AP: Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax

[Polk]

Abolish the IRS now... get rid of the income tax while you're at it.

I agree. Fund the government via magic.

 

[boedicca]

Questions for Polk,

As you quite apparently believe those who are well off don't pay enough in taxes, how much should they pay? What % of their total income should be paid in taxes of all forms (Federal, State, local, payroll, property, sales) - and how should that be divided up among various government entities?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since it is now LAW, in accordance with the Constitutional procedure for making LAW, you are, essentially, talking through your hat.

Inactivity is NOT Commerce. The General Welfare Clause is NOT carte blanche for doing whatever the fuck you want. And the Necessary and Proper Clause only pertains to those functions which are enumerated.

Certainly the corrupt socialists in Congress passed this outrage, but that doesn't mean it will stand. You've got to get it past SCOTUS, and you'll be lucky not to have Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid overturned in the process. That is, if you even make it that far. Chances are better than average that we'll have it repealed before it makes it that far. Note that Bart Stupak was reelected with 65% of the vote last time, and in blue Michigan, he doesn't even have enough support to make another run.

Social Security was declared constitutional in the 1930's. Please try to keep up.

There is no chance you will repeal this bill. You make a joke of yourself by saying otherwise.

 

[jeffrockit]

If you paid more than $0.01 in 2009 income tax, you are in a similar predicament to mine - we've each paid more US income tax than GM and Exxon combined.

It's funny how I can be forced to pay thousands of dollars annually while trying to raise a family, while these companies can earn tens of billions and keep all of it - in the name of raising a profit.

Of course GM posted a loss of 4.5 Billion in the last quarter of 2009, but your point illustrates the basic problem with the tax code(s).
The fair tax, flat tax and other non progressive taxes appeal to those who don't think through the problem of too much wealth in the hands of too few. World history is repleat with examples where the small ruling class amasses great wealth and privilige while the hoi polloi suffer.
I suffered through three pages of whiners which I find revolting but not so much as to cause me to take up arms against those incapable of critical thinking, and that too provides an example. People will revolt when their expectations of a better life cannot be met, or when they realize the ruling elite don't care if their children suffer; thus Tea Party anger, manufactured anger, is absurd. Listening to people, well fed and clothed not in rags but middle class attire, and some carrying expensive hand guns in expensive holsters scream revoltution is theater. Not a one has the balls to do anything but make threats, and the ones who do shot those they disagree with in the back.

The tea party participants don't come close to the head of the SEIU wearing expensive clothes and an Rolex watch while lamenting the problems of the working class. He definitely does not represent the working man. The facts are that the tea party movement represents the middle class not he upper class and I think that is what bothers the left so much.
BTW, who was "shot in the back"?

 

[edthecynic]

Of course, as you well know since you cited it earlier, Marshall said more than just that:

"We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional"

I recognize a hateist tactic of telling enough truth and then shutting up to create a scapegoat when I see it. You hate America and it's Constitution and will rationalize anything to demonize its leadership to justify your desire for its demise.

Hey, I'm not the one who stands with thieves and tyrants to deprive my fellow citizens of their hard-earned money and their birthright of freedom. That's you. Must be YOU who hates America and the Constitution. Must be you... projecting your shit onto me. Certainly, I am not the one who's twisting the meaning of our ancient contract with government in order to rob my neighbor.

Note that Marshall says "consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution". Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 describes the power to tax and spend. It includes the words "common Defence" and "general Welfare", as reasons WHY Congress is authorized the power to tax and spend. But note that in subsequent clauses, it goes on to give specific authorizations for providing the "common Defence" but none for providing healthcare and welfare payments to citizens.

The General Welfare Clause was never meant to allow Congress to take property (money) from one citizen and give it to another for the sake of redistribution. It was simply meant to convey a general meaning for why Congress is authorized to tax and spend.

But you know all that. Your protestations to the contrary are petty excuses for thievery and for compromising whatever integrity you might have otherwise had... because you want something for nothing just like any other thief does.

Blow it out your ass. You're not fooling anyone.

