(snip)...Yes crazy ideas like healthcare, a living wage, a clean environment, free education, and a fair chance for all.
-The ACA was mainly written by insurance companies and healthcare was working before Democrats imposed their political influence onto the entire country, at least half of which was unrepresented.
-Nothing is free, other than air and sunlight. Everything else bears a cost, whether you pay it or you attempt to use the force of government to make someone else pay it.
What he and others are saying, of course, is "think of all these terrible things that could happen". The fact that those terrible things are entirely unconnected with the proposals under discussion, except in as much as some of them would become even less likely to occur if the proposals were accepted, is of no consequence at all. These posters either lack even basic comprehension and logic, or are spreading politically motivated FUD. Or possibly both. And they cannot be reasoned with.
Yes I'm slowly realizing this. I'm just hoping to break through the ignorance.
When you have something other than strawmen and appeals to pity, let us know.
This has no comparison to ACA.
There isn't a kill switch. The USPS is awesome and would be making tons of money if not for Republican legislation requiring it to prefund its pension benefits for 75 years through a $5.5 billion annual payment.
Obama is a centrist on major topics, economy and military for sure.
You obvisouly don't know the definition of a strawman.
-The ACA was mainly written by insurance companies and healthcare was working before Democrats imposed their political influence onto the entire country, at least half of which was unrepresented.
-Nothing is free, other than air and sunlight. Everything else bears a cost, whether you pay it or you attempt to use the force of government to make someone else pay it.
Sadly this isn't unique to the ACA. The whole country was represented, through your Representatives.
I never said it was free. We all pay collectively, that's called living in a society.
How about I send some of my bills to your "society" and let them pay for once?
We already do. Your security bills, military and police. Your health and safety, fire department, EPA and FDA. Your transportation, roads and FAA. Your legal rights, the court system.
We already do. Your security bills, military and police. Your health and safety, fire department, EPA and FDA. Your transportation, roads and FAA. Your legal rights, the court system.
If you're already receiving subsidies of any kind, you're also likely to not be paying for those additional functions.
I don't think I made that argument. Unless you're counting paying the military, police, fire dept. ect. as a subsidy, which is strange.
All public services are paid via taxation. They are subsidized by tax dollars. What's strange is denying this fact. The "free" healthcare you tout is subsidized. The "free" schools are subsidized by taxes, and so on.
The military is a constitutionally mandated function of the Federal government. You are unclear on the concept of government limited by its constitutional mandate and somehow believe that you deserve everything for the price of nothing. Get real.
I'm not anti-every tax. I'm not anti-every function of government. I am however very concerned that spending and growth have spun completely out of control and that government represents it's own interests above those proscribed limitations spelled out in the Constitution.
All public services are paid via taxation. They are subsidized by tax dollars. What's strange is denying this fact. The "free" healthcare you tout is subsidized. The "free" schools are subsidized by taxes, and so on.
The military is a constitutionally mandated function of the Federal government. You are unclear on the concept of government limited by its constitutional mandate and somehow believe that you deserve everything for the price of nothing. Get real.
I'm not anti-every tax. I'm not anti-every function of government. I am however very concerned that spending and growth have spun completely out of control and that government represents it's own interests above those proscribed limitations spelled out in the Constitution.
Of course public services are paid via taxation, I never said otherwise. They aren't subsidized though, they are out right paid for by taxes. Subsidies are a whole different thing. I never said healthcare was free. I agree with Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr when he said "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society …"
The constitution is a living document and meant to change. Also the constitution contains "the general welfare" clause, which can easily be interpreted to include healthcare and education.
"We the people" We are the government, it isn't a separate evil boogyman. I'm not arguing necessarily for more spending, just smarter spending. Also the deficit is falling at the fastest rate in 60 years, so that should be some comfort.
Upon proclamation by the President that there exists war or a threat of war, or a state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency, or in order to preserve the neutrality of the United States, the President, if he deems it necessary in the interest of national security or defense, may suspend or amend, for such time as he may see fit, the rules and regulations applicable to any or all stations or devices capable of emitting electromagnetic radiations within the jurisdiction of the United States.
The USPS is awesome…
Great argument¡ Yes, I read the rest. Great argument¡
Obama is a centrist on major topics, economy and military for sure.
Not even remotely close.
You obvisouly don't know the definition of a strawman.
