Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because the right wing doesnt feel you should be able to reach into their pockets and take what you want, somehow they are bad people?the right wing is illegal enough to be kettles and call less fortunate pots, black.So, did you read what I posted? Immigration is not mentioned in the constitution, but there are immigration laws, which the constitution gives congress the right to make. The constitution does mandate the government provides for the general welfare of the country and its citizens.There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution. There is a naturalization clause. We should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause.Correct, we have immigration laws, and the constitution defines what a legal citizen is. The general welfare clause, which is used to promote general welfare for all citizens, would be applicable.We already have express powers that cover this situation. There is no express power to build any walls or concerning immigration.Sure there is. Our government is charged with protecting our borders. This would mean any measures deemed necessary by the government in ensuring that act are within their purview, including a wall.
And if that doesnt work, then it would be under the general welfare clause.
Illegal immigration can cause a negative impact to the general welfare of the country and the citizenry. Plus, the constitution gives the right of congress to make laws, which, by extension, has made laws regarding immigration.
The effects of immigration could definitely fall under a burden to our general welfare.
You're right. People from other countries illegally entering ours does not make it legal.two illegalities do not make a legality.Also, we do have an illegal immigration problem, because our laws make it illegal to illegally cross into this country. Estimates are that around 2000 people come into this country illegally every day.There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution. There is a naturalization clause. We should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause.Correct, we have immigration laws, and the constitution defines what a legal citizen is. The general welfare clause, which is used to promote general welfare for all citizens, would be applicable.We already have express powers that cover this situation. There is no express power to build any walls or concerning immigration.Sure there is. Our government is charged with protecting our borders. This would mean any measures deemed necessary by the government in ensuring that act are within their purview, including a wall.
And if that doesnt work, then it would be under the general welfare clause.
Illegal immigration can cause a negative impact to the general welfare of the country and the citizenry. Plus, the constitution gives the right of congress to make laws, which, by extension, has made laws regarding immigration.
Because he is a lying moron that knows he is lying to gullible fools to get their panties in a twist.AOC's suggestion that the existence of billionaires is both immoral and a threat to American democracy has been called radical and fundamentally un-American by Republicans like Sean Hannity
sover.shes a moronBecause socialist governments keeping people from becoming wealthy is moral!
View attachment 241705
Ocasio-Cortez: ‘A System That Allows Billionaires’ is Immoral
Only the right wing believes in that form of amorality. We have a Constitution and providing for the common defense and general welfare requires income redistribution.Only the "morally challenged" complain about taxes when poverty exists in our republic and could be solved on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States as that form of equal protection of the law concerning the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes.On the contrary, I think the right wing would advocate cutting spending so there is no need to tax its citizens excessively.The right wing does not correlate cutting spending with tax cut economics.Still dont know what you are talking about, but, posting the debt clock is a prime example of why the government needs to cut spending.
However, in that, there needs to be uniformity in the tax code, in fact, if I'm not mistaken, the constitution does mention uniformity in tax collection. Whether that is referring to each state paying a uniform amount, or each person paying a uniform amount, I'm not sure.
The point is, we are a nation of freedoms. We can live and work as we please, as long as it is within the confines of our laws. When someone puts themselves in a position to make great sums of money, it is their freedom to be able to keep that money, and not be unfairly penalized for doing so.
Our constitution has no provision for allowing one citizen to be unfairly taxed over another. Morally, the rich should want to help, and in most cases they do, but, it should not be for the government to decide who is rich enough and to seize their money based on the belief that one makes too much money.
That could be a slippery slope. Most people dont think much of it, because it doesnt apply to them, but what happens when it does? What if 20 years from now, then government decides that if you make 100k that that is enough, and any more than that should be taxed at 70%.
What if the government decides that you dont need a 2300 square foot house if you only have 2 children?
If you start allowing the government to dictatae how much is enough money, what's to stop them from applying that same measure to other things?
When does the government get the right to regulate an extravagant lifestyle? It almost sounds as if people are saying "you dont need more than 10 million per year, so the government should have the right to take it". If that's the case, again, I can see a lot of people pulling huge sums of money out of the market, because the market is a risk vs reward venture. If you take awaythat reward, there is no need to take the risk.
I also see companies reducing production, because cost of materials, labor, and utilities wont be warranted if the shareholders are limited in their income. Why would they want to spend the extra money to produce more if their returns will be capped? Shareholders are there to make a return on their investment, if the return isn't there, then the investments will go down.