You side with the terrorists who call Americans thieves and tyrants. You side with the hateists who want to divide the people of America to destroy it from within.

Health care is no more redistribution of wealth than military spending is redistribution of wealth. Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit national health care and if the national legislature decides it is good for the general welfare of the country, which it did, then it is quite Constitutional as determined by Marshall long long ago.

If you don't like it you are quite FREE to move to a less progressive country, no one is forcing you to stay.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I notice that when ever there is a new tax coming the libtard dumb fucks like polk and a host of others immediately begin a concerted disinformation campaign that rivals some of the best Soviet propaganda campaigns of the 30's.....

Now these ass clowns say it's all a Republican idea for a VAT yet here we have NO ONE BUT DEMOCRATS DISCUSSING IT!!!!

"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."

"While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.

"Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we're going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate," said Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, who testified on Capitol Hill this month about his own VAT plan. "It's common to the rest of the world, and we don't have it."

and here's the BIG FAT LIE fed to Americans over ObamaCare...
"It will be deficit neutral."
Now here are the facts....

Obama wants to raise income taxes for high earners and impose new levies on business, but those moves would not generate enough cash to cover the cost of health care, much less balance the budget, and they have not been fully embraced by Congress. Obama's plan to tax greenhouse-gas emissions could raise trillions of dollars, but again, Congress is balking.

Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol and employer-provided health insurance. The last proposal could raise a lot of money -- nearly $1 trillion over the next five years, according to White House budget documents. But options on the table would raise a fraction of that sum. And while it might pay for health care, it would barely dent deficits projected to total nearly $4 trillion over the next five years and to grow rapidly in the future, as baby boomers draw on Social Security and Medicare.

DEFICITS OF 4 TRILLION DOLLARS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you fucking shitbag progressive assholes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have beaten Bush as the stupidest motherfuckers on the planet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602909.html

 

[SuMar]

Since it is now LAW, in accordance with the Constitutional procedure for making LAW, you are, essentially, talking through your hat.

Inactivity is NOT Commerce. The General Welfare Clause is NOT carte blanche for doing whatever the fuck you want. And the Necessary and Proper Clause only pertains to those functions which are enumerated.

Certainly the corrupt socialists in Congress passed this outrage, but that doesn't mean it will stand. You've got to get it past SCOTUS, and you'll be lucky not to have Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid overturned in the process. That is, if you even make it that far. Chances are better than average that we'll have it repealed before it makes it that far. Note that Bart Stupak was reelected with 65% of the vote last time, and in blue Michigan, he doesn't even have enough support to make another run.

There is a solution, it's called abolish SS over five years. Pay out in staggered lump sums what people have put in as best as can be afforded, and then kill the entire system.

SS can NEVER EVER EVER work. It hasn't worked, it doesn't work, it's inefficient to the individual, and politicians can't be trusted to not touch the money.

If you were to take the money you put into SS and invest it in a Savings Account and every 5 years put that amount into long term CD's you'd have FAR MORE saved for retirement then if you relied on SS.

Everyone knows this, but sadly our Grandparents and great grandparents bought into the notion that Government could somehow do it better.

 

[Foxfyre]

Since it is now LAW, in accordance with the Constitutional procedure for making LAW, you are, essentially, talking through your hat.

Inactivity is NOT Commerce. The General Welfare Clause is NOT carte blanche for doing whatever the fuck you want. And the Necessary and Proper Clause only pertains to those functions which are enumerated.

Certainly the corrupt socialists in Congress passed this outrage, but that doesn't mean it will stand. You've got to get it past SCOTUS, and you'll be lucky not to have Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid overturned in the process. That is, if you even make it that far. Chances are better than average that we'll have it repealed before it makes it that far. Note that Bart Stupak was reelected with 65% of the vote last time, and in blue Michigan, he doesn't even have enough support to make another run.

There is a solution, it's called abolish SS over five years. Pay out in staggered lump sums what people have put in as best as can be afforded, and then kill the entire system.

