Taxing the wealthy more will have little to no impact on your life or anyone around you

[Conservative65]

So funding something that the Constitution specifically says is a delegated power of Congress to fund is wrong yet funding something for which the Constitution says nothing is perfectly OK with you?

Specifically?

The navy is the only part of the military that the government is mandated to fund.

It is not mandated to fund a permanent standing Army.
It is not mandated to fund an Air Force.

And the ground forces specified by the Constitution are made up of the Militia.

Which by the way is what the second amendment is really about, having an army on the cheap.

And if you really want to get down to brass tacks, the Constitution makes no provision to go to private firms to equip the military. Jefferson was the first President to do that during the Barbary Coast war despite the objection of Congress.

Why don't you show me the part that says food stamps, public housing, WIC, social security, medicare, medicaid, healthcare, etc.

Your complaint is how it's done in an attempt to try and say it shouldn't be done with the military.

You made a post stating something about the Constitution which was wrong.

And the Constitution is pretty specific about how the military should get funded. The Congress has gone around that.

However the Constitution has several pretty broad clauses about "General Welfare" which are not specific.

Broad clauses that you bleeding heart misuse on a regular basis.

Article I, Section 8 says to raise and support armies. The next clause say navy.

For no more than 2 years.

It say no appropriation for that use shall be longer than two years. That doesn't mean the army could only in place for two years then go away. Appropriation is the key term. After the maximum of two years, the money can be appropriated again either being more or less. It has to be addressed at least every two years but the current appropriate can only last for up to two.

Where does it say money can be appropriated for food stamps? It doesn't and nowhere does it even imply that general welfare means such programs.

 

[Sallow]

the Constitution has several pretty broad clauses about "General Welfare" which are not specific.

100% stupid and liberal. It has one clause and it is very specific.

No, it's not.

And it's in the preamble and the first clause in section 8.

There is nothing specific about it.

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. 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 may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It 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 sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.- Madison

"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



Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. 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 power completely useless. It 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 be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

None of that, is in the Constitution.

Which is why you have to go and find "opinions", which by the way? Changed over time.

Additionally you guys seem to skip the opinions from many of the same authors that wanted no part of a huge standing army under federal control or loathed the idea of having obscenely wealthy people in this country.

 

[Sallow]

Specifically?

The navy is the only part of the military that the government is mandated to fund.

It is not mandated to fund a permanent standing Army.
It is not mandated to fund an Air Force.

And the ground forces specified by the Constitution are made up of the Militia.

Which by the way is what the second amendment is really about, having an army on the cheap.

And if you really want to get down to brass tacks, the Constitution makes no provision to go to private firms to equip the military. Jefferson was the first President to do that during the Barbary Coast war despite the objection of Congress.

Why don't you show me the part that says food stamps, public housing, WIC, social security, medicare, medicaid, healthcare, etc.

Your complaint is how it's done in an attempt to try and say it shouldn't be done with the military.

You made a post stating something about the Constitution which was wrong.

And the Constitution is pretty specific about how the military should get funded. The Congress has gone around that.

However the Constitution has several pretty broad clauses about "General Welfare" which are not specific.

Broad clauses that you bleeding heart misuse on a regular basis.

Article I, Section 8 says to raise and support armies. The next clause say navy.

For no more than 2 years.

It say no appropriation for that use shall be longer than two years. That doesn't mean the army could only in place for two years then go away. Appropriation is the key term. After the maximum of two years, the money can be appropriated again either being more or less. It has to be addressed at least every two years but the current appropriate can only last for up to two.

Where does it say money can be appropriated for food stamps? It doesn't and nowhere does it even imply that general welfare means such programs.

The Continental Army was disbanded in 1783.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

None of that, is in the Constitution.

.

too stupid as always. it is what the author who wrote it said it meant!!!

Now do you understand??

 

[Conservative65]

Why don't you show me the part that says food stamps, public housing, WIC, social security, medicare, medicaid, healthcare, etc.

Your complaint is how it's done in an attempt to try and say it shouldn't be done with the military.

You made a post stating something about the Constitution which was wrong.

And the Constitution is pretty specific about how the military should get funded. The Congress has gone around that.

However the Constitution has several pretty broad clauses about "General Welfare" which are not specific.

Broad clauses that you bleeding heart misuse on a regular basis.

