RE: Right vs tax subsidies

RE: Right vs tax subsidies (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/25/2013 10:19:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Then why have you not produced them? I am making an assumption that you are capable of finding them on your own, if you don't already have them handy where you are when posting. I will continue to make this assumption, and do not find it necessary to provide it here. If you need a link, I can give one to you. The claim is that there are enumerated powers. Yet when I ask what these enumerated powers are I am told I am suppoed to know what they are. How mother fuckng stupid is that? If they fucking exist then how about telling us what they are or is that a mother fucking secret? It would seem incumbant upon the one who makes the motherfucking claim to support it. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx I am making an assumption that you are capable of finding them on your own do not assume that I can read minds. I don't. I do, however, assume you can read. And, with your referrals to the US Constitution, I also assume you know what that document is. Since you know both the document and how to read (again, both assumptions on my part), you have the ability and opportunity to find the enumerated powers. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx And, that is where your interpretation is off. The state you are referring to, is the Federal Government, but the several States the Federalist Paper #45 refers to are the States in the Union. A clue would be the use of "S," not "s," and in the modifier, "several." Is it your point that the state govt telling the citizen what to do is ok but the fed doing it is not ok? No, State governments do not always have the authority to tell a citizen what to do. The Federal government's authorities are limited and, according to Federalist Paper #45, to be focused on external objects that concern the nation as one unit, and in situations where there is a disagreement between or among States.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/25/2013 10:22:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx So according to this it would be unconstitutional for the govt to subsidize any korporation or business even though it might have some benifit to the citizen that the founders claimed to have committed treason to provide general welfare for? And, you are, once again, attempting to get back to the "Subsidy vs. Tax Relief" ~~argument~~ discussion. Didn't work last time you attempted it. Won't work this time. You and I will never agree on it. Accept that, and move on. To snivle that the govt is fucking us and when asked to show how we get his absurd dance. To claim that the govt has exceeded it's "enumerated powers" but not tell us which powers have been exceeded is just so much disingenuous horse shit. To claim that the govt has exceeded it's powers but when quized as to what the govt. job is we get refusal to discuss anything that the govt actually is suppose to do. To claim that the label one puts on the money disbursed from the treasury make some meaningful difference as to where it came from is stupid on its face. Since no discussion is being sought I will continue to point out the gaping flaws and dsitortions posted concerning the constitution. I accept your position. I also accept that you simply want to argue without discussing. This is not something you limit to my posts. It is noticeable. Enjoy yourself, thompson. I wish you only the best.

thompsonx -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/25/2013 10:29:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx So according to this it would be unconstitutional for the govt to subsidize any korporation or business even though it might have some benifit to the citizen that the founders claimed to have committed treason to provide general welfare for? And, you are, once again, attempting to get back to the "Subsidy vs. Tax Relief" ~~argument~~ discussion. Didn't work last time you attempted it. Won't work this time. You and I will never agree on it. Accept that, and move on. To snivle that the govt is fucking us and when asked to show how we get his absurd dance. To claim that the govt has exceeded it's "enumerated powers" but not tell us which powers have been exceeded is just so much disingenuous horse shit. To claim that the govt has exceeded it's powers but when quized as to what the govt. job is we get refusal to discuss anything that the govt actually is suppose to do. To claim that the label one puts on the money disbursed from the treasury make some meaningful difference as to where it came from is stupid on its face. Since no discussion is being sought I will continue to point out the gaping flaws and dsitortions posted concerning the constitution. I accept your position. I also accept that you simply want to argue without discussing. This is not something you limit to my posts. It is noticeable. Enjoy yourself, thompson. I wish you only the best. So the "enumerated powers" are going to be kept secret[8\|]

GotSteel -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/25/2013 11:39:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Would "do you think" be a better way to ask? Maybe, I'm hopeful. The objection I'm raising isn't actually about the particular phrase it's about the practice of smuggling claims into someone elses position. But if one has a propensity for using such a phrase it may well help to try more neutral phrases.