SS can NEVER EVER EVER work. It hasn't worked, it doesn't work, it's inefficient to the individual, and politicians can't be trusted to not touch the money.

If you were to take the money you put into SS and invest it in a Savings Account and every 5 years put that amount into long term CD's you'd have FAR MORE saved for retirement then if you relied on SS.

Everyone knows this, but sadly our Grandparents and great grandparents bought into the notion that Government could somehow do it better.

You can't do it that fast. A system was set up making it difficult if not nigh onto impossible for many poor Americans to manage their own retirement. The government chose to do it for them and call it social security and taxed the bejeebers out of employers and workers to accomplish it. We can't sustain the program, of course, but we should now start putting it into reverse. Allowing people to own and invest a small part of their earnings now confiscated as social security would be a good start, and increase that slowly every year. By the time the reversal was fully accomplished, all the old timers the system forced into dependency on the old system will have died off and the young folks won't be depedent on it.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Since it is now LAW, in accordance with the Constitutional procedure for making LAW, you are, essentially, talking through your hat.

Inactivity is NOT Commerce. The General Welfare Clause is NOT carte blanche for doing whatever the fuck you want. And the Necessary and Proper Clause only pertains to those functions which are enumerated.

Certainly the corrupt socialists in Congress passed this outrage, but that doesn't mean it will stand. You've got to get it past SCOTUS, and you'll be lucky not to have Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid overturned in the process. That is, if you even make it that far. Chances are better than average that we'll have it repealed before it makes it that far. Note that Bart Stupak was reelected with 65% of the vote last time, and in blue Michigan, he doesn't even have enough support to make another run.

There is a solution, it's called abolish SS over five years. Pay out in staggered lump sums what people have put in as best as can be afforded, and then kill the entire system.

SS can NEVER EVER EVER work. It hasn't worked, it doesn't work, it's inefficient to the individual, and politicians can't be trusted to not touch the money.

If you were to take the money you put into SS and invest it in a Savings Account and every 5 years put that amount into long term CD's you'd have FAR MORE saved for retirement then if you relied on SS.

Everyone knows this, but sadly our Grandparents and great grandparents bought into the notion that Government could somehow do it better.

A plan like that might work if everyone took responsibility for their own lives and actions...but you see SuMar...we have people like Polk, nycarbineer, bfgrn..etc. etc. who refuse to take ANY responsibility for their own lives, actions nor do they choose to look out for themselves or their families...they want the government to do that for them while they sit around, collect a check, get free healthcare and medical marijuana for some trumped up condition they developed while watching "The View" and "Oprah" all on the backs of working Americans who ARE being responsible.

It's the classic "ME" Generation of the 60's, 70's and 80's. ME ME ME ME ME ME ME GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME I I I I I I I I I I I I.....Bush did it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Inactivity is NOT Commerce. The General Welfare Clause is NOT carte blanche for doing whatever the fuck you want. And the Necessary and Proper Clause only pertains to those functions which are enumerated.

Certainly the corrupt socialists in Congress passed this outrage, but that doesn't mean it will stand. You've got to get it past SCOTUS, and you'll be lucky not to have Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid overturned in the process. That is, if you even make it that far. Chances are better than average that we'll have it repealed before it makes it that far. Note that Bart Stupak was reelected with 65% of the vote last time, and in blue Michigan, he doesn't even have enough support to make another run.

There is a solution, it's called abolish SS over five years. Pay out in staggered lump sums what people have put in as best as can be afforded, and then kill the entire system.

SS can NEVER EVER EVER work. It hasn't worked, it doesn't work, it's inefficient to the individual, and politicians can't be trusted to not touch the money.

If you were to take the money you put into SS and invest it in a Savings Account and every 5 years put that amount into long term CD's you'd have FAR MORE saved for retirement then if you relied on SS.

Everyone knows this, but sadly our Grandparents and great grandparents bought into the notion that Government could somehow do it better.

