|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 29, 2014 1:11:26 GMT
Why are you so viscerally opposed to the concept of "publicly traded corporations"? How might it benefit you or me if Walmart, Kroger, et al. had never incorporated but had become "partnerships" or "obtained capital investment funding by borrowing instead"? I did not "intentionally" leave out anything. So let me phrase it as you would prefer: No American has a "right" to "survival and comfort" based upon anything he (or she) might do--including manual labor of the sort to which you have referred by the phrase, "the sweat of their brow." And I certainly do not believe that the US military budget should be cut. We can get into a discussion about sequestration here, if you wish; but it is my belief that neither the president nor Congress should have the authority to allow an outside agency to dictate spending priorities. (I would neither cut the budget nor increase taxes-- nor increase the national deficit--and would do whatever might be necessary to ensure all of the above.)
I am not opposed to corporations and have stated more than once that they do serve a viable purpose in an economy. That doesn't imply an economy can't exist without them, and I've pointed that out, but there are viable reasons for allowing corporations to exist.
What I oppose is the favoritism given the corporations and investors in our laws that place sole-propietorships and workers at a disadvantage. Favoritism by government, which is what we have by providing favorable tax treatment to corporations and investors, is the definition of crony capitalism.
Apparently you argue against the "Right of Property" as established by John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government but stopped addressing it in the thread I created. Your past comments seem to indicate that you embrace the "statutory ownership of property" even when the statutory laws violate the "right of property" of the person. As a Libertarian I support and embrace the Rights of the Person and oppose all laws and actions that violate them.
I believe we both oppose sequestration so it is not an issue. You oppose cuts to the military budget but all spending is authorized by Congress and approved by the president and it must all be funded with taxation (either today by collecting enough taxation today or in the future by future taxation if the funds are borrowed today). Then you state that you want to eliminate the means of collecting the taxation required to fund the authorized expenditures.
So how the hell are you going to fund the authorized expenditures of government if you eliminate the taxation required to fund those expenditures?
BTW We must also acknowledge that the Republican Party opposes collecting enough in tax revenues to fund the authorized expenditures of government today. Not a single Republican proposal in Congress would fund the currently authorized expenditures of government that have been authorized by the US Congress and signed into law by the President(s) of the United States.
Yes, I do, indeed, "embrace the 'statutory ownership of property'"; and that, notwithstanding anything you may glean from John Locke. Perhaps I was a bit unclear in my previous post. What I really should have said is that "I would neither cut the military budget-- nor increase taxes-- nor increase the national deficit--and would do whatever might be necessary to ensure all of the above." (Italics added; bold in original) The problem with your query--"So how the hell are you going to fund the authorized expenditures of government if you eliminate the means of collecting the taxation required to fund the authorized expenditures[?]"--is that it assumes, in its premise, that I must recognize those "authorized expenditures" as permanent fixtures on the American budgetary landscape. I do not. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 29, 2014 12:27:52 GMT
Yes, I do, indeed, "embrace the 'statutory ownership of property'"; and that, notwithstanding anything you may glean from John Locke. Perhaps I was a bit unclear in my previous post. What I really should have said is that "I would neither cut the military budget-- nor increase taxes-- nor increase the national deficit--and would do whatever might be necessary to ensure all of the above." (Italics added; bold in original) The problem with your query--"So how the hell are you going to fund the authorized expenditures of government if you eliminate the means of collecting the taxation required to fund the authorized expenditures[?]"--is that it assumes, in its premise, that I must recognize those "authorized expenditures" as permanent fixtures on the American budgetary landscape. I do not.
You "embrace the 'statutory ownership of property'" even when it "Violates the Right of Property of the Person" and that is where you and I disagree. I support the statutory ownership of property only when it doesn't violate the Right of Property of the Person. I oppose all statutory ownership of property based upon the violations of the Right of Property of the Person.
You didn't answer the question of how you would fund the authorized expenditures of Congress.
All authorized expenditures by Congress are equal. The money authorized by Congress to provide food under SNAP is just as important as buying bullets for the US Military once the authorization is granted. Both have to be funded and neither has a priority greater or less than the other. I can agree that the "authorized expenditures" can be changed over time but that doesn't change the necessity to fund them today and Republicans oppose funding the authorized expenditures TODAY. The Republican Party is the Party of Deficit Spending because it does not seek to fund TODAY's authorized expenditures and that creates the deficits.
Of note the way to reduce expenditures is by reducing the necessities for the expenditures. By analogy I was recently paying a higher mortgage interest rate on my home loan so I refinanced the loan to lower my monthly payment. I did not refuse to pay my mortgage while the payments were higher because of the interest rates but instead I lowered the interest rates. You would like to see the federal government spend less on welfare assistance that mitigates the effects of poverty. I'd like to see that happen too but I support reducing poverty to accomplish this (i.e. reducing the poverty that necessitates the spending) while you want to just cut the payments while to poverty is increasing. By analogy you are simply refusing to pay the mortgage because the interest rate (poverty) is so high while I seek to re-finance the loan to reduce the interest rate (poverty) thereby reducing the expenditure.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 29, 2014 22:22:47 GMT
Yes, I do, indeed, "embrace the 'statutory ownership of property'"; and that, notwithstanding anything you may glean from John Locke. Perhaps I was a bit unclear in my previous post. What I really should have said is that "I would neither cut the military budget-- nor increase taxes-- nor increase the national deficit--and would do whatever might be necessary to ensure all of the above." (Italics added; bold in original) The problem with your query--"So how the hell are you going to fund the authorized expenditures of government if you eliminate the means of collecting the taxation required to fund the authorized expenditures[?]"--is that it assumes, in its premise, that I must recognize those "authorized expenditures" as permanent fixtures on the American budgetary landscape. I do not.
You "embrace the 'statutory ownership of property'" even when it "Violates the Right of Property of the Person" and that is where you and I disagree. I support the statutory ownership of property only when it doesn't violate the Right of Property of the Person. I oppose all statutory ownership of property based upon the violations of the Right of Property of the Person.
You didn't answer the question of how you would fund the authorized expenditures of Congress.
All authorized expenditures by Congress are equal. The money authorized by Congress to provide food under SNAP is just as important as buying bullets for the US Military once the authorization is granted. Both have to be funded and neither has a priority greater or less than the other. I can agree that the "authorized expenditures" can be changed over time but that doesn't change the necessity to fund them today and Republicans oppose funding the authorized expenditures TODAY. The Republican Party is the Party of Deficit Spending because it does not seek to fund TODAY's authorized expenditures and that creates the deficits.
Of note the way to reduce expenditures is by reducing the necessities for the expenditures. By analogy I was recently paying a higher mortgage interest rate on my home loan so I refinanced the loan to lower my monthly payment. I did not refuse to pay my mortgage while the payments were higher because of the interest rates but instead I lowered the interest rates. You would like to see the federal government spend less on welfare assistance that mitigates the effects of poverty. I'd like to see that happen too but I support reducing poverty to accomplish this (i.e. reducing the poverty that necessitates the spending) while you want to just cut the payments while to poverty is increasing. By analogy you are simply refusing to pay the mortgage because the interest rate (poverty) is so high while I seek to re-finance the loan to reduce the interest rate (poverty) thereby reducing the expenditure.
