Baird votes no on $1.9 trillion stimulus bill

I would encourage all to read thru the bill before you condemn this vote. You might be really surprised if you read with honest eyes all that is in this.

Kind of like the Paris accord. People really need to read these things. It is quite amazing what you will find

LOL!!!! Mr. Baird - the protector of the taxpayers' dollar!! This guy wouldn't understand economics if Milton Freidman drew it out for him in crayons, and the Founding Fathers would've tarred/feathered his sorry self by now.

This guy is so full of it, pretending to be fiscally conservative. He is a joke. A bad joke.

He was on board for the other COVID relief bills, and they were not clean.

Yes, Mr. Baird, we know you are a Republican stooge following along with your fellow party stooges in your clown parade of foolish mendacity pretending to be something you cant even understand.

Let me know when you actually have some principles and stand on them.

Otherwise you sound like a lady of the night who tries to claim dignity b/c you work on the right side of the tracks.

So, DPR, do you disagree with his vote?

Beg - I agree with this vote.

And I agree with this reasoning.

I disagree with his posturing. He wants accolades and votes.

Where was this fiscal concern when presented with other bills for which he supported that needlessly and unconstitutionally spent money?

Even a broken clock will be right twice a day. That doesn't mean it isn't trash and shouldn't be discarded.

Thank you, Mr. Baird, for being a voice of reason and common sense in Washington for those of us here in Indiana that elected you.

I guarantee you if Donald Trump had initiated this bill, his Republican behind would have scrambled to vote "yes." He is the one that is irresponsible. He doesn't have people fooled. His true colors have been seen for years.

So Queen, if your above scenario was the case, would you support a yes vote?

Do you know what is in the bill? How it would work? Who would truly be given a significant portion of the taxpayers money?

Did you support the leftist/ liberal blockage of the relief bill the last administration proposed in November? Why?

What a hypocrite. He's a veteran, I respect that, but we need to stop voting for him for that reason alone.

Queen: Donald Trump DID initiate trying a bill like this WITHOUT all the stupid extra spending.

Unbiased

That is a strong personal attack. An easy one as most of us are one time or another. Based on the response, I assume you don’t support the vote? I would be curious as to why? Have you read the bill? Studied the bill? Know what it really means and will accomplish?

I ask you to read it they the lens of your moniker. You could be really surprised by what is in it.

I don’t support Bairds vote. I think its somewhat hilarious how all these "fiscally conservatives" are pearl clutching now but didn’t have any issues with raising our National Debt (www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump) during the last administration.

Here is what I like best about the bill:

*Extending expanded unemployment benefits with a $400 weekly supplement through end of September (vs. March 31 currently)

*$1,400 direct payments to individuals

*$350 billion to help state and local governments bridge budget shortfalls

*$20 billion for a national vaccine program, including preparation of community vaccination centers

*Funding for 100,000 public health workers for vaccination outreach and contact tracing

*Emergency paid leave for over 100 million Americans

*Tax credits for families to offset up to $8,000 in annual child care costs

*Funding to help address disproportionate impact on people of color, for community health centers, prisons, and jails

*Grants to small businesses

*Funds to accelerate vaccine deployment and to safely reopen most schools within 100 days

*Aid to renters with unpaid debts to landlords

BJCP76 - Wow!!

You are quite the humanitarian. If anyone on here has connections, please nominate BJCP for some kind of Bestest-Citizen award.

I mean, you are so generous that not only do you live a life of such simple means so that nearly all of your income goes to helping you feel need help, but you actually take it upon yourself to spend others incomes and distribute it as you feel is best as well.

Let me know which charities get your money and I might throw 'em a $20 in solidarity.

You know, I might even buy you a copy of the US Constitution so that you can read it (b/c I have a feeling you never have) and then you can tell me from where does the authority for such spending originate.

DPR -- Thank you so much for your nomination! I have wanted the Bestest-Citizen Award since I was a child. It really means a lot! Is there like a ribbon or a medal I can wear? Maybe get like 20% off a coney dog at Dairy Castle or something?