A plan like that might work if everyone took responsibility for their own lives and actions...but you see SuMar...we have people like Polk, nycarbineer, bfgrn..etc. etc. who refuse to take ANY responsibility for their own lives, actions nor do they choose to look out for themselves or their families...they want the government to do that for them while they sit around, collect a check, get free healthcare and medical marijuana for some trumped up condition they developed while watching "The View" and "Oprah" all on the backs of working Americans who ARE being responsible.

It's the classic "ME" Generation of the 60's, 70's and 80's. ME ME ME ME ME ME ME GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME I I I I I I I I I I I I.....Bush did it.

The thing is that conservatives understand that we didn't get into the messes that we are in overnight and that there is no way that Bush did it all. And yes, the 'me generation' looks to big government to solve all their problems and relieve them of any responsibility for doing that, but we have already created enormous dependencies among elderly people, black people, poor people, etc. etc. etc.

The liberals accuse the conservatives of wanting to throw old people out in the street, etc. etc. etc. but they can do that only by saying that we just want to stop all government welfare of all kinds. And do it all at once.

I'm saying that conservatives know it can't be done that way. It has to be done slowly and incrementally just as it has accrued, or we create unconscionable hardship ont he people we have made dependent on these programs.

But we sure as hell don't do anybody any kindness by just making government bigger, more expensive, more intrusive, and more invasion of individual liberties, opportunities, options and forcing ever more people into dependency on government.

The problem with so few people paying taxes, is that the 50% of people who suffer no visible consequences of any kind from the existing tax system is that they have a HUGE incentive to just keep electing people who will see that they continue to experience no visible consequences of the tax system.

It is unhealthy, wrong, counter productive, and creates most of the graft and corruption in our government.

And we should stop it now.

 

[Polk]

I notice that when ever there is a new tax coming the libtard dumb fucks like polk and a host of others immediately begin a concerted disinformation campaign that rivals some of the best Soviet propaganda campaigns of the 30's.....

Now these ass clowns say it's all a Republican idea for a VAT yet here we have NO ONE BUT DEMOCRATS DISCUSSING IT!!!!

"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."

"While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.

No Republicans discussing it? Krauthammer talks about it on Bret Brier every night and the right has been touting it for years. It was also the topic of a best-selling book:
The FairTax Book by Neal Boortz; John Linder (Paperback): booksamillion.com

And it's currently sponsored by dozens of House Republicans:
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

and here's the BIG FAT LIE fed to Americans over ObamaCare...
"It will be deficit neutral."
Now here are the facts....

Obama wants to raise income taxes for high earners and impose new levies on business, but those moves would not generate enough cash to cover the cost of health care, much less balance the budget, and they have not been fully embraced by Congress. Obama's plan to tax greenhouse-gas emissions could raise trillions of dollars, but again, Congress is balking.

Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol and employer-provided health insurance. The last proposal could raise a lot of money -- nearly $1 trillion over the next five years, according to White House budget documents. But options on the table would raise a fraction of that sum. And while it might pay for health care, it would barely dent deficits projected to total nearly $4 trillion over the next five years and to grow rapidly in the future, as baby boomers draw on Social Security and Medicare.

DEFICITS OF 4 TRILLION DOLLARS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you fucking shitbag progressive assholes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have beaten Bush as the stupidest motherfuckers on the planet.

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look - washingtonpost.com

Now if only you were able to read. That's not saying the bill increases the deficit by four billion dollars over the next five years. Also, sorry the President can't shit money to make up for the revenue shortfall caused by your side's deregulation fever sending the economy off a cliff.

 

[Polk]

Since it is now LAW, in accordance with the Constitutional procedure for making LAW, you are, essentially, talking through your hat.

Inactivity is NOT Commerce. The General Welfare Clause is NOT carte blanche for doing whatever the fuck you want. And the Necessary and Proper Clause only pertains to those functions which are enumerated.

Certainly the corrupt socialists in Congress passed this outrage, but that doesn't mean it will stand. You've got to get it past SCOTUS, and you'll be lucky not to have Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid overturned in the process. That is, if you even make it that far. Chances are better than average that we'll have it repealed before it makes it that far. Note that Bart Stupak was reelected with 65% of the vote last time, and in blue Michigan, he doesn't even have enough support to make another run.

