AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

When we have won.

But we're not comparing apples and oranges here. You're sure about the unconstitutionality of wealth transferral because it's not mentioned in the constitution,

I am sure about the unconstitutionality of "wealth transfer," because the Constitution does not grant the feds the power to "transfer wealth."

yet you're unsure about the constitutionality of printing money, even though that's not mentioned in the constitution either. Why aren't you as sure about the latter as you are about the former?

I am unsure about whether or not the three grants of power in the Constitution I previously referenced, grant the feds by implication the power to print money.

However, I oppose the feds printing money unless the printed money is backed by a specified amount of metal that can on demand be exchanged for the printed money (e.g., specified ounces of gold per $100 of printed money). I advocate an Amendment to the Constitution that requires that.

Let me offer one likely explanation for your evident confusion: you don't like what you term "wealth transfers," and so you're sure they're unconstitutional. On the other hand, you like printed money, so you're not sure about whether that's constitutional or not.

Wrong, I like only that printed money that is exchangeable for a federally specified amount of metal (e.g., specified ounces of gold per $100 of printed money).

ican711nm wrote:
TARP money allegedly went to private persons or to private organizations (see Foxfyre's previous post).

TARP money went to a lot of people. But to whom was it given?

TARP money was given to the people or organizations that received it who may or may not be able to repay it.

Look, this is all very simple: you said that TARP was unconstitutional because it involved a "transfer of wealth" from those that earned it to those that didn't. Upon closer examination, however, it appears that a "transfer of wealth" only occurs when someone actually owns the benefit that the government confers -- in other words, receiving a loan doesn't constitute a "transfer of wealth," since the recipient doesn't own the loaned money.

The recipient owns the money s/he received in a loan if permitted to spend it for what he obtained the money to purchase.

Yet TARP, as far as I can determine, didn't involve giving the federal funds to anyone, and you have failed to identify a single instance where a TARP funds recipient was given money under that program. So, according to your definition, TARP didn't involve a "transfer of wealth" at all. Isn't that right?

Wrong! TARP money has been given to persons and organizations who then spend it for what they want to spend it for. Therefore they own it until and if they refund it.

Does one own the factory or home or airplane which one purchased with borrowed--mortgage--money? Of course one does. One cannot obtain a mortgage to buy a factory or home or airplane unless one can show one legally owns, or is about to legally own that factory or home or airplane. A mortgage is merely a lien on what is purchased not a transfer of ownership. One may cease to own it only if one fails to make one's mortgage payments when due, and the mortgage is foreclosed. Sometimes, the mortgagor grants the mortgagee extra time to make the mortgage payments when passed due.

Therefore, TARP loans are transfers of wealth no matter how temporary those transfers are.

The winners of WWII won increased security of their rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

When the Nazis and Shintoists were conquered and Germany and Japan signed their peace treaties with all of us, we all "officially won."

As a matter of fact, the German and Japanese people also officially won on those peace treaty signing days.

I am sure about the unconstitutionality of "wealth transfer," because the Constitution does not grant the feds the power to "transfer wealth."

I am unsure about whether or not the three grants of power in the Constitution I previously referenced, grant the feds by implication the power to print money.

However, I oppose the feds printing money unless the printed money is backed by a specified amount of metal that can on demand be exchanged for the printed money (e.g., specified ounces of gold per $100 of printed money). I advocate an Amendment to the Constitution that requires that.

Wrong, I like only that printed money that is exchangeable for a federally specified amount of metal (e.g., specified ounces of gold per $100 of printed money).

The recipient owns the money s/he received in a loan if permitted to spend it for what he obtained the money to purchase.

Wrong! TARP money has been given to persons and organizations who then spend it for what they want to spend it for. Therefore they own it until and if they refund it.

