<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bachmann surprises Beck with stat on government piece of economy pie</title>
	<atom:link href="http://minnesotaindependent.com/47102/bachmann-beck-boyes-government-gdp/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/47102/bachmann-beck-boyes-government-gdp</link>
	<description>News. Politics. Media.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 23:48:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: VinceP1974</title>
		<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/47102/bachmann-beck-boyes-government-gdp/comment-page-1#comment-42360</link>
		<dc:creator>VinceP1974</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:30:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=47102#comment-42360</guid>
		<description>Ron is spot on.

The specific areas where Congress was intended to have legitmatacy are the Enumerated Powers.  Clauses like the general welfare clause are not expansions to those powers but merely provide a context that those powers should be used under.

The Framers established a Limited Restrained Federal Govt. They did not go through the bother of listing the Enumerated Powers and then add wide-open do-whatever-you-want catch-alls.

A reason this Govt had to be restrained in what it could do nationwide was because the people in the various regions and States would have refused to join the Union if this Federal Govt was going to impose things on them theydid not want.

The limited Govt allowed there to be a very large country, where the peolpe would live in harmony with one another because the rule making (and the mistake making) would be locally-caused and locally able to be fixed.

The Federalization of welfare was not only illegal it&#039;s also what is bankrupting this country and it wasn&#039;t necessary.

And now this Congress and President are going to add even more to it.

The Federal Govt&#039;s tax authority was limited for only expeditures of the State.. not for redistribution.

The 5th Amendment forbids the seizure of private property for public use without compensation.

Many of us are done with this. We&#039;ve had enough.  No more.

When the dollar collapses, the world as you know it will never be the same. 

Some people are able to see this risk and are fighting to prevent it.

Others seem to either absolutely not care because of thier selfish emotional problems or seem to want it to happen.

So go ahead and attack Bachmann.. Quibble over the percentage that the Fascist Govt now controls ..  

This arrogant society is about to take a fall , remember that when it happens you were the ones that enabled it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ron is spot on.</p>
<p>The specific areas where Congress was intended to have legitmatacy are the Enumerated Powers.  Clauses like the general welfare clause are not expansions to those powers but merely provide a context that those powers should be used under.</p>
<p>The Framers established a Limited Restrained Federal Govt. They did not go through the bother of listing the Enumerated Powers and then add wide-open do-whatever-you-want catch-alls.</p>
<p>A reason this Govt had to be restrained in what it could do nationwide was because the people in the various regions and States would have refused to join the Union if this Federal Govt was going to impose things on them theydid not want.</p>
<p>The limited Govt allowed there to be a very large country, where the peolpe would live in harmony with one another because the rule making (and the mistake making) would be locally-caused and locally able to be fixed.</p>
<p>The Federalization of welfare was not only illegal it&#8217;s also what is bankrupting this country and it wasn&#8217;t necessary.</p>
<p>And now this Congress and President are going to add even more to it.</p>
<p>The Federal Govt&#8217;s tax authority was limited for only expeditures of the State.. not for redistribution.</p>
<p>The 5th Amendment forbids the seizure of private property for public use without compensation.</p>
<p>Many of us are done with this. We&#8217;ve had enough.  No more.</p>
<p>When the dollar collapses, the world as you know it will never be the same. </p>
<p>Some people are able to see this risk and are fighting to prevent it.</p>
<p>Others seem to either absolutely not care because of thier selfish emotional problems or seem to want it to happen.</p>
<p>So go ahead and attack Bachmann.. Quibble over the percentage that the Fascist Govt now controls ..  </p>
<p>This arrogant society is about to take a fall , remember that when it happens you were the ones that enabled it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cokie Roberts On Polanski: &#34;Just Take Him Out And Shoot Him&#34; (VIDEO) &#124; Legal-Sleaze.com</title>
		<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/47102/bachmann-beck-boyes-government-gdp/comment-page-1#comment-41267</link>
		<dc:creator>Cokie Roberts On Polanski: &#34;Just Take Him Out And Shoot Him&#34; (VIDEO) &#124; Legal-Sleaze.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:46:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=47102#comment-41267</guid>
		<description>[...] Bachmann surprises Beck with stat on government piece of economy &#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Bachmann surprises Beck with stat on government piece of economy &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jess M</title>
		<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/47102/bachmann-beck-boyes-government-gdp/comment-page-1#comment-41169</link>
		<dc:creator>Jess M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:54:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=47102#comment-41169</guid>
		<description>Michele Bachman is a fruit cake that has been in the box way to long.
I am more frightened of anyone who takes her seriously and votes for her.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michele Bachman is a fruit cake that has been in the box way to long.<br />
I am more frightened of anyone who takes her seriously and votes for her.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: www.buzzflash.net</title>
		<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/47102/bachmann-beck-boyes-government-gdp/comment-page-1#comment-41125</link>
		<dc:creator>www.buzzflash.net</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:36:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=47102#comment-41125</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Bachmann surprises Beck with stat on government piece of economy pie...&lt;/strong&gt;