Article I, Section 8 says to raise and support armies. The next clause say navy.

For no more than 2 years.

It say no appropriation for that use shall be longer than two years. That doesn't mean the army could only in place for two years then go away. Appropriation is the key term. After the maximum of two years, the money can be appropriated again either being more or less. It has to be addressed at least every two years but the current appropriate can only last for up to two.

Where does it say money can be appropriated for food stamps? It doesn't and nowhere does it even imply that general welfare means such programs.

The Continental Army was disbanded in 1783.

That portion of the Constitution wasn't written until 1787. Your example is stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

The fact that Republicans still bring up that $10,000 shrimp experiment shows how little they know about science

$10,000? Try four million dollars.

'Shrimp On A Treadmill': The Politics Of 'Silly' Studies

..Take the case of the "shrimp on a treadmill." Burnett says the senator's report linked that work to a half-million-dollar research grant. But that money actually went to a lot of different research that he and his colleagues did on this economically important seafood species.

The treadmills were just a small part of it, a way to measure how shrimp respond to changes in water quality. Burnett says the first treadmill was built by a colleague from scraps and was basically free, and the second was fancier and cost about $1,000. The senator's report was misleading, says Burnett, "and it suggests that much money was spent on seeing how long a shrimp can run on a treadmill, which was totally out of context."

'Shrimp On A Treadmill' And The Politics Of 'Silly' Science Studies

It amazes me that brain washed conservatives still bring this up as an example of taxpayer waste. Even if the story was debunked years ago

To Conservatives, it is scientists saying...Let's put shrimp on a treadmill and see what happens

To scientists, it was a low cost method to find out at what point water contamination begins to impact shrimp

Republicans and science....it totally baffles them

The only thing baffling is your complete ignorance when it comes to frivolous spending.

You dumbasses bitch CONSTANTLY about not having enough money to spend on everything from social services to education to foodstamps. Yet somehow you defend shit like this.
It just goes to show that no amount of taxation will ever be enough for you greedy scumbags.

We DEFINITELY want to only tax the rich more. The amount for science studies is tiny compared to giveaways to big oil, etc etc. Pubs are WORSE at big gov't and spending. GREAT CON MEN,

There are no "giveaways" to big oil, numskull. That's purely libturd propaganda.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

$10,000? Try four million dollars.

'Shrimp On A Treadmill': The Politics Of 'Silly' Studies

..Take the case of the "shrimp on a treadmill." Burnett says the senator's report linked that work to a half-million-dollar research grant. But that money actually went to a lot of different research that he and his colleagues did on this economically important seafood species.

The treadmills were just a small part of it, a way to measure how shrimp respond to changes in water quality. Burnett says the first treadmill was built by a colleague from scraps and was basically free, and the second was fancier and cost about $1,000. The senator's report was misleading, says Burnett, "and it suggests that much money was spent on seeing how long a shrimp can run on a treadmill, which was totally out of context."

'Shrimp On A Treadmill' And The Politics Of 'Silly' Science Studies

It amazes me that brain washed conservatives still bring this up as an example of taxpayer waste. Even if the story was debunked years ago

To Conservatives, it is scientists saying...Let's put shrimp on a treadmill and see what happens

To scientists, it was a low cost method to find out at what point water contamination begins to impact shrimp

Republicans and science....it totally baffles them

The only thing baffling is your complete ignorance when it comes to frivolous spending.

You dumbasses bitch CONSTANTLY about not having enough money to spend on everything from social services to education to foodstamps. Yet somehow you defend shit like this.
It just goes to show that no amount of taxation will ever be enough for you greedy scumbags.

We DEFINITELY want to only tax the rich more. The amount for science studies is tiny compared to giveaways to big oil, etc etc. Pubs are WORSE at big gov't and spending. GREAT CON MEN,

There are no "giveaways" to big oil, numskull. That's purely libturd propaganda.

yes corporate welfare it a liberal lie which is why they never give the best example of it but still love to parrot the myth!!

 

[bripat9643]

socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual. the right Only complains about the use of the other Peoples' money when the least wealthy may receive some social benefit.

How does socialism bail out problems it caused?

