Support NeoGAF

[Black Mamba]

Where does it say that?

Where is the constitution is there an explicit power? Or even implicit? Without it it's reserved for the states. Other than civil rights I don't recall any national legislation.

 

[The Librarian]

Where is the constitution is there an explicit power? Or even implicit? Without it it's reserved for the states. Other than civil rights I don't recall any national legislation on schooling who's is a 14th amendment issue.

So just because it's not an explicit power it means Congress can't do it? The Constitution doesn't list the authority to build shuttles and fly to the moon, so that means it can't do it? The states have to? The Constitution has the power to provide for the general welfare; education is general welfare.

 

[Black Mamba]

So just because it's not an explicit power it means Congress can't do it? The Constitution doesn't list the authority to build shuttles and fly to the moon, so that means it can't do it? The states have to? The Constitution has the power to provide for the general welfare; education is general welfare.

Shuttles is covered under appropriations. Congress can spend money on anything it wants to spend money on. It cannot regulate and enforce laws it has no authority on, however. Big distinction.

General welfare doesn't work like that. If it did, then Congress's power would be unlimited.

 

[The Librarian]

Shuttles is covered under appropriations. Congress can spend money on anything it wants to spend money on. It cannot regulate and enforce laws it has no authority on, however. Big distinction.

General welfare doesn't work like that. If it did, then Congress's power would be unlimited.

So Congress doesn't have the power to regulate car emissions?

 

[Aaron Strife]

flashback
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/13/brown-president-crazy-sounds-supporters-say/

And to think he once had Ted Kennedy's senate seat on lockdown. What could have possibly gone wrong?

Spoiler

He was a conservative republican in a deeply blue state.

 

[Black Mamba]

So Congress doesn't have the power to regulate car emissions?

Emissions cross state lines and therefore fall under interstate commerce.

 

[The Librarian]

Emissions cross state lines and therefore fall under interstate commerce.

Education has an effect on interstate commerce.

 

[gcubed]

so basically the only thing to come out of the Rubio speech is the water break. Good job Rubio, you blew that

 

[Black Mamba]

Education has an effect on interstate commerce.

But it wouldn't pass the test set forth in Lopez v US.

Emissions are the result of economic activity, schooling is a non-economic activity. It's also why Raich is so fucked up since planting your own plant is non-economic but I digress...


You can relate everything to interstate commerce by doing that which is why the SCOTUS laid out the test in Lopez what is and isn't economic. Schooling wouldn't be but emissions are (and have been held up as such).

Look, I'm with you that we should be able to have a national education policy that isn't just attached to purse strings but rather enforcement. It's one of the problems with the US Constitution and why I don't like it very much. But the argument that the US Constitution allows for mandatory pre-k education just isn't right.

 

[B-Dubs]

so basically the only thing to come out of the Rubio speech is the water break. Good job Rubio, you blew that

Seriously though, it was comedy gold and his speech was entirely forgettable there was no way it wouldn't be the big thing.

 

[Tim-E]

It's silly to bring up random programs Congress has started to say that they go against the Constitution. Congress can spend money to literally do whatever it wants, basically, but it can't take over a state Education program. It could create funding for a program that states could agree to start, but it can't mandate states to participate. I'd personally love to see pre-k be something that everyone has access to, but the Constitutional argument mandating it falls apart pretty easily.

 

[The Librarian]

You can relate everything to interstate commerce by doing that which is why the SCOTUS laid out the test in Lopez what is and isn't economic. Schooling wouldn't be but emissions are (and have been held up as such).

I looked up Lopez, and it doesn't label what is or isn't economic, but rather limits the Commerce Clause to those activities that have a substantial effect on it. Doesn't education have a substantial effect on interstate commerce?

 

[empty vessel]

I sat down outside one of my political classes and got into this semi-debate with a classmate over whether universal pre-K education is constitutional. He said it wasn't. I wasn't really prepared to debate that, so I mainly gave shrugged responses. So, how is universal pre-K education constitutional?

Of course, if you take that stance, then the moon landing was constitutional.

"Tonight, I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America."

It'd be nice if he had proposed eliminating dual sovereignty instead.