There is a solution, it's called abolish SS over five years. Pay out in staggered lump sums what people have put in as best as can be afforded, and then kill the entire system.

SS can NEVER EVER EVER work. It hasn't worked, it doesn't work, it's inefficient to the individual, and politicians can't be trusted to not touch the money.

If you were to take the money you put into SS and invest it in a Savings Account and every 5 years put that amount into long term CD's you'd have FAR MORE saved for retirement then if you relied on SS.

Everyone knows this, but sadly our Grandparents and great grandparents bought into the notion that Government could somehow do it better.

And this, my friends, is why the arguments in favor of scrapping Social Security can't be taken seriously. This would blow a massive hole in the budget for the payouts, then you'd still have the problem of millions of people not having enough to live on.

 

[Polk]

Inactivity is NOT Commerce. The General Welfare Clause is NOT carte blanche for doing whatever the fuck you want. And the Necessary and Proper Clause only pertains to those functions which are enumerated.

Certainly the corrupt socialists in Congress passed this outrage, but that doesn't mean it will stand. You've got to get it past SCOTUS, and you'll be lucky not to have Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid overturned in the process. That is, if you even make it that far. Chances are better than average that we'll have it repealed before it makes it that far. Note that Bart Stupak was reelected with 65% of the vote last time, and in blue Michigan, he doesn't even have enough support to make another run.

There is a solution, it's called abolish SS over five years. Pay out in staggered lump sums what people have put in as best as can be afforded, and then kill the entire system.

SS can NEVER EVER EVER work. It hasn't worked, it doesn't work, it's inefficient to the individual, and politicians can't be trusted to not touch the money.

If you were to take the money you put into SS and invest it in a Savings Account and every 5 years put that amount into long term CD's you'd have FAR MORE saved for retirement then if you relied on SS.

Everyone knows this, but sadly our Grandparents and great grandparents bought into the notion that Government could somehow do it better.

A plan like that might work if everyone took responsibility for their own lives and actions...but you see SuMar...we have people like Polk, nycarbineer, bfgrn..etc. etc. who refuse to take ANY responsibility for their own lives, actions nor do they choose to look out for themselves or their families...they want the government to do that for them while they sit around, collect a check, get free healthcare and medical marijuana for some trumped up condition they developed while watching "The View" and "Oprah" all on the backs of working Americans who ARE being responsible.

It's the classic "ME" Generation of the 60's, 70's and 80's. ME ME ME ME ME ME ME GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME I I I I I I I I I I I I.....Bush did it.

I'm a little too busy for all those things, but keep projecting. It's also funny to be called a leech by someone who collects a check from the government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I notice that when ever there is a new tax coming the libtard dumb fucks like polk and a host of others immediately begin a concerted disinformation campaign that rivals some of the best Soviet propaganda campaigns of the 30's.....

Now these ass clowns say it's all a Republican idea for a VAT yet here we have NO ONE BUT DEMOCRATS DISCUSSING IT!!!!

"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."

"While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.

and here's the BIG FAT LIE fed to Americans over ObamaCare...
"It will be deficit neutral."
Now here are the facts....

Obama wants to raise income taxes for high earners and impose new levies on business, but those moves would not generate enough cash to cover the cost of health care, much less balance the budget, and they have not been fully embraced by Congress. Obama's plan to tax greenhouse-gas emissions could raise trillions of dollars, but again, Congress is balking.

Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol and employer-provided health insurance. The last proposal could raise a lot of money -- nearly $1 trillion over the next five years, according to White House budget documents. But options on the table would raise a fraction of that sum. And while it might pay for health care, it would barely dent deficits projected to total nearly $4 trillion over the next five years and to grow rapidly in the future, as baby boomers draw on Social Security and Medicare.

DEFICITS OF 4 TRILLION DOLLARS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you fucking shitbag progressive assholes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have beaten Bush as the stupidest motherfuckers on the planet.

