FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

@old europe,

With only a very few narrowly defined exceptions, I am opposed to the government taking property of those who earn it and giving that property to people who haven't earned it. I think usually such a practice hurts everybody. So yes, I would oppose the government just handing out $2500 to everybody, no strings attached, and calling that a healthcare plan.

I am in favor of government programs and services that are equally beneficial to all. So in that sense I have no problem with a tax credit that helps everybody, richer and poorer alike, to purchase health insurance coupled with the rest of McCain's plan to make insurance more universal and competitive (and therefore more affordable), more portable, and more accessible.

I am always in favor of the governmenting finding ways to take less of the people's money and eventually only taking that necessary for the goverment to carry out its Constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

The devil is always in the details whatever we do though, and of course McCain's plan will need to come with reams if not volumes of rules, regulations, controls, checks, and balances as will Obama's.

3 Replies

@old europe,

Quote:

That sounds like you would disagree with a proposal that effectively hands out $2,500/$5,000, regardless of the actual cost of the health care plan purchased...?

You would need a lot more information than we have to decide whether to agree or not with such a proposal. It would be a pitch and carefully worked out.

We had an embarassing incident a while back (for the government I mean) with a tax change and in the kerfuffle it turned out that they knew how many stood to gain and how many stood to lose and by how much and what their incomes, and other tax credits they enjoyed, were. The journalists, the real ones, hunted down some losers from the poorer districts and got them to weep and wail enough to get the whole thing effectively cancelled.

And further to that people would agree or disagree for different reasons.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

With only a very few narrowly defined exceptions, I am opposed to the government taking property of those who earn it and giving that property to people who haven't earned it. I think usually such a practice hurts everybody. So yes, I would oppose the government just handing out $2500 to everybody, no strings attached, and calling that a healthcare plan.

Okay. But what about a plan that would hand out $2,500 or $5,000 respectively, with the only strings attached being that people would have to purchase health insurance - no matter how much they'd actually end up paying for their insurance?

Good plan? Bad plan?

Foxfyre wrote:

I am in favor of government programs and services that are equally beneficial to all.

I assume just handing out a set amount of money to everyone with the provision to go and buy healthcare would then count as a "government program". It would certainly be equally beneficial to all. What I fail to see is how this wouldn't constitute "spreading the wealth around".

After all, the money has to be raised somewhere - and according to McCain, the money will come from taxing the employer provided health care (or the employer's part of your health coverage) as taxable income.

Sounds like a policy that would hurt people who already have health insurance via their employer. It redistribute the money to those who already pay for their own health insurance, but would also dole out money to those don't have health insurance at all - which would be a good thing - but would just give them a set amount of money, whether they need that much money to cover their health care plan or not.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

With only a very few narrowly defined exceptions, I am opposed to the government taking property of those who earn it and giving that property to people who haven't earned it.

Look Foxy-- a proper economist would want you to define what you mean by "earn" or "haven't earned."

And suppose those who come under your definition of having "earned" their income produce so much stuff that they can't possibly consume it themselves. Or that they take the global warming equations past the tipping point and the whole system collapses. Or that they come by their income in ways you find morally reprehensible. Like traffic wardens say.

Doesn't your "earn" imply a subjective notion of economic usefulness and one that includes you in its catchment area?

1 Reply

@spendius,

On the American Conservatism thread I have pretty much discussed that at length, Spendi. By 'earn" I mean property that is legally and ethically acquired. I don't want my government having power to put a limit on what anyone can legally and ethically achieve. I would like to think that those who are successful in acquiring great wealth would choose to use some of what they don't need to benefit others. That's how most of our great foundations and research hospitals and endowment funds for institutions of higher learning etc. happened.

But each person must search his own heart in matters like that. I do not want the government to have the power to dictate how much such people must donate to others.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

We have come to a rough consensus Foxy that our governments must have such a power. The difference between the two candidates is a matter of degree only and not by all that much.

