactly what I said.

So, what was your point again?

Do, please, educate me.

I wait in breathless anticipation to hear what you have to say.

And you keep doing it. Posting selected portions from the article doesn’t edit the one behind the link.

Challenging my manhood is not a good tactic with me, I’m not that insecure.

I’m now removing notifications for this thread. I’m not interested. Have a nice day.


I’ve posted the information from the source you sited.

Anyone who reads here can see who has the factual backing on their side.

Obviously a) you either didn’t have a point to make, or b) your point is so weak as to be unsupportable with facts.

Thanks for playing.

@Cary: Speaking as one of the lurkers you reference above I want to go on record and thank you for your contribution to the debate.

However, when Aye confronts you with what he sees as contradictions in your approach I am troubled by the news that you intend to pick up your marbles and go home.

I’m trying to encourage the few reasonable liberals we have commenting here so I hope you will revisit this thread and summarize again what your opinion is. The message tends to get lost in the back and forth exchanges.

Aye: The gov’t is notoriously inept at handling money and effectively managing programs. The private sector, charities, and faith-based organizations are much more effective. Do I need to cite examples of gov’t failure when it comes to money handling?

Oh, and the private sector is so perfect and filled with patriots. Charities, like the United Way with millions in graft and corruption, the Catholic Church (and many other faiths) spending Billions in damages to victims of sex abuse. Oh, and the Banking and Insurance industries, Automotive industry have all been cutting edge. Health Care Insurance companies who make money by cutting benefits or not covering their customers (you can add most insurance companies in the Hurricane Katrina area too).


Would you kindly point out to me where I said that charities and the private sector were perfect?

Would you kindly point out to me where I said that charities and the private sector were flawless?

Point those things out to me please.

In the mean time, go have a nice tall glass of STFU.