tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1244112741307446818.post7073059436557051977..comments2024-03-24T03:03:25.128-04:00Comments on mike-istan: A stimulus NowUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1244112741307446818.post-28231121099927017802009-02-21T15:40:00.000-05:002009-02-21T15:40:00.000-05:00Mike, I love that you named and defined a fallicou...Mike, I love that you named and defined a fallicous argument on your blog. Logical thinking and retoric have been dying ever since they stopped teaching it in school. But I guess that goes with not teaching people to think independently too. <BR/><BR/>Keep up the good fight.aepilot_jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11854001889452895184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1244112741307446818.post-91414493858659064162009-02-21T01:37:00.000-05:002009-02-21T01:37:00.000-05:00Good stuff, Mike!"It seems as though you're upset ...Good stuff, Mike!<BR/><BR/>"It seems as though you're upset with at least the last 100 years of US govt policy." Yes--yes we are. Very much so. Perpetual deficits are just not sustainable, any more so than an ever-increasing credit card bill.<BR/><BR/>But borrowing several terabucks per year is merely a bad idea, not an unconstitutional one. "To borrow money on the credit of the United States;" is indeed one of the explicitly enumerated powers of congress listed in Article I.8. And I thought this was ironically funny: amendment 14, section 4 begins with "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in<BR/>suppressing insurrection or rebellion, <I>shall not be questioned</I>."<BR/><BR/>Recall this was voted in *after* the 1st amendment, which means a supremo shyster lawyer might be able to claim that our <B>questioning</B> the ever-more ridiculous magnitude of the public debt is itself unconstitutional!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com