$100K-Plus Earners Pay 72% of Federal Income Taxes

[hunarcy]

Yeah, "let them eat cake" has never been a winning platform plank.
And we should be glad that extremism like this is typically rejected.
I agree with some significant steps toward cutting ALL spending - including that on aid and targeting aid more carefully. And I agree with getting everyone to have a stake in the game.

But to tell a hungry kid or a handicapped adult to "get a job" - yeah, that ain't happening.

It is NOT the responsibility of the federal government to feed the hungry or care for the handicapped.

Yes it is

No, the responsibility of the U.S. federal government is creating and enforcing laws to ensure order and stability within our society and dealing with foreign interests on our behalf.

 

[rightwinger]

It is NOT the responsibility of the federal government to feed the hungry or care for the handicapped.

Yes it is

No, the responsibility of the U.S. federal government is creating and enforcing laws to ensure order and stability within our society and dealing with foreign interests on our behalf.

Exactly what I said

 

[RKMBrown]

It is NOT the responsibility of the federal government to feed the hungry or care for the handicapped.

Yes it is

No, the responsibility of the U.S. federal government is creating and enforcing laws to ensure order and stability within our society and dealing with foreign interests on our behalf.

Who are you to deny RW access to your assets? I recommend getting a gun, folks like RW want what you have and are not gonna be satisfied with a taste.

 

[hunarcy]

Yeah, "let them eat cake" has never been a winning platform plank.
And we should be glad that extremism like this is typically rejected.
I agree with some significant steps toward cutting ALL spending - including that on aid and targeting aid more carefully. And I agree with getting everyone to have a stake in the game.

But to tell a hungry kid or a handicapped adult to "get a job" - yeah, that ain't happening.

It is NOT the responsibility of the federal government to feed the hungry or care for the handicapped.

I will always vote to feed hungry children and help the non-able-bodied adults. And as long as a majority of Voters agree with me - it IS the role of government.

No it's not. And, if you really have so little understanding of the role of the Federal Government, it's obvious you failed to even take a civics course in school.

 

[hunarcy]

Yes it is

NO it is not.... it is to ensure the freedom for you to succeed or fail all on your own.. if you CANNOT take care of yourself.. you become a ward of the state... like a person in a coma in a state home, a prisoner, or other similar ones that are not guaranteed a freedom

It is covered in Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution

So, setting up a Legislative Branch justifies all unconstitutional laws?

 

[bendog]

order and stability is not connected to starving people in the streets?

 

[hunarcy]

I will always vote to feed hungry children and help the non-able-bodied adults. And as long as a majority of Voters agree with me - it IS the role of government.

Majority of voters and their WISH does not matter, as long as there is the rule of law.... which is how we are SUPPOSED to run.. to protect against the tyranny of the majority, which you advocate

Very true. It is the Constitutionaly elected representatives of the people who write that law

If you want to pass a law banning the feeding of the hungry....you are welcome to try

So, you support the efforts of the constitutionally elected representatives of the people who write voter ID laws as well? Because if you don't, your hypocrisy is showing.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If everybody paid the exact same tax rate it would be fair.

Of course that wouldn't be fair. Only a simpleton requires such simplicity.

That's like saying if you give a three-year-old the same size piece of cake that you give an offensive lineman in the NFL - that's "fair."

Equal doesn't always mean fair.
Another example if you give every soldier a ham sandwich for lunch - that's "fair" by your standards. But it isn't because some of the soldiers may have religious prohibitions against eating pork. So that's not fair to them.

Bottom line is that equal isn't always fair.

And in MHO I think a progressive tax structure is more fair than a flat tax structure. I'm grateful the majority of Americans agree with me.

Your analogies are kind of idiotic.
Lets take the ham sandwich one to show just how foolish you are. If my religion says to only pay tax at 1% and your religion makes no reference to tax, then I guess the government can tax you more on the same income. See how foolish your argument is?

The point - which I should have anticipated would go right over your head - is that equal is not always fair.
Get it?

Probably not - but that's Ok.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It is NOT the responsibility of the federal government to feed the hungry or care for the handicapped.

I will always vote to feed hungry children and help the non-able-bodied adults. And as long as a majority of Voters agree with me - it IS the role of government.

No it's not. And, if you really have so little understanding of the role of the Federal Government, it's obvious you failed to even take a civics course in school.

You mean where I learned about Madison's interpretation of the "provide for the general welfare" clause in the Constitution? (which, is similar to yours) And when I learned about the Hamilton interpretation of that clause (which echos my position)? And when I learned about SCOTUS repeatedly upholding Hamilton's view over Madison's ????