Nobody is saying we shouldn't help the poor, what they are saying is you shouldn't force people to help the poor. It should be something you do willingly, willingly, but alas, taxation becomes prohibitive.
I argue that you would see charitable giving go up if government would stop taxing so much. I'm telling you, if you decide to raise taxes to 70% on the ultra rich, youd see the economy tank, because rich people dont take risk with their money if there is no return.
The left wants to keep piling more taxes on the wealthy, but they dont want to cut mlm spending. You say they should be helping the poor, so you want to raise taxes, meanwhile, illegals immigration costs the American economy more that 116 billion a year, not to mention all of the foreign aid that we send to other countries.
If they would stop spending so much elsewhere, we'd have the money to put into these programs to aid our own people, and our homeless vets.
Equal protection under the law doesnt mean you can take from one group to another. That's not the intent.
Were not even mentioning all the millions that these rich people give to charities already. Many of these people are philanthropic, and give large sums of money to charitable organizations. Sure, they get tax deductions for it, but at least they are donating.
the right wing can allege anything they want. according to the right wing, our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are "capitalism" not the actual, socialism on a national basis that they are.Because the right wing doesnt feel you should be able to reach into their pockets and take what you want, somehow they are bad people?the right wing is illegal enough to be kettles and call less fortunate pots, black.So, did you read what I posted? Immigration is not mentioned in the constitution, but there are immigration laws, which the constitution gives congress the right to make. The constitution does mandate the government provides for the general welfare of the country and its citizens.There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution. There is a naturalization clause. We should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause.Correct, we have immigration laws, and the constitution defines what a legal citizen is. The general welfare clause, which is used to promote general welfare for all citizens, would be applicable.We already have express powers that cover this situation. There is no express power to build any walls or concerning immigration.
Illegal immigration can cause a negative impact to the general welfare of the country and the citizenry. Plus, the constitution gives the right of congress to make laws, which, by extension, has made laws regarding immigration.
The effects of immigration could definitely fall under a burden to our general welfare.
Or maybe its they just want to be able to decide what they do with their money. A lot of people, both rich and not rich, from both sides of the spectrum, give generously to others.
we have a naturalization clause not any form of immigration clause or wall building clause. the right wing has "streets named after them called, One Way."You're right. People from other countries illegally entering ours does not make it legal.two illegalities do not make a legality.Also, we do have an illegal immigration problem, because our laws make it illegal to illegally cross into this country. Estimates are that around 2000 people come into this country illegally every day.There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution. There is a naturalization clause. We should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause.Correct, we have immigration laws, and the constitution defines what a legal citizen is. The general welfare clause, which is used to promote general welfare for all citizens, would be applicable.We already have express powers that cover this situation. There is no express power to build any walls or concerning immigration.
Illegal immigration can cause a negative impact to the general welfare of the country and the citizenry. Plus, the constitution gives the right of congress to make laws, which, by extension, has made laws regarding immigration.
I dont think the founders would have advocated for government being able to seize money from the citizens though."AOC's suggestion that the existence of billionaires is both immoral and a threat to American democracy has been called radical and fundamentally un-American by Republicans like Sean Hannity. But many of our republic’s founders would have called it common sense. America’s first political theorists took these truths to be self-evident: that a person could not exercise political liberty if he did not possess some economic autonomy, and that disparities in wealth inevitably produced disparities of political power. there's nothing foreign or communistic about the idea that concentrated wealth is incompatible with democracy, and how Ocasio-Cortez's stance on billionaires and the concentration of wealth at the top of our society aligns with some of the views held by early Americans like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson."
I disagree. The constitution does not allege income redustributuon. General welfare does not mean taking from one person and giving it to another. That would be a socialist form of government, which is not what the founders wanted.Only the right wing believes in that form of amorality. We have a Constitution and providing for the common defense and general welfare requires income redistribution.Only the "morally challenged" complain about taxes when poverty exists in our republic and could be solved on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States as that form of equal protection of the law concerning the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes.On the contrary, I think the right wing would advocate cutting spending so there is no need to tax its citizens excessively.The right wing does not correlate cutting spending with tax cut economics.Still dont know what you are talking about, but, posting the debt clock is a prime example of why the government needs to cut spending.
However, in that, there needs to be uniformity in the tax code, in fact, if I'm not mistaken, the constitution does mention uniformity in tax collection. Whether that is referring to each state paying a uniform amount, or each person paying a uniform amount, I'm not sure.