Does one own the factory or home or airplane which one purchased with borrowed--mortgage--money? Of course one does. One cannot obtain a mortgage to buy a factory or home or airplane unless one can show one legally owns, or is about to legally own that factory or home or airplane. A mortgage is merely a lien on what is purchased not a transfer of ownership. One may cease to own it only if one fails to make one's mortgage payments when due, and the mortgage is foreclosed. Sometimes, the mortgagor grants the mortgagee extra time to make the mortgage payments when passed due.

Therefore, TARP loans are transfers of wealth no matter how temporary those transfers are.

ican711nm wrote:

I am sure about the unconstitutionality of "wealth transfer," because the Constitution does not grant the feds the power to "transfer wealth."

The constitution does not explicitly grant the feds the power to print money or build airports either. Yet you are strangely ambivalent about the constitutionality of those powers.

ican711nm wrote:

I am unsure about whether or not the three grants of power in the Constitution I previously referenced, grant the feds by implication the power to print money.

What more information would you need in order to make up your mind?

ican711nm wrote:

However, I oppose the feds printing money unless the printed money is backed by a specified amount of metal that can on demand be exchanged for the printed money (e.g., specified ounces of gold per $100 of printed money). I advocate an Amendment to the Constitution that requires that.

Do you oppose that because convertability of paper currency is constitutionally required or because it's just a good policy?

ican711nm wrote:

Wrong, I like only that printed money that is exchangeable for a federally specified amount of metal (e.g., specified ounces of gold per $100 of printed money).

Then you don't like paper money.

ican711nm wrote:

The recipient owns the money s/he received in a loan if permitted to spend it for what he obtained the money to purchase.

That's absurd. If I loan you my car to run an errand, do you thereby own my car?

ican711nm wrote:

Wrong! TARP money has been given to persons and organizations who then spend it for what they want to spend it for. Therefore they own it until and if they refund it.

Does one own the factory or home or airplane which one purchased with borrowed--mortgage--money? Of course one does. One cannot obtain a mortgage to buy a factory or home or airplane unless one can show one legally owns, or is about to legally own that factory or home or airplane. A mortgage is merely a lien on what is purchased not a transfer of ownership. One may cease to own it only if one fails to make one's mortgage payments when due, and the mortgage is foreclosed. Sometimes, the mortgagor grants the mortgagee extra time to make the mortgage payments when passed due.

Again, that's simply a contingency. Whether the recipient uses the loan to buy something or buy nothing doesn't affect the status of the loan itself. In any event, if the recipient must repay the loan with interest, how is there a transfer of wealth? If the lender gets back more than it loaned, isn't the wealth being transferred from debtor to lender rather than vice versa?

ican711nm wrote:

Therefore, TARP loans are transfers of wealth no matter how temporary those transfers are.

Would it help if I copied-and-pasted a dictionary definition of "own?"

transitive verb
to possess; hold as personal property; have
http://www.yourdictionary.com/own

The constitution does not explicitly grant the feds the power to print money or build airports either. Yet you are strangely ambivalent about the constitutionality of those powers.

The Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly grant the feds the power to transfer wealth from those who lawfully earned it to those who did not lawfully earn it

What more information would you need in order to make up your mind?

To help make up my mind about the constitutionality of paper money, I'd start by researching the Federalist Papers to see if there is anything in them on the subject relating to the opinions of the founding fathers.

Do you oppose that because convertability of paper currency is constitutionally required or because it's just a good policy?

I think the convertibility of paper currency is just good policy.

Then you don't like paper money.

I don't like paper money that is not convertible to something of value equivalent to the value of what the paper money is alleged to be.

That's absurd. If I loan you my car to run an errand, do you thereby own my car?

Of course not! But if you loan me money to buy a car, I will own the car I buy, and the car--or something else--would merely be collateral for the loan.

Again, that's simply a contingency. Whether the recipient uses the loan to buy something or buy nothing doesn't affect the status of the loan itself. In any event, if the recipient must repay the loan with interest, how is there a transfer of wealth? If the lender gets back more than it loaned, isn't the wealth being transferred from debtor to lender rather than vice versa?

