Middle class could face higher taxes under Republican plan, analysis finds

[Steelplate]

Here's the deal slick....this isn't 1787 anymore. And I also question the motivations of the wealthiest and most powerful of those times in the making of those supposedly hard and fast rules for our country. Most of them were slave owners, and in Jefferson's case.......he inherited that wealth, along with the property that Monticello sits on today......which, btw was sold after his death.....why? To pay off his debts....nice role model, huh?

So you want to throw out the constitution because you do not believe in America. Thanks for coming clean you uneducated communist thinking moron. 1979 Russia called and would like you to return home. Your rubble pile is lonely.

I don't want to throw out anything...just do not accept your "fuck you, I got mine" interpretation of it.

The Constitution calls for equality. If you numbnuts can demand equal taxation, the I suppose that the people that it will be hurt the most by it can demand equal wealth. But that's right....it's only valid when the demand comes from your side.

In short....both your pipe dream of a flat tax and the far lefty's of income equality...is just that...a pipe dream. A realistic goal should be to find a happy medium....which not letting the elderly starve, having a safety net for the poor and having some kind of Nationalized minimal health care does.

BTW....ask me what my feelings are on the current welfare system is....I'll give you a hint: my wife and I just spent a week in the Blue Ridge Parkway......figure it out.

I not interpreting. I'm following the words within their frame. You are trying to revise it. Not surpiring. As you lie about not wanting to change it.

You didn't say change it...you said throw it out.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Change it to what? What powers would you like to usurp today, Prince Trailer Park?

 

[Steelplate]

Fuck you dickhead, I'd be willing to bet that my wife and I's income is higher than you and your's. But Unlike you, I don't come here to compare dicks...nor to brag...but I get sick of the absofuckinglutely ridiculous assumptions you dickheads make about us.

I've been working since I was 14.....never used unemployment or welfare ever. I am now 47 and have put one kid through college and am putting my youngest through now. I served proudly in the US Army from 1983-1986, and I work in the service of the taxpayers of Pennsylvania taking care of extremely developmentally disabled people who have psychiatric problems and sexual predatory behavior....you know....keeping your kids safe? Oh I also volunteer...teaching CPR and providing assistance for the Red Cross, and sometimes help pound nails for Habitat for Humanity

That's MY contribution to society....what have you got?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Ive got no obligation to show you my cock, you fucking parasite.

 

[Steelplate]

Ive got no obligation to show you my cock, you fucking parasite.

That's cause you don't have one. Perhaps that's the reason for all the right wing angst. Penis envy.

 

[whitehall]

Think about how pathetic democrats have become when they are reduced to quoting fake analysis promoted by some A.P. stringer employed by the Washington Post. The election is over. Libs surrendered.

 

[RDD_1210]

Ive got no obligation to show you my cock, you fucking parasite.

That's cause you don't have one. Perhaps that's the reason for all the right wing angst. Penis envy.

He's just like the rest. Broke and hypocritical. He wants to help no one because he wants everyone to be as miserable as he is.

 

[Listening]

You're getting your ass kicked.

Take off your cheerleading outfit.

It is showing off your blubbery thighs.

Get some new material, dummy, and get over yourself. You are so self-important and think that you are just so cool. You're not. You are a copycat without an original thought in your head and haven't enough sense to come in out of the rain.

So don't get mad at me because you got your ass handed to you on a platter. Serves you right.

There is an 800 number for A.A. I suggest you give it a try based on your last post.

That or you are just 13 years old. I've seen better "backed in the corner" rants from middle schoolers.

Now, let's not even discuss your lack of any logic to this or anything else you post. If you think puffing up your chest over your big gut is somehow going to make you formidable...you've got another thing coming.

My ass is still well attached. And I am sure it is 50 pounds lighter than yours.

Better luck next time fatso.

 

[Listening]

Here's the deal slick....this isn't 1787 anymore. And I also question the motivations of the wealthiest and most powerful of those times in the making of those supposedly hard and fast rules for our country. Most of them were slave owners, and in Jefferson's case.......he inherited that wealth, along with the property that Monticello sits on today......which, btw was sold after his death.....why? To pay off his debts....nice role model, huh?

Well asshole, I am afraid that we still have the government that was set up in 1787 and unless you plan to change that, the rules still apply.

Now, if you'd like to change that, I'll see you in the streets.

They owned slaves. You screw your boyfriend in the ass. What do I care.