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look - washingtonpost.com

A national sales tax bill was introduced by Republicans in 2009.

 

[Murf76]

You side with the terrorists who call Americans thieves and tyrants. You side with the hateists who want to divide the people of America to destroy it from within.

Health care is no more redistribution of wealth than military spending is redistribution of wealth. Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit national health care and if the national legislature decides it is good for the general welfare of the country, which it did, then it is quite Constitutional as determined by Marshall long long ago.

If you don't like it you are quite FREE to move to a less progressive country, no one is forcing you to stay.

Hey, I'm not the one who has stated in this very thread that we should cut the military spending we rely upon to FIGHT terrorists. That was you. And when I say that your ilk are thieves and tyrants who would rob your neighbors and subordinate their liberties, that's a choice that YOU make, not I.

The word "health" is not mentioned even once in our U.S. Constitution. Not once. And when your neighbors are required to pay YOUR bills... hell yes, that is a redistribution of wealth... the money of one citizen, confiscated for the private use of another.

The General Welfare Clause has been abused by "progressives" since the time of FDR. But you've pushed it too far this time, here as we face the insolvency and unsustainable spending of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Even during the lifetime of the founders this argument was stale and disingenuous. Thomas Jefferson said:

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

So, the depredations upon the Constitution thus far are exactly that... depredations. But rather than correct these disingenuous malignancies, people like you would continue to build on them in order to get what you want. To argue that "General Welfare" gives carte blanche to Congress for whatever pops into their tiny air-filled brains is a perversion of the spirit of Constitutional governance. You might as well argue that "Common Defense" allows a perpetual state of marshal law.



Now there are lots of other countries out there that apparently prize "progressivism". I suggest YOU find one. Because THIS country has supreme laws that will not be put asunder for your comfort. Save for that ancient contract with citizens, the federal government has no authority over us. When you throw it over the side like so much ballast, you've thrown away your power with it.

You may thank Barack Obama, for ripping the mask off of "Progressivism" and exposing the fascist beneath. We're onto the game now... and we're AWAKE.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm just curious, would 47% of Americans still pay no tax under the so-called 'Fair Tax'?

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you paid more than $0.01 in 2009 income tax, you are in a similar predicament to mine - we've each paid more US income tax than GM and Exxon combined.

It's funny how I can be forced to pay thousands of dollars annually while trying to raise a family, while these companies can earn tens of billions and keep all of it - in the name of raising a profit.

Of course GM posted a loss of 4.5 Billion in the last quarter of 2009, but your point illustrates the basic problem with the tax code(s).
The fair tax, flat tax and other non progressive taxes appeal to those who don't think through the problem of too much wealth in the hands of too few. World history is repleat with examples where the small ruling class amasses great wealth and privilige while the hoi polloi suffer.
I suffered through three pages of whiners which I find revolting but not so much as to cause me to take up arms against those incapable of critical thinking, and that too provides an example. People will revolt when their expectations of a better life cannot be met, or when they realize the ruling elite don't care if their children suffer; thus Tea Party anger, manufactured anger, is absurd. Listening to people, well fed and clothed not in rags but middle class attire, and some carrying expensive hand guns in expensive holsters scream revoltution is theater. Not a one has the balls to do anything but make threats, and the ones who do shot those they disagree with in the back.

The tea party participants don't come close to the head of the SEIU wearing expensive clothes and an Rolex watch while lamenting the problems of the working class. He definitely does not represent the working man. The facts are that the tea party movement represents the middle class not he upper class and I think that is what bothers the left so much.
BTW, who was "shot in the back"?

I never suggested the head of any union wasn't one of the power elite. As a member of the management team I had my issues with business agents too, most look out for number 1 and not those they are supposed to represent.
As to who shot who in the back, consider the act of the murderer of Dr. Teller; the Atlantic Olympic bomber, T. McVeigh, the pilot who flew into the Federal Building and the guy who shot the guard at the Holocaust Museum. "Shot in the back" is an expression which describes the cowardly act of attacking someone unarmed or unable to defend themself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You side with the terrorists who call Americans thieves and tyrants. You side with the hateists who want to divide the people of America to destroy it from within.

