AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Just the same, I was happy to see that Snopes didn't dismiss this one as false.

Why does that make you happy?

Because it told me that I can generally trust my instincts re what is probaby true and what isn't.

So, just out of curiosity, which parts of the email did your instincts tell you were true?

Just out of curiosity, why do you want to know?

Because most of that e-mail was untrue.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

But it had a ring of truth.

That's totally different Joe.
K
Of course a liberal leftist would twist her words...

1 Reply

@parados,

The taxes I pay constitute a portion of the money I lawfully earn.

I assume the taxes most Americans pay constitute a portion of the money they lawfully earn.

When the tax money they lawfully earn and pay is given by the federal government to people who do not lawfully earn it, that is an illegal transfer of wealth that is a violation of the Constitution of the USA.

No where in the Constitution is government granted the power to transfer tax money from tax payers to people who do not lawfully earn it.

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

But it had a ring of truth.

http://gone4sure.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/rock-hudsons-smoke-rings.jpg

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

The taxes I pay constitute a portion of the money I lawfully earn.

I assume the taxes most Americans pay constitute a portion of the money they lawfully earn.

When the tax money they lawfully earn and pay is given by the federal government to people who do not lawfully earn it, that is an illegal transfer of wealth that is a violation of the Constitution of the USA.

No where in the Constitution is government granted the power to transfer tax money from tax payers to people who do not lawfully earn it.

How did you feel about the pay outs to the families of the victims of 9/11? Or TARP? Money spent to rebuild Iraq?

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Money spent on transportation and housing projects are illegal transfers of wealth but if they spend it in Texas then it isn't an illegal transfer?

That post of yours, parados, is a stupid interpretation of what I posted. You need help!

A correct version of your statement would be:
Money spent on transportation and housing projects are illegal transfers of wealth, IF THEY ARE SPENT ANY WHERE BY GIVING IT TO PEOPLE WHO DO NOT EARN IT.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Suppose the federal government funds the construction of an airport in Texas. As a flight instructor, you can't work if you can't fly, so the construction and maintenance of an airport enriches you to the extent that you can make more money simply by virtue of the fact that the airport exists and is available for your use. Now, that airport was built using some of my lawfully earned money, yet I receive no advantage from an airport in Texas while you did nothing to gain the benefit of the tax dollars that ended up enriching you. Those airports aren't free, you know. Is that an unconstitutional transfer of wealth from me to you?

While/when that airport is built, I will not receive any tax money whatsoever. After the airport is built, I earn flight instructor fees from my flight students who voluntarily choose to use that airport AND voluntarily agree to pay my fees. I do not receive any transfer of wealth whatsoever from you to me.

When the federal government builds a highway, all those who subsequently drive their vehicles for no received fee, or for a received wage subsequently drive buses, taxicabs, or trucks on that highway and were not given money by the federal government they did not lawfully earn, did not receive a transfer of wealth they did not lawfully earn.

A rational debate would focus on these clauses in the Constitution (Article I. Section 8.) granting power to the federal government:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."
"To establish post offices and post roads."

Have these clauses granted the federal government the power to construct interstate highways and airports? Regardless of your answer, neither of these clauses grant the federal government the power to transfer wealth from those who lawfully earn it to those who do not lawfully earn it.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

freeduck wrote:

How did you feel about the pay outs to the families of the victims of 9/11? Or TARP? Money spent to rebuild Iraq?

families of the victims of 9/11?
SUPPORT - Victims of terrorisms earn that support because of the failure of the Feds to adequately secure their rights by protecting them from terrorists.

TARP?
OPPOSE - Transfers money people lawfully earned to people who did not lawfully earn it.

Money spent to rebuild Iraq?
UNSURE - Only if ALL that money was actually spent to rebuild Iraq, would I support it, because it would then have enabled the Feds to help secure our rights.

Fannie and Freddy?
OPPOSE - Transfers money people lawfully earned to people who did not lawfully earn it.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

While/when that airport is built, I will not receive any tax money whatsoever.

Why is that the test? Just because you didn't end up with a check from the government doesn't mean that you're not better off than you were before the airport was built -- and it doesn't mean that I'm not worse off because my tax money is going to build your airport.

I don't see why you think it's constitutionally significant that someone receives cash instead of a non-monetary benefit. For instance, suppose, in its TARP plan (which you contend is unconstitutional), the federal government gave the banks barrels of oil or gold bars instead of money. Would that be an unconstitutional transfer of wealth from those who had earned it to those who had not?

ican711nm wrote:

A rational debate would focus on these clauses in the Constitution (Article I. Section 8.) granting power to the federal government:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."
"To establish post offices and post roads."

Have these clauses granted the federal government the power to construct interstate highways and airports?

What's your answer?

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

Not only the rebuild Iraq, but to help pay in the destruction of that country.
Conservatives prefer to spend our tax money that way rather than health care for our own citizens.

Logic is not their strong suit.

