AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Better clarify this one Ican or they'll be accusing you--again--of opposing all taxes.

My (ican's) responses are in blue.

Thanks for the warning BUT the accusations made by CALOPS are best ignored when irrational. Such an accusation would indeed be irrational.

I do think a good discussion of the 10th Amendment is in order.

OK! Let's start here.

10th Amendment: "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."

From the 14th Amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I can appreciate condemning property for the public good--i.e. acquiring a tract of land necessary to expand the water treatment plant, etc. when constructing a new one would be excessively costly for the taxpayers. But such land acquired for such public use must be paid for in real money at a fair price based on the fair market price for the land PLUS whatever opportunities, income, aesthetics, etc. the landowner is giving up. The Constitution is very specific that the government cannot take private property without giving fair value for the property confiscated.

From the 5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Come to think of it, that is a great argument against progressive taxation. Does the rich man get as much value for taxes paid at a higher rate as the poor man does at a lower rate? Interesting question, yes?

YES! Also, from Article I, Section 8: "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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States".

More than one tax rate on income is not authorized. So within the United States, a zero tax rate on some dollars of income, cannot be allowed if the tax rate on other dollars of income is not zero.

I do think the Founders would roll over in their grave if they thought somebody might have their property confiscated 'in the public interest' and given to another private party. (Kelo comes to mind.)

Yes! I bet they'd roll over many many times, while yelling: "What the hell is the matter with you people. Can't you read and understand English?" Unfortunately, many who allege they can read and understand Enlish, actually cannot when it states things to be true other than what they want to understand to be true.

But then too the argument has been made that the 10th amendment assigns to the state how they will do such things.

Don't forget the 7th Amendment which follows: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

So it comes down to whether property is an unalienable (and therefore untouchable by ANY government) right?

Yes! Some but not all property is alienable under certain restrictions.

Also, Foxfyre, some property is not alienable under any other circumstances than criminal circumstances.

Throwing bailout money at the banks doesn't seem to be working. (See the piece below.) Perhaps the govt. should, at least temporarily, go into the banking business and allow the banks to either thrive or sink, as the market provides.


Another Bailed-Out Firm, Another Junket?By DANIEL WAGNER and MATT APUZZO, AP

Wells Fargo & Co., which received $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money, is planning a series of corporate junkets to Las Vegas casinos this month.

Wells Fargo, once among the nation's top writers of subprime mortgages, has booked 12 nights at the Wynn Las Vegas and its sister hotel, the Encore Las Vegas beginning Friday, said Wynn spokeswoman Michelle Loosbrock. The hotels will host the annual conference for company's top mortgage officers.
The conference is a Wells Fargo tradition. Previous years have included all-expense-paid helicopter rides, wine tasting, horseback riding in Puerto Rico and a private Jimmy Buffett concert in the Bahamas for more than 1,000 employees and guests.
"I was amazed with just how lavish it was," said Debra Rickard, a former Wells Fargo mortgage employee from Colorado who attended the events regularly until she left the company in 2004. "We stayed in top hotels, the entertainment was just unbelievable, and there were awards " you got plaques or trophies."
While the nation's recession has led other banks, such as Bank of America , to cancel employee recognition outings, Wells Fargo has not.
"Recognition events are still part of our culture," spokeswoman Melissa Murray said. "It's really important that our team members are still valued and recognized."
Corporate retreats have attracted criticism since the bank bailout last fall. Congress scolded insurance giant American International Group Inc. for spending $440,000 on spa treatments for executives just days after the company took $85 billion from taxpayers.
AIG has since canceled all such outings.
Beginning Feb. 25, Wells Fargo's insurance division is hosting a 40-person team meeting at the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas, according to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority.
Murray did not immediately have details about the size or cost of the events or what was planned.
In previous years, top loan officers were treated to performances by Cher, Jay Leno and Huey Lewis. One year, the company provided fortune tellers and offered camel rides, Rickard said. Every night when employees returned to their rooms, there was a new gift on their pillows, she said.
Wells Fargo Chairman Richard Kovacevich has traditionally greeted every employee personally when they arrived.
Rooms at the Wynn and the Encore are consistently among the most expensive in Las Vegas. The $2.3 billion Encore opened in December. Its decor includes a 27-foot Asian dragon made from 90,000 Swarovski crystals and artwork by Colombian artist Fernando Botero. One of the restaurants features Frank Sinatra's 1953 Oscar.
Both properties have high-end retail stores, including Manolo Blahnik at Wynn and Chanel at Encore.
On Monday, Wells Fargo said it would pay a quarterly dividend of $371 million to the Treasury Department as part of the bailout. The government invested billions in the company to help shore up the banking industry.

Most of the stimulus package will not work like the billions already given to banks, finance companies, auto, insurance, and most of what's already been "spent." The big boys are giving themselves millions in bonus while the rest of the country suffers from losing jobs, health insurance, and whatever savings they once had.

What the democrats proposed has too many of the same effect, and will not create jobs. Why can't they see the obvious?

Heh, they are completely different beasts, with different goals.