How many of those receiving social welfare handouts fund the pot from which they draw? The answer is none. If they are eligible to draw, they don't fund and vice versa.

how is it socialism's fault that capitalists want to socialize their costs and their taxes as much as possible?

why not simplify unemployment compensation funding into a general tax on firms? it would be much simpler than our current regime.

and, socialism requires social morals for free; thus, we Only have social problems due to a lack of morals.

capitalism can only engender capital morals for a price.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

If capitalists wanted to socialize their costs, they wouldn't be capitalists.

Why not let you bleeding hearts support those unemployed instead of expecting others to do it?

Whose morals? You lefties constantly talk about not having morals shoved on you then shove yours when it suits you.

If people like you would show the compassion you claim you have by using your own money, government wouldn't be necessary in that realm. If you see a need, meet it. The government doesn't need to be involved if you truly care as much as you say you do.

how does that work for corporate welfare? in any case, i won't quibble labels in this discussion. i agree to imply crony forms of capitalism when i claim capital intents and purposes.

because that is socializing costs for others via public accommodation. why not insist capitalist go not-for-the-profit-of-lucre when engaging their subjective value of morals.

Equality is a social moral. Why do the wealthiest object to paying for the finest economy money can buy?

No such thing as corporate welfare. That's a Liberal term.

Equality of results? That's what those who won't do for themselves expect others to provide to them.

There is corporate welfare, but the Dims are most responsible for it. Just think Solyndra. Dims are also big supporters of the Ethanol mandate.

 

[bripat9643]

No such thing as corporate welfare. That's a Liberal term.

Equality of results? That's what those who won't do for themselves expect others to provide to them.

simple denial won't work on me. it is an analogy for comparison and contrast. corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare as a privilege and immunity; why are there more stringent means testing for the least wealthy?

Again, no such thing as corporate welfare.

thank you for ceding the point and the argument. you must explain why there is no such thing as corporate welfare.

You must explain how those actually paying taxes are receiving welfare. No such thing.

everybody pays taxes. only the Right is disingenuous to claim Only income taxes are real taxes.

They don't claim that, so you posted a straw man argument.

 

[bripat9643]

JUL 7, 2013 @ 10:00 AM 6,904 VIEWS
It's Time To Sequester Green Energy Subsidies, Not Mythical Oil And Gas Tax Breaks

"Using a very broad definition applied by Oil Change International, the term “subsidies” refers to: “any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers, or lowers the price paid by consumers.” So based upon the first of these criteria, let’s assume that the president is referring to three types of oil and gas company tax “loopholes”: 1) an oil depletion allowance; 2) expensing drilling costs; and 3), a credit for taxes paid to foreign nations during foreign operations (a foreign tax credit). Yet in one form or another, these same advantages are extended to other industries as well, and often with more generous benefits.

Oil depletion allowances, the first category, principally apply to small independent producers, with similar benefits available for all mineral extraction, timber industries, etc., allowing them to pass the depletion on to individual investors. Large integrated corporations haven’t been eligible for these since the mid-1970s. Expensing indirect drilling costs involves writing off expenses in the year incurred rather than capitalizing them and writing them off over several years. Closing this “loophole” would only change the timing of taking he expense, not the total amounts of the so-called “subsidy”. The third category, a tax credit for taxes paid to foreign nations, is available for all international companies. This provides an offset to foreign taxes, often paid as royalties, so that the companies aren’t taxed twice on the same income.

The oil and gas extraction and refining has already been singled out to receive even fewer tax breaks than other industries. Whereas Section 199 of the “American Job Creation Act of 2004” provides a 9% deduction from net income for businesses engaged in “qualified production activities”, oil and gas was penalized and limited to a 6% deduction. Passed with strong bipartisan congressional support, the intent was to provide a competitive advantage to domestic companies engaged in product manufacturing, sales, leasing or licensing, and production-related software activities.

Many manufacturing industries, including farm equipment, appliances and pharmaceuticals take advantage of the full Section 199 deduction. Even highly profitable companies like Microsoft and Apple get those breaks, as do some foreign companies that operate factories in the U.S."