Here is a list of local organizations I would recommend donating to, there are a ton more, these are just a few:

United Way of Putnam County

Greencastle NAACP

Humane Society of Putnam County

Greencastle Middle School Boosters, Inc

Greencastle Civic League

Area 30 Career Center

Beyond Homeless, Inc

Cloverdale Community Housing, Inc

Hopes Way, Inc

Phil The Need

Putnam County Emergency Food Pantry

Putnam County Family Support Services, Inc

Cloverdale Community Youth League, Inc

Gobin Memorial United Methodist Church has a bunch of groups you can give to, I have no affiliation with this church by the way, I'm sure there are a lot of churches that do this, I just know if this one.

Oh, boy, here we go with the "unconstitutional" cries again.

BJCP76 - Is this a list of area charities, writ large, or ones to which you specifically donate all of your earnings?

B/c THAT is the criteria set.

Many liberals like to give lip service to charity while not actually giving much of anything to charity...instead they chose the most inefficient (and unconstitutional) way to go about "helping" people: The government.

But in the spirit of charity, I will send $20 over to the Humane Society of Putnam County.

Koios - yeah, its kind of funny how I am consistent that way.

I like it when the US Constitution is followed.

Do you ever wonder if your Civics teacher cried into their pillow at nights thinking about how you had such potential but failed to understand?

Maybe you should make it up to them and try reading the Federalist papers and/or some other writings of the Founding Fathers to see how it is supposed to work.

DPR -- No, I wish I could give to all those, that is just a list of some of the ones I have given to over the years.

I do a considerable amount (in my opinion) of donating. If not money then volunteering. I could always do more I'm sure.

As for the politics, yes, you and I have very different views on that. Yes, I do believe in supporting and helping people through government action. I know you do not and thats ok.

I'm sure the Humane Society will be grateful! :)

The Founding Fathers had much to say.

And they thoughtfully left a governance roadmap for the Consequent Cousins, Subsequent Sisters, Modifying Matriarchs and even the Brothers of Betterment.

BJCP - I appreciate your charitable works, as I am sure the recipients do as well. Good on you for following through with your principles. Its a shame more do not.

And yes, I do believe charity should be a private affair, not a public one.

Charity by threat of violence isn't charity, it's tyranny.

Pirate- "I like it when the US Constitution is followed"

So what is your problem here, again? This spending clearly "follows the Constitution". You can, and should, question whether this spending is wise, or prudent, or wasteful, or unnecessary. To question the Constitutionality of it is foolish.

Koios - I have already schooled you on this topic before.

Read the Constitution.

Read the Federalist papers, particularly concerning Article 1 Section 8.

If you cannot (or will not) comprehend the origins of our country and the federal government, I cannot help you.

That is all.

It’s clearly spelled out in the Constitution. From the US Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States....”.

When the US Supreme Court rules this type of spending unconstitutional, I’ll gladly stop calling you out on your improper use of the term.

Kudos to you Mr. Baird, you did the right thing! Keep up the good work!

Koios -

"It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supremelaw of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank."

-Marbury v. Madison

“A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

-Marbury v. Madison

The Supreme Court spoke in 1803. It declared that any law contrary to the US Constitution - which is indeed the supreme law of the land and upon which everything else is built - is invalid.

Now, if you read Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution properly (which seems to be one of your problems) it will spell out specifically what the government is entitled to raise taxes for.

As I have already pointed out from the Federalist papers, the whole point of making a specific list was to keep the government from using the general clauses in the beginning of Article 1, Section 8 as a catch-all for taxing & spending on whatever the federal government wants.

A continued pattern of unconstitutional acts does make any one of them constitutional simply by way of repetition or custom.

You bleat like the sheep in Orwell's Animal Farm. You don't understand the topic at hand and yet when someone tries to educate you, you simply cry your accepted lies louder and louder hoping to win by volume of ignorance over quieter reason.

Specific list, lol. That's a good one.

Koios - Specific list (Article 1, Section 8):

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Those clauses are not limitations on clause 1, as you seem to be taking them. They are additional rights and obligations that are expressly specified.

