I can claim they are "of the right" because that's the rhetoric they spout, and who votes for them.


Well, here's the thing my friend, Actions speak louder than words.


Untrue, then, as now, there was constant debate over the role of government.

i.e. Hamilton and the National Bank.

That, and decreasing certain parts of government are incredibly unpopular, i.e. education, social security, etc..

Note, that while I believe firstly in a functional government, I think compromise is needed to avoid a debt-disaster. We need to trim the fat on programs, and we need to raise taxes.

Both sides need to give a little to fix the country.

No, it was never a matter of national security, despite what we were told. There was never an imminent threat to us.

We broke it, we bought it. To an extent, I agree. On the other hand, our pressence is also the reason foreign fighters are streaming into attack us. It is a recruiting tool for terrorists, who use it as an example of our alleged empirical motivations.
Except that the only consistency in McCain's policies is his Bush-like approach to the world.

That won't help him.


McCain wants to continue the pre-Iraq mindset, that "preemption" is a viable policy.


A drop in the bucket compared to the hundred thousand dollars we spend every hour there, right now.

Your goal is to limit the action of government, or at least, supposedly.

The debate over the role of government has been debated since the founders.

The fallacy of your argument is that they had one idea, and that it was for a limited government.

That's just not so.

Then I guess I must be a dedicated left-winger then.

You support Obama right? God forbid if he gets elected, but then we'll see if his words or his actions speak louder.

I really meant the principles behind the Constitution, I didn't mean that they all worked together in ideological lockstep.

Quote from someone "What's popular is not always what's right, or what's good".

There is absolutely NO argument for raising taxes. Why Obama's Policies Will Ruin the Economy

It was what we believed at the time, due to the actions of Saddam's government. If someone was on an airplane and said he had a bomb (or a WMD) and was lying, it would be a matter of security even if it wasn't an imminent threat and would be responded to accordingly.

Sorry, but the two are very different, and Bush is the better of the two.

Oh, so I don't actually believe what I say I believe even though I dedicate my life to it for some reason that you can't think of right now. Now there's some good ole' liberal logic for ya.

Yes it has, but no one then was supporting a government sponsored socialist dictatorship.

And therefore, your logic is invalid because the Constitution, the fundamental basis of law in this country, continually contradicts itself due to the fact that their ideas were different. I forgot about that.

Ever read the Constitution before?

It clearly supports limited government. Ever heard of checks and balances, the separation of powers, pluralism? I guess not.

That's just not so.[/quote]

__________________

Considering you spout conservative rhetoric, and have no political support, it's hard to say.

My hunch is now.

Indeed.


You claimed that they all wanted limited government. You were wrong.

That's super duper. But, we were discussing why Republicans don't have any discernible political philosophy, or, why they abandon their philosophy when they gain power.

[quote]
There is absolutely NO argument for raising taxes. Why Obama's Policies Will Ruin the Economy
[/quote[

I'm not going to debate you on that thread.

We need to raise taxes and decrease spending.


We aren't on an airplane.



Better? To whom? For what reason? Better? That's like saying hard turds are better than soft.


I was speaking collectively. I don't care much about what you do, or why you do it.

But, assuming you're sincere about your ideals, it must be frustrating to watch your party abandon them, perpetually.


No one is supporting that now. That's sheer hyperbole.

My logic succeeds because the constitution was the result of compromise between those who wanted a powerful federal government, and those that did not.


Ever taken a course on logic?


Ever heard of the elastic clause? Ever heard of the lousiana purchase? Ever heard of the National bank?

What is so is that the side of extremely limited government, the predecessor of your side, also referred to hyperboles of authoritarianism.

The difference is, they had enough class and reason to indulge the other side, and admit, honestly, that their were two valid sides to the argument of the role of government, that boil down to nothing but a person's opinion.

The Constitution outlines a system of government that is a small as it is possible to get without endangering life, liberty, or property.

Power corrupts, but the people are not punishing them for this. I think this will change after Bush.

Raising taxes does not increase government revenue when it will cause the economy to shrink past the point where the increased tax rate would not make the government any more money.

To demonstrate this, I'll show you this. It's called the Laffer Curve, and you may have heard of it before. Basically, this is how it works. If a government has a 100% tax or a 0% tax, it won't make any money at all. But obviously there is a place somewhere where the government can make money. So this creates a curve, the Laffer Curve, and somewhere along the curve is a place where the government makes the maximum amount of money. Nobody knows where this is, as economics is a very complex science, but it has become clearer in modern times and we get closer to finding it everyday as the economy shifts and tax rates change. However, the Bush tax cuts have given us very valuable insight into this, because government revenues increased in general, not just because of the capital gains cut. Unfortunately, new ideas like this are not always immediately put into effect, and public opinion has more to say on actual policies than science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Laffer-Curve.svg

Please not that this curve is not to scale. A 50% tax is not the maximum, but this helps to illustrate the concept. A libertarian economist had this to say about the concept, ""In the United States the recent advances in tax rates produced only negligible revenue results beyond what would be produced by a progression which stopped at much lower rates."