But the short answer is: See No Child Left Behind Act

 

[Tim-E]

I looked up Lopez, and it doesn't label what is or isn't economic, but rather limits the Commerce Clause to those activities that have a substantial effect on it. Doesn't education have a substantial effect on interstate commerce?

Education isn't a business transaction that occurs across state lines. Sure, educated people partake in interstate commerce, but the process of being educated is not commerce.

 

[The Librarian]

"Tonight, I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America."

It'd be nice if he had proposed eliminating dual sovereignty instead.

Funny thing, the first thing I brought up was that Obama was going to do it with the states as partners. Then he said something that, for him, still made it unconstitutional. I think he then listed only the things Congress can do under Article 1 Section 8.

Education isn't a business transaction that occurs across state lines. Sure, educated people partake in interstate commerce, but the process of being educated is not commerce.

But that's not answering whether or not it has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

 

[Black Mamba]

I looked up Lopez, and it doesn't label what is or isn't economic, but rather limits the Commerce Clause to those activities that have a substantial effect on it. Doesn't education have a substantial effect on interstate commerce?

It can't label what is or isn't since it's ad hoc but it lays out the test that it must be economic.

1. channels of interstate commerce (does not apply to education)
2. instrumentalities of interstate commerce (does not apply)
3. activities that substantially affect or are substantially related to interstate commerce.

The third is the only basis for argument. But if you read Lopez which overrules a statute banning a gun near a school through the commerce clause, you see their link of economic activity. They can regulate buying the gun but not where the gun can be (on non-federal ground) because there is nothing related to economic activity here.

What you have to understand is what the Court means by "substantial affect/related" they mean if you take something and repeat it a hundred gazillion times over, does it affect prices and supply in that market. The 3rd rule is used to allow Congress to regulate local businesses by arguing that yes, if you sell chicken to only 20 people a day they can be regulated because if you add the little places that sell chicken you affect the market directly.

It is not a test that asks whether the action has an indirect affect on general economy but rather if it added up all together directly affects that specific market nationally. There is no specific industry education relates to in regards to economic activity.

 

[RustyNails]

"Tonight, I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America."

It'd be nice if he had proposed eliminating dual sovereignty instead.

One communist step at a time.

 

[Tim-E]

But that's not answering whether or not it has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Why does it matter whether or not it has an impact on interstate commerce? The federal government regulates interstate commerce, not things that are impacted by interstate commerce. Saying that Pre-K education would directly impact commerce is not very sound.

 

[The Librarian]

It can't label what is or isn't since it's ad hoc but it lays out the test that it must be economic.

1. channels of interstate commerce (does not apply to education)
2. instrumentalities of interstate commerce (does not apply)
3. activities that substantially affect or are substantially related to interstate commerce.

The third is the only basis for argument. But if you read Lopez which overrules a statute banning a gun near a school through the commerce clause, you see their link of economic activity. They can regulate buying the gun but not where the gun can be (on non-federal ground) because there is nothing related to economic activity here.

Seems to me that they were only commenting on the gun, not the effect of education as it relates to interstate commerce.

Why does it matter whether or not it has an impact on interstate commerce? The federal government regulates interstate commerce, not things that are impacted by interstate commerce.

Because Lopez says Congress has the ability to enact legislation that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

 

[Black Mamba]

Let me clarify a bit re: substantial effect on interstate commerce.

We're forgetting the preceding bit.

Congress can regulate intrastate commerce that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. It cannot regulate non-commerce that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Public Education is not commerce at the secondary and under level.

Seems to me that they were only commenting on the gun, not the effect of education as it relates to interstate commerce.

No, this was the test they laid out which they later used in Morrison and then Raich.

This case only related to guns, of course, so that's all they spoke of. But when you read the Opinion you see the point that was made by the terms they used.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html

 

[Tim-E]

Because Lopez says Congress has the ability to enact legislation that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

What Black Mamba says above. Pre-K is not commerce, unless Obama's plan is to make Pre-K a private service that is offered online.

 

[The Librarian]

Congress can regulate intrastate commerce that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. It cannot regulate non-commerce that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Public Education is not commerce at the secondary and under level.