Health care is no more redistribution of wealth than military spending is redistribution of wealth. Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit national health care and if the national legislature decides it is good for the general welfare of the country, which it did, then it is quite Constitutional as determined by Marshall long long ago.

If you don't like it you are quite FREE to move to a less progressive country, no one is forcing you to stay.

Hey, I'm not the one who has stated in this very thread that we should cut the military spending we rely upon to FIGHT terrorists. That was you. And when I say that your ilk are thieves and tyrants who would rob your neighbors and subordinate their liberties, that's a choice that YOU make, not I.

The word "health" is not mentioned even once in our U.S. Constitution. Not once. And when your neighbors are required to pay YOUR bills... hell yes, that is a redistribution of wealth... the money of one citizen, confiscated for the private use of another.

The General Welfare Clause has been abused by "progressives" since the time of FDR. But you've pushed it too far this time, here as we face the insolvency and unsustainable spending of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Even during the lifetime of the founders this argument was stale and disingenuous. Thomas Jefferson said:

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

So, the depredations upon the Constitution thus far are exactly that... depredations. But rather than correct these disingenuous malignancies, people like you would continue to build on them in order to get what you want. To argue that "General Welfare" gives carte blanche to Congress for whatever pops into their tiny air-filled brains is a perversion of the spirit of Constitutional governance. You might as well argue that "Common Defense" allows a perpetual state of marshal law.



Now there are lots of other countries out there that apparently prize "progressivism". I suggest YOU find one. Because THIS country has supreme laws that will not be put asunder for your comfort. Save for that ancient contract with citizens, the federal government has no authority over us. When you throw it over the side like so much ballast, you've thrown away your power with it.

You may thank Barack Obama, for ripping the mask off of "Progressivism" and exposing the fascist beneath. We're onto the game now... and we're AWAKE.

If you don't think the health of the nation is a vital national interest, you are daft.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Inactivity is NOT Commerce. The General Welfare Clause is NOT carte blanche for doing whatever the fuck you want. And the Necessary and Proper Clause only pertains to those functions which are enumerated.

Certainly the corrupt socialists in Congress passed this outrage, but that doesn't mean it will stand. You've got to get it past SCOTUS, and you'll be lucky not to have Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid overturned in the process. That is, if you even make it that far. Chances are better than average that we'll have it repealed before it makes it that far. Note that Bart Stupak was reelected with 65% of the vote last time, and in blue Michigan, he doesn't even have enough support to make another run.

There is a solution, it's called abolish SS over five years. Pay out in staggered lump sums what people have put in as best as can be afforded, and then kill the entire system.

SS can NEVER EVER EVER work. It hasn't worked, it doesn't work, it's inefficient to the individual, and politicians can't be trusted to not touch the money.

If you were to take the money you put into SS and invest it in a Savings Account and every 5 years put that amount into long term CD's you'd have FAR MORE saved for retirement then if you relied on SS.

Everyone knows this, but sadly our Grandparents and great grandparents bought into the notion that Government could somehow do it better.

A plan like that might work if everyone took responsibility for their own lives and actions...but you see SuMar...we have people like Polk, nycarbineer, bfgrn..etc. etc. who refuse to take ANY responsibility for their own lives, actions nor do they choose to look out for themselves or their families...they want the government to do that for them while they sit around, collect a check, get free healthcare and medical marijuana for some trumped up condition they developed while watching "The View" and "Oprah" all on the backs of working Americans who ARE being responsible.

It's the classic "ME" Generation of the 60's, 70's and 80's. ME ME ME ME ME ME ME GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME I I I I I I I I I I I I.....Bush did it.

Gee Patek, such anger. Oh, and btw, who pays your salary? Your healthcare? Your retirment?

 

[Murf76]

If you don't think the health of the nation is a vital national interest, you are daft.

But you're not talking about the "health of the nation" are, you?
You're talking about the health of individual citizens.... a whole different talk.