120 replies to this topic

[RavenHawk]

ninjadude, on 16 December 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

Affirmative action is not an "entitlement".

It sure is.  It assures that people that may not necessarily be as qualified as others to get a job solely on the color of their skin.

Quote

And we don't need a military where we spend nearly as much as all other nations on earth COMBINED.

Actually it’s closer to more than only the next 20 or 25 nations.  Spending less than 1/5th of the Budget has paid a peace dividend well worth the expenditure.  This is the best investment this country has made.  Can we spend a little less, like in the neighborhood of more than the next 15 to 20?  We probably could and we should look into it.  But what would that be, about $100B?  That puts the defense budget at less than 1/6th of the overall budget.  Where’s the rest of the budget going?

[F3SS]

Tiggs, on 16 December 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

Correct.

Then at what point do they stop asking for more to solve a situation that can't be solved by the sweat of someone else's brow? There is never an end to it and apparently you agree. So the question is, why are you ok with it?

And ninja, affirmative action is by definition entitling somebody to something.

[Tiggs]

-Mr_Fess-, on 17 December 2012 - 02:12 AM, said:

Then at what point do they stop asking for more to solve a situation that can't be solved by the sweat of someone else's brow? There is never an end to it and apparently you agree. So the question is, why are you ok with it?

I'm not sure that that's what I agreed with.

What I agreed with was that the economy needs to at least grow inline with population, or things get worse over time. Luckily - in the US, aside from recessions - it generally does.

As to there being an end to it:



The green chart is what happens if we go over the cliff and the Bush tax cuts are repealed in their entirety, and the various sequestration cuts are made. The yellow line is what happens if we just kick the can down the road and do nothing.

Basically - the Bush tax cuts need to be repealed - for everyone, as well as the other cuts that are currently part of the sequestration. The only real question is whether to do it all at once (and throw the economy back into a recession) or lower the US down the cliff gently.

[Tiggs]

RavenHawk, on 16 December 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

Of course.  And how will that work?  A Socialist will look at the curve and only see an increasing number of dependency.  And that means only one thing, you got to confiscate all the money you can from those who earned it up front to redistribute.  A Conservative will see new opportunities and new business and entrepreneurs which means a broadening of the tax base which means more money all the way around and perhaps a lowering of taxes.

How's that whole partisan scapegoating thing working out for you, exactly?

Quote

The thing that gets me is that nowhere does it say in the Constitution that the purpose of this government is to provide dole for the people.  The five charges of this government are to assist everyone to follow their own path; to build their own future on their own, with their own two hands.

In the preamble, you'll note the phrase  "...to promote the general welfare".

[Yamato]

Tiggs, on 17 December 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

How's that whole partisan scapegoating thing working out for you, exactly?




In the preamble, you'll note the phrase  "...to promote the general welfare".

And to promote that general welfare, the powers that the federal government has were thereby enumerated.   Cool, huh?

[questionmark]

Yamato, on 17 December 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

And to promote that general welfare, the powers that the federal government has were thereby enumerated.   Cool, huh?

Where we have to say that in that enumeration there is a provision to raise taxes, but none to make debts.

[AsteroidX]

I fell well below the poverty line in 2008. Ive adjusted. Im comfortable. There are no real jobs where I live so i work here and there and dont contribute taxes. I used to pay my fair share. The only thing the government does for me is SNAP.  If they cannot create jobs that will pull me out of poverty then I will continue this way. It is entertaining to look at pictures from the Great Depression and realize. I dont have it so bad. YET.

I voted I dont care.

[Yamato]

questionmark, on 17 December 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

Where we have to say that in that enumeration there is a provision to raise taxes, but none to make debts.

It is clear from the Founders that going into debt was a necessity; however some strong voices wanted to limit that ability to times of war only.   And yeah, that was a softball for all the perpetual-war supporters out there.

[RavenHawk]

Yamato, on 17 December 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

questionmark, on 17 December 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

Where we have to say that in that enumeration there is a provision to raise taxes, but none to make debts.

It is clear from the Founders that going into debt was a necessity; however some strong voices wanted to limit that ability to times of war only.   And yeah, that was a softball for all the perpetual-war supporters out there.

Man!  The blind leading the blind.  Yes, Congress has the ability to levy taxes, but just because they do doesn’t mean they have to.  It wasn’t until the Civil War that the first income tax was instituted.  It took until 1872 to repeal this because it was considered unconstitutional.  But the Dark Energy out there continued on until 1913 when the 16th Amendment was passed to impose the income tax.  It is unconstitutional yet we still have it.  Justice Roberts is right when he said that such things must be dealt with by the people.

