• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon

feel free to predict the future objectively

you are making stuff up now

Many do have foresight, and called what would happen in Iraq long before we went in (read Bush sr's book). However, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about what is clearly measurable now.
 
Sure you can. Even if Iraq becomes heaven on earth, we still spent too much. It is false to say we can't measure today. We spent a ton of money, help our enemy recruit, made things better for Iran, lost thousnads of lives, and we've no safer than we were. In fact, nothing in Iraq applies to our safety at all. No country attacked us, and a democracy has no effect on terrorist, the Bush premise flawed from the beginging. All of this can be objectively measured.

again you are making stuff up

if our invasion of Iraq turns Iraq into a country like say Japan and Germany became a couple decades after WWII and from that stabilizes the mideast than it would be worth it

you again are making opinions masquerade as fact
 
Using your logic Welfare, the bailouts do not need to be justified because you are not smart enough to claim to know all the information that those who made the decision to enact those policies. As you state they were charged with making those decisions

nice try but the constitution delegates war to the president but welfare was not a power delegated to the executive or the congress.
 
So what you're saying is. You can't justify the invasion of Iraq. Good to know.

nice try but the constitution delegates war to the president but welfare was not a power delegated to the executive or the congress.

You are of course forgetting a few words in the Constitution


"promote the general welfare". What could promote the general welfare more then welfare?


Of course you will say that is not what it means, but a strict interpretation of the words, it does. Just like the right to bear arms with a strict interpretation means you should be able to posses any weapon
 
Last edited:
You are of course forgetting a few words in the Constitution


"promote the general welfare". What could promote the general welfare more then welfare?

LOL

another constitutional lawyer wannabee

that term as used in the 18th century had nothing to do with income redistribution

try again, that topic has been beaten so hard on this forum it is now hamburger.

we could call enslaving blacks "welfare" and that would make it constitutional?
 
LOL

another constitutional lawyer wannabee

that term as used in the 18th century had nothing to do with income redistribution

try again, that topic has been beaten so hard on this forum it is now hamburger.

we could call enslaving blacks "welfare" and that would make it constitutional?

Enslaving blacks takes away from "all men created equal"
 
Enslaving blacks takes away from "all men created equal"

allowing some people to vote while not paying taxes while forcing others to pay massive taxes without them having additional voting rights is hardly equality either

but lets get back to your ignorance of what "general welfare means"
 
again you are making stuff up

if our invasion of Iraq turns Iraq into a country like say Japan and Germany became a couple decades after WWII and from that stabilizes the mideast than it would be worth it

you again are making opinions masquerade as fact

It can't do that. Not possible. Iraq can't do anything to make radicals not radical. That's like believing in fair dust and nice elfs. Iraq is a nation. Terrorist are not. They fight under no flag. Nothing done in any country changes this. Again, you are buying into a flase premise.

And no, we can measure. Have measured. Iraq helped recruitment for our enemy. Measured. Iraq cost a ton. Measured. Thousands died. measured. No measurable improvement in safety. No measurable reduction in terrorism or threat. Loss of credibility. measured. As you can see, objectively we can measure and assess.
 
It can't do that. Not possible. Iraq can't do anything to make radicals not radical. That's like believing in fair dust and nice elfs. Iraq is a nation. Terrorist are not. They fight under no flag. Nothing done in any country changes this. Again, you are buying into a flase premise.

And no, we can measure. Have measured. Iraq helped recruitment for our enemy. Measured. Iraq cost a ton. Measured. Thousands died. measured. No measurable improvement in safety. No measurable reduction in terrorism or threat. Loss of credibility. measured. As you can see, objectively we can measure and assess.

lets see your objective proof

all I see are opinions
 
lets see your objective proof

all I see are opinions

Where have you been? Do you really believe we don't knwo how much the war cost? A good idea of the human cost? That we haven't reported on on how Iraq helped Al Qaeda and others with recruitment? Seriously. where have you been?
 
Where have you been? Do you really believe we don't knwo how much the war cost? A good idea of the human cost? That we haven't reported on on how Iraq helped Al Qaeda and others with recruitment? Seriously. where have you been?

Well I'm inclined to side with you Boo you should be able to back these facts up. That's all that he is asking. I know that there are several respectable (okay... umm... Major I guess since no news outlet is respectable these days) News Outlets that have covered these stories.
 
allowing some people to vote while not paying taxes while forcing others to pay massive taxes without them having additional voting rights is hardly equality either

but lets get back to your ignorance of what "general welfare means"

General welfare would of course mean promoting the overall well being of America, to improve the quality of life of Americans.

