• 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!

Obama to call for middle class tax cut extension

Arbo said:
I understand you want a society where government creates 'stay busy' work and pays far too much for people to do it. Sorry, that's not the job of government. However national defense is one of the jobs of government.
Click to expand...


Defense, not world hegemony to make the 1% richer. That's the distinction between spending more than the next biggest military spender and spending as much as the rest of the world combined on military.
 
Catawba said:
There are not enough skilled jobs for your plan to work. If it were you wouldn't see skilled college educated people working at fast food restaurants. That helps explain why none of the candidates are espousing your views.
Click to expand...

Yes there would be if we ended laws that protect current markets and allow inovation to prosper. And I have to question if you see "skilled college educated people working at fast food restaurants", if they had needed skills intead of useless degrees, they would have jobs. The country does not need nor can it absorb millions of business adminitstration degrees, or psychology degrees. And as for Liberal arts, does it have anything useful about it? How about Art Appreciation degrees, how many museum curator jobs do you think is out there? How many jobs are out there for Ploli-sci degrees? There are currently millions of jobs available and unfilled in America today, even in our depressed economy, because no one has the skills or training for them. If they wasted time and money getting a useless, unmarketable degree, then I hope they are very articulate when asking if I want fries with that.

Also, while I only presented this one idea here, it also has to be in conjuction with many other changes.
 
Catawba said:
It was not their decision to have their job offshored, or to not be paid a living wage for their full time work. If you wish to continue to supplement employer's wages through welfare, go right ahead and I will support the candidate that offers people the choice to work for a living.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, but I am willing to bet a large number of them supported things like enviromentalism and unionisation which caused the outsoursing. I am also willing to bet some of them were the same people who didn't buy American when there were American products available, mostly because although they demanded a high wage for their labor, they only wanted the pay the cheapest price for what they bought.



Catawba said:
What you see as shielding from negative consequences, I see as humane assistance to those that are not allowed to work for a living.
Click to expand...

Humane to whom? The person that does nothing yet reaps the benefits of others labor or the laborer that has a significant portion of his labor taken from him to be given to people who refuse to do anything themselves? You apparently veiw most of the people on welfare and other assistance as victims of others actions, I view them as people too lazy or stupid to figure out how to make a living for themselves. As an example of this, there are currently an estimated $12 million illegals in the US, they have jobs, why are they working and able to support themselves and provide for families elsewhere while Americans lay about on Welfare and do nothing? If the welfare people weren't basically lazy and useless, they would be out there doing the jobs currently held by those illegals.


Catawba said:
Be realistic, who hires people because they don't have work that needs to be done? If you have a job that requires full time work, you should be willing to pay a living wage rather then making the rest of us subsidize your inadequate pay.
Click to expand...

The Government for one. What is a "living wage" and how can you mandate it? What would be needed to live in someplace like Chicago or LA is not the same as needed in small town Oklahoma. If a company has a job, they want to pay the minimum necessary to get someone to fill it. If person A won't work for X but person B will, then the proper rate of pay for that job is what person B is willing to work for. Forcing an employer to pay more than that will only lead to less people hired and the job being outsourced if it can be.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
I am saying I should not pay a higher percentage of what I earn than someone who pays far far less actual tax dollars but uses more government services
Click to expand...

You are confusing the retail shopping experience with the relationship of a citizen to his or her government.
 
Neomalthusian said:
The phrase goes "promote the General Welfare of the United States." It takes semantic flexibility if not acrobatics to interpret this to mean "provide for the general welfare of the citizens."
Click to expand...

Really now? Are not the citizens a major part of what is the United States?

Why does this require anything but basic reading comprehension?
 
Catawba said:
Defense, not world hegemony to make the 1% richer. That's the distinction between spending more than the next biggest military spender and spending as much as the rest of the world combined on military.
Click to expand...

Much of our defense spending is pay related and pensions. Would you call for a draft to be installed or pay cuts for those in the military.
 
haymarket said:
Really now? Are not the citizens a major part of what is the United States?