You are legally obligated to pay your mortgage. The US is not, however, legally obligated to indulge in income-transfer payments. That entire concept is an outgrowth of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society. I certainly thought I had adequately answered your question concerning the funding of government expenditures. If it was not sufficient for you, I will try again: I believe Congress should immediately eliminate all automatic increases in any government benefits, and require separate votes as regarding each such increase. And I would drastically reduce income-transfer payments, which are rapidly becoming an enormous proportion of America's annual budget. There. Was I specific enough this time? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 30, 2014 10:04:18 GMT
You are legally obligated to pay your mortgage. The US is not, however, legally obligated to indulge in income-transfer payments. That entire concept is an outgrowth of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society. I certainly thought I had adequately answered your question concerning the funding of government expenditures. If it was not sufficient for you, I will try again: I believe Congress should immediately eliminate all automatic increases in any government benefits, and require separate votes as regarding each such increase. And I would drastically reduce income-transfer payments, which are rapidly becoming an enormous proportion of America's annual budget. There. Was I specific enough this time?
Actually the minimum wage laws establish a legal obligation for employers to pay their employees a minimum wage. When Congress passes a spending authorization it creates a legal obligation for the executive branch to spend that money. If you base your arguments upon "legal obligations" then you lose because the laws can, and often do, violate the Rights of the Person. The "law" determines "legality" and the law is not always just and you can't argue that it is. According to your arguments if the federal government raises the minimum wage to $20/hr you have no problem with that because it creates a legal obligation for employers to pay that wage.
It's real easy to eliminate all automatic increases in government benefits. All the government has to do is stop inflation because all of the automatic increases are based upon inflation. Government is responsible for the inflation but apparently you don't believe the government should be responsible for mitigating the effects of the inflation. Always remember that inflation is for the benefit of the banking and investment industries and it harms the individual by devaluing their labor stored in "dollars" over time. "Inflation" is a form of theft of property by the government that benefits the wealthy and harms the poor. The solution is to back the US dollar with gold as it is "money" that has an intrinsic value as a commodity.
I've long supported fully returning to the gold standard (and made proposals on how this can be accomplished) which would fundamentally stop inflation and end automatic increases in government provided benefits.
Of course "what we want" doesn't balance the US budget so what do you propose that would actually balance the US budget?
PS - Your proposal to stop COLA increases would violate the pension contracts for employees of the Federal government that are a "legal obligation" of the US government but I assume that you already know that and simply don't believe that "contract law" should be enforced.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 30, 2014 19:00:44 GMT
You are legally obligated to pay your mortgage. The US is not, however, legally obligated to indulge in income-transfer payments. That entire concept is an outgrowth of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society. I certainly thought I had adequately answered your question concerning the funding of government expenditures. If it was not sufficient for you, I will try again: I believe Congress should immediately eliminate all automatic increases in any government benefits, and require separate votes as regarding each such increase. And I would drastically reduce income-transfer payments, which are rapidly becoming an enormous proportion of America's annual budget. There. Was I specific enough this time?
Actually the minimum wage laws establish a legal obligation for employers to pay their employees a minimum wage. When Congress passes a spending authorization it creates a legal obligation for the executive branch to spend that money. If you base your arguments upon "legal obligations" then you lose because the laws can, and often do, violate the Rights of the Person. The "law" determines "legality" and the law is not always just and you can't argue that it is. According to your arguments if the federal government raises the minimum wage to $20/hr you have no problem with that because it creates a legal obligation for employers to pay that wage.
It's real easy to eliminate all automatic increases in government benefits. All the government has to do is stop inflation because all of the automatic increases are based upon inflation. Government is responsible for the inflation but apparently you don't believe the government should be responsible for mitigating the effects of the inflation. Always remember that inflation is for the benefit of the banking and investment industries and it harms the individual by devaluing their labor stored in "dollars" over time. "Inflation" is a form of theft of property by the government that benefits the wealthy and harms the poor. The solution is to back the US dollar with gold as it is "money" that has an intrinsic value as a commodity.
I've long supported fully returning to the gold standard (and made proposals on how this can be accomplished) which would fundamentally stop inflation and end automatic increases in government provided benefits.
Of course "what we want" doesn't balance the US budget so what do you propose that would actually balance the US budget?
PS - Your proposal to stop COLA increases would violate the pension contracts for employees of the Federal government that are a "legal obligation" of the US government but I assume that you already know that and simply don't believe that "contract law" should be enforced.
I do not automatically oppose all "COLA increases"; rather, I believe that every increase should be voted upon separately. And such increases, in any case, amount to a very small percentage of the total in autopliot increases in spending by the federal government. I think I have already made my proposal for balancing the budget: "I would drastically reduce income-transfer payments." (Bold in original) If the federal government were to increase the minimum wage to $20 an hour, I would, of course, have "a problem" with it. And a very serious one, at that. But it would still be a legal requirement. There is simply no way around that fact. I do agree, however, that inflation is "a form of theft"--how might any serious person deny that?--and I, too, would much prefer to see the US return to the gold standard. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 1, 2014 14:51:27 GMT
Actually the minimum wage laws establish a legal obligation for employers to pay their employees a minimum wage. When Congress passes a spending authorization it creates a legal obligation for the executive branch to spend that money. If you base your arguments upon "legal obligations" then you lose because the laws can, and often do, violate the Rights of the Person. The "law" determines "legality" and the law is not always just and you can't argue that it is. According to your arguments if the federal government raises the minimum wage to $20/hr you have no problem with that because it creates a legal obligation for employers to pay that wage.
It's real easy to eliminate all automatic increases in government benefits. All the government has to do is stop inflation because all of the automatic increases are based upon inflation. Government is responsible for the inflation but apparently you don't believe the government should be responsible for mitigating the effects of the inflation. Always remember that inflation is for the benefit of the banking and investment industries and it harms the individual by devaluing their labor stored in "dollars" over time. "Inflation" is a form of theft of property by the government that benefits the wealthy and harms the poor. The solution is to back the US dollar with gold as it is "money" that has an intrinsic value as a commodity.
I've long supported fully returning to the gold standard (and made proposals on how this can be accomplished) which would fundamentally stop inflation and end automatic increases in government provided benefits.
Of course "what we want" doesn't balance the US budget so what do you propose that would actually balance the US budget?
PS - Your proposal to stop COLA increases would violate the pension contracts for employees of the Federal government that are a "legal obligation" of the US government but I assume that you already know that and simply don't believe that "contract law" should be enforced.
I do not automatically oppose all "COLA increases"; rather, I believe that every increase should be voted upon separately. And such increases, in any case, amount to a very small percentage of the total in autopliot increases in spending by the federal government. I think I have already made my proposal for balancing the budget: "I would drastically reduce income-transfer payments." (Bold in original) If the federal government were to increase the minimum wage to $20 an hour, I would, of course, have "a problem" with it. And a very serious one, at that. But it would still be a legal requirement. There is simply no way around that fact. I do agree, however, that inflation is "a form of theft"--how might any serious person deny that?--and I, too, would much prefer to see the US return to the gold standard.