Wingnut Michele Bachmann (R-Lunatic) is at it again.  Excuse me while I go to Act Blue and send Tarryl Clark another donation....A statistic from lying wingnut Michele Bachmann made Glenn Beck (R-Pathetic Excuse for a Human Being) go, “Whoa!” on his ra...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Bachmann surprises Beck with stat on government piece of economy pie&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Wingnut Michele Bachmann (R-Lunatic) is at it again.  Excuse me while I go to Act Blue and send Tarryl Clark another donation&#8230;.A statistic from lying wingnut Michele Bachmann made Glenn Beck (R-Pathetic Excuse for a Human Being) go, “Whoa!” on his ra&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tony</title>
		<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/47102/bachmann-beck-boyes-government-gdp/comment-page-1#comment-41120</link>
		<dc:creator>tony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:50:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=47102#comment-41120</guid>
		<description>Ron says: &quot;Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government can control the Wealth of America? No where, therefore controlling the Wealth of America is reserved to the people.&quot;

i think it comes from an interpretation of the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; ”</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ron says: &#8220;Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government can control the Wealth of America? No where, therefore controlling the Wealth of America is reserved to the people.&#8221;</p>
<p>i think it comes from an interpretation of the following:<br />
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:<br />
“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; ”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron</title>
		<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/47102/bachmann-beck-boyes-government-gdp/comment-page-1#comment-41118</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:16:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=47102#comment-41118</guid>
		<description>&quot;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.&quot;-10th Amendment to the Constitution

Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government can control the Wealth of America? No where, therefore controlling the Wealth of America is reserved to the people.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government has the authority to tax citizens to provide Health Care to other citizens? Nowhere does it even begin to suggest that, therefore it is inherent on the states to determine if they wish to do that.

Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has the right to set a minimum wage for the entire country? Nowhere, therefore if the individual states wish to set one they have the right to do so. 

Where in the Constitution does it say that Marriage is a liberty? Nowhere, because marriage is not a liberty, it is a privilege. Therefore the federal government has no business denying it, or allowing it. That decision is reserved to the states. 

Defense spending is not the only spending that is Constitutional, it is just one of the few. We could dramatically cut our deficit by cutting the spending that is not prescribed for in the Constitution, there is no need to cut that which is.

