55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 11:30 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Quote:
Those who benefit from the sale of these products should bear some responsibility for their downside.

Quote:
The sale of alcohol generates large amounts of tax revenue for states and the federal government. The most recent national statistics on revenues from taxes and fees on alcohol are from 2006. Federal Tax Revenue _ Distilled Spirits: $4.6 billion _ Wine: $877 million _ Beer: $3.7 billion State Tax Revenue _ Distilled Spirits: $5.7 billion _ Wine: $1.6 billion _ Beer: $5.4 billion Local Tax Revenue _ Distilled Spirits: $529 million _ Wine: $219 million _ Beer: $1.09 billion

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/02/15/A_look_at_taxes_generated_by_the_sale_of_alcohol_l/


I agree, the government should stop taxing them. We also now have governments with financial stakes regarding that entity benefiting from the increased amounts of smokers to increase revenues even further. Gambling is another state sanctioned activity as long as the state gets its cut off the top.

JM
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 11:36 am
@JamesMorrison,
(On whether we should legalize drugs)

That has been one of the toughest issues for me to sort out, James. In addition to working with families dealing with addictions, I have also been hands on involved in dealing with domestic violence of which much involves use of alcohol and drugs, legal and illegal. I have worked insurance claims that were a direct result of addicts taking money and property of others to support their habits--people who otherwise would never have done anything like that. I have not been directly involved, but I know that at least half our prison population is for drug related crimes, often for no more than personal possession, and that a large amount of gang violence, border violence, bar brawls, homelessness, emergency room overload, and general public disorder is directly related to abusing alcohol and/or other drugs.

Would most or any of that be relieved if we legalized most or all of it? I don't know.

I do know that most recovering addicts do not want the stuff legalized.

I do know that those making their living by trafficking in illegal substances won't give up their businesses so easily and, if we dry up the adult market, at least many will go after the kids with a vengeance.

But the number of those now stealing to support their addiction would likely be reduced if they had access to a legal, affordable supply and I know that would be the most humane way to handle it. But an addiction is just as debilitating and/or deadly to the addict whether he acquired it legally or illegally and I believe those countries who have legalized recreatonal drugs all reported higher addiction rates. (I haven't looked at such statistics in years, however so could be wrong about that.)

So, bottom line. I don't know what I think about that, James. It is not an easy one.

0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 11:54 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote
Quote:
:"So you want miracles? Obama has been in office for less than two months, and Bush had eight years to destroy our economy and country. What a dork!

If you want miracles, go to your church and pray. "


Both Foxfyre's and my posts alluded to a time element involved, which will soon become relevant to the American public, longer then two months and relates to the mid-term elections. But I would hope that, given a deteriorating American economy as the focus, President Obama would not chose your above words as Re an explanation to the electorate.

JM
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 11:54 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:


Not one has yet agreed with Boetcker's principles that have been posted a few times now, and several have criticized me for posting them. Certainly they have not been willing to discuss them on their own merit. (I think one person dismissed them because MACs couldn't exclusively claim them. Smile)

But these principles I believe illustrate critical underpinnings of MACean thought:

Quote:
Basic principles defined by Wm Boetcker:
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
* You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
* You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
* You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
* You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
* You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
* And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.



As has been repeatedly pointed out Fox. Your bromides are meaningless sine they are so vague they have little meaning.

* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. - Bush promoted spending after 9/11. You might want to look at Reagan as well. His policies certainly didn't promote thrift.

* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. - No one can deny that a country with nuclear weapons is strong therefor there is no reason to try to stop North Korea from having a nuclear weapons program since that would only weaken them.

* You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. Saddam was certainly a big man in Iraq. Tearing him down didn't help the little men in Iraq? So then you were opposed to the invasion on conservative principles?

* You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. - That sounds like an argument FOR paying the bonuses at AIG.

* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. - meaningless since the present tax system does NOT destroy the rich. This has been pointed out several times to you Fox and you have never defended the statement.

