Posted on 07/20/2010 3:00:44 AM PDT by Scanian
WASHINGTON -- President Obama and congressional Republicans went to war yesterday over extending unemployment benefits for millions of out-of-work Americans.
"It's time to stop holding workers laid off in this recession hostage to Washington politics," Obama said. "It's time to do what's right, not for the next election, but for the middle class."
Obama's hot rhetoric in the Rose Garden sought to divert voters' anger over the sputtering economy to Senate Republicans, who don't want the government to borrow $34 billion for another extension of benefits.
Republicans support extending jobless benefits only if the bill is paid for, which goes hand in hand with their argument that runaway government debt is undermining an economic recovery.
The GOP says that unused stimulus money could be used to fund the benefits extension or that spending could be cut so the deficit won't be increased. Some also believe the lengthy period of benefits can discourage people from job hunting.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
And by that, I mean your quote is one of the big tenets of Leninism.
>>Social contract.<<
Where is that “Social Contract”? Can you reference it?
Someone is showing true colors here.
Throwing the elections to the dems over something this mundane and stuff, which has truly produced a media storm if you look off FR, is not in the long term interest of the taxpayers either I would think.
The answer to the "unemployment" problem is to DownSize DC! Starting with a firing at 1600 Penn. Ave., and then eliminating entire departments (Education, EPA, etc) in Washington who contribute nothing and are a burden on the nation.
I guess you don’t know what the term means if you think it has anything to do with marxism. In my sophmore level business law class, they covered it a lot. It’s the same reason the government taxes us for the mlitary, which you seemed to not complain about. I don’t either.
I’d go look up the term, the wikipedia entry on it is fairly good. Being against social contract theory basically means you’re against the US constitution as it was one of the earliest forms of it after the French revolution.
I’d like to see farming subsidies die off. That stuff has been a burden on taxpayers for decades. Also all the ethenol madness which is paying farmers to grow unprofitable crops. The EPA should be cut by 90% in both manpower and political power, NEA, and all that stuff. There’s really serious waste out there, even in DHS now. I wish we’d see some fighting against these huge costs.
>>I guess you don’t know what the term means if you think it has anything to do with marxism<<
Hmmmmm, did I say Marxism?
Social contract IS a theory. It is applied as seen fit in a given situation.
And is used by libs, a lot.
So I’m just going to let your posts stand on their own. Gotta make Dad his PB&J for lunch. Bye!
I recall the quote was from Captain John Smith at Jamestown.
When I Binged, I learned it is Biblical.....Thessalonians.
I think your Lenin reference is “to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability”
No, lets talk about unfunded madnates!
Unemployment, SS etc ... at least the worker is contributing to these (whether that is right / proper is another argument!). The extended benefits are unfunded and taken directly from the general fund.
YOU said that the dems are playing the pubbies and your right! How can those cold hearted bastards refuse to continue to hand out money?
Anything over 26 weeks is robbing me to pay someone else - you want it longer - change the law and raise the rates - just stop the stealing.
And before you start with you DoD arguments - that is a responsiblility specifically mentioned in the constitution - what your advocating is not.
Yes, its all going to come crashing down at once.
Um, where is that mentioned in the Constitution?
Social Contract is how the Europeans justify THIER version of socialism - and you want the pubbies to (continue) to support this? That has been the problem all along - RINO's!
I’ll let them stand too. It’s the basis of the Republican form of government vs feudalism, monarchism, pure democracy, and so on.
To sum it up: We give the government certain rights to handle certain business and they respect our rights that are enumerated in a constitution. It’s a 2-way road that keeps the country free but not delve into anarchy. It’s why we can be taxed and it’s not ‘stealing’ to pay for things that elected leaders do.
Law School & WiKi?
OMG.
Yeah, actually it was more during Stalin’s time that it was used in the USSR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat
In the 1936 Soviet Constitution, Article Twelve states:
In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.”
The principle has been fundamental to the attempts so far to effect the communist mode of production.
Where is that “Social Contract”? Can you reference it?
Someone is showing true colors here.
It's in the "Social Contract" clause in the Constitution. Duh.
Hey, the wiki is right in this case.. It’s the basis of the USA.
Thomas Hobbes (1651), John Locke (1689) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) are the most famous philosophers of contractarianism. However, they drew quite different conclusions from this starting-point. Hobbes advocated an authoritarian monarchy, Locke advocated a liberal monarchy, while Rousseau advocated liberal republicanism. Their work provided theoretical groundwork of constitutional monarchy, liberal democracy and republicanism. The Social Contract was used in the Declaration of Independence as a sign of enforcing Democracy, and more recently has been revived by thinkers such as John Rawls.
Pay-Go. Make the Kenyan live up to his rhetoric. But that requires the GOP to have stones.
Not directly stated, but it’s based on it. Rousseau’s version of it was a direct inspiration for the declaration of independence and the constitution. Jefferson was a big fan of it.
Have you even read the Constitution?
There is no “respect our rights” - WE gave them specific powers and authority (NOT Rights!) to administer certain elements which are better handled collectively - defense, etc ...
When our elected officials decide on thier own to exceed those powers granted and take/use monies for purposes other than those intended - that IS theft.
We gave the specific powers, yes. There’s nothing unconstitutional about unemployment benefits by law. You’d be laughed out of gradeschool government class if you mentioned the idea much less any court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.