Eisenhower's Interstate Highway Funding was done under the auspices of National Defense, and since weapons, military hardware and troops need to be transported, it was a legitimate expense and was NOT wealth re-distribution.
That it is a "legitimate expense" has no bearing on whether or not it is or is not "wealth redistribution". It clearly WAS and continues to be "wealth redistribution". It brings services, infrastructure and other funding (First responder, hospital funding) to parts of the nation that lack the wealth to provide those for themselves. for example much of South Carolinas 911 response service and rural hospitals are funded by the National Highway Transportation Act.
That's the point, Blue States fund Red States in this. It IS "wealth redistribution" regardless of whether you consider that redistribution a valid or invalid aspect of government spending
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
And although I don't approve of the the automaker bailouts, that bailout actually penalized the investors that held GM bonds,
Actually that is simply Factually FALSE. In point of fact it was the GM Bondholders that FORCED the bankruptcy. The WH did not want a bankruptcy. They wanted to work out a settlement and offered MORE money than the bondholders got in bankruptcy.
But here's the gotcha. Because the Unregulated Credit Default Swaps at AIG had been "made whole" -the major GM Bondholders may have gotten less than the Obama offer in forcing the bankruptcy, you also have to add in the CDSes they got to cash in. As a result the major GM Bondholders DID BETTER by forcining bankruptcy than by taking Obama's offer.
FACTS MATTER SS
and on this one you are outright, FACTUALLY WRONG
Youre definition of "essential" is meaningless. The spending is not Unconstititional even by the statements of the Founding Fathers. And it is 100% "essential" in a modern economy. Nations that follow the standards you suggest simply aren not economically very efficient or successful
The actual document which was signed SPECIFICALLY outlines what is within the purview of FEDERAL authority in Article One, Section Eight
All other authorities NOT SPECIFICALLY granted to the FEDERAL government are the authorities of the individual states, and cannot be USURPED by the FEDERAL government.
Well not quite. Because Am 14 changes all that.
But even under Article 1 Section 8 Para 1... here's what Alexander Hamilton wrote shortly after the 10th Amendment was ratified:
The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and prope
Now whether you like it or not, that is one of the "Founding Fathers" telling you that your claims about what are "essential functions" of government, is just something you made up in a fervent imagination.
The dimwit in the White House has just proposed a budget which will result in our national debt growing to 24 trillion dollars in 10 years, and he's calling it a spending cut.
Yes and? You are engaged in the innumeracy of big numbers. What is the projectd GDP in 10 years?
And how long does the USA have to pay off that debt???
But the civil society will have collapsed long before then, as the interest on the debt will consume so much federal revenue,
Really? Based on what math?
Current GDP is around $15 Trillion. Historic average growt rates have been 3.2%. Under GOP administrations it has been about 22% below that. at 2.6% So lets take the worse case scenario of 2.6% growth. Compounded annually over 10 years that's 29.3% growth. Which puts GDP at $19.5 Trillion.
$24 Trillion - $19.5 trillion is 4.5 Trillion. Or a debt to GDP ratio of 123%.... well below the worst case numbers the USA has experienced.
MATH MATTERS
(btw if we use historic AVG growth rate its 117%).
Or put it another way. The amount of debt that exceeds the GDP is LESS THAN what Obama inheritted coming into office (9 trillion).
FACTS MATTER
It is time to cut the Federal Government back to its Constitutional limits IMMEDIATELY
Um sorry, it already is there. You cannot point to a single program that is not Constitutional. NOT ONE (except perhaps Gitmo and the PATRIOT Act).
