Re: Top ten reasons why Republicans would be great poker players

[The Baron]

prock_rgp@pokerstove.com (A. Prock) wrote in
news:3f1e95f6$0$4826$80265adb@spool.cs.wisc.edu:

> According to The Baron <x012358@icqmail.com>:
>> It's not necessarily "bad". It's frequently unnecessary. The
>> whole
>>idea of the,"government shut down", where they had to lay off the non-
>>essential federal workers. Pardon?
>> If they're not essential, why in hell are they being paid
>> with tax
>>dollars?
>
> I'm still confused. Is it a bad thing that the government
> would pay people to perform non-essential tasks? Who cares
> whether it's necessary or not?
>
> - Andrew

Other than the fact there's no provision in the US Constitution for
the government to perform non-essential tasks, of course it's a bad
thing. If you were the owner of a business, would you want to pay
someone's salary if they weren't a necessary part of your business?

--
The Baron

(Jeff James)

Gadfly, poker newby, basically nice guy.

[A. Prock]

According to The Baron <x012358@icqmail.com>:
>>
>> I'm still confused. Is it a bad thing that the government
>> would pay people to perform non-essential tasks? Who cares
>> whether it's necessary or not?
>>
>> - Andrew
>
> Other than the fact there's no provision in the US Constitution for
>the government to perform non-essential tasks, of course it's a bad
>thing. If you were the owner of a business, would you want to pay
>someone's salary if they weren't a necessary part of your business?

How do you define necessary? Think big. Are soldiers necessary?
Police? Park rangers? Farmers? Broadcasters? What about
consumers? They are a necessary part of my business, since
without them, no one buys my goods/services.

Who's left?

- Andrew

--
http://www.pokerstove.com

[The Baron]

"Augie Chiausa" <achiausa@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
news:VKETa.64660$kI5.24250@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
SNIP
>
> I think the requirement that the government regulate interstate
> commerce is the basis for these "non-essential" services. But you
> might want to read the basis,

The regulation of interstate commerce is likely the single most
abused and misused portion of the entire document. The mind boggles at
the number of times the phrase, "which is contributed to by Interstate
Commerce", appears in laws having nothing to do with interstate commerce.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 comes to mind right off the bat.

> "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
> union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
> common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
> of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish
> this Constitution for the United States of America."
SNIP

This is all well and good. But when you read the rest of the
document, you discover that the preamble doesn't carry any weight of law.
The Constitution is incredibly specific as to those very few things the
federal government is allowed to do. Of course, the specific permissions
given by the Constitution became a nuisance to legislators very close to
the time it was written so it's not at all surprising that it's ignored
over 200 years later.
--
The Baron

(Jeff James)

Gadfly, poker newby, basically nice guy.