AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I don't know that you specifically ever proposed it Foxy...but it's not like this has never happened to someone on the left.

Bill Mahar and Michael Moore just off the top of my head.

But this assumes that the argument "You guys do it, so it's ok if we do it too" is considered valid, which of course, it isn't.

No. Nor does it mean that it won't be attacked by mean spirited, hateful, and intolerant a-holes who think their opinion is the only one that should be tolerated and who think it is okay to organize intimidate advertisers with thousands of emails sent by people who probably don't know who Glenn Beck is and have never heard or seen his program ever.

So does any law that involves the expenditure of money ["transfers wealth"]. In that respect, how does the stimulus bill differ from any other expenditure bill?

If it was their opinion they would write to Beck and give him a piece of their mind. if it was their opinion they wouldn't need to be 'organized'. They don't have a clue who Glenn Beck is or what he is all about. They are following a leader who intends to destroy him.

And where I come from that's wrong and decent people will stand up and say so..

You're making it too complicated and too vague still Ican. See? Joe didn't get it. Remember to break it down into short sentences, little words, and elementary clarity.

They are following a leader who intends to destroy him.

And where I come from that's wrong and decent people will stand up and say so..

I don't expect a consensus that the Stimulus bill is illegal. Oh well, as an ol' buzzard, I'm doing the best I can. I'll keep trying to do better.

Not only does the damn thing not work, it make things worse than they would have been without it.

joefromchicago wrote:

So does any law that involves the expenditure of money ["transfers wealth"]. In that respect, how does the stimulus bill differ from any other expenditure bill?

The "transfer of wealth" is defined herein to consist of taking property from those persons who lawfully earned it, and giving it to those persons who did not lawfully earn it.

Generally, any law that involves the expenditure of money does not transfer wealth as I have defined it, because most such laws take money from persons who lawfully earned it and give it to other persons WHO LAWFULLY EARNED IT: for example, they transfer money to government employees or to government contractors that lawfully earned it.

The Stimulus Bill transfers billions of dollars from tax payers to persons who do not lawfully earn those dollars. Such persons who receive those dollars, receive them to help them avoid bankruptcy, or to help them buy more expensive housing or other items than they could otherwise afford, or to help them avoid other consequences of their own errors. Such persons are helped legally and more constructively by private charities.

There are certain social principles in human nature from which we may draw the most solid conclusions with respect to the conduct of individuals and of communities. We love our families more than our neighbors; we love our neighbors more than our countrymen in general. The human affections, like the solar heat, lose their intensity as they depart from the center and become languid in proportion to the expansion of the circle on which they act. On these principles, the attachment of the individual will be first and for ever secured by the State governments; they will be a mutual protection and support. Another source of influence, which has already been pointed out, is the various official connections in the States. Gentlemen endeavor to evade the force of this by saying that these offices will be insignificant. This is by no means true. The State officers will ever be important, because they are necessary and useful. Their powers are such as are extremely interesting to the people; such as affect their property, their liberty, and life. What is more important than the administration of justice and the execution of the civil and criminal laws? Can the State governments become insignificant while they have the power of raising money independently and without control? If they are really useful, if they are calculated to promote the essential interests of the people, they must have their confidence and support. The States can never lose their powers till the whole people of America are robbed of their liberties. These must go together; they must support each other, or meet one common fate. http://www.nationalcenter.org/AlexanderHamilton.html

I've just got what I think is a fantastic idea! Can you translate one or two of my posts on this subject so that they are not "too complicated and too vague?"

The "transfer of wealth" is defined herein to consist of taking property from those persons who lawfully earned it, and giving it to those persons who did not lawfully earn it.

I think I'm on every hairbrained political mailing list out there

No function of the Federal government was ever intended to benefit or enhance the power of a single or a few individuals or any unique group. And the Founders were ever mindful that the people should never be able to vote themselves money from the public treasury. Once they were allowed to do that, the benefit to the whole would never be a consideration again, and the system would become corrupt and self serving.

Are they losing money? I hadn't seen anyone post that.

You immediately have two rebuttals from the Left:

1) If we don't do this, those who do not earn their bread will have none. I think many on the Left cannot conceive of any way to feed the hungry if the Federal government does not do it.

2) if we do not do this the rich keep getting richer and poor keep getting poorer. To many on the Left, the only way to make the poor richer (or at least feel less bad about being poor) is to make the rich poorer. It is acceptable to take the Marxist view that spreading misery equally produces the greatest good.

ican's paraphrases of the Constitution to help you better understand what it says, are in blue

1. you may think so but the courts and the constitution don't think so.

The Constitution says no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law: for example, without their day in court.

The Constitution says no person shall be deprived of his property without fair compensation: that is, without being paid what that property is worth; And a person's property includes a person's wealth.

2. There is NO LIMIT on what the federal government can levy. It has the ability to tax and there is NO LIMIT set anywhere in the constitution.

The Congress is limited to the power to lay and collect Taxes for the purpose of paying the USA's debts, provide for the COMMON Defense, and provide for the GENERAL welfare of the United States by doing 17 things stated in the Constitution.

3. Your argument goes against Court rulings. The COURT takes precedence over ican.

The COURT does not take precedence over what the Constitution actually says according to the founding fathers: for example, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison. The COURT is not empowered by the Constitution to legislate the law or amend the Constitution. The Constitution is "the supreme law of the land," not the COURT.

However, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison take precedence over ican, and ican takes precedence over parados.

4. What kind of nonsense is that statement? It makes no sense and you can't show me anywhere in the constitution where it requires that "general welfare" means securing rights. In fact there is NOTHING in the constitution about expenditures going to secure rights. Your argument violates the constitution.

Read the Declaration of Independence made by our founding fathers. It declares that governments are instituted among men to secure their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Read the Constitution's preamble. It says, among other things, that it is designed to promote the GENERAL welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Our GENERAL welfare is clearly promoted by securing our liberty

to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

5. Yeah? and? The courts are not the legislature but the courts can rule on laws passed by the legislature. There is no instance of the court ruling that "transfer of wealth" is unconstitutional.

The Constitution does not specify anywhere that Congress and/or the President can "transfer wealth." The Constitution says what our government can do, what it must do, and what it cannot do. One of the things the Constitution says--in the 10th Amendment--the government cannot do is exercise powers the constitution does not delegate to the government.

Our government is not empowered to do anything that the Constitution does not say our government cannot do. Again, our government cannot do anything the Constitution does not say our government cannot do. Our government can do only that which the Constitution says it can do, or must do.

One more time, if the Constitution does not say our government can or must do something, then our government cannot lawfully do that something.

I stand by my impression of the most common rebuttals from the Left. And you yourself have given them in various ways if you use the full context of my statements.