Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[saveliberty]

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.

NO DUMB-ASS He's talking about EVERYTHING beyond what your basic needs are are SOCIETIES, that without society you wouldn't have it AND anything beyond your basic (minimal) needs RIGHTFULLY belongs to the public, IF THEY NEED IT! Get fukking honest just one time. I'd probably fie of a heart attack!

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion about 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

Hardly a man prepared to take from others and give it all to the poor.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Basically, IMO, 'cons' just are greedy bastards without ANY honesty or moral compass, on a whole

Disagree slightly......but it is amazing how those who claim to believe in the Free market, where compensation is largely determined by supply and demand...............are also the ones who put such a "moral" emphasis on equal treatment when it comes to taxes..

 

[dcraelin]

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.

You mean like today, the US was split between those that believe in fairy tales (conservatives) and those that wanted GOOD GOV'T POLICY? Weird though EVERY Prez from Washington to the 6th guy, Andy expanded FEDERALISM. What the consensus on Andy's term? Which way did the US Gov't go, federalists way or anti's?

Havent really studied much regarding Jackson......he seems admirable in some things and despicable in others (treatment of indians)

 

[Dad2three]

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.

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.


STILL WAITING FOR THOSE 'JOBS AND PROSPERITY' TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH WILL BRING!!!

 

[Dad2three]

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.

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

 

[dblack]

... it is amazing how those who claim to believe in the Free market, where compensation is largely determined by supply and demand...............are also the ones who put such a "moral" emphasis on equal treatment when it comes to taxes..

Why is that amazing?

 

[Dad2three]

Because if government needs to do soomething, EVERYONE should have skin the game. Why wouldn't the poor want anything the government is willing to do for free?

Redistribution isn't working. The poor remain poor. Giving them more will just remove more from the middle class.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory



The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

niether, they missed the entire point of the debate.

Nope.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

I'm a turf with a surf's salary. Eat shit and puke on it ya marxist rube.

oh, did wittle surf get his feelins hurt? oh, why doeseth the truth by ye so my fair naive? seriously, your founding fathers are rolling over in their graves laughing at how they dooped you into your supposed state of freedom. lol. .go surf, i'm bored trying to enlighten you

Is that bile coming forth from thy mouth? Why yes it is.

 

[Dad2three]

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion about 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

Hardly a man prepared to take from others and give it all to the poor.

You mean to take from the rich for SOCIETY THAT CREATED THE WEALTH? lol

Yes, the original comment shows it

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."


Grow a brain.

 

[Dad2three]

Havent really studied much regarding Jackson......he seems admirable in some things and despicable in others (treatment of indians)

Until Dubya, most historians rank him at the bottom, his 'small Gubrmnt' ideas that allowed corruption to run rampant didn't help him

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

That you say you have "more" understanding that I, falls to my aggrandizing point. That you say you have more than a rudimentary understanding, well ok, is this your profession of choice? Are you a constitutional scholar or historian by profession? Not asking the question as a barb, more curiosity. While I would hold my skills as an Engineer against 99.9999% of all others I don't hold my understanding of history in the same regard.
I agree with your point that some self professed conservatives are likely self-righteous partisan patriots who ignore debates on issues and merely wrap themselves up in the flag.

Well Im not going to argue any psycho-babble regarding "aggrandizing".................No this is not my profession, just a history and politics fan.....more than rudimentary doesnt imply a doctorate....but I think sometimes independent study is better.....than the results from our education system.

I'm also a fan of history and politics. I've also done a considerable amount of independent study, thus my point to not assuming your understanding exceeds mine. As for our joke of an education system, I could not agree more. Here's to using small fonts!

 

[saveliberty]

Benjamin Franklin's quote clearly shows he wants the poor working their own way out. You can disagree all you want, that is what he said.