With the national debt topping 4 trillion dollars, I propose that the government try to find this through very small changes in the tax rate over a large period of time, until it is found and the government gets as much money as possible. Then, when the budget is balanced, we can further reduce taxes to let people get as much of their money as possible. It seems like a simple solution to me, and even then, liberals who want government programs to help the poor should stick to the optimum on the Laffer Curve. An optimum which we can safely assume, is around the lower taxes that Bush has given us. So liberals should support these tax cuts, instead of calling them "irresponsible" as Obama has done.

No we are not. We are on the planet earth, which means we can't get off, no matter who has a bomb.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA

I can only think of two at the moment, even if it's a little bit of an exaggeration.

Their idea of a powerful federal government was one that could raise taxes.

Liberals have to take courses on logic? That explains a lot.

This thread will not turn into an argument over the validity of the elastic clause. It would really never end. But regardless, it does not give the government to do whatever it wants to. Everyone agrees on that, the only argument is what steps the government can take to carry out the powers given to it by the Constitution.

Government is a necessary evil. Power corrupts. That government which governs least, governs best.

__________________

[quote=White Fox;523165]The Constitution outlines a system of government that is a small as it is possible to get without endangering life, liberty, or property.
[quote]

And, since individuals disagree about where the limits on government should be, it was written to be flexible, and, by its very nature, open to interpretation.

I think this will change after you get shellacked at the voting booth.

Yes, I've read the hoover institute, and the cato institute's and all the other think tanks, always say.

Tax-revenues were increasing at a faster rate under clinton than under Bush, and his lower tax rate.

In essence: the lower tax-rate did not correlate with increased revenue for the government.

So, your claim is false.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...692027,00.html

See, the problem is, it's all theory. There is no magic number. Moreover, the tax rate is more complicated than you're making it out to be. What we find is that tax-cuts for the middle class do spur the economy, because middle class people put that money right into the economy.

Tax-cuts for the wealthiest are typically saved, or put into assets of one kind or another.

Clearly, if the curve is an attainable reality, we were closer to it under CLinton, when revenues increased much more quickly.



They are irresponsible. While Bush and Repugs increased spending, they also cut revenues to the government.

And, as I've linked you to, they haven't paid for themselves. He missed the curve, if their is one.


So, we should whip out our gun and shoot innocent people, making the situation more dangerous for everybody, because we think some other guy has a bomb? Do you see how foolish that is? Even after we've done it, and found their was no bomb?


Who?

...without representation.d

The implication is that you need one.

I'll end it: the constitution gives the power to congress to do whatever it likes, if it's necessary and proper.

Necessary and proper is clearly a subjective term, and thus, subject to the will of the people via representatives.

Right. Congress can pass any laws it likes, then it goes to the president, and can be tested in court against constituional stipulations.

And, most of the things libertarians claim to be unconstituional are quite constitutional, according to various rulings.

Adding to the point that libertarians claim only one interpretation of the constitution, when, obviously, there are more.

Ask not what your country can do for you...

The Constitution was written under the Lockeian concept of the contract of government. Contracts are not written to be flexible nor open to interpretation. Anyone who has read the Constitution can agree that about 95% is explicit.

This is so funny, but did you know that Clinton cut taxes? I wonder why those tax-revenues were increasing at a faster rate? Maybe the farther away from the magic point on the Laffer curve you are, the faster government revenue increases when you move closer to the magic point.

It did when Clinton dropped the capital gains tax from 28% to 20% in 1998, and again when Bush dropped it to 15%. The Bush tax cuts were not supposed to pay for themselves when he increased government spending like the little fool he is.

This is honestly the most delusional thing I have ever heard you say. The wealthiest people in society are the people who invest the most money in capital, which creates jobs and material wealth for the entire country. No rich person simply keeps their money under a mattress. They put it in a bank, where it is then loaned to people who will invest it in businesses or capital, or they invest it directly. This is why tax cuts for the rich do the most good for the economy.

Clearly closer when Clinton cut it.

Yes, they were, and still are, irresponsible people who deserve to be voted out of office. Just please don't replace them with Dems.

I'm not trying to say that Bush nailed it on the head. If you had read the thread that I gave you a link to, you would know that I support small changes in tax rates, made slowly, over large periods of time in order to find the maximum point on the Laffer curve.


