Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[kaz]

Yes, you want their money, and they are greedy because they won't give it to you. I am quite familiar with that, you have made it very clear.

Weird how it's 'their' money yet made in a society with OUR laws and history. Why didn't they make that money in a 3rd world nation like Somalia?

I did the work

The problem with the conservative (YES, LIBERTARIANS ARE FARRR RIGHT ECONOMICS) movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.

We are fiscally conservative, but you call us "conservatives" not "fiscal conservatives." Why is that? I would have no problem with the latter. I have no problem with the former, I just think it shows how disingenuous you are. When pressed, you say you say the former because of fiscal conservatism. But you do it because you want to connect us with socons and neocons, which we are not.

On the other hand, calling is "libertarians" or "fiscal conservatives" provides no false connotation. They are accurate. Which is why you won't use them.

 

[kaz]

I advocate tax cheats, but I don't cheat on my taxes because I keep my eye on the sparrow.

"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy." Warren Buffett

Just not for him...

 

[rightwinger]

unfunded wars may the most asinine thing every written

Actually, not making plans to provide funds for a war is asinine
Cutting taxes to pay for a war is insanity

 

[kaz]

You still cut out the part he said he was referring to levied taxes, not all money. You're the liar.

ARE YOU FUKKING KIDDING ME

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law

LOL, finally, you brought back the context of the quote, though you made the quote you like large and the context small. Read this. He is talking about tax collection. He is saying that taxes are the property of government. You said this is Franklin saying that all money belongs to government. Do you seriously not understand this? Everything you are making giant is referring to his opposition to cheating on taxes, he is not saying all money belongs to government.

 

[kaz]

You ... are are chastising ... me ... for not backing up a claim? That is just too funny. I ask you questions over and over and get no answer. And you demand an answer? You? LOL, here's the world's smallest violin, and it's playing just for you.

So for the 4th time someone is asking you to back up YOUR claim, is 4 the charm? Doubtful!

LOL, you are the one who made the claim, skippy. You're asking me to back up YOUR claim. At least RW and liberal media didn't make your claim themselves, you did make your claim yourself. Explain the 28% corporate tax cut proposal in detail. Whether your claim it is just "closing loopholes" is ignorance or a lie is known only to you. I suspect ignorance. But it is your claim, you back it up.

 

[kaz]

Bullshit, prove all of these claims. Provide specific citations via links to the posts I have made on USMB that back up all of these statements

LOL, do as you say, not as you do. What an intellectual shill.

So let's recap the conversation. You claimed that Obama proposed cutting the corporate tax rate to 28%. I said that he did not just propose doing that, it was part of a broader package.

Now you have butt hurt that you want me to find links to disprove your unsubstantiated claim. You have no responsibility to prove anything, it's my job to prove what you say wrong. And I'm failing miserably at that. And you're mad as hell about it. LOL, can't make up the shit you people believe.

I am not disproving your claim no matter what a bitch you want to be about it, my dear. It's YOUR claim. You back it up. You back up that Obama proposed cutting the corporate tax rate to 28%, no strings attached.

OMG, you people are hilarious. It's not to be believed. Can you blow your stack again that I am shirking my message board duty by not proving you wrong? LOL, what a tool. Now that's funny.

LOL, and this post is disliked by the guy with the empty pants, dad2three, who is the one who made the claim and isn't backing it up.

 

[kaz]

I guess Corps paying an average tax rate (EFFECTIVE) in the teens, instead of right wingers 'highest Corp tax rate in the world' myth is just more bullshit then? lol

Pass. I'm not a Republican, but they are all over the board if they are the ones you want to debate. I don't agree with them, so I am not interested in defending their views. I'm sure they would be glad to. In the mean time, I'll just mock you for your stupidity since you're not interested in debating my views.

 

[kaz]

Child, The People vote for politicians who have agenda's. Therefor the people vote for higher taxes in some situations. The Constitution says it can be changed, it does not say it doesn't need to be followed and I never stated that small brain.

Your entire reading of my post screams you have no intellect or ability to process information. You stating "Congress is people?" cracks me up at the end because you probably think Corporations are people.

Congress is controlled by the people, not the other way around. It's up to the people to drop their bias brains (you) and start voting smarter and working for a better system to prevent these corporate puppets from getting into office driving up taxes for the corporations they work for.

So congress is controlled by the people who are working in the interest of corporations, and I'm the child with no intellect. Can't make that shit up.

I see what you are saying though, if corporations are controlling the governrment, we need to make government stronger. LOL.

 

[rightwinger]

Can the Federal Government tax the rich and provide programs to help the poor?

Of course they can

 

[kaz]

unfunded wars may the most asinine thing every written

Actually, not making plans to provide funds for a war is asinine
Cutting taxes to pay for a war is insanity

I always wondered what someone who didn't finish high school and worked a manual job all his life and now lives on his social security check because he never saved a dime thinks about economics. Thanks for sharing that.

