tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post1243230432654742002..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: Roe vs. WadeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-41202485204377202009-01-27T19:39:00.000+01:002009-01-27T19:39:00.000+01:00federal income taxes certainly are uniform through...federal income taxes certainly are uniform throughout the united states. if you earn X dollars, you owe Y dollars in taxes --- there's no "unless you live in Bumfuck, Michigan" clause in the tax codes.<BR/><BR/>what, you thought the constitution demands <I>exactly equivalent outcomes</I> for every individual citizen in the USA? sorry, no, it doesn't work that way.<BR/><BR/><I>I don't see anything in there about spending it on someone's abortion or a paying for a particular person's medical care. Do you?</I><BR/><BR/>"provide for the [...] general welfare" covers that quite well.<BR/><BR/><I>As I understand the argument against regressive taxation is [...]</I><BR/><BR/>you meant to say "progressive taxation". <I>regressive</I> taxation is what we have in actual practice right now, and the argument against <B>it</B> is that it redistributes income from the poor to the rich; it makes the poor poorer and the rich richer.<BR/><BR/><I>Again the "general welfare" isn't a term meaning the "welfare of Joe Bob or Becky Sue" but refers to the welfare of the country as a whole.</I><BR/><BR/>sort of like how "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" doesn't refer to any <I>specific</I> people, only some generalized "militia" that never seems to have any particular, individual members? is that how you mean it?<BR/><BR/><I>Let's be very sure and clear on what "medical coverage", "income security", "reducing the income inequality" is, it is pure and simple redistribution of wealth from those that earn it to those that don't or don't make as much.</I><BR/><BR/>exactly! that's why it's a <I>good</I> thing!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-29716213403428757892009-01-27T19:37:00.000+01:002009-01-27T19:37:00.000+01:00I'll state it again and again; helping out our fel...<I>I'll state it again and again; helping out our fellows is what we are supposed to do, but I don't see any authority for the federal government to do it to the extent that it has. </I><BR/><BR/>Then, you would draw some line in the sand?<BR/><BR/>Where would such a delineation be made between the 'extent' that Congress has to spend tax dollars?<BR/><BR/>I believe the answer lies in the elected members of that body, as we have representative government. If you don't like how your representative spends 'your' precious money, throw the bum out!mud_rakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04786611698569598023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-8493243101913240722009-01-27T18:57:00.000+01:002009-01-27T18:57:00.000+01:00Just so I can keep track, I'll copy things here.16...Just so I can keep track, I'll copy things here.<BR/><BR/>16th amendment:<BR/><I>The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. </I><BR/><BR/>Okay, the government is authorized to collect money from income. But I don't see anything in there about spending it on someone's abortion or a paying for a particular person's medical care. Do you?<BR/><BR/>Section 8 seems to be a little long, so I'll copy what I feel is relevant, please let me know if I've missed anything.<BR/><BR/><I>Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; <B>but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;</B> </I><BR/><BR/>As I understand the argument against regressive taxation is that it violates this particular wording. Certainly those making less then 10,000 a year don't pay taxes at all. The last numbers I saw were over 30% of all people had not federal income tax burden or actually got back more then they received. <BR/><BR/>Again the "general welfare" isn't a term meaning the "welfare of Joe Bob or Becky Sue" but refers to the welfare of the country as a whole. <BR/><BR/>Any evidence that it was meant to say something else?<BR/><BR/><I>To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for <B>carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution</B> in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. </I><BR/><BR/>This is the closest thing I see to any authority, but here is the kicker; It is limited to the powers vested in the Constitution. I don't see paying for someone's abortion listed there, much less paying for birth control in Mexico.<BR/><BR/>The argument is about what the FEDERAL government is authorized to do and what it should be doing. <BR/><BR/>I'll state it again and again; helping out our fellows is what we are supposed to do, but I don't see any authority for the federal government to do it to the extent that it has. <BR/><BR/>Let's be very sure and clear on what "medical coverage", "income security", "reducing the income inequality" is, it is pure and simple redistribution of wealth from those that earn it to those that don't or don't make as much.Bob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15882819735831651314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-40715254282919525812009-01-27T17:41:00.000+01:002009-01-27T17:41:00.000+01:00Show me where, in that Document, [the constitution...