The point is, we are a nation of freedoms. We can live and work as we please, as long as it is within the confines of our laws. When someone puts themselves in a position to make great sums of money, it is their freedom to be able to keep that money, and not be unfairly penalized for doing so.
Our constitution has no provision for allowing one citizen to be unfairly taxed over another. Morally, the rich should want to help, and in most cases they do, but, it should not be for the government to decide who is rich enough and to seize their money based on the belief that one makes too much money.
That could be a slippery slope. Most people dont think much of it, because it doesnt apply to them, but what happens when it does? What if 20 years from now, then government decides that if you make 100k that that is enough, and any more than that should be taxed at 70%.
What if the government decides that you dont need a 2300 square foot house if you only have 2 children?
If you start allowing the government to dictatae how much is enough money, what's to stop them from applying that same measure to other things?
When does the government get the right to regulate an extravagant lifestyle? It almost sounds as if people are saying "you dont need more than 10 million per year, so the government should have the right to take it". If that's the case, again, I can see a lot of people pulling huge sums of money out of the market, because the market is a risk vs reward venture. If you take awaythat reward, there is no need to take the risk.
I also see companies reducing production, because cost of materials, labor, and utilities wont be warranted if the shareholders are limited in their income. Why would they want to spend the extra money to produce more if their returns will be capped? Shareholders are there to make a return on their investment, if the return isn't there, then the investments will go down.
Nobody is saying we shouldn't help the poor, what they are saying is you shouldn't force people to help the poor. It should be something you do willingly, willingly, but alas, taxation becomes prohibitive.
I argue that you would see charitable giving go up if government would stop taxing so much. I'm telling you, if you decide to raise taxes to 70% on the ultra rich, youd see the economy tank, because rich people dont take risk with their money if there is no return.
The left wants to keep piling more taxes on the wealthy, but they dont want to cut mlm spending. You say they should be helping the poor, so you want to raise taxes, meanwhile, illegals immigration costs the American economy more that 116 billion a year, not to mention all of the foreign aid that we send to other countries.
If they would stop spending so much elsewhere, we'd have the money to put into these programs to aid our own people, and our homeless vets.
Equal protection under the law doesnt mean you can take from one group to another. That's not the intent.
Were not even mentioning all the millions that these rich people give to charities already. Many of these people are philanthropic, and give large sums of money to charitable organizations. Sure, they get tax deductions for it, but at least they are donating.
Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't?I disagree. The constitution does not allege income redustributuon. General welfare does not mean taking from one person and giving it to another. That would be a socialist form of government, which is not what the founders wanted.Only the right wing believes in that form of amorality. We have a Constitution and providing for the common defense and general welfare requires income redistribution.Only the "morally challenged" complain about taxes when poverty exists in our republic and could be solved on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States as that form of equal protection of the law concerning the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes.On the contrary, I think the right wing would advocate cutting spending so there is no need to tax its citizens excessively.The right wing does not correlate cutting spending with tax cut economics.
However, in that, there needs to be uniformity in the tax code, in fact, if I'm not mistaken, the constitution does mention uniformity in tax collection. Whether that is referring to each state paying a uniform amount, or each person paying a uniform amount, I'm not sure.
The point is, we are a nation of freedoms. We can live and work as we please, as long as it is within the confines of our laws. When someone puts themselves in a position to make great sums of money, it is their freedom to be able to keep that money, and not be unfairly penalized for doing so.
Our constitution has no provision for allowing one citizen to be unfairly taxed over another. Morally, the rich should want to help, and in most cases they do, but, it should not be for the government to decide who is rich enough and to seize their money based on the belief that one makes too much money.
That could be a slippery slope. Most people dont think much of it, because it doesnt apply to them, but what happens when it does? What if 20 years from now, then government decides that if you make 100k that that is enough, and any more than that should be taxed at 70%.
What if the government decides that you dont need a 2300 square foot house if you only have 2 children?
If you start allowing the government to dictatae how much is enough money, what's to stop them from applying that same measure to other things?
When does the government get the right to regulate an extravagant lifestyle? It almost sounds as if people are saying "you dont need more than 10 million per year, so the government should have the right to take it". If that's the case, again, I can see a lot of people pulling huge sums of money out of the market, because the market is a risk vs reward venture. If you take awaythat reward, there is no need to take the risk.
