Do Teabaggers Suffer From The Dunning–Kruger Effect?

[MCP-001]

what flap?

Have you been living under a rock?

[MCP-001]

now that is just about the goofiest argument I have heard on that subject

The United Stated functioned quite well for about 150 years before the current imposition of the income tax.

So explain, how is this "goofy"?

actually, it is the exact opposite

Making banks give mortgages to people who could not afford them helped the banking industry?

This should be good. Explain this one as well? Don't forget to mention the efforts on the federal government part promoting securitization?

now that is one I agree with

Huzzah! Let's go to Cheli's and celebrate...

Godwin's law doesn't apply, no one or thing is being compared to Nazis. as to the supposition, that is unknowable

Any historian will tell you that if it wasn't for the Treaty of Versailles, Germany's economy wouldn't have been ruined after WWI leading the way for people like Hitler to come into power.

and they didn't after, either. don't know how great it would have been for the US to have the Kaiser running Europe and most of the middle-east

Everyone's favorite whipping boy, G.W.B. used a similar analogy when we went into Iraq.

Looking for boogey men around the world for us to fight is an inefficient use of our nation's resources. Would you rather we had American's take care of Americans? Or us start some fight every other week with some piss ant dictator in a country that most people haven't heard of [[or even cared)?

Even George Washington warned us about "entangling alliances" when he left office over 200 years ago.

Don't forget George Santayana's warning!

Everything you learned in History 101 is wrong [[Yes, I think there actually was a book in that series)

I'm not familiar with that particular title, but I'll take your word on that.

[rb336]

The United Stated functioned quite well for about 150 years before the current imposition of the income tax.

So explain, how is this "goofy"?

it is goofy because:
a) income tax is allowed constitutionally, and has been from the start
b) since a is true, how else can an income tax be instituted?

Making banks give mortgages to people who could not afford them helped the banking industry?

ah, still falling for that bit of long-disproven right-wing BS?

Don't forget to mention the efforts on the federal government part promoting securitization?

yes, after the secuities, banking and insurance industries pumped literally billions into the coffers of "our" reps [[in the name of free speach, of course)

Any historian will tell you that if it wasn't for the Treaty of Versailles, Germany's economy wouldn't have been ruined after WWI leading the way for people like Hitler to come into power.

any historian would say that they could NEVER predict with any level of certaintyan outcome if events didn't happen. anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

Don't forget George Santayana's warning!

That fashion is barbarous?
That private wealth deprives its owner of liberty?

[MCP-001]

it is goofy because:
a) income tax is allowed constitutionally, and has been from the start
b) since a is true, how else can an income tax be instituted?

Income taxes have been shot down repeatedly. During the Civil War is the most recent example that I can think of at the moment.

And if it has been "allowed" from the start, then why the "need" for the 16th Amendment?

ah, still falling for that bit of long-disproven right-wing BS?

You didn't answer my question. Claiming that something has been disproven isn't an answer.

How does making a bank provide a mortgage to someone who cannot afford one, helping a bank?

yes, after the secuities, banking and insurance industries pumped literally billions into the coffers of "our" reps [[in the name of free speach, of course)

No argument, there.

any historian would say that they could NEVER predict with any level of certaintyan outcome if events didn't happen. anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

So according to your statement, an ill-conceived "treaty" that imposed crushing economic sanctions on a nation that they knew would never be fully repaid without causing a near economic collapse, had no bearing on Hitler's rise to power.

Then why are we studying History, if we cannot learn anything or draw conclusions from it?

That fashion is barbarous?
That private wealth deprives its owner of liberty?

No, that other quote.

[ghettopalmetto]

Income taxes have been shot down repeatedly. During the Civil War is the most recent example that I can think of at the moment.

And if it has been "allowed" from the start, then why the "need" for the 16th Amendment?

In other words, you want our nation to return to the way it was in the early 19th Century. Maybe we can get in the mood by having the British invade, huh?

[oladub]

"If we took your literal interpretation, airplanes and computers would be illegal, since they're not mentioned in the Constitution."
"Airports, the FAA, ARPAnet--none of those things are in the Constitution. So I guess they're illegal, huh?"