I would explain to you what is wrong with your statement if you cared, but you don't, so I won't trouble you with that.

 

[kaz]

Can the Federal Government tax the rich and provide programs to help the poor?

Of course they can

That isn't the question. The question is where the Constitution authorizes them to. Try to keep up. You know, like you never did in school. Or on your job. Or in life...

 

[rightwinger]

unfunded wars may the most asinine thing every written

Actually, not making plans to provide funds for a war is asinine
Cutting taxes to pay for a war is insanity

I always wondered what someone who didn't finish high school and worked a manual job all his life and now lives on his social security check because he never saved a dime thinks about economics. Thanks for sharing that.

I would explain to you what is wrong with your statement if you cared, but you don't, so I won't trouble you with that.

LOL

Like you "explained" every other dumb comment you made in this thread?

 

[rightwinger]

Can the Federal Government tax the rich and provide programs to help the poor?

Of course they can

That isn't the question. The question is where the Constitution authorizes them to. Try to keep up. You know, like you never did in school. Or on your job. Or in life...

Article 1, Section 1
16th amendment

That was easy

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal government. Then to make it clear that those are the only powers the Federal government has, they wrote the 10th amendment, which says anything the Federal government is not authorized to do, it is prohibited from doing. And to go even further, they said any right of the people not protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments is as important as any right that is protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments.

.

That's not what the 10th Amendment says.

 

[kaz]

Can the Federal Government tax the rich and provide programs to help the poor?

Of course they can

That isn't the question. The question is where the Constitution authorizes them to. Try to keep up. You know, like you never did in school. Or on your job. Or in life...

Article 1, Section 1
16th amendment

That was easy

How is giving someone money an "income tax?"

 

[rightwinger]

Can the Federal Government tax the rich and provide programs to help the poor?

Of course they can

That isn't the question. The question is where the Constitution authorizes them to. Try to keep up. You know, like you never did in school. Or on your job. Or in life...

Article 1, Section 1
16th amendment

That was easy

How is giving someone money an "income tax?"

Its not

 

[dcraelin]

NO that is not the definition of a Republic..........like I said read Federalist #9 to see how Hamilton hated most peoples idea of what a Republic was.....Some of the framers may indeed have wanted a system of checks against the people...against Republicanism..against Democracy.........They TOOK power from the states BTW.

And our country has taken more power from the states over time as well. Giving us a more and more powerful central Gov't over time. Now they pretty much create a law to give out money anyway the damn well please, with Career politicians hooking up their buddies to the point of what happened in Ancient Greece, and Current Greece as well.
We need a limited Gov't because we can't afford a large Gov't. What do we say when the interest on the debt is as high as the DOD budget..........
We'll fix it tomorrow.....and tomorrow..........It's ludicrous to continue down our current path.

I agree with all of this except your trashing of Greece.............I think that may be partisan bias creeping in

 

[RKMBrown]

What foolishness to say that these quotes advocate for the confiscation of wealth in order to redistribute it. You realize, don't you, that the young nation was a republic without an inherited aristocracy or nobility? It had no unmerited accumulation or inequality of riches. By virtue of the natural law, all citizens - president and yeoman farmer - were peers.

I don't suppose you did realize that.

But how about some quotes relating to our government and Constitution?

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” — Thomas Jefferson

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin

Oh, and like your Franklin quote that is not about the Constitution, here's another one likewise:

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” — Benjamin Franklin

Another quote not about the government or Constitution:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

The Fake James Madison


Selectively reading Madison

...While conservatives’ narrow understanding of the spending power finds no support in the text of the Constitution or in the Supreme Court’s decisions, Sen. Paul is correct that it does have one very famous supporter. In an 1831 missive, former President James Madison claimed that the best way to read the Spending Clause is to ignore its literal meaning and impose an extra-textual limit on Congressional power:

With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

Sen. Paul suggests that Madison’s extra-textual limit is both authoritative and binding—even if it means that programs ranging from Social Security to Medicare to Pell Grants must all cease to exist. But it is a mistake to assume that Madison’s preferred construction of the Spending Clause must restrict modern-day congressional action.

First of all, even the most prominent supporters of “originalism”—the belief that the Constitution must be read exactly as it was understood at the time it was written—reject the view that an individual framer’s intentions can change constitutional meaning. As the nation’s leading originalist, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, explains, “I don’t care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.”

Indeed, Madison himself would have been dismayed by the claim that an established understanding of the Constitution must bend to his own singular views. Like Scalia, Madison rejected the notion that the framers’ personal desires can defeat the words they actually committed to text. As he explained to future President Martin Van Buren, “I am aware that the document must speak for itself, and that that intention cannot be substituted for [the intention derived through] the established rules of interpretation.”