We both agree that inflation is theft and that COLA increases mitigate the effects of the theft. At the sametime you state that you want Congress to vote on COLA increases when you know for a fact that Congress would never approve the increases. We know that is a fact because the federal minimum wage has not been raised to account for inflation in years. By inaction the Congress condones the theft it is responsible for and by default you're approving of that theft from the American people. You know better but still advocate the theft because you know that Congress will reject annual COLA increases.
Under the law and the US Constitution we're still on the gold standard but the laws and the US Constitution are not being enforced by the US government.
There isn't really an "income transfer" under the income tax laws in the way you imply it. If the person is responsible for a 25% income tax then they only own 75% of their income to begin with. The other 25% belongs to the US government. Yes, the money is transferred from the enterprise to the US government but the money is never "owned" by the person as it always belonged to the government. It is a "fee being charged" for participating in the US economy. Of course the person has a "Right to live off of the land (so long as the don't violate anyone else's equal right to do that)" and not participate in the US economy at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 2, 2014 1:03:46 GMT
I do not automatically oppose all "COLA increases"; rather, I believe that every increase should be voted upon separately. And such increases, in any case, amount to a very small percentage of the total in autopliot increases in spending by the federal government. I think I have already made my proposal for balancing the budget: "I would drastically reduce income-transfer payments." (Bold in original) If the federal government were to increase the minimum wage to $20 an hour, I would, of course, have "a problem" with it. And a very serious one, at that. But it would still be a legal requirement. There is simply no way around that fact. I do agree, however, that inflation is "a form of theft"--how might any serious person deny that?--and I, too, would much prefer to see the US return to the gold standard.
We both agree that inflation is theft and that COLA increases mitigate the effects of the theft. At the sametime you state that you want Congress to vote on COLA increases when you know for a fact that Congress would never approve the increases. We know that is a fact because the federal minimum wage has not been raised to account for inflation in years. By inaction the Congress condones the theft it is responsible for and by default you're approving of that theft from the American people. You know better but still advocate the theft because you know that Congress will reject annual COLA increases.
Under the law and the US Constitution we're still on the gold standard but the laws and the US Constitution are not being enforced by the US government.
There isn't really an "income transfer" under the income tax laws in the way you imply it. If the person is responsible for a 25% income tax then they only own 75% of their income to begin with. The other 25% belongs to the US government. Yes, the money is transferred from the enterprise to the US government but the money is never "owned" by the person as it always belonged to the government. It is a "fee being charged" for participating in the US economy. Of course the person has a "Right to live off of the land (so long as the don't violate anyone else's equal right to do that)" and not participate in the US economy at all.
As far back as 1999, George Will made the following observation: This appears to be essentially your position also, unless one wishes to live as a sort of hermit. Actually, I do not "know for a fact" that Congress would not approve annual COLAs. But I would very much hope that it would not approve many of them, as I hold The Welfare State in very low regard. In any case, I certainly would not hold Congress responsible for inflation. The Fed, yes. But Congress, no. I heartily agree that it would be preferable to return our currency to the gold standard. But I am not sure that it is a constitutional issue. Where does the US Constitution require gold as the standard for our currency? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 2, 2014 12:19:17 GMT
We both agree that inflation is theft and that COLA increases mitigate the effects of the theft. At the sametime you state that you want Congress to vote on COLA increases when you know for a fact that Congress would never approve the increases. We know that is a fact because the federal minimum wage has not been raised to account for inflation in years. By inaction the Congress condones the theft it is responsible for and by default you're approving of that theft from the American people. You know better but still advocate the theft because you know that Congress will reject annual COLA increases.
Under the law and the US Constitution we're still on the gold standard but the laws and the US Constitution are not being enforced by the US government.
There isn't really an "income transfer" under the income tax laws in the way you imply it. If the person is responsible for a 25% income tax then they only own 75% of their income to begin with. The other 25% belongs to the US government. Yes, the money is transferred from the enterprise to the US government but the money is never "owned" by the person as it always belonged to the government. It is a "fee being charged" for participating in the US economy. Of course the person has a "Right to live off of the land (so long as the don't violate anyone else's equal right to do that)" and not participate in the US economy at all.
As far back as 1999, George Will made the following observation: This appears to be essentially your position also, unless one wishes to live as a sort of hermit. Actually, I do not "know for a fact" that Congress would not approve annual COLAs. But I would very much hope that it would not approve many of them, as I hold The Welfare State in very low regard. In any case, I certainly would not hold Congress responsible for inflation. The Fed, yes. But Congress, no. I heartily agree that it would be preferable to return our currency to the gold standard. But I am not sure that it is a constitutional issue. Where does the US Constitution require gold as the standard for our currency?
No, I do not hold the beliefs of many Democrats when it comes to the economy but I do realize that "corporations" exist because of government. All corporations are established based upon "state laws of incorporation" and it provides special treatment for them. We can also note that corporations operate (and many not-publically traded enterprises) across state lines making them a responsibility of Congress to address under the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution. As I've noted I don't oppose corporations but I do oppose crony capitalism which is evident when we look at the laws related to corporations and investors.
I also believe in the principle established in the Declaration of Independence that the primary purpose, and the very reason for government to exist, is to protect the Inalienable Rights of the Person from violation by other persons. As I've repeatedly noted the "statutory laws of ownership" often violate or allow the violations of the "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property" as expressed by John Locke and that concerns me because our government is not protecting our Inalienable Rights when it comes to Property in the United States.
In the Supreme Court case on Legal Tender (Juillard v Greenman) it established that only species coinage (gold and silver) is lawful "money" of the United States based upon Article I Section 8 Clause 4 and that legal tender notes are "promissory notes" based upon Constitutional authority to "borrow on the credit of the United States" established by Article I Section 8 Clause 1.
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=110&page=421
Title 12 › Chapter 3 › Subchapter XII › § 411 requires the redemption of Federal Reserve notes "on demand" in "lawful money" but this law is not being enforced.
"They (Federal Reserve notes) shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411
We can also note that in Juillard v Greenman the Supreme Court also ruled that allowing the federal government to use legal tender currency did not prevent the States from making all payments in gold and silver coinage (to meet the Constitutional requirements of Article I Section 10) but they States will not pay their debts in gold or silver coinage. A couple of years ago I had a check from the State of Washington and contacted the State Treasurer about presenting it for payment in American Gold or Silver Eagle coins and he told me that the State no longer complies with the requirements of the US Constitution based upon federal legal tender laws that allow the federal government and the public to use legal tender notes for the payment of debts.
Come on, you know for a fact that the Republican Party opposes any COLA increases and the only way it would happen is if Democrats had total control of Congress and the White House.
You've still not made any tax proposal that would fund the current authorized expeditures of Congress (except for expressing support for my tax proposal that would fully fund all authorized expenditures).