<I>Show me where, in that Document, </I>[the constitution]<I> where the power to redistribute my income to someone else resides.</I><BR/><BR/>the sixteenth amendment, bob. that, along with the "general welfare" clause of Article 1, section 8. any other part of the constitution you'd like for me to read out loud for you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-42651955249884360102009-01-27T16:55:00.000+01:002009-01-27T16:55:00.000+01:00Bob made sense to me, Mudrake.Because we are now p...Bob made sense to me, Mudrake.<BR/><BR/>Because we are now paying for abortions abroad, since Barack's Exec. Order, and FOCA will mean we pay for all the poor people's abortions. National health will mean we pay for everybody's health insurance whether or not they contribute to the pot or not. That's OK in the case of the disabled and the truly needy--we already pay for their care --and help the elderly, too. But gov't will soon have a new expensive, inefficient healthcare bureaucracy which WILL be exploited --especially by lawyers whose bread and butter comes from suing drs, hospitals, nursing homes for imperfection and death. Private insurers become gov't employees. That will be as effective as the public school system vs. private.Barbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05016832868807957194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-90531281755676884272009-01-27T15:12:00.000+01:002009-01-27T15:12:00.000+01:00Bob- you were making some sense in your reply to m...Bob- you were making some sense in your reply to me, but when you raised 'abortion' the entire reply lost its value.<BR/><BR/>How did 'abortion' become associated with the discussion on the meaning of the powers of the Constitution?<BR/><BR/>Unless, of course, we are back to the actual subject of this thread.<BR/><BR/>Which is it, Bob?mud_rakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04786611698569598023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-77950016149204031262009-01-27T04:49:00.000+01:002009-01-27T04:49:00.000+01:00Nomen,Sorry but I don't see your comparison.In one...Nomen,<BR/><BR/>Sorry but I don't see your comparison.<BR/><BR/>In one case people are trying to use the government to extract more money out of individuals to pay for medical that are directly related to another individuals behavior (abortion).<BR/><BR/>In the other case, it is a matter of having a discussion about that goal. <BR/><BR/>How is it off the map to ask if people who want to pay for others' abortion if they are paying for the abortions before they ask me to pay for them?<BR/><BR/>Mud,<BR/><BR/>It is pretty simple to understand what is written in the Constitution. It just requires a little reading and thought, that might explain why you have trouble.<BR/><BR/>Sorry but couldn't resist returning a cheap shot.<BR/><BR/>The preamble set out the reasons why we have the constitution. The general welfare is understood to have the government work for what is best for all the people, not just one. Remember that little contretemps they had 200 years ago, getting rid of a King (one person). <BR/><BR/>I agree with this <I>A nation is the society and their welfare needs to be promoted by said state.</I> but the power of the government is limited. Those limits are defined in the Constitution. Show me where, in that Document, where the power to redistribute my income to someone else resides.<BR/><BR/>That is what we are talking about, communism, socialism; forms of government not authorized by the Constitution. <BR/><BR/>The federal government was supposed to be constrained to a few powers. If a local government wants to implement greater benefits at the cost of higher taxation, I wouldn't have a problem with that. That is the right of the people within that state or city.<BR/><BR/>I noticed that you also didn't answer the question. If you are so concerned about paying for other people's abortions, their food or housing needs....are you doing more then minimum required?<BR/>Are you living up to the principles you exclaim by equalizing your income to the lowest levels in America?<BR/><BR/>Shouldn't you try to solve the problems by yourself and those like minded before using the armed might of the government to take money that my family needs?Bob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15882819735831651314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-44341606638128160362009-01-27T03:54:00.000+01:002009-01-27T03:54:00.000+01:00Bob writes, The "general welfare" is for the welfa...Bob writes, <I>The "general welfare" is for the welfare of the country, not a single person.</I><BR/><BR/>When did you become a Constitutional lawyer?<BR/><BR/>How does 'the general welfare' exclude the single person?<BR/><BR/>A nation is its people, not a bounded entity in an atlas.<BR/><BR/>Of the People, by the People, and for the People.<BR/><BR/>A nation is the society and their welfare needs to be promoted by said state.mud_rakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04786611698569598023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-75286756547736105582009-01-27T03:51:00.000+01:002009-01-27T03:51:00.000+01:00bob, you've gone off the map, and your compass has...bob, you've gone off the map, and your compass has been demagnetized. you seem to have lost track not only of what i'm saying, but of your own points and arguments too.