According to this, it says "those activities." Even in the link you provided:

"The power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the exercise of the granted power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce."

It's says Congress has the ability to regulate intrastate activities that substantially effect interstate commerce.

No, this was the test they laid out which they later used in Morrison and then Raich.

I don't follow.

 

[Black Mamba]

According to this, it says "those activities." Even in the link you provided:

It's says Congress has the ability to regulate intrastate activities that substantially effect interstate commerce.

it's important to understand "activity" means "economic activity," not like everything. Otherwise it could mean the Congress can regulate you jogging and breathing.

Intrastate commerce or activities. How is education an act of commerce? Let me quote the ruling:

First, we have upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity where we have concluded that the activity substantially affected interstate commerce. Examples include the regulation of intrastate coal mining; Hodel, supra, intrastate extortionate credit transactions, Perez, supra, restaurants utilizing substantial interstate supplies, McClung, supra, inns and hotels catering to interstate guests, Heart of Atlanta Motel, supra, and production and consumption of home grown wheat, Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). These examples are by no means exhaustive, but the pattern is clear. Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained.

Even Wickard, which is perhaps the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate activity, involved economic activity in a way that the possession of a gun in a school zone does not

Every single example involves money or goods.

Now note how they shoot down the gun = economic activity argument

The Government's essential contention, in fine, is that we may determine here that §922(q) is valid because possession of a firearm in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce. Brief for United States 17. The Government argues that possession of a firearm in a school zone may result in violent crime and that violent crime can be expected to affect the functioning of the national economy in two ways. First, the costs of violent crime are substantial, and, through the mechanism of insurance, those costs are spread throughout the population. See United States v. Evans, 928 F. 2d 858, 862 (CA9 1991). Second, violent crime reduces the willingness of individuals to travel to areas within the country that are perceived to be unsafe. Cf. Heart of Atlanta Motel, 379 U. S., at 253. The Government also argues that the presence of guns in schools poses a substantial threat to the educational process by threatening the learning environment. A handicapped educational process, in turn, will result in a less productive citizenry. That, in turn, would have an adverse effect on the Nation's economic well being. As a result, the Government argues that Congress could rationally have concluded that §922(q) substantially affects interstate commerce.

We pause to consider the implications of the Government's arguments. The Government admits, under its "costs of crime" reasoning, that Congress could regulate not only all violent crime, but all activities that might lead to violent crime, regardless of how tenuously they relate to interstate commerce. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 8-9. Similarly, under the Government's "national productivity" reasoning, Congress could regulate any activity that it found was related to the economic productivity of individual citizens: family law (including marriage, divorce, and child custody), for example. Under the theories that the Government presents in support of §922(q), it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign. Thus, if we were to accept the Government's arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.

This has two parts to support me. One is that they are shooting down your argument essentially that it's an economic activity if you stretch it out. They do that by saying the government's argument allows for regulation of everything that can ever relate to commerce in the most tenuous ways even when it directly isn't commerce.

The other is they literally state education is where States have been sovereign.

I don't follow.

I'm saying that the modern test for what is allowable under the commerce clause, and thus economic activity, is set forth in Lopez and subsequently used in the Morrison and Raich cases that came later.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Whether or not hardcore conservatives or liberals like it, our government is built on compromise. No amount of whining from either side is ever going to change that. I know liberals cannot stomach the fact that Obama hasn't declared the Republican Party a hate group, but no matter how the other side acts, a good President acknowledges their existence and understand that big ideas have to go through both parties if anything is to come of them.

Compromise for the sake of compromise is fucking stupid.

Compromise for the sake of allowing good policy to come from all parts of the ideological spectrum, now that's something worth striving for.

These are policies originating from conservatives:
Mandated private insurance with providers being unable to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions.
A medicare buy in.
Amnesty for those who serve, pursue an education, and/or have clean criminal records.
The 16th Amendment (Federal Income Tax), though this was originally an attempt at trolling.
Elimination of corn subsidies
Cap and trade

NASA, the EPA, and the FAA originated thanks to conservatives.

