Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[dcraelin]

The federalists were all for handing out political favors......and the first "breaking" of the understanding of general welfare I believe was for a national bank......so if those on the board here are complaining about redistribution not being constitutional they can blame the federalist backers of a national bank. If its ok for the bankers I dont think we should complain so much about welfare recipients.

Sorry, the VAST majority of sheeple then and now are conservatives. Conservatives fought EVERYTHING that made US great. They and their policy NEVER works ANYWHERE it's EVER been tried, the Articles were a perfect example of that
Yes, there was coercion, lying, payoffs, just like in today's politics
The US Prez from Washington to perhaps the worst Prez pre Dubya, Andy Jackson, expanded federal powers, some GREATLY
The problem with conservatives, especially libertarians, it's ALL black and white thinking based on myths, fairy tales and lies
-

The articles had some flaws but the Constitution has some of its own.....PatrickHenry's worries have largely come true. There are a lot of 'conservatives' with a flawed view of history.....its ironic most profess to worship the "founders" but dont realize the "founders" were in large part big government types. I think "liberal" and "conservative" are pigeon-holing labels that are largely useless in political discussion.

 

[Mathbud1]

True

Even then, who gets helped turns into a popularity contest. The family with sad faced children that gets featured on the 6 o'clock news get swamped with donations

The minority family suffering just as bad gets ignored

Translation: I needed somewhere to throw in the race card.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Your argument is ridiculous on it's face.

Which is why you had to edit the OP.

Constitutionally? The Federal government REGULATES commerce. That's in addition to taxation.

 

[Sallow]

The federal government has a constitutional role to set the tax structure.

If it results in a redistribution of wealth......so be it

No shit...it's been redistributed UP for the last 30 or so years...

But of course our board libertarians won't complain about THAT

Basically.

"Strict" constitutionalists see no problem whatsoever with the Federal Government using taxes to purchase weapons systems from private corporations.

There's nothing in the Constitution, specifically, that provides for this.

 

[Youch]

The federalists were all for handing out political favors......and the first "breaking" of the understanding of general welfare I believe was for a national bank......so if those on the board here are complaining about redistribution not being constitutional they can blame the federalist backers of a national bank. If its ok for the bankers I dont think we should complain so much about welfare recipients.

Sorry, the VAST majority of sheeple then and now are conservatives. Conservatives fought EVERYTHING that made US great. They and their policy NEVER works ANYWHERE it's EVER been tried, the Articles were a perfect example of that
Yes, there was coercion, lying, payoffs, just like in today's politics
The US Prez from Washington to perhaps the worst Prez pre Dubya, Andy Jackson, expanded federal powers, some GREATLY
The problem with conservatives, especially libertarians, it's ALL black and white thinking based on myths, fairy tales and lies
-

The articles had some flaws but the Constitution has some of its own.....PatrickHenry's worries have largely come true. There are a lot of 'conservatives' with a flawed view of history.....its ironic most profess to worship the "founders" but dont realize the "founders" were in large part big government types. I think "liberal" and "conservative" are pigeon-holing labels that are largely useless in political discussion.

An utter lack of understanding.

Do you even know, or understand, that the "founders" were attempting to throw off the shackles of an oppressive regime? They were, in Toto, NOT "big government types." All evidence and history shows you to be incorrect in every possible way. BTW, that is not "ironic" that is ignorance.

To assert the underpinning of the fundamentals of political philosophy are "useless in political discussion" only makes you look like a highly maleducated maroon. Perhaps before you say another word on the subject, educate yourself.

 

[dcraelin]

f 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 federal government could tax under the Articles.....but there was no easy way to enforce payment. Saying it was "recognized as such by the majority of the country" is overstatement. Part of the reason the Constitution was ratified was coercion......Rhode Island was threatened with a blockade if it didnt ratify. The Articles had its flaws,...but the Constitution was the dream document of the Federalists,which was a party that was rejected by the American people a few years after ratification.