<BR/><BR/>i answered your question --- i pay my taxes to help support my fellow citizens. i want those taxes raised, in order to provide better support to more people, and i'll happily pay the higher amount if i get my way. for you to ask me to do anything more, or substantially different, than that is equivalent to me asking you to... well, see above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-63354208958118437892009-01-27T00:09:00.000+01:002009-01-27T00:09:00.000+01:00Nomen,I don't get how you can come up with that. I...Nomen,<BR/><BR/>I don't get how you can come up with that. Is debating me taking money out of your pocket?<BR/><BR/>Am I forcing you to support policies and procedures that you disagree with?<BR/><BR/>As I expected, there is no answer about living the values/principles proclaimed.Bob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15882819735831651314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-88475028823991294362009-01-26T23:53:00.000+01:002009-01-26T23:53:00.000+01:00I think a more effective and definitely a more eth...<I>I think a more effective and definitely a more ethical approach would be for those of a belief to live it completely before they start forcibly requiring others to live a belief the others don't support.</I><BR/><BR/>see, by this sort of "standard" i ought to demand you go live in a cave before debating social policy with me. that would be just as valid, by the exact same logic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-59552818478963051592009-01-26T22:08:00.000+01:002009-01-26T22:08:00.000+01:00Nomen,Nope that isn't what I'm asking. I don't car...Nomen,<BR/><BR/>Nope that isn't what I'm asking. I don't care if you are cheating on your taxes or not. <BR/><BR/>I think a more effective and definitely a more ethical approach would be for those of a belief to live it completely before they start forcibly requiring others to live a belief the others don't support.<BR/><BR/>That is what I am asking; If income inequality is a problem, are those who believe it in living their values, i.e. donating all their "extra" income to a charity, to a foundation, heck even to the government. I defined "extra" income as the poverty line in this case because there are people, families living below it.<BR/><BR/>Before using the federal government as an armed accomplice to facilitate your beliefs, religious or not, shouldn't each person be doing it voluntarily?<BR/><BR/>Before forcing me to support programs not authorized in the Constitution, shouldn't it be done to voluntarily?Bob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15882819735831651314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-43837544726604701082009-01-26T22:03:00.000+01:002009-01-26T22:03:00.000+01:00bob - given that us liberals (and certainly all so...bob - given that us liberals (and certainly all social democrats, as i am) generally want to do our income redistribution through means of taxation, your question is effectively just a weaselly way of asking if we're all tax cheats.<BR/><BR/>we're not. speaking for myself, i neither am nor ever have been.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-54597571722132241132009-01-26T21:40:00.000+01:002009-01-26T21:40:00.000+01:00We the People of the United States, in Order to fo...<I> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] 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.</I><BR/><BR/>Explains why they want to do things...but I don't see any authorizations, those are listed in the Articles, right?<BR/><BR/>The "general welfare" is for the welfare of the country, not a single person.<BR/><BR/>Let me ask you a question that I find most liberals unwilling to answer or live.<BR/><BR/>If you believe it is the right thing to do to reduce income inequality, insure that "poor" people have medical coverage, housing, food, etc, are you living your values?<BR/><BR/>The poverty level for a family of 4 in America is $21,200. For a single person it is just over $10,000. Before you or anyone else forcibly takes money out of my pocket, shouldn't you and everyone who agrees with you be giving up your money?Bob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15882819735831651314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-50500714138420847102009-01-26T21:20:00.000+01:002009-01-26T21:20:00.000+01:00Bob- read the Preamble and report back later.Bob- read the Preamble and report back later.mud_rakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04786611698569598023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-25606243208696352842009-01-26T19:39:00.000+01:002009-01-26T19:39:00.000+01:00http://www.concordcoalition.org/learn/budget/feder...http://www.concordcoalition.org/learn/budget/federal-budget-pie-charts<BR/><BR/>Their source: Congressional Budget Office, January 2008, and Final Monthly Treasury Statement for FY2007 <BR/><BR/>This address is for the budget and income pie charts. <BR/><BR/>War resistors website had different percentages. Judging