The Irresponsible Generation

On Dec 1, 8:32 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 8:58 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 8:17 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> > > Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >No one is to blame for not fixing something broken for (according to you) over 70 years.
>
> > > Correct (even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, so you have a
> > > ways to go to equal an inert object). Blame is not a useful concept
> > > in such matters.
>
> > So...what was this response of yours, if no one is to blame...
>
> > My comment: "Later, they had no money to retire on...whose fault is
> > it...their kids?"
>
> > Your reply:
> > "The people who made the laws - social security was created the way it
> > is back in the 1930s, long before the Boomers were born. And then
> > social security benefits were massively expanded (without sufficient
> > change on the income side of the balance sheet) at the instigation of
> > one Richard Milhous Nixon, while I was still in college (I actually
> > was barely old enough to vote by then, but >I< certainly didn't vote
> > for Nixon.
>
> > "Now one could argue that we've had more than 30 years to fix the
> > problem, but in point of fact, Congress and the President have been
> > from the generation *before* the baby boom, until the current turkey.
> > And large as it is, the Baby Boom has never been and will never be a
> > majority of the electorate, so it isn't even legit to blame any single
> > generation for not doing something about social security. Even today,
> > the main reason social security isn't getting reformed is that the
> > pre-boomers who are close to retirement or actually retired have too
> > much voting power to allow us to elect people willing to cut benefits
> > as part of the solution.
>
> > "Of course, brats like you who like to blame others rather than taking
> > your own share of the responsibility are also partly to blame. You are
> > as responsible for fixing social security as I am, and you should be
> > more concerned, since given most projections, I would have to survive
> > until age 90 before social security runs out of money.
>
> > "You wanna claim someone is irresponsible. "Let he who is without sin
> > cast the first stone". "
>
> > Kenneth Clifton
> > christiansuperhero.com
>
> well?
>
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com

well?

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 30, 6:01 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj... RemoveThis @lojban.org> wrote:
>> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't know where to begin.
>>
>> You don't know anything.
>>
>> >I'm not sure there is a single statement you just made, there, that is correct.
>>
>> That is because you are ignorant.
>>
>> >An impeachment would follow the statement, not stop it.
>>
>> Duh. Firing the teacher would follow the statement too. There is
>> nothing other than the threat of losing job or going to court to stop
>> a teacher.
>
>And...I'm not the one who said impeachment would stop the statement. I
>guess you are changing your mind, again.

You again show that you cannot read:
<Presidents can be stopped by impeachment, if Congress had the will to
<do so. Otherwise presidential powers are set forth in the
<Constitution. Teachers are not mentioned in the Constitution.

I clearly said nothing about stopping statements. I mentioned
stopping Presidents.

>> >Presidential powers are not only in the Constitution.
>>
>> Any power that is not granted in the Constitution is obviously NOT
>> Constitutional.
>>
>> >Teachers are part of the general welfare of the people
>>
>> Not according to any court case I know of.
>
>Direct logic contradiction above. You claim the President cannot be
>the government outside of the explicit words in the Constitution

Again that is not what I claim. You have an uncanny ability to
misread ***everything*** said to you.

(And you think your Bible interpretations have any credibility, when
you cannot understand anything said to you in modern language).

My words were:
>> Any power that is not granted in the Constitution is obviously NOT
>> Constitutional.

That applies to everything, not just the President. I did NOT mention
the word "explicit" however. There are implicit powers.

However, there are two cute little amendments that are part of the
constitution that carry a lot of weight

<Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
<
<The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
< construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which says that the people have rights above and beyond those in the
Constitution.

<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<
<Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
<
<The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
< prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
< respectively, or to the people.

Which says among other things that states can do damned near anything
they want, if the people permit the states to do so, and the
constitution doesn't forbid it. Thus, under the 10th, until the 14th
amendment, some state governments could constitutionally arrest you
for your speech, or shut down a newspaper. And such things were in
fact done.


>but
>claim schools are the government NOT being explicitly in the
>Constitution.

But they ARE effectively in the constitution under the 10th amendment.
States have the power to set up education systems, if the people want
them to, and that is the case in all states.

The Federal government has the power to set up schools in DC and in US
territories and in support of the military outside the US.

>> >And, Presidents are Executives of the state 24/7.
>>
>> No more than any CEO or salaryman is. They are not always acting in
>> their official capacity. Georgie humping Laura does not have to be
>> authorized by the Constitution or by Congress.
>
>Do you even understand the balance of powers or separation of powers
>of the branches of the government?

Yes. How is it relevant?

