Posted on 05/07/2015 8:41:37 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
New York real estate mogul Donald Trump said Thursday that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) could not prevent funding cuts to entitlement programs if elected president in 2016.
“Huckabee is a nice guy but will never be able to bring in the funds so as not to cut Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid,” Trump tweeted. “I will.”
Trump, a possible 2016 GOP presidential candidate, also argued Huckabee was stealing his potential campaign ideas.
“Huckabee copied me,” Trump wrote. “I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid.” Trump has not yet publicly decided on an Oval Office bid. He vowed on Thursday that, should he run, he would thoroughly test other Republicans over their White House credentials.
“If I run, I will be in all the primary debates, and you will see why I am the only one who can make American great again,” Trump posted.
Huckabee formally launched his 2016 campaign on Tuesday in his hometown of Hope, Ark. The former governor is running on a platform of social conservatism and blue-collar economics.
“Like a lot of Americans, I grew up in a small town that was far removed from the money, the power and the influence that runs this country,” he said.
“We’ve lost our way morally. We’ve witnessed the slaughter of over 55 million babies in the name of choice, and we’re now threatening the foundation of religious liberty by criminalizing Christianity and demanding we abandon biblical principles in natural marriage,” the former Baptist minister added to a cheering crowd of supporters.
Huckabee's followed two more entrants into the 2016 GOP field on Monday.
Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson each took first steps on the campaign trail the day before.
Republican Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) have all also started campaign operations.
Understood and thanks for the prompt response. Then your man for POTUS is?
Don’t see one that I can support as yet.
I’ll change in a heartbeat if one better than Senator Cruz or Governor Palin comes along. I have no loyalty to any individual politician and see them merely as servants of We the People. I’m as pragmatic when it comes to politicians as I am for my choice for laundry detergent. Whatever does the best job of getting the dirt out gets my purchase...or, in this case, my vote.
He votes to fund them, doesn’t he?
Huckabee is a jerk pretending to NOT be a jerk! Why can’t a super majority of voters see through Huckabee’s ongoing deceptions?
It really p!sses me off when someone refers to social security and medicare as an ‘entitlement’. How is it an entitlement when the government has stolen this money out of my paycheck for the last 40 years? If I’m lucky enough to live to the appointed age, I might get some of it back but I could have done more with the money if I had been allowed to keep it.
So which ones do you think he should vote against?
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-- James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution
In my opinion Ted Cruz needs to come out strongly for American companies right here.
He needs to make American jobs a big priority of his.
I would be 100% in his camp, if he were to lead us back to buying American, and hiring Americans.
He supports so much which is very good. Ted Cruz I am completely ready to vote for you.
Just support American jobs. Be for America, actively returning jobs right here.
Be for our own government, protecting our own jobs.
Be for our own government, advocating on behalf of individual Americans.
Not foreign companies, or even American companies in foreign countries.
American companies.
Trump, you are FIRED!
That conflicts with his declaration to increase H-1B visa’s five fold.
Trump is not a joke.
He may have aspects to him, and his lifestyle which some people find humorous.
But he seems to be, the only potential candidate so far, who is saying America needs to bring back jobs to America.
That alone, is enough for me to support the guy strongly.
Because government lied to you. You were given the impression your money was being invested. Instead they spent it, all of it and more. It is called FICA TAX. When you pay tax, it is not entitlement.
Chile in south America has true entitlement retirement program. Chileans have majority of their money invested in private investments such as stocks and bonds. The gov’t manages the investment and each citizen has an account in the system.
Our system is a Ponzi scheme, where current workers pay for retirees.
Great. That happens how?
Either there is a government mandate in the form of tariffs, penalties for those who offshore, or incentives to those who onshore/repatriate....or the market does that by itself.
If the government is involved, then that involvement will be completely gamed by a new class of lobbying effort. Insiders will seek and achieve exemptions for themselves. Also, should any such incentives or penalties be imposed, then all businesses operating in the US will immediately be divided into two classes: Those who are already offshore and those who are not. Beneficial?
Or, the government could become involved by creating incentives to onshore. Right now, today, there is a great deal of support for tax relaxation against those companies now earning revenues offshore to repatriate some of those profits. Most people believe this would be tremendously beneficial, permitting all manner of expansion and investment domestically.
You know what that would take? One freaking IRS regulation change.
You see it getting done?
There is no flaming way on earth that companies can be induced to return their labor forces to the US if they are already offshore, unless and until the natural market starts to encourage it.
The government has incentive to do anything for business other than to extract as much tribute (money) from same as it possibly can. Government wants to develop threats to business and have individual businesses scramble to pay to exempt itself, typically by paying campaign contributions to the sponsors of such legislation. At the same time, whatever liberal elements in the government will never agree to anything they believe would impinge upon tax revenues. So there will be no tax relief from this until government can figure out a way to game the process.
So Mr. Trump can speak to such high ideals all he wants. Utterly nothing will get done. Both parties, as we see, are fanatically dedicated to bringing infinite immigration to the US so that wages will be crushed as far as the eye can see. This may be your single issue but it is utterly barren of being realized in the way you wish.
Although I question the motives of FDR era justices, these justices had evidently made the same mistake in interpreting the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause (GWC; 1.8.1) in deciding the constitutionality of Social Security that the 14th Congress had made in trying to use the GWC to justify its federal public works bill.
More specifically, President Madison, generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had vetoed Congress’s bill to build roads and canals which Congress had used its “specific power” of the GWC to justify. But as Madison had put it, the problem with Congress using the GWC to justify building roads and canals is that the GWC as not intended to be interpreted as a delegation of specific power to Congress.
"To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.” —President James Madison, Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1787.
So based on Madison’s words, the GWC is nothing more than an introductory clause for the clauses which follow it in Section 8 which do enumerate specific powers.
Also note that both the FDR era 74th Congress which wrongly passed the bill that established Social Security without constitutional justification, and the 111th Congress which likewise wrongly passed Obamacare without justification, had also wrongly ignored the option to lead Congress to propose appropriate amendments to Constitution to the states to establish such spending programs. And if the states had chosen to ratify such amendments then Congress would have the constitutional authority that it needs to establish these programs.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and a bunch of corrupt senators along with it.
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.