We also limit what individuals and companies of individuals can be worth because it is a characteristic of capitalism that one or some could become more powerful than the government.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

From The Sunday TimesOctober 26, 2008

Cassandra: Election addiction is a global pandemic. Ariel Leve
Election addiction has become a global pandemic. Everybody I know seems to be hooked. No surprise since it’s not just Americans that want change. But unlike other addictions, there’s no shame. People are thankful to have something that distracts them from the economic ice age that is descending upon us. Some are hooked on the internet, some on television, while others still get their fix the old fashioned way: through a newspaper.

But what happens after November 4? Millions will be left going through cold turkey. I asked my friend Maggie what she’ll do after the election.

“I’d like to say I’ll spend those hours going to the gym or volunteering but I can’t commit,” she said. “But if McCain wins I will spend my time packing and exploring real estate in Canada.”

People will have to replace the information addiction with something else. Hard core addicts will get into Obama's cabinet selection. Other options are Britney's comeback or Angelina's next baby. But unless there is footage of them going to prison or kissing each other, or even better: kissing each other while in prison, it won’t be round the clock coverage.

I’m a little worried about my father. He is unable to function without his fix. If he doesn’t have his newspaper, it’s like someone’s pulled the plug on the respirator.

I first became concerned about him overdosing when he set his alarm clock for 3am so he could wake up while on holiday in Italy to watch the debates. But I knew others in Europe and around the world were doing this. I let it go. Then, he switched his flight out of Singapore so that he didn’t have to miss the vice presidential debate.

“You can’t read about it when you land?” I suggested.

He looked at me the way Amy Winehouse would look at someone suggesting she have a shot of wheatgrass juice instead of whiskey.

The other day I asked him how many hours he spends reading the newspaper. “Three to four,” He said, peering over the top of one, “At least.”

His emphasized those last two words as though he’s in training for an endurance test and wants his discipline known.

But the newspapers are just the warm up before going online. Then it’s the blogs, (a word he couldn’t understand before this year), election stories and e-mails. He swaps notes and hotlinks with his friends before breaking for lunch.

His afternoon is spent responding to the e-mails he received earlier. It’s a good thing he’s retired or he’d have to quit his job. As it is, he’s given up his afternoon nap because he doesn’t have time. And also, he might miss something.

The latest headline, that the Republican National Committee has spent $150,000 on Palin’s clothes is like heroin. He hates himself for wanting to know more but can’t stop. He sent me an e-mail with a link to a story about how shopping at Neiman Marcus is not where “hockey moms” shop. I couldn’t figure out which was more disturbing " that he sent me this link, or that he sent it to me when we were in the same room.

On November 5th millions of people will be going through withdrawal. Finding themselves in the void that is now their life they will return to the emptiness they left behind. Maybe they'll obsess about the economy falling apart and the stock market but for the most part there will be a lot of aimless people out there, confused and lost, having nothing exciting or worthwhile to emotionally invest in.

My father will be feeling let down and disappointed.

Finally, we’ll have something in common.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

We have come to a rough consensus Foxy that our governments must have such a power. The difference between the two candidates is a matter of degree only and not by all that much.

We also limit what individuals and companies of individuals can be worth because it is a characteristic of capitalism that one or some could become more powerful than the government.

But that is what the great experiment that is the United States was intended to be--the people, not the government, have the power.

It was to be a government that worked for the people rather than a people who worked for the government. So yes, the social contract is formed with the understanding that it is more efficient and effective for the people to contribute to shared national defense, shared infrastructure, certain shared services, and sufficient regulation and enforcement to keep order and ensure than one person/group cannot infringe on the unalienable, legal, civil, constitutional rights of another. But until fairly recently, the people formed and maintained the society they wanted and were responsible for themselves as well as taking care of the needy.

I don't have a huge problem with a progressive tax system in which the wealthy pay somewhat proportionately more than the less wealthy for necessary functions of government though I think a flat tax accomplishes the same thing without stifling productivity and investment.

But when the government tells us how much we can or cannot earn or decides that we have too much and takes what we have to give to others so that they will have more, there are few economic freedoms left to us. And we give power to the government to do anything it wants to anybody. The more we hand over to the government to do for us, the less power we have to control our own destiny.

I suppose some peoples prefer that rather than have the responsibility themselves.

