Metro Jacksonville

Quote from: johnnyroadglide on April 06, 2011, 09:43:21 AM
   Not embarrassed to be called a Republican at all Faye. Its just that I don't always agree with everything Republicans support. Just as I don't agree with everything Democrats support. And that's also why I have been leaning more towards Alvin Brown for Mayor. Not because I dislike Hogan. But I like, for the most part, what Alvin is saying.

I'm glad to see that...........and as you know that is exceedingly rare in Jax. Most Republicans would fear retribution from their Republican party if they cross party lines for a candidate.

Quote from: johnnyroadglide on April 06, 2011, 09:43:21 AM
One big thing I will disagree strongly with Demos on though is handouts for those "less fortunate". Luck had nothing to do with their bad situation. They made poor decisions and now they want someone else to bail them out. My dad always preached "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" and that's exactly how I feel.
  I was in bad shape a long time ago. I was so bad off that I was living in a tent at a campground, sharing the public shower and working 3 jobs. I didn't even have a car. But I never once went looking for a govt handout. I worked hard to get myself out of that situation and now I have my own house, a car and a good job. Am I wealthy?? Not by a long shot. But I earned what I have and I'll be damned if the government is going to take it away and give it to someone "less fortunate". That's just a buzz word for lazy.
Flame away.

I don't like to flame away. I may present different view points, but I try to keep it educational  ;D

Hmmmmm, luck has nothing to do with becoming disabled? Luck has nothing to do with becoming unemployed?

Maybe you should tell that to all those people who were just playing their sport and became permanently disabled, or the people that were working hard in their jobs and got laid off due to the recession. BTW, I am hereby banning the word "handout" like the Republicans have banned the word uterus. If you don't like help given by the government in a civilized society, you must not like the private charity organizations either.

Quote"People forget why [government] programs were created. Not because Dems love big government, but because the private sector turned its back on people who who weren't profitable, particularly the old, sick, disabled and young. The GOP wants to return us to those days to let millionaires and bilionaires get ever richer."

So much for a paralyzed person pulling themselves up by the bootstraps! THAT is why we have tea Partier Rick Scott cutting help to the disabled by 15%. Who needs those folks anyway?

How can these people even be profitable to us? They just drain us!

You'll be damned if government is going to take money away (by tax) and give it to someone "less fortunate"?

But government "handouts" to corporations (costing us billions in taxpayer monies) is just fine and dandy for Republicans I assume..............like Gov. Rick Scott wanting to give all corporations that set up shop in Florida FREE ELECTRICITY, so our residential rates and/or taxes have to go up to pay for that.

Ironically, as much as Republicans HATE government, most Republicans in Jacksonville ( went through great lengths to) WORK FOR the government. Think all those in the military and the Republican controled local government.

So much for their REALLY believing that: "government is bad and private enterprise is good."

Hmmmm, I can chose to work for Wal-mart with barely any benefirs or I can join the military where I enjoy socialized medicine and a guaranteed retirement.................who would YOU rather work for?

Faye, Faye, Faye.

First no one thinks disabled persons are a drain and should be cast away. I am betting everyone on this forum, and most likely in the world knows, cares about, or loves a disabled person. Most here would disagree with cuts to the truly disabled. The issue is anyone can claim to be disabled and pretty much get benefits/win a law suit- it is really sad because these are the people tea partiers will point out everytime.


Comparing working at Walmart to joining the military is sad also. You cannot even compare the two. Working at Walmart does not take me away from my family and friends, does not provide me travel around the world, and does not threaten my life as much. Joining the military is not just a "job" it is a service.

Most conservatives would agree with JG's comments, and it is at the root of their beliefs- as the shirt says "No thanks, I am a Republican and can take care of myself" you can add my family to that. People who truly need help should get it- people who have the ways and means (meaning able to get up and get a job) should take care of their own issues. Since when is it more acceptable to live off the backs of tax paying citizens than work at McDonald's?

Bravo uptowngirl! You took the words right out of my mouth. faye of course I am not talking about the handicapped or the folks who lost their job through no fault of their own. I am talking about the moochers. And you know who I am talking about. Folks who never had a job and have no intention of finding work because they can mooch off the government. And I am not talking about charities who help folks out in need. Because those charities I can support and I decide who I want to support.  I do it because I want to. Not because the government wants to take my money and give it to who they want to. Thats the big difference.

QuoteFolks who never had a job and have no intention of finding work because they can mooch off the government.

I have never been on public assistance, unless you count a brief period on unemployment, but as I understand it,  there are limitations on how long someone can get public assistance.  Some people may stay on the system longer than they need to, but they can't stay on it indefinitely.  Not since welfare reform in 1994/5 anyway.

Also, AFDC, Food Stamps, etc. are not a big part of the budget.  Defense, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and interest on the debt are the vast majority of the budget.   

Quote from: johnnyroadglide on April 06, 2011, 02:06:15 PM
I am talking about the moochers. And you know who I am talking about.

I sure do:

1)      Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009.  Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2)      Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3)      Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4)      Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5)      Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6)      Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7)      Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8)      Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9)      ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10)  Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

Quote from: finehoe on April 06, 2011, 03:04:53 PM

Quote from: johnnyroadglide on April 06, 2011, 02:06:15 PM
I am talking about the moochers. And you know who I am talking about.

I sure do:

1)      Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009.  Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2)      Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3)      Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4)      Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5)      Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6)      Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7)      Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8)      Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9)      ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10)  Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

Why fineho?  Who let them do this?  Is this illegal?

Quote from: stephendare on April 06, 2011, 03:08:51 PM
Hey, don't get too realistic finehoe.

They will realize how badly theyve been duped for the past 30 years.

Never realizing how sore their udders were from being milked coming and going by the real money masters, but complaining about giving another one of the milk cows a little room at the manger.'

Ah.  The undeserving poor, and the awful .001% of the budget that we spend on them.

Of course its pretty hard to notice when you spend most of your time bootlicking the wealthy in the hopes that maybe they will pat you on your good little head.

Says the guy who agrees with the tax loopholes and incentives the companies listed above are using...

no finehoe thats not who I am talking about..but like good little liberals with their good little talking points you managed to avoid the point and bring up something totally different.

Get loafers Stephen... :)

Waaaaayyyy back in the GE fails to pay taxes thread.  'member?  The whole "dont close all those loopholes 'cause they might have unintended consequences" thing...

Are the 'services to the needy' only covered in the 2.4% Health & Human Services budget?

Who is getting the Welfare portion of the 11.2% Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending budget?

Quote from: vicupstate on April 06, 2011, 02:39:22 PM

QuoteFolks who never had a job and have no intention of finding work because they can mooch off the government.

I have never been on public assistance, unless you count a brief period on unemployment, but as I understand it,  there are limitations on how long someone can get public assistance.  Some people may stay on the system longer than they need to, but they can't stay on it indefinitely.  Not since welfare reform in 1994/5 anyway.

Also, AFDC, Food Stamps, etc. are not a big part of the budget.  Defense, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and interest on the debt are the vast majority of the budget.  

Thanks vicupstate, I have also been fiercely independent. That is why I once was a Republican.........because I thought the Party was about individuality, until I found out that they were really about sitting in judgement of others.

And I guess it's human nature. When I'm out and about looking for a handicapped parking space because my son is quadriplegic, and I see people parking their cars with handicapped signs I also start fuming when I see nothing wrong with them. Until I realize these people could be medicated for rheumatoid arthritis or have other invisible ailments that impair their function.

Let us celebrate the fact that we are able-bodied.

And shhhhhhht vicupstate don't take away their favorite beef ( I am vegetrian  ;D) You know it takes at least 20 years before new information actually catches on. :o

Since the 1994 reform, single moms with children can only stay on assistance for 2 years, and they better get some education going during those two years because otherwise they'll be stuck on minimum wage for the rest of their lives while their moms have to babysit their kids.

Quote from: johnnyroadglide on April 06, 2011, 02:06:15 PM
I am not talking about charities who help folks out in need. Because those charities I can support and I decide who I want to support.  I do it because I want to. Not because the government wants to take my money and give it to who they want to. Thats the big difference.

People have to be at your mercy? You are so omniscient to know exactly who deserves to be helped, and who doesn't? AND you have the time to inform yourself of such?

Bravo, for being such a help to others, when even the government makes disabled people wait over 2 years before they can get ANY disability or Medicare BENEFITS.( NOT handouts, since they paid into the system too)

uptowngirl, uptowngirl, uptowngirl, that brainwashing has really taken a hold of you!

Since when do we have capable people working at mcDonalds, besides the teenagers. Most are toothless and can barely walk or talk. And you STILL think there are people perfectly capable of working that are mooching off the system?

What system?

This fixation on so-called "people mooching off the system" has so effectively distracted you all from the REAL mooching that is being done: ie the corporate mooching off our system to the tune of billions of dollars at tax payer expense. You are all being ripped off, BUT not by the people you are soooooooo fixated on.

But hey corporate handouts are ok, even the ones that are illegally obtained ie STOLEN like Rick Scott's mega-million dollar one. When are you guys going to finally wake up? You've collectively been had.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 06, 2011, 03:07:13 PM

Quote from: finehoe on April 06, 2011, 03:04:53 PM

Quote from: johnnyroadglide on April 06, 2011, 02:06:15 PM
I am talking about the moochers. And you know who I am talking about.

I sure do:

1)      Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009.  Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2)      Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3)      Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4)      Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5)      Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6)      Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7)      Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8)      Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9)      ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10)  Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

Why fineho?  Who let them do this?  Is this illegal?

Re: In a Remarkable Show of Bi Partisanship... GE Pays No Tax on 14 Billion Profit.
« Reply #134 on: March 31, 2011, 07:58:36 AM » Quote Modify Remove Split Topic 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/mar/15/marcia-fudge/rep-marcia-fudge-says-some-largest-corporations-pa/


Quote
... Between 1998 to 2005, GAO found that about 72 percent of large foreign controlled companies and 55 percent of large U.S. controlled companies reported zero tax liability for at least one year. About 57 percent of foreign controlled large companies and 42 percent of U.S. large companies paid no taxes in two or more years, and a third of the foreign companies and one quarter of their U.S. counterparts paid no taxes for at least four of those years. Just 45 percent of large U.S. companies and 28 percent of foreign companies reported a tax liability for each of the eight years. The report defined large companies as those with at least $250 million in assets, or at least $50 million in receipts

When GAO factored smaller companies into the mix, it found a higher overall proportion who didn’t pay taxes. Throughout the eight years the study examined, the overall percentage of non-tax-paying foreign and U.S. controlled companies never fell beneath 60 percent annually.
The report said that corporations may not pay U.S. income taxes for a variety of reasons, including current-year operating losses, tax credits, and multinational corporations shifting income to lower tax jurisdictions.

"Some corporations could have zero income before deducting expenses and others could have zero net income after deducting expenses, both of which could result in no tax liability," the report said.

After the GAO report was released, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Chief Economist Martin Regalia released a statement that stressed the difference between companies not having a tax liability and shirking taxes that are owed.

"The GAO report doesn’t say that businesses aren’t paying taxes they owe," Regalia’s statement said. "Rather, it says that some corporations did not have tax liabilities â€" in other words, they did not owe taxes. So how do corporations avoid having tax liabilities? They don’t make any profits. You can have many billions of dollars in revenue and still have R&D, labor-related and other expenses that are larger than your revenues â€" and therefore no ‘income’ to tax.

"In sum, the idea that there is a large pool of corporations not paying taxes that they legally owe is just incorrect," Regalia concluded.

The nation’s big business representatives don’t dispute the report’s findings, even as they stress it should not be misconstrued to mean businesses are evading taxes they owe. During her television appearance, Fudge stressed that the businesses who don’t pay taxes aren’t cheating or doing anything wrong.

Quote from: johnnyroadglide on April 06, 2011, 03:13:22 PM
no finehoe thats not who I am talking about..but like good little liberals with their good little talking points you managed to avoid the point and bring up something totally different.

Totally Different?  How is not paying billions in taxes and in fact being given rebates on those non-paid taxes not "mooching"?  Suppose you be a good little teabagger and tell us how a person who lost their job and is getting $275 a week is oh-so-horrible but the examples I gave are A-OK in your little conservative world.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 06, 2011, 03:07:13 PM

Quote from: finehoe on April 06, 2011, 03:04:53 PM

Quote from: johnnyroadglide on April 06, 2011, 02:06:15 PM
I am talking about the moochers. And you know who I am talking about.

I sure do:

1)      Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009.  Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2)      Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3)      Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4)      Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5)      Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6)      Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7)      Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8)      Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9)      ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10)  Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

Why fineho?  Who let them do this?  Is this illegal?

BT, have you ever heard of Republicans regulating or enforcing ANYTHING (except for abortions)?

In fact it's Dems that get flack for regulating and trying to hold corporations accountable for the damage they do to our society. ( you are right Clinton should have vetoed the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act though, that did away with consumer protections post 1930s crash)

And you are right, that by now both parties have been thoroughly corrupted except for a very few Dems.

But Republicans have NEVER protected citizen and/or consumers EVER from rampant corporate abuses.