from their pie chart, the military retirees and other military and wars were the biggest percent--whereas all the other social programs were the biggest piece of the pie on the pie chart I provided address for.Barbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05016832868807957194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-50244674400073398382009-01-26T18:00:00.000+01:002009-01-26T18:00:00.000+01:00Mud,What exact part of the Constitution provides t...Mud,<BR/><BR/>What exact part of the Constitution provides the federal government with the authorization and the power to take money from one citizen and give it to another?Bob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15882819735831651314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-85012557880708849472009-01-26T17:57:00.000+01:002009-01-26T17:57:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15882819735831651314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-48660295872822593392009-01-26T15:21:00.000+01:002009-01-26T15:21:00.000+01:00Can anyone guess what portion of the federal budge...<I>Can anyone guess what portion of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs,</I><BR/><BR/>OK, I'll guess: more than you think necessary?<BR/><BR/>Imagine your HARD-EARNED money going to those old people and to the sick!<BR/><BR/>Communism, I tell you, COMMUNISM!!!!!!mud_rakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04786611698569598023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-4568892802463923402009-01-25T18:43:00.000+01:002009-01-25T18:43:00.000+01:00You say Medicare runs with lower overhead, I would...<I>You say Medicare runs with lower overhead, I would be interested in seeing any evidence.</I><BR/><BR/>okay. the hard data is in the board of trustees' annual report, as required by law:<BR/><BR/>http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html<BR/><BR/>scroll down a bit to the section on administrative expenses.<BR/><BR/>these pages are worth reading as well:<BR/><BR/>http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7271<BR/>http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0508harrison.html<BR/>http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2008/11/22/probably-not-a-panacea-not-even-an-placebo/<BR/><BR/><I>I don't think the postal service should make a profit, but I think they should perform as well as their private counter parts.</I><BR/><BR/>that's impossible, because the postal service exists in no small part to do jobs its private counterparts refuse to attempt in order to cut their costs.<BR/><BR/>(and what do you mean, efficiency of the private delivery services --- have you tried to get a postcard delivered to, say, Japan by means of UPS or FedEx lately? their rates for that are not competitive with the postal service...)<BR/><BR/><I>I see all too often the false dichotomy that Mike posed: Either I pay for abortions or I pay for Wefare. I see there are other ways and seek to move our country that way.</I><BR/><BR/>i see only one other way, and that is to pay for neither and let the country devolve into something the fictional Scrooge would have recognized perfectly. a society where nobody has to pay to help out their fellow citizens if they don't want to has already been tried in practice; Charles Dickens described it well, and the misery of it was such that Karl Marx prescribed violent revolution as his preferred way to get out of that situation.<BR/><BR/>i'd prefer to avoid a communist revolution if we can. social democracy is much less violent.<BR/><BR/><I>What is wrong with moving back to the point of people taking more responsibility for their actions?</I><BR/><BR/>only the fact that it's a utopian pipe dream. it relies on human nature somehow changing, for no well defined reason; but human nature <I>doesn't</I> change. that's what's wrong with the communists' utopian pipe dream, and that's the reason anarchism doesn't work either.<BR/><BR/>you can't move "back" to any such hypothetical golden age, because human nature hasn't devolved to what it is today --- there was never a time when humans were radically different in such a way as to take more responsibility for their actions. human nature is what it is and has been, and so will it remain; you won't make plaster saints out of 'em, not even if the plaster saints <B>would</B> be more responsible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-6960224649518077892009-01-25T14:58:00.000+01:002009-01-25T14:58:00.000+01:00Nomen, If I weren't so satisfied with the job Obam...Nomen, If I weren't so satisfied with the job Obama's doing, I'd vote for you for President. Oh, I forgot you weren't born in the U.S, besides it's not election time anymore, and most importantly, Tom made it very clear I had no business voting anyway.<BR/><BR/>It's a good thought though.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-62960014767965373602009-01-25T12:45:00.000+01:002009-01-25T12:45:00.000+01:00Can anyone guess what portion of the federal budge...Can anyone guess what portion of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs, e.g. Social Security (Welfare), Medicare, Medicaid?Bob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15882819735831651314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-31504745558976286302009-01-25T07:06:00.000+01:002009-01-25T07:06:00.000+01:00Bob, I see you have to defend yourself as I do aga...Bob, I see you have to defend yourself as I do against charges of Scrooge-ism and other insults.