I think that is why I like Sarah Palin so much. She is strong and smart and perceptive and quick enough to get up to to speed quickly in those areas in which she lacks knowledge and experience. And she has the right attitude about what the role of government should be. She really is the only true conservative running in this election.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Obama says he wants us Americans to abandon the current rule of law for Obama's rule of law. If elected he will violate his oath to "be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;" that is, support our Constitution, the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. Obama should be aware that those Americans who support the rule of law including our Constitution, will violate Obama's rule of law that abandons our Constitution, and do whatever else is required (e.g., repeat 1776) to rescue our Constitution.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Obama says he wants us Americans to abandon the current rule of law for Obama's rule of law. If elected he will violate his oath to "be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;" that is, support our Constitution, the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. Obama should be aware that those Americans who support the rule of law including our Constitution, will violate Obama's rule of law that abandons our Constitution, and do whatever else is required to rescue our Constitution.

You're a blowhard. You aren't going to do ****, Ican. You didn't do a damn thing when Bush violated the Constitution, so your complaints ring exceedingly hollow.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

The more we hand over to the government to do for us, the less power we have to control our own destiny.

We cannot control our own destiny. It's an illusion. Politics has always been about how much liberty we trade in return for the safety and benefits the group brings. It is only a matter of emphasis and not by much either.

Quote:

It was to be a government that worked for the people rather than a people who worked for the government.

President Kennedy said the opposite. How can a technological superpower operate with a constitution drawn up for farmers thinly spread and with no utility services and barely literate.

There are no true conservatives anymore.

0 Replies

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/10/nate_silver_and_jonathan_chait.html

my favourite bit of daily intel each day

Quote:

Every day (or close to it) until November 4, a series of writers and thinkers will discuss the election over instant messenger for nymag.com. Today, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver and The New Republic's Jonathan Chait discuss the latest Sarah Palin 2012 rumor, how much the African-American vote will matter, and why you should never underestimate the Republican base.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You didn't do a damn thing when Bush violated the Constitution, so your complaints ring exceedingly hollow.

I repeatedly posted evidence in this and several other threads that a non-uniform tax rate (e.g., a non-flat tax) on all dollars of income is a violation of the USA Constitution Article I.Section 8, 1st paragraph.

I repeatedly posted evidence that violation began in 1913 and grew rapidly ever since thanks to the federal courts legislating instead of interpreting the USA Constitution, despite their Article VI oath not to do that.

Quote:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;

I repeatedly posted evidence that failure to end this violation will lead to a collectivist/socialist/communist dictatorship.

Barack Obama says that if elected he will increase the redistribution of wealth via federal taxes. That will of course increase the magnitude and scope of this violation, and the powers of the federal government not delegated to the federal government by the USA Constitution.

So I say again:
Obama says he wants us Americans to abandon the current rule of law for Obama's rule of law. If elected he will violate his oath to "be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;" that is, support our Constitution, the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. Obama if elected , as well as everyone else, should be aware that those Americans who support the rule of law including our Constitution, will violate Obama's rule of law that abandons our Constitution, and do whatever else is required to rescue our Constitution and our rule of law, including if necessary a repetition of what happened July 4, 1776 and thereafter.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Obama is a very dangerous man, because he represents a very dangerous line of thinking in this country. The man must be defeated in this election, period. If he is not, and he has a huge majority in Congress, we are in very serious trouble in this country, ican. Drastic changes will likely not happen immediately, but things will begin racheting further into left field as time goes on, and battles will have to fought on all fronts, freedom of speech, freedom to own property, free and fair elections, national defense, the constitution, you name it, everything held dear by traditional Amerians will be under assault. And in addition to domestic policy, foreign leaders that sense his mindset, inexperience, and weakness toward their opposition to our best interests as a nation, will likely seize the opportunity to make hay while the sun shines.

The foundational reason Obama is a very dangerous man to vote in as a president is because he is a malcontent, and always has been, that was abandoned by members of his family, and as a result he is a bitter man determined to right the wrongs against the people he views as the disenfranchised, the powerless, blah blah blah, and where have we heard this before? Read some history, folks.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

I repeatedly posted evidence in this and several other threads that a non-uniform tax rate (e.g., a non-flat tax) on all dollars of income is a violation of the USA Constitution Article I.Section 8, 1st paragraph....