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 3, 2014 1:43:17 GMT
As far back as 1999, George Will made the following observation: This appears to be essentially your position also, unless one wishes to live as a sort of hermit. Actually, I do not "know for a fact" that Congress would not approve annual COLAs. But I would very much hope that it would not approve many of them, as I hold The Welfare State in very low regard. In any case, I certainly would not hold Congress responsible for inflation. The Fed, yes. But Congress, no. I heartily agree that it would be preferable to return our currency to the gold standard. But I am not sure that it is a constitutional issue. Where does the US Constitution require gold as the standard for our currency?
No, I do not hold the beliefs of many Democrats when it comes to the economy but I do realize that "corporations" exist because of government. All corporations are established based upon "state laws of incorporation" and it provides special treatment for them. We can also note that corporations operate (and many not-publically traded enterprises) across state lines making them a responsibility of Congress to address under the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution. As I've noted I don't oppose corporations but I do oppose crony capitalism which is evident when we look at the laws related to corporations and investors.
I also believe in the principle established in the Declaration of Independence that the primary purpose, and the very reason for government to exist, is to protect the Inalienable Rights of the Person from violation by other persons. As I've repeatedly noted the "statutory laws of ownership" often violate or allow the violations of the "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property" as expressed by John Locke and that concerns me because our government is not protecting our Inalienable Rights when it comes to Property in the United States.
In the Supreme Court case on Legal Tender (Juillard v Greenman) it established that only species coinage (gold and silver) is lawful "money" of the United States based upon Article I Section 8 Clause 4 and that legal tender notes are "promissory notes" based upon Constitutional authority to "borrow on the credit of the United States" established by Article I Section 8 Clause 1.
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=110&page=421
Title 12 › Chapter 3 › Subchapter XII › § 411 requires the redemption of Federal Reserve notes "on demand" in "lawful money" but this law is not being enforced.
"They (Federal Reserve notes) shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411
We can also note that in Juillard v Greenman the Supreme Court also ruled that allowing the federal government to use legal tender currency did not prevent the States from making all payments in gold and silver coinage (to meet the Constitutional requirements of Article I Section 10) but they States will not pay their debts in gold or silver coinage. A couple of years ago I had a check from the State of Washington and contacted the State Treasurer about presenting it for payment in American Gold or Silver Eagle coins and he told me that the State no longer complies with the requirements of the US Constitution based upon federal legal tender laws that allow the federal government and the public to use legal tender notes for the payment of debts.
Come on, you know for a fact that the Republican Party opposes any COLA increases and the only way it would happen is if Democrats had total control of Congress and the White House.
You've still not made any tax proposal that would fund the current authorized expeditures of Congress (except for expressing support for my tax proposal that would fully fund all authorized expenditures).
How, exactly, do statutory property laws "violate" Americans' natural rights? Be specific, please. I think you may be confusing a mere court case with what the US Constitution actually says. Nonetheless, I would not wish to argue this with you too rigorously, as I, too, would much prefer a return to the gold standard. As I have stated previously, I would much prefer it if Congress would not approve very many COLAs, as I strongly dislike the very concept of the welfare state. Nonetheless, I am not at all certain that this would be the ultimate outcome, if votes were required. (And those votes might go differently in election years than in other years--for fairly obvious reasons.) I really do not know how often I must address this same point. But I will try one more time: I would not wish to do anything to "fund the current authorized expenditures of Congress." Just in case that did not come through clearly enough, I shall repeat myself: I would not wish to do anything to "fund the current authorized expenditures of Congress."
I am hoping that I have been sufficiently clear on that point. I also would not wish to increase the national debt. And I would not want to increase taxes on any Americans. I would, however, be very much in favor of our making government lean again. Much as private businesses have become lean over the past couple of decades--downsizing in order to become more efficient--I would much prefer to see this model adopted by government, also. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 3, 2014 13:12:08 GMT
No, I do not hold the beliefs of many Democrats when it comes to the economy but I do realize that "corporations" exist because of government. All corporations are established based upon "state laws of incorporation" and it provides special treatment for them. We can also note that corporations operate (and many not-publically traded enterprises) across state lines making them a responsibility of Congress to address under the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution. As I've noted I don't oppose corporations but I do oppose crony capitalism which is evident when we look at the laws related to corporations and investors.
I also believe in the principle established in the Declaration of Independence that the primary purpose, and the very reason for government to exist, is to protect the Inalienable Rights of the Person from violation by other persons. As I've repeatedly noted the "statutory laws of ownership" often violate or allow the violations of the "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property" as expressed by John Locke and that concerns me because our government is not protecting our Inalienable Rights when it comes to Property in the United States.
In the Supreme Court case on Legal Tender (Juillard v Greenman) it established that only species coinage (gold and silver) is lawful "money" of the United States based upon Article I Section 8 Clause 4 and that legal tender notes are "promissory notes" based upon Constitutional authority to "borrow on the credit of the United States" established by Article I Section 8 Clause 1.
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=110&page=421
Title 12 › Chapter 3 › Subchapter XII › § 411 requires the redemption of Federal Reserve notes "on demand" in "lawful money" but this law is not being enforced.
"They (Federal Reserve notes) shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411
We can also note that in Juillard v Greenman the Supreme Court also ruled that allowing the federal government to use legal tender currency did not prevent the States from making all payments in gold and silver coinage (to meet the Constitutional requirements of Article I Section 10) but they States will not pay their debts in gold or silver coinage. A couple of years ago I had a check from the State of Washington and contacted the State Treasurer about presenting it for payment in American Gold or Silver Eagle coins and he told me that the State no longer complies with the requirements of the US Constitution based upon federal legal tender laws that allow the federal government and the public to use legal tender notes for the payment of debts.
Come on, you know for a fact that the Republican Party opposes any COLA increases and the only way it would happen is if Democrats had total control of Congress and the White House.
You've still not made any tax proposal that would fund the current authorized expeditures of Congress (except for expressing support for my tax proposal that would fully fund all authorized expenditures).
How, exactly, do statutory property laws "violate" Americans' natural rights? Be specific, please. I think you may be confusing a mere court case with what the US Constitution actually says. Nonetheless, I would not wish to argue this with you too rigorously, as I, too, would much prefer a return to the gold standard. As I have stated previously, I would much prefer it if Congress would not approve very many COLAs, as I strongly dislike the very concept of the welfare state. Nonetheless, I am not at all certain that this would be the ultimate outcome, if votes were required. (And those votes might go differently in election years than in other years--for fairly obvious reasons.) I really do not know how often I must address this same point. But I will try one more time: I would not wish to do anything to "fund the current authorized expenditures of Congress." Just in case that did not come through clearly enough, I shall repeat myself: I would not wish to do anything to "fund the current authorized expenditures of Congress."
I am hoping that I have been sufficiently clear on that point. I also would not wish to increase the national debt. And I would not want to increase taxes on any Americans. I would, however, be very much in favor of our making government lean again. Much as private businesses have become lean over the past couple of decades--downsizing in order to become more efficient--I would much prefer to see this model adopted by government, also.