Koios - As I have pointed out to you previously, I am taking them for how they were intended as per the Founding Fathers.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #83: “This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.”

Not only do you need to retake Civics, you might want to brush up on your comprehension skills. Sheesh!

My 5th grader could understand this.

Federalist 83 was addressing judicial authority, specifically how it relates to jury trials. My 3rd grader could comprehend that. Here we go with the mental gymnastics again....

It is disingenuous, at best, to pick and choose phrases from the Federalist Papers and apply them to situations that the author wasn’t addressing in that particular paper. Plus the part in parenthesis was added by you, not stated by Hamilton.

Koios - LOL, you apparently you know how to search stuff. Its too bad you can't (or won't) actually read beyond what suits your need.

Yes, Federalist 83 deals with jury trials (especially in re: state courts vs Federal courts), but it doesn't negate the quote I provided or the intention behind it.

For a fuller quote:

"This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.

In like manner the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits, beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority."

Did you notice "In like manner..." whereby Hamilton uses the specific enumerated powers of the federal legislature as an example in his argument.

LOL - yes, I did insert the part in the parenthesis (actually the 10th Amendment project did, that's where the quote was originally pulled from)... its an insert and its used to clarify what is being referred to.

You are really grasping at straws.

Now the mental gymnastics you are employing are at Olympic levels. If Hamilton had wanted to address Article 1 Section 8, he would have explicitly done so. To cherry pick phrases out of a Federalist paper addressing Judicial Authority as it relates to the right to jury trial and attempt to apply it to Article 1 Section 8 is, like I stated earlier, disingenuous, at best.

That being said, I know logic and reason aren’t your forte. Remember when you tried to blame Antifa for the attack on the US Capital? That was almost as precious as your co-opting of Hamilton’s words here.

Oh, there are so many places to go with the above.

Koios - Wow. Your ignorance is absolutely astounding.

Talk about mental gymnastics...

Hamilton uses the specific powers described in Art1 Sec8 as something clearly understood by the reader to bolster his argument as it relates to the point of Federalist 83.

Its not cherry picking. It is literally "X" is similar ("in like manner") to "Y" in that both are specifically worded that way in the Constitution for a reason.

The Federalist Papers were written before the ratification of the US Constitution in effort to bolster support for the US Constitution over the Articles of Confederation, which was in effect at the time.

Logic and reason are not my forte? LOL. Please show me some logic and reasoning skills...b/c you definitely have not shown any so far. I have written my argument out just about as plainly as I can - logically, reasonably - and just short of making you a picture book b/c it seems to be the only way you could possibly understand.

And nice try but we aren't discussing my OPINIONS of Antifa.

Stop trying to deflect. It's shabby.

Stay on point if you are going to continue this discussion.

Although the idea that you are simply an unteachable sheep bleating louder and louder is becoming more concrete with every word you post.

Let me explain this in the simplest way possible (I don't need to rely on word salads to make my point). Federalist 83 was specifically written to address Judicial Authority, specifically as it relates to the right of a jury trial. It really is that simple. But maybe it is not for you, when your logic is so contorted.

Also, I have noticed that when your belief system gets challenged, you resort to more venomous personal attacks. For the record, I have no care in the world what your opinion of me is, so you can save some keystrokes when replying to me if you would like to do so. If not, that is OK too.

Koios -

Your logic fails. Again. On both points.

1) The point of Hamilton's using the Art1 Sec8 specific powers argument is EVIDENCE used to make his point in regards to the subject matter of Federalist 83.

"Y" b/c of "X". Its called foundation... something found in the law... and logical reasoning.

2) Your feigned victimhood and moral high ground are simply laughable.

Man this popcorn is amazing.

Is the popcorn locally grown? Is it Non GMO? Gluten free? Self popped? Microwave popped using damaging rays? Commercially popped? Too much sodium? Too much butter? Dairy free butter? Organic? Fake sodium? Hand harvested? Hand shelled? Open pollinated or hybrid? Sustainably grown? Soil health protected? Water use efficient? Nitrogen use efficient? Carbon Capturing?