Seems like ones liberals start supporting a conservative proposal based on its political feasibility and practical benefits, conservatives abandon it. Anything that originates from liberals gets demonized for all of history by conservatives, though. They're still demonizing the new deal.

 

[Gotchaye]

It's says Congress has the ability to regulate intrastate activities that substantially effect interstate commerce.

When we're talking about constitutionality, it's worthwhile to be clear what, exactly, we mean.

Is the question "Would the US Supreme Court allow the federal government to mandate pre-K education?"

If so, the answer is "No, almost certainly not." The Court recently found that tying disproportionate amounts of federal funding to the Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional. But clearly health care affects interstate commerce, and Medicaid is a big part of that. It's hard to see how tying funding to the Medicaid expansion is more coercive than simply mandating the expansion.

 

[Tim-E]

Compromise for the sake of compromise is fucking stupid.

Compromise for the sake of allowing good policy to come from all parts of the ideological spectrum, now that's something worth striving for.

These are policies originating from conservatives:
Mandated private insurance with providers being unable to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions.
A medicare buy in.
Amnesty for those who serve, pursue an education, and/or have clean criminal records.
The 16th Amendment (Federal Income Tax), though this was originally an attempt at trolling.
Elimination of corn subsidies
Cap and trade

NASA, the EPA, and the FAA originated thanks to conservatives.

I didn't say that Obama should compromise for the sake of compromise. I said that a President who presides over a divided Congress is going to have to suck up some shit if he wants to have some accomplishments. I know that historically many Republicans have supported huge infrastructure investments, I'm simply noting the obvious. I didn't say that Obama should just do what Republicans want just because, but a President is going to try to accomplish something. If a President in this situation doesn't give in to anything he's going to sit around doing jack shit for two years.

Modern Republicans are not the same party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, or H. W. Bush. I know they're being obstructionist for the sake of being against Obama, but he still has to attempt to moderate his approach if he wants anything done.

 

[The Librarian]

it's important to understand "activity" means "economic activity," not like everything. Otherwise it could mean the Congress can regulate you jogging and breathing.

Intrastate commerce or activities. How is education an act of commerce? Let me quote the ruling:



Every single example involves money or goods.

Now note how they shoot down the gun = economic activity argument



This has two parts to support me. One is that they are shooting down your argument essentially that it's an economic activity if you stretch it out. They do that by saying the government's argument allows for regulation of everything that can ever relate to commerce in the most tenuous ways even when it directly isn't commerce.

The other is they literally state education is where States have been sovereign.



I'm saying that the modern test for what is allowable under the commerce clause, and thus economic activity, is set forth in Lopez and subsequently used in the Morrison and Raich cases that came later.

Okay, I'm satisfied. I wasn't arguing Congress could regulate education, but I wanted to see explicitly why they couldn't. I know I should've pushed harder against that guy saying the federal government can only provide money, but I didn't.

 

[GaimeGuy]

He was arguing Congress can only do what is specifically listed in the Constitution.

Tell him that by his logic, the Air Force is unconstitutional.

 

[Magni]

Couldn't Congress just make universal pre-K a precondition for federal funding? I.e.: if you don't have universal pre-K, there's a 25% malus on your funding. CA got almost $4 billion from the federal government in 2011 (source: https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/13stbystate.pdf), that's $1bn right there that they would lose.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

I heard there was some ad or something that involved someone tethering new gun regulation into eventual mandatory Obummer gun collection.

Can someone help me out?

 

[The Librarian]

Tell him that by his logic, the Air Force is unconstitutional.

I just looked that up; that's hilarious.

 

[Tim-E]

Couldn't Congress just make universal pre-K a precondition for federal funding? I.e.: if you don't have universal pre-K, there's a 25% malus on your funding. CA got almost $4 billion from the federal government in 2011 (source: https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/13stbystate.pdf), that's $1bn right there that they would lose.

From what I understand, yes they could do this. Congress controls the pocketbook and can allocate funds however they want. They can't overtake a state's education system, but they can set the terms by which states can get federal funds to use toward their education systems.

I heard there was some ad or something that involved someone tethering new gun regulation into eventual mandatory Obummer gun collection.