A good government is a good government. It is mine as well as yours and just because you don't like what that means does not mean you get to change it at will (not without some bullets flying). There is a process for modifying it and it has been modified (or were you not aware of that ?). But you losers are to lazy or know the American people don't have the interest in changing things so you and your other leeches can live off the rest of us any more than you already do.

 

[RDD_1210]

Here's the deal slick....this isn't 1787 anymore. And I also question the motivations of the wealthiest and most powerful of those times in the making of those supposedly hard and fast rules for our country. Most of them were slave owners, and in Jefferson's case.......he inherited that wealth, along with the property that Monticello sits on today......which, btw was sold after his death.....why? To pay off his debts....nice role model, huh?

Well asshole, I am afraid that we still have the government that was set up in 1787 and unless you plan to change that, the rules still apply.

Now, if you'd like to change that, I'll see you in the streets.

They owned slaves. You screw your boyfriend in the ass. What do I care.

A good government is a good government. It is mine as well as yours and just because you don't like what that means does not mean you get to change it at will (not without some bullets flying). There is a process for modifying it and it has been modified (or were you not aware of that ?). But you losers are to lazy or know the American people don't have the interest in changing things so you and your other leeches can live off the rest of us any more than you already do.

Odds that you're also lower middle class at best. I put it at 85% at the very least. LOL. Mooch off of you...bwahahahaha! Thanks for the laugh.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Ive got no obligation to show you my cock, you fucking parasite.

That's cause you don't have one. Perhaps that's the reason for all the right wing angst. Penis envy.

Ive got no obligation to show you my cock, you fucking parasite.

That's cause you don't have one. Perhaps that's the reason for all the right wing angst. Penis envy.

He's just like the rest. Broke and hypocritical. He wants to help no one because he wants everyone to be as miserable as he is.

Keep showing your true colors, LOLberals.

 

[Listening]

Here's the deal slick....this isn't 1787 anymore. And I also question the motivations of the wealthiest and most powerful of those times in the making of those supposedly hard and fast rules for our country. Most of them were slave owners, and in Jefferson's case.......he inherited that wealth, along with the property that Monticello sits on today......which, btw was sold after his death.....why? To pay off his debts....nice role model, huh?

Well asshole, I am afraid that we still have the government that was set up in 1787 and unless you plan to change that, the rules still apply.

Now, if you'd like to change that, I'll see you in the streets.

They owned slaves. You screw your boyfriend in the ass. What do I care.

A good government is a good government. It is mine as well as yours and just because you don't like what that means does not mean you get to change it at will (not without some bullets flying). There is a process for modifying it and it has been modified (or were you not aware of that ?). But you losers are to lazy or know the American people don't have the interest in changing things so you and your other leeches can live off the rest of us any more than you already do.

Odds that you're also lower middle class at best. I put it at 85% at the very least. LOL. Mooch off of you...bwahahahaha! Thanks for the laugh.

Sorry lightweight....you have no idea what I have.

Don't quit your dayjob serving burgers.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Leopard's are easy to spot.

 

[Conservative]

An outstandingly detailed and well reasoned piece on the meaning and intent of 'the general welfare' clause.

The general welfare clause: an exploration of original intent and constitutional limits ...

THE FOUNDING FATHERS' EXPRESSED INTENT REGARDING THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE
The founding fathers agreed that the General Welfare Clause is a limitation on the preceding taxation clause and not its own independent grant of power. In the first draft of the Constitution, the provision related to taxation read, "The legislature of the United States shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises." n6 The clause related to general welfare was not present. If this additional clause is not a limitation on the taxing provision and instead is its own grant of power, then the preceding taxing provision is left meaningless. Thomas Jefferson stated, "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 the power completely useless." n7 Jefferson wrote that the consequence of such an unintended meaning would carry with it great peril, stating that this misinterpretation "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 also be a power to do whatever evil they pleased." n8

James Madison stated that the purpose of the General Welfare Clause is to limit [p. 546] spending to only the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. "To understand" the General Welfare Clause "in any sense," James Madison explained to Congress in 1791, and not "limited and explained by the particular enumeration subjoined," would "give to Congress an unlimited power." n10 If Congress could tax and spend for whatever purpose it desired, Madison argued, this "would render nugatory the enumeration of particular powers" and it "would supercede all the powers reserved to the state governments ... ." n11 Again in 1830, in a letter to Andrew Stevenson, Madison penned that the framers never "understood [the General Welfare Clause to] invest Congress with powers not otherwise bestowed by the constitutional charter."