John Locke, like it or not, is the authoritative source when it comes the the "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property" and if you don't accept that then it would be incumbent on you to provide another source and he put forward a couple of caveats related to the ownership of land or natural resources. First and foremost is that the Right of Personal Property related to land is that the "settler" could only acquire personal ownership of the land necessary for their survival (omitting some other critieria that is also imposed) but we don't have that. This can be proven by a simply mathmatical analysis.
1) We have Persons A and B and each are entitled to land (A)L and (B)L that are equal and both homesteaded their portion of land allowed by the Right of Property. At some point Person A decides to sell their land (A)L to Person B so now Person B owns (A)L and (B)L or twice as much land as they are entitled to based upon the Right of Property. Person A then goes out and homesteads another piece of land creating (A)L2 so instead of having two pieces of land based upon the Right of Property of two people now we have three pieces of property but only two of them are supported but the Right of Property of the two people.
2) Next there is the caveat dealing with land and natural resources that a person can only establish "ownership" if there is "enough, and as good as" left for all other people in society where they can also "claim" the land and/or natural resources. We know for a fact that today a person cannot simply go out and claim 40 acres to farm if they wanted to because there isn't "enough, and as good as" remaining for them to do so. Based upon "statutory ownership of land and natural resources" we exceeded the ability of the land and resources to leave "enough, and as good as" for all people in society. As noted in example #1 we've granted statutory ownership to more than what the individuals in society have a cummulative "right to own" based upon the Right of Property of the Person.
3) Under the Right of Property both the nomad and the settler have equal rights of property when it comes to the lands and the resources the land contains but we know that the nomadic people of America were forced from their lands and the land they required to live on was stolen from them. No Right of Property exists based upon theft.
Inflation is theft. COLA mitigates the effects of the theft but does not prevent it. If the cost of living based upon inflation increases by 10% but the Congress only authorizes a 2% COLA increase it is allowing theft that is unmitigated. If you don't support full COLA increases based upon inflation then you are condoning theft. There's no other way to put it.
If you don't support funding for the authorized expenditure of Congress then you support deficit spending.
Putting forward mutually exclusive propositions is not an argument agianst the deficit spending currently taking place. You want to hang your hat in Fantasy Land while you continue to support deficit spending with your propositions.
Either you fund the authorized expenditures and have a balanced budget or you don't and you don't fund the expenditures and you have deficits.
You oppose funding the authorized expenditures so you support deficit spending.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 3, 2014 23:48:33 GMT
How, exactly, do statutory property laws "violate" Americans' natural rights? Be specific, please. I think you may be confusing a mere court case with what the US Constitution actually says. Nonetheless, I would not wish to argue this with you too rigorously, as I, too, would much prefer a return to the gold standard. As I have stated previously, I would much prefer it if Congress would not approve very many COLAs, as I strongly dislike the very concept of the welfare state. Nonetheless, I am not at all certain that this would be the ultimate outcome, if votes were required. (And those votes might go differently in election years than in other years--for fairly obvious reasons.) I really do not know how often I must address this same point. But I will try one more time: I would not wish to do anything to "fund the current authorized expenditures of Congress." Just in case that did not come through clearly enough, I shall repeat myself: I would not wish to do anything to "fund the current authorized expenditures of Congress."
I am hoping that I have been sufficiently clear on that point. I also would not wish to increase the national debt. And I would not want to increase taxes on any Americans. I would, however, be very much in favor of our making government lean again. Much as private businesses have become lean over the past couple of decades--downsizing in order to become more efficient--I would much prefer to see this model adopted by government, also.
John Locke, like it or not, is the authoritative source when it comes the the "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property" and if you don't accept that then it would be incumbent on you to provide another source and he put forward a couple of caveats related to the ownership of land or natural resources. First and foremost is that the Right of Personal Property related to land is that the "settler" could only acquire personal ownership of the land necessary for their survival (omitting some other critieria that is also imposed) but we don't have that. This can be proven by a simply mathmatical analysis.
1) We have Persons A and B and each are entitled to land (A)L and (B)L that are equal and both homesteaded their portion of land allowed by the Right of Property. At some point Person A decides to sell their land (A)L to Person B so now Person B owns (A)L and (B)L or twice as much land as they are entitled to based upon the Right of Property. Person A then goes out and homesteads another piece of land creating (A)L2 so instead of having two pieces of land based upon the Right of Property of two people now we have three pieces of property but only two of them are supported but the Right of Property of the two people.
2) Next there is the caveat dealing with land and natural resources that a person can only establish "ownership" if there is "enough, and as good as" left for all other people in society where they can also "claim" the land and/or natural resources. We know for a fact that today a person cannot simply go out and claim 40 acres to farm if they wanted to because there isn't "enough, and as good as" remaining for them to do so. Based upon "statutory ownership of land and natural resources" we exceeded the ability of the land and resources to leave "enough, and as good as" for all people in society. As noted in example #1 we've granted statutory ownership to more than what the individuals in society have a cummulative "right to own" based upon the Right of Property of the Person.
3) Under the Right of Property both the nomad and the settler have equal rights of property when it comes to the lands and the resources the land contains but we know that the nomadic people of America were forced from their lands and the land they required to live on was stolen from them. No Right of Property exists based upon theft.
Inflation is theft. COLA mitigates the effects of the theft but does not prevent it. If the cost of living based upon inflation increases by 10% but the Congress only authorizes a 2% COLA increase it is allowing theft that is unmitigated. If you don't support full COLA increases based upon inflation then you are condoning theft. There's no other way to put it.
If you don't support funding for the authorized expenditure of Congress then you support deficit spending.
Putting forward mutually exclusive propositions is not an argument agianst the deficit spending currently taking place. You want to hang your hat in Fantasy Land while you continue to support deficit spending with your propositions.
Either you fund the authorized expenditures and have a balanced budget or you don't and you don't fund the expenditures and you have deficits.
You oppose funding the authorized expenditures so you support deficit spending.
Taking your last point first: No, I remain fiercely opposed to deficit spending. I not only desire --strongly!--a balanced budget; I want to begin the arduous task of our paying off the national debt, since interest on that debt amounts to a very large portion of our annual bedget; and it is simply money thrown away. (I do not believe in personal debt--I decline to pay even so much as a nickel in interest, for anything--and I have no higher regard for government debt.) I am not quite sure why you would consider John Locke " the authoritative source" on the matter of property rights. (Italics added) His views do, indeed, undergird our Declaration of Independence. But if his views on the matter of property rights had been considered unimpeachable, it seems rather odd that the Framers would not have ensconsed those views in the US Constitution. Your example regarding "Persons A and B" appears to lead nowhere. What is your point? I am guessing that your (rather vague) reference to "the nomadic people of America" is really a reference to American Indians (a.k.a. Native Americans). Is that correct? And why would I "support full COLA increases" for programs that I would prefer were abolished altogether? My opposition is not to COLAs per se. Rather, it is to those specific programs. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 4, 2014 13:35:45 GMT
John Locke, like it or not, is the authoritative source when it comes the the "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property" and if you don't accept that then it would be incumbent on you to provide another source and he put forward a couple of caveats related to the ownership of land or natural resources. First and foremost is that the Right of Personal Property related to land is that the "settler" could only acquire personal ownership of the land necessary for their survival (omitting some other critieria that is also imposed) but we don't have that. This can be proven by a simply mathmatical analysis.