Can someone help me out?

Absolutely no one who matters has proposed or has tried to tether the current gun control proposals to a plan to physically take people's guns. Show them this:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html

Absolutely nothing mentions taking guns away. There is no precedence to the "It leads to them taking our gunz" argument.

 

[Black Mamba]

Okay, I'm satisfied. I wasn't arguing Congress could regulate education, but I wanted to see explicitly why they couldn't. I know I should've pushed harder against that guy saying the federal government can only provide money, but I didn't.

What you should be pushing is why Congress shouldn't be putting money into this and why the states shouldn't be accepting and doing it?

Pre-k would be a big deal, IMO, as Pigeon rightly demonstrated in the SOTU thread. I would ignore the whole enforcement issue and argue the policy itself.

Couldn't Congress just make universal pre-K a precondition for federal funding? I.e.: if you don't have universal pre-K, there's a 25% malus on your funding. CA got almost $4 billion from the federal government in 2011 (source: https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/b...3stbystate.pdf), that's $1bn right there that they would lose.

How much funding crosses from nudging to forcing I don't know, but they could definitely tie some funding to it and I'm pretty sure that's what Obama is trying to do here.

From what I understand, yes they could do this. Congress controls the pocketbook and can allocate funds however they want. They can't overtake a state's education system, but they can set the terms by which states can get federal funds to use toward their education systems.

There is a limit to it, though. They can't deny all education funding, for instance. How much they can deny no one really knows.

 

[Tim-E]

There is a limit to it, though. They can't deny all education funding, for instance. How much they can deny no one really knows.

That's what I was trying to say. I was suggesting that they could, say, cut their funding by a percentage if they decide to not accept the additional funds for a pre-k program.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Absolutely no one who matters has proposed or has tried to tether the current gun control proposals to a plan to physically take people's guns. Show them this:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html

Absolutely nothing mentions taking guns away. There is no precedence to the "It leads to them taking our gunz" argument.

No, no, no...the thing I'm talking about was shown on msnbc this morning as I was getting ready for work.

The talking heads were debating the video but I wasn't sure if it was an ad or not and I didn't catch who was involved in the video.

 

[Tim-E]

No, no, no...the thing I'm talking about was shown on msnbc this morning as I was getting ready for work.

The talking heads were debating the video but I wasn't sure if it was an ad or not and I didn't catch who was involved in the video.

Oh okay. I hate Morning Joe so I have no clue what you're talking about, then. I thought you were referring to mandatory buyback programs.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Oh okay. I hate Morning Joe so I have no clue what you're talking about, then. I thought you were referring to mandatory buyback programs.

Yes!

That was it! The guy was referencing the mandatory buyback programs and somehow tethering that into Obummer sending the storm troopers for the guns.

 

[Tim-E]

Yes!

That was it! The guy was referencing the mandatory buyback programs and somehow tethering that into Obummer sending the storm troopers for the guns.

What I was trying to say in my earlier post is that Obama has not even alluded to a buyback program. They think that doing things like banning assault weapons or enforcing stronger background checks ultimately leads to a buyback program where Obummer's thugs come in and take your guns, when there's absolutely nothing in American history that indicates that would happen; nor is there anything coming from the government suggesting that it would. It's simply a scare tactic.

 

[Diablos]

hahahaha. Rubio. I can't stop LOLing. Made my fucking day. oh man

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Ok, I found the ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbLCXSLXRA4

It was an NRA ad.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I didn't say that Obama should compromise for the sake of compromise. I said that a President who presides over a divided Congress is going to have to suck up some shit if he wants to have some accomplishments. I know that historically many Republicans have supported huge infrastructure investments, I'm simply noting the obvious. I didn't say that Obama should just do what Republicans want just because, but a President is going to try to accomplish something. If a President in this situation doesn't give in to anything he's going to sit around doing jack shit for two years.

Modern Republicans are not the same party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, or H. W. Bush. I know they're being obstructionist for the sake of being against Obama, but he still has to attempt to moderate his approach if he wants anything done.

He HAS given in. the Democrats HAVE given in.

