AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

foxfire wrote :

Quote:

I voluntarily assume the risk of driving on the public highways knowing full well that somebody could crash their car into mine. If I don't wish to take that risk, I can stay home.

and further :

Quote:

I do not voluntarily agree to share the road with drunk drivers or otherwise unskilled or impaired drivers that unnecessarily increases my risk.

i'm sure that you read the newspaper and are perhaps even familiar with accident studies .
since you DO KNOW - or at least should know - that there will be "drunk drivers or otherwise unskilled or impaired drivers" on the road you must be aware of the "additional" risk you are taking . you are NOT FORCED by anyone to drive a car and take it out on the highway - you do so voluntarily .

not that i like impaired drivers on the road - but i realize that it is my choice (voluntarily) to take the car on the highway even though i know there will be impaired drivers .
hbg

i suppose we should have two different highways : one for IMPAIRED drivers and one for UN-IMPAIRED drivers , so that we can choose .
since we choose not have separate highways , our law comes down hard on those disobeying .

can the same not be applied in other circumstances : YOU MUST OBEY ! or else ...

2 Replies

@hamburger,

Okay, point well taken. I do indeed voluntarily assume the risk of whatever hazards are out there when I drive onto the public streets and byways. What I meant to be saying--I now realize I communicated it poorly--was that I do not accept any right of drunks, the otherwise impaired, the uninsured, the unskilled, the unlicensed, the poorly maintained etc. to share the public roads with me and thereby put me and others at unnecessary and unacceptable increased risk.

0 Replies

@hamburger,

The way people drive around here, I'd say over 90% are impaired drivers. LOL

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

My comments are in purple:
:Cycloptichorn" wrote:
The Constitution does not require for each dollar made by Americans to be taxed equally; and, the Constitution does not prevent Obama and the Legislature from undertaking any of the actions they have undertaken whatsoever.

False!
Article I.Section 8.
Requires uniform taxation, not uniform non-uniformity taxation.[/color]

Amendment X
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.[/color]

Ican. Your argument omits the language of the relevant section:

"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;"

FALSE!
[quote]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;...[/quote]

THIS CLAUSE DOES NOT SAY:
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 uniformLY NON-UNIFORM throughout the United States;;

[QUOTE]Definition of imposts
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imposts&x=28&y=10
Main Entry: 1IMPOST
...
1 : something imposed or levied : TAX, TRIBUTE, DUTY...[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Definition of uniform
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8
Main Entry: 1UNIFORM
...
1 : marked by lack of variation, diversity, change in form, manner, worth, or degree : showing a single form, degree, or character in all occurrences or manifestations
...
4 : consistent in conduct, character, or effect : lacking in variation, deviation, or unequal or dissimilar operation <the constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization...[/QUOTE]

It has been pointed out to you several times before that the uniformity that you continue to pound relates to GEOGRAPHY. Is that why you omit the relevant language? To pretend that the uniformity provision means something other than what it actually says in the Constitution?

FALSE!
It does not relate to geography it relates to the nature of taxes on ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. All taxes on things or on states or on people prior to the 16th Amendment, were in fact at UNIFORM tax rates throughout the United States as the dictionary defines that term. There is nothing in the 16th Amendment that changed the definition of UNIFORM. There is nothing in the 16th Amendment that said a thing about "relates to geography."

[quote]Amendment XVI (1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.[/quote]]

And why do you cite the 10th Amendment? The amendment provides that powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States. The Constitution EXPLICITLY delegates power to the United States Congress to lay and collect taxes. In other words, the 10th Amendment does NOT support your argument that Cyclop's statement is false.

Cyclop's statement is true and you haven't provided anything from the Constitution to prove otherwise.