You mean THAT civics class?

 

[hunarcy]

"Provide for the general welfare"



You prefer a totalitarian regime where your preferences usurp the will of the people.
That is not going to happen in the U.S.

That's in the Preamble, not Article I Section I.

Welfare is the state of good health, happiness and comfort. The people who wrote the Constitution never meant for the Federal Government to give aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need.

 

[rightwinger]

NO it is not.... it is to ensure the freedom for you to succeed or fail all on your own.. if you CANNOT take care of yourself.. you become a ward of the state... like a person in a coma in a state home, a prisoner, or other similar ones that are not guaranteed a freedom

It is covered in Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution

So, setting up a Legislative Branch justifies all unconstitutional laws?

Read Article 3

 

[bendog]

ug.

 

[hunarcy]

I will always vote to feed hungry children and help the non-able-bodied adults. And as long as a majority of Voters agree with me - it IS the role of government.

No it's not. And, if you really have so little understanding of the role of the Federal Government, it's obvious you failed to even take a civics course in school.

You mean where I learned about Madison's interpretation of the "provide for the general welfare" clause in the Constitution? (which, is similar to yours) And when I learned about the Hamilton interpretation of that clause (which echos my position)? And when I learned about SCOTUS repeatedly upholding Hamilton's view over Madison's ????

You mean THAT civics class?

Even if you attended a civics class, you obviously failed. Prior to the New Deal, SCOTUS narrowly interpreted the General Welfare Clause and limited the power to spend for matters affecting only the national welfare. Your interpretation is relatively newly in vogue and is bankrupting this nation.

However, you may feel free to google the topic and try to appear academically competent. And, while I have to sign off for a while, I'll check back later.

 

[nodoginnafight]

"Provide for the general welfare"



You prefer a totalitarian regime where your preferences usurp the will of the people.
That is not going to happen in the U.S.

That's in the Preamble, not Article I Section I.

Welfare is the state of good health, happiness and comfort. The people who wrote the Constitution never meant for the Federal Government to give aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need.

Hamilton (and SCOTUS) disagree. So do I.
Don't like the Constitution? Change the Constitution.

 

[hunarcy]

It is covered in Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution

So, setting up a Legislative Branch justifies all unconstitutional laws?

Read Article 3

Ah, you said Article I Section I. When refuted, now you want to try Article III. Why not invite me to a snipe hunt next? Next time, put up the information you think supports your point of view and stop wasting our time.

Have to run.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No it's not. And, if you really have so little understanding of the role of the Federal Government, it's obvious you failed to even take a civics course in school.

You mean where I learned about Madison's interpretation of the "provide for the general welfare" clause in the Constitution? (which, is similar to yours) And when I learned about the Hamilton interpretation of that clause (which echos my position)? And when I learned about SCOTUS repeatedly upholding Hamilton's view over Madison's ????

You mean THAT civics class?

Even if you attended a civics class, you obviously failed. Prior to the New Deal, SCOTUS narrowly interpreted the General Welfare Clause and limited the power to spend for matters affecting only the national welfare. Your interpretation is relatively newly in vogue and is bankrupting this nation.

However, you may feel free to google the topic and try to appear academically competent. And, while I have to sign off for a while, I'll check back later.

LOL - yeah

Providing for the public welfare is nothing new and was going on long before the new deal.
The "poor laws" adopted by the English in the 1500s were carried over and continued in the colonies and in the new nation.

So maybe you should google a bit, and learn a bit more about what you are trying to talk about.
Just a suggestion, you do whatever you like.

 

[TooTall]

When have you ever paid for someone elses milk at the grocery store?

When they pay for their milk with an EBT card.

Really?

And how much of your taxes go to pay for that poor womans milk?

At this point, what does it matter!

 

[bendog]

this is absurd. ArtISec8 is a done deal.

 

[bendog]

When they pay for their milk with an EBT card.

Really?

And how much of your taxes go to pay for that poor womans milk?

At this point, what does it matter!

Can't she lactate for herself? I mean what's happened to self-sufficiency?

 

[rightwinger]

So, setting up a Legislative Branch justifies all unconstitutional laws?

Read Article 3

Ah, you said Article I Section I. When refuted, now you want to try Article III. Why not invite me to a snipe hunt next? Next time, put up the information you think supports your point of view and stop wasting our time.

Have to run.

No, I'm afraid it was you who brought up the Constitutional issue which is covered under Article 3

Maybe you should run. You are taking too big a beating here