0 Replies

I found the following paragraph in Glen Beck's Book, "Common Sense," within its Thomas Paine section on "Common Sense," in the Chapter, "Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs," page 142. Paine wrote:

Quote:

Though I would carefully avoid unnecessary offense, yet I am inclined to believe, that all those who espouse reconciliation, may be included within the following descriptions: Interested men, who are not to be trusted; weak men who cannot see; prejudiced men, who will not see; and a certain set of moderate men, who think better of the European world than it deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities to this continent than all the other three.

While Paine wrote this in America in 1776, it seems quite pertinent to the current American political debate.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I am objecting to the federal government transferring tax money paid by those who lawfully earn it and giving it to those who did not lawfully earn it. When the feds construct an airport, or an interstate highway, or an interstate railway, or dredge/widen an interstate waterway, or simply control the flow of air traffic, they of necessity must pay people the money they lawfully earn when they work on those projects. The Feds are granted the power by the Constitution to do that. However, the feds are not granted the power by the Constitution to transfer tax money paid by those who lawfully earn it and give it to those who did not lawfully earn it.

A rational debate would focus on these clauses in the Constitution (Article I. Section 8.) granting power to the federal government:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."
"To establish post offices and post roads."

Have these clauses granted the federal government the power to construct interstate highways and airports? YES!

Post offices, post roads, interstate highways, railways, water ways, airways, and, yes, airwaves, are all integral and necessary parts of interstate commerce. When the feds construct or traffic control any of these, they are promoting interstate commerce that requires the beneficiaries of same to earn income to pay for and/or use these things. The beneficiaries of these things are not receiving money they did not lawfully earn.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Let me try this again:

I don't see why you think it's constitutionally significant that someone receives cash instead of a non-monetary benefit. For instance, suppose, in its TARP plan (which you contend is unconstitutional), the federal government gave the banks barrels of oil or gold bars instead of money. Would that be an unconstitutional transfer of wealth from those who had earned it to those who had not?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

The issue, Joe, is not the content of the wealth transfer, it is the conditions under which that wealth transfer occurred. If the Feds were to buy with tax revenue one ear of corn and give someone that ear that they did not lawfully earn, that would be an unconstitutional transfer of wealth by the Feds. However, if the receiver of that ear of corn had lawfully earned it by the work he did, then that would be a constitutional transfer of wealth by the Feds.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:
Money spent on transportation and housing projects are illegal transfers of wealth but if they spend it in Texas then it isn't an illegal transfer?

That post of yours, parados, is a stupid interpretation of what I posted. You need help!

A correct version of your statement would be:
Money spent on transportation and housing projects are illegal transfers of wealth, IF THEY ARE SPENT ANY WHERE BY GIVING IT TO PEOPLE WHO DO NOT EARN IT.

So.. you are saying this isn't true then?

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Transportation and housing.........$61,795......................$61,051

The items in red are a "transfer of wealth."

The Federal government spent 61 billion on transportation and housing projects. You highlighted it and said quote..
"The items in red are a "transfer of wealth."

Was your statement true or not? The $61 billion was NOT a give away. Most of it went for projects for which people were paid for doing work.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

No where in the Constitution is government granted the power to transfer tax money from tax payers to people who do not lawfully earn it.

Nowhere have you made a valid argument that "transfer of tax money" even exists as you have described it.

1 Reply

@parados,

Not only that, but a third of the Stim bill was tax cuts. Surely Ican realizes that a huge portion of this year's deficit is because we instituted tax cuts.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

The issue, Joe, is not the content of the wealth transfer, it is the conditions under which that wealth transfer occurred. If the Feds were to buy with tax revenue one ear of corn and give someone that ear that they did not lawfully earn, that would be an unconstitutional transfer of wealth by the Feds. However, if the receiver of that ear of corn had lawfully earned it by the work he did, then that would be a constitutional transfer of wealth by the Feds.

Good, then you agree that the form of the wealth transfer is immaterial. In other words, it does not have to be cash in hand -- it can be oil or gold or corn or frozen turkeys. Then it follows that the wealth transferred doesn't have to be in a tangible form at all, wouldn't you agree? So when my tax money is used to buy the airport that you use, that's a wealth transfer from me to you, isn't it?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

The Federal government spent 61 billion on transportation and housing projects. You highlighted it and said quote..
"The items in red are a "transfer of wealth."

Was your statement true or not? The $61 billion was NOT a give away. Most of it went for projects for which people were paid for doing work.

If you are correct that most of it went for projects for which people were paid for doing work, then only that part that did not go for projects for which people were paid for doing work IS A GIVE AWAY.

What percentage of the $61 billion did not go for projects for which people were paid for doing work?

Let's say that percentage is 20% or $12.2 billion. Then only that $12.2 billion should have been highlighted in red by me. The remaining 80% or $48.8 billion should not have been highlighted in red by me.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Nowhere have you made a valid argument that "transfer of tax money" even exists as you have described it.

Yes I did! ... and so did you with that phrase "most of it" but not the phrase "all of it."

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know