Secondly, Madison embraced a way of interpreting the Constitution reminiscent of the evolving theories of constitutional interpretation that are so widely decried by modern conservatives. Although Rep. Madison opposed on constitutional grounds the creation of the First Bank of the United States in 1791, President Madison signed into law an act creating the Second Bank in 1816. He “recognized that Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and (most important, by failing to use their amending power) the American people had for two decades accepted” the First Bank, and he viewed this acceptance as “a construction put on the Constitution by the nation, which, having made it, had the supreme right to declare its meaning.”



...Hamilton’s understanding of the spending power was one part of a broader, more expansive vision of congressional power that also included a robust interpretation of Congress’s power under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause. This broader understanding of Congress’s role prevailed over Madison’s very limited one during the earliest days of the Republic. Hamilton was the chief advocate who convinced President George Washington to sign the First Bank bill over Madison’s objections.

The Fake James Madison Center for American Progress



The point here is not that constitutional interpretations should be played like the card game “War,” where conservatives play the Madison card and everyone else plays the Washington card, and whoever plays the higher card wins. Rather, the point is simply that conservatives are wrong to treat the Founding Fathers’ statements as if they were a menu that lawmakers can search through and order the kind of Constitution they want. The Constitution is not a scavenger hunt.




Madison was thwarted on a wide range of minor and not-so-minor points, including two issues — a federal "negative" (veto) over the states and proportional representation in both houses of Congress — that he considered crucial to his dream of a government that would safeguard private rights and still promote the public good.

James Madison Godfather of the Constitution - The Early America Review Summer 1997

How original.

And relevant.

Only Aselclaps or whatever the hell his name is - rivals you in intellect. Very impressive.

Quoting someone does not make you intelligent.

 

[Youch]

The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal government. Then to make it clear that those are the only powers the Federal government has, they wrote the 10th amendment, which says anything the Federal government is not authorized to do, it is prohibited from doing. And to go even further, they said any right of the people not protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments is as important as any right that is protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments.

Which means, protecting people from having their wealth confiscated and redistributed, which is clearly not in the constitution, is as important as have our speech restricted or our property searched without a warrant.

So, for those of you who consider it to be a legitimate use of Federal force to redistribute wealth, what Constitutional authority is that based on? Be specific.

EDIT: Redistribution of wealth refers specifically to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. That means, at the Federal level, all forms of welfare including food stamps, AFDC, social security, medicare/medicaid, earmarks. All things which specifically take money from one citizen and place them directly in the hands of another.

It does not include the military, courts, national parks, anything that is for the general welfare, not specific welfare.

First of all, what maroons must be the people who voted that the Constitution allows the federal government to do something that is clearly not enumerated. The fact that nearly half of the respondents to date have voted that the federal government can take from one and give to another, PROVES that our society has been dumbed down.

We're doomed.....

 

[RKMBrown]

They were Libertarians as they wrote the Constitution........Liberals of today are nothing of what it meant in the past either.

Just say I want I want I want like a kid at the candy isle at the store like you always do...............Like a spoiled brat who wants more than can be payed for...........If no cash.......No problem.....run up the debt our children will handle it.

Weird, the guys who supported a STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T OVER STATES RIGHTS WERE LIBERTARIANS? THE GUS WHO SUPPORTED STRONG PROTECTIONISTS POLICIES? THEY OPPOSED REGULATIONS? THEY LIMITED CORP POWER? LIMITED MONEY IN ELECTIONS?



"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations," THOM JEFFERSON

THE FOUNDERS WERE MANY THINGS, BUT THEY WEREN'T LIBERTARIANS.... As part of the right's newfound interest in all things constitutional, there's been a related push of late to recast the framers of the Constitution. Today's far-right activists, we're told, are the ideological descendents of the Founding Fathers.


George Washington belonged to the Established Church (Episcopalian) of the State of Virginia; he also was the chief vindicator of national power in the new republic. Thomas Jefferson determined to wage war by simply denying foreigners the right to trade with the U.S. So did Madison. What libertarian has ever thought the government could cut off trade between free individuals?

Further, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine supported the French Revolution. That revolution denied there was anything the state could not do in the name of the people. Jefferson never repudiated his support for that tyranny and Thomas Paine was only slightly more dismissive even after it nearly killed him. [...]

The Founders believed in carefully delineated federal powers either broad (Hamilton) or limited (Jefferson, sometimes) but all believed in a more powerful state than libertarians purport to believe in. If ever there was a libertarian document it was the Articles of Confederation. There was no national power. The federal government could not tax. Its laws were not supreme over state laws. It was in fact, the hot mess that critics of libertarians believe their dream state would be ... and it was recognized as such by the majority of the country and was why the Constitution was ratified. The Articles of Confederation is the true libertarian founding document and this explains the failure of libertarianism.

The Washington Monthly

See ^ he's not intelligent at all. He's an idiot.