Romney versus Obama: Who's Closer to the Constitution?

[g5000]

Really?

Can you explain graduated income tax under that theory?

Easy peasy. Everyone who earns the same pay you do is taxed the same amount as you. The federal government cannot give you a higher tax rate for an irrational reason, such as you being left-handed or a vegetarian or black or gay, etc., etc., etc.

If you qualify for them, you get to take the same deductions as everyone else. You cannot be denied the mortgage interest rate deduction if you paid mortgage interest.



.

They can give me a higher tax rate based on my marital status though, can't they?

They can also give you a higher tax rate based on whether or not you pay interest on a home loan, too. As long as everyone has equal opportunity to own a home (versus equal access), that is not a discriminatory deduction.


If you are getting at the Fair Tax, I am actually warm to that idea. But even the Fair Tax acknowledges the regressive discrimination of everyone paying the same tax rate. It has a provision to provide rebates every month to offset the discriminatory nature of a flat tax.

But a Fair Tax is just as susceptible to manipulation and corruption as our current structure. However, it has the extra advantage of being a consumption tax rather than a tax on labor, which I like.

I would rather remove all deductions, loopholes, subsidies, whatever you want to call them, and go with lower, yet still progressive, tax margins.

If you simply disavow any deductions, it cannot be manipulated. No Congressman can sneak in a loophole in order to gain votes or campaign contributions.



.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Unless specific examples are shown and proven, it is an ipse dixit fallacy to claim either one is "closer to the Constitution".

.

The problem with that absurd argument is that the blog the OP quoted actually provides a specific example. That makes you wrong, doesn't it?

He provides an example which is an attempt to cover up the fact that both Obama and Romney believe the government (state or federal) can force you to buy a commercial product.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Obama is right. Which makes Romney right.

So they are equal in that respect.

The blogger then says there is a list "a mile long" of other examples, but provides none. If they are as weak as his mandate one, then he has nothing.



.

Nonetheless, he has given an example when you said he had none. My guess is that you could go through his blog and find other examples of things he has against Obama's position on the constitution, feel free to go through it and prove that he has none, or admit you were wrong.

 

[jillian]

2012 Presidential Race -

By Douglas V. Gibbs @ Political Pistachio: 2012 Presidential Race - Romney versus Obama: Who's Closer to the Constitution?

well, if political pistachio says so, it must be true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Easy peasy. Everyone who earns the same pay you do is taxed the same amount as you. The federal government cannot give you a higher tax rate for an irrational reason, such as you being left-handed or a vegetarian or black or gay, etc., etc., etc.

If you qualify for them, you get to take the same deductions as everyone else. You cannot be denied the mortgage interest rate deduction if you paid mortgage interest.



.

They can give me a higher tax rate based on my marital status though, can't they?

They can also give you a higher tax rate based on whether or not you pay interest on a home loan, too. As long as everyone has equal opportunity to own a home (versus equal access), that is not a discriminatory deduction.


If you are getting at the Fair Tax, I am actually warm to that idea. But even the Fair Tax acknowledges the regressive discrimination of everyone paying the same tax rate. It has a provision to provide rebates every month to offset the discriminatory nature of a flat tax.

But a Fair Tax is just as susceptible to manipulation and corruption as our current structure. However, it has the extra advantage of being a consumption tax rather than a tax on labor, which I like.

I would rather remove all deductions, loopholes, subsidies, whatever you want to call them, and go with lower, yet still progressive, tax margins.

If you simply disavow any deductions, it cannot be manipulated. No Congressman can sneak in a loophole in order to gain votes or campaign contributions.



.

Wrong again, but at least you are consistent in your obtuseness. There is no equal protection requirement for income taxes, even at state level, other than not trying to use taxes to unfairly burden non residents of the state. Your attempt to justify unequal taxation under the equal protection clause just makes you look stupid.

In other words, all the equal protection clause does is prohibit states from discriminating against people unless they apply that discrimination to everyone. that is why it is perfectly legal for a state to require you to go to school for 300 hours before you can cut hair, but lets you drive a car after a simple test. If this had to be rational, there would be a lot more schooling required before you can drive a car than cut hair.

 

[g5000]

They can give me a higher tax rate based on my marital status though, can't they?