1) We have Persons A and B and each are entitled to land (A)L and (B)L that are equal and both homesteaded their portion of land allowed by the Right of Property. At some point Person A decides to sell their land (A)L to Person B so now Person B owns (A)L and (B)L or twice as much land as they are entitled to based upon the Right of Property. Person A then goes out and homesteads another piece of land creating (A)L2 so instead of having two pieces of land based upon the Right of Property of two people now we have three pieces of property but only two of them are supported but the Right of Property of the two people.
2) Next there is the caveat dealing with land and natural resources that a person can only establish "ownership" if there is "enough, and as good as" left for all other people in society where they can also "claim" the land and/or natural resources. We know for a fact that today a person cannot simply go out and claim 40 acres to farm if they wanted to because there isn't "enough, and as good as" remaining for them to do so. Based upon "statutory ownership of land and natural resources" we exceeded the ability of the land and resources to leave "enough, and as good as" for all people in society. As noted in example #1 we've granted statutory ownership to more than what the individuals in society have a cummulative "right to own" based upon the Right of Property of the Person.
3) Under the Right of Property both the nomad and the settler have equal rights of property when it comes to the lands and the resources the land contains but we know that the nomadic people of America were forced from their lands and the land they required to live on was stolen from them. No Right of Property exists based upon theft.
Inflation is theft. COLA mitigates the effects of the theft but does not prevent it. If the cost of living based upon inflation increases by 10% but the Congress only authorizes a 2% COLA increase it is allowing theft that is unmitigated. If you don't support full COLA increases based upon inflation then you are condoning theft. There's no other way to put it.
If you don't support funding for the authorized expenditure of Congress then you support deficit spending.
Putting forward mutually exclusive propositions is not an argument agianst the deficit spending currently taking place. You want to hang your hat in Fantasy Land while you continue to support deficit spending with your propositions.
Either you fund the authorized expenditures and have a balanced budget or you don't and you don't fund the expenditures and you have deficits.
You oppose funding the authorized expenditures so you support deficit spending.
Taking your last point first: No, I remain fiercely opposed to deficit spending. I not only desire --strongly!--a balanced budget; I want to begin the arduous task of our paying off the national debt, since interest on that debt amounts to a very large portion of our annual bedget; and it is simply money thrown away. (I do not believe in personal debt--I decline to pay even so much as a nickel in interest, for anything--and I have no higher regard for government debt.) I am not quite sure why you would consider John Locke " the authoritative source" on the matter of property rights. (Italics added) His views do, indeed, undergird our Declaration of Independence. But if his views on the matter of property rights had been considered unimpeachable, it seems rather odd that the Framers would not have ensconsed those views in the US Constitution. Your example regarding "Persons A and B" appears to lead nowhere. What is your point? I am guessing that your (rather vague) reference to "the nomadic people of America" is really a reference to American Indians (a.k.a. Native Americans). Is that correct? And why would I "support full COLA increases" for programs that I would prefer were abolished altogether? My opposition is not to COLAs per se. Rather, it is to those specific programs.
Either you oppose deficit spending or you don't. The only way to not have deficits is to pay for the authorized expenditures regardless of whether you agree with them or not. The only way to pay for the expenditures is to collect enough in taxes to pay for them. You might oppose social welfare spending while I oppose the high level of military spending but as long as Congress authorized those expenditures they must be paid for either by collecting enough in taxes (i.e. no deficits) or by borrowing part of the money (i.e. deficit spending). So what do you support? Deficit spending or no deficit spending? If you oppose deficit spending you have to support collecting enough in taxation to PAY THE FRIGGIN' BILLS.
In 1776 (and later in the 1780's when the Constitution was ratified) there were, in the pure meaning of the words, "progressives" that embraced the ideology of the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" and "conservatives" that embraced the retention of the "divine right of kings" where it benefited them personally. The perfect example of the "conservatives" was the plantation/slave owner of the Southern States and this was based upon the "divine right of kings" and was certainly not supported by the "inalienable rights of the person" that the "progressives" argued for. The statutory laws of property were always based upon the ideology of the "divine right of kings" in the United States based upon "conservative" ideologies because it benefited those that owned property (and remember that only while male property owners were allowed to vote in early America).
The US Constitution was a compromise between the "divine right of kings" and the "inalienable rights of the person" as had it imposed the "inalienable rights of the person" there would be no United States today because the Southern slave owners would never have ratified it. That conflict between the "progressives" and "conservatives" continues to this day (remembering that I'm using those terms in the pure sense and not referring to either Democrats or Republicans). That's why I'd not want to be called a "conservative" because America was founded based upon "progressive" political ideologies that still need to be followed if we're ever to achieve the "American Dream" of a truly great country. I don't ever want to go back to the past or even stay were we are today based upon a "conservative" political ideology but instead I want to move forward, to progress, into the future based upon a "progressive" political ideology.
Yes, by nomadic people I was referring to the Native-Americans that had their lands stolen from them. Most of the land in the United States is owned under statutory laws based upon the theft of the land which violates the rights of the person from which the land was stolen.
The example of Person A and Person B was to reflect that "more than 100% of the pie based upon the inalienable right of property" was eventually being granted based upon statutory law. Under the proposition of the "natural right of property" a person could abandon the land they inhabited and relocate to another piece of land but they could not grant their piece of land to another person and then acquire another piece of land. That would represent "double-dipping" to use a slang term.
If you oppose the program then oppose the program but don't oppose a part of the program (COLA) that mitigates the effects of theft caused by inflation. To retain the program while opposing provisions that mitigate the effects of theft is to advocate the theft.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 4, 2014 22:06:47 GMT
Taking your last point first: No, I remain fiercely opposed to deficit spending. I not only desire --strongly!--a balanced budget; I want to begin the arduous task of our paying off the national debt, since interest on that debt amounts to a very large portion of our annual bedget; and it is simply money thrown away. (I do not believe in personal debt--I decline to pay even so much as a nickel in interest, for anything--and I have no higher regard for government debt.) I am not quite sure why you would consider John Locke " the authoritative source" on the matter of property rights. (Italics added) His views do, indeed, undergird our Declaration of Independence. But if his views on the matter of property rights had been considered unimpeachable, it seems rather odd that the Framers would not have ensconsed those views in the US Constitution. Your example regarding "Persons A and B" appears to lead nowhere. What is your point? I am guessing that your (rather vague) reference to "the nomadic people of America" is really a reference to American Indians (a.k.a. Native Americans). Is that correct? And why would I "support full COLA increases" for programs that I would prefer were abolished altogether? My opposition is not to COLAs per se. Rather, it is to those specific programs.