On January 19, 1788, prior to ratification of the Constitution, Madison authored The Federalist No. 41 to advocate for ratification. In The Federalist No. 41, Madison stated that the General Welfare Clause refers only to other enumerated powers. He wrote, in part:

"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction."

The final version of the clause - "to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States" - states that Congress may provide for the general welfare of the United States. The words "the people of" do not appear in the clause. The clause does not read "general welfare of the people of the United States." Certainly, this omission provides support for Madison's intent that the clause restrict spending to other enumerated powers held by the United States.

In vetoing an internal improvements bill in 1817, President Madison wrote that "the terms 'common defence and general welfare'" do not give "to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them."

And the following was the Supreme Court of Indiana's conclusion:

"Congress ... takes no power under the General Welfare Clause, as that is not a grant of any power, but a mere expression of one of the ends to be accomplished by the exercise of the powers granted. And should Congress assume, upon its own ideas of general welfare, to exercise other powers than those granted, to carry them out, it would simply, to that extent, set up a despotism."

Source: Steven T. Voigt (attorney in Pennsylvania), "THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE: AN EXPLORATION OF ORIGINAL INTENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS PERTAINING TO THE RAPIDLY EXPANDING FEDERAL BUDGET", Creighton Law Review, February, 2010, pp. 543-562 -- 43 Creighton L. Rev. 543

 

[RDD_1210]

Ive got no obligation to show you my cock, you fucking parasite.

That's cause you don't have one. Perhaps that's the reason for all the right wing angst. Penis envy.

That's cause you don't have one. Perhaps that's the reason for all the right wing angst. Penis envy.

He's just like the rest. Broke and hypocritical. He wants to help no one because he wants everyone to be as miserable as he is.

Keep showing your true colors, LOLberals.

True colors? Someone that laughs at idiots and hypocrisy? Guilty as charged.

 

[RDD_1210]

Well asshole, I am afraid that we still have the government that was set up in 1787 and unless you plan to change that, the rules still apply.

Now, if you'd like to change that, I'll see you in the streets.

They owned slaves. You screw your boyfriend in the ass. What do I care.

A good government is a good government. It is mine as well as yours and just because you don't like what that means does not mean you get to change it at will (not without some bullets flying). There is a process for modifying it and it has been modified (or were you not aware of that ?). But you losers are to lazy or know the American people don't have the interest in changing things so you and your other leeches can live off the rest of us any more than you already do.

Odds that you're also lower middle class at best. I put it at 85% at the very least. LOL. Mooch off of you...bwahahahaha! Thanks for the laugh.

Sorry lightweight....you have no idea what I have.

Don't quit your dayjob serving burgers.

No I don't know for sure. But if I was to play the odds, I'd say my guess is a lot closer than what you think about me.

 

[Listening]

Odds that you're also lower middle class at best. I put it at 85% at the very least. LOL. Mooch off of you...bwahahahaha! Thanks for the laugh.

Sorry lightweight....you have no idea what I have.

Don't quit your dayjob serving burgers.

No I don't know for sure. But if I was to play the odds, I'd say my guess is a lot closer than what you think about me.

Like I said...don't quit your dayjob.

 

[Steelplate]

Here's the deal slick....this isn't 1787 anymore. And I also question the motivations of the wealthiest and most powerful of those times in the making of those supposedly hard and fast rules for our country. Most of them were slave owners, and in Jefferson's case.......he inherited that wealth, along with the property that Monticello sits on today......which, btw was sold after his death.....why? To pay off his debts....nice role model, huh?

Well asshole, I am afraid that we still have the government that was set up in 1787 and unless you plan to change that, the rules still apply.

Now, if you'd like to change that, I'll see you in the streets.

They owned slaves. You screw your boyfriend in the ass. What do I care.

A good government is a good government. It is mine as well as yours and just because you don't like what that means does not mean you get to change it at will (not without some bullets flying). There is a process for modifying it and it has been modified (or were you not aware of that ?). But you losers are to lazy or know the American people don't have the interest in changing things so you and your other leeches can live off the rest of us any more than you already do.

Yep...throw out the "leech" card when you lost an argument...that's what you fuckers do best.

So...Conservatives speak for all of the people now? Yes...I know there is a process for change....that process is alive and well and it works for liberals as well as conservatives.