From Federalist Paper 83:

"With regard to civil causes, subtleties almost too contemptible for refutation have been employed to countenance the surmise that a thing which is only NOT PROVIDED FOR, is entirely ABOLISHED. Every man of discernment must at once perceive the wide difference between SILENCE and ABOLITION. But as the inventors of this fallacy have attempted to support it by certain LEGAL MAXIMS of interpretation, which they have perverted from their true meaning, it may not be wholly useless to explore the ground they have taken.

The maxims on which they rely are of this nature: "A specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals''; or, "The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.'' Hence, say they, as the Constitution has established the trial by jury in criminal cases, and is silent in respect to civil, this silence is an implied prohibition of trial by jury in regard to the latter."

First of all you are not even reading this correctly, go ahead and read it REAL SLOW again. Secondly, Article 1 Section 8 is NOT MENTIONED ONCE in Federalist Paper 83. Not once. Your logic is so convoluted it must be making your thinking cloudy. That is the only reasonable conclusion at this point.

Koios, labeling and calling names not much different. hmmm. BTW, you are probably aware that 99.9999873% of the readers have never heard of the Federalists papers except a reference at the end of the musical!

Have a great thursday

Koios - You are not reading it correctly. You are taking things out of context -AGAIN!- to fit your narrative.

Let's start with some background:

There were a handful of separate British colonies that fought for independence from the crown. They fought as independent states joining together for a common goal.

Upon winning the war for independence, these individual states went about creating a charter for a federal government where the individual states would all cede some of their own power for the common good of all states.

First came the Articles of Confederation which established a very weak federal government as intended. However, it had some major failings so these individual states [thought of as individual countries] decided to try again... the US Constitution. This Constitution would create a federal government with specific powers derived from a grant by the individual states/countries.

There were people who didn't like the idea of the Constitution for one reason or another and so Alexander Hamilton helped write a series of articles [The Federalist Papers] alongside James Madison [The oft-named "Father of the Constitution"] and John Jay [the first Supreme Court Justice] in order to persuade people to support the Constitution.

This is the gist of the first part of Federalist #83:

Some people in New York were concerned about the lack of a specific provision for trial by jury in civil cases on the federal level being proposed for the US Constitution.

The nay-sayers were saying that b/c there was no specific guarantee of a trial by jury in civil cases as there was in a criminal case, that there could be no trial by jury in federal cases.

Hamilton countered by saying that the Constitution allows for the national legislature to create tribunals [federal courts] inferior to the Supreme Court. (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 9 of the US Constitution).

The US Constitution, by its silence on the matter of trial by jury in civil cases, leaves the question to be answered by the national legislature when creating these lower courts.

"A power to constitute courts is a power to prescribe the mode of trial; and consequently, if nothing was said in the Constitution on the subject of juries, the legislature would be at liberty either to adopt that institution or to let it alone. This discretion, in regard to criminal causes, is abridged by the express injunction of trial by jury in all such cases; but it is, of course, left at large in relation to civil causes, there being a total silence on this head. The specification of an obligation to try all criminal causes in a particular mode, excludes indeed the obligation or necessity of employing the same mode in civil causes, but does not abridge THE POWER of the legislature to exercise that mode if it should be thought proper. The pretense, therefore, that the national legislature would not be at full liberty to submit all the civil causes of federal cognizance to the determination of juries, is a pretense destitute of all just foundation." (Hamilton, Federalist #83)

Hamilton then goes on to say that maxims employed by the nay-sayers [as noted by Koios previously] are invalid as "contrary to reason and common-sense".

Further, Hamilton explains: "Having now seen that the maxims relied upon will not bear the use made of them, let us endeavor to ascertain their proper use and true meaning. This will be best done by examples. The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the NATIONAL LEGISLATURE, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.

In like manner the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits, beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority." (Federalist #83)

A major portion of Federalist #83 is wrapped in the blanket of Article 1 Section 8 from the power of the legislature to create lower courts which COULD allow for trial by jury for civil cases to the example given by Hamilton that the enumerated powers are the full limit of the federal government but within that sphere of powers is the ability to regulate those things. Article 1 Section 8 doesn't need to be mentioned. Its baked in the cake.

