patrick wrote on November 13, 2009 08:34 AM: Rob:

You don't REALLY believe that the entire effect of building a road or a bridge or a power line, or retaining teachers happens in a single quarter do you?

You do understand that each of the above were provided for in the stimulus package right?

A road, or a bridge may not be good for long, but its a lot longer than a quarter, and the benefits cannot be measured except over the lifetime of those investments.

Investments in new energy sources, investments in green technology, investments in public education, are all part of the stimulus, and no single quarter will ever be able to measure the impact of these investments, I know you're not really saying what you wrote.

Whatever, "benefits" people discuss today in regards to the stimulus relate to how many jobs are saved or created; has nothing to do with the benefits of the programs themselves in the long term, which is just another reason why the government can, and must, do what private businesses can't; because they can wait for the benefits that will result.

Rob L. wrote on November 13, 2009 08:24 AM: patrick wrote: "You seem to be saying that because GDP rose 3.5% in a quarter, that this is the extent of what we can expect in return for our investment. Seriously? That's like arguing that an individual who invests money for their education and graduates from medical school has to evaluate the value they got from their education the first quarter after they start working; you know that's nuts right?"

The difference here is that a Medical degree is good for life and everyone including BO own economists acknowledge the effects of the stimulus will be completely gone by next quarter. Hence the discussion about yet another one. If you dont believe me, I sure I can find several citing even from sources you approve to attest to the short lived benefits of the stimulus.

SamT wrote on November 12, 2009 10:54 PM: @John F: You're confusing Malum in Se with Malum Prohibitum: fundamentally different.

Otherworldly, describes the belief that high taxation is neutral or benign. History proves otherwise.

patrick wrote on November 12, 2009 10:16 PM: winston:

"bad decision"?

Well tell me my oft-quoting founding father friend, exactly what did Madison, or Adams have to say about the government's inherent rights to "take" property?

And maybe you can point to me specifically which part of the 5th Amendment did the Kelo decision run counter to, and no fair trying to insert any language into the "clear" language of the Amendment otherwise I going to have to call you an "activist".

And, winston, it is so unlike you to cite what our government has done; i.e. criminalizing conduct, which NO WHERE in the Constitution is permitted.

I mean, you do know that when the Constitution was drafted that a fetus was NOT considered to be a "person" right? Furthermore, you are heard here constantly harping about how if a power is not expressly granted to the government that it doesn't exist right?

Well then, how could the government possibly be properly exercising a power to criminalize the killing of a "non-person"?

And, funny you cite the Declaration; can you do me a favor now and explain slavery?

Thanks!

winston smith wrote on November 12, 2009 10:00 PM: Ah, patrick, the bad Kelo decision was an example of the SCOTUS overstepping its bounds, which over 40 states reacted to by passing legislation neutering the decision. Roe was a similar bad decision.

If the unborn baby is not living, why, when pregnant women are murdered, does the perp historically get charged for 2 murders?

hmmmm...

No patrick, states cannot wield any legitimate power unless it has been from individual, God-given rights. The Declaration made that clear:

"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."

patrick wrote on November 12, 2009 09:18 PM: winston:

I don't know what that has to do with claiming that "progressives" have committed genocide; aren't you one of those personal responsibility types winston?

I mean, if you acknowledge that the rabid right wingers out there ARE committing their own little genocide (snicker) then aren't THEY responsible, or is it the "Jimmy did it first" argument again?

And by the way folks, you can't kill something that was never alive, and a fetus is not a life in being so...there you go.

Most reasonable people recognize that the state has a right which supersedes that of any individual, including the right to take property under various circumstances; winston you ole "Constitutionalist" you, you outta know that.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Now, winston correct me if I'm wrong here but didn't the "founding fathers" draft this pretty clearly? I mean, it don't seem to require any "interpretation" does it? The clause permits the government to "take" property for the "public use" so long as it does certain things right? I did get that right didn't I.

I mean, where are all the pity quotes about the takings clause from your heros? Nothing which applies to the Kelo case?

winston smith wrote on November 12, 2009 08:39 PM: John F: Most reasonable people recognized that the Kelo decision was wrong, and that in spite of the SCOTUS, corporate plunder was still plunder, no matter what legalese supposedly justifies it.

Back in 1973, the SCOTUS also rendered a similar decision, but unfortunately, most people just went along with it, because the ruling oligarchy said to.


patrick: I never said right wingers don't have abortions, I said the abortion movement was normalized by the left. Anybody that has watched the news since '73 recognizes that...

John F wrote on November 12, 2009 08:19 PM: I am not saying that high taxes are a good thing in and of themselves, and I have never said so. I am not calling for high taxes, nor have I ever done so. I am merely pointing out that those who say that high taxes necessarily stunt economic growth and depress employment are lying. Just as those - like the editors - who say that liberalism inevitably leads to genocide are lying.

It would be just as ridiculous to say that the experience of capitalism in the United States proves that capitalism inevitably leads to genocide and slavery.

Abortion is not murder in the same way that cracking an egg is not killing a chicken. Legally speaking, abortion can't possibly represent a malum in se as it is perfectly legal to have an abortion. Calling it so doesn't make it so.

SamT wrote on November 12, 2009 07:50 PM: @John F: What, in your opinion, makes high taxes worthwhile?

You're convinced high taxation is no impediment to prosperity, yet you haven't stated why expropriating the fruit of one's labor is salutary.

Historically and morally, abortion fits the definition of Malum in Se. "Legalized" killing is killing, regardless.

KGB wrote on November 12, 2009 07:40 PM: John F.

In the 1800's, legaly owning a human was still slavery. Its just a nice way of putting it. You say abortion, some say murder.

That being said. I think this world would be alot better off had many more abortions taken place.

Read All Comments