Quote from: finehoe on April 06, 2011, 04:09:19 PM

Quote from: johnnyroadglide on April 06, 2011, 03:13:22 PM
no finehoe thats not who I am talking about..but like good little liberals with their good little talking points you managed to avoid the point and bring up something totally different.

Totally Different?  How is not paying billions in taxes and in fact being given rebates on those non-paid taxes not "mooching"?  Suppose you be a good little teabagger and tell us how a person who lost their job and is getting $275 a week is oh-so-horrible but the examples I gave are A-OK in your little conservative world.

+1000

Quote from: finehoe on April 06, 2011, 03:04:53 PM

Quote from: johnnyroadglide on April 06, 2011, 02:06:15 PM
I am talking about the moochers. And you know who I am talking about.

I sure do:

1)      Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009.  Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2)      Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3)      Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4)      Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5)      Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6)      Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7)      Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8)      Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9)      ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10)  Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

Let me just take a stab at this..... Is the reason all these companies make these huge ass profits and not only do not pay taxes but also get tax credits is because they control our President/Government/Congress?   just curious.

HA, again both sides are completely corrupt. Of course it sounds better to beat up on corporations who are legally taking advantage of loopholes created by both the democrats and republicans- it is good story to support the poor underdog.

everyone needs to get their snouts out of the trough, welfare and government assistance was set up for short term use to get people back on their feet. I know, I know reform limits usage to two years, but we all know that is BS- hell my neighbor has been getting foodstamps and assistance for over 10 years! So it is complete BS to throw that out there. No one is enforcing it, and there is not one damn thing wrong with this woman, not one. In fact she does work, for cash.

Scream and holler about the corporations all you want, but the difference there is at least they provide freaking jobs and some type of consumer product.

Lord, I must be getting old, I have no patience for eitherside of this argument- talk about brainwashing- both parties are corrupt, they are bought, sold, and paid for- both, everyday. In fact I might say the democrats may be worse- they owe corporations AND the poor. If both sides would get as passionate about changing the corruption across the board, we MIGHT be Abel to live in a better world for everyone.

And Faye I sure as hell think I have some RIGHT to determine what I do with my money. Personally I do not want to give it away to "moochers" whether they be corporations or individuals.

Quote from: FayeforCure on April 06, 2011, 04:15:29 PM

Quote from: finehoe on April 06, 2011, 04:09:19 PM

Quote from: johnnyroadglide on April 06, 2011, 03:13:22 PM
no finehoe thats not who I am talking about..but like good little liberals with their good little talking points you managed to avoid the point and bring up something totally different.

Totally Different?  How is not paying billions in taxes and in fact being given rebates on those non-paid taxes not "mooching"?  Suppose you be a good little teabagger and tell us how a person who lost their job and is getting $275 a week is oh-so-horrible but the examples I gave are A-OK in your little conservative world.

+1000

I guess it is similar to not working and be able to get a tax refund- of course that little program also keeps a lot of tax preparation places in business, especially the ones that let you take a "loan" on that refund you did not even pay in.

Quote from: uptowngirl on April 06, 2011, 04:39:45 PM
Of course it sounds better to beat up on corporations who are legally taking advantage of loopholes created by both the democrats and republicans- it is good story to support the poor underdog.

The unemployed are legally taking advantage of the insurance system set up to help people who have lost their jobs.  But its a good story to refer to them as moochers "at the trough."

Quote from: uptowngirl on April 06, 2011, 04:39:45 PM
I sure as hell think I have some RIGHT to determine what I do with my money. Personally I do not want to give it away to "moochers" whether they be corporations or individuals.

How interesting that you might not even have a job (and thus money) if the evil government hadn't bailed out the industry you work for.

Quote from: uptowngirl on April 06, 2011, 04:45:08 PM
I guess it is similar to not working and be able to get a tax refund- of course that little program also keeps a lot of tax preparation places in business, especially the ones that let you take a "loan" on that refund you did not even pay in.

Uh, no it's nothing like that.  If you're not getting a refund, those places will not loan you a thing.

:)

Quote from: finehoe on April 06, 2011, 04:50:28 PM

Quote from: uptowngirl on April 06, 2011, 04:39:45 PM
Of course it sounds better to beat up on corporations who are legally taking advantage of loopholes created by both the democrats and republicans- it is good story to support the poor underdog.

The unemployed are legally taking advantage of the insurance system set up to help people who have lost their jobs.  But its a good story to refer to them as moochers "at the trough."

Quote from: uptowngirl on April 06, 2011, 04:39:45 PM
I sure as hell think I have some RIGHT to determine what I do with my money. Personally I do not want to give it away to "moochers" whether they be corporations or individuals.

How interesting that you might not even have a job (and thus money) if the evil government hadn't bailed out the industry you work for.

Absolutely not true fine ho. You do not ruly know anything about my company's "bailout" and prove it over and over again. BTW, my skills are not relegated to the financial industry, in fact the main reason I am still at my job is I am too lazy and too busy to start at a new place. I get offers all the time from a wide variety of industries. I suppose with my educational back ground I could always be a teacher, and well I could always finish up my PHD, but I am paid better doing what I do than a professor. Oh and did I mention I did all this on my own- no student loans, housing, welfare, as a single mother at the age of 18? I am sure that type of self efficiency deserves your derision. I obviously do not fit the mold of liberals, I didn't need anyone to "save me" I just did it the old fashion way, with determination and being self efficient. I never thought anyone, including my family or ex-husband owed me anything. After all If I can afford a new car and a big screen TV I can most likely pay my own rent and buy my own food. It is just too bad that so many depend on the government for everything, if it all disappeared tomorrow I could still survive, but I can't say that for at least half our population.

Quote from: finehoe on April 06, 2011, 04:09:19 PM

Quote from: johnnyroadglide on April 06, 2011, 03:13:22 PM
no finehoe thats not who I am talking about..but like good little liberals with their good little talking points you managed to avoid the point and bring up something totally different.

Totally Different?  How is not paying billions in taxes and in fact being given rebates on those non-paid taxes not "mooching"?  Suppose you be a good little teabagger and tell us how a person who lost their job and is getting $275 a week is oh-so-horrible but the examples I gave are A-OK in your little conservative world.

Teabagger??? Okay whatever..go back to drinking your koolaid and live in your perfect little dream world. I have better things to do with my time then try and discuss anything with a closed mind.
Goodbye and good luck to all.

Quote from: johnnyroadglide on April 06, 2011, 05:24:12 PM

Quote from: finehoe on April 06, 2011, 04:09:19 PM

Quote from: johnnyroadglide on April 06, 2011, 03:13:22 PM
no finehoe thats not who I am talking about..but like good little liberals with their good little talking points you managed to avoid the point and bring up something totally different.

Totally Different?  How is not paying billions in taxes and in fact being given rebates on those non-paid taxes not "mooching"?  Suppose you be a good little teabagger and tell us how a person who lost their job and is getting $275 a week is oh-so-horrible but the examples I gave are A-OK in your little conservative world.

Teabagger??? Okay whatever..go back to drinking your koolaid and live in your perfect little dream world. I have better things to do with my time then try and discuss anything with a closed mind.
Goodbye and good luck to all.

+1000 Too bad Jaxoutloud is gone :-(

I know :(   I am really bummed that JOL is no longer :(

Oh Timkin, you are my favorite liberal!

:)  thanks Uptowngirl..   M-train hates me.  but Im glad someone  thinks im pretty alright ;)

Quote from: uptowngirl on April 06, 2011, 05:14:58 PM
I am sure that type of self efficiency deserves your derision.

Not at all.  I think it wonderful you have created the kind of life you want for yourself.

But you seem to be saying that when government collects taxes in order to help the poor, that it is virtually stealing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

History has proven that when government looks the other way and permits individuals to make money at any cost, the brightest and most gifted may well rise to the top, but those at the bottom of the economic ladder will frequently be left behind. That is why government in a capitalistic society such as ours has a duty to keep the playing field as level as possible for everyone, not just the rich and powerful.

Unrestrained and unregulated capitalism at its worst leads to the enslavement of the poor, not their liberation. The fact of the matter is that individuals alone cannot always alleviate the increasing poverty, hunger and homelessness that plague our nation. While individuals can and should help, it has always been the role of government to assist its citizens to accomplish what individuals cannot do alone. The elimination of poverty is one such governmental responsibility.  Government is but an organized group of individuals, with certain powers and responsibilities bestowed upon it by the people.

The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to be in the charity business.

Nor does it have the authority to "bail out" private businesses.

Or "favor" any person or other entity in taxation.

Thus, I am in favor of some version of the "fair tax".

Quote from: NotNow on April 06, 2011, 06:06:13 PM
The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to be in the charity business.

Nor does it have the authority to "bail out" private businesses.

Or "favor" any person or other entity in taxation.

Thus, I am in favor of some version of the "fair tax".

Oh, don't even get me started on the radio personality and dentist dreamed up fair tax nonsense. That would be as bad as having a guy with a degree in monkey business run Jacksonville!!

Fair Tax favors the rich, after all they use a smaller portion of their vast fortunes for consumption thus rendering their tax a lower percentage of their income. No new houses would be build because resales are tax free whereas newly built houses are not. etc, etc, etc


As to the Preamble of our Constitution, none of your selfish babble can be found there ( ah you, uptowngirl, are one of those teenagers who became pregnant eh?):

QuoteWe the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

As I said to johnyglide, you, uptowngirl and NotNow are not omniscient to determine who is deserving and who is not.

Quote from: johnnyroadglide on April 06, 2011, 05:24:12 PM
Teabagger??? Okay whatever..go back to drinking your koolaid and live in your perfect little dream world. I have better things to do with my time then try and discuss anything with a closed mind.
Goodbye and good luck to all.

Oh, I see.  You can derisively refer to "good little liberals" living in a "perfect little dream world" but if I return the favor, it's an example of a closed mind.

Typical of the hypocrisy prevalent in so much of conservatism.

Quote from: uptowngirl on April 06, 2011, 05:14:58 PM
Oh and did I mention I did all this on my own- no student loans, housing, welfare, as a single mother at the age of 18? I am sure that type of self efficiency deserves your derision. I obviously do not fit the mold of liberals, I didn't need anyone to "save me" I just did it the old fashion way, with determination and being self efficient. I never thought anyone, including my family or ex-husband owed me anything.

Really, if I may ask: who watched your baby?

I graduated highschool at age 16 and had my masters degree in Economics at age 22, but I DID wait having babies until I was 28, AFTER I had bought a house and a brand new car.

We all do things differently. But we all need help. My husband was probably the first stay-at-home dad in the 80s, but I DID need his help.

Needing help is no shame. The disabled need help EVERY day. Thank God we don't make them feel shameful.

All this self-bravado is disgusting. All it is is a : "I'm better than thou" attitude!!!

Again, who watched your baby while you went to work to pay for your school and living expenses. Where did you live? I am sure you couldn't afford housing on minimum wage!!

Or did you work for the "family business" and got paid $30 per hour.

Now THAT would explain it.

Quote from: NotNow on April 06, 2011, 06:06:13 PM
The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to be in the charity business.

That may be your opinion, but 200 years of Constitutional law says you're wrong.  The federal government certainly expanded its social welfare legislation considerably in the twentieth century, but the roots of current federal social welfare reach back into the earliest years of the nation.

Public welfare in the early 19yh century remained primarily the responsibility of local and to a lesser extent state governments. However, federal assistance was provided to disabled veterans, widows and orphans of veterans, the poor in the District of Columbia, subjugated Indians, merchant marines, and to victims of disasters and calamity.

Faye,

The preamble of the U. S. Constitution does not convey law, and was not defined in the way that you are using it:

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.


While I am most certainly not omniscient, I did take a few classes on the U. S. Constitution.  The general welfare that you refer to is discussed here:

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

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the typical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government[2] as the U.S. Supreme Court has held:

the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,
that Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clauseâ€"as elaborated in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United Statesâ€"is the correct interpretation.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[7]

In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in obiter dictum a further limit on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."[8]


The Federal Government with few exceptions stayed within the enumerated Constitutional powers until the twentieth century.  The last seventy years have almost destroyed this country because the central government has overstepped its bounds.  I'll repeat myself, the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to be in the charity business.

It's not about who is "deserving", it's about how the public purse is supposed to be spent.

I will never understand the group that gets red face mad about the tiny amount of money true loafers are able to suck out of otherwise useful social programs.  Those same people will admit they do not like corporate giveaways that drastically effect our budget and it inspires nothing but an it's legal and you can't trust the government oh well.

FH,

As you have pointed out, the Federal Government limited its spending to veterans, widows of veterans, and other Federal matters.  That effort is found within the document.  The U. S. Constitution does not enumerate any power to supply "charity".  

I must point out that the USSP, through a series of convoluted steps, has authorized spending in the twentieth century that has led us to the point that we now find ourselves.  There is much debate on the FDR era decisions that continues.

Don't take this to mean that I am opposed to "charity", or even state sponsored "charity".  Quite the opposite.  I simply am pointing out that it is not in the enumerated powers of the Federal Government.

Quote from: NotNow on April 06, 2011, 07:12:50 PM
The Federal Government with few exceptions stayed within the enumerated Constitutional powers until the twentieth century.  The last seventy years have almost destroyed this country because the central government has overstepped its bounds.  I'll repeat myself, the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to be in the charity business.