You are the lazy ones who seem to think this country only belongs to you because you pay taxes. There's a hell of a lot of us on the side of Democracy that pays taxes too. You know what I think? I think you guys throw out the "leech" card to deflect from your own horrible financial situations.... that somehow, if you lose every safety net you have and give it to the wealthy, they will show you mercy and allow you into their club. Woody dude, chances are you will never even get to walk on the front lawn.

 

[RDD_1210]

Sorry lightweight....you have no idea what I have.

Don't quit your dayjob serving burgers.

No I don't know for sure. But if I was to play the odds, I'd say my guess is a lot closer than what you think about me.

Like I said...don't quit your dayjob.

No plans to just yet, thanks for the concern though.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That's a lot of text that answers nothing. Needs are not subjective. Like I said. Food, shelter and healthcare are not subjective needs. And in this country those things ARE owed to its citizens. Those are the basics. I'm not talking about entitlements or whatever other bullshit tangent you're trying to detour towards. Basic needs ARE guaranteed in this country, sorry you don't agree with that comrade.

Maybe you should find a society that fits better with your idea of equal. Know of any? Of course you don't.

I missed that passage in the constitution. We were granted the rights to obtain these needs freely. that is different than obtaining them FOR free. You LOLberals have it all backwards.

Can you point out the passage in the constitution that says the citizens are owed food, shelter and healthcare?


I'll wait here.

General welfare is not the same as specific welfare. Even the first circuit court of appeals in two separate cases made this clear from the stand point of social security.



General Welfare clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You're welcome. You cocky little fucktard.

Who said anything about specific welfare? Not me. Nothing that you cited says that general welfare does not include ensuring the basic needs of 'We the People'. In fact, what you quoted supports what I said. Thanks!

Remind me again why you're closer to being poor than being rich. It's because you're lazy and have chosen to not work hard, right?

You're, and this is absolutely no surprise coming from a "the government owes me food, shelter and healthcare, a fucking liar. It's right int he above posting. YOu tell me the general welfare clause means that in this country you are OWED food, shelter and health care. Then turn around and back peddle and say you never said that.


You are a typical lying ass progressive LOLberal that thinks everything can be obtained for free and that you're owed it. What a fucking moron.

No where does it say that the general welfare doesn't either....it's up to the POTUS, Congress and the SCOTUS to determine that....according to the will of the people.....and no, corporations are not people.

If we can add whatever we want to the constitution in interpretation, we might as well throw it out and do whatever the decider wants. Because if it is up for interpretation in any fashion based on what not is in there, we can be sure the entire thing is meaningless. If it isn't in there, it isn't there deliberately. Unless food, shelter and healthcare were brand new starting in 1935. Which LOLberal morons, I bet they believe that.

If we can add whatever we want to the constitution in interpretation, we might as well throw it out and do whatever the decider wants. Because if it is up for interpretation in any fashion based on what not is in there, we can be sure the entire thing is meaningless. If it isn't in there, it isn't there deliberately. Unless food, shelter and healthcare were brand new starting in 1935. Which LOLberal morons, I bet they believe that.

Which is YOUR interpretation. If enough people believe as you, then those things will disappear. You don't get to dictate your interpretation to the rest of society.

Im not interpreting it anyway except for what is explicitly written. Food, shelter and healthcare, in this case, are not in the constitution and provisions provided by the govt. They do not appear in there. Neither does, "basic needs" or any other nonsense LOLberal wishlist they would like to drain the public wealth to get for "free".

Fucking LOLberals. Thicker than bricks and liars to boot. Anything to get something for free, right, LOLberals?

Oh...so you are a fundamentalist...which is....in itself, an interpretation.

Edit: gunfire Christians think everyone us going to hell...except them, of course....same thing with your fundamentalist interpretation of the constitution. Your absoluteness is your idiocy.

Oh...so you are a fundamentalist...which is....in itself, an interpretation.

Edit: gunfire Christians think everyone us going to hell...except them, of course....same thing with your fundamentalist interpretation of the constitution. Your absoluteness is your idiocy.

Sorry....

But for anyone who isn't interested in picking the pockets of others...it is quite clear.

There is nothing ambiguous about the 10th or Federalist 45.

And the country behaved that way until evil FDR decided he was above it all.

And this should help on the other subject:

How General Is The General Welfare Clause?

