At 9/10/12 01:17 AM, Pride wrote:
This article explains that the constitution requires direct taxes must be apportioned and explains the adaption of the 16th amendment. A quality which the affordable care act violates.
How does the Affordable Care Act violate the Constitution?
But it does have the power to levy taxes. This is why the Supreme Court ruled the Affordable Care Act constitutional.What is the purpose of the tax though? To raise revenue for the government or modify human behavior.
Modify human behavior. That tax acts as a penalty which coerces certain people to get health care.
This is a good thing. Besides, we don't need so many nuclear weapons.If you believe in the concept of nuclear superiority in International relations theory, then limiting our stockpile to put us at a disadvantage is not a great idea.
If you believe in the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, then it doesn't matter.
For example, a state with 100 nuclear weapons won't use those weapons against a state with 50 nuclear weapons because the attacked state can retaliate with devastating force.
By your logic, the U.S. would've found some excuse to destroy the Soviet Union years ago when we had more nuclear weapons.
Of course Iran wants and should desire nuclear weapons. Realism dictates that world politics is driven by competitive self-interest. The question is, as a citizen of the US do we want Iran to have Nuclear Weapons to level against us (as you suggested)?
Iran doesn't have the resources to deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. Even if it did, it wouldn't dare to do so, as the U.S. would annihilate them within seconds. Iran knows that.
Obama disagrees and believes in the danger of this happening (though as I said, he is ineffective).
Who cares if he disagrees?
He did not support England in the dispute over the Falkland Isles (it may seem trivial, but insuring England's interests help), he has paid little attention to helping Israel (just look at the neglect and division in the DNC over the recognition of Israel), and damaged our relationship with Canada (source).
President Obama's administration is neglecting our traditional allies,How?
Not like it matters much.
breaching security on private government matters,Source?
It was never proven that Obama was responsible. Let's not speculate on the matter.
Source. This should suffice.
Why should the maintenance of the hegemony of the U.S. be a priority to us?If you believe in American exceptional-ism and value the status we have held since the end of the Cold War, then yes.
I don't believe in it and I don't know what "values" you're talking about.
Actually, I'd prefer the dominance of the U.S. to be divided between it and several other nations. I've seen the results of American hegemony and I can't say I like most of them. If the U.S. didn't hold unparalleled dominance over global affairs, it would no longer act as a bully.
He mentions this constantly and devises that increased taxation is a strong part of the solution. Problem is the wealthy would have to pay a lot more to bring down our debt and it would hurt many businesses.
I thought you implied that Obama said that to balance the budget, we must tax the wealthy a little more. That would be wrong.
Do you believe that is what Obama wants?
And I noticed that you didn't respond to what I said regarding the fact that many, if not most, wealthy people don't pay the 35% income tax because they don't make that money through income but through investments or through other methods.Who knows? I would hope/think not, yet Obama's own father believed and wrote in thesis papers that citizens of the state could be taxed to the fullest extent as long as they are given some service (however menial).
In order to balance the budget they would have to apply an 88% tax rate to about roughly 9 million American households.They don't have to do that and they don't intend to do that.
So because Obama Sr. expresses a certain opinion, Obama Jr. probably advocates the same opinion.
Nice logic there.
I never said that he will balance the budget "only" by raising taxes on the wealthy,
As I stated earlier, Obama alludes to dramatically raising taxes in many of speeches.But you claimed that Obama wants to balance the budget only by raising taxes on the wealthy, which is a demonstrably false claim.
That's what you seemed to imply. I can quote you if you don't believe me.
I said that his idea of balancing the budget through placing more taxes on the wealthy is absurd
So you are saying that he will try to balance the budget entirely by taxing the wealthy more, then?
and I gave an example of how much he would have to impose to reduce the total budget significantly. I agree, raising taxes astronomically on the wealthy and corporations is insane.
A quote from the article you linked to me later in your post about Obama's supposed attempts to astronomically raise the taxes on the wealthy:
Obama wants to keep tax rates at their current levels for most Americans, but raise rates on income above $200,000 a year for individuals and $250,000 for couples. The top tax bracket would rise from 35% to 39.6%.
Do you read these sources before linking them to other people in arguments?
Source. Clearly shows the increase in the tax bracket.
Yeah, 39.6% will crush the wealthy, even though they can easily afford it and don't fully pay that tax anyway, but you seem to ignore that.
Obama's solution of printing more money to solve the U.S.'s debt downgrade could result in hyper-inflation.Sources?
That video was uploaded in 2009. The credit downgrade occurred in 2011.
It's as if you're not even trying to make sure your sources can be taken seriously.
The above source I gave already shows what has occurred during his time in office and is "quick fix" from the white house.
Are you asking why printing more money is a bad idea or where is the evidence that his administration has printed more money? You can find the first answer in a history book and the second online or in past news articles.I'm asking for a source that states that the increased production of physical currency is the White House's attempt to "solve" the U.S.'s debt downgrade.
And again, that video was uploaded in 2009, before the credit downgrade even occurred.
I don't know why people accept Mitt Romney's background in business is considered to be legitimate experience for a presidential candidate.Obama was a community organizer. I'm not sure if that is legitimate experience.....
Obama didn't seem to run on his experience as a community organizer, though.
So is everything about Obama's record.
and has produced record employment levels during his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts.That seems to be contentious.
It's far better experience in my eyes then Obama has. Does every community organizer have what it takes?
His work at Bain Capital also pays testament to his experience in the economic zone.So does this mean that every businessman in America would make a great president?
Probably not, but I don't recall Obama boasting that his experience in that occupation alone qualified him for the presidency.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, barely discusses his record as Governor of Massachusetts.
Even if I supported Romney, I'd be the first to admit that Obama will probably defeat him because of his poor public image, perceived connection to Bush, his status as the challenger, etc. etc.
The polls essentially show that they are nearly neck and neck,
The polls don't tell the whole story, though. Just look at what I said earlier. Mitt Romney has several significant disadvantages that he has yet to overcome.
I am incredulous to believe that Obama has soared above Romeny and has a strong lead.
We both have made our points, the debates will most likely bring certainty to whom will be our next commander-in-chief.