It's not about who is "deserving", it's about how the public purse is supposed to be spent.

Wow, the US stepping into civilization the way it did in the 20th century has almost destroyed this country?

Wow, I wonder why countries like Germany and the Netherlands with much further reaching safety nets have such vibrant economies?

Now if you mean that the deregulation that started in 1980, which let greed go rampant almost destroyed our nation, THEN I would have to agree with you.

After all, what is sinking the ship...........corporations not paying their fair tax, or the $275 check per week that the unemployed get paid out of the unemployment fund that they and/or their company paid into?

Jeffrey,

Your are right that in a system as large as ours there will always be a percentage of waste and abuse.  It is just another indicator of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who designed the government to work at the most local level.  That way we can watch most closely and control more locally.  Mindless bureaucrats in Washington D. C. are more awful than mindless bureaucrats in Tallehassee.  And mindless bureaucrats in Tallahassee are worse than mindless bureaucrats in Jacksonville.  But we can see and control what we have here.  Welfare, schools, and the like are local issues,  and should not feed an enormous, out of control central government.

Quote from: NotNow on April 06, 2011, 07:26:09 PM
Jeffrey,

Your are right that in a system as large as ours there will always be a percentage of waste and abuse.  It is just another indicator of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who designed the government to work at the most local level.  That way we can watch most closely and control more locally.  Mindless bureaucrats in Washington D. C. are more awful than mindless bureaucrats in Tallehassee.  And mindless bureaucrats in Tallahassee are worse than mindless bureaucrats in Jacksonville.  But we can see and control what we have here.  Welfare, schools, and the like are local issues,  and should not feed an enormous, out of control central government.

I could get on board with that if I did not feel our local constituency hadn't recently switched from liking low taxes to worshiping that idea like a theology.

It does bug me how one side of that equation inspires such heated passion and one a shrug and a whatcha gonna do.

The vibrant economy of the Netherlands is about 1/20th of that of the US.  Germany, whos economy is about 1/4th of that of the US (still due largely to the Marshall Plan and US defense, but that is another story) is famously the most conservative of the European Union members, and yet it remains the most successful despite having to drag the former Soviet (socialist) Eastern half of the country into the twentieth century.  If you follow European news (as I know you do), you will note that Germany is abandoning some of it's twentieth century socialist policies citing them as unsustainable.

I am not defending the screwed up tax policy of the US, although you guys have completely misrepresented "tax credits" and "tax rebates".  The real tax picture of the corporations being discussed is very complex and could not be easily discussed in a forum such as this.  That complexity is one of our problems that we should all (liberal, conservative, libertarian) strive to correct.

Quote from: NotNow on April 06, 2011, 07:26:09 PM
Jeffrey,

Your are right that in a system as large as ours there will always be a percentage of waste and abuse.  It is just another indicator of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who designed the government to work at the most local level.  That way we can watch most closely and control more locally.  Mindless bureaucrats in Washington D. C. are more awful than mindless bureaucrats in Tallehassee.  And mindless bureaucrats in Tallahassee are worse than mindless bureaucrats in Jacksonville.  But we can see and control what we have here.  Welfare, schools, and the like are local issues,  and should not feed an enormous, out of control central government.

I do NOT agree. If you live in a small town there is not enough of a base to provide it all.

Besides local control has given us wasteful theological abstinence only programs like SOS in our local schools. And at the state level, they want to mandate that creatonism gets taught in the science class of our schools  ::)

I do not want my taxes to be used for that. What you teach in your churches is your business, but what gets taught in Public School is EVERYBODY's business.

Quote from: JeffreyS on April 06, 2011, 07:29:24 PM

Quote from: NotNow on April 06, 2011, 07:26:09 PM
Jeffrey,

Your are right that in a system as large as ours there will always be a percentage of waste and abuse.  It is just another indicator of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who designed the government to work at the most local level.  That way we can watch most closely and control more locally.  Mindless bureaucrats in Washington D. C. are more awful than mindless bureaucrats in Tallehassee.  And mindless bureaucrats in Tallahassee are worse than mindless bureaucrats in Jacksonville.  But we can see and control what we have here.  Welfare, schools, and the like are local issues,  and should not feed an enormous, out of control central government.

I could get on board with that if I did not feel our local constituency hadn't recently switched from liking low taxes to worshiping that idea like a theology.

It does bug me how one side of that equation inspires such heated passion and one a shrug and a whatcha gonna do.

I understand your hesitation.  I like to think that we as a community can take care of our needy.  I have found the people of Jacksonville to be very generous when the cause is just.  Much of the anti-tax sentiment here is (justly, I think) based on enormous waste of our hard earned funds by politicians of all stripes.  I honestly believe (as did the wise men who founded this country) that political power, when possible, should be placed as locally as possible.

Quote from: NotNow on April 06, 2011, 07:37:15 PM
The vibrant economy of the Netherlands is about 1/20th of that of the US.  Germany, whos economy is about 1/4th of that of the US (still due largely to the Marshall Plan and US defense, but that is another story) is famously the most conservative of the European Union members, and yet it remains the most successful despite having to drag the former Soviet (socialist) Eastern half of the country into the twentieth century.  If you follow European news (as I know you do), you will note that Germany is abandoning some of it's twentieth century socialist policies citing them as unsustainable.

I am not defending the screwed up tax policy of the US, although you guys have completely misrepresented "tax credits" and "tax rebates".  The real tax picture of the corporations being discussed is very complex and could not be easily discussed in a forum such as this.  That complexity is one of our problems that we should all (liberal, conservative, libertarian) strive to correct.

Oh, now it's the complexity of letting corporations get away with NOT paying taxes. Just so you know it: the GDP of the Netherlands is the exact same as of Florida. But because FL has a population of 19 million and the Netherlands has one of 16 million, the Per capita GDP in the Netherlands is much higher than in FL.

I wonder how they can afford to pay universal healthcare for ALL its citizens?

And they are not even going bankrupt? The horror...........that is so against what Republicans always claim.

Ah, I wonder if it's because they do not tolerate the kind of corporate tax dodging that the US is sooooooooo infamous for:

QuoteSamuels said at a tax forum in February that GE needs a tax system that will let it compete effectively with giant, foreign-based multinationals like Mitsubishi, Siemens (Germany), and Phillips(Netherlands). However, their effective tax rates for earnings purposes last year were 40 percent, 31 percent and 26 percent respectively, compared with 7 percent for GE. (GE says its tax rate's been artificially low the past few years, and will soon rise.)

Did I forget to mention that the Netherlands is the size of greater Jacksonville?

The Dutch are known all over the world for driving a hard bargain, but they do it with a heart!!!

Quote from: FayeforCure on April 06, 2011, 07:37:51 PM

Quote from: NotNow on April 06, 2011, 07:26:09 PM
Jeffrey,

Your are right that in a system as large as ours there will always be a percentage of waste and abuse.  It is just another indicator of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who designed the government to work at the most local level.  That way we can watch most closely and control more locally.  Mindless bureaucrats in Washington D. C. are more awful than mindless bureaucrats in Tallehassee.  And mindless bureaucrats in Tallahassee are worse than mindless bureaucrats in Jacksonville.  But we can see and control what we have here.  Welfare, schools, and the like are local issues,  and should not feed an enormous, out of control central government.

I do NOT agree. If you live in a small town there is not enough of a base to provide it all.

Besides local control has given us wasteful theological abstinence only programs like SOS in our local schools. And at the state level, they want to mandate that creatonism gets taught in the science class of our schools  ::)

I do not want my taxes to be used for that. What you teach in your churches is your business, but what gets taught in Public School is EVERYBODY's business.

You are entitiled to your opinion.  :)

Small towns have taken care of their own for centuries.  Specialized and more technical services can be financed on a city, county, or state level as required.

And I have already agreed with you that NO ONE should be teaching our children sexuality, values, or religion in our public schools, that is our job at home.  

Republicans and conservative Americans seems to care less about what other countries are doing and how they have overcome certain situations...we are all neighbors...why should'nt we learn from them....

Quote from: FayeforCure on April 06, 2011, 06:32:55 PM

Quote from: NotNow on April 06, 2011, 06:06:13 PM
The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to be in the charity business.

Nor does it have the authority to "bail out" private businesses.

Or "favor" any person or other entity in taxation.

Thus, I am in favor of some version of the "fair tax".

Oh, don't even get me started on the radio personality and dentist dreamed up fair tax nonsense. That would be as bad as having a guy with a degree in monkey business run Jacksonville!!

Fair Tax favors the rich, after all they use a smaller portion of their vast fortunes for consumption thus rendering their tax a lower percentage of their income. No new houses would be build because resales are tax free whereas newly built houses are not. etc, etc, etc


As to the Preamble of our Constitution, none of your selfish babble can be found there ( ah you, uptowngirl, are one of those teenagers who became pregnant eh?):

QuoteWe the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

As I said to johnyglide, you, uptowngirl and NotNow are not omniscient to determine who is deserving and who is not.

And neither is the government Faye

Quote from: NotNow on April 06, 2011, 07:19:41 PM
As you have pointed out, the Federal Government limited its spending to veterans, widows of veterans, and other Federal matters.  That effort is found within the document.    

And where is this "enumerated" within the document?

Quote from: uptowngirl on April 06, 2011, 07:54:36 PM

Quote from: FayeforCure on April 06, 2011, 06:32:55 PM

Quote from: NotNow on April 06, 2011, 06:06:13 PM
The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to be in the charity business.

Nor does it have the authority to "bail out" private businesses.

Or "favor" any person or other entity in taxation.

Thus, I am in favor of some version of the "fair tax".

Oh, don't even get me started on the radio personality and dentist dreamed up fair tax nonsense. That would be as bad as having a guy with a degree in monkey business run Jacksonville!!

Fair Tax favors the rich, after all they use a smaller portion of their vast fortunes for consumption thus rendering their tax a lower percentage of their income. No new houses would be build because resales are tax free whereas newly built houses are not. etc, etc, etc


As to the Preamble of our Constitution, none of your selfish babble can be found there ( ah you, uptowngirl, are one of those teenagers who became pregnant eh?):

QuoteWe the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

As I said to johnyglide, you, uptowngirl and NotNow are not omniscient to determine who is deserving and who is not.

And neither is the government Faye

Well, THAT is what they are there for. THEY and only they have the staff to find an equitable way to help the unfortunate amongst us. YOU cannot do that by yourself and neither can private charities.

I absolutely abhore private charity organizations, as there is fertile ground for abuse, AND it's hit and miss whether they reach even a sizable portion of those in need.(after all they do not have the staff to reach all those in need). Most just collect names that they in turn use to "show" how many people they've helped.

Plus private charities frequently sustain themselves with government grants..........ie feeding from the government trough.

We have learned from them.  Have you forgotten how this country was founded?  We have a Constitution, it should be followed.  Are we not a country of laws?  If you want the same social safety net as Germany, it can be done here legally...on a state and local level.  That is part of the genius as well.  We have fifty separate experiments in government, unified in defense and foreign policy.  There is a reason that much of the world has looked to us as the example of government.

Quote from: FayeforCure on April 06, 2011, 08:05:33 PM

Quote from: uptowngirl on April 06, 2011, 07:54:36 PM

Quote from: FayeforCure on April 06, 2011, 06:32:55 PM

Quote from: NotNow on April 06, 2011, 06:06:13 PM
The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to be in the charity business.

Nor does it have the authority to "bail out" private businesses.

Or "favor" any person or other entity in taxation.

Thus, I am in favor of some version of the "fair tax".

Oh, don't even get me started on the radio personality and dentist dreamed up fair tax nonsense. That would be as bad as having a guy with a degree in monkey business run Jacksonville!!

Fair Tax favors the rich, after all they use a smaller portion of their vast fortunes for consumption thus rendering their tax a lower percentage of their income. No new houses would be build because resales are tax free whereas newly built houses are not. etc, etc, etc


As to the Preamble of our Constitution, none of your selfish babble can be found there ( ah you, uptowngirl, are one of those teenagers who became pregnant eh?):

QuoteWe the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

As I said to johnyglide, you, uptowngirl and NotNow are not omniscient to determine who is deserving and who is not.

And neither is the government Faye

Well, THAT is what they are there for. THEY and only they have the staff to find an equitable way to help the unfortunate amongst us. YOU cannot do that by yourself and neither can private charities.

I absolutely abhore private charity organizations, as there is fertile ground for abuse, AND it's hit and miss whether they reach even a sizable portion of those in need.(after all they do not have the staff to reach all those in need). Most just collect names that they in turn use to "show" how many people they've helped.

Plus private charities frequently sustain themselves with government grants..........ie feeding from the government trough.

You misunderstand the purpose of the Federal Government in the US...with all due respect.  :)

Quote from: FayeforCure on April 06, 2011, 08:05:33 PM

Quote from: uptowngirl on April 06, 2011, 07:54:36 PM

Quote from: FayeforCure on April 06, 2011, 06:32:55 PM

Quote from: NotNow on April 06, 2011, 06:06:13 PM
The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to be in the charity business.