Either you oppose deficit spending or you don't. The only way to not have deficits is to pay for the authorized expenditures regardless of whether you agree with them or not. The only way to pay for the expenditures is to collect enough in taxes to pay for them. You might oppose social welfare spending while I oppose the high level of military spending but as long as Congress authorized those expenditures they must be paid for either by collecting enough in taxes (i.e. no deficits) or by borrowing part of the money (i.e. deficit spending). So what do you support? Deficit spending or no deficit spending? If you oppose deficit spending you have to support collecting enough in taxation to PAY THE FRIGGIN' BILLS.
In 1776 (and later in the 1780's when the Constitution was ratified) there were, in the pure meaning of the words, "progressives" that embraced the ideology of the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" and "conservatives" that embraced the retention of the "divine right of kings" where it benefited them personally. The perfect example of the "conservatives" was the plantation/slave owner of the Southern States and this was based upon the "divine right of kings" and was certainly not supported by the "inalienable rights of the person" that the "progressives" argued for. The statutory laws of property were always based upon the ideology of the "divine right of kings" in the United States based upon "conservative" ideologies because it benefited those that owned property (and remember that only while male property owners were allowed to vote in early America).
The US Constitution was a compromise between the "divine right of kings" and the "inalienable rights of the person" as had it imposed the "inalienable rights of the person" there would be no United States today because the Southern slave owners would never have ratified it. That conflict between the "progressives" and "conservatives" continues to this day (remembering that I'm using those terms in the pure sense and not referring to either Democrats or Republicans). That's why I'd not want to be called a "conservative" because America was founded based upon "progressive" political ideologies that still need to be followed if we're ever to achieve the "American Dream" of a truly great country. I don't ever want to go back to the past or even stay were we are today based upon a "conservative" political ideology but instead I want to move forward, to progress, into the future based upon a "progressive" political ideology.
Yes, by nomadic people I was referring to the Native-Americans that had their lands stolen from them. Most of the land in the United States is owned under statutory laws based upon the theft of the land which violates the rights of the person from which the land was stolen.
The example of Person A and Person B was to reflect that "more than 100% of the pie based upon the inalienable right of property" was eventually being granted based upon statutory law. Under the proposition of the "natural right of property" a person could abandon the land they inhabited and relocate to another piece of land but they could not grant their piece of land to another person and then acquire another piece of land. That would represent "double-dipping" to use a slang term.
If you oppose the program then oppose the program but don't oppose a part of the program (COLA) that mitigates the effects of theft caused by inflation. To retain the program while opposing provisions that mitigate the effects of theft is to advocate the theft.
Congress retains "the power of the purse." So if it does not vote to fund a specific program, that program will simply become null and void. Which is often what I would prefer. So, your view is that the US Constitution is, well, relatively unimportant--except, of course, whenever you agree with it--since some of the Framers believed in the "divine right of kings" and (supposedly) infused that belief into the Constitution? Is that about right? Your apparent desire to re-litigate the US government's actions, vis-à-vis the American Indians in the nineteenth century, reminds me (rather wryly) of some people's desire to re-fight the Civil War. It is really quite humorous. Are you really saying that "more than 100%" of all American land has been granted to US citizens through statutory property rights? If so, can you prove this, please? I do not believe that I am "advocat[ing]...theft" by (1) opposing specific programs and (2) preferring to diminish their impact, as a part of American culture, by downsizing them (in constant dollars), even while they continue to exist. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 5, 2014 13:47:37 GMT
Either you oppose deficit spending or you don't. The only way to not have deficits is to pay for the authorized expenditures regardless of whether you agree with them or not. The only way to pay for the expenditures is to collect enough in taxes to pay for them. You might oppose social welfare spending while I oppose the high level of military spending but as long as Congress authorized those expenditures they must be paid for either by collecting enough in taxes (i.e. no deficits) or by borrowing part of the money (i.e. deficit spending). So what do you support? Deficit spending or no deficit spending? If you oppose deficit spending you have to support collecting enough in taxation to PAY THE FRIGGIN' BILLS.
In 1776 (and later in the 1780's when the Constitution was ratified) there were, in the pure meaning of the words, "progressives" that embraced the ideology of the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" and "conservatives" that embraced the retention of the "divine right of kings" where it benefited them personally. The perfect example of the "conservatives" was the plantation/slave owner of the Southern States and this was based upon the "divine right of kings" and was certainly not supported by the "inalienable rights of the person" that the "progressives" argued for. The statutory laws of property were always based upon the ideology of the "divine right of kings" in the United States based upon "conservative" ideologies because it benefited those that owned property (and remember that only while male property owners were allowed to vote in early America).
The US Constitution was a compromise between the "divine right of kings" and the "inalienable rights of the person" as had it imposed the "inalienable rights of the person" there would be no United States today because the Southern slave owners would never have ratified it. That conflict between the "progressives" and "conservatives" continues to this day (remembering that I'm using those terms in the pure sense and not referring to either Democrats or Republicans). That's why I'd not want to be called a "conservative" because America was founded based upon "progressive" political ideologies that still need to be followed if we're ever to achieve the "American Dream" of a truly great country. I don't ever want to go back to the past or even stay were we are today based upon a "conservative" political ideology but instead I want to move forward, to progress, into the future based upon a "progressive" political ideology.
Yes, by nomadic people I was referring to the Native-Americans that had their lands stolen from them. Most of the land in the United States is owned under statutory laws based upon the theft of the land which violates the rights of the person from which the land was stolen.
The example of Person A and Person B was to reflect that "more than 100% of the pie based upon the inalienable right of property" was eventually being granted based upon statutory law. Under the proposition of the "natural right of property" a person could abandon the land they inhabited and relocate to another piece of land but they could not grant their piece of land to another person and then acquire another piece of land. That would represent "double-dipping" to use a slang term.
If you oppose the program then oppose the program but don't oppose a part of the program (COLA) that mitigates the effects of theft caused by inflation. To retain the program while opposing provisions that mitigate the effects of theft is to advocate the theft.
Congress retains "the power of the purse." So if it does not vote to fund a specific program, that program will simply become null and void. Which is often what I would prefer. So, your view is that the US Constitution is, well, relatively unimportant--except, of course, whenever you agree with it--since some of the Framers believed in the "divine right of kings" and (supposedly) infused that belief into the Constitution? Is that about right? Your apparent desire to re-litigate the US government's actions, vis-à-vis the American Indians in the nineteenth century, reminds me (rather wryly) of some people's desire to re-fight the Civil War. It is really quite humorous. Are you really saying that "more than 100%" of all American land has been granted to US citizens through statutory property rights? If so, can you prove this, please? I do not believe that I am "advocat[ing]...theft" by (1) opposing specific programs and (2) preferring to diminish their impact, as a part of American culture, by downsizing them (in constant dollars), even while they continue to exist.
Everything the US government spends money on is authorized by a spending measure. Except for the US Army (where funding is limited to two years) there are no time limitations imposed upon spending authorizations. Social Security payments, along with the COLA's, are authorized spending measures. SNAP benefits are an authorized spending measure. None of these typically have an expiration date on the spending authorization. If the spending measure does have an expiration date then it is re-authorized by Congress.