GotSteel -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/25/2013 11:47:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx So the "enumerated powers" are going to be kept secret[8\|] I think what's going on is he's claiming common knowledge when asked for a citation. But since it seems someone will have to provide a citation for your conversation to progress, here I'll do it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

DOM68005 -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/26/2013 12:31:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Many think that repubs and independents are in favor of gifts to the wealthy. Attached is an example I would absolutely move to end: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/how-the-nfl-fleeces-taxpayers/309448/ Are you making a claim that hosting a pro sports franchise doesn't aid the local economy? I'll take a piece of this. I am a HUGE football and baseball fan (I'm hoping that rugby will catch on in the States, someday). I love the games for different reasons. I wish every state had two teams for each sport. I really do feel bad for states like South Dakota that have no professional sports teams. Having said that, why the bloody fuck should tax payers pay to build stadiums for which a small portion will get raped for PSLs, tickets, parking, food, and merchandise? Fuck sports teams. They're a private business and should get no more consideration than the local print shop. And the people said AMEN. I'll go two steps further. State college sports teams have now become more of a reason than their legitimate purpose ...higher education. The taxpayer gets the bill for the stadium, and cost of operation and the sports teams get all the money from the operations plus activity fees plus tax money. ======= Our county commissioners turned out to be the same way. For the next 25 years, we will be paying for a stadium for a AAA baseball team that gets all the money while the tax payers get the bill for all upkeep and maintenance. The team can up an move at any time when they find another sucker with a better deal for the team. It's not right, but I have yet to find a state senator to properly address the issue. ... Yes, I have tried in my state.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/26/2013 5:15:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx So the "enumerated powers" are going to be kept secret[8\|] I think what's going on is he's claiming common knowledge when asked for a citation. But since it seems someone will have to provide a citation for your conversation to progress, here I'll do it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers There is no conversation, GotSteel. There wasn't ever going to be any, either. The very idea that a conservative interpretation and a liberal interpretation of the US Constitution would find common ground is laughable. That is what was going to happen. What is the point of entering into that kind of discussion? No cite was needed. The location was known and it was obviously known.

thompsonx -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/26/2013 8:14:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx So the "enumerated powers" are going to be kept secret[8\|] I think what's going on is he's claiming common knowledge when asked for a citation. But since it seems someone will have to provide a citation for your conversation to progress, here I'll do it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers There is no conversation, GotSteel. There wasn't ever going to be any, either. Are the definitions set down in the link provided acceptable to you as definitions of your position?

thompsonx -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/26/2013 8:21:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx So the "enumerated powers" are going to be kept secret[8\|] I think what's going on is he's claiming common knowledge when asked for a citation. But since it seems someone will have to provide a citation for your conversation to progress, here I'll do it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers If we have a beginner trying a 5:7 and he outweighs me by 200lbs I want something solid to hook to if I have to belay him. I am not a big fan of wiki but if the one on belay is happy then I will hold the rope.

thompsonx -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/26/2013 8:29:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Would "do you think" be a better way to ask? Maybe, I'm hopeful. The objection I'm raising isn't actually about the particular phrase it's about the practice of smuggling claims into someone elses position. But if one has a propensity for using such a phrase it may well help to try more neutral phrases. I see your point about "smugling" and I do agree that more neutral phrases tend to focus on issues rather than personlities.

MrRodgers -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/26/2013 10:45:14 AM)
Back to the OP, this thread has devolved into the small details. We lose site of our original free market principles. It is almost our culture now to try and justify all manor of things of how this or that act will benefit the people or business or govt. when it is not the job of the economy or the economic sociologist to do so. Why ? Because all of our sociology is done when we say that a free market IS our incentive and ALL economic decisions are to made in the marketplace. What we have devolved into is a legal regime that does not concern itself with the influences of money on all three and we all know who has most of that money. Once govt. and investors get together and begin to advertise all of the great things they do for the people and the community...the whole regime of incentives begins to be distorted. There goes your free market. Soon you have plutocracy and as far as I am concerned...the beginning of the end. It will still just take a while.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/26/2013 10:52:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Back to the OP, this thread has devolved into the small details. We lose site of our original free market principles. It is almost our culture now to try and justify all manor of things of how this or that act will benefit the people or business or govt. when it is not the job of the economy or the economic sociologist to do so. Why ? Because all of our sociology is done when we say that a free market IS our incentive and ALL economic decisions are to made in the marketplace. What we have devolved into is a legal regime that does not concern itself with the influences of money on all three and we all know who has most of that money. Once govt. and investors get together and begin to advertise all of the great things they do for the people and the community...the whole regime of incentives begins to be distorted. There goes your free market. Soon you have plutocracy and as far as I am concerned...the beginning of the end. It will still just take a while. We have a plutocracy already, imo. That is the typical result, imo, of corporatism. We don't have capitalism, we have corporatism. Big Money has bought our Government, right and left. We should expect Big Money to do so. We should also expect our Governments to not be bought by Big Money. Sadly, though, that expectation is not aligned with reality. If Government wasn't "for sale," we wouldn't have corporatism.