 

[saveliberty]

Our resident thread lefties are missing the point on two counts:

1. Tax rates mean nothing. It is the total tax collected from the rich versus middle class or poor. 1% of this country pays 28% of the total tax collected.

2. The rich used to pay more for the poor. As entitlements have grown, more of that burden has been shifted to the middle class. That shift has caused some formerly middle class to become poor.

 

[RKMBrown]

The federalists were all for handing out political favors......and the first "breaking" of the understanding of general welfare I believe was for a national bank......so if those on the board here are complaining about redistribution not being constitutional they can blame the federalist backers of a national bank. If its ok for the bankers I dont think we should complain so much about welfare recipients.

Sorry, the VAST majority of sheeple then and now are conservatives. Conservatives fought EVERYTHING that made US great. They and their policy NEVER works ANYWHERE it's EVER been tried, the Articles were a perfect example of that
Yes, there was coercion, lying, payoffs, just like in today's politics
The US Prez from Washington to perhaps the worst Prez pre Dubya, Andy Jackson, expanded federal powers, some GREATLY
The problem with conservatives, especially libertarians, it's ALL black and white thinking based on myths, fairy tales and lies
-

The articles had some flaws but the Constitution has some of its own.....PatrickHenry's worries have largely come true. There are a lot of 'conservatives' with a flawed view of history.....its ironic most profess to worship the "founders" but dont realize the "founders" were in large part big government types. I think "liberal" and "conservative" are pigeon-holing labels that are largely useless in political discussion.

Just because you have some rudimentary understanding does not mean "most" don't. I don't know anyone that professes to worship the founders. Everyone that knows anything about the Constitution and it's founders knows, explicitly, that there was great debate, that some were for centralized control and power, and others for a republic of states and small federal government. I'm thinking you are just looking for a way to aggrandize yourself for coming to the realization of some facts about the founders.

When I say I agree with the founders on a subject, I mean I agree with the compromise document they created together. That does not mean I agree with everything said by each individual founder.

 

[Youch]

Our resident thread lefties are missing the point on two counts:

1. Tax rates mean nothing. It is the total tax collected from the rich versus middle class or poor. 1% of this country pays 28% of the total tax collected.

2. The rich used to pay more for the poor. As entitlements have grown, more of that burden has been shifted to the middle class. That shift has caused some formerly middle class to become poor.

Amen. But the leftists don't see the facts or reason....

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?"

The income tax requires some people to pay more than others therefore the ones that pay more are paying a share of the cost of government for the ones who pay less.

 

[dcraelin]

The federalists were all for handing out political favors......and the first "breaking" of the understanding of general welfare I believe was for a national bank......so if those on the board here are complaining about redistribution not being constitutional they can blame the federalist backers of a national bank. If its ok for the bankers I dont think we should complain so much about welfare recipients.

Sorry, the VAST majority of sheeple then and now are conservatives. Conservatives fought EVERYTHING that made US great. They and their policy NEVER works ANYWHERE it's EVER been tried, the Articles were a perfect example of that
Yes, there was coercion, lying, payoffs, just like in today's politics
The US Prez from Washington to perhaps the worst Prez pre Dubya, Andy Jackson, expanded federal powers, some GREATLY
The problem with conservatives, especially libertarians, it's ALL black and white thinking based on myths, fairy tales and lies
-

The articles had some flaws but the Constitution has some of its own.....PatrickHenry's worries have largely come true. There are a lot of 'conservatives' with a flawed view of history.....its ironic most profess to worship the "founders" but dont realize the "founders" were in large part big government types. I think "liberal" and "conservative" are pigeon-holing labels that are largely useless in political discussion.

An utter lack of understanding.
Do you even know, or understand, that the "founders" were attempting to throw off the shackles of an oppressive regime? They were, in Toto, NOT "big government types." All evidence and history shows you to be incorrect in every possible way. BTW, that is not "ironic" that is ignorance.To assert the underpinning of the fundamentals of political philosophy are "useless in political discussion" only makes you look like a highly maleducated maroon. Perhaps before you say another word on the subject, educate yourself.