It's Time To Sequester Green Energy Subsidies, Not Mythical Oil And Gas Tax Breaks

Forbes is Murdoch- this guy is a bought off POS

1. Forbes, Larry Bell, and the Climate of Corruption...
   thinkprogress.org/.../07/207304/forbes-larry-bell-and-the...
   Jan 06, 2011 · Architecture professor and columnist Larry Bell has a new book of climate science disinformation out, Climate of Corruption. You can save yourself the tro
   
   
2. Larry Bell - SourceWatch
   www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Larry_Bell
   Nov 09, 2011 · Larry Bell is a weekly columnist for Forbes Magazine with no evident climate expertise who writes columns dismissing climate science, . He is listed as ...

Oh, so you don't like Forbes now do ya?

Well I'll go further left. How about FactCheck?

Oil Company Tax Breaks?

Both leading Democratic candidates have referred to tax breaks to oil companies:

Clinton, July 23, 2007: First of all, I have proposed a strategic energy fund that I would fund by taking away the tax break for the oil companies, which have gotten much greater under Bush and Cheney.

Obama, June 22, 2007: In the face of furious lobbying, Congress brushed aside incentives for the production of more renewable fuels in favor of more tax breaks for the oil and gas companies.

Both candidates are referring to H.R. 6, the 2005 energy bill that contained $14.3 billion in subsidies for energy companies. However, as we’ve reported numerous times, a vast majority of those subsidies (all but $2.8 billion) were for nuclear power, energy-efficient cars and buildings, and renewable fuels research. In addition, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the tax changes in the 2005 energy bill produced a net tax increase for the oil and gas companies, as we’ve reported time and time and time again. They did get some breaks, but they had more taken away.

Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks

When you mess with the best, you die like the rest.

Sounds like a good bill except the billions going to oil companies swimming in profits. I mean ridiculous profits and low taxes.

Comprehension problems again? Didn't you bother reading the article? Oil companies get no more of a tax write-off than any other industry in the US.

The giant corps ALL get ridiculous write offs now duh. 12.6% EFFECTIVE rate.

Name one. How is your "effective rate" calculated? If it isn't based on net income reported on their 1040, then it's pure horseshit.

 

[Sallow]

You made a post stating something about the Constitution which was wrong.

And the Constitution is pretty specific about how the military should get funded. The Congress has gone around that.

However the Constitution has several pretty broad clauses about "General Welfare" which are not specific.

Broad clauses that you bleeding heart misuse on a regular basis.

Article I, Section 8 says to raise and support armies. The next clause say navy.

For no more than 2 years.

It say no appropriation for that use shall be longer than two years. That doesn't mean the army could only in place for two years then go away. Appropriation is the key term. After the maximum of two years, the money can be appropriated again either being more or less. It has to be addressed at least every two years but the current appropriate can only last for up to two.

Where does it say money can be appropriated for food stamps? It doesn't and nowhere does it even imply that general welfare means such programs.

The Continental Army was disbanded in 1783.

That portion of the Constitution wasn't written until 1787. Your example is stupid.

Example?

The founders wanted no part of a professional armed forces until after the war of 1812.

 

[Conservative65]

Broad clauses that you bleeding heart misuse on a regular basis.

Article I, Section 8 says to raise and support armies. The next clause say navy.

For no more than 2 years.

It say no appropriation for that use shall be longer than two years. That doesn't mean the army could only in place for two years then go away. Appropriation is the key term. After the maximum of two years, the money can be appropriated again either being more or less. It has to be addressed at least every two years but the current appropriate can only last for up to two.

Where does it say money can be appropriated for food stamps? It doesn't and nowhere does it even imply that general welfare means such programs.

The Continental Army was disbanded in 1783.

That portion of the Constitution wasn't written until 1787. Your example is stupid.

Example?

The founders wanted no part of a professional armed forces until after the war of 1812.

Your example using the Continental Army being disbanded is stupid. That occurred 4 years before the founders put in the Constitution the ability of Congress to appropriate money for an army and revisit it every two years.

 

[Sallow]

None of that, is in the Constitution.

.

too stupid as always. it is what the author who wrote it said it meant!!!

Now do you understand??

This isn't in the Constitution either..but was written by it's author.

In every political society, parties are unavoidable. A difference of interests, real or supposed, is the most natural and fruitful source of them. The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all. 2. By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches. 3. By the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort. 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expence of another. 5. By making one party a check on the other, so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented, nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism.

James Madison.

You AGREE with that? Or NOT?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You AGREE with that? Or NOT?

too stupid!! Madison liked parties, but parties that were both fighting for freedom in different ways. He despised treasonous liberal parties that opposed freedom!!

 

[Sallow]

For no more than 2 years.

It say no appropriation for that use shall be longer than two years. That doesn't mean the army could only in place for two years then go away. Appropriation is the key term. After the maximum of two years, the money can be appropriated again either being more or less. It has to be addressed at least every two years but the current appropriate can only last for up to two.

Where does it say money can be appropriated for food stamps? It doesn't and nowhere does it even imply that general welfare means such programs.

The Continental Army was disbanded in 1783.

That portion of the Constitution wasn't written until 1787. Your example is stupid.

Example?

The founders wanted no part of a professional armed forces until after the war of 1812.

Your example using the Continental Army being disbanded is stupid. That occurred 4 years before the founders put in the Constitution the ability of Congress to appropriate money for an army and revisit it every two years.

Nothing in the constitution provides for a standing army. It does provide for a militia. Which was to be used only to repulse invasions and quell rebellions.

Trying reading the document.

 

[Sallow]

You AGREE with that? Or NOT?

too stupid!! Madison liked parties, but parties that were both fighting for freedom in different ways. He despised treasonous liberal parties that opposed freedom!!

You didn't read what I posted. Try again.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You AGREE with that? Or NOT?

too stupid!! Madison liked parties, but parties that were both fighting for freedom in different ways. He despised treasonous liberal parties that opposed freedom!!

You didn't read what I posted. Try again.

too stupid!! Madison liked parties, but parties that were both fighting for freedom in different ways. He despised treasonous liberal parties that opposed freedom!!

 

[Conservative65]

It say no appropriation for that use shall be longer than two years. That doesn't mean the army could only in place for two years then go away. Appropriation is the key term. After the maximum of two years, the money can be appropriated again either being more or less. It has to be addressed at least every two years but the current appropriate can only last for up to two.

Where does it say money can be appropriated for food stamps? It doesn't and nowhere does it even imply that general welfare means such programs.

The Continental Army was disbanded in 1783.

That portion of the Constitution wasn't written until 1787. Your example is stupid.

Example?

The founders wanted no part of a professional armed forces until after the war of 1812.

Your example using the Continental Army being disbanded is stupid. That occurred 4 years before the founders put in the Constitution the ability of Congress to appropriate money for an army and revisit it every two years.

Nothing in the constitution provides for a standing army. It does provide for a militia. Which was to be used only to repulse invasions and quell rebellions.

Trying reading the document.

Article I, section 8 says Congress has the delegated authority to raise and support armies. That means they can appropriate money for standing army. The clause about militias is addressed three after the one about armies.

I read it. That's how I KNOW it says raise and support an army.

 

[Sallow]

The Continental Army was disbanded in 1783.

That portion of the Constitution wasn't written until 1787. Your example is stupid.

Example?

The founders wanted no part of a professional armed forces until after the war of 1812.

Your example using the Continental Army being disbanded is stupid. That occurred 4 years before the founders put in the Constitution the ability of Congress to appropriate money for an army and revisit it every two years.

Nothing in the constitution provides for a standing army. It does provide for a militia. Which was to be used only to repulse invasions and quell rebellions.

Trying reading the document.

Article I, section 8 says Congress has the delegated authority to raise and support armies. That means they can appropriate money for standing army. The clause about militias is addressed three after the one about armies.

I read it. That's how I KNOW it says raise and support an army.

Sure does.

For no more than 2 years.

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

Why is it you guys CONTINUE to bifurcate these clauses?

 

[danielpalos]

simple denial won't work on me. it is an analogy for comparison and contrast. corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare as a privilege and immunity; why are there more stringent means testing for the least wealthy?

Again, no such thing as corporate welfare.

thank you for ceding the point and the argument. you must explain why there is no such thing as corporate welfare.

You must explain how those actually paying taxes are receiving welfare. No such thing.

everybody pays taxes. only the Right is disingenuous to claim Only income taxes are real taxes.

Where does the spending money come from? Sales tax? Social Security tax? FICA tax? Medicare tax?

No, spending comes from income taxes.

how is that the fault of the least wealthy?

taxes are taxes to the extent it reduces disposable income. what percentage is paid by the bottom quintile as a percentage of Income.