FALSE!
I cite the 10th Amendment to emphasize the fact that no judge can amend the Constitution, AND if a power is not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, the federal government does not have that power. The Constitution can only be legally amended in accord with
[quote]Article V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. /quote]

The Constitution is boss. It is the final authority. It is "the supreme law of the land", because it says so in
[quote]Article VI.
...
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding....[/quote]

The Constitution EXPLICITLY delegates power to the United States Congress to lay and collect taxes that "shall be uniform throughout the United States." That is, such taxes shall not be at different rates on things depending on how many things are received during a year, or where in the United States the things are received during the year.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

Your interpretation is false and not supported by any documentation, other than your own pathetic arguments, Ican.

Quote:

The Constitution EXPLICITLY delegates power to the United States Congress to lay and collect taxes that "shall be uniform throughout the United States." That is, such taxes shall not be at different rates on things depending on how many things are received during a year, or where in the United States the things are received during the year.

Your second sentence is 50% correct; the second half of it is what the Constitution says, the first half, you made up.

Look, I know you're not going to admit you are wrong; but YOU know that our tax system isn't going to change, and that you aren't going to convince anyone to impeach Obama. So why not just drop it? Alternatively, I can just make fun of you for as long as you keep pushing the point.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Naw, that's the only way they get their climax.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

By the way, no where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the right to take money from those people who have lawfully earned it, and give it to those people who have not earned it.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

By the way, no where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the right to take money from those people who have lawfully earned it, and give it to those people who have not earned it.

Of course it is; Congress has the power to both levy taxes AND 'promote the general welfare' of the US.

Just more tax denial on your part....

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican: focus on what the Constitution actually says:

"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;"

The phrase "shall be uniform throughout the United States" means it shall be the SAME everywhere in this country. Thus, if Congress lays a tax on the income of individuals, that tax must be the same for individuals living in New York, Los Angeles, Texas, Maine, etc. In other words, Congress cannot make people living in New York pay higher taxes than people living in Los Angeles.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Your interpretation is false and not supported by any documentation, other than your own pathetic arguments, Ican.

Your interpretation is false and not supported by any documentation, other than your own pathetic arguments, Cycloptichorn. I have provided lots of documentation to support my arguments: excerpts from the Constitution itself, and excerpts from the dictionary.

If my arguments were truly pathetic like you say, then surely a genius like yourself would find it easy to find documentation that supports your argument.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Your interpretation is false and not supported by any documentation, other than your own pathetic arguments, Ican.

Your interpretation is false and not supported by any documentation, other than your own pathetic arguments, Cycloptichorn. I have provided lots of documentation to support my arguments: excerpts from the Constitution itself, and excerpts from the dictionary.

If my arguments were truly pathetic like you say, then surely a genius like yourself would find it easy to find documentation that supports your argument.

I am going with what the Constitution actually SAYS, not what you think it should say, Ican. Plz see Deb's post above. The Constitution says 'uniform throughout the United States,' not 'Uniform on each dollar earned or spent.' For you to claim that the framers of the Constitution would not have known the difference is folly and unsupportable.

My opinions on the matter are backed with the full force of the US Government, as they have built policies and have over a century of history implementing those policies based on those opinions. Yours are supported by nobody but other tax deniers.

No matter what you argue here on A2K, you will pay what the government tells you to, or they will come after you. So it seems your opinions really aren't worth much on this topic.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

By the way, no where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the right to take money from those people who have lawfully earned it, and give it to those people who have not earned it.

Yes it does. Again, you're ignoring the explicit language of the Constitution:

"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;"

Our elected representatives in Congress determined that the public welfare requires federal dollars be spent to provide a minimal amount of aid to indigent families with children and the disabled.

0 Replies

Promote is different from provide. And what IS the GENERAL welfare? Is it one select group who votes Democrat? Or is that that group who votes mostly Republican? Are only SOME people included in the GENERAL welfare or is everybody included in the general welfare?

How do you justify that one person is qualified to received benefits as part of the GENERAL welfare but not another?

The Constitution specifies that the government has specific functions that it is required to carry out. It does need taxes in order to pay for those functions and short of conducting raids to steal it from people, the only logical means to pay for those functions is to assess taxes. But as the Constitutional (legitimate) functions of government are for the benefit of all, it is only fair that all pay a share of the taxes.

