AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Foxy's statement is untrue. Our founding fathers considered it a public responsibility to provide relief to the poor and they used taxation to pay for their relief programs.

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't read Parados's posts.

A rather embarrassing admission on your part, as his writing frequently cuts right to the heart of your and other Conservative's arguments. It is hard not to believe you simply wish to avoid the incisive criticism, more than any other factor.

Cycloptichorn

Not embarrassing at all. I don't mind at all incisive criticism and encourage it and relish having the opportunity to defend my point of view or perspective against a worthy opponent. I don't enjoy arguing with people who don't know how to do that, however, who in fact refuse to do that, and who think unkind personal observations and criticisms are valid debate.

Foxfyre, quoting a source on Catholic Social Teaching wrote:

There are needs and common goods that cannot be satisfied by the market system. It is the task of the state and of all society to defend them. An idolatry of the market alone cannot do all that should be done.

Wait a minute.. So now you are saying that THIS is part of your definition of modern American Conservatism?

You simply amaze me Fox with the way you change meanings to make everything you think is good is conservative and everything bad is not.

How about you stopping your clever insight

meant that the tax rate on any kind of thing (e.g., population, dollars of income) must be the same throughout the USA.

The uniformity thus required is the uniformity throughout the United States of the duty, impost, and excise levied; that is, the tax levied cannot be one sum upon an article at one [157 U.S. 429, 593] place, and a different sum upon the same article at another place. The duty received must be the same at all places throughout the United States, proportioned to the quantity of the article disposed of, or the extent of the business done. If, for instance, one kind of wine or grain or produce has a certain duty laid upon it, proportioned to its quantity, in New York, it must have a like duty, proportioned to its quantity, when imported at Charleston or San Francisco; or if a tax be laid upon a certain kind of business, proportioned to its extent, at one place, it must be a like tax on the same kind of business, proportioned to its extent, at another place. In that sense, the duty must be uniform throughout the United States.

'The difficulties in the way of this construction have, however, been very largely obviated by the meaning of the word [157 U.S. 429, 595] 'uniform,' which has been adopted, holding that the uniformity must refer to articles of the same class; that is, different articles may be taxed at different amounts, provided the rate is uniform on the same class everywhere, with all people, and at all times.'

The uniformity thus required is the uniformity throughout the United States of the duty, impost, and excise levied; that is, the tax levied cannot be one sum upon an article at one [157 U.S. 429, 593] place, and a different sum upon the same article at another place. The duty received must be the same at all places throughout the United States, proportioned to the quantity of the article disposed of, or the extent of the business done. If, for instance, one kind of wine or grain or produce has a certain duty laid upon it, proportioned to its quantity, in New York, it must have a like duty, proportioned to its quantity, when imported at Charleston or San Francisco; or if a tax be laid upon a certain kind of business, proportioned to its extent, at one place, it must be a like tax on the same kind of business, proportioned to its extent, at another place. In that sense, the duty must be uniform throughout the United States.
...
'The difficulties in the way of this construction have, however, been very largely obviated by the meaning of the word [157 U.S. 429, 595] 'uniform,' which has been adopted, holding that the uniformity must refer to articles of the same class; that is, different articles may be taxed at different amounts, provided the rate is uniform on the same class everywhere, with all people, and at all times.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

CORRECTION
The US Constitution was actually ACTIVATED by the states on March 4, 1789!

Not ADOPTED March 4, 1879 as I had mistyped.

Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion
By EAMON JAVERS
7/20/09 3:19 PM EDT

A series of bailouts, bank rescues and other economic lifelines could end up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion, the U.S. government’s watchdog over the effort says " a staggering amount that is nearly double the nation’s entire economic output for a year.

If the feds end up spending that amount, it could be more than the federal government has spent on any single effort in American history.

For the government to be on the hook for the total amount, worst-case scenarios would have to come to pass in a variety of federal programs, which is unlikely, says Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the government’s financial bailout programs, in testimony prepared for delivery to the House oversight committee Tuesday.

The Treasury Department says less than $2 trillion has been spent so far.

Still, the enormity of the IG’s projection underscores the size of the economic disaster that hit the nation over the past year and the unprecedented sums mobilized by the federal government under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama to confront it.

In fact, $23 trillion is more than the total cost of all the wars the United States has ever fought, put together. World War II, for example, cost $4.1 trillion in 2008 dollars, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Even the Moon landings and the New Deal didn’t come close to $23 trillion: the Moon shot in 1969 cost an estimated $237 billion in current dollars, and the entire Depression-era Roosevelt relief program came in at $500 billion, according to Jim Bianco of Bianco Research.

The annual gross domestic product of the United States is just over $14 trillion.

Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams downplayed the total amount could ever reach Barofsky’s number.

“The $23.7 trillion estimate generally includes programs at the hypothetical maximum size envisioned when they were established,” Williams said. “It was never likely that all these programs would be ‘maxed out’ at the same time.”

Still, the eye-popping price tag provoked an immediate reaction on Capitol Hill. “The potential financial commitment the American taxpayers could be responsible for is of a size and scope that isn’t even imaginable,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. “If you spent a million dollars a day going back to the birth of Christ, that wouldn’t even come close to just one trillion dollars " $23.7 trillion is a staggering figure.”

Congressional Democrats say they will call for Treasury to meet transparency requirements suggested by the inspector general, said a spokeswoman for the Oversight committee. “The American people need to know what’s going on with their money,” said committee spokeswoman Jenny Rosenberg.

Read more:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html

Why does he want it passed before the August recess?

Because he knows that once the members of Congress get back to their home districts and get an earfull from the people, they won't be so willing to vote for this.

Foxfyre wrote:

Why does he want it passed before the August recess?

Because he knows that once the members of Congress get back to their home districts and get an earfull from the people, they won't be so willing to vote for this.

Exactly, and also before his approval number dip even more, and before they have to release even more dire deficit and budget numbers. Also before the analysts begin to dig up even more bad facts about the legislation.

At least with President Bush's prescription bill--another boondoggle though on a miniature scale compared to this one--we were well informed and knew exactly what we were getting. Which is why many of us--at least of those paying attention--opposed it.