So, we should whip out our gun and shoot innocent people, making the situation more dangerous for everybody, because we think some other guy has a bomb? Do you see how foolish that is? Even after we've done it, and found their was no bomb?

I was referring to the Articles of Confederation not allowing the federal government to tax. Not king George.

I'm not sure I want someone telling me how to think, thank you. That would be fascist.

I bet you don't know the purpose outlined in the Constitution for what is "necessary and proper."

It refers only to the enumerated powers.

Congress also has to pass laws that are Constitutional. The Supreme court existed to check the power of Congress so it cannot become to powerful.

So if the Supreme Court ruled today that a law that required Jews to submit to forced labor was constitutional it would be? The Supreme court does not just decide what the Constitution says, it can interpret it as it wishes but it can't just say anything and get away with it.

[quote]Adding to the point that libertarians claim only one interpretation of the constitution, when, obviously, there are more.[quote]

There is only one correct interpretation of the Constitution. I will have nothing to do with any doublethink liberals saying that every interpretation is equally valid.

I wonder if he was high when he said that, seeing as he was high during most of his presidency.

__________________

[quote=White Fox;523219]The Constitution was written under the Lockeian concept of the contract of government. Contracts are not written to be flexible nor open to interpretation. Anyone who has read the Constitution can agree that about 95% is explicit.
[quote]

One part that is not explicit is the delegation of powers. For instance, a declaration of war is needed by constitutional standards, for the president to command troops in battle.

Laws since have changed that, most especially the war powers act.

Assuming your theory is true for the moment, that means the clinton rates were closer to it then the bush rates...


You see how your leaders force you to talk out of both sides of your head?

The Republican model is to purposelfully bankrupt the country? Because at any other goal, you fail.

They're also the most likely to pocket it, because they benefit from interest.

Why do you think the economic stimulus targeted middle and lower income people?

Because they spur the economy most directly.

So, you're saying rich people spend all of their money on investments? Or, are you saying the bank spends all of their money?

Either way, Your clearly stuck in the ideological dreamworld of the libertarian.

If what you were saying were true, we wouldn't have the income disparity that we've had since the 1920's.


The fastest revenue increase was from 1995-1999, so, no. He was closer before, actually, in terms of generating revenues.

Appeals like that only matter when they're made by people who haven't destroyed their own philosophical credentials by telling Democrats how bad they are, then being worse.

I used to be conservative, but by the end of reagan's first term, I had caught on to the "government-bad" demogoguery.

[quote]
I'm not trying to say that Bush nailed it on the head. If you had read the thread that I gave you a link to, you would know that I support small changes in tax rates, made slowly, over large periods of time in order to find the maximum point on the Laffer curve.
[quote]

You're chasing the perfect circle. The laffer curve doesn't exist, and to try and predict what the rate should be in the next year is like trying to predict how many shoes the gulags in siberia will need next year.


They were also wise enough to subject the constitution to amendments.

The 16th says:
No questions about it.

Logic means being told how to think? And being told what to think is facism. Logic is facism.

Hahahahaha.



I bet you're so convinced your interpretation is the only one, that you missed the part that mine is the law:

The phrase became the label of choice and was universally adopted by the courts and received Congress' imprimatur in Title 50 of the United States Code, section 1541(b) (1994), on the purpose and policy of the War Powers Resolution. [1] The clause does not require that all federal laws be necessary and proper; federal laws that are enacted directly pursuant to one of the enumerated powers need not comply with the clause. As Chief Justice Marshall put it, this clause "purport[s] to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted." McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 420 (1819) quoted in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (Stevens, J., dissenting, joined by Souter, Ginsburg & Breyer, JJ.).

-wiki

No, it doesn't, Says the superme court. You can say "I don't think it only refers" but you're wrong, insofar as the law has been interpreted, and applied, in reality.

Not that reality has any bearing on the libertarian fantasy.


Exactly my point.

Um. Ok. Yes. The supreme court determines constitutionality. Yes.

It's not correct, it's just your interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies

I'm not. Yours is clearly inferior; Re: the supreme court. You're convinced yours is the only interpretation, yet, it's not the interpretation that is in place now.

And he still beat Dick Nixon.

wait til they pull obama's clothes out of his closet. i hear this rumor that he's bisexual....a book is expected to come out about this....he's not an unknown person from the south....everything about him will be viewed through a magnified scope...his case is pending until their democratic race is over...

__________________
Jesus beat the devil with two sticks. Colossian 2:13,15

Proud American!

Communism/Socialism is similar to legalizing burglary and murder!