Such evidence. Do I have to send you over to the Concord Coalition site for a primer? Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while total net worth of U.S. households is just over $40.6 trillion. The total of Federal pension liabilities, underfunded insurance policies, and entitlements, alone is enough to put this nation into eventual insolvency. All your unsupported assertions to the contrary.
That is just silly ideological blather.
Silly ideological blather that has been carefully documented across the West. From Clinton's giveaways to James Riyadi to the sleazy deals with Southern Pacific Company at the expense of inholders among unconstitutional Federal lands, access to the mineral estate (that Nixon put up as security for Federal debt) has been systematically denied to or outright confiscated from Americans, while foreign corporations mine at will. You really don't know what you are talking about here.
Increased regulatory reach is a legitimate concern but linked with such a load of crap no serious person will get the point.
Oh really? Is that why I have been invited to speak to three university economics departments in the next few weeks (no, they are not Marxists)?
I need no research to tell me that we neither have "corporate fascism" (Marxist-Leninists would agree with you, though) nor that the 14th amendment could bring it on.
Little you do know, so perhaps such research is beyond you. The 14th Amendment made it possible for corporations to own land and gave them a number of critical advantages over individuals. It was and is equal protection in name only.
Of course it has survived, what was a small nation along the Atlantic coast now occupies most of the continent and dominates the world's views, economies and actions. Only by changing the meaning of the word "survives" could you claim otherwise.
What happens to a household that is insolvent? They start pawning assets. That is what we did with the mineral estate. Now it's water, and that little charade will destroy what's left of American agriculture, much to the delight of the like of Lloyd Bensten and George Soros. Just keep spending and they'll own you.
Ah, hubris, you blow about our might whilst our manufacturing base is gone, while Ford and GM teeter on the brink, while our software industry is being exported, and meanwhile we are slowly being invaded via our open borders. Not much longer and we won't be able to afford to borrow the money to protect ourselves much less everybody else.
Amid all your puffery, you fail to recognize that our debt is no longer so marketable, especially with the low rates it currently carries against exchange rate inflation. Consider that those who hold that debt abroad just got shafted by the depreciation of the dollar by 20%. How many times do you think we can play that game and they'll line up to buy the notes?
Perhaps you should change your most apt screen name to Nately.
While it may have been used for unintended purposes and illegitimately in some cases, all it was designed to do was to put a stop to the Reign of Terror by the defeated Slavers and the political disenfranchisement of the newly freed slaves.
Quaint of you to mention the Reign of Terror, it's the same Malthusian crowd that is sponsoring world federalism. There were a number of options available to the national government to end slavery besides war, some were cheaper too.
Protection of those unalienable rights was exactly why the 14th was passed but apparently the "rights" of the Blacks are unimportant to you.
Nonsense. That was the public story. It was to get us out of dire financial straits by encouraging investment from European banking houses that had funded both sides in the Civil War.
The latter part of the paragraph above is direct (and quite shrill) ad hominem. Any more and I'll file a complaint.
No one who passed the constitution believed it could protect the citizenry from people like Clinton. Hamilton repeatedly warned of the dangers of demagogues and those who pandered to the least common denominator like Jefferson and William Jefferson.
So say the craven Federalists, those who believe, 'it will work as long as we are in charge.' Well you weren't in charge when we got the New Deal. You weren't in charge when we got the Great Society. You weren't in charge when we got Bubba. That's why we were supposed to have limited government. Your pronouncements suggest that it wasn't limited enough.
There were a number of little openings in the Constitution that should have never been there that your hero, Mr. Hamilton, would never have allowed had he not been either complicit or incompetent. A particular example is the current wording of Article VI, Clause 2, for which there's no excuse.
Remember also how it was Hamilton et al. who resisted the adoption of the Bill of Rights, arguing that they were unnecessary. I ask you, do you really think that the national government would be less intrusive without those ten amendments? Every statement you have offered alienates government from the people, as if they were two separate entities and not a government OF and BY the people. So it's no wonder you flippantly discount concern about the destruction of the Fourth Amendment.
I am quite comfortable with a government actually taking steps to remove our enemies, disrupt their networks and destroy them. It must be done. Those who fight against the United States have never received protection from our government to do so. You'd better do a little more research as to our wartime history before making such ridiculous leaps of "logic."
I have no doubt that you are comfortable with more Federal intrusion, and will so remain until long after it turns on you. It will, count on it. I suggest therapy, now.
No, in total denial, you remain comfortable, while we build an ever more monumental and unaccountable Department of Homeland Security, one in charge of regulating personal transportation! In contrast to the Federal model and its structural incapacity to deal with a war within our borders, this war is particularly suited to the national militia model, as anticipated by the founders. Were we not relying upon a professional Border Patrol and INS, I assure you that control of illegal entrants could be much more efficiently handled, if only because the bureaucrats would not be getting in the way.
You seem to have swallowed quite a load of leftist distortion if you claim that our armies are protecting oil for private companies.
Do you always argue by putting words in people's mouths? I'm not speaking to this war but the thirty years of policy that led to it. We would not consider the Middle East to be of strategic importance without oil. Without regulatory power, we would not be importing enough energy to have funded our enemies. To rely upon critical foreign resources socializes the risk associated with acquisition, a concept that I am certain escapes you.
Maybe you could tell me of even one country were we have troops protecting American oil companies property?
Pathetic. Did you learn that strawman trick from Hamilton?