This post is pretty embarrassing.  I'd refute it here, but I don't like teaching pigs to sing either.

Also the post is hard to read when you copy and paste the same words in the same paragraph.

Oh I see you fixed the wording error.

TLM, how is this a silly argument? It is exactly the point. Are you suggesting Socialism is good for this country? Why not just come out once and for all and support socialism?

Fire Departments, Police Departments, and all the other local services are paid for at the city and county level to provide LOCAL service to residents of the local community. This is a service we PAY for.

The ROLE of the Federal Government is to protect the union with a strong military and military intelligence. This is the point of a Republic.

Explain to me how this argument is emberassing? You obviously took the time to respond, twice... but don't have anything to say about it? Maybe you don't have an argument worth mentioning because you know it would be torn to shreads?

I can't think of anything unconstitutional about a national constabulary.  We do have the FBI.  I don't think posse comitatus is in the constitution but it keeps the military out of law enforcement for the most part.  The constitutional kicker in this thread however is in the preamble re general welfare.

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.

free health insurance and handout oriented programs are not general welfare.  THey are specific..  Roads,  FDs PDs are general welfare and/or promote domestic tranquility.

settin' up a huge debt for "our posterity" to pay off doesn't "secure the Blessings of Liberty" for them either

 MIchelle, I can give a BRIEF reason why the auto and health insurances are different; one is voluntary and the other is compulsory.  You are only required to have automobile insurance if you own and drive a car.  There are millions of Americans living in large cities that do not find it convenient to own, drive and park a car so they depend entirely on public transportation to get from location to location and it works for them.  These people are NOT required to buy any automobile insurance.  

The newly-passed health insurance bill requires every American to purchase health insurance or face the full force of the legal system.  In other words, as a requirement to live in America you will be required to purchase a specific product as a condition of your residency.  

I already had this discussion with MC on a side bar.  It's not a silly argument, I said it was embarrassing because he makes the point that liberals are trying to make.  Meaning that medical services are not evidence of socialism for the same reasons he stated.  Liberals bring up the FD (at least I do, to MC's credit he said that people who have brought this up don't mean it this way) to show a necessary community solution.  Healthcare only works at the national level, not local, so in that respect I will give you apples to oranges.  But when a conservative says socialism on the march!  A liberal might say, what about the fire department?  To point out that it isn't socialism on the march.  It's a necessary community service.

Now, you may argue that it is socialism on the march.  Fine, I'm not arguing that.  That's not what this post was about.  It was about a "stupid" argument that I don't think MC understood at all.  In fact, this post validates that argument.

Sorry if I'm not up for informed debate with you considering how crass this site has been teaching pigs to sing and liberals not using their brain and only following their heart and all.  I apologize for taking the time to respond, twice.  Now three times.  Won't happen again.

 TLM, I have to admit to being a bit confused by your comment.  I can't tell if you are saying that police/fire departments are, by their very presence, evidence of socialism or if you are saying something else.  Also, would you make the same claims (evidence of socialism) for a military force?

If the presence of these factors indicates socialism then I suppose you would have to search long and hard to find and society in any period of time that didn't have aspects of all of these.  By this definition just about any society that has ever existed on the planet would have to be called socialistic and that just seem accurate by any stretch of the imagination.

Verbatim, exactly.  I don't think we are socialist because we have a fire department, police department, and a military.  And we won't with nationalized health services either is the liberal argument (I understand if you don't agree with it, but that's the point).  Even when the base of the argument is that the PD, FD, Military are socialist, the same basic premise is being argued. If health services are then so are other necessary social services.  To concentrate the argument on the fact that the FD is not socialist completely misses the point.

The fire department is always brought up in response to the socialism charge, not as a promotional tool.  There's a reason for that.

Now you can argue against that, and I understand we disagree.  But my issue was with the post on making pigs sing and explaining why FD is not evidence of socialism while missing completely the liberal argument.  It's easy to write off an argument as stupid when you don't even really get the point.

the full quote referencing the pedagogy of porcine choirs:

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It is a waste of your time, and it annoys the pig." What does this mean, and do you agree or disagree?

According to answerbag.com:

What it means is that you should never try to convince somebody to your way of thinking. Not only will you most likely be unsuccessful you may damage the relationship with the person at the same time. This saying rings true in many areas of our lives.