There is no Constitutional basis for the government requiring Citizen A to provide Citizen B with anything.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Tell that to the legions of Republicans who support the fully refundable Child Tax Credit. Eliminate that and half of those who 'pay no taxes' would be paying taxes, and you'd have less to complain about.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I've already expressed my quarrels with the Republicans' fiscal irresponsibility. The Child Tax Credit is certainly one provision that deserves a look and reasoned--'reasoned' means not ad hominem or other diversionary or irrational--debate of the merits or lack thereof of that.

I would rather talk about my question re what constitutes the general welfare. Does that mean special interest groups? Lobbyist interests? Rich? Poor? Or everybody on the theory that the rain should fall on the just and unjust alike?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

By the way, no where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the right to take money from those people who have lawfully earned it, and give it to those people who have not earned it.

Of course it is; Congress has the power to both levy taxes AND 'promote the general welfare' of the US.

Just more tax denial on your part....

Cycloptichorn

What is your evidence to support your claim that taking money from those people who have lawfully earned it, and giving it to those people who have not earned it, is supporting the general welfare of the United States?

Such action by the federal government supports only the welfare of those people who receive money from the federal government they haven't earned. Such money does not help the general welfare of the United State. Such money does not help secure the lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness of those people who have their money taken from them and not paid to the federal government to help it provide that security.

That money is instead paid to those who are doing zero to help the government provide for the "common defense AND general welfare of the United States." That money is not providing for the "common defense" of each of us by providing for the common welfare of a selected set of persons.

I expect that you are incapable of admitting you are wrong on this topic. But I shall persevere to at least deny you the validity of the excuse: "nobody told me!"

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

By the way, no where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the right to take money from those people who have lawfully earned it, and give it to those people who have not earned it.

Of course it is; Congress has the power to both levy taxes AND 'promote the general welfare' of the US.

Just more tax denial on your part....

Cycloptichorn

What is your evidence to support your claim that taking money from those people who have lawfully earned it, and giving it to those people who have not earned it, is supporting the general welfare of the United States?

Such action by the federal government supports only the welfare of those people who receive money from the federal government they haven't earned. Such money does not help the general welfare of the United State. Such money does not help secure the lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness of those people who have their money taken from them and not paid to the federal government to help it provide that security.

That money is instead paid to those who are doing zero to help the government provide for the "common defense AND general welfare of the United States." That money is not providing for the "common defense" of each of us by providing for the common welfare of a selected set of persons.

I expect that you are incapable of admitting you are wrong on this topic. But I shall persevere to at least deny you the validity of the excuse: "nobody told me!"

what a poor student of history you are, Ican. You don't seem to be able to think past your own pocketbook for a second.

Tell me: what becomes of a society in which those at the margins are either ignored or told that it is their own fault they are there?

Answer: it eventually degrades to the point where revolution begins.

Supporting the general welfare means preventing that from happening through targeted action. You may not like that, but that doesn't mean it isn't the case.

Also,

Quote:

That money is instead paid to those who are doing zero to help the government provide for the "common defense AND general welfare of the United States."

How do you know this? Who are you talking about?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

By the way:

Definition of common

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=common&x=30&y=9
Main Entry: 1com·mon
...
Function: adjective
...
1 a : of or relating to a community at large (as a family unit, social group, tribe, political organization, or alliance) : generally shared or participated in by individuals of a community : not limited to one person or special group <we, the people of the U.S., in order to ... provide for the common defense -- U.S. Constitution>

Definition of general

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=general&x=24&y=11
Main Entry: 1gen·er·al
...
Function: adjective
...
1 : involving or belonging to the whole of a body, group, class, or type : applicable or relevant to the whole rather than to a limited part, group, or section <appearance of general decay> <a general change in temperature>
2 : involving or belonging to every member of a class, kind, or group : applicable to every one in the unit referred to : not exclusive or excluding
...
3 a : applicable or pertinent to the majority of individuals involved : characteristic of the majority : PREVALENT, USUAL, WIDESPREAD <the general opinion> <a custom general in these areas> <the conflict became general> <we, the people of the United States, in order to ... promote the general welfare -- U.S. Constitution> b : concerned or dealing with universal rather than particular aspects <general history>
...