The President has some explicit powers granted in the Constitution.
He gains some implicit powers as needed to carry out those explicit
powers. However, most of his powers come from explicit grants of
authority by the Congress called "laws", since one of the Presidential
powers is to execute the laws of the United States.

But of course that means that if Congress does NOT pass a law, then
the President usually has no Constitutional power to act. This
doesn't STOP him from acting. The courts can impose orders to try to
stop him, and the Congress can impeach and remove him to stop any
further action beyond what is permitted of any citizen. But the
actions might still be unconstitutional even if they are not
prevented.

>> >why their words (all of them) are saved up in archives
>>
>> Oh, please - point me to the archive which will let all of us citizens
>> see what Georgie tells Laura in bed.
>>
>> Tell us why some of Nixon's tapes in the oval office were redacted.
>> Not even in the Oval Office, is the President always acting
>> "official".
>
>Ironic that you refer to Nixon, whose "off the job" comments and
>actions were impeachable.

Please cite the Nixon article(s) of impeachment which refer to any
"off the job" comments and actions.

(Of course, off the job actions ARE impeachable if Congress says that
they are. Nothing in the constitution says that impeachment is
limited only to high crimes and misdemeanors committed "on the job".
Indeed, I strongly suspect that a President could be impeached for an
action taken before he was elected President.)

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>You MUST be right, Bob.

Of course I am.

>The New York Times, the UN, the Democrats, and Hillary Clinton reject

I have no idea what they "reject".

You made claims about what ALL "liberals" support. And you made
specific claims about what Hillary supports.

It is not the case that one supports anything that one does not
explicitly reject, nor that one rejects anything that one does not
explicitly support. Thus your statement is yet another one that YOU
have failed to support.

>abortion as a means of controlling the
>population they quote (apparently a term they didn't invent).

I have no idea what you mean by that, and I probably don't care.

As far as I know, the perils of overpopulation and the need to control
its growth were first addressed by Malthus, who was a minister.

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You MUST be right, Bob.

Of course I am.

>People are just as likely to horde their money for their kids, today, as they used to be

They didn't "used to" horde their money for their kids - at least not
usually. Back when the nation was mostly rural, they might pass their
land on to their kids (though this was done while they were still
alive as often as not). But not all that many people had accumulated
money.

>(refusing to pay taxes to help the government out of their wealth).

What does that have to do with the topic? In any event, nothing on
this subject is in evidence one way or another.

>Right? (I'll tell you what....those capital gains and retirement income taxes on George
>Washington must have been a real pain.)

George did have some problems with taxes, but they were earlier in
life, and he went to war over them.

Most of George's wealth was in his land and his slaves, though he did
have a few investments, including some granted by the government.

For those who care, here is George's will. He was quite wealthy by
then standards, but wasn't even a millionaire.
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/will/text.html
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/will/property.html
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/will/slavelist.html

Of course, very few people had George's wealth.

Now TJ had negative wealth at his death:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjtime3d.html
<1827
<January 27. Monticello, its furnishings, and Jefferson's slaves are
< sold in an executor's sale. One hundred and thirty slaves are sold at
< auction. During his lifetime Jefferson distributed substantial
< property to his heirs; however, he died more than $100,000 in debt.

This looks interesting and relevant, though I haven't checked the
links and the Salon article cited. The page indicates the belief that
Adam Smith and TJ among others would have approved of estate taxes.
http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2006/06/teddy-roosevelt-adam-smith-on.html
<Adam Smith taught the students who attended his jurisprudential
< lectures that "there is no point more difficult to account for than
< the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after
< death." He thought inheritance was clearly justified only when it was
< necessary to provide for dependent children.
<Among those who attended Smith's lectures was the historian and jurist
< John Millar, who supported a change in the inheritance laws such that
< wills would be enforced only for a limited part of a person's
< property. Millar saw this as entirely compatible with a respect for
< property rights. He was joined in this, as in his enthusiasm for
< Smith, by Tom Paine.
<And Thomas Jefferson, who described "The Wealth of Nations" as "the
< best book extant" on political economy, famously wondered at about
< the same time whether all hereditary privileges should be abolished
< since "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." He could have
< been quoting Smith with those words: It is "the most absurd of all
< suppositions," said Smith, "that every successive generation of men
< have not an equal right to the earth."

So do you support a 100% estate tax above and beyond what is needed to
support dependents?

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 07:27:45 -0800 (PST), Wide Eyed in Wonder
<kands00.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 1, 8:32 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 8:58 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> well?
>
>well?

That's a deep subject.

I think you need some sort of Timothy Sutter superpowers.