* You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. Reagan borrowed HOW much money to build up the US military?

* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. How exactly is class hatred incited? There is a difference of opinion here for sure and no clear answer.

Please defend your bromides AS WRITTEN. Your defense always seems to be to change the meaning to what you WANT them to mean and not what they actually say.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 11:55 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Sir Winston Churchill said: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
That must be one of the reasons one of Obama's first official acts was to return to England a Churchill bust that had graced the Oval Office while Bush was president.


Laughing

Well adding this to the insulting manner in which President Obama handled Gordon Brown's recent visit, perhaps it is safe to say that our President does not put international relations with the UK high on the priority list? I wonder if other European nations can look forward to similar disdainful treatment from our President who had pledged to rebuild diplomatic ties and restore American prestige in the world?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 12:03 pm
@Foxfyre,
Having been out of the country for the last 2 weeks, I am unfamiliar with how Obama insulted Gordon Brown Fox. Could you tell me?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 12:12 pm
@parados,
It was in all the papers, radio broadcasts, telecasts etc. President Obama did not hold a state dinner or do any of the traditional ceremonial stuff for Mr. Brown citing distraction re the economy as the reason--this despite the fact that he has not been too distracted to throw several lavish parties at the White House for his buddies. Also, there was a lot of comment about the cheesy cheap gifts presented to Mr. andMrs. Brown and the children with suggestions that they were a last minute afterthought and picked up by staffers in the White House gift shop.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 12:17 pm
@Foxfyre,
Joining parados here and asking about the insult.

Foxfyre wrote:
I wonder if other European nations can look forward to similar disdainful treatment from our President who had pledged to rebuild diplomatic ties and restore American prestige in the world?


You mean the press conference? Or the 25 DVD's as present? Or ...?
Well, we are used to much worse by the Bush administration.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 12:17 pm
@Foxfyre,
In all the right-wing blogs, you mean to say. Most of the papers didn't buy into the faux-outrage bullshit the Conservatives tried to drum up on this non-issue.

Cycloptichorn
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 12:17 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Well, and what was the insult?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 12:20 pm
@ican711nm,
AGAIN!
Like it or not, these are the only powers the Constitution grants to the Federal Government to "provide for "the common defense and the general welfare of the United States:"
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;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
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 coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
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;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
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 make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
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.


Like it or not, the preceding powers are the only powers the Constitution grants to the Federal Government to "provide for "the common defense and the general welfare of the United States:" This interpretation can be verified by:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS
Specifically:
Quote:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed36.asp
Hamilton No. 36
Let it be recollected that the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national legislature, but is to be determined by the numbers of each State, as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule, a circumstance which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have been provided against with guarded circumspection. In addition to the precaution just mentioned, there is a provision that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States.''

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp
Madison No. 41
''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp
Madison No. 45
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.[/quote]
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 12:21 pm
@Foxfyre,
Here's a report from a UK media to make up your own mind about "snubs."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1158395/Seize-moment-Brown-set-make-speech-life-U-S-Congress-muted-reception-Obama.html
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 12:22 pm
@ican711nm,
ican wrote
Quote:
:"Sir Winston Churchill said: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
That must be one of the reasons one of Obama's first official acts was to return to England a Churchill bust that had graced the Oval Office while Bush was president."


That's just mean! Couldn't they just put it out in the hallway or something? Yeh, given "The One's" rehtoric I thought he'd be more thoughtful and kind towards other nation's feelings but then the U.K., like a good and thoughtful ally did help us out with that Iraq thing (I still contend that if France stood beside us on that, Saddam would have got the message and backed down resulting in no war, oh well). Wait a minute was Brown P.M. back then? Hmmm...

JM
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 12:23 pm
@Foxfyre,
I don't see an insult in there Fox other than your attempt to create one.