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

By the way, no where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the right to take money from those people who have lawfully earned it, and give it to those people who have not earned it.

Of course it is; Congress has the power to both levy taxes AND 'promote the general welfare' of the US.

Just more tax denial on your part....

Cycloptichorn

What is your evidence to support your claim that taking money from those people who have lawfully earned it, and giving it to those people who have not earned it, is supporting the general welfare of the United States?

Such action by the federal government supports only the welfare of those people who receive money from the federal government they haven't earned. Such money does not help the general welfare of the United State. Such money does not help secure the lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness of those people who have their money taken from them and not paid to the federal government to help it provide that security.

That money is instead paid to those who are doing zero to help the government provide for the "common defense AND general welfare of the United States." That money is not providing for the "common defense" of each of us by providing for the common welfare of a selected set of persons.

I expect that you are incapable of admitting you are wrong on this topic. But I shall persevere to at least deny you the validity of the excuse: "nobody told me!"

what a poor student of history you are, Ican. You don't seem to be able to think past your own pocketbook for a second.

Tell me: what becomes of a society in which those at the margins are either ignored or told that it is their own fault they are there?

Answer: it eventually degrades to the point where revolution begins.

Supporting the general welfare means preventing that from happening through targeted action. You may not like that, but that doesn't mean it isn't the case.

Also,

Quote:

That money is instead paid to those who are doing zero to help the government provide for the "common defense AND general welfare of the United States."

How do you know this? Who are you talking about?

Cycloptichorn

#1 - You start out with ad hominem. That gets you in trouble with a debate judge right off the bat if you were being scored on content and technique here.

#2 - You plow right into logical fallacy with an apparent presumption that Ican's statement would result in a segment of society being marginalized.

#3 - You have not shown how targeting groups is promoting the general welfare unless you are stating that targeting special interest groups is what general welfare means. Is that what you are saying?

#4 - Leading to revolution suggests a fact not yet in evidence but it could be interesting to discuss. It doesn't help your argument here, however.

#5 - Changing 'promoting' to 'supporting' changes the entire premise of the statement but even if that was allowable--it isn't allowable in formal debate by the way--it begs the question: how?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

My comments are in purple.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

what a poor student of history you are, Ican. You don't seem to be able to think past your own pocketbook for a second.

FALSE!
My pocketbook is unaffected by raising or lowering taxes on the rich. I doubt that an income less than a $1,000 per week is considered an income of the wealthy.

Tell me: what becomes of a society in which those at the margins are either ignored or told that it is their own fault they are there?

Answer: it eventually degrades to the point where revolution begins.

FALSE!
People who find themselves in those conditions in the USA are helped by voluntary contributions to various charities like the ones I contribute to: Salvation Army, Goodwill, Churches and/or Synogogues.

Supporting the general welfare means preventing that from happening through targeted action. You may not like that, but that doesn't mean it isn't the case.

I target, you can target, and all God's children individually and voluntarily target the folks who need to be targeted to get our help. The great thing about private charity is that they all try to help people learn to end their dependence on charity and provide for themselves. Government on the other hand tends to keep people in need in permanent dependency. I remember reading a Ben Franklin quote telling Congress that "it's not theirs to give." The context of that was the Congress's consideration of legislating the government giving a widow enough money to live on. What many members of that Congress actually decided to do was themselves voluntarily donate to that widow.

Also,

Quote:

That money is instead paid to those who are doing zero to help the government provide for the "common defense AND general welfare of the United States."

How do you know this? Who are you talking about?

I'm talking about people who are unemployed because of Bush's and Obama's irresponsible solutions to stimulating our economy. These people would be helped far more effectively by reducing taxes on those who would and could provide them jobs so that they themselves could contribute directly to the GENERAL WELFARE of the USA.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know