Of course public services are paid via taxation, I never said otherwise. They aren't subsidized though, they are out right paid for by taxes. Subsidies are a whole different thing. I never said healthcare was free. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">I agree with </span> Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr when he said "<em style="color:rgb(68,68,68);line-height:1.4em;">Taxes are what we pay for civilized society …"</em>
The constitution is a living document and meant to change. Also the constitution contains "the general welfare" clause, which can easily be interpreted to include healthcare and education.
"We the people" We are the government, it isn't a separate evil boogyman. I'm not arguing necessarily for more spending, just smarter spending. Also the deficit is falling at the fastest rate in 60 years, so that should be some comfort.
Yes, the Constitution is a living document. To change it requires extraordinary levels of agreement and thankfully that hasn't often happened. When there is no disagreement in government, you'll know a dictatorship is at hand.
Re: The "General Welfare Clause"...
"Moreover, the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[4][5] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[4][6] but a qualification on the taxing power[4][7][8] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[4][9][10] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[4] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[11]"
Except he just made one, so yes, that’s the comparison being made.
Are you referring to yourself in the third person here? Because you originally made the comparison. And just because you make a comparison, doesn't mean there actually is one to make. Any reasonable person can look at the two and see there isn't one to be made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I don’t know why you are physically incapable of using any search engine whatsoever, but you are.
Wow either the internet is older than I thought or the government is using time machines now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Great argument
Thank you. I can play at the snippet game too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Not even remotely close.
With you having a grasp, limited as it may be, of how the internet and search engines work, I'll let you do your own homework on this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
No, you sure don’t.
Quote:
A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
I didn't do any of that. I just listed liberal ideas.
Yes, the Constitution is a living document. To change it requires extraordinary levels of agreement and thankfully that hasn't often happened. When there is no disagreement in government, you'll know a dictatorship is at hand.
Re: The "General Welfare Clause"...
"Moreover, the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[4][5] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[4][6] but a qualification on the taxing power[4][7][8] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[4][9][10] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[4] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[11]"
The General Welfare is not a license to tax and spend.
No the Taxing and Spending Clause does, which contains the General Welfare Clause.
Quote:
this clause permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Taken together, these purposes have traditionally been held to imply and the constitute the federal government's taxing and spending power.
The regulations that the United States uses to regulate the information and data industry may have inadvertently made a true “Internet kill switch” impossible. The deregulation allowed for a building of a patch-work system (ISPs, Internet Backbone) that is extremely complex and not fully known.
Comments
-The ACA was mainly written by insurance companies and healthcare was working before Democrats imposed their political influence onto the entire country, at least half of which was unrepresented.
-Nothing is free, other than air and sunlight. Everything else bears a cost, whether you pay it or you attempt to use the force of government to make someone else pay it.
What he and others are saying, of course, is "think of all these terrible things that could happen". The fact that those terrible things are entirely unconnected with the proposals under discussion, except in as much as some of them would become even less likely to occur if the proposals were accepted, is of no consequence at all. These posters either lack even basic comprehension and logic, or are spreading politically motivated FUD. Or possibly both. And they cannot be reasoned with.
Yes I'm slowly realizing this. I'm just hoping to break through the ignorance.
Why not start by comprehending it?
ACA.
1. USPS.
2. The government has a kill switch.
What a terrifying worldview you have.
When you have something other than strawmen and appeals to pity, let us know.
This has no comparison to ACA.
There isn't a kill switch. The USPS is awesome and would be making tons of money if not for Republican legislation requiring it to prefund its pension benefits for 75 years through a $5.5 billion annual payment.
Obama is a centrist on major topics, economy and military for sure.
You obvisouly don't know the definition of a strawman.
-The ACA was mainly written by insurance companies and healthcare was working before Democrats imposed their political influence onto the entire country, at least half of which was unrepresented.
-Nothing is free, other than air and sunlight. Everything else bears a cost, whether you pay it or you attempt to use the force of government to make someone else pay it.
Sadly this isn't unique to the ACA. The whole country was represented, through your Representatives.
I never said it was free. We all pay collectively, that's called living in a society.
How about I send some of my bills to your "society" and let them pay for once?
How about I send some of my bills to your "society" and let them pay for once?
We already do. Your security bills, military and police. Your health and safety, fire department, EPA and FDA. Your transportation, roads and FAA. Your legal rights, the court system.
If you're already receiving subsidies of any kind, you're also likely to not be paying for those additional functions.
You're a credit taker.
If you're already receiving subsidies of any kind, you're also likely to not be paying for those additional functions.
You're a credit taker.
So no one in the following industries pay?