Nor does it have the authority to "bail out" private businesses.

Or "favor" any person or other entity in taxation.

Thus, I am in favor of some version of the "fair tax".

Oh, don't even get me started on the radio personality and dentist dreamed up fair tax nonsense. That would be as bad as having a guy with a degree in monkey business run Jacksonville!!

Fair Tax favors the rich, after all they use a smaller portion of their vast fortunes for consumption thus rendering their tax a lower percentage of their income. No new houses would be build because resales are tax free whereas newly built houses are not. etc, etc, etc


As to the Preamble of our Constitution, none of your selfish babble can be found there ( ah you, uptowngirl, are one of those teenagers who became pregnant eh?):

QuoteWe the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

As I said to johnyglide, you, uptowngirl and NotNow are not omniscient to determine who is deserving and who is not.

And neither is the government Faye

Well, THAT is what they are there for. THEY and only they have the staff to find an equitable way to help the unfortunate amongst us. YOU cannot do that by yourself and neither can private charities.

I absolutely abhore private charity organizations, as there is fertile ground for abuse, AND it's hit and miss whether they reach even a sizable portion of those in need.(after all they do not have the staff to reach all those in need). Most just collect names that they in turn use to "show" how many people they've helped.

Plus private charities frequently sustain themselves with government grants..........ie feeding from the government trough.

What?? That is what the government is there for? To help the needy? Please point that out in our constitution?

Quote from: finehoe on April 06, 2011, 07:55:31 PM

Quote from: NotNow on April 06, 2011, 07:19:41 PM
As you have pointed out, the Federal Government limited its spending to veterans, widows of veterans, and other Federal matters.  That effort is found within the document.    

And where is this "enumerated" within the document?

Um...Article I, Section 8.  

You can just google "enumerated powers" and you will get to the meat of the matter.  

Again, I am arguing against the abuse of authority by the Federal Government.  Our central government is limited in its powers.  I am not arguing against a social safety net.  It should be done at a state, county, and employer level.

Quote from: stephendare on April 06, 2011, 08:18:01 PM
Well, this is the purpose that my grandfather, Henry Knox intended it for when he signed the Declaration of Independence, and then voted to ratify the Constitution, Notnow.

We tried a government that functioned the way you describe.  It was called the Articles of Confederation, and it didnt work.

I respectfully disagree, and I would point to the reams of documentation that support my view.  It always astonishes me when you argue that our Founding Fathers did not believe in limited Federal power.  To make such an argument is to ignore the complete history and debate of the era.

US Welfare System - Help for US CitizensFederally funded and governed US welfare began in the 1930's during the Great Depression. The US government responded to the overwhelming number of families and individuals in need of aid by creating a welfare program that would give assistance to those who had little or no income.

The US welfare system stayed in the hands of the federal government for the next sixty-one years. Many Americans were unhappy with the welfare system, claiming that individuals were abusing the welfare program by not applying for jobs, having more children just to get more aid, and staying unmarried so as to qualify for greater benefits. Welfare system reform became a hot topic in the1990's. Bill Clinton was elected as President with the intention of reforming the federally run US Welfare program. In 1996 the Republican Congress passed a reform law signed by President Clinton that gave the control of the welfare system back to the states.


Clearly this was not the intent of the founding fathers, like income taxes it was created much later to address a specific situation and well, just stuck around.  Also -it does reside at the state level, not the federal level, although the federal government does supply funds in the form of grants to each state, so to look at just the federal portion of the pie is to ignore the actual spending.

QuoteNeither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Generally, the British "poor laws" were copied.  Those that were disabled or unable to work were provided for through local means (sometimes State).  Those that were able bodied yet lacked employment were empolyed in "work houses".

I have shown you the document that states exactly what the Founding Fathers thought the Federal Government had a right to do.  They then clearly stated that all other powers were reserved to the States, or the people.

Stephen, social work programs. Work being the key word. even during the 30's when "social welfare" was actually applied on a large scale the "welfare" was providing JOBS to people, putting people back to work, not just giving them food, housing, and medical for nothing in return. The way welfare is set up today you do not have to work at all and as I said before it can go on for years and years, just ask my neighbor.

Quote from: stephendare on April 06, 2011, 09:15:39 PM

Quote from: NotNow on April 06, 2011, 09:08:40 PM
Generally, the British "poor laws" were copied.  Those that were disabled or unable to work were provided for through local means (sometimes State).  Those that were able bodied yet lacked employment were empolyed in "work houses".

I have shown you the document that states exactly what the Founding Fathers thought the Federal Government had a right to do.  They then clearly stated that all other powers were reserved to the States, or the people.

You have presented opinions from the small minority of revolutionaries that supported your point of view.  But there was no homogeneity amongst the revolutionaries, notnow.  Quite the contrary.  Madison believed in State Governments taking precedence over Federal administration.  But his was a minority viewpoint.  Jefferson, his contemporary certainly proved that in his administration.

So Mr. Jefferson advocated a social welfare program outside of Federal service veterans?

Quote from: stephendare on April 06, 2011, 09:15:39 PM

Quote from: NotNow on April 06, 2011, 09:08:40 PM
Generally, the British "poor laws" were copied.  Those that were disabled or unable to work were provided for through local means (sometimes State).  Those that were able bodied yet lacked employment were employed in "work houses".

I have shown you the document that states exactly what the Founding Fathers thought the Federal Government had a right to do.  They then clearly stated that all other powers were reserved to the States, or the people.

You have presented opinions from the small minority of revolutionaries that supported your point of view.  But there was no homogeneity amongst the revolutionaries, notnow.  Quite the contrary.  Madison believed in State Governments taking precedence over Federal administration.  But his was a minority viewpoint.  Jefferson, his contemporary certainly proved that in his administration.

Your characterization of "State Governments taking precedence over Federal administration" misstates both mine and Mr. Madison's opinions.  My argument is that the Federal government has LIMITED and ENUMERATED powers.  The States are restricted from certain activities as well.  But the Constitution is clear on those powers and where the authority lies for any other powers.  (The States and the people.)

holy hell people....does anyone remember what the thread was about....the last 5+ pages are way off topic!

thank you for splitting the threads!

Quote from: NotNow on April 06, 2011, 08:23:51 PM
Um...Article I, Section 8.  

Hmm, no mention of federal assistance to disabled veterans, widows and orphans of veterans, the poor in the District of Columbia, subjugated Indians, merchant marines, yet all occurred while the founders were still alive.  What am I missing?

What I posted was "veterans, widows of veterans, and other Federal matters".  That is authorized by the power to build and maintain a Navy and regulation of land and Naval forces.  That would be retirement and survivors benefits.  The Constitution also grants the Congress the power to legislate "exclusively and in all cases" over what would become Washington D. C. and future Federal reservations.  Indian nations were, to the best of my knowledge, dealt with as a foreign nation and agreements were reduced to treaties. 

It is common knowledge that the modern version of "American welfare" began with the misery of the Great Depression.  What are you missing?

Quote from: stephendare on April 06, 2011, 09:31:23 PM
President Jefferson Authorized and paid for the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon, Notnow.  This was contrary to everything that the antifederalists (of which party he had been a member) believed or preached.

Tell me, NN, do you believe that the Feds have an interest in building the Interstates or the Nations Ports?  You seem to believe in National Security.

Both of these activities, if challenged, could have been found to be unconstitutional, especially the Louisiana purchase.  Heck, even Jefferson thought it was unconstitutional.  But the danger of French influence on the Mississippi and in New Orleans along with Spanish objections prevented any challenge. 

The Interstate system was as much a Defense program as anything else and funding could have been transferred to the Department of Defense if need be.  A case for interstate commerce could also be made for this copy of the German Autobahn system.  Like many questionable actions by our Federal government, the state of the world at the time had a great effect on correct interpretation of our Constitution. 

Quote from: NotNow on April 07, 2011, 12:05:00 AM
What I posted was "veterans, widows of veterans, and other Federal matters".  That is authorized by the power to build and maintain a Navy and regulation of land and Naval forces.  That would be retirement and survivors benefits.  The Constitution also grants the Congress the power to legislate "exclusively and in all cases" over what would become Washington D. C. and future Federal reservations.  Indian nations were, to the best of my knowledge, dealt with as a foreign nation and agreements were reduced to treaties. 

It is common knowledge that the modern version of "American welfare" began with the misery of the Great Depression.  What are you missing?

You are correct. And again- the form of welfare was jobs. People went to work, did not sit around and get paid for nothing.

while I am not too happy about corporate welfare either, at least they put people to work (similar to the original idea of welfare). Think about it, in the 30's the government funded public works projects to put put the populace back to work, pay their bills, feed their families all while being productive citizens. With the bail outs we see the same thing, people got to keep their jobs, work, pay their bills, feed their families and be productive citizens. The only two differences were these were publicly traded companies, and they had to pay the money back.

There should be no such thing as "corporate welfare"...its a rediculous idea...it's the ass kissing of our government to these monsters that have put us where we are....the money has got to stop

The solutions you offer involve putting democrats in control of legislative funding.

They won't offer any quarter for big money interests... will they?

A more reasonable solution is to alter the tax code.

A uniform tax on consumption would eliminate the legislated advantage these big money interests currently enjoy.

I have'nt seen a lib here who thinks the middle class and the poor aren't paying all the taxes already (and it's true), so why the fuss? Let's make it transparent.

fairtax.org (http://fairtax.org)

Quote from: buckethead on April 07, 2011, 08:13:14 AM
The solutions you offer involve putting democrats in control of legislative funding.

They won't offer any quarter for big money interests... will they?

A more reasonable solution is to alter the tax code.

A uniform tax on consumption would eliminate the legislated advantage these big money interests currently enjoy.

I have'nt seen a lib here who thinks the middle class and the poor aren't paying all the taxes already (and it's true), so why the fuss? Let's make it transparent.

fairtax.org (http://fairtax.org)

Buckethead, I have enjoyed many of your comments in the past week. I am however sorry to inform you that Reaganite Bruce Bartlett, a strong supporter of supply-side economics, has rejected the mis-named fair tax nonsense that was dreamed up by a radio personality and a dentist.

Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.

BTW, I'm a proud liberal now because I believe in LIBERTY and Justice for all.

Your point about "the middle class and the poor paying all the taxes already" will only become worse, as that mis-named fair tax is highly regressive in nature ie will make the poor and the middle class pay even more than they already are.

QuoteWhat's foul about the FairTax
By Bruce Bartlett | January 5, 2008

FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR Mike Huckabee's rise to the top tier of Republican
presidential candidates is one of the major stories of this election cycle. Although his strong
support among evangelical Christians is a factor in his rise, Huckabee has also benefited from the
backing of a small but intense group of people favoring abolition of the federal tax system and its
replacement by a 23 percent national retail sales tax known as the FairTax.
The states would be required to collect this new tax, thus allowing for abolition of the Internal
Revenue Service. To prevent poor and middle-class people from being overly burdened,
Americans would be sent monthly checks as a partial rebate of the tax.
Unfortunately, like all things in life that are too good to be true, so is this one. Here are a few
problems with the FairTax.

true rate.

When people hear about a 23 percent national sales tax, they naturally equate it to the
state sales taxes they are familiar with. If a state sales tax is 5 percent, then this means that if
someone buys something for $1 they will pay $1.05 at the checkout. Thus they assume that the
FairTax would cause a $1 product to cost $1.23 if it were to be enacted.
In fact, the rate is not 23 percent, but 30 percent. The 23 percent rate is arrived at by treating the
tax as if it were already part of the price instead of being on top. Thus if a product were to sell for
$1 and the FairTax added 30 percent, the 30-cent tax comes to 23 percent of $1.30. This is how
a 30 percent rate is deceptively turned into a 23 percent rate.
Governments must also pay. The FairTax would apply to all government purchases at every
level. Only education spending is exempted.
States would have to pay 30 percent more on every highway and bridge they build, local
governments would have to pay 30 percent more for police and fire protection, and even the
federal government would have to pay the tax to itself when it buys weapons and ammunition for
troops.
Taxes would have to be increased at the state and local level to pay the FairTax to the federal
government. The FairTax rate would also have to be higher to pay for the additional federal
spending it will require. However, FairTax supporters exclude this higher spending from their
calculations. The 23 percent rate is designed only to be revenue-neutral, not spending neutral.
Thus the federal deficit would either rise by more than $200 billion per year or spending would
have to be cut by this much.


Rebate problems.

The FairTax rebate would also add $600 billion to federal spending annually.
Although its supporters say it is just like the one we get when our tax withholding exceeds the
taxes we pay on our tax returns, the FairTax rebate is more like Social Security because it comes
in a monthly check.
Although FairTax supporters tout the generosity of the rebate, it is extremely modest because it is
based on the poverty level income - a figure that bears no relationship to the actual cost of living.
As a consequence of the way the poverty rate is calculated, childless couples would get a
monthly rebate of $391 per month, but a single mother with two children would only get $329 per
month.

Prices will rise.