As such, providing "welfare" for those that need it, is consitutional
 
Well I'm inclined to side with you Boo you should be able to back these facts up. That's all that he is asking. I know that there are several respectable (okay... umm... Major I guess since no news outlet is respectable these days) News Outlets that have covered these stories.

No, it isn't hard to do. But seems bothersome to do what is common knowledge.

COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War

iCasualties | Operation Iraqi Freedom | Iraq

Iraq Body Count

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war 'helped al-Qaeda recruit'

War Helps Recruit Terrorists, Hill Told (washingtonpost.com)

Hard for me to believe this isn't well known. Any search would turn up this and more.
 
Last edited:
General welfare would of course mean promoting the overall well being of America, to improve the quality of life of Americans.

As such, providing "welfare" for those that need it, is consitutional

SO anything that congress says promotes the general welfare is constitutional? I deny that taking from one group for the benefit of another group promotes the general welfare of the country as a whole

and do find some authority for the proposition that merely calling the dole or income redistribution "welfare" is consistent with the 18the century term you seem to think justifies the dole
 
No, it isn't ahrd to do. But seems bothersome to do what is common knowledge.

COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War

iCasualties | Operation Iraqi Freedom | Iraq

Iraq Body Count

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war 'helped al-Qaeda recruit'

War Helps Recruit Terrorists, Hill Told (washingtonpost.com)

Hard for me to believe this isn't well known. Any search would turn up this and more.

uh that still doesn't prove your claim that its a waste of money. we don't know how things will turn out

I am sure lots of people thought the marshall plan was a waste of money. I am sure some thought the occupation of Japan was as well.
 
SO anything that congress says promotes the general welfare is constitutional? I deny that taking from one group for the benefit of another group promotes the general welfare of the country as a whole

and do find some authority for the proposition that merely calling the dole or income redistribution "welfare" is consistent with the 18the century term you seem to think justifies the dole

Has the supreme court agreed with your opinion?
 
uh that still doesn't prove your claim that its a waste of money. we don't know how things will turn out

I am sure lots of people thought the marshall plan was a waste of money. I am sure some thought the occupation of Japan was as well.



No, it proves my claim that it is measurable, objectively. Now, add. Add cost. Add benefit. Objectively. Cost of war in terms of dollors, lives, help for recruiting Al Qaeda, versus, what, a pipe dream? Fairy dust? Again, we can measure today.
 
Has the supreme court agreed with your opinion?

if the supreme court's current opinion is all that matters than we can tell all the libs who claim that there is no right to keep and bear arms to STFU?

many statutes that were passed for "the general welfare" were struck down on tenth amendment grounds such as the Lopez decision which dealt with federal laws preventing firearms within a certain distance of schools.
 
No, it proves my claim that it is measurable, objectively. Now, add. Add cost. Add benefit. Objectively. Cost of war in terms of dollors, lives, help for recruiting Al Qaeda, versus, what, a pipe dream? Fairy dust? Again, we can measure today.

more opinions-you are pretending to know what will happen down the road.
 
if the supreme court's current opinion is all that matters than we can tell all the libs who claim that there is no right to keep and bear arms to STFU?

many statutes that were passed for "the general welfare" were struck down on tenth amendment grounds such as the Lopez decision which dealt with federal laws preventing firearms within a certain distance of schools.

You can tell everyone to STFU, but as you have a right to free speech, you cant really enforce it very well
 
if the supreme court's current opinion is all that matters than we can tell all the libs who claim that there is no right to keep and bear arms to STFU?

Sure, but only if you accept the negative commerce clause, too.
 
You are of course forgetting a few words in the Constitution


"promote the general welfare". What could promote the general welfare more then welfare?


Of course you will say that is not what it means, but a strict interpretation of the words, it does. Just like the right to bear arms with a strict interpretation means you should be able to posses any weapon

If it was meant to be interpreted as a redistribution of wealth then don't you think redistribution of wealth would have been written into the Constitution? You seem to be confusing what General Welfare means. General Welfare deals with ALL people. Redistribution of wealth is taking from some and giving to others. Say we are in a room and you have two cookies. You give me one out of the kindness of your heart. The General Welfare has just gone up because both of us our happy from the exchange. Say someone comes in and FORCES you to give me a cookie though. My welfare has gone up, yours has gone down, because it was a forced action. Thus the GENERAL Welfare has staid the exact same, nothing was achieved in Scenario B, but we achieved much more in Scenario A.
 
more opinions-you are pretending to know what will happen down the road.

Can there be speculation without speculating? Of course he doesn't know what will happen down the road. But he can make an educated guess from the information at hand.
 
Back
Top Bottom