Quote:
You've been making arguments in favor of taxes as subsidies, now you're arguing against them? Which is it?
You've been making arguments in favor of taxes as subsidies, now you're arguing against them? Which is it?
I don't think I made that argument. Unless you're counting paying the military, police, fire dept. ect. as a subsidy, which is strange.
All public services are paid via taxation. They are subsidized by tax dollars. What's strange is denying this fact. The "free" healthcare you tout is subsidized. The "free" schools are subsidized by taxes, and so on.
The military is a constitutionally mandated function of the Federal government. You are unclear on the concept of government limited by its constitutional mandate and somehow believe that you deserve everything for the price of nothing. Get real.
I'm not anti-every tax. I'm not anti-every function of government. I am however very concerned that spending and growth have spun completely out of control and that government represents it's own interests above those proscribed limitations spelled out in the Constitution.
All public services are paid via taxation. They are subsidized by tax dollars. What's strange is denying this fact. The "free" healthcare you tout is subsidized. The "free" schools are subsidized by taxes, and so on.
The military is a constitutionally mandated function of the Federal government. You are unclear on the concept of government limited by its constitutional mandate and somehow believe that you deserve everything for the price of nothing. Get real.
I'm not anti-every tax. I'm not anti-every function of government. I am however very concerned that spending and growth have spun completely out of control and that government represents it's own interests above those proscribed limitations spelled out in the Constitution.
Of course public services are paid via taxation, I never said otherwise. They aren't subsidized though, they are out right paid for by taxes. Subsidies are a whole different thing. I never said healthcare was free. I agree with Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr when he said "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society …"
The constitution is a living document and meant to change. Also the constitution contains "the general welfare" clause, which can easily be interpreted to include healthcare and education.
"We the people" We are the government, it isn't a separate evil boogyman. I'm not arguing necessarily for more spending, just smarter spending. Also the deficit is falling at the fastest rate in 60 years, so that should be some comfort.
Except he just made one, so yes, that’s the comparison being made.
I don’t know why you are physically incapable of using any search engine whatsoever, but you are.
Try using one. They help.
Great argument¡ Yes, I read the rest. Great argument¡
Not even remotely close.
No, you sure don’t.
[VIDEO]
Yes, the Constitution is a living document. To change it requires extraordinary levels of agreement and thankfully that hasn't often happened. When there is no disagreement in government, you'll know a dictatorship is at hand.
Re: The "General Welfare Clause"...
"Moreover, the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[4][5] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[4][6] but a qualification on the taxing power[4][7][8] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[4][9][10] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[4] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[11]"
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause
The General Welfare is not a license to tax and spend.
Except he just made one, so yes, that’s the comparison being made.
Are you referring to yourself in the third person here? Because you originally made the comparison. And just because you make a comparison, doesn't mean there actually is one to make. Any reasonable person can look at the two and see there isn't one to be made.
I don’t know why you are physically incapable of using any search engine whatsoever, but you are.
Try using one. They help.
Wow either the internet is older than I thought or the government is using time machines now.
Great argument
Thank you. I can play at the snippet game too.
Not even remotely close.
With you having a grasp, limited as it may be, of how the internet and search engines work, I'll let you do your own homework on this one.
No, you sure don’t.
I didn't do any of that. I just listed liberal ideas.
Yes, the Constitution is a living document. To change it requires extraordinary levels of agreement and thankfully that hasn't often happened. When there is no disagreement in government, you'll know a dictatorship is at hand.
Re: The "General Welfare Clause"...
"Moreover, the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[4][5] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[4][6] but a qualification on the taxing power[4][7][8] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[4][9][10] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[4] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[11]"
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause
The General Welfare is not a license to tax and spend.
No the Taxing and Spending Clause does, which contains the General Welfare Clause.
Nope.
Good thing I didn’t say it did, huh.
As a “reasonable” “person”, you ought to be able to outline these differences.
When you’re ready to actually hold a discussion, let us know. The rest of your post isn’t worth replies until you stop acting like an infant.
Nope.
Good thing I didn’t say it did, huh.
As a “reasonable” “person”, you ought to be able to outline these differences.
When you’re ready to actually hold a discussion, let us know. The rest of your post isn’t worth replies until you stop acting like an infant.
It's only one page back.
There is no "Internet Kill Switch" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_kill_switch
It's purely theoretical.
Why?
If an ISP offered me a blazing fast iTunes and a hobbled FaceBook and Google, I'd gladly take it.