You could go down through the budgets of the last nearly 100 years and find repeated instances of spending that is not prescribed for in the Constitution. The same for Legislation. This is not something that started with Obama or Bush or Clinton. This started long ago, and the sad thing is so many Americans see this as Republican vs Democrat. They then support whichever of the two their mommy and daddy supported, and in the end both parties forget their responsibilities, and seek only to benefit themselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;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.&#8221;-10th Amendment to the Constitution</p>
<p>Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government can control the Wealth of America? No where, therefore controlling the Wealth of America is reserved to the people.</p>
<p>Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government has the authority to tax citizens to provide Health Care to other citizens? Nowhere does it even begin to suggest that, therefore it is inherent on the states to determine if they wish to do that.</p>
<p>Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has the right to set a minimum wage for the entire country? Nowhere, therefore if the individual states wish to set one they have the right to do so. </p>
<p>Where in the Constitution does it say that Marriage is a liberty? Nowhere, because marriage is not a liberty, it is a privilege. Therefore the federal government has no business denying it, or allowing it. That decision is reserved to the states. </p>
<p>Defense spending is not the only spending that is Constitutional, it is just one of the few. We could dramatically cut our deficit by cutting the spending that is not prescribed for in the Constitution, there is no need to cut that which is.</p>
<p>You could go down through the budgets of the last nearly 100 years and find repeated instances of spending that is not prescribed for in the Constitution. The same for Legislation. This is not something that started with Obama or Bush or Clinton. This started long ago, and the sad thing is so many Americans see this as Republican vs Democrat. They then support whichever of the two their mommy and daddy supported, and in the end both parties forget their responsibilities, and seek only to benefit themselves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ginny</title>
		<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/47102/bachmann-beck-boyes-government-gdp/comment-page-1#comment-41109</link>
		<dc:creator>Ginny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:55:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=47102#comment-41109</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d be interested in seeing (in an abstract way) how this country would work if the only thing the government funded was defense. Let&#039;s all go to work building our own bridges and roads, educating the children and young adults, providing our own fire and police security. 
The &quot;non-constitutional&quot; services are constitutional because our duly elected representatives must make the laws that allow all governments to put infrastructure, education, and domestic security in place.
I love how those right-wingers say, &quot;If it&#039;s not in the constitution, then it&#039;s unconstitutional.&quot; 
Holy Moses, go back and read all those government lessons you slept through in school.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d be interested in seeing (in an abstract way) how this country would work if the only thing the government funded was defense. Let&#8217;s all go to work building our own bridges and roads, educating the children and young adults, providing our own fire and police security.<br />
The &#8220;non-constitutional&#8221; services are constitutional because our duly elected representatives must make the laws that allow all governments to put infrastructure, education, and domestic security in place.<br />
I love how those right-wingers say, &#8220;If it&#8217;s not in the constitution, then it&#8217;s unconstitutional.&#8221;<br />
Holy Moses, go back and read all those government lessons you slept through in school.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/47102/bachmann-beck-boyes-government-gdp/comment-page-1#comment-41103</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:04:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=47102#comment-41103</guid>
		<description>I think some need to be reminded of the fact that wealth is not a zero sum game where there is x amount of it that the government or boogeyman millionaires get to decide where it goes.  The government DOES NOT CREATE WEALTH, it can (and sometimes should) decide where to reallocate it through taxes, but that&#039;s it.  It needs that power and we give it that power.  This should not be the argument.  The argument now is how much should it be reallocating and for what?  Is it healthy/right for the government to pick and choose winners and losers?  Both parties are involved in this type of action.  If a huge company invests in some new technology and it fails, they lose money and learn from their mistake or perhaps even fold. If the government does this, it adds a few zeroes onto the check and tries again. I personally think masses of individuals, rich and poor, making individual decisions on where to put their money respond more quickly and accurately to changes in the world economy than do politicians.  If you think Bush, Obama, Pawlenty or whoever make those types decisions better  - than the 30% number won&#039;t be a problem to you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think some need to be reminded of the fact that wealth is not a zero sum game where there is x amount of it that the government or boogeyman millionaires get to decide where it goes.  The government DOES NOT CREATE WEALTH, it can (and sometimes should) decide where to reallocate it through taxes, but that&#8217;s it.  It needs that power and we give it that power.  This should not be the argument.  The argument now is how much should it be reallocating and for what?  Is it healthy/right for the government to pick and choose winners and losers?  Both parties are involved in this type of action.  If a huge company invests in some new technology and it fails, they lose money and learn from their mistake or perhaps even fold. If the government does this, it adds a few zeroes onto the check and tries again. I personally think masses of individuals, rich and poor, making individual decisions on where to put their money respond more quickly and accurately to changes in the world economy than do politicians.  If you think Bush, Obama, Pawlenty or whoever make those types decisions better  &#8211; than the 30% number won&#8217;t be a problem to you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: T-Paw Is A Jerk</title>
		<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/47102/bachmann-beck-boyes-government-gdp/comment-page-1#comment-41101</link>
		<dc:creator>T-Paw Is A Jerk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:22:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=47102#comment-41101</guid>
		<description>If...and that is a real stretch...but if the Government owns 30% of the wealth in this country, then that is a good thing.  

They will at least spread it around to many that have needs but no means to acquire that wealth.  In fact, perhaps it should go to 80% rather than 30%.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If&#8230;and that is a real stretch&#8230;but if the Government owns 30% of the wealth in this country, then that is a good thing.  </p>
<p>They will at least spread it around to many that have needs but no means to acquire that wealth.  In fact, perhaps it should go to 80% rather than 30%.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/47102/bachmann-beck-boyes-government-gdp/comment-page-1#comment-41100</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:45:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=47102#comment-41100</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m with Ron. Obama needs to go.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m with Ron. Obama needs to go.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