I also see companies reducing production, because cost of materials, labor, and utilities wont be warranted if the shareholders are limited in their income. Why would they want to spend the extra money to produce more if their returns will be capped? Shareholders are there to make a return on their investment, if the return isn't there, then the investments will go down.
Nobody is saying we shouldn't help the poor, what they are saying is you shouldn't force people to help the poor. It should be something you do willingly, willingly, but alas, taxation becomes prohibitive.
I argue that you would see charitable giving go up if government would stop taxing so much. I'm telling you, if you decide to raise taxes to 70% on the ultra rich, youd see the economy tank, because rich people dont take risk with their money if there is no return.
The left wants to keep piling more taxes on the wealthy, but they dont want to cut mlm spending. You say they should be helping the poor, so you want to raise taxes, meanwhile, illegals immigration costs the American economy more that 116 billion a year, not to mention all of the foreign aid that we send to other countries.
If they would stop spending so much elsewhere, we'd have the money to put into these programs to aid our own people, and our homeless vets.
Equal protection under the law doesnt mean you can take from one group to another. That's not the intent.
Were not even mentioning all the millions that these rich people give to charities already. Many of these people are philanthropic, and give large sums of money to charitable organizations. Sure, they get tax deductions for it, but at least they are donating.
You're not exactly a deep thinker..If the rich are paying the same percentage as everyone else, that is absolutely fair. What Cortez is proposing at 70 -90 % is an experiment that know one knows the real ramification of. Sounds nice to everyone who is not a billionaire but then what happens when that cost is passed down through loss of jobs?
She's proposing 2% a year for 9 years.Yarddog said:Take the nut bag, Elizabeth Warren for instance. She wants to propose a wealth tax on people with a net worth of 50 Million. ...wait.. I thought the Democrats were talking about billionaires?????? See that? They have no real ideas, they just follow their feelings and they would probably lead the US off the cliff right after Venezuela if left to their own devices. Yesterday it was Billionaires making over 10 million a year, tomorrow it will be someone with a net worth of whatever Democrats decide is obscene wealth.
The power to tax is supposed to have been to help run and pay the debts of the government, and to support the functions of government, things like building post roads, funding for military. Things that were allowed for under the enumerated powers.Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't?I disagree. The constitution does not allege income redustributuon. General welfare does not mean taking from one person and giving it to another. That would be a socialist form of government, which is not what the founders wanted.Only the right wing believes in that form of amorality. We have a Constitution and providing for the common defense and general welfare requires income redistribution.Only the "morally challenged" complain about taxes when poverty exists in our republic and could be solved on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States as that form of equal protection of the law concerning the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes.On the contrary, I think the right wing would advocate cutting spending so there is no need to tax its citizens excessively.
However, in that, there needs to be uniformity in the tax code, in fact, if I'm not mistaken, the constitution does mention uniformity in tax collection. Whether that is referring to each state paying a uniform amount, or each person paying a uniform amount, I'm not sure.
The point is, we are a nation of freedoms. We can live and work as we please, as long as it is within the confines of our laws. When someone puts themselves in a position to make great sums of money, it is their freedom to be able to keep that money, and not be unfairly penalized for doing so.
Our constitution has no provision for allowing one citizen to be unfairly taxed over another. Morally, the rich should want to help, and in most cases they do, but, it should not be for the government to decide who is rich enough and to seize their money based on the belief that one makes too much money.
That could be a slippery slope. Most people dont think much of it, because it doesnt apply to them, but what happens when it does? What if 20 years from now, then government decides that if you make 100k that that is enough, and any more than that should be taxed at 70%.
What if the government decides that you dont need a 2300 square foot house if you only have 2 children?
If you start allowing the government to dictatae how much is enough money, what's to stop them from applying that same measure to other things?
When does the government get the right to regulate an extravagant lifestyle? It almost sounds as if people are saying "you dont need more than 10 million per year, so the government should have the right to take it". If that's the case, again, I can see a lot of people pulling huge sums of money out of the market, because the market is a risk vs reward venture. If you take awaythat reward, there is no need to take the risk.
I also see companies reducing production, because cost of materials, labor, and utilities wont be warranted if the shareholders are limited in their income. Why would they want to spend the extra money to produce more if their returns will be capped? Shareholders are there to make a return on their investment, if the return isn't there, then the investments will go down.
Nobody is saying we shouldn't help the poor, what they are saying is you shouldn't force people to help the poor. It should be something you do willingly, willingly, but alas, taxation becomes prohibitive.
