OBAMA VERSUS MCCAIN: ARGUMENTS FOR WHO IS BETTER FOR MOST AMERICANS

@ican711nm,

Your argument is bogus. A governmental tax assessment is NOT stealing. Jesus commands you to pay your taxes. The Bible tells you to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and, if you owe taxes, pay taxes.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Your argument is bogus. A governmental tax assessment is NOT stealing. Jesus commands you to pay your taxes. The Bible tells you to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and, if you owe taxes, pay taxes.

Who cares what's written in the bible, even? It has no relevance to our current situation.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra, make up your mind!

Previously you wrote: "America will have to WAIT ten, twenty, thirty years probably before drilling in ANWR."

Now you write: "Even with permission to drill in ANWR, it will take decades to develop.

I expect it will take decades to fully develop. But we will begin lifting oil from ANWR in less than 10 years after we start drilling. Whatever oil we lift will help our economy, all the propaganda to the contrary not withstanding.

Wind, solar, and tidal methods of electricity generation will take longer to produce equivalent energy to that produceable by additional oil drilling and lifting. But development of more nuclear facilities is also a good alternative for more Americans

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

A governmental tax assessment is NOT stealing.

It is stealing when that tax is taken from some and given to others not legal employees of the federal government. Furthermore, it is illegal.

No where in the USA Constitution is the federal government given the power to tax for any other reason than to "pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States."

The "general welfare of the United States" is not equivalent to the individual welfare of each individual citizens of the United States. The "general welfare of the United States" is obviously equivalent to maintaining and/or improving the survivability of the Unites States' ability to secure the unalienable rights of its indivual citizens. The welfare of each individual citizen is their individual responsibility or the responsibility of their state governments.

Quote:

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
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imposts&x=28&y=10
definition of uniform
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8

Quote:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

It is stealing when that tax is taken from some and given to others not legal employees of the federal government. Furthermore, it is illegal.

You are wrong on the first point and the second point. But, you already know this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Again, you are naive. You have not demonstrated any understanding of the constitution. You have no concept of what the phrase "general welfare" means. I am not inclined to have a futile discussion with someone of the gold-fringe flag variety. Thus, carry on with your nonsense.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Who cares what's written in the bible, even? It has no relevance to our current situation.

Why do you think that what you say is more relevant to our current situation than the Bible?

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Who cares what's written in the bible, even? It has no relevance to our current situation.

Why do you think that what you say is more relevant to our current situation than the Bible?

The bible is not what you would call a Topical document, and has little bearing on US taxation. I do not see how it applies to this conversation in any way, for it certainly has no place in the formation of our tax policy.

You may recall that the US is a Secular nation. Additionally, I am a voter (as well as amateur analyst); I actually have some ability to change policy through my vote. The bible, or anyone who wrote it, does not. Therefore my opinion on current events is infinitely more influential than what is written in a book.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Debra, make up your mind!

Previously you wrote: "America will have to WAIT ten, twenty, thirty years probably before drilling in ANWR."

Now you write: "Even with permission to drill in ANWR, it will take decades to develop.

You didn't quote me correctly. I said this: "America will have to WAIT ten, twenty, thirty years probably before drilling in ANWR even musters the potential to help . . . so what does America do in the meantime? We're dying now . . . how long can we remain on life support? After all, Congress can't pull 700 Billion dollars out of its ass every other day.

Quote:

I expect it will take decades to fully develop. But we will begin lifting oil from ANWR in less than 10 years after we start drilling. Whatever oil we lift will help our economy, all the propaganda to the contrary not withstanding.

You're wrong. The oil industry is actively developing the Bakken Formation located in the lower 48. The estimated barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken Formation is equal to or GREATER than the estimated barrels of recoverable oil in the ANWR. Plus, America doesn't face the problem of transporting the oil/gas recovered from the Bakken in comparison to the ENORMOUS problem of transporting oil/gas recovered from the remote and treacherous outreaches of Alaska. A LOT of oil is being "lifted" from the Bakken on a daily basis--and the amount will continue to increase as the Bakken is developed over the next two decades. And yet, the oil boom in the Bakken has not helped our NATIONAL economy nor has it helped to resolve our energy crisis. Thus, your claim that "whatever oil we lift [from ANWR] will help our economy" is false.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Jesus said more than render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. He also said render unto God that which belongs to God. And while the early Christians practiced a form of voluntary democracy, there was no such concept in the Roman Empire at that time. The people were servants of and at the mercy of their government and had no say in that whatsoever.