Why does this require anything but basic reading comprehension?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it requires, and nothing more. Specific groups getting their individual basic needs provided is no better a description of "promoting the general welfare of the United States" than a triple bypass surgery can accurately be called "community health promotion."

There's a reason the Document says "provide for" the common defense versus "promote" the general welfare. Had the document said "provide for the welfare of the People," that would mean something very different. Like you said, reading comprehension.
 
washunut said:
Much of our defense spending is pay related and pensions. Would you call for a draft to be installed or pay cuts for those in the military.
Click to expand...

I think a return to a draft would be a great idea, but not necessary to cut wasteful military spending. Simply stopping the waging of optional wars for US hegemony would save us trillions.
 
Neomalthusian said:
That's exactly what it requires, and nothing more. Specific groups getting their individual basic needs provided is no better a description of "promoting the general welfare of the United States" than a triple bypass surgery can accurately be called "community health promotion."

There's a reason the Document says "provide for" the common defense versus "promote" the general welfare. Had the document said "provide for the welfare of the People," that would mean something very different. Like you said, reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

And in using these ample reading comprehension skills you have, can you tell us what PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE means when it is divorced and separated and kept distinct and apart from the actual citizens for whom the Constitution and the government it created was written for in the first place?

And how is that divorced, separated or kept distinct from the rest of that SAME SENTENCE that leads into the general welfare clause?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 
Neomalthusian said:
That's exactly what it requires, and nothing more. Specific groups getting their individual basic needs provided is no better a description of "promoting the general welfare of the United States" than a triple bypass surgery can accurately be called "community health promotion."

There's a reason the Document says "provide for" the common defense versus "promote" the general welfare. Had the document said "provide for the welfare of the People," that would mean something very different. Like you said, reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

However, "Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[6][4] but a qualification on the taxing power[7][8][4] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government."

General Welfare clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Catawba said:
Defense, not world hegemony to make the 1% richer. That's the distinction between spending more than the next biggest military spender and spending as much as the rest of the world combined on military.
Click to expand...

All irrelevant to the constitutionality of governments role in providing for national defense.
 
Arbo said:
All irrelevant to the constitutionality of governments role in providing for national defense.
Click to expand...

I do not understand what you point is in saying this. Do you believe that anyone here is disputing that the federal government constitutionally provides for national defense?
 
Arbo said:
All irrelevant to the constitutionality of governments role in providing for national defense.
Click to expand...

We provided national defense before while spending a whole lot less than the rest of the world combined. I agree with the Constitutionalists and the Libertarians on military spending - defense only!


Either that or add the costs of keeping the oil flowing from the Mid East to the price at the pump, and stop putting it on our National credit card.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
And in using these ample reading comprehension skills you have, can you tell us what PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE means when it is divorced and separated and kept distinct and apart from the actual citizens for whom the Constitution and the government it created was written for in the first place?

And how is that divorced, separated or kept distinct from the rest of that SAME SENTENCE that leads into the general welfare clause?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...

You have to infer that it means whatever it is you want it to mean.

It could be argued that welfare benefits are really a function of insuring domestic tranquility. Or that "common defense" also includes defense against illness and death, or that secure the Blessings of Liberty means steep tax rates on the wealthy. We can argue it means whatever the hell we feel like. If you want the federal government to have unlimited powers, you (i.e. SCOTUS) can craft an explanation that it is, in fact, Constitutional. I guess the Constitution is no longer a valid way to argue this.
 
Neomalthusian said:
You have to infer that it means whatever it is you want it to mean.

It could be argued that welfare benefits are really a function of insuring domestic tranquility. Or that "common defense" also includes defense against illness and death, or that secure the Blessings of Liberty means steep tax rates on the wealthy. We can argue it means whatever the hell we feel like. If you want the federal government to have unlimited powers, you (i.e. SCOTUS) can craft an explanation that it is, in fact, Constitutional. I guess the Constitution is no longer a valid way to argue this.
Click to expand...

