Michigan Votes Forum

stop doing jobs that the government isn't supposed to be doing.

stop taxing for things the government isn't supposed to be doing.

spend less on doing things the government isn't supposed to be doing.

The discussion would be what one feels the government should or should not be doing.

 exactly. especially not doing.

do less.....corporate welfare

tax less...........of the middle class, more of the super wealthy

spend less................on uneeded wars

 do less welfare. providing welfare does not promote welfare.

tax everyone less. don't hate those that have more. work to get more.

spend less. do the things government must do. nothing else.

I take it we agree on less corporate welfare, the way your slogan reads.

Why would you assume I hate the wealthy. It's basic fairness to tax those who have gained most from the system at a higher rate. Even Warren Buffett agrees with that.

I also take it we agree on spending less. We might not agree on what government must do.

 because you want to tax the wealthy more, not equally.

the constitution limits what a government must and must not do. do nothing else.

The constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court, as was the intent of the Founders.

 you act as if it has no bearing on our government. it usually requires no interpretation. rights are enumerated. government restrictions are clear. what part do you need interpreted?

The Founders must have thought it would need interpretation, or they wouldn't have added the Judicial branch of government, and given them the responsibility to decide laws arising under the constitution.

That's described in Article III, section 2 of the constitution.

 they do have the power to decide laws. whether or not those laws are constitutional.

Exactly. That would require interpreting the meaning of the constitution. The recent ruling on the second amendment is a good example.

 which they have done. by rights there should be scarce little for the supreme court to do if the legislators do not stray from the writings in the constitution.

But as you indicate from your opinions, everyone, including legislators, have differing views on what the constitution says. Hence, a branch of government is needed to decide.

 the limitations of power are clear. those who have overstepped that authority are applauded by the left, and vilified by the right. the supreme court does nothing about the writer of the bad law, only negates the bad law. writing laws with no constitutional support is writing bad law.

 writing law that takes from one group to give to another group is writing bad law. writing law that removes rights from citizens is writing bad law.

Writing law that satisfies the constituents who elected the legislator is bad law to those who don't agree, and good law to those who do. Nevertheless, It must pass the test of constitutionality.

 laws that 'prefer' one group over another group are tyranny. the only 'winners' there are the 'preferred' group. laws are meant to be equally applied to all citizens. if they cannot, they are bad law.

No law will please everyone.

I agree laws are meant to be equally applied to everyone.

 no legislator needs to write bad law. no citizen deserves to be saddled with bad law. if a law only applies to a small group, it is bad law.

Too many generalities.

 such as?

No legislator, bad law, no citizen, small group.

 there have been over a thousand 'bad laws' written so far in this session alone, as evidenced by the fact that only one passed. do you hire representatives to write bad law? i certainly don't.

Have you ever considered that it might be a good thing that not all laws that are proposed are passed? Personally, I like the fact that only one law passed out of a thousand, if that is the case.

 i would prefer that no bad law gets passed. writing bad law for the sake of 'looking busy' is not why the people elected our representatives.

I would prefer that all apples be red and round, and bees give up their honey without a fuss. But alas, that is not the case.

 i prefer my apples crisp and tart. and bees do give up their honey without a fuss. but it pays to have adequate protection in case your honey gathering technique is faulty. that is called being prepared. this state is not prepared to make the kinds of budget cuts that will be required without incurring the ire of the bunch of people who are standing by with their hands out.

This state includes all of it's citizens, and agreeing that budget cuts must be made, we need to listen to everyone.

 including those who will not give up their government checks, no matter what?

Including those who are receiving government aid, yes. Would you have us disenfranchise them?

 no, we should not be giving them a part of our tax money. once you give a portion of the citizenry a slice of the treasury, they will always vote to keep getting that slice of the treasury. their goal is monetary gain, not justice. the united states government is not a charity. charity is the work of the church. there is, according to some, to be a separation of church and state. this particular function of government of granting a slice of the treasury to a 'chosen few' should stop immediately.

no citizen has a franchise on our tax money.

In order for this government to work, we can't have people starving and homeless. To say their only goal is monetary gain is fantasy. Who would choose to be hungry and homeless?

 those who choose to recieve government checks. before we gave out welfare, homelessness was much lower. welfare has not eliminated, or even reduced homelessness, it has, apparently, increased it. there are many more homeless now than during the 'great depression'.

Please. There are many more people now than during the great depression.

 yes, there are many less unemployed, but many more homeless. curing neither is the role of government.

Prove both of those statements.