Our form of government was designed on the basis that the government was the servant of the people, not the other way around. Elected leaders were to be responsible stewards of the peoples' property and the peoples' treasury. The necessity of a federal goverment was based on common sense. An organized defense, ability of a central authority to negotiate treaties and establish alliances, establish a common currency and orderly processes for interstate communications, trade, and transportation, and later construction of a shared infrastructure, all accomplished Constitutional authority to promote the common welfare.

For the first approximately 140 years, the Lockean principle that property precedes government and the unalienable right of the people to own and control their own property was sacrosanct. The people elected representatives who, among other things, would agree on how much of the people's money was required to conduct the Constitutionally mandated people's business. A notion that it was moral or Constitutionally legal to confiscate property from Citizen A who lawfully earned or acquired it and give that property to Citizen B who didn't simply did not exist. The very real dangers and probability for corruption in such a practice was obvious to all.

Then FDR, on an extremely limited basis dispensed the first organized government charity to help people in need. His intentions were good. But the result of that tiny, insignificant snowball that he started rolling should be painfully obvious to us all now. The American people are saddled with enormous entitlement programs with no realistic way to disengage themselves from them. Whole generations/demographics have been consigned to generations of diminished family, crushing poverty, and all the ugliness that sometimes accompanies that.

So that brings us to John McCain and Barack Obama. Which most presumes that the role of the Federal Government should be to facilitate a climate and ability for opportunity that spurs the private sector to empower itself and better itself? And which most presumes that it is the role of government to be the caretaker of the people and make everything better for the people?

And when we decide which of those two scenarios that we prefer, we should ask ourselves how much of our existence, choices, freedoms, treasure we are willing to entrust the government to manage for us.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote: "Jesus said more than render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. He also said render unto God that which belongs to God."

It makes no difference what Jesus may have ALSO said with respect to ican's bogus argument that taxation is stealing. He is a tax protester, plain and simple.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Foxfyre wrote: "Jesus said more than render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. He also said render unto God that which belongs to God."

It makes no difference what Jesus may have ALSO said with respect to ican's bogus argument that taxation is stealing. He is a tax protester, plain and simple.

No he's not. He is opposed to the government erroneously assuming authority to confiscate the property of the people without Constitutional authority to do so. So am I. (He and I agree on that principle though I think we do have some differences of opinion in what form Constitutionally authorized taxation can take.)

Amendment to my previous post: I failed to list the inevitable corruption in government that follows the practice of unConstitutionally authorized taxation.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Whether you like it or not, providing for the public welfare also means providing for the poor and less fortunate. That has been the case from the beginning of our country and was recognized by our founding fathers. See, e.g.:

"My bill proposes, 1. Elementary schools in every county, which shall place every householder within three miles of a school. 2. District colleges, which shall place every father within a day's ride of a college where he may dispose of his son. 3. An university in a healthy and central situation... To all of which is added a selection from the elementary schools of subjects of the most promising genius, whose parents are too poor to give them further education, to be carried at the public expense through the colleges and university." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Correa de Serra, 1817. ME 15:155

____

Why is it so UNAMERICAN for Obama to want the same educational opportunties for the children of America that Jefferson wanted?

BTW? What happened to billions and billions and billions of tax dollars that working Americans have paid into the social security program since it was created?

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Whether you like it or not, providing for the public welfare also means providing for the poor and less fortunate. That has been the case from the beginning of our country and was recognized by our founding fathers. See, e.g.:

"My bill proposes, 1. Elementary schools in every county, which shall place every householder within three miles of a school. 2. District colleges, which shall place every father within a day's ride of a college where he may dispose of his son. 3. An university in a healthy and central situation... To all of which is added a selection from the elementary schools of subjects of the most promising genius, whose parents are too poor to give them further education, to be carried at the public expense through the colleges and university." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Correa de Serra, 1817. ME 15:155

____

Why is it so UNAMERICAN for Obama to want the same educational opportunties for the children of America that Jefferson wanted?

BTW? What happened to billions and billions and billions of tax dollars that working Americans have paid into the social security program since it was created?

Did I say it was unAmerican? I didn't. I am 100% in favor of the most excellent education we can provide. I just don't think the federal government is how that is going to come about.