OK, let’s see what they had to say and put this question to rest. Let’s ask James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Could they possibly shed any light on this?

"With respect to the two 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." – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

Because we know you are to lazy to look:

#45

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

So you want to throw out the constitution because you do not believe in America. Thanks for coming clean you uneducated communist thinking moron. 1979 Russia called and would like you to return home. Your rubble pile is lonely.

Here's the deal slick....this isn't 1787 anymore. And I also question the motivations of the wealthiest and most powerful of those times in the making of those supposedly hard and fast rules for our country. Most of them were slave owners, and in Jefferson's case.......he inherited that wealth, along with the property that Monticello sits on today......which, btw was sold after his death.....why? To pay off his debts....nice role model, huh?

So you want to throw out the constitution because you do not believe in America. Thanks for coming clean you uneducated communist thinking moron. 1979 Russia called and would like you to return home. Your rubble pile is lonely.

I don't want to throw out anything...just do not accept your "fuck you, I got mine" interpretation of it.

The Constitution calls for equality. If you numbnuts can demand equal taxation, the I suppose that the people that it will be hurt the most by it can demand equal wealth. But that's right....it's only valid when the demand comes from your side.

In short....both your pipe dream of a flat tax and the far lefty's of income equality...is just that...a pipe dream. A realistic goal should be to find a happy medium....which not letting the elderly starve, having a safety net for the poor and having some kind of Nationalized minimal health care does.

BTW....ask me what my feelings are on the current welfare system is....I'll give you a hint: my wife and I just spent a week in the Blue Ridge Parkway......figure it out.

I not interpreting. I'm following the words within their frame. You are trying to revise it. Not surpiring. As you lie about not wanting to change it.

I missed that passage in the constitution. We were granted the rights to obtain these needs freely. that is different than obtaining them FOR free. You LOLberals have it all backwards.

Can you point out the passage in the constitution that says the citizens are owed food, shelter and healthcare?


I'll wait here.

Who said anything about specific welfare? Not me. Nothing that you cited says that general welfare does not include ensuring the basic needs of 'We the People'. In fact, what you quoted supports what I said. Thanks!

Remind me again why you're closer to being poor than being rich. It's because you're lazy and have chosen to not work hard, right?

You're, and this is absolutely no surprise coming from a "the government owes me food, shelter and healthcare, a fucking liar. It's right int he above posting. YOu tell me the general welfare clause means that in this country you are OWED food, shelter and health care. Then turn around and back peddle and say you never said that.


You are a typical lying ass progressive LOLberal that thinks everything can be obtained for free and that you're owed it. What a fucking moron.

Here's a tip. If you're going to try and correct my spelling/grammar you better be damned sure that your own post isn't full of mistakes. Are you fucking serious?

Where did I say "I" was owed anything. I haven't but if that is what you need to do to make your argument, have at it chief. I'm doing just fine but I know not everyone is as fortunate as I am, so I don't adopt the fuck you I got mine attitude that you people love to boast. Only difference, you don't have yours....you're all broke too!! Amazing, truly.

And you're a typical broke conservative who blames all the poor people for the countries problems, but NOT you, you're the rare exception who pays taxes and "would never take a dime". It's all those other poor and lower middle class people who are the problem. LOL.

Talk about a fucking hypocrite, you're just as bad as all the other whiney ass CONservatives who want everyone else to stay broke like you are so you endorse politicians who promise to keep you broke. Dare to dream big guy! Here's an idea, start sending checks to your favorite millionaire directly, that will surely break you free from the ranks of the lower middle class. Bwahaahahahahaahah!!!

Dumbass.

Change it to what? What powers would you like to usurp today, Prince Trailer Park?

Ive got no obligation to show you my cock, you fucking parasite.

That's cause you don't have one. Perhaps that's the reason for all the right wing angst. Penis envy.

Ive got no obligation to show you my cock, you fucking parasite.

That's cause you don't have one. Perhaps that's the reason for all the right wing angst. Penis envy.

He's just like the rest. Broke and hypocritical. He wants to help no one because he wants everyone to be as miserable as he is.

That's cause you don't have one. Perhaps that's the reason for all the right wing angst. Penis envy.

He's just like the rest. Broke and hypocritical. He wants to help no one because he wants everyone to be as miserable as he is.

Keep showing your true colors, LOLberals.

True colors? Someone that laughs at idiots and hypocrisy? Guilty as charged.