FNC, or at least his level of maturity
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 30, 8:58 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 8:17 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj... RemoveThis @lojban.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >No one is to blame for not fixing something broken for (according to you) over 70 years.
>>
>> > Correct (even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, so you have a
>> > ways to go to equal an inert object). Blame is not a useful concept
>> > in such matters.
>>
>> So...what was this response of yours, if no one is to blame...
>>
>> My comment: "Later, they had no money to retire on...whose fault is
>> it...their kids?"
>>
>> Your reply:
>> "The people who made the laws - social security was created the way it
>> is back in the 1930s, long before the Boomers were born. And then
>> social security benefits were massively expanded (without sufficient
>> change on the income side of the balance sheet) at the instigation of
>> one Richard Milhous Nixon, while I was still in college (I actually
>> was barely old enough to vote by then, but >I< certainly didn't vote
>> for Nixon.
>>
>> "Now one could argue that we've had more than 30 years to fix the
>> problem, but in point of fact, Congress and the President have been
>> from the generation *before* the baby boom, until the current turkey.
>> And large as it is, the Baby Boom has never been and will never be a
>> majority of the electorate, so it isn't even legit to blame any single
>> generation for not doing something about social security. Even today,
>> the main reason social security isn't getting reformed is that the
>> pre-boomers who are close to retirement or actually retired have too
>> much voting power to allow us to elect people willing to cut benefits
>> as part of the solution.
>>
>> "Of course, brats like you who like to blame others rather than taking
>> your own share of the responsibility are also partly to blame. You are
>> as responsible for fixing social security as I am, and you should be
>> more concerned, since given most projections, I would have to survive
>> until age 90 before social security runs out of money.
>>
>> "You wanna claim someone is irresponsible. "Let he who is without sin
>> cast the first stone". "
>>
>> Kenneth Clifton
>> christiansuperhero.com
>
>well?

As I've said before - that is a deep question, and you'd be in over
your head.

You have my reply.

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>> well?
>>
>> Kenneth Clifton
>> christiansuperhero.com
>
>well?
>
>Kenneth Clifton
>christiansuperhero.com

An hour and a half after the prior post! How could I be so sinful as
to not be at my computer answering you the moment you post your raving
idiocies?

Repeatedly asking that deep question that would be over your head will
not get you a different answer.

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 1, 8:16 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
>> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 30, 6:01 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
>> >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >An impeachment would follow the statement, not stop it.
>>
>> >> Duh. Firing the teacher would follow the statement too. There is
>> >> nothing other than the threat of losing job or going to court to stop
>> >> a teacher.
>>
>> >And...I'm not the one who said impeachment would stop the statement. I
>> >guess you are changing your mind, again.
>>
>> You again show that you cannot read:
>> <Presidents can be stopped by impeachment, if Congress had the will to
>> <do so. Otherwise presidential powers are set forth in the
>> <Constitution. Teachers are not mentioned in the Constitution.
>>
>> I clearly said nothing about stopping statements. I mentioned
>> stopping Presidents.
>
>This quote of yours validates both this point and the point below that
>I made...
>
>My words in this thread: "The Presidents (both parties) can speak
>religion in official speeches and documents but teachers cannot?"
>
>Your response: "Presidents can be stopped by impeachment, if Congress
>had the will to do so. Otherwise presidential powers are set forth in
>the Constitution. Teachers are not mentioned in the Constitution."
>
>Care to retract your claim that you didn't give impeachment as a means
>to stop statements?

No.

>> >but
>> >claim schools are the government NOT being explicitly in the
>> >Constitution.
>>
>> But they ARE effectively in the constitution under the 10th amendment.
>> States have the power to set up education systems, if the people want
>> them to, and that is the case in all states.
>>
>> The Federal government has the power to set up schools in DC and in US
>> territories and in support of the military outside the US.
>
>Above, you claim teachers are not mentioned in the constitution.

They aren't.

>Here, you claim they are in the 10th amendment.

No. I do not.

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>How dare he not pay for the social security of others....oh, wait..it
>didn't exist, then.

You are free to go to some other country that does not provide social
security. We won't miss you.

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

On Dec 1, 11:43 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj....DeleteThis@lojban.org> wrote:
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> well?
>
> >> Kenneth Clifton
> >> christiansuperhero.com
>
> >well?
>
> >Kenneth Clifton
> >christiansuperhero.com
>
> An hour and a half after the prior post! How could I be so sinful as
> to not be at my computer answering you the moment you post your raving
> idiocies?
>
> Repeatedly asking that deep question that would be over your head will
> not get you a different answer.
>
> lojbab

Try a day and a half.