They can also give you a higher tax rate based on whether or not you pay interest on a home loan, too. As long as everyone has equal opportunity to own a home (versus equal access), that is not a discriminatory deduction.


If you are getting at the Fair Tax, I am actually warm to that idea. But even the Fair Tax acknowledges the regressive discrimination of everyone paying the same tax rate. It has a provision to provide rebates every month to offset the discriminatory nature of a flat tax.

But a Fair Tax is just as susceptible to manipulation and corruption as our current structure. However, it has the extra advantage of being a consumption tax rather than a tax on labor, which I like.

I would rather remove all deductions, loopholes, subsidies, whatever you want to call them, and go with lower, yet still progressive, tax margins.

If you simply disavow any deductions, it cannot be manipulated. No Congressman can sneak in a loophole in order to gain votes or campaign contributions.



.

Wrong again, but at least you are consistent in your obtuseness. There is no equal protection requirement for income taxes, even at state level, other than not trying to use taxes to unfairly burden non residents of the state. Your attempt to justify unequal taxation under the equal protection clause just makes you look stupid.

In other words, all the equal protection clause does is prohibit states from discriminating against people unless they apply that discrimination to everyone. that is why it is perfectly legal for a state to require you to go to school for 300 hours before you can cut hair, but lets you drive a car after a simple test. If this had to be rational, there would be a lot more schooling required before you can drive a car than cut hair.

The bolded part is exactly what I have been saying!

.

 

[g5000]

The problem with that absurd argument is that the blog the OP quoted actually provides a specific example. That makes you wrong, doesn't it?

He provides an example which is an attempt to cover up the fact that both Obama and Romney believe the government (state or federal) can force you to buy a commercial product.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Obama is right. Which makes Romney right.

So they are equal in that respect.

The blogger then says there is a list "a mile long" of other examples, but provides none. If they are as weak as his mandate one, then he has nothing.



.

Nonetheless, he has given an example when you said he had none. My guess is that you could go through his blog and find other examples of things he has against Obama's position on the constitution, feel free to go through it and prove that he has none, or admit you were wrong.

If he had other examples of Obama's position on the constitution, he should have used them in his post about Obama not being closer to the Constitution than Romney, don't you think?

He made an ipse dixit assertion there was a "mile long" list of other examples. And your answer to that claim is that I should go fetch them for him? BWA-HA-HA!

He does not make an actual case for Obama or Romney being "closer to the Constitution".



.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They can also give you a higher tax rate based on whether or not you pay interest on a home loan, too. As long as everyone has equal opportunity to own a home (versus equal access), that is not a discriminatory deduction.


If you are getting at the Fair Tax, I am actually warm to that idea. But even the Fair Tax acknowledges the regressive discrimination of everyone paying the same tax rate. It has a provision to provide rebates every month to offset the discriminatory nature of a flat tax.

But a Fair Tax is just as susceptible to manipulation and corruption as our current structure. However, it has the extra advantage of being a consumption tax rather than a tax on labor, which I like.

I would rather remove all deductions, loopholes, subsidies, whatever you want to call them, and go with lower, yet still progressive, tax margins.

If you simply disavow any deductions, it cannot be manipulated. No Congressman can sneak in a loophole in order to gain votes or campaign contributions.



.

Wrong again, but at least you are consistent in your obtuseness. There is no equal protection requirement for income taxes, even at state level, other than not trying to use taxes to unfairly burden non residents of the state. Your attempt to justify unequal taxation under the equal protection clause just makes you look stupid.

In other words, all the equal protection clause does is prohibit states from discriminating against people unless they apply that discrimination to everyone. that is why it is perfectly legal for a state to require you to go to school for 300 hours before you can cut hair, but lets you drive a car after a simple test. If this had to be rational, there would be a lot more schooling required before you can drive a car than cut hair.

The bolded part is exactly what I have been saying!

.

Umm, no it isn't, you said "f the federal government creates a law, everyone must be equally protected by it." That isn't even close to what I said, because I specifically said it applies to the states, and that tax laws are not covered by the equal protection clause. Tax laws can discriminate based on all sorts of things, including income, marital status, where you live, and ethnicity.

You are wrong, just admit it and go on.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He provides an example which is an attempt to cover up the fact that both Obama and Romney believe the government (state or federal) can force you to buy a commercial product.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Obama is right. Which makes Romney right.

So they are equal in that respect.

The blogger then says there is a list "a mile long" of other examples, but provides none. If they are as weak as his mandate one, then he has nothing.



.

Nonetheless, he has given an example when you said he had none. My guess is that you could go through his blog and find other examples of things he has against Obama's position on the constitution, feel free to go through it and prove that he has none, or admit you were wrong.

If he had other examples of Obama's position on the constitution, he should have used them in his post about Obama not being closer to the Constitution than Romney, don't you think?

He made an ipse dixit assertion there was a "mile long" list of other examples. And your answer to that claim is that I should go fetch them for him? BWA-HA-HA!

He does not make an actual case for Obama or Romney being "closer to the Constitution".



.

Why? Is he supposed to assume that some idiot is going to come along and challenge him based on a single post to his blog? Doesn't it make more sense for him to assume that his blog has 10 regular readers that understand his various position on the way Obama interprets the constitution?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The United States Constitution is the basis of my political stance on the issues. Therefore, when trying to decide who to vote for, the first piece of criteria for me is simply: Which candidate's platform is closest to that document?

The criterion should be: which candidate's platform is closest to current Constitutional case law limiting government authority and protecting individual liberty, and that would clearly be the president; particularly with regard to privacy, due process, and equal protection rights – all three of which (and more) Romney and republicans are hostile to.

 

[rdean]

2012 Presidential Race -

By Douglas V. Gibbs @ Political Pistachio: 2012 Presidential Race - Romney versus Obama: Who's Closer to the Constitution?

The United States Constitution is the basis of my political stance on the issues. Therefore, when trying to decide who to vote for, the first piece of criteria for me is simply: Which candidate's platform is closest to that document? I understand that none of the candidates are going to come as close as I do when it comes to understanding the Constitution. Perfection is not possible.

That said, when it comes to determining who to vote for in regards to the United States Presidency, the decision is actually quite easy.

A couple years ago I was waiting at a tire shop for my car and struck a conversation with a gentleman that was waiting with me. The political discussion was about the coming mid-term election, and during the conversation I pulled out a couple of Pocket Constitutions and began going over a couple things with my lobby-mate.

Nearby, a woman listened intently to our conversation. She remained quiet during most of the way through the discussion until finally she could not wait anymore. "Excuse me," she said.

I acknowledged her with eye contact, and she said, "Since you are a Constitution guy, then you must be very excited that President Obama is a Constitutional Scholar."

"Ma'am," I responded, "I don't think he is a Constitutional Scholar."

"Sure he is," she said. "He taught classes on the Constitution, and everything."

"A squirrel can call itself a rabbit all it wants, but that doesn't make it a rabbit."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary




Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits posting of pieces in their entirety.

~Oddball

Honest. I try to read through some of your posts but they are so ignorant and laughable. Even skipping to the end doesn't help.

 

[Oddball]

Honest. I try to read through some of your posts but they are so ignorant and laughable. Even skipping to the end doesn't help.

Oh



The



IRONY!

 

[Ravi]

Nonetheless, he has given an example when you said he had none. My guess is that you could go through his blog and find other examples of things he has against Obama's position on the constitution, feel free to go through it and prove that he has none, or admit you were wrong.

If he had other examples of Obama's position on the constitution, he should have used them in his post about Obama not being closer to the Constitution than Romney, don't you think?

He made an ipse dixit assertion there was a "mile long" list of other examples. And your answer to that claim is that I should go fetch them for him? BWA-HA-HA!

He does not make an actual case for Obama or Romney being "closer to the Constitution".



.

Why? Is he supposed to assume that some idiot is going to come along and challenge him based on a single post to his blog? Doesn't it make more sense for him to assume that his blog has 10 regular readers that understand his various position on the way Obama interprets the constitution?

There's as mile long list of reason as to why you hate the constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If he had other examples of Obama's position on the constitution, he should have used them in his post about Obama not being closer to the Constitution than Romney, don't you think?

He made an ipse dixit assertion there was a "mile long" list of other examples. And your answer to that claim is that I should go fetch them for him? BWA-HA-HA!

He does not make an actual case for Obama or Romney being "closer to the Constitution".



.

Why? Is he supposed to assume that some idiot is going to come along and challenge him based on a single post to his blog? Doesn't it make more sense for him to assume that his blog has 10 regular readers that understand his various position on the way Obama interprets the constitution?