Funding is not based upon specific taxation (with the exception of Social Security and Medicare that have collected more taxation than has been spent and have never contributed to the deficits or national debt). All general tax revenues go to fund the general expenditures of the government and "accounting practices" are politican nonsense used for partisan reasons. If 40% of all spending is funded by borrowing then 40% of every spending authorization is funded by borrowing. There are rare exceptions but they are rare exceptions and often we see the exceptions to be more problematic that the general rule. For example federal fuel taxes are supposed to be dedicated to federal highway programs but in 2007 the fuel taxes only provided 3/4ths of the funding for the spending authorizations. The tax wasn't enough to fund the authorized expenditures and should have been increased.
I believe in the "Social Contract" for the United States expressed in these words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
There were the "conservatives" that voiced agreement with this but they held the belief that it was only applicable to "white Protestant of Anglo-Saxon male property owners" in America. The US Constitution was a political compromise based upon what would unify the colonies, that were independent nations at the end of the American Revolution held together by treaty (Articles of Confederation), into a single nation under the Constitution. That is political history that all Americans should be aware of.
I do not hold the belief that the US Constitution is "unimportant" but instead that it is "unenforced" and there is a huge difference between the two. In my opinion the 9th Amendment is the most important Amendment of all and it is often unenforced. For example the 13th Amendment was unnecessary if the 9th Amendment was enforced because slavery could not exist if the unenumerated Right of Liberty of the Individual Person was enforced upon the adoption of the US Constitution. We would not have required an amendment for women's sufferage if the 9th Amendment had been enforced. We would allow the prohibitions agianst resident immigrants voting today if the 9th Amendment was enforced. We would not have immigration quotas today if the 9th Amendment was enforced.
I will clarify my position on the ownership of land based upon the dictionary definition of an Inalienable Right (that doesn't provide the criteria for an Inalienable "natural" right of the person).
"inalienable right
noun
a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred"
dictionary.reference.com/browse/inalienable+right
All of us have an equal "natural (inalienable) right of property" when it comes to the land (with caveats) as argued by John Locke but that right is not transferrable. We cannot sell our "right of property" to the land to another person because the Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property to the land is not transferrable. Inalienable Rights, such as the Right to own land, are not transferrable based upon the very definition of "inalienable rights" provided.
Every individual has a "natural (inalienable) Right" to freely own or have access to enough land to provide for their "survival and comfort" based upon John Locke's arguments and no one has a "natural (inalienable) Right" to more land than that. A person cannot purchase that additional "right to land" as the right is not transferrable.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 6, 2014 2:12:03 GMT
Congress retains "the power of the purse." So if it does not vote to fund a specific program, that program will simply become null and void. Which is often what I would prefer. So, your view is that the US Constitution is, well, relatively unimportant--except, of course, whenever you agree with it--since some of the Framers believed in the "divine right of kings" and (supposedly) infused that belief into the Constitution? Is that about right? Your apparent desire to re-litigate the US government's actions, vis-à-vis the American Indians in the nineteenth century, reminds me (rather wryly) of some people's desire to re-fight the Civil War. It is really quite humorous. Are you really saying that "more than 100%" of all American land has been granted to US citizens through statutory property rights? If so, can you prove this, please? I do not believe that I am "advocat[ing]...theft" by (1) opposing specific programs and (2) preferring to diminish their impact, as a part of American culture, by downsizing them (in constant dollars), even while they continue to exist.
Everything the US government spends money on is authorized by a spending measure. Except for the US Army (where funding is limited to two years) there are no time limitations imposed upon spending authorizations. Social Security payments, along with the COLA's, are authorized spending measures. SNAP benefits are an authorized spending measure. None of these typically have an expiration date on the spending authorization. If the spending measure does have an expiration date then it is re-authorized by Congress.
Funding is not based upon specific taxation (with the exception of Social Security and Medicare that have collected more taxation than has been spent and have never contributed to the deficits or national debt). All general tax revenues go to fund the general expenditures of the government and "accounting practices" are politican nonsense used for partisan reasons. If 40% of all spending is funded by borrowing then 40% of every spending authorization is funded by borrowing. There are rare exceptions but they are rare exceptions and often we see the exceptions to be more problematic that the general rule. For example federal fuel taxes are supposed to be dedicated to federal highway programs but in 2007 the fuel taxes only provided 3/4ths of the funding for the spending authorizations. The tax wasn't enough to fund the authorized expenditures and should have been increased.
I believe in the "Social Contract" for the United States expressed in these words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
There were the "conservatives" that voiced agreement with this but they held the belief that it was only applicable to "white Protestant of Anglo-Saxon male property owners" in America. The US Constitution was a political compromise based upon what would unify the colonies, that were independent nations at the end of the American Revolution held together by treaty (Articles of Confederation), into a single nation under the Constitution. That is political history that all Americans should be aware of.
I do not hold the belief that the US Constitution is "unimportant" but instead that it is "unenforced" and there is a huge difference between the two. In my opinion the 9th Amendment is the most important Amendment of all and it is often unenforced. For example the 13th Amendment was unnecessary if the 9th Amendment was enforced because slavery could not exist if the unenumerated Right of Liberty of the Individual Person was enforced upon the adoption of the US Constitution. We would not have required an amendment for women's sufferage if the 9th Amendment had been enforced. We would allow the prohibitions agianst resident immigrants voting today if the 9th Amendment was enforced. We would not have immigration quotas today if the 9th Amendment was enforced.
I will clarify my position on the ownership of land based upon the dictionary definition of an Inalienable Right (that doesn't provide the criteria for an Inalienable "natural" right of the person).
"inalienable right
noun
a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred"
dictionary.reference.com/browse/inalienable+right
All of us have an equal "natural (inalienable) right of property" when it comes to the land (with caveats) as argued by John Locke but that right is not transferrable. We cannot sell our "right of property" to the land to another person because the Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property to the land is not transferrable. Inalienable Rights, such as the Right to own land, are not transferrable based upon the very definition of "inalienable rights" provided.
Every individual has a "natural (inalienable) Right" to freely own or have access to enough land to provide for their "survival and comfort" based upon John Locke's arguments and no one has a "natural (inalienable) Right" to more land than that. A person cannot purchase that additional "right to land" as the right is not transferrable.
I am very much in favor of Congress' spending less money on social programs-- not running a deficit; not increasing taxes (of any variety); and not reducing military spending. Yes, there was indeed much "compromise" going on in the latter part of the 1780s. So what? Do you really believe that this "compromise" should effectively nullify the US Constitution? Why would you rail against those constitutional amendments that officially ended slavery and enforced women's suffrage, as if these were burning issues in 2014, requiring that we revisit them? I have no idea why you might imagine that the Ninth Amendment would abolish immigration quotas (if only it were properly enforced). And your assertion that "[w]e would allow the prohibitions against resident immigrants voting today if the 9th Amendment was enforced" seems almost contrary to your actual intent. Did you mean to say that we would not allow those prohibitions against voting by resident immigrants? |
|