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

On Dec 1, 11:41 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj....RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote:
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 30, 8:58 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 30, 8:17 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj....RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> >> > Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >No one is to blame for not fixing something broken for (according to you) over 70 years.
>
> >> > Correct (even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, so you have a
> >> > ways to go to equal an inert object). Blame is not a useful concept
> >> > in such matters.
>
> >> So...what was this response of yours, if no one is to blame...
>
> >> My comment: "Later, they had no money to retire on...whose fault is
> >> it...their kids?"
>
> >> Your reply:
> >> "The people who made the laws - social security was created the way it
> >> is back in the 1930s, long before the Boomers were born. And then
> >> social security benefits were massively expanded (without sufficient
> >> change on the income side of the balance sheet) at the instigation of
> >> one Richard Milhous Nixon, while I was still in college (I actually
> >> was barely old enough to vote by then, but >I< certainly didn't vote
> >> for Nixon.
>
> >> "Now one could argue that we've had more than 30 years to fix the
> >> problem, but in point of fact, Congress and the President have been
> >> from the generation *before* the baby boom, until the current turkey.
> >> And large as it is, the Baby Boom has never been and will never be a
> >> majority of the electorate, so it isn't even legit to blame any single
> >> generation for not doing something about social security. Even today,
> >> the main reason social security isn't getting reformed is that the
> >> pre-boomers who are close to retirement or actually retired have too
> >> much voting power to allow us to elect people willing to cut benefits
> >> as part of the solution.
>
> >> "Of course, brats like you who like to blame others rather than taking
> >> your own share of the responsibility are also partly to blame. You are
> >> as responsible for fixing social security as I am, and you should be
> >> more concerned, since given most projections, I would have to survive
> >> until age 90 before social security runs out of money.
>
> >> "You wanna claim someone is irresponsible. "Let he who is without sin
> >> cast the first stone". "
>
> >> Kenneth Clifton
> >> christiansuperhero.com
>
> >well?
>
> As I've said before - that is a deep question, and you'd be in over
> your head.
>
> You have my reply.
>
> lojbab

Come on, Bob. Don't chicken out, now...you said no one should blame
right after blaming a whole list of people...right?

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

On Dec 1, 11:46 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj....RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote:
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 1, 8:16 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj....RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 30, 6:01 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >An impeachment would follow the statement, not stop it.
>
> >> >> Duh. Firing the teacher would follow the statement too. There is
> >> >> nothing other than the threat of losing job or going to court to stop
> >> >> a teacher.
>
> >> >And...I'm not the one who said impeachment would stop the statement. I
> >> >guess you are changing your mind, again.
>
> >> You again show that you cannot read:
> >> <Presidents can be stopped by impeachment, if Congress had the will to
> >> <do so. Otherwise presidential powers are set forth in the
> >> <Constitution. Teachers are not mentioned in the Constitution.
>
> >> I clearly said nothing about stopping statements. I mentioned
> >> stopping Presidents.
>
> >This quote of yours validates both this point and the point below that
> >I made...
>
> >My words in this thread: "The Presidents (both parties) can speak
> >religion in official speeches and documents but teachers cannot?"
>
> >Your response: "Presidents can be stopped by impeachment, if Congress
> >had the will to do so. Otherwise presidential powers are set forth in
> >the Constitution. Teachers are not mentioned in the Constitution."
>
> >Care to retract your claim that you didn't give impeachment as a means
> >to stop statements?
>
> No.

You clearly gave it as a means of stopping the statements...then,
changed your mind and said it doesn't stop the statements, and all you
can say is "no."

>
> >> >but
> >> >claim schools are the government NOT being explicitly in the
> >> >Constitution.
>
> >> But they ARE effectively in the constitution under the 10th amendment.
> >> States have the power to set up education systems, if the people want
> >> them to, and that is the case in all states.
>
> >> The Federal government has the power to set up schools in DC and in US
> >> territories and in support of the military outside the US.
>
> >Above, you claim teachers are not mentioned in the constitution.
>
> They aren't.
>
> >Here, you claim they are in the 10th amendment.
>
> No. I do not.
>
> lojbab

Your words...
"But they ARE effectively in the constitution under the 10th
amendment"

Want to try again?

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

On Dec 1, 11:47 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj... DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote:
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >How dare he not pay for the social security of others....oh, wait..it
> >didn't exist, then.
>
> You are free to go to some other country that does not provide social
> security. We won't miss you.
>
> lojbab

And that has to do with your claim that the same percentage saved up
for their kids in the past and the present (regardless of the creation
of Social Security)...how, exactly?

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation