AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

It's based on your and my assumption that if the Constitution doesn't authorize it, the government can't legally do it Ican.

I suppose it is possible for the government to tax the people an exhorbitant amount and spend it on Constitutionally authorized mandates such as national defense. But why would they? What would they gain without commiting pure fraud that would be discernable and prosecutable? A budget limited to Constitutionally authorized expenditures would be much smaller than what we now have, easier to read, easier to understand, and the excesses would be much more easily identified.

In other words, the people would again have the ability to know what the government was doing on their behalf. And we would have the ability to more easily identify those who were abusing their power or using it irresponsibly. And, because government would be prohibited from buying votes from the people by favoring those who could most easily be bought, there would be absolutely no incentive for not voting out the incompetent and/or corrupt.

And again, if the money was collected and there was no legal or justifiable ways to spend it, it would pile up in the treasury and the people would see that they were being over taxed and could pressure their elected representatives to tax less.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

It's based on your and my assumption that if the Constitution doesn't authorize it, the government can't legally do it Ican.

It is an "assumption" that the USSC disagrees with you on Fox.

Therein lies the weakness of your argument. You claim to support the constitution but then you turn around and ignore what the constitution says about which branch gets to make rulings of what the constitution means.

2 Replies

@parados,

But, they don't like those rulings, Parados, b/c they torch their tax-denier arguments!

I wonder if Fox is going to admit that we did, in fact, refute her argument?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Nope. You didn't even state my argument accurately, much less address it or refute it. And you certainly haven't provided anybody's opinion who holds credentials or authority anywhere nearly approaching Dr. Sowell's on this subject even if I had been using only his take on it to form my own opinion. (I didn't use only his opinion, however, as is testified to by the many sources I've posed over the last months.)

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, It is also my understanding of what I have read, that it was those weak underwriting standards pushed by none other than ACORN, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and others of their ilk that pushed all those risky mortgages. AND it was because Fannie and Freddie were willing to underwrite them, the financial institutions threw caution to the wind and jumped on the gravy train--real estate was the most lucrative and dependable investment out there. Yes, CRA was not the cause. But CRA was the excuse used to justify it. Without the housing bubble that all those risky mortgages pushed to the bursting point, the house of cards would never have been built to such lofty heights and the inevitable crash would have had a much softer landing.

Neither Cycloptichorn, cicerone imposter, or parados can provide a rational alternate explanation that disputes the above.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
It's based on your and my assumption that if the Constitution doesn't authorize it, the government can't legally do it Ican.

It is an "assumption" that the USSC disagrees with you on Fox.

Therein lies the weakness of your argument. You claim to support the constitution but then you turn around and ignore what the constitution says about which branch gets to make rulings of what the constitution means.

Which USSC would that be Parados? If you have read any of the history on that posted over the last several days, you'll see the problem with your argument there.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Nope. You didn't even state my argument accurately, much less address it or refute it.

Fox, you didn't even state your own argument clearly. It is neither my not Parados' job to do so on your behalf. All you did was throw a bunch of blame at the Dems with no actual facts to back it up.

We have clearly shown you, with several links, to be wrong. You have not provided evidence that supports your case; and I think you know it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Nope. But they'll sure try to obfusicate and detract and try to pull the focus away from it.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Yes I have Cyclop. And I have noted your opinion--the same opinion that you seem to so poorly understand yourself since you have refused to discuss it in your own words . You seem to continue to operate under the delusion that if you say something isn't so it isn't and if you say that something is so it is and to think that is valid debate. I have also noted the cut and pastes that you have provided, I have checked the sources and the biographies and while they are certainly opinions, I in no way agree that they refute with anything more than opinion--generally highly biased opinion--any of the sources that I have posted.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

That's funny stuff there Fox.

So if he puts it in his own words, you attack him for not being an expert or using experts.
If he cuts and pastes an experts words than you attack him for not putting it in his own words.

So.. Just to be clear here Fox. What will you accept for discussion?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes I have Cyclop. And I have noted your opinion--the same opinion that you seem to so poorly understand yourself since you have refused to discuss it in your own words but you seem to operate under the delusion that if you say something isn't so it isn't and if you say that something is so it is. I have also noted the cut and pastes that you have provided, I have checked the sources and the biographies and while they are certainly opinions, I in no way agree that they refute with anything more than opinion--generally highly biased opinion--any of the sources that I have posted.

Sorry, but your sources include no factual data whatsoever, whereas mine have done that. This makes my sources superior to yours in terms of evidence for my opinion. Neither you nor Sowell has provided evidence to back up your opinion; the Wiki article you pasted was incorrectly interpreted by you and does not provide evidence for your opinion.

Parados is correct - I have never refused to discuss this issue in my own words, where can you show that I have done so? Jeez.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

What problem?

Arguing that the USSC didn't believe in the decision they made doesn't invalidate the ruling. There is nothing in the Constitution saying you get to ignore USSC rulings if you want to believe they didn't make the right ruling.

0 Replies

@parados,

I accept anything for discussion that is not a personal attack, 'gotcha' stuff, or stupidity so blatant that it does not merit a response. I do not expet that my argument is more or less credible than anybody elses IF the somebody else provides a rational argument that they can BACK UP with either logic or credible data. If they cannot do that, then my opinion is as good as theirs.

