Value Added Tax???

[apple0154]

Which article of the Constitution are you referring to? How does that authorize heath insurance, exactly?

(Excerpt) The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it would achieve..........

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (End)
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]Preamble to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg" class="image" title="Great Seal of the United States"><img alt="Great Seal of the United States" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/125px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/125px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png[/ame]

"the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the Constitution is meant to serve"

That is what one has to bear in mind. The purpose is to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty". Health is the first welfare priority. Who would exchange their health for something else?

When it comes to securing the blessings of liberty can one be free if they are ill? Can an ill person secure the blessings of liberty? Can they work and provide for their family?

The preamble was the the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning. Everything written in the Constitution is to be viewed from the standpoint of promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty.

(Excerpt) The Preamble serves solely as an introduction and does not assign powers to the federal government, nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. (End)

Neither the Founding Fathers nor anyone else could have possibly known exactly what would contribute to the citizen's welfare and ability to secure the blessings of liberty, thus, they couldn't itemize everything.

"the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning"

Everything must be read and understood in the light that what was written was geared towards the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty. That was and is the whole purpose of the Constitution. Anything that aids the citizen's welfare and their ability to secure the blessings of liberty can not be against the Constitution because the Constitution was written for that explicit purpose.

 

[Damocles]

A VAT wouldn't be necessary to pay for the health bill because the health bill raises its own taxes. Volker is talking about directly raising taxes to eliminate the deficit, and the VAT is apparently the way he wants to do that.

It's the SPENDING, Stupid.

 

[Bonestorm]

It's the SPENDING, Stupid.

On that note, here is an interesting chart comparing an Economist poll on the types of spending people want to cut with the percentage of the federal budget those categories of spending amount to:

The results show that not too many people want to cut spending on the expensive stuff as compared to the not too expensive stuff.

It's easy to talk about cutting spending but it's hard to actually cut anything.

 

[DamnYankee]

(Excerpt) The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it would achieve..........

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (End)
Preamble to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the Constitution is meant to serve"

That is what one has to bear in mind. The purpose is to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty". Health is the first welfare priority. Who would exchange their health for something else?

When it comes to securing the blessings of liberty can one be free if they are ill? Can an ill person secure the blessings of liberty? Can they work and provide for their family?

The preamble was the the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning. Everything written in the Constitution is to be viewed from the standpoint of promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty.

(Excerpt) The Preamble serves solely as an introduction and does not assign powers to the federal government, nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. (End)

Neither the Founding Fathers nor anyone else could have possibly known exactly what would contribute to the citizen's welfare and ability to secure the blessings of liberty, thus, they couldn't itemize everything.

"the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning"

Everything must be read and understood in the light that what was written was geared towards the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty. That was and is the whole purpose of the Constitution. Anything that aids the citizen's welfare and their ability to secure the blessings of liberty can not be against the Constitution because the Constitution was written for that explicit purpose.

Article I Section 8 goes into specifics on what "Welfare" is. I suggest you read it instead of Wiki.

 

[DamnYankee]

On that note, here is an interesting chart comparing an Economist poll on the types of spending people want to cut with the percentage of the federal budget those categories of spending amount to:

The results show that not too many people want to cut spending on the expensive stuff as compared to the not too expensive stuff.

It's easy to talk about cutting spending but it's hard to actually cut anything.

Polls are irrelevant. If the Feds eliminated all programs not specifically authorized by the Constitution then we'd solve the deficit issue rather quickly. In fact, since we're so deep into debt, it may be the only way to get out of it. Either that or discover a foot-thick vein of gold under Kansas.

 

[Damocles]

On that note, here is an interesting chart comparing an Economist poll on the types of spending people want to cut with the percentage of the federal budget those categories of spending amount to:

The results show that not too many people want to cut spending on the expensive stuff as compared to the not too expensive stuff.

It's easy to talk about cutting spending but it's hard to actually cut anything.

Regardless, there is no possible way to tax ourselves out of the current deficit levels. In just 10 short years, according to the incredibly optimistic CBO, we'll be 90% debt to GPA ratios. In order to "grow" out of that we'd have to grow 10% per year for 75 years running. Can anybody tell me if, during more modern times, we have ever had a string of even 3 years with double digit growth? How 'bout two in a row?

VAT isn't going to reduce the deficit, it will simply cripple business. In areas of France they've already begun removing this stupid tax that has hurt them rather than helped. VAT is simply another form of consumption tax that is extremely "non" progressive and hurts the people you are supposedly "helping".

The only way we can get this back into a sane level of debt and deficit is to cut the fricking spending. This means that somebody is going to have to go after the favorite spending of some constituents.