I'm paying close attention to this debate, so after it is over, I can take the test and receive some college credit!

Thanks DPR for the education!

Your interpretation of 83 makes Ginsburg’s interpretation of the Constitution look Originalist. Congrats on that, I guess.

Koios,

What is your philosophical interpretation of the constitution? Federalist papers?

Thanks in advance.

Beg, my interpretations don’t have multiple logical hoops to jump through and they don’t start from a preconceived notion of mine that I would like to somehow “prove” using extreme mental and logical gymnastics. If Hamilton had wanted to write what the pirate is claiming, he would have written it. Explicitly. After all, there are 85 Federalist papers. And 83 was about a specific topic.

You shared what your view(s) aren’t but not what they are.

Oh well, maybe another time

It seems some people just don't get it...

American government is predicated upon the belief that the people are sovereign and have certain God-given rights.

In order to better secure these rights, they create governments whereby they transfer some of their individual authority (sovereignty) to the government. This creates states. Note the small "s". A state is a wholly defined and functioning political unit. A "state" is synonymous with a "country". The "united" states are not political subdivisions of a larger state but are sovereign in their own right.

After the American Revolution (War of Independence) there were several individual, independent states. These states decided to continue their working in cooperation for the better securing of their liberty. (At the time they were very little fish with big resources in a world of bigger & very hungry fish.)

So these states decided to take some of the power that was granted to them by the people and give it to a federal government. [I recommend doing some research on exactly what federalism is...and isn't.]

They created the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffectual.

So they tried again... the US Constitution.

This Constitution was written in such a way that the federal government that was being created was to be clearly defined, and only given certain specific authorities.

There were some states that would not sign onto the Constitution without even more stipulation put upon this federal government. Thus the Bill of Rights (First 10 amendments) was conceived.

The 10th Amendment was written as a specific reminder that sovereignty lies with the people: "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."

This Constitution not only laid the framework for how the federal government would be structured, it provided that this federal government was tasked with certain specific authorities, known as the "enumerated powers" found in Article 1 Section 8.

Those powers, and any subsequent authority granted by the people - by way of constitutional amendment - were the only ones granted to the federal government.

In effect - the federal government was given a task within a realm of authority with set boundaries. They were given the power to do that task, so long as they stayed within those boundaries. Article 1 Section 8 lies down the boundary lines.

Koios' argument about Article 1 Section 8 not being specifically referenced in the Federalist Papers, and therefore irrelevant and/or not pertaining, is incorrect.

There were some in New York (the primary relevant of the Federalist Papers) who were already apprehensive about creating a central government after they had just freed themselves of an overbearing central government, so encompassing the entire argument is what power would be given to this federal government. Thus article 1 section 8 [enumerated powers] was part and parcel of every discussion.

I would recommend to all reading the Anti-Federalist Papers as well as the Federalist Papers.

The Anti-Federalist Papers, not so widely known and much less discussed even in intellectual settings, were written by a wider array of people - not acting in concert - arguing against federalism from a number of perspectives. One of the few authors you may recognize by name is Patrick Henry. [A man worth studying.]

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" - Patrick Henry at St. John's Church, Virginia.

You are going to give the Titan God of the inquisitive mind a headache

Beg - LOL.

While it would be nice if he could open his mind to the reality of history and learn the hows & whys of the founding of our country, I must admit that last post was mostly for everyone else who may read it and have their curiosity sparked enough to go digging for themselves.

Government is power and must be tended carefully.

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." - George Washington. (Farewell address.)

And if anyone is interested...

Today is the anniversary of the Boston Massacre. March 5, 1770.

“ The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;”

Yep, here’s one of those enumerated powers, right there in the old Constitution.

I am still waiting for answers to my questions? Hmmm.

Reading these quotes from our forefathers reminds me how much they could say with so few words. Most politicians today are just the opposite, blathering on and on with no real substance to their speeches. Have we really regressed that much over the past 200 years? Are there no true intellectuals in Congress today? I fear for our future.

“blathering on and on with no real substance to their speeches”. The pirate does this every once in a while.