Why does one have to want the federal government to have unlimited powers to make any of those conclusions or any others?

Do you really know anyone here who takes the position that they want the federal government to have unlimited powers? Because I have never come up with one.
 
haymarket said:
You are confusing the retail shopping experience with the relationship of a citizen to his or her government.
Click to expand...

you are confusing an opinion with what you want to read
 
Neomalthusian said:
You have to infer that it means whatever it is you want it to mean.

It could be argued that welfare benefits are really a function of insuring domestic tranquility. Or that "common defense" also includes defense against illness and death, or that secure the Blessings of Liberty means steep tax rates on the wealthy. We can argue it means whatever the hell we feel like. If you want the federal government to have unlimited powers, you (i.e. SCOTUS) can craft an explanation that it is, in fact, Constitutional. I guess the Constitution is no longer a valid way to argue this.
Click to expand...

the Parasite support team believes that the entire purpose of government is to take money from those who earned it to give it to those who don't so there will be peace and tranquility and the failures feel better about themselves
 
haymarket said:
Why does one have to want the federal government to have unlimited powers to make any of those conclusions or any others?

Do you really know anyone here who takes the position that they want the federal government to have unlimited powers? Because I have never come up with one.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I've seen anyone say it like that, but I can think of folks who have never (so far as I've read) suggested it be limited, and who consistently argue with others who do advocate limits... Who dismiss the tenth amendment as meaningless tautology and think the federal government is limited only by what it decides to define as its own limit. So in other words, from what folks say, yes.

We have presidents that declare war, a banking cartel that coins money, a Supreme Court that establishes policy, a Congress that spends as much money as it wants, and an apathetic or apologist majority that always votes for who they perceive as the slightly lesser of the same evil. If people by and large think they don't want unlimited federal government, then they are living in a state of total cognitive dissonance.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
you are confusing an opinion with what you want to read
Click to expand...

An opinion based on a falsehood is still deluding oneself into intentional intellectual fraud. And that is what you do when you present us with this nonsense about any relationship between taxes paid and government services benefitted from.
 
TurtleDude said:
the Parasite support team believes that the entire purpose of government is to take money from those who earned it to give it to those who don't so there will be peace and tranquility and the failures feel better about themselves
Click to expand...

Can you cite one member of "the parasite support team" who actually says this?



Oh wait!!!!! I know!!!!!! This is part of your mind reading schtick. You know what they really think even though they never ever said it. Got it. ;):roll::lamo
 
haymarket said:
An opinion based on a falsehood is still deluding oneself into intentional intellectual fraud. And that is what you do when you present us with this nonsense about any relationship between taxes paid and government services benefitted from.
Click to expand...

there should be-its called an opinion-look it up

the from each according to their ability to each group according to the amount of votes they can bestow on a politician is the current scheme
 
Neomalthusian said:
I'm not sure I've seen anyone say it like that, but I can think of folks who have never (so far as I've read) suggested it be limited, and who consistently argue with others who do advocate limits... Who dismiss the tenth amendment as meaningless tautology and think the federal government is limited only by what it decides to define as its own limit. So in other words, from what folks say, yes.
Click to expand...

I strongly suspect they do not dismiss the idea of limiting the powers of government but only with the terms that you advocate. It is NOT a dispute about absolute power. It is only a disagreement about what the margins are.
 
TurtleDude said:
there should be-its called an opinion-look it up
Click to expand...

Your opinion is your opinion is your opinion.
And based on a falsehood is still based on a falsehood and ends up a falsehood.
 
haymarket said:
Your opinion is your opinion is your opinion.
And based on a falsehood is still based on a falsehood and ends up a falsehood.
Click to expand...

MOre idiocy-you again think that a call for a change is confusion with the status quo

try again
 
TurtleDude said:
MOre idiocy-you again think that a call for a change is confusion with the status quo

try again
Click to expand...

What change are you calling for based on your self imposed belief system built on a house of cards and lies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom