See BrainGlutton’s post for an explanation of how the military in the US does not attempt to exceed (if you like that term better) its Constitutional functions. And I don’t see any distinction relevant to the Constitutional role of the military between the Coast Guard and the navy, nor the Air Force and “armies”.
Regards,
Shodan
So? The same is true of the civil service.
Hardly anyone shoots at civil servants.
Regards,
Shodan
So the founders believed that the armies provided for in the Constitution should be tasked with maintaining air superiority?
It’s not really thought out, it’s just handed down from above and read off. If you try to corner them it’s “obviously different.” Kinda like how liberals are for human rights and whistle blowing but root for the continued torture of Bradley Manning.
The Internet didn’t exist in 1787 either, but the First Amendment protects it.
I realize what you are trying to do, but don’t bother. All the functions of war-fighting are included under the clause authorizing the US to have “armies”, just like the Coast Guard is included under the term “navy”. No, that is not a problem for textualists, nor for those who use “original intent” in Constitutional interpretation.
Now if you have anything worthwhile to add besides these rather lame attempts at a gotcha, feel free.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, National Review regularly asks the opposite question: liberals regularly assert that the federal government is filled with evil people under the thumb of big business… and yet, they want this evil entity to control our entire health system.
You can usually do better than a “because I said so” argument. Disappointing.
Since the constitution is silent on what the military can and cannot be used for (outside the country), then it really doesn’t matter what they thought. If they wanted to limit the actions of the military, they should have put something in there saying so. The only limit is:
“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years”
Would that be the same 90% that did not see the economic crisis coming?
A lot good they are.
Peter Schiff is someone that did see it coming.
This is a video of him on CNBC laying out exactly what was going to happen as it did. While, you have Art Laffer and a host of other jokers laughing hysterically like a bunch of hyenas in his face as he was talking about it.
Yea, sign me up for those economists lol.
Peter Schiff Was Right 2006 - 2007 (2nd Edition)
Watch the 10 minute video
When come back, bring relevance.
I’m sure National Review asks a lot of stupid questions.
Since the constitution is silent on whether the government can offer universal health care…
I don’t know what agenda Art Laffer was pushing, but Peter Schiff was hardly the only person who saw trouble coming. A lot of people knew real estate prices were a bubble.
The reason you didn’t hear enough about this is that people like Art Laffer aren’t economists, they’re salesmen. Laffer was once an economist but in his position in 2007 it was his job to sell investments, and plus he’s on a news channel and program who get much better ratings with rosy forecasts.
I had this argument with my best friend, who lives in California, starting in at LEAST 2005; for years I said that California home prices simply could not keep rising the way they were forever, that it just wasn’t logically possible. He insisted otherwise. It’s not that I’m a genius - after all, I didn’t know exactly when things would fall apart - or that my friend is stupid. But the thing with this sort of stuff is that people are irrational. Californians were buying homes at absolutely fucking insane prices based on a belief that prices woud keep going up even though to an outide observer with no stake in the mtater they obviously could not.
Which leads us back to our OP; people don’t reconcile illogical beliefs at all. They hold various beliefs for personal reasons, and they stick to them.
Agreed.
For those continuing to promote offshoring and outsourcing, especially when their riding the gravy train, like Art Laffer was riding the investment gravy train, as you pointed out, its hard to change your view.
I noticed all the ones against Schiff were promoting a view based on optimism and prosperity rather than cold hard reality.
As Peter pointed out, we need more production and saving in this country and less borrowing and consuming, and moving around fiat paper as a means to wealth.
Unfortunately, I think we are past the point of no return, and no policy will stop the bleeding. Companies outsourced initially to make bigger profits for their fat cat CEO’s, but in the last few years, they have been outsourcing due to necessity and their greed along with government inaction is taking its toll.
Now their crying foul at the government to give them tax breaks, when it was their greed that got us to where were at.
There needs to be protections enacted to protect us from the looters, theifs and bank robbers of this country.
Schiff doesn’t attribute the cause to outsourcing though. He rightfully attributes the cause to excessive debt.
I’m not really sure what your point is though. **John Mace **is talking about what is fundamental economic theory (akin to people buying more of a product when it’s cheaper). You are trying to invalidate it by focusing on a select number of economists inability to recognize or predict a financial disaster. Building collapse from time to time too. That doesn’t invalidate basic structural engineering concepts.
The military very well could, in theory.
I think the misconception here is that conservatives have a “distrust of government”. Conservatives believe in government by, of and for The People. They distrust what they perceive as a government run by a political, intellectual or academic elite or aristocracy. But by their nature, conservatives believe in order in authority.
What conservatives also distrust is the idea of distributing wealth from those who are hardworking and successful to those who are not. They believe that not only does in provide disincentives and a moral hazard, it will create an untenable situation where political necessity will cause the government to continuously provide more in services than it can take in in revenue, leading to debt and eventual economic collapse.
The conservative perception of the military is as a (usually) volunteer force of ordinary people who sign up to defend and serve their nation. They don’t perceive it as an extension of government or an implementer of foreign policy.
This is vague, vapid blabber designed to make it seem like conservatives care about democracy and “people” more than liberals do.
No it’s not. It’s just not quite as specific about which people as it ought to be.
I don’t see the basis for your contradicting me in the first sentence of your post; I agree with the second sentence, which reinforces my prior assertion.
Well, except for the “by” and “for.”
That would be at any rate preferable to a government run by a socioeconomic elite, which is what we’ve got now and for some time now.