The money given to financial institutions in the 700-billion dollar 'bailout' was purportedly to keep the banks from folding. It's having some effect. But it isn't increasing lending, b/c the bill didn't force them to do so. It isn't limiting compensation, b/c the Republicans screamed bloody murder when the Dems brought that up.

The 'stimulus' package being talked about right now will put more money into the economy and to a certain degree will create new jobs. We don't have to put language into the bill to force people to spend the money; they won't have any choice but to do so.

So when we say it 'will not work,' what does that mean? Will it end the recession? No. Will it shorten it or make it less painful? Maybe. Will it put money in the hands of people who badly need it right now? Definitely.

Cycloptichorn

Not only would I like to see most of the money going to main street, but into construction of our infrastructure.

The difficulty is how those who have been responsible and paying their bills are not benefiting like the people who are ready to lose their homes based on their mortgage balance being more than the equity in their homes. Who determines which families get help and which not?

It's not an easy call when the value of housing continues to change for the worse.

What I'd like to see are the make up of the stimulus package between the expansion of social services vs the creation of jobs. The expansion of social services only delays the inevitable without jobs.

Correct. Tell your boy, Obama, and Nancy and Harry and gang that, ci. Actually, don't tell them, and let the country tank so that maybe sooner we get some sane adults back in there in two years.

But in answer to your question, the reason is because they do not understand basic laws of supply and demand, the free market, and how the economy works. Thus they do not have a clue about what to do to nurse it back to health. Instead, they believe in bigger government, more socialism, more taxes, paying off their unions, which all provides less incentive for average people out here to go out there and work hard. Why work if the government will take care of you, and actually why pay taxes if the politicians don't?

You must be joking, Cicerone Imposter. Are you saying that the most brilliant president in the last hundred years would allow the big boys to give themselves millions in bonuses? Didn't you read his angry denunciation of the "big boys" who give themselves bonuses the other day? He won't allow it.

Look for legislation OR presidential decrees that bonuses and/or pay for the greedy CEO's must be held to a reasonable level,like no more than $250,000 a year. I would be well if President Obama would press for the same kind of legislation that FDR put into practice. Are you aware of the FDR's master stroke?

The Undistributed Profits Tax.

That will show those greedy CEO's who, by taking so much out of the economy are creating more starving widows and orphans.

Actually, I think that President Obama should get a great thinker on the Economy to help him. --Andrew Hacker. Dr. Hacker, in his book "Money" suggested that the government place a ceiling on wages and bonuses( 100,000 a year-since this was ten years ago, we could make it 200,000 a year) and then ANY MONEY MADE BEYOND THIS LEVEL WOULD REVERT TO THE US TREASURY AND THEN BE DOLED OUT TO THE POOR AND NEGLECTED IN OUR COUNTRY.

Wouldn't that be a great idea?

Hacker's book is called "Money" Everyone should read this great book!!

Cyclopitchorn has no faith in President Obama. He obviously did not listen to his pre-election speeches. Obama WILL end this recession and soon. If he doesn't the Democrats will lose dozens of seats in 2010.

But Cycloppitchorn forgets that Obama is the most brilliant president since Jefferson. Obama will banish the recession by the end of 2009.

genoves, They must have regulations in place "before" they give out the $$$$$.

okie, You dummy! Obama is not my "boy."

genoves, How can Obama be "the most brilliant president in the last hundred years" when he's been in office for barely a couple of weeks? You are a hopeless idiot.

But Okie does understand the economics. Jesus, that is hilarious. Okie's the go to guy for the economy and Ican is the constitutional expert.

Those would be the large number of racists that reside in the US of A.

I bet he IS if u are a citizen.
Did u vote for him ?

I voted against him.





David

Childish at best. Get lost little boy.

Still waiting for an answer to my question from any Conservative:

Are CEO's and investment fund managers who made poor investment decisions, putting tons of cash into leveraged, risky investments, responsible for their mistakes or not?

Cycloptichorn

The primary causers of the CEO investment mistakes are the Congress. Congress created, maintained, and is now trying to stupidly and illegally rescue the public company Fanny & Freddy from bankruptsy. Congress is also trying to stupidly and illegally rescue private companies that sought/seek to profit from the alleged rescue of Fanny & Freddie from bankruptsy. CEOs were too easily seduced by Congress into trying to profit from all those Congressional mistakes.

Either the Congress terminates all their stupid and illegal, alleged rescues, or America will collapse into a socialist dictatorship. If Congress terminates their stupid and illegal, alleged rescues, then either the current CEOs will have to earn their salaries by managing the legal rescue of their companies, or they must be replaced. It's a lot easier for companies to replace CEOs than for American voters to replace the liberals, Rinos, and Cinos in the current Congress.

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/


Too many MALs (i.e., Modern American Liberals), RINOs (i.e., Republicans In Name Only), CINOs (Conservatives In Name Only), and CALOPs (i.e., Contemporary American Liberals or Progressives) are promoting gangsterism in America. They do this by stealing money, by acting as accomplices of those who steal money, by advocating or supporting those who steal money, or by tolerating those who steal money.