Perhaps you could elaborate on how Jefferson proposed to fund his vision of public education? I don't believe his proposal dealt with that, which, among other reasons, was why it was voted down. The first 'free schools' in early America were funded by wealthy individuals before state and local--not the federal--governments took over that responsibility some time later.

George Washington never received any formal education but was rather home schooled a bit, was helped with studies by neighbors, and was otherwise self taught.

The United States currently spends more per capita on education than any other developed country. We spend more federally on education than any other country except I think Norway.

Are you pleased with the results that we've gotten from all that money spent on education? I'm not. I think we need to really rethink the whole process before dumping more taxpayer dollars on top of a lot of wasted money.

And your comment re Social Security is pertinent too. A whole lot of social security dollars have disappeared into the general fund with nobody having any idea where those dollars actually went. The Federal government as added entitlement after entitlement to the social security program that were never ever envisioned when FDR first dreamed up the concept.

It is a scandal the amount of money pouring into the education bureaucracies and how little actually makes it to the classroom.

We can do better. And Obama promises only a whole lot more of the same.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Why do you waste your time, Foxfyre? Don't you know you are arguing with Debra LAW who is an outstanding partner in a large law firm making 750,000 a year who, despite the time she has to put into her work,still has time to post on these threads?

You don't know real talent when you see it. I am sure that Debra LAW, who is very shy and won't tell us about her legal background, was probably a Supreme Court Clerk--probably for the malignant dwarf, Ginsberg!!

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Debra LAW doesn't know ANYTHING about US Education and she won't see this because I am sure she has me on ignore because she wets her panties in fright when she is challenged.

Debra LAW does not know that in the nineties, the Kansas City Schools were in such a bad shape that a Federal Judge ordered that the school district be widened to include a good part of the suburbs and that MASSIVE INFUSIONS OF MONEY GO TO THE KANSAS CITY HIGH SCHOOLS.

After six years the experiment was called a failure and an expert from Harvard, LIBERAL, one Mr. Armour said:

THEY HAD MORE MONEY THAN ANYONE WOULD HAVE EVER NEEDED AND THE EXPERIMENT STILL FAILED.

Debra L A W doesn't know that and can't explain it. She is rather good at posting some meaningless **** from one of her old law books and trying to befuddle most on these threads. She doesn't befuddle me since she is a coward who is afraid to be challenged.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, all your words fall upon deaf ears because you repeatedly beat the political drum without acknowledging the overwhelming pragmatic failure of your alleged conservative ideology not to mention the hypocrisy. On one hand you PREACH limited government and reduced spending, which most people can agree with, but on the other hand, you want the government to IMPOSE your personal morals (and religious beliefs) on others through the operation of our laws. You want the government to stay out of your private business--but you have no qualms about sticking your nose into other people's private business. If and when your "side" decides to actually practice what it preaches, then most of the partisanship that divides this country will evaporate.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Foxfyre, all your words fall upon deaf ears because you repeatedly beat the political drum without acknowledging the overwhelming pragmatic failure of your alleged conservative ideology not to mention the hypocrisy. On one hand you PREACH limited government and reduced spending, which most people can agree with, but on the other hand, you want the government to IMPOSE your morals on others through the operation of our laws. You want the government to stay out of your private business--but you have no qualms about sticking your nose into other people's private business. If and when your "side" decides to actually practice what it preaches, then most of the partisanship that divides this country will evaporate.

Fascinating. I agree that I beat the drum of conservatism. Perhaps you could join us on the Conservatism in American in 2008 and Beyond thread and share your insights on how Conservatism has failed.

Otherwise, I don't recall ever even suggesting that the government should impose my moral values on anybody,

I can't remember ever sticking my nose into anybody's private business uninvited except in cases where criminal laws were being broken. (Unlike liberal extremists I do not equate expressing my personal opinions as forcing my beliefs on anybody. I rather prefer the concept of free speech in such matters.)

I would like for the Republicans to return to solid conservative principles, but I do not share your confidence that partisanship that divides this country will even be diminished, much less evaporate. I think the liberal extremists would become even more shrill and frantic and obnoxious than usual, but we'll have to get there to know that for sure.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

The republican party has become very good at promising what people want to hear, but delivering on none of it.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Agreed. They have become very much like Democrats in that regard and I hate it.

The only thing that would be worse is some ideologically screwed up numbnut or character with ulterior motives actually following through on his campaign promises.

1 Reply

OBAMA VERSUS MCCAIN: ARGUMENTS FOR WHO IS BETTER FOR MOST AMERICANS

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know