Originally posted by EladarMy point is that you did not consider the option of increased income so you were presenting a false dichotomy.
Sure, increase income that would be great.
Do you base your spending on how much you think you will increase income? Or do you base spending on the increase after you get it?
More broadly, the notion that you can use a household budget as a realistic metaphor for the way an economy works is one that has very little merit. The analogy is false.
Originally posted by finneganI do consider increased income. I simply believe increased income should be realized before taken for granted.
My point is that you did not consider the option of increased income so you were presenting a false dichotomy.
More broadly, the notion that you can use a household budget as a realistic metaphor for the way an economy works is one that has very little merit. The analogy is false.
"What does the Constitution say the Federal Government can do?"
"People are coming out in droves to respond to a government out of control. Their anger is correct, but their solutions to the problems we face are often often off the target. The problem is not that the federal government subsidizes certain businesses, it is their "choice of businesses that is the problem." It is not the income tax, we are told, but who we tax and at what amount. Frankly, we have millions of Americans who are enraged at the current state of affairs, but most of them don't offer solutions per se, just a different and new list of problems.
In my view, the federal government should merely do what is explicitly stated in the US Constitution. Any more than that, it is breaking the law. With that, here are the seventeen enumerated powers to the Congress according to Article I, section 8 of the Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;"
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
"To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;"
"To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;"
"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;"
"To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;"
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;"
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
"To provide and maintain a Navy;"
"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"
"And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
As one can see, the list is very short and specific, except for that some what open ended last clause. The Founding Fathers were concerned how this would be interpreted, which led them to modify the Constitution with the Tenth Amendment, which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The debate about what the government can and cannot do is pretty simple and can be found in your US Constitution. Hold your elected officials accountable on what they can and cannot do." -Kevin Price
http://houstonbusinessdaily.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-does-constitution-say-federal.html
__________________________________________________________
Posted to this US Debt Ceiling thread to provide a point of reference for those debaters from other countries who may be unfamiliar with "the seventeen enumerated powers to the Congress according to Article I, section 8 of the Constitution..."
Originally posted by EladarA bond has a fixed duration.
Are you trying to argue that it is better to hang on to debt than to pay it off?
What a debt ceiling does is add uncertainty to investors about whether or not bonds will be paid back, thus increasing the yield on US government bonds. So the debt ceiling does not provide a mechanism to restrict spending and indeed increases it by increasing the amount the US spends on servicing its debt.
Originally posted by finneganI don't think an analogy can be true or false. It can only be useful or not useful, accurate or not accurate etc. One should never assume that an analogy is completely accurate, and in general analogies do not prove something, but rather help you to explore possibilities.
The analogy is false.
For example, in this case, the analogy suggests debt is like sewage flooding through the house. So we should ask is government debt really that distasteful?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyTwo centuries of history to catch up on here.
[b]"What does the Constitution say the Federal Government can do?"
"People are coming out in droves to respond to a government out of control. Their anger is correct, but their solutions to the problems we face are often often off the target. The problem is not that the federal government subsidizes certain businesses, it is their "choice of busi ...[text shortened]... teen enumerated powers to the Congress according to Article I, section 8 of the Constitution..."[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe concept of a false analogy is not uniquely my own.
I don't think an analogy can be true or false. It can only be useful or not useful, accurate or not accurate etc. One should never assume that an analogy is completely accurate, and in general analogies do not prove something, but rather help you to explore possibilities.
For example, in this case, the analogy suggests debt is like sewage flooding through the house. So we should ask is government debt really that distasteful?
A false analogy is a faulty instance of the argument from analogy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy
Argument from analogy
The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis inferring that they also share some further property. The structure or form may be generalized like so:
P and Q are similar in respect to properties a, b, and c.
Object P has been observed to have further property x.
Therefore, Q probably has property x also.
False analogy
Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy:
The relevance of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion.
The amount and variety of the examples in the analogy.
The number of characteristics that the things being compared share.
An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the above respects.
The term "false analogy" comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who was one of the first individuals to engage in a detailed examination of analogical reasoning.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes, if you are going to go further into debt I say you have a point.
A bond has a fixed duration.
What a debt ceiling does is add uncertainty to investors about whether or not bonds will be paid back, thus increasing the yield on US government bonds. So the debt ceiling does not provide a mechanism to restrict spending and indeed increases it by increasing the amount the US spends on servicing its debt.
I think the discussion here isn't "what should we do since we are going to go further into debt anyhow". I think the discussion is about what is better further debt or simply spending less and paying off the debt with the money you are bringing in.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI suppose that's the problem that the leftists in here have, they reject free enterprise.
If in a free enterprise economy personal income results as compensation for work and federal and state tax revenues from consumer spending and income taxes, wouldn't escalating debt result from increased unemployment and overspending?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe federal government is an out of control beast. Anyone who enters it will be ostracized and ridiculed if they wish to curb it's never ending expansive powers. Ted Cruz comes to mind in this regard.
[b]"What does the Constitution say the Federal Government can do?"
"People are coming out in droves to respond to a government out of control. Their anger is correct, but their solutions to the problems we face are often often off the target. The problem is not that the federal government subsidizes certain businesses, it is their "choice of busi ...[text shortened]... teen enumerated powers to the Congress according to Article I, section 8 of the Constitution..."[/b]
There is no reform within the federal government. That is why supporting states amending the Constitution, under Article V, Is what needs to be done. The provision was put there by the Founding Fathers just in case the Federal government became too powerful and abusive, which it must certainly is now. States need to reclaim their rightful power as designed under the original Constitution.
Originally posted by EladarNo, they support centralized control. Leftists have no problem with rich fat cats like Michael Moore or George Soros, just so long as they support the status quo of a never ending expansion of a centralize government.
I suppose that's the problem that the leftists in here have, they reject free enterprise.
Originally posted by whodeyWouldn't the "status quo" be a government of constant size?
No, they support centralized control. Leftists have no problem with rich fat cats like Michael Moore or George Soros, just so long as they support the status quo of a never ending expansion of a centralize government.