I don't think it's insulting.  Just like, "You can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig," is just a common line.

I do see your point and you comment clears it up a bit.  Definitely not nearly as insulting as some other items I've seen.

To clear up any confusion, here are TLM's standards of civil discourse:

Not Acceptable: Ever claiming any liberal arguments are stupid.

Acceptable: Claiming Republicans hate children and calling sitting Republican presidents idiots.

Any questions?

"Healthcare only works at the national level, not local, so in that respect I will give you apples to oranges."

Also, I would strongly disagree with this comment.  Would love to hear your reasoning for this.

not nearly as insulting as

like the title of this post for ex?

You're completely wrong TLM. People (Democrats and Socialist Supporters) DO mention the Fire Department ALL THE TIME as a promotional tool to suggest that socialism works. If it wasn't for the FD and PD (incorrectly so), then what do you ACTUALLY have to show that socialism works? You have nothing? The only programs you can relate to are horribly bankrupt... Medicare / Medicaid, Social Security, Post Office, etc.

You CANNOT, and SHOULD NOT use the military in your argument because the very PREMISE of a REPUBLIC is to have a strong military. It is in the very essense of having a "Republic" to have a strong Mility to protect the city states / union (NOT SOCIALIST!!!!)

The Fire Department, Police Department, are examples of LOCAL city / county tax payer funded services that directly support the people paying for it.

This health bill IS SOCIALIST, and YOU support it. Just save us all the frustration and say you support sociaism... it'll bring closure to this argument, and you can stop trying to convince us that socialized medicine is some how not socialist.

Matt, we went through that three years ago.  I explained that in the comments -

Just wanted to make a quick note that one of the main reasons I said Republicans hate children, is because Dems have been accused of many forms of hatred. The first and foremost "Hating America." What comes around, goes around, and so Republicans hate children. - TLM

Childish?  May be, but it was a reference.  I don't really believe Republicans hate children.  I do believe that you think what you have written is true (i.e. stupid liberal arguments).  So take that as you will.  Funny how things worked out though, people thought the issue there was socialism.  Ha!  If Bush hadn't vetoed that we might not even be here now.

Todd missed the point too I guess, and that's on the argument if no one gets it.  You guys are good at sucking me in here from time to time, but you are really narrowing the base of your site.  I don't think you care though.

TLM, okay.  So that was one reason you stated Republicans hate children.  What were the other reasons? What about calling Bush an idiot? 

One thing I find simply amazing is the huge double standard liberals employ to rate the rhetoric of the right.  When lefties called Bush "Hitler" or a "fascist" or, as in your case, an "idiot" it was always okay.  When I call an argument "stupid" - not a person or a group mind you, just an argument - it's out of bounds. 

Also, Todd and I are right.  Lefties use fire departments as an example that socialism works all the time.  Michael Moore has even used this argument.  There is a growing movement on the left to make socialism mainstream.  In one argument I participated in on Facebook  last week, someone stated that the rest of us didn't really understand socialism and then used this very fire department argument to paint a rosy picture of socialism.  Since I have heard this argument with increasing frequency, I thought I would take the time to shoot it down.  

When I call an argument "stupid"

now that's a stupid argument

but, TLM, consider the source, y'know

MC, sorry you can't see the difference.  Truly I am.  But you can write it off as a double standard if you wish.

TLM, you've got this superior attitude like we're unable to comprehend a very simple argument that you're trying to portray. I honestly don't know, or care. I'm simply stating that socialized medicine is socialist, and I want no part of it, nor do I want my country to participate in it. I also know that 73% of America doesn't want this bill either.

What is your point? Without floating around the issue, why not just tell me exactly what your point is?

Capcha'd again by the ambiguous "l"

If you get enough federal employees (aka liberals), you gain critical mass.  Voters always vote what's best for their occupation.  Nationalized health care is the tipping point.  As a nation, America will vote Democratic Party from now on because it's job security for federal employees who manage health care and whatever else is managed at the federal level.

Todd, sorry if I'm coming off that way.  I'm not smart enough to be superior, honestly.  I feel like the posts here have a superior attitude.  i.e. Conservatives use logic, Liberals use their hearts, Debunking stupid liberal arguments.  I don't even think you realize how insulting that is.  It's not even original (i.e. bleeding hearts).  You can bring up my Republicans Hate Children post, but I've explained that in depth over the past three years.  I don't actually believe Republicans hate children, just as Democrats don't hate America.  That was the point of the title, where as here, I feel like it's believed.  If you tell me you don't really believe these things, I'll apologize for misunderstanding the superior attitude of the site in general.  My comments may just be reflecting my understanding of the tone here.

The original point was It doesn't matter that you guys have proven the FD is socialist or not.  The point is that it's a shared necessary service.  You guys don't feel that way, and that's okay.  Either way you feel, the last paragraph of this post validates the liberal argument.  Making the FD argument not that "stupid".  My response to Verbatim says this as well.

I haven't communicated well enough for anyone to understand and that's on me. I tried to make my point and failed.

"I haven't communicated well enough for anyone to understand and that's on me. I tried to make my point and failed."

Apology accepted.

at least TLM knows the art of apology

TLM, I don't actualy remember that thread about Republicans hating babies. So I haven't been referring to it.

What I'm saying is that using the term "shared necessary service" does not preclude something from being socialist. If it's socialist, it's socialist... calling it a "shared necessary service" does not simply make it NOT socialist.

What will be the next shared necessary service? Obama already took over the student loan program, so now students can become dependant upon the government the second they get out of school. What's the next shared necessary service? The right to home ownership? The right to a living wage? Where does it end? Pooled car insurance?

I'm being totally serious here, tell me where it ends, and what exactly the difference is.

I like your essay and offer this one as a deeper discussion of the same thing.  There is a chart in it that I think is brilliant and helpful.

http://sasoc.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/a-good-comment-and-a-reply/

Red

Red, I like  your argument, and I'll post my comments on there later tonight. I did want to respond to them here though, which I think is still quite an important aspect that is being missed.

We have a Republic, that's what we were given, and that's what We the People decided upon. Our founding fathers outlined the goals of our country, and as such, a CITY-STATE Republic (which we are) calls for a strong military. Although some costs associated with the military might be excessive or wasteful in some cases, that's another issue completely. The purpose of having a strong military is to protect the Republic, and maintain it's stance in the world. That is not socialism, that is the foundation of a Republic. The fact that people list it as part of a "socialist" ideal is ridicuous to me because it's not socialist, it's part of being a republic.

We can argue and bicker about the various issues, but following the proper legislative process would basically mean anything is acceptable so long as it doesn't contradict the constitution. This bill does just that by forcing us to buy something. On the other hand, if the country WANTED a socialist health care plan, and it was voted on using 2/3rds majority, but it wasn't mandatory, that would basically be acceptable (although I would disagree with it).

What the Senate and House did in this instance, was a sheer mockery of the constitution. This reconciliation capability should never have been agreed upon. If 2/3rds majority don't accept it, then it should have NEVER passed. Everything the Democrats want has to do with spending money, so that means basically that they can now pass any legislation they want so long as they "con" the public into thinking it's a spending bill. This reconciliation is heresy.

This MORAL argument of whether or not socialism is acceptable or not is completely beside the point, in my view. What we witnessed was a bastardization of our legislative process. What went on is illegal in so many ways. I am eagerly looking forward to a Republican president in 2 years who will be able to recind this. If the Democrats then want to have a discussion about the moral ethics involved in whether or not we should have a socialized health care policy, let them have at it. If 2/3rds majority don't agree to it, then they'll just have to deal with it.

James, all excellent, excellent points.  So good I wish I had said that. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Damaris, no matter how you want to slice it... national health care is socialism. General Motors, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc... that's all examples of socialism.

"The Republic" which is what the United States of America is... was designed by the founding fathers with the sole purpose of the federal government being to regulate trade between other countries, provide a means of defense for the states, and to secure the protection of the union and it's interests through military or legislation. Nothing more, nothing less...

Fire departments and Police departments are all paid for at the local city and county level... so they should be completely stripped from your argument. They are paid for directly by the people which utilize their services.

The other departments you mention are all to protect the safety (in terms of preventing harm) of the united states. Infrastructure is/was also part of the military. I-95 was built primarily for no other reason than to provide a solid means of transportation for military vehicles up and down the east coast. As were most interstates... as it stands, they also provide for inter-state commerce. The other roads in a state are built by the state, at the local state level, by local state taxes.

Health care is not a God given free service... someone has to pay for it. At some point, the money runs out.

its a general welfare (a la preamble) vs. specific welfare issue

the preamble also says "and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" so we shouldn't rack up an unpayable debt

Damaris, I'm with you on para. #2.  I think all here understand the point made in the last para.

Damaris,

      You presume far too much. This argument is rather pointless honestly if you've already placed me into a category. Assuming I've never read the federalist papers, and to assume that I think the founding fathers were Gods. Regardless of what YOU think about them, the Constitution was signed by them... I agree with their intent, and I hope to uphold that. I do not believe that it is as much a living document as Democrats do. I do NOT believe that a shift towards socialism is acceptable.

You said "So by that standard, government-funded healthcare would not be socialism if it were paid for at the state level?"

My answer is, that is correct. That's not assuming of course that it's mandated at the Federal level. By having states equally manage their own finances (as they should), they are in effect, in competition with eachother. If a state passes it's own state-wide socialized health care program, the residents of that state are directly affected by it. They are the ones directly affecting it's outcome, it's success, etc. You ARE aware, obviously (I hope so), that the American public does NOT support this health care program. If a state begins to go bankrupt because it can't afford to pay for the health care costs, it can raise taxes. If the citizens of that state do NOT like paying those higher taxes, they can move to another state 100 miles away. The state will then have to decide whether or not it's worthwhile for it to maintain this healthcare system.

In the past, the state was always in charge of managing it's own finances. By mandating social programs from the federal level, you put the tax burden on the people who are not directly being affected by it. What ends up happening is you end up with Republican industry, supporting Democrat folly. A National Healthcare System forces a healthy man in Texas to pay for a fat man's quadruple by-pass in Vermont.

You said: "A company owned by teh government is not ipso-facto, socialism."

Actually, it is... it's called nationalization of industry, and it's but one of many parts that make up socialism. You seem to have this aire about you that you're somehow well versed and know what you're talking about. Sorry to say, but it doesn't seem like you do. You should know that nationalization is neither something that's common in a Republic, or a Capitalist society. It's absolutely on the socialist end of the spectrum.

With a few exceptions, Public libraries and Parks ARE paid for at the state level. With the exception of libraries in Washington D.C., there are almost no federally funded libraries anywhere in the United States. With the exception of a few really large parks like Yellowstone, or Acadia, most national parks are nothing more than land preservation and cost very little money. Most larger parks with facilities are all state parks. 

Since your entire argument seems to dance around health care, I would presume you believe that health care IS a God given right. I think ALL Republicans are aware of what the Democrats mean when they say something is "free." 

Sorry, got captcha'd and pasted it twice by accident.

I would like clarification of the stance that a national health care program would be fruit of a socialist agenda, while also stating,  "A service run by the government (e.g. armed forces, fire departments, etc.) is not prima facie evidence that socialism exists within a country."  I am struggling to make sense of this rationale.  Also, I believe that programs such as social security and the GI Bill have been two of the more successful programs in our nation's history, while being centralized within our federal gov't.  Why is health care such a novel topic compared to the social needs that these programs address?  After all, one of the top three causes of bankruptcy is the inability to pay medical bills, while many of those filing were insured through the current system.  In my opinion, when left to the free market, health care has resulted in the massive economic abuse of the middle class and working poor.  Agreed, there are people who abuse every social welfare system that exists and this results in the perception that these programs are strictly "handouts" for lazy people.  However, this logic seems one-sided in the sense that this same fury is not directed toward the success that many corporations have had in finding loopholes to avoid taxation, their continual acceptance of exponentially more welfare than any social program, and their stranglehold on our representatives through their powerful purses.  It seems the Christian ethic interwoven in modern day conservatism is abandoned in times that necessitate the care for the most vulnerable among us.  All of this in spite of  the fact that Jesus spoke of assisting the poor more than any other singular topic in the Gospels.  Obviously, I feel that there are many incongruences within the arguments/comments stated above and would love to gain clarification.  Appreciate any time you have to respond.  

Your posts literally goes all over the place attempting to throw wild arrows of information in hopes that one will stick.

Here are some facts: 60% of our federal budget is to social security and welfare.

Wellfare brings the middle class down to the "working poor" as you put it (I guess you assume the middle class don't work?) These "benefits" and health care system that you talk about are the very same items that has caused nearly half of Europe to go into bankruptcy. When you FORCE everyone, to pay for everyone else's bills, then what happens is the strong become weak, and the weak become weaker. When this happens, the entire country goes bankrupt.

Forcing health care at the federal level is 100% socialism by any and ALL sense of the word. Wether you like the term, or not... that's what it's called. Unfortunately for you, it will be repealed.

Another thing, Jesus was not a socialist, he had nothing to do with politics, I wish liberals and conservatives would stop bringing him into this, he's above politics.

Click here to see tax dollars at work: http://www.conservative21.net/displayone.cfm?docid=4008

Unfortunately, you didn't answer any of the discrepancies I asked about, misconstrued my comment referring to the middle class AND the working poor (two separate economic classes), did not articulate whether the welfare you include in the 60% of the national debt includes corporate welfare or not, etc.  As to the reference to Jesus, I was always taught that to be a Christian was to attempt to be as Christ-like as humanly possible (of course, always falling short).  And, if Christ talked about helping the poor more than any other topic in the Gospels, it stands to reason that being "Christ-like" would be to help the poor. Obviously, you don't think social welfare is the way to do this.  However, your seemingly numb approach to impoverishment seems, in the least, inconsistent with the purported Christian faith of this website.  Furthermore, I feel it was an exceptionally political act on the part of Jesus to turn the tables of money-changers over in the temple and again breaking all social codes to embrace Samaritans and prostitutes alike.  Jesus, if not the savior, was, in the least a historical revolutionary.  Not political?  Interesting stance.    

Be well.

Corey, again… Jesus encourages us all to give to charity, which I do privately (it’s of no business of yours how much, and to whom). Jesus NEVER insisted that we should be forced to give our money to a government who then decides at will who is deserving of it, and who is not. One last time, this is NOT a religious site. It has NOTHING to do with religion. This is a political site that has to do with fiscal responsibility, maintaining a strong country militarily, limiting the size of government, and giving more power to the states.

No, that 60% does not include corporate welfare, which I also don’t agree with. That’s the liberals that support corporate welfare. TAX BREAKS are not welfare… no money exchanges hands. GIVING money, like buying banks and automotive companies is called “Nationalization” and is one of the major components of a socialist government. That 60% includes social security, food stamps, and other welfare components.

Health care for all, with the biggest burden going towards the middle class, is nothing other than pure socialism. That’s what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. Whether you agree with it or not, doesn’t make it not socialism. You obviously don’t like the term, and rightly so… because socialism is responsible for the collapse of a number of governments, including the direction that every single European government is going. And… how are they trying to fix it? …by eliminating entitlements.

Corporations are under NO obligation to exist here. That’s what you don’t understand. We ARE in a global community, and corporations will go wherever they think they will get the best investment. Having the most profitably company allows them to grow, employ more people, and creating more jobs.

Socialism fails, look at how disastrous we are after 2 years of it? Remember that in the past 2 years prior to this administration, Nancy Pelosi was also in charge. Bush is guilty of passing all the liberal legislation that she proposed. Look at where our country has gone in 4 years? We went from a 4.7% unemployment rate, to a 10% unemployment rate.

What you fail to understand is that all of these policies that are backed by the liberal establishment are not there to help “the working poor” as you ridiculiously call it. These policies are put into place to keep the upper 1% in power, and to create a governmental dependency upon the rest. Do you think it’s a co-incidence that in every socialist and communist nation, you have an upper 1%, and a lower 95%? Do you not realize that Soros, Buffet, Gates, and couple of others lobby to have legislation passed which does nothing but solidify their place? All of these taxes, they are there to eliminate the upper 20-30% of America, and bring them all down to a lower level where they can be controlled. Just take a look at where most of the lobbyist money comes from. Who are the greatest donors to the labor groups like the AFL-CIO, and where does the AFL-CIO spend most of its money?

You can say what you want, but you don’t have any facts… your opinions are all based on rhetorical emotion. There are leaders, and there are followers… you’re obviously a follower as you’re too scared to take on life for all it has to offer… you would rather force everyone else into failure as well to ensure that you have a cushion to fall on. That’s not the American spirit, that’s the liberal mentality.

Corey and Todd, these posts pretty accurately represent the positions of the christian left & right though Todd also represents the agnostic conservative position as well.

Corey, since Todd and I have already discussed Christianity here and elsewhere, I won't ask him again.  But, would you care to express your personal beliefs about Jesus Christ since you have cited his teachings and activities?  Thanks.  I'm always interested in this topic and people's personal beliefs.

