AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I have no idea how relevant his criticism of Obama is. This letter is dated October 31, 2008 and the letter writer makes a big deal out of "Joe the Plumber". Obama was months away from beginning his presidency. Obama is flexible and is willing to modify the way the economic crisis is being handled.

A valid comment but realistically October 31 was just a bit short of five months ago. Certainly our elected leaders can and do change their perspective and point of view and should if additional information/experience warrants that, but otherwise does a leopard generally change his spots in so short a time?

I have not seen a great deal of flexibility in our President except that he is governing far more left of the impression he put out there while campaigning. And I have seen no willingness to compromise. His response to that so far has been "I won."

Do you think he would have been elected had he campaigned on his first budget being 3.5 trillion dollars with all the increase being in new essentially irreversible entitlements and social spending, especially since he was emphatically running against a poor economy? I have seen no indication he intends to modify that despite expert opinion that his projected revenues will likely miss the mark and the GDP cannot sustain the deficts he projects without severe economic damage being done.

I have seen no indication that he intends to reverse much if any of the tax policy that he ran on but has since proposed additional taxes. His rhetoric has been nonstop and explicit in his contempt for 'corporate and wallstreet' greed and that those who earn a certain level (i.e. those who have been financially successful) will be expected to pay more to support the government he intends and he also intends that they give up lucrative tax deductions as well.

All this is seen by me and apparently at least some others as a frontal assault on capitalism and individual initiative and prosperity. I can't see that Obama has compromised on any of that since the letter was written.

I really do not see "non-stop rhetoric" from Obama. He is focused on the details of the problem.

No, I do not think that he is. I think he is focused as much as he is able on promoting a grandiose agenda with little understanding of the probable consequences of that agenda. I don't think he understands the problem or even knows what it is, much less is addressing it.

One would think a frontal assualt on Capitalism wouldn't include hundreds billions of dollars being spent to save the system exactly as it is, wouldn't you agree?

Obama is doing everything he can to save the Capitalistic market right now. This is really a ridiculous accusation of yours Fox. Just b/c he proposes more spending and higher taxes doesn't mean he's anti-capitalistic.

Cycloptichorn

That's awfully nice of you, but it doesn't really help. See, okie claims Obama has been demonizing capitalism and wealth, but he cannot back it up, because Obama never actually said what he claims he said.

Now, in support of okie's opinion, you offer somebody else's opinion.

Key quote:



Throughout his opinion piece, this guy can't point to a single example of Obama actually demonizing capitalism. But it's supposedly all there, between the lines. We only have to interpret everything Obama says the way this guy interprets it.

He has no case.

---

People really have to get over themselves. A progressive tax system is not socialism. Favouring a policy that would marginally increase top tax levels is not "demonizing capitalism" or expressing a "Socialist creed".

Crying "communism" and claiming that a progressive tax system is unconstitutional and that Obama should be impeached seriously makes people look like nutcases. Particularly when you had a progressive tax system and the government nationalising companies under the last administration, too.

oe, You should know by now that okie makes all kinds of claims he is unable to back up with facts or evidence. His imagination runs wild, and he expects sane people to accept his gibberish. What I find most disappointing is that more people do not challenge his rhetoric that are full of nonsense.

You, cicerone imposter, make all kinds of claims you "are unable to back up with facts or evidence."

This post of yours is but one of many examples:

Cicerone, your "rhetoric is full of nonsense."

THE OBAMA-CRAT'S ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWERS
Obama and his fellow Obama-crats are employing and promising to employ powers not delegated by the Constitution to any of the three branches of the federal government. Specifically, the federal government is not empowered by the Constituion to transfer money lawfully earned by individuals or organizations to individuals or organizations that have not earned that money. Specifically, the federal government is not empowered to tax different dollars of individual income differently. These federal government employments of powers not delegated by the Constitution are illegal. Their perpetrators are criminals. These criminals are gangsters.

Some Obama-crats observe that previous administrations have simiarly violated the Constitution's grant of limited powers. Bush-cans, in particular, have done the same. Yes, that's true. Now, Obama-crats are accelerating or promising to accelerate this trend in exercise of these illegal powers to a far greater extent than the Bush-cans or any of his predecessors. This trend must be stopped NOW before it destroys our Constitutional Republic.

