52
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 06:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Cicerone imposter, the poor are better helped by private charities. Private charities are far more effective than government in getting people to become more self reliant.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 06:52 pm
Ican has not yet demonstrated that what the Federal government does constitutes redistribution of wealth. I find it telling that he complains about Bush, but did not begin to complain about such behavior on the part of Bush until Mr. Obama became President.
ican711nm
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 06:52 pm
@Setanta,
Obama, says he is redistributing wealth. I believe he is.

Before he was elected, Obama told Joe the Plumber, while being video taped, that he intended to redistribute wealth.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 06:56 pm
@ican711nm,
I missed that one, Ican. Perhaps you can provide the quote in which Mr. Obama has said that. Whether or not he says that, you have failed to demonstrate that the actions of the Federal government effectually redistribute wealth, and you have failed to demonstrate that this is a policy unique to Mr. Obama's administration.

If you start that sad old lie about objecting to Mr. Bush on the same basis, you'll be left to explain how you didn't come to that conclusion in eight years of Mr. Bush's administration, but noticed it within four months of Mr. Obama's administration.

All we have from you are unsubstantiated allegations, without a shred of evidence, and without even a logical argument to bolster your claims.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 06:58 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Ican has not yet demonstrated that what the Federal government does constitutes redistribution of wealth.

I'm not sure why Ican is being so evasive on this point -- but evasive he most surely is. As I pointed out before, he believes that taxpayers are entitled to one dollar of federal services, programs, or largesse for every dollar in taxes that they pay -- no more and no less. Anything else would be an unconstitutional redistribution of wealth. Like I said, it's the postal savings bank theory of government: put in a dollar, take out a dollar.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 07:01 pm
Under such a system, there would be no means of purchasing F18 fighter-bombers, Amored Fighting Vehicles, assault rifles, body armor or any of the other accoutrements of national defense. One wonders how the nation would be able to defend itself from the swarms of islam0-fascist terrorists who lurk beyond our borders wailing, gnashing their teeth and rending their garments.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 07:06 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta, on this very A2K thread, among others, I posted several times, in 2007, 2008, and 2009, my objections to Bush's redistributions of wealth--in particular his TARP signing. Yes, I should have recognized Bush's problem sooner. Well now, you have a great chance to act in a more timely manner to Obama's wealth redistribution gangsterism than I did with Bush. Don't use me as your excuse for not acting. Our Constitutional Republic is in even more danger now of failing than it was while Bush was President. Sure, go indict Bush, but do it after Obama has been removed from the presidency.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 07:06 pm
I wonder how Ican sees Social Security Disability and the Social Security Survivors program. Are these people the beneficiaries of the redistribution of wealth? If someone were disabled at a very young age, given the rate of social security withholding, within a few years, would be receiving money they had not earned. Should the widows or widowers of c0ntributors to the Social Security Trust Fund be ineligible for payments because they did not earn the money and contribute? What about the inmates of Federal penitentiaries? Should they not be fed and clothed because they did not earn the money which is spent to feed and clothe them? Should not, in fact, they either be set free or murdered out of hand, since they did not earn the money which is needed to house them?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 07:08 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
Well now, you have a great chance to act in a more timely manner to Obama's wealth redistribution gangsterism than I did with Bush.


That would only apply if i agreed with this loopy hypothesis about the redistribution of wealth. I don't.

Quote:
Don't use me as your excuse for not acting.


You will be gratified to know, i'm sure, that i don't use you as an excuse, nor an example, to motivate me to do or not to do anything.

I take it, then, that you have no fears of Joe Biden redistributing wealth?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 07:10 pm
@joefromchicago,
Joe, I do not believe, and have told you several times I do not believe any of what this statement of yours says I believe:
Quote:
As I pointed out before, he believes that taxpayers are entitled to one dollar of federal services, programs, or largesse for every dollar in taxes that they pay -- no more and no less. Anything else would be an unconstitutional redistribution of wealth. Like I said, it's the postal savings bank theory of government: put in a dollar, take out a dollar.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 07:14 pm
If, as you say, you do not believe that people's money which they have earned should be taken from them to give to someone who has not earned it, how do you intend to pay soldiers, sailors and airmen? What do you intend to do about contributors to social security who are disabled but who have taken out in disability payments more than they contributed? What do you intend to do about the survivors (widows or widowers) of social security survivors? What would you do about the inmates of Federal penitentiaries? How would you procure the equipment and supplies needed by the armed forces?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 07:17 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta, I believe in private retirement insurance and private medical insurance. We all would now be far better off at less cost if we had stayed that course instead of asking government to support us.

Those who were unable to purchase such insurance themselves would have been better helped by private charity than by government bureaucracy.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 07:29 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta, soldiers, sailors and airmen, and all the other government employees that contribute to securing our liberties, earn it. Also, the purchase of equipment and supplies to enable those employees to secure our liberties is a justified expenditure of federal taxes.

Please, look at and study Article I Section 8 to see many of the things and people that the Constitution grants government the power to purchase or hire. Salaries for elected officials and appointed federal judges are included elsewhere in the Constitution (see more of Article I, Article II, and Article III to get a good start in finally understanding the powers the Constitution grants the federal government:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

By the way, to get partially uptodate on the size of the wealth transfers promised and made by Obama, read the Wall Street Journal and/or access this web site:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Summary_Tables2.pdf

Should you want more, just ask.
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 07:45 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
Please, look at and study Article I Section 8 to see many of the things and people that the Constitution grants government the power to purchase or hire.


Oh. No NASA. Also, no Air Force.

Sad.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 07:55 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Please, look at and study Article I Section 8 to see many of the things and people that the Constitution grants government the power to purchase or hire.


Oh. No NASA. Also, no Air Force.

Sad.


no fence along the mexican border.

(that oughta get their attention, o.e. heh heh heh ..)
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 08:21 pm
@old europe,
Old europe, the USA Airforce originally evolved from the USA Army Air Corp. Despite its organization after WWII into a separate part from the "Army," constitutionally it is still part of the Army per Article I Section 8.

NASA's organization also evolved from the Defense Department and is therefore an organization covered in the same Article I Section 8 under:
Quote:

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 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;

Happy again?
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 08:27 pm
@ican711nm,
Nah. Neither one is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Which is exactly your basis for declaring any kind of welfare program "unconstitutional".

If you think that the common defense clause covers the Air Force and NASA, then I'm pretty sure that the general welfare clause covers the welfare programs you keep complaining about.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 08:28 pm
@Setanta,
ican's claims about transference of wealth is built on straws with nothing to hold it up. He's a parrot with very little grey matter "up there" where it counts. Empty rhetoric that's repeated ad nauseam.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 08:30 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DTOM, Article I Section 8 (re border fences):
Quote:
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 provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
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.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 08:32 pm
@ican711nm,
ican knows how to contradict his own claims when he wrote:
Quote:
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.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.25 seconds on 11/28/2014 at 09:31:18