VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:03:20 09/04/09 Fri
Author: Paul Davis
Subject: Re: Auto Industry Association CEO On Cash For Clunkers
In reply to: Kelsey 's message, "Re: Auto Industry Association CEO On Cash For Clunkers" on 10:22:20 09/02/09 Wed


Doesn't seem a bit humorous to me. The Constitution was written to create a strong Federal government, it did that. The government has, in the past, bought cows for the purpose of shooting them and burying them, rented fields so they'd be forced to lie fallow, built a dam for the purpose of tearing it down - I could go on.

There is not a single word in the Constitution that can be construed as saying any citizen gets any say whatsoever in what their tax dollar is spent on, save through voting out their congressmen. If the congressman wants to shut his doors to the public, that's his right. (If he does, he deserves to be voted out, IMHO, but that's not unconstitutional)

I'm simply not moved by claims the government can't do something because someone is negatively affected by it. They can't do ANYTHING without affecting someone negatively. Certainly there are egregious cases, but this wasn't one of them.

Her arguements were pretty much moot to me.


>>Well that is a creative spin on the matter. Mildly
>humorous as well, but also a bit absurd as I'm sure
>that you realize.
>
>There is also nothing in the Constitution about
>subsidizing auto sales. I looked again just to make
>sure, because after years of doing divorce and
>corporate law, my Con-law is a tad rusty I must admit.
>
>The Constitution does clearly state that the
>overriding power of government should rest with the
>States. That seems to be something that Washington has
>forgotten about.
>
>
>
>
>
>>And I'm quite certain that what she is saying is
>>correct, that an incentive to purchase new cars
>>reduces sales at used car lots. In fact, I'll go so
>>far as to say that it's self evident, obvious and
>>pretty much a simple fact.
>>
>>However, I have to question the philosophy behind this
>>letter. Undoubtedly, the TVA projects that brought
>>power and eventual prosperity to the South did
>>considerable damage to the private power producers in
>>the region, who only served cities and didn't care if
>>farmers had electric power or not. Undoubtedly,
>>projects for building modern water plants damaged the
>>owners of town pumps and wells. Beyond doubt,
>>construction of public highways and bridges damages
>>owners of ferries (and I happen to know of a case of
>>that near me, where a new bridge was built about half
>>a mile from an old ferry landing - put George right
>>out of business).
>>
>>The stated purpose of the Constitution of the United
>>States is to "We the People of the United States, in
>>Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
>>insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
>>defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
>>Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
>>do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
>>United States of America.".
>>
>>Somehow, the notion of the general Welfare has been
>>dropped in recent years. It is impossible in
>>virtually every case to promote the general welfare
>>without some damage, greater or lessor, real or
>>perceived, to some individual or group of individuals,
>>somewhere. This is simply the way the world works.
>>And I'm quite certain that I could find discussions of
>>this matter amongst the founding documents, the
>>founders weren't stupid.
>>
>>So yes, it's a bit unusual for the modern government
>>to do anything besides give away money for no purpose,
>>but it is part of their function to determine what
>>promotes the GENERAL welfare, and then move in that
>>direction. Anything else is unconstitutional.
>>
>>
>>>Here is a wonderful letter from a grand lady,
>Kathleen
>>>Schmatz - President & CEO of AAIA. Google her if you
>>>are interested in her accomplished career in a men's
>>>world.
>>>
>>>It is in response to an editorial that ran in an
>>>industry newsletter.
>>> >>>href="http://www.magnetmail.net/actions/email_web_ver
>s
>>i
>>>on.cfm?recipient_id=132109080&message_id=798145&user_
>i
>>d
>>>=AutoAfterM">http://www.magnetmail.net/actions/email_
>w
>>e
>>>b_version.cfm?recipient_id=132109080&message_id=79814
>5
>>&
>>>user_id=AutoAfterM
>>>
>>>The original editorial is only available in pdf form
>>>because it is subscription only, and I am not able to
>>>post a link. If anyone is interested, I would be
>happy
>>>to email it to them.
>>>
>>>Kelsey

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.