Failure to throw a party for Brown is NOT an insult in my book. Claiming Obama threw several lavish parties when Brown was here is not true to my knowledge. Rather it seems to be an attempt to make up an insult.

Giving a gift is an insult these days? What ever happened to "It's the thought that counts?"
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 12:23 pm
@JamesMorrison,
It's because ican doesn't know the meaning of socialism. Ignorance begets ignorance.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 12:27 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

In all the right-wing blogs, you mean to say. Most of the papers didn't buy into the faux-outrage bullshit the Conservatives tried to drum up on this non-issue.

Cycloptichorn


Yep, right wing blogs...

Quote:
British press aghast at 'cheap' Obama gift

Posted on: Saturday, 7 March 2009, 14:15 CST

British newspapers are upset over what they see as rude treatment given to Prime Minister Gordon Brown by U.S. President Barack Obama this week, observers say.

The London dailies criticized Obama's treatment of Brown during his state visit to Washington this week on several fronts, including alleged cheap gift-giving, the New York Daily News reported Saturday.

"President Obama has been rudeness personified toward Britain," The Daily Telegraph wrote Friday. "His handling of the visit of the prime minister, Gordon Brown, to Washington was appalling."

The main point of contention was an alleged gift-giving snub. Brown gave Obama a pen holder made from the timbers of the 19th century British warship HMS President, while Obama responded by awarding Brown a collection of classic American movie DVDs.

"Oh, give me strength," the Daily News quoted an appalled Daily Telegraph staffer as writing. "We do have television and DVD stores on this side of the Atlantic."


Even the Huffington Post got in on the action.

Gordon Brown Faces Humiliation After Obama 'Snub'
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 12:30 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

So Walter, where is it written that the USA can install any kind of missile launcher, offensive, defensive, or anti-missile, in any European country without that country's consent?


By the way: today the Czech government withdrew treaties committing the country to the US' missile defence shield from parliament, fearing they faced defeat.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 12:30 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote
Quote:
:"It was in all the papers, radio broadcasts, telecasts etc. President Obama did not hold a state dinner or do any of the traditional ceremonial stuff for Mr. Brown citing distraction re the economy as the reason--this despite the fact that he has not been too distracted to throw several lavish parties at the White House for his buddies. Also, there was a lot of comment about the cheesy cheap gifts presented to Mr. andMrs. Brown and the children with suggestions that they were a last minute afterthought and picked up by staffers in the White House gift shop."


Wow! Perhaps the fiscally responsible President Obama should not of cut back on the White House's Secretary of Protocol's salary.

JM
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 12:30 pm
@parados,
Im sure you don't see an insult in there, though I'm equally sure that you would clearly see an insult in there if the President had been George Bush instead of Barack Obama.

From the Huffington Post who is nobody's idea of a pro-GOP, pro-Bush publication or anything other than a very leftwing, pro-Obama one:

Quote:
Downing Street is looking to avoid potential humiliation after the White House scaled down the profile of Gordon Brown's first formal meeting with Barack Obama.

While the Prime Minister is expected to hold nearly two hours of talks with the US president, the White House has categorically ruled out a traditional joint press conference before the White House media. After overnight protests from British diplomats, the White House agreed to allow journalists into the Oval Office later for a brief round of questions after the talks.

Gordon Brown's officials have played down the significance of the decision and deny the Prime Minister is being snubbed. However, the move will distinctly lessen the prestige of the PM's coup of becoming the first European leader invited to Washington for talks with Obama since his inauguration in January.

That Obama will find time to meet with the Boy Scouts of America later this afternoon is sure to add to the embarrassment.

The trip is in marked contrast to the hospitality lavished on Tony Blair by George Bush when they met for the first time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/03/gordon-brown-faces-humili_n_171406.html
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 12:32 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
So, Walter, please enlighten us on the 'far worse' shabby treatment President Bush gave to your elected leaders.
 

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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/02/2025 at 06:29:44