For example, the deficit reduction stuff last year:
Obama proposed $4T in deficit reductions.
Congress set up a commitee to come up wtih, at minimum, $1.5T in deficit reductions.
Democrats in the committee came to the table with $3T in deficit reductions.
Republicans came to the table with $1.2T in deficit reductions

Do you know why it failed? Do you know why, despite the republicans claiming we have a spending problem, they did not support obama's proposal, despite it having 3x the spending cuts of their own proposal, including cuts to medicare and social security, two of the most cherished programs by democrats? Because 30%, or $1.2T, of the savings in Obama's proposal were from additional revenues.


Everyone EXCEPT the republicans are compromising. Hell the GOP didn't even come up with the $1.5T asked of them. They came with only $1.2T.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Tell him that by his logic, the Air Force is unconstitutional.

Oh god. This is rich. I have a very very vocal libertarian friend who quotes the constitution for fun. He keeps a pocket version in his backpack.
The beautiful part is he's soon about to commission as an officer in the air force! LMAO

 

[PhoenixDark]

Ok, I found the ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbLCXSLXRA4

It was an NRA ad.

wow

 

[Tim-E]

He HAS given in. the Democrats HAVE given in.

Did I say they haven't? You're making my point for me. I was saying that in order to get something done, Obama is going to be open to working with them, regardless of whether or not they want to. Being a hard ass and not compromising is going to ensure that nothing gets done. He's going to try to do something with them because he doesn't have a choice.

 

[Fuchsdh]

The fact is that the modern era is a world where big government is a necessity. Either you adapt to that or you delude yourself into thinking that its not. (Or you let corporations run the world because thats somehow better.)

I don't get how people can be such strict constructionists when the whole reason the Constituion has endured longer than any other in the world is because they left room to change and reinterpret it. The Founding Fathers might have been a bunch of white racists by today's standard, but they had the foresight to realize the future wouldn't be like their present. That's pretty damn progressive and the reason we should celebrate them every waking day.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

hahahaha. Rubio. I can't stop LOLing. Made my fucking day. oh man

This post reminds me how magical my daily Diablos'ing fix was.

I don't like relaxed Diablos as much.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The Founding Fathers might have been a bunch of white racists by today's standard, but they had the foresight to realize the future wouldn't be like their present. That's pretty damn progressive and the reason we should celebrate them every waking day.

When you see the invention of the toilet during your life time, there's no logical concept of future society than one that greatly differs from your own.

 

[speculawyer]

The fact is that the modern era is a world where big government is a necessity. Either you adapt to that or you delude yourself into thinking that its not. (Or you let corporations run the world because thats somehow better.)

I don't get how people can be such strict constructionists when the whole reason the Constituion has endured longer than any other in the world is because they left room to change and reinterpret it. The Founding Fathers might have been a bunch of white racists by today's standard, but they had the foresight to realize the future wouldn't be like their present. That's pretty damn progressive and the reason we should celebrate them every waking day.

Again, I think Ronito called it in his good summary in of Rubio Rebottle:

Rubio was the perfect republican response.

"Government has a very VERY small role. I know I wouldn't have succeeded without Federal Aid for College, medicare for my older friends, welfare for the poor, social security for both. But the President really believes in big government!"

Rubio specifically mentioned student loans, welfare, medicare, and social security.

He is probably lucky that everyone only remembers the drink of water because otherwise people might pick apart the hypocrisy of his 'small government' speech.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Again, I think Ronito called it in his good summary in of Rubio Rebottle:



Rubio specifically mentioned student loans, welfare, medicare, and social security.

He is probably lucky that everyone only remembers the drink of water because otherwise people might pick apart the hypocrisy of his 'small government' speech.

Yeah but there's a segment of the population that buys it, who are truly so entitled they make signs and protest with "Government: hands off my Social Security!" (My favorite one I've seen in my years in DC hands down.)

Government shouldn't be wasteful, everyone can agree, and size has a hand in that. But history since the fall of feudalism has been leading to this point for good reason. A king in a castle doesn't build a moon rocket.

 

[The Librarian]

Can't believe the CPC tweeted this. Haha https://twitter.com/usprogressives/status/301811691283427330