Finally, FairTax supporters assume away many of the problems with their plan
by asserting that prices will fall by 22 percent once all income taxes are abolished. Prices at the
checkout would be about the same with the FairTax as they are now, they say, but everyone
would come out ahead because their net wage will now equal their gross wage.
If this were so, it's hard to see why the rebate is needed, since there seems to be only winners
and no losers under the FairTax. In reality, for prices to fall by 22 percent, business costs would
also have to fall by 22 percent, which means that all workers would have to take a 22 percent pay
cut.
It's unlikely that workers would agree to this. It is far more likely that the FairTax will raise the
price of everything by 30 percent. This has been the case in every country and every state with a
sales tax. The idea that prices will fall is just a pipe dream.

The FairTax is unworkable. It is a fantasy to think otherwise.


Bruce Bartlett was deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy from 1988 to
1993.

http://people.richland.edu/bhemenwa/article_fairtax.pdf

What do you expect from something that was dreamed up by a radio personality and a dentist.

As you know, the Glenn Becks of this world can accumulate quite a following spouting so many lies that even FOX had to remove him!!!!!

Quote from: Garden guy on April 07, 2011, 08:08:40 AM
There should be no such thing as "corporate welfare"...its a rediculous idea...it's the ass kissing of our government to these monsters that have put us where we are....the money has got to stop

On the flip side hundreds of thousands jobs would of been lost, and at least these corps paid their loans back. It is not really welfare when the money is paid back. How often does that occur in the social welfare offerred today?

Quote from: stephendare on April 06, 2011, 09:03:01 PM
http://www.boisestate.edu/socwork/dhuff/us/chapters/Chapter%203.htm

QuotePOLICIES FOR THE INDIGENT

While most Americans struggled to maintain a subsistence standard of living, extreme poverty became more common.  The war of 1812 gave an impetus to industrial development, creating new industries in cities and small towns, but after the war of 1812 and the wars in Europe ended, the American economy suffered a serious downturn.  The first major American depression (1816) brought hard times to most American cities.  Relief programs were swamped and soup kitchens sprang up in all the urban areas.  New York City officials estimated that more than 20 percent of the population was receiving some form of assistance.  Periodic economic depressions became a feature of the nation’s economy.  Not only did thousands of urban Americans find themselves periodically forced to depend of relief, thousands of small businessmen and farmers found themselves in debtors’ prison.   In 1830 there were more than ten thousand people incarcerated in New York City’s debtors’ prison, this at a time when the total population of the city was less than 150 thousand souls.  More than half were there for debts of less than 25 dollars.  

Taxes soared.  Cities found it difficult to maintain programs for both the indigent and for the unemployed workers.  Critics of charity claimed that the benevolent impulses of do-gooders were creating a permanent class of paupers, and officials began making a distinction between “the poor” and “paupers”.  The poor included the majority of city dwellers whenever times turned bad; paupers were people who had descended into a lifestyle of poverty and were permanently dependent on charity.  City leaders, who were mostly responsible for the very poor, searched for ways to control their growth.  Committees were created to investigate.

By the 1820s two schools of thought had emerged.  One school pointed the finger of blame at the individual behaviors of the very poor.   One committee claimed to have found that a majority of the poor had “fallen on evil ways”.  A second school viewed economic conditions as the root of the problem.  This systemic theory enjoyed enough popularity that, in 1817, the U.S. congress passed a bill creating funds for public works projects.

Well yeah, of course all those people that have been laid off since 2007 "have fallen on evil ways."  

You would think that a recession would snap people out of their "sitting in judgement of others," like it did in the 1930, when we were smart enough to help create demand in our economy, by helping the needy.

We also instituted the Glass-Steagall act to prevent the banking abuses of that depression from occuring again. Unfortunately Clinton did not veto the Republican dreamed up idea of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act and that set in motion the very questionable derivatives, CDO speculative bubble that caused our current crash.

It's the bankers that caused our crash, but they were too big to fail, so the tax payer had to bail them out.

The tax payer was docked twice for the failures of our banking system: once through the real estate crash, and again for the bank bail-outs.

The only reason the banks paid back the bail-outs is they didn't want the government to tell them they couldn't give out bonuses anymore.

It's the LAZY bankers who don't want to make money the old fashioned way: hard work!!!

Speculation is so much easier than traditional banking: taking in deposits and using bonafide lending practices to make some money off the deposits.

It is speculation too that is driving our current $4 per gallon gas prices.

But Republicans rather get fixated on the small stuff...........the few LAZY people who might be abusing a "welfare" system that doesn't even exist but in the imagination of Republicans themselves.

Of course someone like uptowngirl thinks her neighbor is abusing the system (as if she lives in a lower class neighborhood)...........it's that paranoia that drives the Glenn Beck types.

Blah blah blah...

QuoteWe also instituted the Glass-Steagall act to prevent the banking abuses of that depression from occuring again. Unfortunately Clinton did not veto the Republican dreamed up idea of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act and that set in motion the very questionable derivatives, CDO speculative bubble that caused our current crash.

QuoteThe final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90â€"8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362â€"57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

Faye do you know my neighbor? Nope. And that is just one of them, I have several other examples up and down the street. I don't live in St, Johns county LOL. Perhaps because I am surrounded by it daily I have a different perspective than someone sitting down in St, Johns county whining about why the tax payers will not pay for her daughters' $500 IUD. I think if you brought that complaint up here into my neighborhood, you would have to be pretty careful- I mean I have a neighbor down the street that is 87 yrs old and disabled, she cannot work (for real) and had been eating just beans for two months, but now gets fresh veggies, fruit, and eggs from my own yard. Yet my other neighbor collects welfare, which feeds an entire family (including her adult brother and children who do not work) for years and years all the while cleaning houses for cash. I have another neighbor down from me who also collects welfare and feeds and houses her grown brothers and nephews who also do not work (well, they sell drugs for cash). You extreme libs crack me up sitting out in the burbs lecturing everyone about topics they do not understand nor deal with on a day to day basis.

Quote from: uptowngirl on April 07, 2011, 09:30:11 AM

Quote from: Garden guy on April 07, 2011, 08:08:40 AM
There should be no such thing as "corporate welfare"...its a rediculous idea...it's the ass kissing of our government to these monsters that have put us where we are....the money has got to stop

On the flip side hundreds of thousands jobs would of been lost, and at least these corps paid their loans back. It is not really welfare when the money is paid back. How often does that occur in the social welfare offerred today?

Well Rick Scott paying back his social welfare would be absolutely peanuts to him paying back the money he stole from our senior citizens through corporate welfare, now wouldn't it!

THAT has been the whole point of this thread.

It's BAD when a person falling on hard times gets some government assistence, but it is A OK for corporations to get government welfare and then dodge paying their taxes when they are profitable again!!

Please look at this from a cost/benefit point of view.

Our current deficit is due to the fact that the middle class has been bled to death.............we cannot squeezet any more revenue out of people that have been laid off.

But we can definitely get money out of companies that are sitting on a ton of cash, that they still owe our treasury in current and back taxes through their practice of tax dodging that european countries don't tolerate:

QuoteCompanies Sitting on Cash, But Not Hiring
By Annie Lowrey | 07.15.10 | 1:04 pm View Comments Share37Companies are back to profitability â€" in part because of the massive layoffs of the past two years. But they are not back to hiring yet, instead holding onto cash and waiting for a stronger recovery, Jia Lynn Yang writes in today’s Washington Post:

Nonfinancial companies are sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash, roughly one-quarter more than at the beginning of the recession. And as several major firms report impressive earnings this week, the money continues to flow into firms’ coffers.
Yet all the good news from big business hasn’t translated into much promise for jobless Americans, leading many to wonder: If corporations are sitting on so much money, why aren’t they hiring more workers?

The answer to that question has become a political flash point between the White House and big business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which held a jobs summit Wednesday and accused the Obama administration of dumping onerous regulations on businesses. That has created an environment of “uncertainty,” which is causing firms to hold back on hiring as the unemployment rate has hovered near 10 percent, the Chamber said.

I’ll have more on the debate over whether the jobless recovery is due to regulations, lack of demand or an uncertain business outlook later. But for now, I think this chart from Larry Mishel at the Economic Policy Institute shows the rising tide for businesses but the continued hard times for workers better than any other I have seen:

This is where Republicans will shrug their shoulders and say "well, so what?..........what can we do about it?"

Yet they will continue their knee jerk bickering about their neighbor who supposedly gets government assistance whether it is true or not.

QuoteMore Profits, Fewer Jobs
Why record corporate profits aren't necessarily good for the economy.
By Annie Lowrey
Posted Monday, March 28, 2011, at 6:58 PM ET
On Friday the federal government released the latest chapter of a year-old economic mystery: If you're a corporation, the economy is great. If you're a worker, the economy is still pretty horrible. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, real corporate profits neared an all-time high in the last three months of 2010, with companies raking in an annualized $1.68 trillion in pre-tax operating profits. (After tax, that comes to $1.25 trillion, about equal to the GDP of India.) The Federal Reserve estimates that companies are sitting on about $1.9 trillion. At the same time, unemployment remains at 8.9 percent, and job growth is still anemic.

How can the corporate economy be so profitable while the jobs economy remains so weak? Part of the answer lies in improved productivity. When the recession hit, businesses fired millions of workers then asked the rest to make up the differenceâ€"and, in many cases, they did. Productivity increased 3.9 percent in 2010, while labor costs fell. To simplify: Businesses paid fewer workers to do more. In addition, big corporations found customers overseas. Americans might not be ready to spend just yet, but consumers in Asia and elsewhere areâ€"exports climbed 21 percent to $1.28 trillion in 2010.

It also helps to look at which companies are really raking it in. For most of 2009 and 2010, a range of U.S. corporations saw post-recession rebounds in profits. The manufacturing sector, for instance, made about $140 billion in annualized profits in the second quarter of 2009, a recession-era low. Last quarter, it made about $241 billion. Similarly, auto manufacturers lost about $50 billion in the last quarter of 2008. Today, the sector is breaking even.

Advertisement

But in the last quarter of 2010, the story was all about Wall Street. Profits actually decreased a bit at nonfinancial firms. But companies like investment banks and insurers saw profits climb to an annualized $426.5 billion. The financial sector now accounts for about 30 percent of the economy's overall operating profits.

But they won't pay their TAXES!!!!

Quote from: uptowngirl on April 07, 2011, 09:58:17 AM
Faye do you know my neighbor? Nope. And that is just one of them, I have several other examples up and down the street. I don't live in St, Johns county LOL. Perhaps because I am surrounded by it daily I have a different perspective than someone sitting down in St, Johns county whining about why the tax payers will not pay for her daughters' $500 IUD. I think if you brought that complaint up here into my neighborhood, you would have to be pretty careful- I mean I have a neighbor down the street that is 87 yrs old and disabled, she cannot work (for real) and had been eating just beans for two months, but now gets fresh veggies, fruit, and eggs from my own yard. Yet my other neighbor collects welfare, which feeds an entire family (including her adult brother and children who do not work) for years and years all the while cleaning houses for cash. I have another neighbor down from me who also collects welfare and feeds and houses her grown brothers and nephews who also do not work (well, they sell drugs for cash). You extreme libs crack me up sitting out in the burbs lecturing everyone about topics they do not understand nor deal with on a day to day basis.

Which one of your houses are you talking about uptowngirl?

And who babysat your baby when you became a teenage single mother? How did you pay for living expenses and go to school on minimim wage then?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 07, 2011, 09:52:11 AM
Blah blah blah...

QuoteWe also instituted the Glass-Steagall act to prevent the banking abuses of that depression from occuring again. Unfortunately Clinton did not veto the Republican dreamed up idea of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act and that set in motion the very questionable derivatives, CDO speculative bubble that caused our current crash.

QuoteThe final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90â€"8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362â€"57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

Do do you realize you just confirmed what I said? It is also unfortunate that we have so many Blue Dog Dems that go along with whatever the Republicans dream up.

Quote from: FayeforCure on April 07, 2011, 10:10:41 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 07, 2011, 09:52:11 AM
Blah blah blah...

QuoteWe also instituted the Glass-Steagall act to prevent the banking abuses of that depression from occuring again. Unfortunately Clinton did not veto the Republican dreamed up idea of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act and that set in motion the very questionable derivatives, CDO speculative bubble that caused our current crash.

QuoteThe final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

Do do you realize you just confirmed what I said? It is also unfortunate that we have so many Blue Dog Dems that go along with whatever the Republicans dream up.

You are missing the point... the bigger picture... take off you democrat glasses and look at the vote.  Repealing Glass steagal was a model of bipartisanship!  90 to 8!?  362 to 57?!

The same holds true for the evil corporate loopholes and incentives!!  These are not things dreamed up and foisted upon the virginal unsuspecting democrats.  Most of em are with the full support and votes of both parties.

These companies legally don't owe anything. Here is where your point is flawed. repulican and democrat leaders have created a tax code that legally allows these companies to not pay taxes. Should they pay taxes on their profit? Absolutely, but only when the tax code is changed and we can legally require payment of those taxes.