thompsonx -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/26/2013 1:20:17 PM)
If Government wasn't "for sale," we wouldn't have corporatism. If we did not have corporations there wouldn't be corporatism. Corporations shield their owners from personal responsibility. How can someone who claims to be in favor of personal responsibility be in favor of corporations? The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

thompsonx -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/26/2013 1:21:22 PM)
There is no conversation, GotSteel. There wasn't ever going to be any, either. Are the definitions set down in the link provided acceptable to you as definitions of your position?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/26/2013 1:40:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx If Government wasn't "for sale," we wouldn't have corporatism. If we did not have corporations there wouldn't be corporatism. Corporations shield their owners from personal responsibility. How can someone who claims to be in favor of personal responsibility be in favor of corporations? The two concepts are mutually exclusive. Oh, please. They are not mutually exclusive, except in your own opinion. We would still have corporations if government wasn't "for sale." And, if government was "for sale," there would be a buyer, corporations or not.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/26/2013 1:41:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx There is no conversation, GotSteel. There wasn't ever going to be any, either. Are the definitions set down in the link provided acceptable to you as definitions of your position? Your continuation of this line is useless, thompson. Read the sentences you quoted from me and change "wasn't" to "isn't."

thompsonx -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/26/2013 1:43:19 PM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx If Government wasn't "for sale," we wouldn't have corporatism. If we did not have corporations there wouldn't be corporatism. Corporations shield their owners from personal responsibility. How can someone who claims to be in favor of personal responsibility be in favor of corporations? The two concepts are mutually exclusive. Oh, please. They are not mutually exclusive, except in your own opinion. The corporation shields the individual from personal responsibility. How is that consistant with your belief in personal responsibility? We would still have corporations if government wasn't "for sale." And, if government was "for sale," there would be a buyer, corporations or not. If there were no corporations there could not be corporatism.

thompsonx -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/27/2013 12:16:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx There is no conversation, GotSteel. There wasn't ever going to be any, either. Are the definitions set down in the link provided acceptable to you as definitions of your position? Your continuation of this line is useless, thompson. Read the sentences you quoted from me and change "wasn't" to "isn't." So after all the sniviling about the enumerated powers you never had an intention of discussing them? Thank you for your candor.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/27/2013 12:23:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx There is no conversation, GotSteel. There wasn't ever going to be any, either. Are the definitions set down in the link provided acceptable to you as definitions of your position? Your continuation of this line is useless, thompson. Read the sentences you quoted from me and change "wasn't" to "isn't." So after all the sniviling about the enumerated powers you never had an intention of discussing them? Thank you for your candor. No sniveling. I am smart enough to know when I'm being baited into an interrogation. And, I will not choose to enter into that situation.

thompsonx -> RE: Right vs tax subsidies (9/27/2013 12:41:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx There is no conversation, GotSteel. There wasn't ever going to be any, either. Are the definitions set down in the link provided acceptable to you as definitions of your position? Your continuation of this line is useless, thompson. Read the sentences you quoted from me and change "wasn't" to "isn't." So after all the sniviling about the enumerated powers you never had an intention of discussing them? Thank you for your candor. No sniveling. I am smart enough to know when I'm being baited into an interrogation. And, I will not choose to enter into that situation. You say you believe in A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution. I asked you to discuss that and you brought up the enumerated powers issue and refused to tell me what you felt were the enumerated powers. Steel posted a link to them and now you are unwilling to discuss them. If you are unwilling or unable to defend your beliefs then why post them?

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875