 

[saveliberty]

Well, I need to move on for a while. Bought two cars yesterday and now I need to prepare them for sale, so I can help out you leftie bums.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Basically, IMO, 'cons' just are greedy bastards without ANY honesty or moral compass, on a whole

Disagree slightly......but it is amazing how those who claim to believe in the Free market, where compensation is largely determined by supply and demand...............are also the ones who put such a "moral" emphasis on equal treatment when it comes to taxes..

False equivalence error there big guy. Your equivalence to progressive taxes is to making some people pay more for milk because they have more money, not supply and demand. Should we allow vendors to set prices at retail stored to progressive amounts determined individually by a customers ability to pay? Poor guy gets to walk out with steak for 1 penny per pound but rich guy has to pay 10k per pound at the same store at the same time? nah...

There is a moral aspect to the free market, yes. But it's not the same moral issue of progressive taxation.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

NO DUMB-ASS He's talking about EVERYTHING beyond what your basic needs are are SOCIETIES, that without society you wouldn't have it AND anything beyond your basic (minimal) needs RIGHTFULLY belongs to the public, IF THEY NEED IT! Get fukking honest just one time. I'd probably fie of a heart attack!

I think being the greatest country in the world we can figure out the right balance so that when people hit 62 they can retire with their ss check and medicare. If they want more they can work till 65 or even 70 if they want. But people should be able to retire/die with dignity. The system we have now is like what we had before SS and Medicare. The GOP want to undo the New Deal. Trust me, it won't work. The majority of Americans will suffer. The Libertarians, Republicans and Tea Baggers want to go back to "the good old days".

Bush basically deregulated our markets and basically took us back to before the Great Depression and no surprise we had a Great Recession. History repeating itself is all that is. Before the Dems took over, the GOP had it so we had booms and busts every 10 years. The country doesn't work best that way. The Dems changed it so we had 50 years of slow steady safe growth. Wallstreet wanted to gamble with our money, and they lost it. I say they lost it on purpose, but lets pretend they didn't do it on purpose. They got BAILED OUT. Bush gave the bankers that fucked you and me all their money back. Now inflation is high and there is too much money out there. The millionaires are now billionaires. They can invest. If you invest your $10K what will you get? 1% at best? Dumb American Middle Class.

America is not the greatest country in the world anymore unless you are rich or are going to get rich. If not, there are better countries. Google Vancouver better economy than Seattle and see.

 

[sealybobo]

Well, I need to move on for a while. Bought two cars yesterday and now I need to prepare them for sale, so I can help out you leftie bums.

Nobody wants to tax you more idiot. But the people who make $1million a year or more need to be paying more. Stop crying about what's fair. Fuck that. What works?

 

[kaz]

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.

Government not taking money from people who earned it and giving to people who didn't? LOL, society would crash around us, there would be great fires, plagues, locusts, complete fire and brimstone. Wow.

 

[haissem123]

Free

Free for all

That thought sounds familiar,
It’s almost like freedom for all,
for that too has become just a free for all,
Free for all to pay together the fee,
Of a lifestyle killing both you and me,
For if we’re out for just ourselves,
To put new trophies upon our personal shelves,
Then when this ship we’re on is sinking,
To whom the blame be placed you thinking?,
Was it you or was it us,
That made this tiny world go bust,
From economies to ecologies,
We’ve let down the world’s societies,
So next time you here thinks it’s free for all,
look again at the writings within your cave's wall.

 

[kaz]

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.

Sorry if you actually keep ignoring muy posts where I point out Obama proposed dropping the 'worlds highest Corp tax rate' from 35% to 28% and getting rid of loopholes and using the extra money on infrastructure projects. Of course the party of no didn't like it BECAUSE the current EFFECTIVE tax rate for US Corps is actually in the teens, lol

I've never ignored that, I pointed out that it's wrong. You call the massive new taxes in it "closing loopholes." Tell us what he actually proposed without all the hand waiving.

BTW, cracks me up how you're going down all the pages disagreeing with every one of my posts. Thanks for letting me know about all the butt hurt my posts are giving you. LOL.