I can scour around the internet and come up with all sorts of stuff to defend my point of view too, but I don't pretend that all sources are equal in credibility or authority or objectivity. And when you are discussing economic issues and have a highly partisan lawyer's opinion writing on a highly partisan site put up against an experienced and highly credentialed and non-partisan PhD economist's opinion, which one do you think most likely has the greater authority and credibility?

Cyclop even said Sowell had obviously not done any research on the issue he was writing and, despite the reams of stuff I have already posted on this, he accused me of the same thing. He has yet to retract or apologize for that silly statement and thereby disqualifies himself from the discussion by virtue of silliness.

You come in with your standard SOP of attack mode and 'gotcha' and make no attempt to discuss the topic. Your sole purpose seems to be in attempting to discredit other's opinions. That is your prerogative, and you have good company on A2K, but it quickly becomes very tiresome and boring for those of us who actually do want to explore ideas, concepts, and why things are the way they are.

It's just a matter of reason and logic and preference actually.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Cyclop even said Sowell had obviously not done any research on the issue he was writing and, despite the reams of stuff I have already posted on this, he accused me of the same thing. He has yet to retract or apologize for that silly statement and thereby disqualifies himself from the discussion by virtue of silliness.

Ridiculous, you make comments more excessive than this with regularity, Fox. For you to claim you owe no further response on the topic due to this is simply a dodge.

I made the comment I did b/c the two of you are perfectly incorrect. There is no actual evidence to prove your case. You have not posted evidence that proves your case and Sowell does not provide any in his piece.

Krugman writes extensively about political matters just as Sowell does; are you going to claim that he is obviously right, and he has fully researched ALL topics he discusses, just b/c of his scholarship?

To refer to Sowell as 'non-partisan' is a joke. He is clearly partisan and you know it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You can't even get the argument right Cyclop. I did not say that Sowell was obviously right. I don't actually agree with Sowell on all opinions he expresses. But I am damn sure he has researched his subject before he writes about it.

And how is Sowell partisan? Seems to me nobody has escaped his praise when warranted and nobody has escaped his criticism when warranted no matter what party they belong to. So show your proof that he is partisan if you want to make that statement. I can point to years of his columns as evidence of my opinion about that.

But who has the better credentials and greater authority to write on the economy: Paul Krugman or me?

Who has the better credential and greater authority to write on the climate: Timothy Ball or me?

Who has the better credentials and greater authority to write on the economy: a lawyer or a PhD economist?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

But I am damn sure he has researched his subject before he writes about it.

What evidence do you have of this? None. This is just a supposition on your part. Therefore, it has no place in the discussion; especially since he is so clearly wrong on this issue, as are you.

Come back when you have some actual facts to present, and not just 'your understanding' of the situation.

Quote:

And how is Sowell partisan?

Sowell is an admitted, partisan Republican pundit. Fox; stop playing dumb. This is ridiculous.

Cyclotpichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I am certain because he has not been seriously challenged, criticized, or refuted by his peers in the 50+ years of his professional career and is often quoted or referenced by them. I am certain because of his credentials, standing, and quite impressive track record. That is my evidence.

What evidence do you have that he has not? You said it was obvious that he had not. Obvious to who. You? Then surely you must have some evidence for that. Let's see it.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I am certain because he has not been seriously challenged, criticized, or refuted by his peers in the 50+ years of his professional career and is often quoted or referenced by them. I am certain because of his credentials, standing, and quite impressive track record. That is my evidence.

Oh, right; Sowell's record is perfect and unchallenged. What fantasy world do you live in? Nobody is perfect.

Quote:

What evidence do you have that he has not? You said it was obvious that he had not. Obvious to who. You? Then surely you must have some evidence for that. Let's see it.

I already presented it. The head of the FED and FDIC specifically refute him. Data from studies specifically which I have posted in this thread refutes him and you. You and he have posted no data; you have merely Appealed to Authority, claiming that b/c Sowell said it, why, it must be true and researched by him.

That is a Logical Fallacy, which you know. When you went to discuss this issue in your own words, what you posted had no underlying logic but instead just said 'I read this, and blame it on Democrats, but with no actual facts to support that opinion.' Not a strong argument.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Your opinion noted Cyclop. When you choose to argue the same point I'm making perhaps we can resume this. But I gave up trying to nail jello to the wall awhile back, and if you insist on rewriting what I say into straw men, there's no point in continuing here. I have already disagreed that you refuted what Sowell said and you don't seem to be able to comprehend what Sowell actually said either.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, the Constitution definitely supports your position. BUT!

Foxfyre wrote:

I suppose it is possible for the government to tax the people an exhorbitant amount and spend it on Constitutionally authorized mandates such as national defense. But why would they? What would they gain without commiting pure fraud that would be discernable and prosecutable?

They would do it for the same reasons the Obama-crats are doing it. The Obama-crats are behaving like gangsters--allegedly currently supported by a majority of voters expecting government to transfer wealth to them. Such transfers of wealth from those who lawfully earned it to those who did not earn it, are otherwise known as theft. The Obama-crats are behaving like gangsters, perhaps because they think they can get away with behaving like gangsters, if they quickly enough gain the power they are greedy for.

Only the voters and/or their state legislatures can hold them accountable now.

The state legislatures can among other things call for a Constitutional Convention:

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.

Example proposed amendment:
Amendment XXVIII (currently Amendment XXVII is the last amendment)
Specified Federal elections shall be held whenever a majority of the state legislatures request such elections.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know