I am not against a social saftey net, I am against longterm welfare, I am also against people collecting welfare while they work for cash, drive a brand new 50K car, and watch a 60 inch flatscreen TV. I am frustrated that the disabled little old lady down the street gets $75 a month for food while two neighbors across the street get $500 a month to feed grown men that just won't work, or work for illegally for cash.  The children in these homes also get three free meals a day at school, on top of the $500 a month in foodstamps. This is the F'upd program than runs rampant in the US today.

Again Faye, sitting down in St. Johns County whining about why we the tax payers will not foot the $500 bill for your daughters' IUDs just proves how out of touch you are with reality.You want to make a real difference in peoples life? Clean up the system and start where your heart supposedly is. Stop welfare fraud and abuse and take away the tea party's poster children, while getting our aide to the right people for the right reasons, otherwise we suffer the consquences of the Rick Scotts of the world who will just attempt to cut everything.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 07, 2011, 10:17:49 AM

Quote from: FayeforCure on April 07, 2011, 10:10:41 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 07, 2011, 09:52:11 AM
Blah blah blah...

QuoteWe also instituted the Glass-Steagall act to prevent the banking abuses of that depression from occuring again. Unfortunately Clinton did not veto the Republican dreamed up idea of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act and that set in motion the very questionable derivatives, CDO speculative bubble that caused our current crash.

QuoteThe final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90â€"8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362â€"57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

Do do you realize you just confirmed what I said? It is also unfortunate that we have so many Blue Dog Dems that go along with whatever the Republicans dream up.

You are missing the point... the bigger picture... take off you democrat glasses and look at the vote.  Repealing Glass steagal was a model of bipartisanship!  90 to 8!?  362 to 57?!

The same holds true for the evil corporate loopholes and incentives!!  These are not things dreamed up and foisted upon the virginal unsuspecting democrats.  Most of em are with the full support and votes of both parties.

Yup, just like the Iraq war was. Were there any Republican hold-outs then? I don't think so, but we did have a few Democratic hold-outs. If we build on that we can make the change we need.

That's about the only thing I like about one Republican, Ron Paul,  at least he is consistent in calling for all foreign wars to stop!

Quote from: uptowngirl on April 07, 2011, 10:21:19 AM
These companies legally don't owe anything. Here is where your point is flawed. repulican and democrat leaders have created a tax code that legally allows these companies to not pay taxes. Should they pay taxes on their profit? Absolutely, but only when the tax code is changed and we can legally require payment of those taxes.


I am not against a social saftey net, I am against longterm welfare, I am also against people collecting welfare while they work for cash, drive a brand new 50K car, and watch a 60 inch flatscreen TV. I am frustrated that the disabled little old lady down the street gets $75 a month for food while two neighbors across the street get $500 a month to feed grown men that just won't work, or work for illegally for cash.  The children in these homes also get three free meals a day at school, on top of the $500 a month in foodstamps. This is the F'upd program than runs rampant in the US today.

Again Faye, sitting down in St. Johns County whining about why we the tax payers will not foot the $500 bill for your daughters' IUDs just proves how out of touch you are with reality.You want to make a real difference in peoples life? Clean up the system and start where your heart supposedly is. Stop welfare fraud and abuse and take away the tea party's poster children, while getting our aide to the right people for the right reasons, otherwise we suffer the consquences of the Rick Scotts of the world who will just attempt to cut everything.

Wow, you are such an enabler of the Rick Scott's of this world. And not just by your vote, it's by all the blind spouting of Republican propaganda, that has been factually been refuted and sourced by various people here.

If you cannot accept the LARGE culprits of our deficit, then there is nothing to talk about.

Keep bitching about the small time abusers while letting the BIG TIME abusers off the hook.

Way to go uptowngirl!!!

Penny wise and Pound foolish!!!!

I'm out of here.

I am aware of the case and the opinions.  You are factually incorrect when you state that Madison's view was a minority view.  You are also incorrect when you state that I am the only living American who believes in Madison's view of the general welfare clause.  Even the opinions you quote, which favor a public works project, did not and would not now support the kind of programs and spending that is taking place.  The Founding Fathers were pretty smart guys and their writiing is available to anyone in quantity.  I encourage anyone to read for themselves and then try to tell me that ANY of today's spending would have been approved by them.

"To preserve independence...we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and Liberty, or profusion and servitude. ... The fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follow that, and in its turn wretchedness and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson

President Adams was also a proponent of the Alien and Sedition acts...

My bad... just noticed the Q. :)

Blood of Jesus?  Growing up Catholic I know what it is... I have no idea what you are refering to however...

Quote from: stephendare on April 07, 2011, 02:42:05 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 07, 2011, 02:40:51 PM
Blood of Jesus?  Growing up Catholic I know what it is... I have no idea what you are refering to however...

Invoking someone or something else that is unrelated.

You seem to use it as a cover for all sins.

Ah... OK... Pat yourself on the back.  I learned it all from you.  Everyone recognizes you as the master... I am but an acolyte...

Quote from: stephendare on April 07, 2011, 02:02:01 PM

Quote from: NotNow on April 07, 2011, 01:43:29 PM
I am aware of the case and the opinions.  You are factually incorrect when you state that Madison's view was a minority view.  You are also incorrect when you state that I am the only living American who believes in Madison's view of the general welfare clause.  Even the opinions you quote, which favor a public works project, did not and would not now support the kind of programs and spending that is taking place.  The Founding Fathers were pretty smart guys and their writiing is available to anyone in quantity.  I encourage anyone to read for themselves and then try to tell me that ANY of today's spending would have been approved by them.

"To preserve independence...we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and Liberty, or profusion and servitude. ... The fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follow that, and in its turn wretchedness and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson

Well I guess that that rapscallion, John Quincy Adams was just blowing it out his behind for fun then?

Let me reiterate his comments for you:

Quote"On the 23rd of Feb., 1807, I offered, in the Senate of the United States, of which I was then a member, the first resolution, as I believe, that ever was presented to Congress, contemplating a general system of internal improvement.

I thought that Congress possessed the power of appropriating money to such improvement, and of authorizing the works necessary for making itâ€"subject always to the territorial rights of the several States in or through which the improvement is to be made, to be secured by the consent of their Legislatures, and to proprietary rights of individuals, to be purchased or indemnified.

I still hold the same opinions; and, although highly respecting the purity of intention of those who object, on constitutional grounds, to the exercise of this power, it is with heartfelt satisfaction that I perceive those objections gradually yielding to the paramount influence of the general welfare.

Already have appropriations of money to great objects of internal improvement been freely made; and I hope we shall both live to see the day, when the only question of our statesmen and patriots, concerning the authority of Congress to improve, by public works essentially beneficent, and beyond the means of less than national resources, the condition of our common country, will be how it ever could have been doubted."

:)  Just a little important point, don't ya think?

NotNow, you do realize that there is a zero chance that your 18th-century fantasy version of the Constitution will ever be implemented, right?  

StephenDare!- In your opinion.

finehoe- In your opinion.

;)

It is my opinion that the "general welfare" clause has been misused.  It is laughable to anyone with a lick of sense to propose that any of the Founding Fathers would approve of the disastrous course our current government is on (largely due to the abuse of that clause) or the use of their name or words to support that abomination of governance.  

You are both arguing for a system that is universally acknowledged is surely going to fail.  You both support politicians and political theories that would insure that failure.  I certainly hope that you are wrong, and that our elected government will save our form of governance and keep the Oaths that they swore when entering office.

Common sense.  In the end, the majority in this country that you routinly deride, will use theirs and reject the obvious (to most of us) failure of the last seventy years.

Of course, just saying "Articles of Confederation" means absolutly nothing, does it?  We are discussing the misuse of the general welfare clause over the last seventy years.  Try to focus.

Quote from: stephendare on April 07, 2011, 05:05:22 PM

Quote from: NotNow on April 07, 2011, 05:01:34 PM
It is my opinion that the "general welfare" clause has been misused.  It is laughable to anyone with a lick of sense to propose that any of the Founding Fathers would approve of the disastrous course our current government is on (largely due to the abuse of that clause) or the use of their name or words to support that abomination of governance. 

You are both arguing for a system that is universally acknowledged is surely going to fail.  You both support politicians and political theories that would insure that failure.  I certainly hope that you are wrong, and that our elected government will save our form of governance and keep the Oaths that they swore when entering office.

Common sense.  In the end, the majority in this country that you routinly deride, will use theirs and reject the obvious (to most of us) failure of the last seventy years.

Well as long as your read of the future is as accurate as your read of the past, I think we will be in pretty good shape.

And based on your read of the intentions of our Founding Fathers, I feel pretty comfortable with your disagreement.

LOL...StephenDare!, you have written an excellent little piece of fiction again.  Cute little twist of language:

"This particular era of history has been a passion of mine since boyhood, with a special emphasis on the intellectual backgrounds and opinions of the Philosophes."

does not = real history.  I'm not sure what has been your real "passion" since boyhood except maybe baffling people with BS.  And BS is exactly the nature of the content of that post. 

Your consistent confusion of my arguments with the short lived Articles of Confederation is either a sure sign of your confusion with the subject or your intentional confusion of facts in order to avoid addressing them.

How convenient it must be to conflate the accomplishments of this country over the past two hundred years with your arguments to continue the disastrous governance of the recent past which has us teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.   Even when your call for income tax rates of 75%+ would not stop the bleeding, you refuse to recognize reality.  Your claims of Reagan conservatism are as laughable as your "lifelong" study of the founders of this country and their "philosophes". 

I don't claim to be an expert in this field (and every other field), but the ideas and thoughts of the founding fathers are VERY well documented.  I sincerely hope that the people who post here can actually read, and use the internet for a few hours to familiarize themselves with what these men did, risked, and created for us.  For you to attempt to use their names and words for the political ends that you seek is just...well, let's just say dishonest. 

Just as dishonest as your attempts to color me a racist, or an apologist for slavery or ignorance.  I have admitted none of what you assert in your post, which makes those statements...what? incorrect?  unfounded?  mistaken?  or would another term fit better?

The only starbursts here are in your own mind StephenDare!  And people who "think like me" are a majority in this country, and we have actually read the founding documents of this country. 

An eloquently written line of BS is still just crap, but prettied up.

For those of you who prefer concise English and honesty, the gist of the argument is the proper employment of the "general welfare" clause of the U S Constitution.  The founding fathers debated whether the federal government was limited to the "enumerated powers" (those powers spelled out as authorized activities of the Federal Government in the Constitution) and the ability to legislate the "general welfare".  Some of them, Hamilton was a leading proponent, believed that the government should be able to legislate for the equal and common good of the country.  Most of these early debates surrounded public works projects.  

Here is a good synopsis of what I am talking about from Wikipedia:

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the typical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government[2] as the U.S. Supreme Court has held:

the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,
that Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clauseâ€"as elaborated in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United Statesâ€"is the correct interpretation.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[7]

In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in obiter dictum a further limit on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."[8]

The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."

The two primary authors of the The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:

James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[9][10]
Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[11]
While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years.[12]

Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.,[13] in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison's narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.

Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[14] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.[15] To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This entry adequately explains the change in interpretation by the FDR USSC.  As a result, the USG has utilized this new found power to implement legislation that was not allowed by the enumerated powers of the Constitution, but was at the whim of Congress.  Taxation to pay for these "whims" followed.  So today we have a Federal Government that has literally NO limits on what it can do.  They think that the "general welfare" clause allows ANY legislation deemed necessary, and the power to tax to pay for it or just demand that the states pay for it (unfunded mandates).  

I am one of many people who feel that the FDR court of 1936 got it wrong and that the interpretation of the previous one hundred and fifty years was the correct one.  

As one of our famous British friends would say,"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."   That is where we are.

So the argument is about this one device, this one clause and the havoc it has brought on our country.  Statements that "people like me" are arguing for anything else is simply a sad attempt to deflect the debate.  This is a common tactic for those who don't have a real argument to offer.

If you have a factual argument, make it.  Just wishing something and saying it doesn't make it true.  Trying to discredit the argument by calling IT names is not a reasonable argument.  

Saying I don't know what I am talking about is not a reasonable argument.  

The history of the "general welfare" clause is well documented.  You have been mistaken in this argument on several points in several threads.  I have clearly stated the boundary of the debate for you.  If you can manage to avoid calling me stupid, or accusing me of wanting to do away with public education or something, then make an argument for the Hamiltonian side of the argument.  But if all you have is "you don't know what your talking about", then this little debate is clearly over.

QuoteAt which point you gracefully called the entire government an abomination and concluded that we were all going to hell in a handbasket because of communists and other interlopers.

I don't see that anywhere.  We must all be using different lenses when reading the same texts...

My best argument can be found here:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The decision taken by the Roosevelt Supreme Court has allowed Congress to foolishly bribe special interests in order to retain power, spending our country into abdominal debt.  

It is that simple.  You can misstate my points all you want.  You can put forth red herrings like "the Louisiana Purchase" (really?) all you want.  All you are doing is continuing to obfuscate the real gist of this discussion.  

If the general welfare clause allows the USG to legislate anything and tax to pay for it, then there is no point to the rest of the Constitution.  Why enumerate their powers?  The answer is painfully obvious to thinking persons, it is because the USG was never intended to have such powers.  