C, for the record, I want to make it VERY clear, I am by NO MEANS an agnostic. I am Catholic, and go to church every Sunday. As far as I’m concerned, I believe in God irrefutably. I’ve had several situations that I’ve been exposed to that have made be an unconditional believer. I just don’t think that religion and politics should go together. Jesus Christ is FAR ABOVE politics… give unto Caesar what is Cesar’s, give unto the God what is God’s.

However, it would be naive to think that Corey is basing his views on religion, just as he thinks we’re basing ours on it. He’s simply using the old liberal rhetoric of attempting to use religion to debunk the views of religious Republicans… I’m quite sure he has pulled these quotes and this rhetoric from various talking points on other liberal message boards.

Todd, thanks for clarifying.  When I said, "positions of the christian left & right though Todd also represents the agnostic conservative position as well," I didn't intend any sense to say that you are not a Christian.  Only you and God know that.  What I intended to say was that your position represents both the agnostic conservative and at least a significant portion of the Christian right.  Corey's statements represent the Christian left and, though I forgot to mention it, probably the agnostic left as well without implying anything about his beliefs either.  I could throw in atheist probably on both sides too, I guess, but didn't see the need to in this particular discussion.

As far as Corey and his basis, I hope to hear him express his own "personal beliefs about Jesus Christ" as my original invitation says.

But otoh, Corey might only be trolling and won't come back to answer.  Or, maybe he's just busy with Sociology or his harmonica.

Pretty sure it was more or less a drive-by. There are a lot of people who have refined their introductory arguments with respect to certain subjects. This works well against people who aren't firm in their understanding of the subject matter. But this will fail, always, against someone who understands the entire scope of the topic.

This is an easy argument to fight. All religious aspects aside... there's no proof anywhere that socialism works. As a socialist movement grows in a country, that country becomes less profitable, less successful, and further in debt. As proof, I would easily point to any European country, any communist country, any self proclaimed socialist country.

Certainly, the religious argument is uneblievably ridiculous. Jesus never suggested that a fiscally irresponsible government entity should take responsibility for the charity. Truth is, if they're going to use the argument of helping out their fellow man, all they need to do is look at the average charity per household (Democrat VS Republican) and the numbers speak for themselves. It seems to me that those who are unwilling to give, are more than happy to force others to give.

Just stopping by, this was a good read though...gonna have to bookmark this page...

 How is the system we have and are getting socialist.  It is still private health insurance companies with exactly the same hospitals we had before.  It is just that everyone will have insurance.  Not sure how that qualifies as socialist.  Requiring people to be covered so that if they have to visit hospital they don't become a burden on others, doesn't seem very socialist to me.  We are not talking about goverment healthcare systems or hositals and the same insurance companies will be there, still for profit, only everyone will have insurance.  Doesn't strike me as very socialist.  I know this comment is rather late, but the fact that it is late just shows that in retrospect your argument was at best wrong and at worst a lie.

Charles, they really like to divert and try to change the argument to socialized medicine around these parts. 

Why are Republicans arguing that Obamacare is "unconstitutional"? Maybe they should argue that Obamacare is expensive, and we have enough of a deficit without more help. Unless Obama is planning to cut somewhere else for this (The Bufett tax isnt even close to enough. Taxing the rich to cure our deficit, even if it passed, is too puny to do anything), even if Obamacare does make our helth system better, its too expensive. Throwing money at problems kill problems, but there are usually better ways than hurling money and then saying "HAH! I told you it would work!" 

 I can't believe some of these comments, from both sides; READ the constitution - the term general welfare is in the preamble and the powers of the federal government are enumerated. We have gone way beyond what the federal government can do. As an aside: defending the union - raise an army (is not socialism) is in the constitution; fire departments are a local issue and not a federal issue; car insurance is a state issue and not a federal issue and in some states you don't need insurance but could put up a bond to drive a car. If everything that is done is for the "general welfare" then we would not need the rest of the constitution and this is what some in our government are trying to do - trash the constitution; this is the best document for the law of the land every written and we should preserve it at all costs. There are ways to change it enumerated in the document which should be followed and not just by the stroke of a pen. Lastly, we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy; we vote to choose the best person to protect the constitution and we have not done that in the past 70 or so years!

 sure is quiet around here...hope all is well