>> ^sometimes:

keyboard cat is dead. this is either a zombie cat, or an imposter.


Of course, it's not him. DUH!

Eat enough pistachios and you come back from the dead!
>> ^sometimes:

keyboard cat is dead. this is either a zombie cat, or an imposter.

keyboard cat is dead. this is either a zombie cat, or an imposter.

imposter video but pretty entertaining. no?

Imposter in what way, sir?

>> ^m00t:

SSRIs have some very adverse side effects in a non-trivial percentage of the population which typically include increased aggression and suicidal behavior. Frankly, SSRIs should be banned. They're often more harmful than good and there are alternate medicines that work as well or better with fewer side effects. For medications such as Zoloft the clinical trials were heavily manipulated where patients that committed suicide were removed from the results after the fact, even though the suicide rate for the control group was significantly lower.
Gun owners on SSRIs should have their guns taken from them until they are safely off the medications (after withdrawal symptoms have subsided) and then returned, no questions asked and no records.


Imposter!

>> ^quantumushroom:
Because providing for a common defense is written into the Constitution, while taking care of citizens' every need (and want) is not.

Quill42 already addressed this issue but I wanted to put an exclamation point on it:

welfare: Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being

There's a lot of shit the government is involved in that I don't think it has any business being involved in, and I don't know how I feel about all of the ideas floating around as part of healthcare reform, but the idea that the government shouldn't have any interest in the health of its citizens is pretty stupid.

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

Not only is promoting the general welfare (ie. health, happiness and good fortune) of the citizens a power granted to the congress in the Constitution, but it's in the same fucking sentence as the one that grants funding a common defense, that you like so much.

"Because providing for a common defense is written into the Constitution, while taking care of citizens' every need (and want) is not."

While you're certainly entitled to your opinions, you aren't free to revise the Constitution to leave out the portions that are inconvenient to your argument. Let's go to the text:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
...
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

So yes, "provide for the common defense" is written in the Constitution - but so is "promote the general welfare." Stepping away from your straw man argument about catering to "citizens' every need (and want)" and getting back to health care - I think it's clear that improving the health of the US falls well within the bounds established.

"...the huge, tyrannical government the South feared during Civil War days is now a dangerous reality."

You mean that huge, tyrannical government the South feared would regulate their slave trade? You don't see the irony in siding with the pro-slavery South in order to convince people to "defend liberty?"

"...there's a conservative pissed at 9 billion lost PER YEAR on Medicare fraud. "

Red herring issue - but hey, if you really want to go there let's do the comparison. On one hand, according to you, conservatives are pissed about 9 billion lost PER YEAR on Medicare fraud. On the other hand, you have liberals pisses about $605 billion and 4,276 troop deaths due to the fraudulent war in Iraq. Who do you think has the moral high ground?

Videos like this are just purely facinating. One would laugh at the arguements being heard by fellow Americans, if the issue itself was not so serious. The woman at 3:02 wanted goverment out of her life, yet, takes in federal money in the form of social security checks (can you say 'hypocrite'?). In addition, if this person REALLY wanted goverment out of her life, then she should move out of the USA. I think its a fairly even bet, that she wont do such a thing.

The video is chalked full moments like these, in which average citizens simply display a total lack of knowledge or wisdom.

Seriously, I am worried for my country. Not from the President. Our country got a good president, and its unfortunate those of conservative/republican persassion can not come to terms with reality. Rallies like this, are consititional gatherings at best, and quite scary at worst. The fringe really crave stuff like this.

The other observation on this video (and it may not be true), is the number of people who are not germanic-white decendants. There are no hispanics, or blacks, or even asians. They rail a president, not because of the issue, but due to his color. Like the color of his skin really makes a difference on how good one does the role at. Its the same arguement on whether someone is right or left handed. Red, black, brown, or blonde hair. Stubby short, or Oh-My-God-Your-Tall!

Finally, this issue can be taken up in congress. Yes, its well within constitutional rules. In fact, if you read Article 1, section 8:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8

"...provide from the common defense and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States." RIGHT THERE! A health nation is very much in our best interests. Healthy in our enviroment, religions, schools, drinking water, and yes, our bodies.

Okay, a founder-off then. Here's what Hamilton has to say:

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

Alexander Hamilton

In any case, the limits of "government" laid out in the Constitution weren't supposed to be a proclamation that no government shall intrude, merely that state governments were to be the sole arbiter of those matters.

To take Madison's side is not to say that no government shall mandate things like a universal health care program, it's to declare that the national government has to rely on state governments in order to do it if they want to.

To push states' rights in such a way is just silly, unless you seriously think we need to go back to some sort of highly Federated system where we're supposed to identify with our State more than the nation called the United States. Actually, we'd have to go back to thinking of the phrase "United States" as being plural -- call it these United States.

It also means you really have to declare that the Civil Rights Act should be repealed, since obviously that's a matter for the states to decide on...

>> ^blankfist:
Who's giving their own interpretation of the text?

