• 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

Boo Radley said:
You mean besides the hearing lost by my nephrew in Iraq? Or are you saying I should not be concerned about what others paid for Bush's recklessness? Can you really argue fighting two wars without paying for it did not hurt this country economically? really?
Click to expand...


Don't blame Bush or Clinton for my partial hearing loss. :shrug:




Obama hasn't been perfect. But he didn't create all of this. He did take some steps in the right direction, clearly calling torture what it is, taking a first step in healthcare reform, something that never would have happened under a republican administration, and moving forward on allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. He has a long ways to go, and has been a bit of a disappointment, But still better than we had, and likely better than McCain would have been. All of them would have bailout Walstreet and the banks and the auto industry. Why? Because we would have been more angry over the consequences if they hadn't. They know that.
Click to expand...



So you like all these new taxes?
 
Boo Radley said:
No, you can objectively determine if a candy bar is worth two lives and a billion dollars. In much the same way, you can objectively determine that we did not have just reason or cause to invade. And that it cost far more than we gained. You can't write that off as mere opinion.
Click to expand...



I guess it all depends on which candy bar and who the two lives are honestly. :pimpdaddy:
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
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
Click to expand...
I see you've stopped trying to defend this nonsense on the "Does the US Constitution Say "Provide for the General Welfare""?" topic ans trarted spewing it here.

See:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-co...rovide-general-welfare-25.html#post1058872417

News flash: You argument is, as demonstrated, unsound no matter how many times you repeat it, or where youmight make it.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
I see you've stopped trying to defend this nonesense on the "Does the US Constitution Say "Provide for the General Welfare""?" topic ans trarted spewing it here.

See:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-co...rovide-general-welfare-25.html#post1058872417

News flash: You argument is, as demonstrated, unsound no matter how many times you repeat it, or where youmight make it.
Click to expand...

Hey man, I showed your argument was a non-sequiter, so its kind of funny you are calling what they say "unsound."
 
TurtleDude said:
SO anything that congress says promotes the general welfare is constitutional?
Click to expand...
So then too is -anything- that provides for the common defense -- and yet, several powers that do exactly that - such as the power to create and maintain armies and navies - were included in the enumerated powers, for if they were not, such powers ould not exist.

Thus, his argument is deomstrated unsound.
 
drz-400 said:
Hey man, I showed your argument was a non-sequiter, so its kind of funny you are calling what they say "unsound."
Click to expand...
No, you did not. Your argument to that effect was addressed and soundly dismissed.

Disagree? Head back over there and have another go.
 
Goobieman said:
So then too is -anything- that provides for the common defense -- and yet, several powers that do exactly that - such as the power to create and maintain armies and navies - were included in the enumerated powers, for if they were not, such powers ould not exist.

Thus, his argument is deomstrated unsound.
Click to expand...

You are affirming a disjunct. Both particular powers and general powers are allowed.
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
You are affirming a disjunt. Both particular powers and general powers are allowed.
Click to expand...
This specification of particulars (that is, the enumerated powers) evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, (that is, your interpretation of the CD/GWC) because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.
-Hamilton
 
Goobieman said:
This specification of particulars (that is, the enumerated powers) evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, (that is, your interpretation of the CD/GWC) because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.
-Hamilton
Click to expand...

A general legislative authority would only be useless under this arguement (the reducto ad absurdum) if it were because the general powers would already grant the particular powers. Thus, we can say that general powers include particular powers.

So your argument goes as follows:

Either a general authority was intended or particular powers were intended.

Particular powers were intended.

Therefore a general authority was not intended.

However, since these two are a inclusive disjunction (it is true whenever one or more is true), you have commited the fallacy called affirming a disjunct. I claim both could be true
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Don't blame Bush or Clinton for my partial hearing loss. :shrug:








So you like all these new taxes?
Click to expand...

Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is not a new tax. And no, I am not bothered by them expiring. Nor ws I bothered by paying for the cost of health care reform. And I would not be bothered if we were asked to shoulder the cost of two wars, if we're going to fight them. We are the government, and what we want to do has to be pid for, be it war or health care or Social sercurity. that's called fiscal responsibility.
 
TurtleDude said:
more opinions-you are pretending to know what will happen down the road.
Click to expand...

Again, incorrect. It doen't matter what happens down the road. It really doesn't. We can measure cost and benefit now, today. Democracy has no effect on terroism. There is no evidence that terrorism is effected by democracy. Nor is it logical to think Iraq will change what is happening in SA, or Pakistan, or even Iran. You've been sold a platitude, a pie in the sky fair tale. But that doesn't matter to objective analysis today.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, incorrect. It doen't matter what happens down the road. It really doesn't. We can measure cost and benefit now, today.
Click to expand...
OK... so you agree that The Obama's 'stimulus' plans have been complete failures because they have cost trillions to no good effect.

Democracy has no effect on terroism. There is no evidence that terrorism is effected by democracy.
Click to expand...
How many open liberal drmocracies are terrorist states?
 
TurtleDude said:
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.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, Lopez was based on commerce clause, not 10th
 
Goobieman said:
How many open liberal drmocracies are terrorist states?
Click to expand...