Lump the 'airport' example in with your previous list of airplanes and computers. The Constitution never set about listing inventions. The Tenth Amendment constrains federal powers not technological advances. The development of the ARPAnet, which I understand to be the prototype internet, might well be covered by the promotion of science and useful arts clause found in Article 1, Section 8. The FAA is more difficult to address. I don't know how we would do without some of its funtions today based on how it was allowed to develop. Perhaps some of its administrative fuctions could be privatized. Otherwise, in support of the present FAA, interstate commerce can be regulated to a degree and Congress is tasked with providing 'postal roads'. Granted, planes hauling mail are not carts hauling mail down postal roads but neither airplanes nor carts were mentioned. The Air Force or some future space or computer force aren't mentioned either but we know the Army Air Corp was relabeled the Air Force. Which brings me to the obligation of Congress to provide for the national defense. It wouldn't have to be the FAA, but the FAA probably supports defense functions which would other wise have to be handled by some other agency.

Another possibility of limiting the breadth of the federal expansiveness of the FAA would be to allow states to do some of what the FAA is now doing. For instance, there are almost no federal driver, doctor, or lawyer licencing or recprical college agreements. Sometimes the states work these matters out among themselves. Sometimes, the federal government provides an umbrella. I am not advocating here but rather trying to address the one, of five, things you mentioned which has the greatest probable role for legitimate federal involvement.

[MCP-001]

In other words, you want our nation to return to the way it was in the early 19th Century. Maybe we can get in the mood by having the British invade, huh?

Considering that Europe is on the verge of a financial collapse, whatever...

[MCP-001]

Lump the 'airport' example in with your previous list of airplanes and computers. The Constitution never set about listing inventions. The Tenth Amendment constrains federal powers not technological advances. The development of the ARPAnet, which I understand to be the prototype internet, might well be covered by the promotion of science and useful arts clause found in Article 1, Section 8. The FAA is more difficult to address. I don't know how we would do without some of its funtions today based on how it was allowed to develop. Perhaps some of its administrative fuctions could be privatized. Otherwise, in support of the present FAA, interstate commerce can be regulated to a degree and Congress is tasked with providing 'postal roads'. Granted, planes hauling mail are not carts hauling mail down postal roads but neither airplanes nor carts were mentioned. The Air Force or some future space or computer force aren't mentioned either but we know the Army Air Corp was relabeled the Air Force. Which brings me to the obligation of Congress to provide for the national defense. It wouldn't have to be the FAA, but the FAA probably supports defense functions which would other wise have to be handled by some other agency.

Another possibility of limiting the breadth of the federal expansiveness of the FAA would be to allow states to do some of what the FAA is now doing. For instance, there are almost no federal driver, doctor, or lawyer licencing or recprical college agreements. Sometimes the states work these matters out among themselves. Sometimes, the federal government provides an umbrella. I am not advocating here but rather trying to address the one, of five, things you mentioned which has the greatest probable role for legitimate federal involvement.

From my reading on this issue, it should fall strictly upon the states [[including licensing), who can then work out among themselves how they want to coordinate things.

[rb336]

Income taxes have been shot down repeatedly. During the Civil War is the most recent example that I can think of at the moment.

And if it has been "allowed" from the start, then why the "need" for the 16th Amendment?

1st, they weren't "shot down" during the Civil war. they were in force until the Grant administration repealed them
2nd, the 16th amendment allows them to lay income taxes without apportionment

You didn't answer my question. Claiming that something has been disproven isn't an answer.

How does making a bank provide a mortgage to someone who cannot afford one, helping a bank?

it didn't happen. the idea that it happened is a flat-out falsehood. show me one bank that was forced to provide anyone a mortgage.

So according to your statement, an ill-conceived "treaty" that imposed crushing economic sanctions on a nation that they knew would never be fully repaid without causing a near economic collapse, had no bearing on Hitler's rise to power.

Then why are we studying History, if we cannot learn anything or draw conclusions from it?

that is not at all what I said. what i said was, you can't remove X from the historical equation, or change X in some way, and say that had you done so Y would never have happened. All you can say is things may have been different

No, that other quote.

which one? he was quite prolific