I don't know if I am "a somewhat intelligent chap" or not.  I don't know about you either.  But your arguments on this subject lack research and attention to detail.   I suppose that is what leads to your disappointing tendency to call others names or label their arguments "dumb".

Perhaps to break out of this repetitive narrative, you could tell us what restrictions you believe the Federal government is bound by?

Comprehension skills?

"It is my opinion that the "general welfare" clause has been misused.  It is laughable to anyone with a lick of sense to propose that any of the Founding Fathers would approve of the disastrous course our current government is on (largely due to the abuse of that clause) or the use of their name or words to support that abomination of governance."

The current course, the outrageous spending, the unfunded mandates, the overreach into areas reserved for the States...that is what I abhor. 

I see no reference to "communists".

Along with what you see as boundries of the Federal Government, if any, I would ask you if you think the current national debt and the projected debt are reasonable or sustainable?

And I have quoted the Founding Fathers own words as well.  I have also quoted the history of the interpretation of the general welfare clause in this nation, and pointed out the horrible interpretation of Roosevelt's Supreme Court.  That is what we are debating by the way.  Paragraphs of your high school studies, friends, and teachers have nothing to do with the facts of the debate.  

Try to focus...the general welfare clause....got it?

I have an education as well.  I have studied the Constitution and the words of the men who founded this country.  I am familiar with current law and the history that produced it.  Lecturing, as if you have some profound special understanding that others don't, is just embarrassing yourself.  I am lucky enough to be acquainted with a very few real scholars.  Their ability to concisely define the facts of their points amazes me and I really enjoy the education I get when given a chance to converse.  

With all due respect, you are not one of those persons.  If you would attempt to limit your arguments to the question at hand (again, the general welfare clause), then perhaps we could exchange some useful ideas.  But a debate about who is smarter or more well read is senseless.

What is ironic is not simply reading and comprehending the greatest document left to us by the Founding Fathers, the U S Constitution.  It is well written and well defined.  Anyone who can read it and then claim that these men favored an unfettered all powerful Federal Government ignores the document itself and the history which led to its creation.

Ah, the "youtube" argument!  I can see that there is really no further need to attempt to exchange an real ideas on this thread. 

BTW, my "mentality" would have appreciated a good Raquel Welch cavegirl clip!  ;)

Quote from: stephendare on April 08, 2011, 12:12:45 PM
I suspected as much, and originally chose this one:

http://www.youtube.com/v/bPf70weHxUk

But I discarded it on grounds that the sexism was too blatant to ascribe to irony and it didnt seem in character with the high regard with which Ms. Notnow seems to be held. ;)

Wait, let me guess:

One is the slut, and the other one is fighting for her righteous indignation...............just one problem............which is which?

Need help on this one  ;D

Ms. NotNow is to be feared and respected.  But she does dismiss some of my "education and research" in movies with a roll of her eyes.   :D

Quote from: FayeforCure on April 08, 2011, 12:16:18 PM

Quote from: stephendare on April 08, 2011, 12:12:45 PM
I suspected as much, and originally chose this one:

http://www.youtube.com/v/bPf70weHxUk

But I discarded it on grounds that the sexism was too blatant to ascribe to irony and it didnt seem in character with the high regard with which Ms. Notnow seems to be held. ;)

Wait, let me guess:

One is the slut, and the other one is fighting for her righteous indignation...............just one problem............which is which?

Need help on this one  ;D

Faye,

Manlesson #1: Pay no attention to the story, it doesn't matter.

Quote from: NotNow on April 08, 2011, 12:20:34 PM

Quote from: FayeforCure on April 08, 2011, 12:16:18 PM

Quote from: stephendare on April 08, 2011, 12:12:45 PM
I suspected as much, and originally chose this one:

http://www.youtube.com/v/bPf70weHxUk

But I discarded it on grounds that the sexism was too blatant to ascribe to irony and it didnt seem in character with the high regard with which Ms. Notnow seems to be held. ;)

Wait, let me guess:

One is the slut, and the other one is fighting for her righteous indignation...............just one problem............which is which?

Need help on this one  ;D

Faye,

Manlesson #1: Pay no attention to the story, it doesn't matter.

Ah, is that how it works? No wonder the US is in so much trouble: we are 85th in the world for women in state and federal government. I guess it is the same for local government  :(

The 2010 election reduced our percentage in Congress from a measly 17% to an even more measly 16%!!!!!

Can't help it NotNow, gotta throw in some educational figures myself  ;D

Maybe Cavegirl could run?

Quote from: NotNow on April 08, 2011, 12:27:27 PM
Maybe Cavegirl could run?

Well, at least we've progressed from the "dumb blond" poster girl to the dumb brunette, you know who I mean  ;D

Then I am a "Progressive"!  :)

Quote from: NotNow on April 08, 2011, 12:30:58 PM
Then I am a "Progressive"!  :)

Perfect, we've got it all figured out. Now lets run TOGETHER  ;D

 ???   Sometimes I just can't follow what it is you are getting at.  Is this a new subject?  Are you upset with a country?  Do you think that BridgeTroll, UptownGirl, and I are in favor of poverty somehow?  Did you just find some photographs and want to post them?  What point are you trying to make? 

That is an interesting observation.  Totally baseless, but interesting.  I've noticed that you make stuff up like this all the time.  I think it is to drive up traffic and hits for your advertising.  Maybe you could start a new thread and title it "NotNow Hates Poor People" or "Bridge Troll Hates Welfare". 

You really don't see anything wrong with making statements like this, do you?

I am familiar with my own posts.  Could it be possible that you are seeing what you want to see, and not what is there? 

In life, I have found that those that believe that they are alway right will always find others in the wrong.

:)

I don't think your stupid!   :)

Quote from: NotNow on April 08, 2011, 04:20:05 PM
Do you think that BridgeTroll, UptownGirl, and I are in favor of poverty somehow?  Did you just find some photographs and want to post them?  What point are you trying to make? 

I believe the point is that we find it curious that you attribute so much of what ails this country to social spending, which you say is clearly against what the founder's had in mind, yet nary a peep about the global empire the US has constructed in the last sixty years.   The Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories.  Here is something the founder's clearly never intended, and something that we spend unbelievable amounts of money on, yet you focus on the attempts of the government to improve people's lives as the reason we are "teetering on the brink of bankruptcy."   

An excellent point, finehoe.

I'd rather "waste" money trying to educate a kid from the projects than "invest" money in building a global empire.

Welfare (especially in the truest sense of the word) is cheaper than warfare, yet we continue to choose warfare.

and umm.......warfare is bankrupting us ( at least , I think it is ) :)

Quote from: Timkin on April 09, 2011, 01:08:35 PM
and umm.......warfare is bankrupting us ( at least , I think it is ) :)

I'm not seeing a return on investment. :-\

Quote from: finehoe on April 09, 2011, 11:48:52 AM

Quote from: NotNow on April 08, 2011, 04:20:05 PM
Do you think that BridgeTroll, UptownGirl, and I are in favor of poverty somehow?  Did you just find some photographs and want to post them?  What point are you trying to make?  

I believe the point is that we find it curious that you attribute so much of what ails this country to social spending, which you say is clearly against what the founder's had in mind, yet nary a peep about the global empire the US has constructed in the last sixty years.   The Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories.  Here is something the founder's clearly never intended, and something that we spend unbelievable amounts of money on, yet you focus on the attempts of the government to improve people's lives as the reason we are "teetering on the brink of bankruptcy."  

(Sigh) I hate to repeat that people seem to read what they want, rather than what is written.  If you would review my posts, you would find that my arguments are that the Federal Government has exceeded its Constitutional authority.  A serious study of the founding of our Federal system should lead one to understand why the Constitution was written with strictly enumerated powers for the Federal Government.  I commonly complain about the misuse of the "general welfare" clause by Congress.  But there are instances of the Supreme Court and Presidents exceeding their Constitutional mandates as well.  The USG simply is not authorized to do anything it wants.  To argue otherwise simply ignores the history and content of the U S Constitution.

This does not mean that I don't think there should be government funded social programs, quite the contrary.  State and local governments should provide for the social safety net.  A program designed for the Urban poor in Chicago, managed in Washington DC, administered from Atlanta, and forced on rural poor in Alabama is illogical and doomed to failure.  Part of the brilliance of our system is leaving the international work in Washington DC, while allowing the fifty States to govern their own experiments in government.  Each State should design their own social safety net for their citizens and their particular needs.  The optimum site of administration is at the county level.  This is where we can watch our own.  Our own money and our own neighbors.  If one State comes up with an exceptional and novel method or idea, it will be copied by many States.  And when one State has a program in failure or becoming a budget buster, then there are forty nine other examples of how to do it.  Locally administered State programs will be much more efficient in providing services and taxpayers would get more "bang for the buck".  

The Federal Government should be much, much smaller and focused on the duties assigned by the Constitution.  

The question of "Pax Americana" and our military expenditures is a subject for another thread.  I would just point out that our "choice" of whether we want to be a world, regional, or local military power or a major influence in international affairs is being usurped by politicians who are buying lifetime seats of power and personal fortunes using money borrowed in our name.  If we really want to debate this subject, we should elect officials who will represent our wishes, rather than what we currently have which guarantees that we will lose that international influence and military power in fits and convulsions, without any planning or control, as economic reality forces us to part with these privileges of wealthy countries.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are costing us About $170 Billion a year lately.  A lot of money.  
The total cost of the Department of Defense in 2010 was about $663 Billion.  A whole lot of money.
The Federal budget deficit in 2010 was $1.65 Trillion (estimated).  Wwwwwooooowwww.  Stoopid money.  

I certainly agree that Congress is constrained to specific, enumerated powers. The General Welfare clause along with the Interstate Commerce Clause makes that process quite blurry.

As much as I revere the Founders, they left a gaping hole through the use of vague language. (I believe intentionally, as they were wise enough to know they could not predict the future.)

The Founders also agreed, to a man, that such a form of government as they had invented/designed would require moral and benevolent leaders/elected representatives in order to avert tyranny.

I don't suppose they were wrong on that account, nor that we'll find many elected officials who most feel fit the description of moral and benevolent.

We could find some pols we like, and so could others. Disagreement would ensue, but where we could most likely find agreement is in saying our politicians have failed us more so than our Constitution.

Quote from: finehoe on April 09, 2011, 11:48:52 AM

Quote from: NotNow on April 08, 2011, 04:20:05 PM
Do you think that BridgeTroll, UptownGirl, and I are in favor of poverty somehow?  Did you just find some photographs and want to post them?  What point are you trying to make? 

I believe the point is that we find it curious that you attribute so much of what ails this country to social spending, which you say is clearly against what the founder's had in mind, yet nary a peep about the global empire the US has constructed in the last sixty years.   The Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories.  Here is something the founder's clearly never intended, and something that we spend unbelievable amounts of money on, yet you focus on the attempts of the government to improve people's lives as the reason we are "teetering on the brink of bankruptcy."   

I would love to see an honest debate about closing many of these bases.  The need for many of them has passed.  The need for more than a few remains.  I think the Pentagon would love to relieve themselves of the costs of many of these bases.  But alas... once again... in a very bipartisan effort... our congress works diligently to keep bases in "their" districts open... you know... the whole jobs, jobs, jobs, thing.  We still argue about the closure of Cecil Field to this day.

Let the Pentagon decide what bases it wants and needs and you will see a reduction in bases.

Joseph Stiglitz notes that the attacks on the middle class and poor are going to be unrelenting. The attacks are threefold.  Note especially the second and third:

Quote- resisting financial and political reform which caused the financial crisis in the first place.  Three years after the crisis and no major player has even been indicted, the bonus system is flourishing again, and politicians are taking many millions in funds from the bankers and wealthy elite to promote their agendas.

- blaming the victims, and compelling them to take the greatest pain of the bailouts, and continuing bailouts and subsidies to the financial class through spending reallocations. The bailouts and spending on the military industrial complex are crowding out the public functions of government. There are even people trying to justify the theft of the Social Security Trust. Look, the funds are gone, we've taken them and given them to the banks! So no use crying over spilt milk, suck it up, and let's move on and take your cuts.

- shifting the impulse to reform from financial reform to 'tax reform' that further supports the monied interests. Cut taxes for the wealthiest as your primary agenda using a variety of deceptive means like promoting a consumption tax, of a flat income tax with offshore havens and loopholes, so the burden falls most heavily on those who spend the greatest percentage of their labor on subsistence, basic needs.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 10, 2011, 09:39:43 AM

Quote from: finehoe on April 09, 2011, 11:48:52 AM

Quote from: NotNow on April 08, 2011, 04:20:05 PM
Do you think that BridgeTroll, UptownGirl, and I are in favor of poverty somehow?  Did you just find some photographs and want to post them?  What point are you trying to make?  

I believe the point is that we find it curious that you attribute so much of what ails this country to social spending, which you say is clearly against what the founder's had in mind, yet nary a peep about the global empire the US has constructed in the last sixty years.   The Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories.  Here is something the founder's clearly never intended, and something that we spend unbelievable amounts of money on, yet you focus on the attempts of the government to improve people's lives as the reason we are "teetering on the brink of bankruptcy."  