<BR/><BR/>You are absolutely right on this, IMHO.<BR/><BR/>Ind. U. just announced results of a study of charity and once again, it has been shown that conservatives of all economic levels give 5 times more to charity than liberals. <BR/><BR/>5 percent of their income compared to 1 percent for more liberal people.<BR/><BR/>and Obama and Biden gave something like 1 percent of their incomes in the past --and Obama has increased that modestly since campaigning. They aren't tithing.<BR/><BR/>Evangelicals have many tithers as a way of supporting churches and their ministries --and give over and above to para-church charities, missions, homeless ministries, pregnancy centers, the needy of all sorts. <BR/><BR/>We have been the most prosperous and generous nation without being socialistic. <BR/><BR/>Did we all see the video of the lady who rejoiced at Obama's election because it meant she was going to have all her financial needs met? She believed it. <BR/><BR/>When I think of all the people who get checks from the gov't now, it's no wonder we are so in debt. <BR/><BR/>Our constitutional obligation is to provide for the common defense, a military --and it makes sense that we provide the roads, bridges and other things of public benefit --but individuals need to study hard in school for jobs so they can take care of themselves -- our aid should go to those who are truly unable to care for themselves. Are we MAKING more people dependent by upcoming policies? I fear so.Barbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05016832868807957194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-13473257193027749202009-01-25T05:30:00.000+01:002009-01-25T05:30:00.000+01:00Nomen,Let me make it very clear, something you are...Nomen,<BR/><BR/>Let me make it very clear, something you are having trouble reading from my words. <BR/><BR/>I am not leery of helping my fellow man. I am leery of giving the government more power and more money to do things it is ill equipped, ill suited and not constitutionally justified to do.<BR/><BR/>Just because you believe the best way to run a society is to have a powerful government doling out benefits, taking money as it chooses doesn't mean I see it that way.<BR/><BR/>I think that people have the right to keep their money and see it spend on the charities of their choice...individual freedom versus majority vote on how to spend my money.<BR/><BR/>The defense industry wastes money in response to the government demands and requirements. In any government private industry interaction, the efficiency decreases with governmental involvement.<BR/><BR/>You say Medicare runs with lower overhead, I would be interested in seeing any evidence.<BR/>I don't think the postal service should make a profit, but I think they should perform as well as their private counter parts. And I don't see that efficiency at all. <BR/><BR/><BR/>I do disagree with your characterization of me as Scrooge. Don't confuse the individualism with unwillingness. I've said repeatedly you don't know me, what activities, charities or support that I give any more then I know what you do.<BR/><BR/>I see all too often the false dichotomy that Mike posed: Either I pay for abortions or I pay for Wefare. I see there are other ways and seek to move our country that way. <BR/><BR/>What is wrong with moving back to the point of people taking more responsibility for their actions?<BR/>Did you read the testimony to Congress? Can you see how a society that replaces values with monetary support looses? That is what Welfare is bring, has brought to our country to its detriment.<BR/><BR/>I see the argument for welfare much like the argument for firearm rights. Just because I want more people to take responsibility for themselves doesn't mean I want to get rid of the police. Nor do I blame anyone for calling on that assistance....just don't want to see that be the only response people have.<BR/><BR/>Welfare is teaching people, generations of people that the only solution to a problem is the government.Bob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15882819735831651314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-76666809512723340292009-01-25T03:27:00.000+01:002009-01-25T03:27:00.000+01:00Well, Bob, about voting for Bush/Cheney: For many ...Well, Bob, about voting for Bush/Cheney: For many years now I'd had 'discussions' with people who label themselves as 'conservatives' yet they voted twice for Bush/Cheney.<BR/><BR/>Many, like you, throw out the 'lesser of two evils' excuse. I don't buy it at all. Not ONE spending bill received a VETO in all 4 years of the first term. Not one!<BR/><BR/>Tell me about being 'conservative.' Or are you just a social or religious conservative?<BR/><BR/>What did Bush say, "Fool me once....ah..ah... shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."<BR/><BR/>Did you?mud_rakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04786611698569598023noreply@blogger.com