The money the feds loan is owned by the borrower until it is time to repay the loan. The interest on the loan is merely the fee for obtaining the loan.

Would it help if I copied-and-pasted a dictionary definition of "own?"


http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=own&x=24&y=6
Main Entry: 1own
...
1 : belonging to oneself or itself -- usually used following a possessive case or pronoun to emphasize or intensify the idea of property, peculiar interest, or exclusive ownership, and usually with reflexive force <my own father> <his own composition>
2 -- used to specify an immediate or direct relationship <an own brother> <an own cousin> <own sister to the queen>
3 -- used to indicate or intensify the idea of one's own self as agent or doer <cooked his own meal> <acted as his own lawyer>
- be one's own man : to have command of oneself : not to be subject to another <the college president must be his own man -- Harold Taylor>

Congress does anything they please that they can legislate into law to spend money. If you have a problem with that, it's just too bad; live with it! As one voter, you have absolutely no control over congress.

I don't consider unsustainable deficits to be an acceptable return on our money. What if instead of the goverment spending us into oblivion, it had chosen to restrain spending for anything we didn't absolutely have to do, and rather focus on relaxing all but the most necessary regulations and providing incentives for busineses to begin to hire and take reasonable risks again and other measures that encourage the private sector to recover and grow.

I think if we had done that we would be seeing ourselves climbing out of the mess by now.

In matters of government, it is inevitable that there will be some ambivalence in the gray areas while holding strong opinons re the blatant misuse of the people's money, resources, and/or violations of their Constitutional, civil, legal, human, unalienable rights.

Ican can speak for himself.

joefromchicago wrote:

The constitution does not explicitly grant the feds the power to print money or build airports either. Yet you are strangely ambivalent about the constitutionality of those powers.

The Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly grant the feds the power to transfer wealth from those who lawfully earned it to those who did not lawfully earn it

To help make up my mind about the constitutionality of paper money, I'd start by researching the Federalist Papers to see if there is anything in them on the subject relating to the opinions of the founding fathers.

Of course not! But if you loan me money to buy a car, I will own the car I buy, and the car--or something else--would merely be collateral for the loan.

The money the feds loan is owned by the borrower until it is time to repay the loan.

The interest on the loan is merely the fee for obtaining the loan.

You don't like paper money because it can't be converted into something of equal value but in your next statement you say a car has equal value of money.

Of course not! But if you loan me money to buy a car, I will own the car I buy, and the car--or something else--would merely be collateral for the loan.

You're pretty sure about that, but you have no clue how the constitution implicitly permits congress to print paper money. How can you be so sure about the former and so confused about the latter?

Wrong, Joe! I have a clue. I previously posted my clue, and here is my clue again:
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;


I checked. There's nothing in the Federalist Papers about the federal government printing money, only some references to the prohibition against states issuing paper money (see nos. 42 and 44). Does that help you make up your mind?

Yes, it helps some, but it is not conclusive enough for me to make a decision about that.

What you do with the loaned money doesn't have any bearing on the constitutionality of the loan itself. Where in the constitution does it say that the federal government can't lend money if the recipient is planning on buying something with that money?

Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government CAN lend money if the recipient is planning on buying something with that money?

One more time, Joe: THE FEDS DO NOT HAVE THE LEGAL POWER TO DO SOMETHING IF THAT POWER IS NOT GRANTED THE FEDS IN THE CONSTITUTION!

Even after copying-and-pasting the dictionary definition, you still don't understand what "own" means. That's a shame.

You apparently are unable to grasp all the meaningS of the definition.

No, the interest ON LOANED MONEY is the charge for the time-value of the money.

It is the fee for BOTH obtaining and possessing the money for a time.

Wrong, Joe! I have a clue. I previously posted my clue, and here is my clue again:
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;

Yes, it helps some, but it is not conclusive enough for me to make a decision about that.

Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government CAN lend money if the recipient is planning on buying something with that money?