Some reading for you:

But this begs a fundamental question: Is it true that the more democratic a country becomes, the less likely it is to produce terrorists and terrorist groups? In other words, is the security rationale for promoting democracy in the Arab world based on a sound premise? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be no. Although what is known about terrorism is admittedly incomplete, the data available do not show a strong relationship between democracy and an absence of or a reduction in terrorism. Terrorism appears to stem from factors much more specific than regime type. Nor is it likely that democratization would end the current campaign against the United States. Al Qaeda and like-minded groups are not fighting for democracy in the Muslim world; they are fighting to impose their vision of an Islamic state. Nor is there any evidence that democracy in the Arab world would "drain the swamp," eliminating soft support for terrorist organizations among the Arab public and reducing the number of potential recruits for them.

Can Democracy Stop Terrorism? | Foreign Affairs

There have been some indications that terrorism has been more likely in democratic societies. In his study, Engene concluded that political openness facilitated terrorism in Western Europe.[13] Democracy made West Germany more vulnerable to outbreaks of terrorist incidents that occurred in that country.[14] It is perhaps most telling, however, that the violence by the Basque nationalists increased when a democratic system was created even though it was initially present under an authoritarian regime and that the violence continued into the twenty-first century after more than two decades of democracy. Sandler says that when analyses took into account the intensity of terrorist incidents, democracies appeared to suffer more from such political violence. [15]

Pape in his study of suicide terrorism has suggested that this particular form of violence has been virtually restricted to democratic states. While suicide attacks have occurred in less open political systems such as Pakistan and Lebanon (when the country was in disarray), these kinds of attacks do appear to have been more prevalent in democracies. [16]

(snip)

Conclusions

Overall, the above analysis did not provide strong support for the idea that democracies have been more prone to terrorist violence — or at least international terrorism. The conventional wisdom of such a connection, however, cannot be discounted. Globally, the presence of democratic systems was at least at times negatively associated with more terrorism at marginal levels. The regional analysis indicated that in the Middle East the connection was very much stronger indeed. In addition, it was also obvious that the communist systems in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were much more effective in preventing these kinds of attacks than the democracies of West Europe as was expected.

Perspectives on Terrorism - Democracy and Terrorism
 
Frozengale said:
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.
Click to expand...

you are correct he COULD make an educated guess. I will wait for one and then respond if it happens
 
the makeout hobo said:
If I remember correctly, Lopez was based on commerce clause, not 10th
Click to expand...

finding that the commerce clause did not delegate that much power to the federal government is essentially a tenth amendment argument because powers not properly delegated to the federal government remain with the people and the several states but you are essentially correct.
 
Boo Radley said:
Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is not a new tax.
Click to expand...

It's a tax increase. You don't have to call it "new", but it's an increase nonetheless, and it's an increase the Messiah and the Democrats had two full years to reverse with a simple vote, and they declined to do so.

That tax increase is, therefore, the Democrat's tax increase.

And as far as the people earning the money are concerned, "new" and "old" don't mean squat when it's stealing money from them.
 
TurtleDude said:
finding that the commerce clause did not delegate that much power to the federal government is essentially a tenth amendment argument because powers not properly delegated to the federal government remain with the people and the several states but you are essentially correct.
Click to expand...

Ah, the magic commerce clause....used for when Congress wants to make rape a federal crime to satisfy some ridiculous power urge by women too ugly to go on dates with men, or to restrict gun ownership near public schools (for which there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to spend money on), or for anything else for which there's no real Constitutional authority for the Congress to meddle with, but by failed courts misinterpreting the Constitution they can create a fake loophole.

Needless to say, if an exceptionally convenient power was magically "discovered" a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified, it's clear the magic is in the lie, not the Constitution.
 
MaggieD said:
This one provision is absolutely HUGE. The 'death tax' is merely confiscation of wealth, as everyone knows. We're in a complete mess -- and there's not one darned thing we can do about it. Not one. This will likely not be acted upon until after the November election. We're skrood.
Click to expand...

You've only mentioned half the problem.

The Messiah has appointed a man dedicated to rationing health care to head up Medicare and Medicaid.

Couple that with the vast increase in value to the government of a dead man's estate.

Do the math. The government saves money by withholding medical services, and the government pulls in the majority of his accumulated wealth when he croaks as a result of that denial of service.

No conflict of interest happening there, nosir. Just ask the people demanding higher taxes and government run health care.
 
donc said:
Hhmm.. Impeached tomorrow;as long as were on the law and order kick. Would you do that before or after you tried Bush and Cheney for war crimes in an International Criminal Court?
Click to expand...

Would have to be before, since Bush and Cheney, as Americans, shouldn't be tried in an International Kangaroo Court.
 
Guy Incognito said:
The thread got derailed with the first mention of Obama's impeachment. Impeaching Obama is what is totally irrelevant to Obama's tax policy, and if you weren't being so disingenuous in your argument you would recognize that. It only naturally warranted a response in kind, and the comparison to Bush having been far more deserving of impeachment was quite a logical one to make.
Click to expand...

There's one solid reason to impeach Obama.

He didn't read the Health Care Scam bill he signed. That makes him derelict in his duty and invalidates his signature.

Well, it's a nice theory, anyway.

The other question is can he be impeached for having been born in Kenya? How would that one work, Constitutionally? Hmmm...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom