The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Powerful Paintings...

This is logical fallacy.

Let me help you understand with following hypothetical example - There is nothing in the Constitution allowing people to fly planes. This statement does not translates into "flying planes is unconstitutional".



Again, you are channeling Fox News. How about Sweden, Netherlands, Canada just to name few?




My point is that creation of any and all entitlement programs is perfectly constitutional and you cannot frame argument based on this.

Interesting, you criminalize my statements as something from Fox news and spew the same rhetorical BS from the otherside of the fence. To point specifically, the countries of Canada, Sweden and the Netherlands either have been forced to the brink of economic disaster by those policies, or have forgone other functions in the hope that countries such as the United States will step in when some ideological idiot attempts to hurt them.

The states you mention have the programs they do, as well as different from the United States, in terms of the share of income taxed to pay for social programs. Not military spending or roads or postal service, but such social spending as welfare, unemployment benefits, public pensions, public health care, and public schools. This explains why countries like Sweden tax and spend over half of gross domestic product (GDP), while countries like the United States tax and spend less than forty percent. In other words, big government means the welfare state.

A welfare state, alias a big-government democracy, is one in which government spending on those safety nets and human investments takes more than a fifth of GDP. The leading examples are the Nordic countries, Austria, and the Netherlands. By contrast, less than fifteen percent of GDP is devoted to government safety nets and human investments in the low-tax and low-spending countries, especially the United States, Japan, and Switzerland.

Your arguements are baseless Sin, and designed to incite both anger (yes, your arguement is designed to do this, based on repeated counter arguements that are as hypocritcal and biased as the ones you state I and others are using.)

They are also coming from what source? Simply your own perspectives makes them as baseless as anyone elses. You have neither evidence, nor contrary data which suggest your perspective is anything beyond liberal rhetoric itself.

Since the only body of the government who can enact laws, and by extention, enforce them, is the Legislative branch, your argument is mute, since the President does not have the power or authority to create or enforce any such nonsense.

Now, please return to whatever country you sprang from and enjoy life there, outside of these nasty debates in which your socialist agenda is so rightly ignored. Since your only point was to prove that the Constitution gave President Obama the power to enact entitlement programs, you actually have lost, as you put it, since we have shown he does not have the power to do this.

I thought I did a pretty good job of pointing out that those are not my words, rather they are words from the author's website.

Having said that, I don't disagree with those words. I also don't know to what your comments are supposed to refer.

Unlike President Obama, most of us here know that the Constitution is NOT "a charter of negative liberties." The Constitution very specifically is the ultimate charter of positive liberties since ALL rights not specifically attributed to the federal government belong to the people. Here's what that means. Any power not specifically enumerated to the government belongs to US.
The reason that this is flat out wrong is that it violates my rights for the government to take money from me and give to someone else. My money represents my time and my hard work. Taking my time and the fruits of my labor by force and giving it to someone else is tantamount to enslaving me for their benefit.

10th Amendment " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

Since the Constitution does not expressly grant the authority, that means it is illegal for the Federal govt to do. It would be legal on a state or local level.

Also, unless the amount doled out by a Federal entitlement program to each person is equal to or less than or equal to the money paid in - it is wealth redistribution. Q.E.D.

So following your argument, you oppose any kind of tax since it "take money from me". Do I understand you correctly? Or are you only oppose government taking money away from YOU? Or are you only oppose government taking money away from you to spend on things YOU don't approve of? Like abortion clinics or welfare programs?

Yes, government have every right to take away money from you in form of taxes. It is called Commerce clause and suggesting otherwise proves beyond any reasonable doubt your unfamiliarity with constitution.

let's take out the financial aid we give to those countries and see how they stand on their own. Oh wait, we don't even need to do that. Canada is $1trillion in debt- Population 35 million. Sweden is $850 billion in debt- 9.5 million population, The Netherlands $350 billion in debt - 16 million population. We are almost $15 TRILLION in debt, to begin to start up MORE social programs, or add more money to them is absolutely DUMB.

More bailouts and big spending ventures WON'T work and have been proven with the last TWO that they do not. I still have yet to find this well oiled Socialist machine that can stand on it's own without any aid from other countries.

Except for your reference to the commerce clause, you're right, they can tax me to pay for the common defense and operation of the government NOT to give to other citizens. Why is this so hard to understand?

I don't understand the reference to the commerce clause instead of the 16th amendment though.

I don't like to have my corn mix with my mashed potatoes.

You are about a century and a half late, this issue was settled shortly after civil war. Government can and does regulate it under commerce clause.

"Section 8. Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."



How do you expect to account for your share of road use, your share of policing, your share of research, your share of clean air, your share of military, and your share of complete lack of rioting and looting due to starvation? I have an idea - lets collect a share of everybody income so we can pool money together, we will call this collection a tax, and then you as a member of society benefit from all these 'general welfare' goodies without having to individually pay for them.

Lets drop pretenses and call things by their proper names, you simply don't like paying taxes. Following your illogic any tax on YOU is wealth redistribution, because they take YOUR MONEY away from YOU and YOU don't like it! You know who else doesn't like to pay taxes? Greeks. We know how that story goes.

More FUD, and yet another attempt to change the topic. We are now ALSO discussing foreign debt of multiple countries.

Lets look at Canada:

Canadian foregin debt

If you change scale to 10 years you will see it consistently going down even in absolute numbers.

Canadian GDP

If you adjust it to GDP, it going down even more rapidly.

Plus, nether of these countries receive US foreign aid


Are you tired of being wrong, because I am tired of correcting you.