I am. I don't have a problem with the Constitution being open to interpretation. I have a problem with people who put forward the idea that their interpretation is somehow privileged. I prefer to argue for or against laws passed by congress, or actions taken by the executive on their merits directly.

I certainly think domestic surveillance is a violation of my 4th amendment rights, but I'm not really against domestic surveillance because it's unconstitutional, I'm against it because it's immoral.

If you guys think guaranteed health care to people is some moral offense, go ahead and make the argument on those grounds.

If you think it shouldn't be considered at all on Constitutional grounds, because you read the document to mean something different from what the Supreme Court and most other people do, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're still limited to the same recourse as us. Fight a case to the Supreme Court after it passes, convince the legislature to see things your way, or convince the President to veto it before it passes. Or fight and win a revolution.

You don't get a special right to autocratically run the government because you think you have a special understanding of the Constitution.

They do get a bit deeper into the limited powers of government if you'd care to read a bit further down the page.
And, Amendment 10 reads "The governmental powers not listed in the Constitution for the national government are powers that the states, or the people of those states, can have."

Actually, the 10th Amendment text is:

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.

Which is nice, but irrelevant since the power for health care is granted to the Congress in Article I, Section 8:

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;

So, we're back to "general Welfare" again.

Oh, and did I mention that the Supreme Court's standing opinion on the meaning of "general Welfare" sides with me?

I know we've been over this before. But I'm still trying to help you. I keep showing up your nonsense argument for what it is:

Myth: Taxes are theft.

Fact: Taxes are payments for the public goods and services you consume.

Summary

Taxes are part of an agreement that voters make with government, a contract in which citizens agree to exchange their money for the government's goods and services. To consume these goods and services without paying for them is itself theft, and is rightly punished as breach of contract. Some may object that they have not agreed to the contract, but if so, then they must not consume the government's goods and services. Furthermore, contract by majority rule is better than by minority rule, one-person rule or anarchy (which results in kill-or-be-killed). Opponents of taxation under democracy are therefore challenged to find an improvement on democracy.


Argument

Many conservatives and libertarians make the following populist argument:

"If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will come to your house, arrest you, and seize your property."

The implication here is that you are being extorted to pay taxes, and this theft amounts to a violation of your rights. Although the events described are technically correct -- you should expect such a response from any crime you commit -- the implication that the government is aggressing against you is false, and not a little demagogic.

Taxes are part of a social contract, an agreement between voters and government to exchange money for the government's goods and services. Even libertarians agree that breach of contract legitimates a police response. So the real question is not whether a crime should be met with "men with guns," but whether or not the social contract is valid, especially to those who don't agree with it or devote their allegiance to it.

Liberals have two lines of argument against those who reject the idea of the social contract. The first is that if they reject it, they should not consume the government's goods and services. How they can avoid this when the very dollar bills that the economy runs on are printed by the government is a good question. Try to imagine participating in the economy without using public roads, publicly funded communication infrastructure, publicly educated employees, publicly funded electricity, water, gas, and other utilities, publicly funded information, technology, research and development -- it's absolutely impossible. The only way to avoid public goods and services is to move out of the country entirely, or at least become such a hermit, living off the fruits of your own labor, that you reduce your consumption of public goods and services to as little as possible. Although these alternatives may seem unpalatable, they are the only consistent ones in a person who truly wishes to reject the social contract. Any consumption of public goods, no matter how begrudgingly, is implicit agreement of the social contract, just as any consumption of food in a restaurant is implicit agreement to pay the bill.

Many conservatives and libertarians concede the logic of this argument, but point out that taxes do not go exclusively to public goods and services. They also go for welfare payments to the poor who are allegedly doing nothing and getting a free ride from the system. That, they claim, is theft.

But this argument fails too. Welfare is a form of social insurance. In the private sector we freely accept the validity of life and property insurance. Obviously, the same validity goes for social insurance like unemployment and welfare. The tax money that goes to social insurance buys each one of us a private good: namely, the comfort of being protected in times of adversity. And it buys us a public good as well (although tax critics are loathe to admit this). If workers were allowed to unnecessarily starve or die in otherwise temporary setbacks, then our economy would be frequently disrupted. Social insurance allows workers to tide over the rough times, and this establishes a smooth-running economy that benefits us all.

We should also note that the program most popularly known as "welfare" -- Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- takes up less than 1 percent of the combined federal and state budgets. (1) That tax critics would raise such a big stink over such a paltry sum begs an explanation. Their typical response to this is to expand the definition of welfare. But suppose we include all programs that involve one-way transfers of wealth with no expectation of immediate repayment or return services. According to the Library of Congress, in 1992 such expenditures at the federal, state and local level came to $289.9 billion, or 12 percent of their combined budgets of $2,487 billion. (2) It still seems incredible that such fiery anti-tax rhetoric is reserved for 12 percent of a person's taxes. But keep in mind that this 12 percent includes such popular middle class programs as Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, pensions for needy veterans, etc. Voters have ultimately agreed that these programs provide not just social insurance, but social investment. Certainly our society benefits by enabling more young people to attend college. Some may dispute the need for such social insurance and investment, but the majority of voters have (ultimately) agreed to put it in our social contract.

And this brings us to the second line of liberal argument: the best form of social contract is majority rule. It's not perfect, but its better than minority rule and still better than one-person rule. Government by unanimous consent is impractical, since it almost never happens, and society by anarchy results in "kill or be killed." So what do libertarians and conservatives propose in democracy's stead?

Of course, nearly all democracies have constraints on majority rule, designed to protect the rights of individuals and minorities. In the U.S., these are embodied in our constitution. But to be legitimate, a constitution must be a document of the people; hence it must be approved by the majority. (In the U.S., a supermajority.) And the constitution of the United States clearly allows taxation. Article I, Section 8, states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

And the 16th Amendment states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

But should the constitution allow taxation? If conservatives and libertarians feel that it should not, then it is up to them to describe a constitutional or political system that would work better than majority rule. Do they prefer minority rule? Or dictator rule? The only alternative to these historical atrocities is self-rule -- but again, that's anarchy, kill-or-be-killed.

Of course, some may wish to keep the current political structure, and simply convince the majority of voters to pass an anti-tax amendment. But if they do, then they are legitimizing the social contract… which hardly puts them in a position to call taxation "theft."

Understanding the above points allows you to see through common anti-tax arguments. Here is a real example taken from the Internet:

The "How Many Men?" Argument (1)

Suppose that one man takes your car from you at gunpoint. Is this right or wrong? Most people would say that the man who does this is a thief who is violating your property rights.

Okay, now let's suppose that it's a gang of FIVE men that forcibly takes your car from you. Still wrong? Still stealing? Yup.

Now suppose that it's ten men that stop you at gunpoint, and before anything else they take a vote. You vote against them taking your car, but the ten of them vote for it and you are outvoted, ten to one. They take the car. Still stealing?

Let's add specialization of labor. Suppose it's twenty men and one acts as negotiator for the group, one takes the vote, one oversees the vote, two hold the guns, one drives. Does that make it okay? Is it still stealing?

Suppose it's one hundred men and after forcibly taking your car they give you back a bicycle. That is, they do something nice for you. Is it still stealing?

Suppose the gang is two hundred strong and they not only give you back a bicycle but they buy a bicycle for a poor person as well. Is it still wrong? Is it still stealing?

How about if the gang has a thousand people? ten thousand? A million?

How big does this gang have to be before it becomes okay for them to vote to forcibly take your property away without your consent? When, exactly, does the immorality of theft become the alleged morality of taxation?


This argument is based on a faulty premise of ownership. Suppose the gang of ten men had helped you buy the car, pitching in with a loan that covered 29 percent of the sticker price (which is about the percentage of the GDP devoted in the United States to taxes). And suppose they simply wanted return payment. By not returning the favor, it is you who become the thief. If you want a car that is 100 percent yours, simply pay the full price of one. Of course, by accepting the loan from the gang of ten men, you were able to buy a better car than you could afford in the first place…

Arguments like "taxation is theft" are extremely egoistic. It's the equivalent of saying "Everything I make is by my own effort" -- a patently false statement in an interdependent, specialized economy where the free market is supported by public goods and services. People who make arguments like this are big on taking these goods but short on seeing why they need to pay for them. It doesn't matter that they believe these public services should be privatized -- the point is that the government is nonetheless producing them, and they need to be paid for. It doesn't matter that any given individual doesn't agree with how the government is spending their money -- many people don't agree with how corporations pollute the environment, but they still pay for their merchandise. It doesn't matter that any given individual thinks some government programs are wasteful and inefficient -- so are many private bureaucracies, but their goods still demand payment. If tax opponents argue that a person doesn't have to patronize a company he disagrees with, then liberals can argue that a person doesn't have to vote for a public official he disagrees with.

Ultimately, any argument against paying taxes should be compared to its private sector equivalent, and the fallacy will become evident.

Return to Overview

Endnotes:

1. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, "Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY 1990-92," Report 93-832 EPW, and earlier reports; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Government Finances, series GF, No. 5, 1992.

2. Ibid.

IMPOSTER!!!

I'm miffed here. Those damned imposters...

I'M Spartacus!

Blankfist told the secret to the sift when posting videos - I always post the HQ (high quality) version

Cheers Blankfist

(^ I know thats not you up there...imposter!)

In case you missed it

http://geek.videosift.com/talk/Change-Your-YouTube-Embeds-From-Low-Res-to-Higher-Res

http://www.videosift.com/video/Samsung-Attempt-To-Trump-iPhoneCheck-Out-Packaging
(Embed is HQ using this technique)

Sarzy - the HQ stuff look great on VS
Note : There is no 'High Quality' thumbnail



The HQ youtube videos are great, the sound is also substantially better, I first used it for a FEAR 2 video that, frankly looked awful in standard quality