IMO, this is why (as I have said for the 10 years or more that we've known each other) I do NOT vote for ANYBODY who isn't for a Balanced Budget Amendment. I have zero patience for the stupid people who think that because it isn't popular it means it isn't something we should do.

1. I believe that the BBA is popular.
2. It most definitely is something we should do.

 

[Bonestorm]

Polls are irrelevant. If the Feds eliminated all programs not specifically authorized by the Constitution then we'd solve the deficit issue rather quickly. In fact, since we're so deep into debt, it may be the only way to get out of it. Either that or discover a foot-thick vein of gold under Kansas.

And if the Queen had a c@ck, she'd be king.

 

[Bonestorm]

Regardless, there is no possible way to tax ourselves out of the current deficit levels. In just 10 short years, according to the incredibly optimistic CBO, we'll be 90% debt to GPA ratios. In order to "grow" out of that we'd have to grow 10% per year for 75 years running. Can anybody tell me if, during more modern times, we have ever had a string of even 3 years with double digit growth? How 'bout two in a row?

VAT isn't going to reduce the deficit, it will simply cripple business. In areas of France they've already begun removing this stupid tax that has hurt them rather than helped. VAT is simply another form of consumption tax that is extremely "non" progressive and hurts the people you are supposedly "helping".

I'm not advocating for the VAT. In fact, I think it is a terrible idea. I was simply pointing out that from the perspective of a politician it is difficult to cut anything that will have a significant impact on the deficit. The obvious place to start is defense spending, but even modest reduction proposals are quickly attacked.

 

[Damocles]

And if the Queen had a c@ck, she'd be king.

So you are saying that he is correct, if we limited government to the powers granted to it by the constitution we'd immediately reduce the deficit? Because that is what it sounds like, as if the Queen indeed had a "cock" she'd be King.

 

[Damocles]

I'm not advocating for the VAT. In fact, I think it is a terrible idea. I was simply pointing out that from the perspective of a politician it is difficult to cut anything that will have a significant impact on the deficit. The obvious place to start is defense spending, but even modest reduction proposals are quickly attacked.

Which is why Eisenhower warned about the MIC.

 

[DamnYankee]

So you are saying that he is correct, if we limited government to the powers granted to it by the constitution we'd immediately reduce the deficit? Because that is what it sounds like, as if the Queen indeed had a "cock" she'd be King.

Looks like old Nigel forgot the liberal tenet and told the truth.

 

[Bonestorm]

So you are saying that he is correct, if we limited government to the powers granted to it by the constitution we'd immediately reduce the deficit? Because that is what it sounds like, as if the Queen indeed had a "cock" she'd be King.

If "ifs" were fifths we'd all be drunk.

 

[Damocles]

If "ifs" were fifths we'd all be drunk.

Again, that simply means that "Yes, you are right. If we actually did that we'd be flush with cash and could cut taxes."

Thank you for the support, but I don't think you mean what you are saying.

 

[DamnYankee]

Nigel knows The Southern Man is correct, he's simply loathe to admit it.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, that simply means that "Yes, you are right. If we actually did that we'd be flush with cash and could cut taxes."

Thank you for the support, but I don't think you mean what you are saying.

What I am saying is that if SM had his way and everything he thought was "not authorized by the Constitution" were done away we'd probably reduce the deficit. But none of that will ever happen.

Does that clarify things for you?

 

[apple0154]

Article I Section 8 goes into specifics on what "Welfare" is. I suggest you read it instead of Wiki.

To promote the Progress of Science
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Surely medical procedures and drugs are considered science.

 

[DamnYankee]

To promote the Progress of Science
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Surely medical procedures and drugs are considered science.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

This is obviously to justify patent and copyright laws, as well as offices to regulate them. How does it justify medical care?

 

[Damocles]

What I am saying is that if SM had his way and everything he thought was "not authorized by the Constitution" were done away we'd probably reduce the deficit. But none of that will ever happen.

Does that clarify things for you?

Ah, then a better saying would be, "If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets."

 

[DamnYankee]

What I am saying is that if SM had his way and everything he thought was "not authorized by the Constitution" were done away we'd probably reduce the deficit. But none of that will ever happen.

Does that clarify things for you?

Why not? We've had massive changes before. Either this, or bankruptcy. Which do you prefer?

 

[apple0154]

This is obviously to justify patent and copyright laws, as well as offices to regulate them. How does it justify medical care?

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"

"Useful" arts? Useful to whom? I would say useful to the general population considering the purpose of the Constitution was "to promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...."

General welfare. To ourselves and our posterity. While patent and copyright laws protected specific individuals the overarching purpose was to improve the general welfare and help secure the blessings of liberty for everyone and their children.