Debt is what hampered the Revolution.  Our Founding Fathers believed in pay as you go.  Debt was not a necessity but it became a necessary evil.  That is why our soldiers fought in retched conditions and with substandard equipment.  From almost the beginning of our founding, this nation has fought against deficit banking.  The idea of a Central Bank had been crushed 4 or 5 times until it was slipped in behind our backs in 1913 and it was called the Federal Reserve.  Now our system runs on deficit spending and fractional banking.

This must end.

[RavenHawk]

Tiggs, on 17 December 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

How's that whole partisan scapegoating thing working out for you, exactly?

It’s all a big joke to you, isn’t it?  Well, keep it up.  As Dr. Emilio Lizardo would say …

Quote

In the preamble, you'll note the phrase  "...to promote the general welfare".

Great!  Finally!!  Thank you for mentioning this.  Shall we take a closer look?  It says to PROMOTE not PROVIDE and it is the GENERAL WELFARE, not WELFARE.  So please note that.  The General Welfare is in reference to maintaining roads, public works, and the like so that the people can go about their daily lives without the hindrance of not having those inanimate things to facilitate the daily routine.  The Constitution was setup to regulate the objects and implements of this Republic and not regulate the people.  That is the whole idea behind liberty and non infringement by the government.  But I digress, you don’t understand that.

[questionmark]

RavenHawk, on 17 December 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

It's all a big joke to you, isn't it?  Well, keep it up.  As Dr. Emilio Lizardo would say …


Great!  Finally!!  Thank you for mentioning this.  Shall we take a closer look?  It says to PROMOTE not PROVIDE and it is the GENERAL WELFARE, not WELFARE.  So please note that.  The General Welfare is in reference to maintaining roads, public works, and the like so that the people can go about their daily lives without the hindrance of not having those inanimate things to facilitate the daily routine.  The Constitution was setup to regulate the objects and implements of this Republic and not regulate the people.  That is the whole idea behind liberty and non infringement by the government.  But I digress, you don't understand that.

general welfare includes WELFARE, because if those are not supported the welfare is hardly general.

[RavenHawk]

Yamato, on 17 December 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

And to promote that general welfare, the powers that the federal government has were thereby enumerated.   Cool, huh?

Yeah, it's cool.  It’s classic.  You write “Promote the General Welfare”, yet in your head, you read “Provide Welfare”.  What a great example of selective understanding.  You are brainwashed.  And you’ll argue the point till the end of time.  Classic!

[RavenHawk]

questionmark, on 17 December 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

general welfare includes WELFARE, because if those are not supported the welfare is hardly general.

Whoooooooooosh!  It went right over your head.

[questionmark]

RavenHawk, on 17 December 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

Whoooooooooosh!  It went right over your head.

No it did not. What most of those who are constantly complaining about welfare don't get is that:

A] We have no sensible job for most on Welfare anyway and
B] It is cheaper to keep a welfare recipient on booze than to keep him in jail.

Therefore having it is less burdening for the tax payer than not having it (as 16 past centuries have shown). If someone decides to do something with himself we should support that, if not we should support that they don't overduely burden us. And the best way to do that is to keep them at a subsistence level where they don't have to resort to stealing. Because it is the cheapest thing to do.

[Tiggs]

RavenHawk, on 17 December 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

It's all a big joke to you, isn't it?

No. I don't find your brand of propaganda comedic, at all.

Quote

Great!  Finally!!  Thank you for mentioning this.  Shall we take a closer look?  It says to PROMOTE not PROVIDE and it is the GENERAL WELFARE, not WELFARE.  So please note that.  The General Welfare is in reference to maintaining roads, public works, and the like so that the people can go about their daily lives without the hindrance of not having those inanimate things to facilitate the daily routine.  The Constitution was setup to regulate the objects and implements of this Republic and not regulate the people.  That is the whole idea behind liberty and non infringement by the government.  But I digress, you don't understand that.

Actually - Article 1,  Section 8 says Provide. Even if it didn't, there is no legal difference between promote or provide - and general welfare can mean a variety of things, which, according to the Supreme Court, includes the provision of social safety nets.

That providing those social safety nets run contrary to your personal political beliefs is another issue, entirely.

Edited by Tiggs, 17 December 2012 - 07:58 PM.