You need to educate YOURSELF....THE US under the ARTICLES was the "shackles of an oppressive regime"?......no......try to follow along.....were not talking about the revolutionary war. We're talking about the transition from the Articles to the Constitution..something patriots like PatrickHenry and James Monroe opposed.

 

[Youch]

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?"

The income tax requires some people to pay more than others therefore the ones that pay more are paying a share of the cost of government for the ones who pay less.

Therefore, logically and morally, the current system is unfair.

Such is liberalism...

 

[RKMBrown]

Our resident thread lefties are missing the point on two counts:

1. Tax rates mean nothing. It is the total tax collected from the rich versus middle class or poor. 1% of this country pays 28% of the total tax collected.

2. The rich used to pay more for the poor. As entitlements have grown, more of that burden has been shifted to the middle class. That shift has caused some formerly middle class to become poor.

Additionally the poor and lower middle class income folk used to pay more, further shifting the burden of expenditures to the upper middle class income folk. As for the 1% ... they pay the highest tax rates and the most in taxes.

 

[haissem123]

to those that have much, much is ask of. what's not fair about those that have benefitted or capitalized more on the fellow citizens paying more to run the government that is supposed to be representives of the people? revolutions have always been and will always be about redistribution of wealth. a smart leader knows this and does this without blood shed legally by making laws to do this through taxes if we the people wake up and see we've been robbed legally by our government too.

 

[haissem123]

if anybody does the math of this one percent, they wouldn't have pity on them nor think they pay too much or not their fair share. if 1 percent has 4o or 50 percent of money, why shouldn't they pay comparable rates of tax burden? if not more.?

 

[RKMBrown]

to those that have much, much is ask of. what's not fair about those that have benefitted or capitalized more on the fellow citizens paying more to run the government that is supposed to be representives of the people? revolutions have always been and will always be about redistribution of wealth. a smart leader knows this and does this without blood shed legally by making laws to do this through taxes if we the people wake up and see we've been robbed legally by our government too.

What is wrong with stealing from your rich neighbor and raping his gorgeous wife? I mean fair is fair right? Why should he not be forced to share and share alike with you?

 

[rightwinger]

to those that have much, much is ask of. what's not fair about those that have benefitted or capitalized more on the fellow citizens paying more to run the government that is supposed to be representives of the people? revolutions have always been and will always be about redistribution of wealth. a smart leader knows this and does this without blood shed legally by making laws to do this through taxes if we the people wake up and see we've been robbed legally by our government too.

What is wrong with stealing from your rich neighbor and raping his gorgeous wife? I mean fair is fair right? Why should he not be forced to share and share alike with you?

Damn....how do you argue with logic like that?

 

[dcraelin]

Just because you have some rudimentary understanding does not mean "most" don't. I don't know anyone that professes to worship the founders. Everyone that knows anything about the Constitution and it's founders knows, explicitly, that there was great debate, that some were for centralized control and power, and others for a republic of states and small federal government. I'm thinking you are just looking for a way to aggrandize yourself for coming to the realization of some facts about the founders.
When I say I agree with the founders on a subject, I mean I agree with the compromise document they created together. That does not mean I agree with everything said by each individual founder.

I dare say I have more understanding than u.....far more than rudimentary.....Most was a generalization but I think it fits............you can think whatever you want...........Then I would say that that way of putting it is misleading.........when people (mostly self-confessed "conservatives") say that they agree with the founders it seems they are trying to cloth themselves in self-righteous patriotism..........and ignore a debate on issues.

 

[RKMBrown]

if anybody does the math of this one percent, they wouldn't have pity on them nor think they pay too much or not their fair share. if 1 percent has 4o or 50 percent of money, why shouldn't they pay comparable rates of tax burden? if not more.?

Which banned marxist are you?

 

[haissem123]

you guys are just surfs and were born surfs. seriously. you think anybody can take as much as they want and you will struggle through and survive cause you work harder or are smarter then others? lol. that's funny you big dummies