EVIDENCE OF THE ILLEGALITY OF THESE EMPLOYMENTS OF POWER BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
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."


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp
Madison No. 41
"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms to raise money for the general welfare.

''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/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://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
"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. "

ican, Sorry you spent so much time on your post, but I didn't read anything past the first line. Quit wasting your time, because I'm not reading it.

Well, it appears that the only thing that would make the case according to your standards would be when Obama stands up and says, "Listen up ya'll. Capitalism is the devil and I'm demonizing it so I can justify and get support for increased taxes, lowered productivity, and stepped up socialization of a big chunk of the economy." Apparently pertinent examples of how a capitalist sees it are not sufficient to make the case to your standards.

I wonder what would meet your standards? What would he have to say? What would he have to do?

How many leaders who governed in ways the people found not to their liking do you suppose announced in advance that such was their intention? Or perhaps if the people had read between the lines and accurately recognized what was happening, it might not have been so easy for such leaders to take so much control.

And yet, you have never called the Bush administration "criminals" and "gangsters". You have never called for the impeachment of President Bush due to the alleged violation of the Constitution by enforcing a progressive tax code.

For 8 years, you have accepted that a President, according to your interpretation, violated the Constitution.

You have no leg to stand on.

So, the fact he is fighting hard to SAVE the privately run banks, instead of nationalizing them - that's an indication to you that he's against capitalism?

You guys would claim the same about anyone who wanted to raise taxes at any time. It's not a convincing argument without actual, yaknow, evidence.

Cycloptichorn

oe, I believe people like ican has a mental deficiency that is not only inconsistent, but is unable to decipher right from wrong. When one side does wrong, they remain quiet, but when the other side does the same thing, they call call for impeachment - all based on their erroneous interpretation of the constitution!

No. I'd be content with a quote or two from Obama that can reasonably be interpreted as "demonizing capitalism and wealth".

I've read the whole opinion piece you posted, but there's no single quote there. It's all conjecture, interpretation and babbling about "I know what he really means when says something completely different".

You have no case.




There whole piece doesn't even contain a single "pertinent example" of Obama "demonizing capitalism and wealth".

This guy obviously has a right to his opinion, and if his opinion is that by supporting a progressive tax code or marginally raising top tax rates constitutes "demonizing capitalism and wealth", Obama is demonizing capitalism, he's welcome to voice his opinion. It's just not an actual example of Obama doing what he claims he's doing.




42.

Why do you ask?

I didn't mention the banks, though I am watching that very closely. I would not be surprised if this latest gambit is not designed and intended to fail so that he is justified in taking over the banks as absolutely necessary and will receive less criticism for doing so.

He can read the tea leaves and knows how his idea to control wages/salaries etc. of financial institutions has met with lukewarm response if not downright alarm. He is also on the record as not approving punishing a small group of people over those AIG bonuses, but he has given no message Congress that he would veto such a bill if it hits his desk. He has yet to speak up against blatant extortion of AIG executives by high ranking Democrats threatening to publish and making public their names if they did not return those bonuses.

That's true. I'm all in favour of keeping an eye on elected politicians rather than going back into apathy once the elections are over.

You can therefore make the case that Obama is favouring or appears to be favouring certain policies based on what he is doing. However, to claim that he is "demonizing capitalism", I'd expect you to come up with at least one good example of where he is actually doing something that amounts to that.

That's one of several differences between you and me. You, a social liberal, think what Obama says is just fine. A MACean capitalist sees what Obama says very differently.

And I asked just to see if you could provide any kind of example of what Obama could say that would convince you that he was 'demonizing capitalism' since you say that the very explicit examples included in that letter make no case.

...

Very conspiracy-theoryish of you, Fox. Honestly.



He doesn't need to indicate to Congress he would veto such a bill; it's none of his business until it passes, really. Congress IS a co-equal branch of government, or perhaps you forgot that?

Cycloptichorn

Very likely.



I'm saying you're unable to back up your claim that there are very explicit examples of Obama demonizing capitalism in the piece you've posted.

But why not see whether I really can't be convinced: pick the absolutely most explicit example of Obama "demonizing capitalism" out of the letter, and post it. No vague "it's all the letter, you're just unable to understand it" - just pick the worst example out of the whole bunch that you claim can be found in the letter, and post it here.

oe, Excellent strategy; it's gonna backfire of Foxie again! LOL