1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Who May Tax and Spend?

purple_persuader Wrote: Sep 12, 2012 4:17 PM
HUH?? That's in the preamble, there is no grant of power to "promote" the general welfare. Further, the General Welfare clause was/is a limiting clause on the taxing power, and it is for the States, meaning that no particular state was to be privileged above another. Even further, the general welfare is defined by the specific enumerated clauses. Not that it matters, as the US constitution was thrown out a long time ago.
IAdmit, I don't need to, I know what the powers granted under the USC were, this act contains none of them. Further, the taxing power was limited to the enumerated, which this act falls outside of.
Your logic fails. If I say basketball is still around, even though fundamentally it differs in so many ways from what Naismith invented, is it still what HE created? No. The USC was an agreement between certain parties, none of which could force another to remain in the agreement while violating it. Lincoln refused to acknowledge this, and since then the USC has been dead. Yes, it's that simple.
...statist, power loving tyrants. As long conservatives are more concerned with patriotism over justice and liberty, then oppression will be the order of the day. Myself, I'm just stockpiling and waiting for the SHTF, because things will be getting worse, and the economy will go down badly, and there will be rioting, and then martial law. After that???
So this is a surprise? Listen, first of all the US constitution has been dead since the days of Lincoln. Secondly, let's say the USC was still in effect ; if anyone who studied the USC had read Roberts previous opinions, that someone would have known Roberts was not someone to trust in upholding the USC. People, the justices are POLITICAL appointees, not enlightened beings who have through some mystical process to purify their souls. Thirdly, until (not that I believe it'll happen), until so-called conservatives actually bother to be concerned with liberty, and also actually bother to study the USC, then they will continue to support .
These are not analogous, and to prove how bad this argument is, we already have things such as liters and gallons, and hey it works.
Patently false, and showing your ignorance. In fact many countries have or have had competing currencies along with functioning economies. Europe (yes not a country, but proximity makes it the same) for a long time had competing currencies, there are Latin American countries now that allow for competing currencies. Your argument assumes haggling (assuming that to be bad), as opposed to people being familiar with the currencies. You are using almost every possible fallacy contrived to make your arguments, and they've all been dealt with. Should we all be forced to deal with monopolies in other markets? In the meantime we are taxed for using the current fiat money and you argue this is good? http://mises.org/journals/jls/4_1/4_1_7.pdf
As for this....Mr. Stossel may send me his US dollars if he does not like them. It's called the false dilemma fallacy. A reasoner who unfairly presents too few choices and then implies that a choice must be made among this short menu of choices commits the false dilemma fallacy, as does the person who accepts this faulty reasoning.
Here try reading this and learning... http://mises.org/daily/5953/Is-Inflation-about-General-Increases-in-Prices
Your'e showing your ignorance again, there is only one true inflation, and that is the increase of printed money. Yes, some silly economists will argue otherwise, but what brings prices up, all else being equal? Printing more money, meaning the dollar is weaker, and thus prices must rise and those not connected feel the effects.
1 - 10 Next