You haven't posted any "evidence" to support your tax-protester allegations. You haven't demonstrated any understanding of the Constitution nor our tax system. Your argument that the government is stealing your money has no merit whatsoever.

Quote:

Barack Obama says that if elected he will increase the redistribution of wealth via federal taxes. That will of course increase the magnitude and scope of this violation, and the powers of the federal government not delegated to the federal government by the USA Constitution.

If Barack Obama is elected, he will decrease taxes for people with taxable income of $250,000 or less. That means that ALL middle class families will have more money in their pockets. Middle class families will use that extra money to hire plumbers, make home repairs, eat at restaurants, go to the movies, go to the dentist, buy consumer goods, and on and on and on. This is what it means to "spread the wealth around." Everyone in the country will benefit economically. It's only in the warped minds of small-minded people where this becomes a "bad" thing.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote: "With only a very few narrowly defined exceptions, I am opposed to the government taking property of those who earn it and giving that property to people who haven't earned it."

Please identify the "unworthy" people who are allegedly taking your property?

Are we not, as a society, allowed to spend tax dollars to benefit U.S. vets who had their legs blown off in Iraq? babies abandoned at hospital emergency rooms? old people who are suffering from alzheimer's disease?

Who among us are so unworthy, in your opinion, that our society must turn our back on them in their time of need? I mean, if the government can provide you with financial assistance to install a new energy efficient furnace in your home, why can't the government assist people without homes to find jobs, etc., etc., etc.?

Who are these unworthy people who you're so afraid that the government will help with our nation's tax dollars?

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

You haven't posted any "evidence" to support your tax-protester allegations. You haven't demonstrated any understanding of the Constitution nor our tax system. Your argument that the government is stealing your money has no merit whatsoever.

You, dear Debra Law, have not provided any evidence whatsoever to support any of the above claims of yours.

Meanwhile, back at the Constitution:

James Madison, et al wrote:

Constitution of the United States of America
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;

definition of imposts

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imposts&x=28&y=10
Main Entry: 1im·post ...
1 : something imposed or levied : TAX, TRIBUTE, DUTY
...

definition of uniform

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8
Main Entry: 1uni·form
...
1 : marked by lack of variation, diversity, change in form, manner, worth, or degree : showing a single form, degree, or character in all occurrences or manifestations ...
2 : marked by complete conformity to a rule or pattern or by similarity in salient detail or practice : CONSONANT, ALIKE ...
3 : marked by unvaried and changeless appearance (as of surface, color, or pattern) ...
4 : consistent in conduct, character, or effect : lacking in variation, deviation, or unequal or dissimilar operation ...

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican, we can only hope now that the Dems do not steal this election. The corruption is unprecedented, and ACORN is one biggee, and they are intricately tied to the Obama people. I never thought this could happen here, but the socialists, marxists, crooks, radicals, whatever, a machine run by the community organizer, which is code word for a radical leftist organizer on the street rounding up votes, dead people, non-existent people, you name it. Now he is flooding the airwaves with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of advertising, unprecedented, with contributions from who knows where and who, who knows. The man has poisoned the election system beyond recognition almost.

ACORN, an organization with front groups, shadow groups, bait and switch coalition of groups, difficult to unravel, but they all are a bunch of the most corrupt bunch of leftists ever to attack a country. John Fund is going to have an article on this mess tomorrow I think, in the WSJ. And I understand alot of it will come from testimony by a former ACORN operative.

I never thought this would happen here. It reminds me of some third world country, like Venezuela, or Cuba. If this guy gains power, button down the hatches, ican.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Your tax protest arguments, and all variants thereof, are without merit.

Quote:

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments
http://www.irs.treas.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html

1 Reply

@okie,

To revisit the video from a couple weeks ago:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/john_fund_takes_on_acorn/

But more on this will be coming out, including the fact that ACORN is blatantly fraudulant and corrupt. What they tell the people on screen is not what they are doing on the street. And I think Obama will be shown to be a fraud in regard to his and his campaign's relationship with ACORN.

1 Reply

FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know