I would love to see an honest debate about closing many of these bases.  The need for many of them has passed.  The need for more than a few remains.  I think the Pentagon would love to relieve themselves of the costs of many of these bases.  But alas... once again... in a very bipartisan effort... our congress works diligently to keep bases in "their" districts open... you know... the whole jobs, jobs, jobs, thing.  We still argue about the closure of Cecil Field to this day.

Let the Pentagon decide what bases it wants and needs and you will see a reduction in bases.

I love BT's "honest debate" quote. While he is right that nobody wants a base closure in their district, what prevented Republicans and many Democratis tag-alongs from discussing base closures overseas?

In all honesty, Republican bravado will not allow ANY discussion of base closings overseas either. AND THERE ARE TOO MANY DEMOCRATIC TAG-ALONGS, that will also do the bidding of the Military Industrial complex.

I believe he was referring more to overseas bases.

I was referring to them all.  I would like to know fineho's source for this...

QuoteThe Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. 

W did a fair job in 2005.  Here is what they did...

http://www.brac.gov/

QuoteThe Congress established the 2005 BRAC Commission to ensure the integrity of the base closure and realignment process. As directed by law, the Commission will provide an objective, non-partisan, and independent review and analysis of the list of military installation recommendations issued by the Department of Defense (DoD) on May 13, 2005. The recommendations provided by DoD are extremely complex and interrelated and will require in-depth analysis and careful attention to detail. The Commission will follow a fair, open, and equitable process, as set forth by statute. The Commission's mission is to assess whether the DoD recommendations substantially deviated from the Congressional criteria used to evaluate each military base. While giving priority to the criteria of military value, the Commission will also take into account the human impact of the base closures and will consider the possible economic, environmental, and other effects on the surrounding communities.

Not to be confused with BRIC:

QuoteThe BRIC thesis recognizes that Brazil, Russia, India and China have changed their political systems to embrace global capitalism. Goldman Sachs predicts ...

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

WHAT??????

Republicans think the US is the ONLY capitalistic nation in the world!?!? ???

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 10, 2011, 01:31:21 PM
I would like to know fineho's source for this...

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 10, 2011, 01:31:21 PM
http://www.brac.gov/

I'm not sure what your point is about the BRAC.  Six years later only a handful of facilities have been closed; most have been "realigned".  In other words taxpayer money has been squandered moving the facilities from one location to another.

Quote from: finehoe on April 10, 2011, 08:42:46 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 10, 2011, 01:31:21 PM
I would like to know fineho's source for this...

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 10, 2011, 01:31:21 PM
http://www.brac.gov/

I'm not sure what your point is about the BRAC.  Six years later only a handful of facilities have been closed; most have been "realigned".  In other words taxpayer money has been squandered moving the facilities from one location to another.

Thanks for the link... though unless I missed it nothing there confirms your numbers.  My point is I agree with you.  I also contend the reason so few facilities have been actually shut down is due to our congress... NOT the pentagon.  The process becomes politcal need rather than military need.  Like most things in the budget... everyone wants "those bases over there" closed down... not "this one over here".

Brac has been more successful than I initially thought...

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

QuoteBase Realignment and Closure (or BRAC) is a process of the United States federal government directed at the administration and operation of the Armed Forces, used by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) and Congress to close excess military installations and realign the total asset inventory to reduce expenditures on operations and maintenance, aimed at achieving increased efficiency in line with Congressional and DoD objectives. More than 350 installations have been closed in five BRAC rounds: 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995 and the most recent round of BRAC completed and entered into law in November 2005.

This link actually list bases...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

The precise number of bases or how many of them "could" be closed under BRAC is not the point.  The bases are merely a symptom of the United States' global empire.  Whether it's due to Congress or the Pentagon is also a distraction.  The issue I have is why is this flagrant disregard of the Constitution that costs us trillions so often given a pass by the very same people who get so bent out of shape about programs that cost much less that they claim are also unconstitutional?

I agree that we will have to reduce defense.  I think some of the assumed numbers are wrong though.  I think that finehoe got some bad numbers for how many bases and US Defense spending has not increased 81 percent since 2001.  Perhaps a typo or information that was not communicated correctly in the original articles

I can't see how military spending wouldn't have increased exponentially since 2001, based on our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. (the jury seems to be out on Libya)

I suppose Congress might view wars as discretionary spending.

Quote from: finehoe on April 11, 2011, 12:48:35 PM
The precise number of bases or how many of them "could" be closed under BRAC is not the point.  The bases are merely a symptom of the United States' global empire.  Whether it's due to Congress or the Pentagon is also a distraction.  The issue I have is why is this flagrant disregard of the Constitution that costs us trillions so often given a pass by the very same people who get so bent out of shape about programs that cost much less that they claim are also unconstitutional?

Well then here is where we disagree.  If you are as interested in reducing the Defence budget as I am then reducing the number of bases at home and overseas is part of the process.  It is too bad that you see it as only a distraction the reasons why more money cannot be cut and therefore saved from that budget.  Merely pointing a finger at "right wingers" is ignoring reality.  There are plenty of "right wingers" who would love to see the defence budget cut deeply.

If you think going $1.6 TRILLION in debt every year is taking us to a good place financially, then I'd like to hear your explanation.

If you can't understand my posts, then you should not make comments that make you sound illiterate.  Now, wash yourself in the blood of Jesus and see if you can be of some use in the discussion.

That said, I stand corrected on the 81% figure.  That figure appears to be at least close to reality if all defense related spending is counted.

Man....What I could do with 1.6 Trillion.  Don't think anymore Springfield homes would fall .

Quote from: NotNow on April 11, 2011, 04:54:26 PM
If you think going $1.6 TRILLION in debt every year is taking us to a good place financially, then I'd like to hear your explanation.

If you can't understand my posts, then you should not make comments that make you sound illiterate.  Now, wash yourself in the blood of Jesus and see if you can be of some use in the discussion.

That said, I stand corrected on the 81% figure.  That figure appears to be at least close to reality if all defense related spending is counted.

Great, so you're in agreement we should immediately cease all foreign military intervention since we can't afford it?

And foreign aid. Then we can finally talk about fiscal responsibility and moral higher ground.

QuoteRepublicans, quite smartly, recognize that there is great political hay to be made in the appearance of deficit reduction, and that white middle class voters will respond with overwhelming enthusiasm to any call for reductions in the “welfare state,” a term which said voters will instantly associate with black welfare moms and Mexicans sneaking over the border to visit American emergency rooms.

The problem, of course, is that to actually make significant cuts in what is left of the “welfare state,” one has to cut Medicare and Medicaid, programs overwhelmingly patronized by white people, and particularly white seniors. So when the time comes to actually pull the trigger on the proposed reductions, the whippersnappers are quietly removed from the stage and life goes on as usual, i.e. with massive deficit spending on defense, upper-class tax cuts, bailouts, corporate subsidies, and big handouts to Pharma and the insurance industries.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/tax-cuts-for-the-rich-on-the-backs-of-the-middle-class-or-paul-ryan-has-balls-20110407

 :D Amazing  :D

Quotewhite middle class voters will respond with overwhelming enthusiasm

'cause they respond very well to the puppet strings of their masters...

I do love his description of himself tho... :D

Quotea coddled, overcompensated media yuppie whose idea of sacrifice is raking one’s own leaves

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 11, 2011, 09:17:16 PM

Quote from: NotNow on April 11, 2011, 04:54:26 PM
If you think going $1.6 TRILLION in debt every year is taking us to a good place financially, then I'd like to hear your explanation.

If you can't understand my posts, then you should not make comments that make you sound illiterate.  Now, wash yourself in the blood of Jesus and see if you can be of some use in the discussion.

That said, I stand corrected on the 81% figure.  That figure appears to be at least close to reality if all defense related spending is counted.

Great, so you're in agreement we should immediately cease all foreign military intervention since we can't afford it?

I believe that we should immediately cease doing a LOT of things right now because we can not afford it.  Our leaders should not commit us to war for anything less than those interests that are vital to our country.  I am assuming as a citizen that is what our government is doing currently. 

If I had my way, based on what I know, then we would have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan except for strong bases long ago.  I have not seen good results from nation building.  I would never have entered us into the Libyan fray.

I'm unsure what you mean.  What "ranks" are you referring to?  I have never bandied the word "traitor" around like you do, because I know what it means.  In my humble opinion, once the President of the United States commits the country to military action, then he should be supported.  That is what I meant when I said that I was assuming as a citizen that our government is committing our Armed Forces based on the facts that are available to them and the President, but not available to me.  Thus, while I have not seen a reason to involve the country in Libya, I support President Obama's efforts because he is the President and that is what we elected him to do.  I have in the past, and I would again back those values with my life.  I have never mistaken your complete misunderstanding of those serving in the military to mean you were stupid.  I HAVE taken offense at your blanket condemnation of service people and your declarations of criminal guilt against members of the military on several occasions.  I stand by those opinions and the facts have consistently corroborated my views.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, while I would always follow the orders of my government, I think that we would be better served by simply dominating militarily and leaving the nation and their governments to the citizens.  The rights of women, homosexuals, or different religious sects can be decided by the people of those countries and has no critical impact on the United States.  We should maintain a strong presence in strategic locations in Iraq because of it's strategic location in the world.  We should maintain a strong military presence outside of Kabul to prevent a recurrence of 9/11.  I would not hesitate to use military force against terrorist or any other force that threatens the US in either country.  But the civilian population could do as they please and govern themselves as they see fit.  That would cost much, much less than the current $170 Billion we are spending there.  But it is obvious that the President and his advisors see the situation differently.

And do you have some point?  I see nothing in what you have posted that has anything to do with the conversation here.  (Again)

Apparently, you are attempting to list some of the instances in past (of many) where you were wrong and I was right.  Are you seeing the light now StephenDare!?  ;)

LOL, if you would reread the posts you would find that I stated opposition to several of the policies of the time. 

The quote in reply #184 is not "derisive" at all, and I stand by the statements in it.  Since all of the comments were lifted out of previous conversations and are not in context, it would be possible to think that my correction of your characterization of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac as "nationalizing" was an endorsement of the action.  It was not.  It was simply a correction of your language.  I think the rest of the post is fairly clear and to the point and does not contradict any of my more recent statements.

Do you stand by your statement:

"Nationalizing Banks, Liberal foreign adventuring, Redefining the meaning of the Consitution to creat a 'unitary presidency', a fourth branch of government called the Vice President and this socialist Deficit spending to the tune of trillions on an unfunded war is far, Far, FARRRR Left.    The bank nationalizations themselves are as far left as you can go.  They are pure communist."

If so, can you still call President Obama "conservative" as you did in that post?

As for the five quotes in reply #186...

The first is in response to the WMD situation in Iraq as I recall.  I pointed out that tons of yellow cake uranium had been found and removed from Iraq.  The substance is dangerous to life.  (If you recall, when I mentioned that I had a friend who was disabled during this operation, you made fun of me and my friend)  I don't see any derisive language there either and I stand by the statements that I made.  I would ask you...Were there large quantities of Yellow Cake found in Iraq?  Is that substance dangerous to life?  Can it be "weaponized"?

In the second quote, I was responding to a poster who identified himself as a refugee of Bosnia who constantly complained about American policy in Bosnia and around the world, as well as local laws and American customs.  Of course, whether this poster was really who and what he said is debatable.  But this was an instance that I responded to a broad allegation that no Americans knew what it was like to be shot at and he claimed that America was backward because you can't drink beer on the streets.  I forget what the McCain and other remarks were over.  Perhaps this comment could be taken as derisive, but in context with the other poster I would say I was provoked.  :)

In the third comment, the first paragraph was (I believe) a response to the debate over CCTV surveillance of city streets.  It accurately represented my opinion and was not derisive.  (I even asked for other opinions.)  In the following paragraphs, I was simply agreeing with you and others that the use of Halliburton in Iraq was a mistake.  I simply listed other reasons.  Again, I see nothing derisive, and I sincerely believe that service to our nation changes the outlook of the citizens who get the opportunity to do it.

In the fourth quote, I still feel this way about the global warming debate and I stand by my statement, which I clearly labeled as my opinion.  No derisiveness here either.

In the final quote, this was a response in one of our little "debates".  If you want to tag that thread so that others can read it in context I would be more than happy to defend everything I said.  I am still offended by your statements about our men and women who are risking their lives.  I still think that you owe them a public apology for your public accusations.

I have always called for responsible Federal budgeting.  I disagree with your self description as a "fiscal conservative".  Haven't you stated time and time again that Federal debt doesn't matter?  I think that "spending", much of it on social services, much of it on other items, is the reason that the Federal government is in debt.  You seem to think it is because we don't collect enough taxes.  We disagree again. 

Much of what was in all of those posts is opinion.  I am entitled to mine, you are entitled to yours.  What facts are contained in them seem to me to be valid. 

What has your panties all in a wad today?

Quote from: NotNow on April 12, 2011, 06:01:34 PM
Haven't you stated time and time again that Federal debt doesn't matter? 

That was Dick Cheney.  http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/245esggv.asp

Cheney's gotta gun