I argue that you would see charitable giving go up if government would stop taxing so much. I'm telling you, if you decide to raise taxes to 70% on the ultra rich, youd see the economy tank, because rich people dont take risk with their money if there is no return.
The left wants to keep piling more taxes on the wealthy, but they dont want to cut mlm spending. You say they should be helping the poor, so you want to raise taxes, meanwhile, illegals immigration costs the American economy more that 116 billion a year, not to mention all of the foreign aid that we send to other countries.
If they would stop spending so much elsewhere, we'd have the money to put into these programs to aid our own people, and our homeless vets.
Equal protection under the law doesnt mean you can take from one group to another. That's not the intent.
Were not even mentioning all the millions that these rich people give to charities already. Many of these people are philanthropic, and give large sums of money to charitable organizations. Sure, they get tax deductions for it, but at least they are donating.
Simply delegating the Power to Tax is a form of income redistribution.
But, I dont think a flat tax would be that high. Likely, the flat tax would be closer to 10% than 25%. The idea being that, there will be no deductions, no loopholes.You're not exactly a deep thinker..If the rich are paying the same percentage as everyone else, that is absolutely fair. What Cortez is proposing at 70 -90 % is an experiment that know one knows the real ramification of. Sounds nice to everyone who is not a billionaire but then what happens when that cost is passed down through loss of jobs?
or even medium depth.
Did you ever think of doing a simple 'for instance' on a Flat Tax?
Say 25% of Goldman chief Blankein's $40 million.. or $10 Million.
And 25% of the avg Walmart Salary of $25,000.. or $6250.
$6250 off the Walmarter's salary is BLOOD money.
Rent, medical, car to get to work, etc.
Instant depression and riots in the street.
Your long posts.. such a waste.
She's proposing 2% a year for 9 years.Yarddog said:Take the nut bag, Elizabeth Warren for instance. She wants to propose a wealth tax on people with a net worth of 50 Million. ...wait.. I thought the Democrats were talking about billionaires?????? See that? They have no real ideas, they just follow their feelings and they would probably lead the US off the cliff right after Venezuela if left to their own devices. Yesterday it was Billionaires making over 10 million a year, tomorrow it will be someone with a net worth of whatever Democrats decide is obscene wealth.
No one will be jumping off a cliff or on a plane.
Buffett will lose 1.6 Bil of his $80 Billion.
And he and everyone else over 5 million (much less 50 Mil) makes way more than 2% a Year.
It's a yawner, Not 'Venezuela.'
Your have Zero brains, just politics.
`
not sure what you mean.System that allows anti-Americans in America is not only immoral, but stupid.
are the People supposed to do it for free? simply having the Power to Tax is income redistribution.The power to tax is supposed to have been to help run and pay the debts of the government, and to support the functions of government, things like building post roads, funding for military. Things that were allowed for under the enumerated powers.Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't?I disagree. The constitution does not allege income redustributuon. General welfare does not mean taking from one person and giving it to another. That would be a socialist form of government, which is not what the founders wanted.Only the right wing believes in that form of amorality. We have a Constitution and providing for the common defense and general welfare requires income redistribution.Only the "morally challenged" complain about taxes when poverty exists in our republic and could be solved on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States as that form of equal protection of the law concerning the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes.
Nobody is saying we shouldn't help the poor, what they are saying is you shouldn't force people to help the poor. It should be something you do willingly, willingly, but alas, taxation becomes prohibitive.
I argue that you would see charitable giving go up if government would stop taxing so much. I'm telling you, if you decide to raise taxes to 70% on the ultra rich, youd see the economy tank, because rich people dont take risk with their money if there is no return.
The left wants to keep piling more taxes on the wealthy, but they dont want to cut mlm spending. You say they should be helping the poor, so you want to raise taxes, meanwhile, illegals immigration costs the American economy more that 116 billion a year, not to mention all of the foreign aid that we send to other countries.
If they would stop spending so much elsewhere, we'd have the money to put into these programs to aid our own people, and our homeless vets.
Equal protection under the law doesnt mean you can take from one group to another. That's not the intent.
Were not even mentioning all the millions that these rich people give to charities already. Many of these people are philanthropic, and give large sums of money to charitable organizations. Sure, they get tax deductions for it, but at least they are donating.
Simply delegating the Power to Tax is a form of income redistribution.
It was never supposed to be for taking from people and giving to other people.