There's as mile long list of reason as to why you hate the constitution.

And you have it written on your ass.

 

[Oldguy]

2012 Presidential Race -

By Douglas V. Gibbs @ Political Pistachio: 2012 Presidential Race - Romney versus Obama: Who's Closer to the Constitution?

The United States Constitution is the basis of my political stance on the issues. Therefore, when trying to decide who to vote for, the first piece of criteria for me is simply: Which candidate's platform is closest to that document? I understand that none of the candidates are going to come as close as I do when it comes to understanding the Constitution. Perfection is not possible.

That said, when it comes to determining who to vote for in regards to the United States Presidency, the decision is actually quite easy.

A couple years ago I was waiting at a tire shop for my car and struck a conversation with a gentleman that was waiting with me. The political discussion was about the coming mid-term election, and during the conversation I pulled out a couple of Pocket Constitutions and began going over a couple things with my lobby-mate.

Nearby, a woman listened intently to our conversation. She remained quiet during most of the way through the discussion until finally she could not wait anymore. "Excuse me," she said.

I acknowledged her with eye contact, and she said, "Since you are a Constitution guy, then you must be very excited that President Obama is a Constitutional Scholar."

"Ma'am," I responded, "I don't think he is a Constitutional Scholar."

"Sure he is," she said. "He taught classes on the Constitution, and everything."

"A squirrel can call itself a rabbit all it wants, but that doesn't make it a rabbit."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary




Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits posting of pieces in their entirety.

~Oddball

That's nearly as funny as when I found out that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was teaching Constitutional law at Texas Tech! Constitutional law! And this from the guy who never met an Article or an Amendment he couldn't find a way around.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

2012 Presidential Race -

By Douglas V. Gibbs @ Political Pistachio: 2012 Presidential Race - Romney versus Obama: Who's Closer to the Constitution?

The United States Constitution is the basis of my political stance on the issues. Therefore, when trying to decide who to vote for, the first piece of criteria for me is simply: Which candidate's platform is closest to that document? I understand that none of the candidates are going to come as close as I do when it comes to understanding the Constitution. Perfection is not possible.

That said, when it comes to determining who to vote for in regards to the United States Presidency, the decision is actually quite easy.

A couple years ago I was waiting at a tire shop for my car and struck a conversation with a gentleman that was waiting with me. The political discussion was about the coming mid-term election, and during the conversation I pulled out a couple of Pocket Constitutions and began going over a couple things with my lobby-mate.

Nearby, a woman listened intently to our conversation. She remained quiet during most of the way through the discussion until finally she could not wait anymore. "Excuse me," she said.

I acknowledged her with eye contact, and she said, "Since you are a Constitution guy, then you must be very excited that President Obama is a Constitutional Scholar."

"Ma'am," I responded, "I don't think he is a Constitutional Scholar."

"Sure he is," she said. "He taught classes on the Constitution, and everything."

"A squirrel can call itself a rabbit all it wants, but that doesn't make it a rabbit."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary




Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits posting of pieces in their entirety.

~Oddball

How many people in your circle jerk off to this kind of sophomoric shit?

you have no clue how pathetically silly you look when you post this kind of crap.

stop sharing unfunny emails and you might actually get your life back.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If he had other examples of Obama's position on the constitution, he should have used them in his post about Obama not being closer to the Constitution than Romney, don't you think?

He made an ipse dixit assertion there was a "mile long" list of other examples. And your answer to that claim is that I should go fetch them for him? BWA-HA-HA!

He does not make an actual case for Obama or Romney being "closer to the Constitution".



.

Why? Is he supposed to assume that some idiot is going to come along and challenge him based on a single post to his blog? Doesn't it make more sense for him to assume that his blog has 10 regular readers that understand his various position on the way Obama interprets the constitution?

There's as mile long list of reason as to why you hate the constitution.

Starting with States Rights

 

[copsnrobbers]

Why? Is he supposed to assume that some idiot is going to come along and challenge him based on a single post to his blog? Doesn't it make more sense for him to assume that his blog has 10 regular readers that understand his various position on the way Obama interprets the constitution?

There's as mile long list of reason as to why you hate the constitution.

Starting with States Rights

Romney is a believer in states rights. Obama not so much.