Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
President does not need the help of Republicinas to guide him downhill. He has done himself in, with no help at all needed. He just does not get it, Mr. President, you promised us nothing but false HOPE? Change, what change, people are now scraped to find any lose change.
I respond just fine, YOU said my post was irrational and stated why. I simply noted that the post you were referring to was a QUESTION to someone else concerning information they were posting.
I am not dodging to ducking anything, again, just noting if you want to dissect the post of substance I made, you should address it, and not a simple question that was asked.
In other words, you agree with my statement. Yes, most working-class and middle-class Americans rightfully think more of the burden should now be placed on those who have reaped most of the benefits of the American spending binge of the past 30 years.
I'm actually an attorney, and a constitutional law expert. The Commerce Clause as written in the Constitution is vague; where its complications exist is in the numerous Supreme Court opinions interpreting it over the years.
Laypeople make the common mistake of reading the Constitution in plain terms (usually for the first time) and implying that the government should be run, verbatim, as the Constitution specifies. This is simply not the case, nor has it been the case for about 200 years.
Nope, that isn't what i said, what I said was the poll you referred to pointed to that based on the poll.
What part of the commerce clause is vague. I understood it quite clearly, and the attorney I was discussing it with explained the finer points for me.
Fact or not (and I do not think it's a fact) he said that to the public.
No one called him on it or questioned it.
Your post asked for a citation to that statement and I gave it to you.
Now you wriggle over it ?
You didn't think it was stated at all and I just showed you that our President said that in public and it's all over the internet FACT OR NOT.
I didn't wiggle over it, I pointed out that
1. it was done in April
2. When asked if increasing the tax should be for ALL income brackets, the support dropped.
No wiggle, yet again, where do YOU see wiggles, I was simply noting the facts of your cite.
The last time someone called the president a liar as he was speaking I thought the sky would fall.. Are you suggesting that people should correct him as he speaks.
Fringe kooks? Like the majority of the country that thinks revenue should be part of the debt plan?
Gang of Six promised to actually raise revenues through pro-growth tax reform. Obama choked on that point, and he went along with the fringe kooks. Only they would spend so much energy at this late date talking about "corporate jet owners." Gang of Six wasn't about corporate jet owners, it was about taking the garbage out of the tax code, widening the tax base, and lowering rates. Centrists know that is how you actually raise revenue. Fringe kooks believe you can pound what you need out of "corporate jet owners."
The recipient class outvotes the donor class, so that it is political suicide for the legislature to correct the problems. Zero deficit, no tax increase and cut spending may be political suicide. But to do otherwise is national suicide.
To avoid the inevitable collapse, the Federal government will have to scale back about 93% - dumping the debt - socialism - foreign military misadventures - and restricting itself to basic duties. Of course, if it does nothing and collapses, it will have succeeded in scaling back 100%.
What part of the commerce clause is vague. I understood it quite clearly, and the attorney I was discussing it with explained the finer points for me.
What part? The entire thing is vague, by itself. Here is the commerce clause in its entirety:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commerce Clause
[Congress shall have the power ]To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
You cannot possibly derive an answer to all of the millions of variable circumstances, events and laws that may affect commerce among the states, with foreign nations, etc., by and through merely that 1 sentence. The Supreme Court, for centuries, has interpreted it differently on an almost decade-by-decade basis.
It is anything but simple to try and deduce precisely what Congress can and cannot do from reading that phrase.
I respond just fine, YOU said my post was irrational and stated why. I simply noted that the post you were referring to was a QUESTION to someone else concerning information they were posting.
I am not dodging to ducking anything, again, just noting if you want to dissect the post of substance I made, you should address it, and not a simple question that was asked.
If you're not into dodging, why not go back and respond to the two questions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo
Gang of Six promised to actually raise revenues through pro-growth tax reform.
Like the one implemented since 2001, I take it? The kind that was supposed to have eliminated debt by 2011 with millions of jobs created following republican stimulus programs such as EGTRRA (2001) and again via JGTRRA (2003)?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
