The inept and corrupt federal government

[owebo]

Punishment....can you stop being stupid....just for a little while.

The poor absorb a disproportionate amount of taxes in the form of welfare and other public services. They also benefit from the protection of our armies.

The term "fair" was used. I simply applied it.

Unless you think it fair that someone get these benefits and not contribute.

You tax where the money is.

Where is that written ?

If you benefit, you can help.

Why do you advocate taxing those who only control two TENTHS of a percent of the wealth while offering those who have 34.6 of the wealth historically low tax rates

I don't recall saying anything about the wealthy. I am all for raising their taxes.

Shove your strawman.

But I don't advocate raising taxes unless there is an agreement that for every extra dollar of tax, there are three real dollars cut from the federal spending registers.

Again, why punish the poor for being poor

Why do you want a family struggling to feed, house and provide healthcare to do with less ?

Indeed....why do democrats punish the poor?

 

[owebo]

Less than 3% of GDP ??? And that is small ?

I don't know about today's armies, but I do know that poor people did when being in the army was not a good thing. Regardless, the army then benefits the poor in many ways.

Food stamps are promoted by the food corporations. I'd have no problem with them if I didn't see it as another corporate program that made the rich richer.

To my mind 3% is too large, but the real problem is that we have 400 people in this country who have more money than 40% of the population combined.

So?

 

[P@triot]

Again Wrongwinger, why punish the wealthy for being successful?

How do you equate someone with a private jet sacrificing to someone struggling to feed their kids sacrificing?

By that "logic" you should beat a child who comes home with straight A's, take half of their A's and swap them with the child with straight F's. After all, that child with straight F's is "struggling" in school. We should reward him for that and punish that child for excelling with straight A's.

The person struggling to feed their children shouldn't have had children. That is irresponsible and part of the reason they are in the financial circumstances they find themselves.

Damn.....you really suck at analogies

LOL! Kind of just proved how dumb your views are on punishing the wealthy, didn't I?

No.....you really do suck at analogies

Try again

I don't need to. I've left you with no where to go by exposing just how stupid your views on wealth and success are (ie punish those that are successful and reward those who fail).

No rational person would do that with a child in school. No rational person would do that with an athlete in sports. No rational person would do that with an employee at a business. And no rational person would do that with tax policy.

Here is indisputable proof. A huge supporter of the Dumbocrat Party renounced her citizenship during the Obama reign of terror and moved to Europe to save money. Instead of getting 10% of her wealth, the idiotic tax policies you support resulted in the U.S. getting 0% of her wealth.

Since all of you progressives have limited intellect - I will help you out on this one. 10% is a LOT more than 0%.

Denise Rich Renounces U.S. Citizenship, Will Save Tens Of Millions In Tax Dollars | The Huffington Post

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Less than 3% of GDP ??? And that is small ?

I don't know about today's armies, but I do know that poor people did when being in the army was not a good thing. Regardless, the army then benefits the poor in many ways.

Food stamps are promoted by the food corporations. I'd have no problem with them if I didn't see it as another corporate program that made the rich richer.

To my mind 3% is too large, but the real problem is that we have 400 people in this country who have more money than 40% of the population combined.

I am 100% in agreement with you on this.

The trouble is that most of them use the federal government to further widen the gap.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Again, why punish the poor for being poor

Again Wrongwinger, why punish the wealthy for being successful?

How do you equate someone with a private jet sacrificing to someone struggling to feed their kids sacrificing?

Nobody is being punished.

It's simply a fact that if you reap some of the benefits...you get to pay for them at some level.

The guy with the private jet is paying a helk of a lot more overall.

That fact that he has a good lifestyle isn't his fault.

The guy "struggling" to feed his family is almost a ghost anymore. Anyone struggling to feed their family does not know the federal program avaialbe to them.

 

[Papageorgio]

[

Define fair share.

I've done this many times. I'm not going to keep answering questions when you keep ignoring the answers.

What we had before that senile fuck Reagan gave away the store to the rich would be fine.

Never saw where you defined it, of course most your most I ignore.

 

[JoeB131]

Never saw where you defined it, of course most your most I ignore.

And Grammar lessons in school, I see...

 

[rightwinger]

Again, why punish the poor for being poor

Again Wrongwinger, why punish the wealthy for being successful?

How do you equate someone with a private jet sacrificing to someone struggling to feed their kids sacrificing?

Nobody is being punished.

It's simply a fact that if you reap some of the benefits...you get to pay for them at some level.

The guy with the private jet is paying a helk of a lot more overall.

That fact that he has a good lifestyle isn't his fault.

The guy "struggling" to feed his family is almost a ghost anymore. Anyone struggling to feed their family does not know the federal program avaialbe to them.

Many Americans are struggling. The myth of a welfare luxury lifestyle is just that. People are getting help because they need it

$50 trillion has been added to our nations wealth in the last eight years. Very little of that money trickled down in the form of increased wages and benefits for low scale working Americans

Rather than to force some of that wealth to trickle down to the wage earners, you prefer that those low wage earners pay more taxes

 

[Papageorgio]

Never saw where you defined it, of course most your most I ignore.

And Grammar lessons in school, I see...

Nice duck.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Again, why punish the poor for being poor

Again Wrongwinger, why punish the wealthy for being successful?

How do you equate someone with a private jet sacrificing to someone struggling to feed their kids sacrificing?

Nobody is being punished.

It's simply a fact that if you reap some of the benefits...you get to pay for them at some level.

The guy with the private jet is paying a helk of a lot more overall.

That fact that he has a good lifestyle isn't his fault.

The guy "struggling" to feed his family is almost a ghost anymore. Anyone struggling to feed their family does not know the federal program avaialbe to them.

Many Americans are struggling. The myth of a welfare luxury lifestyle is just that. People are getting help because they need it

$50 trillion has been added to our nations wealth in the last eight years. Very little of that money trickled down in the form of increased wages and benefits for low scale working Americans

Rather than to force some of that wealth to trickle down to the wage earners, you prefer that those low wage earners pay more taxes

I don't want to force anything (that's what makes you a left winger and me a conservative). I want them doing better because the system is not rigged against them.

That I have always said.

Regardless, they should be paying something in federal income taxes.

And nobody said antying about welfare luxury. I said they can feed their family.....can you ever stop with the leftwinging bullcrap ?

I am all for going after some of that money the 1% make. But you left wingers are going to have to understand that it is because of the government (you love so much....after all they line your pockets) that they stay so rich.

 

[P@triot]

The repulsive waste, fraud, and abuse continues. We must put a stop to this...

Taxpayers Foot Bill for ‘Doggie Hamlet’

 

[rightwinger]

The repulsive waste, fraud, and abuse continues. We must put a stop to this...

Taxpayers Foot Bill for ‘Doggie Hamlet’

One mans Doggie Hamlet is another mans Shakespeare

 

[JoeB131]

The repulsive waste, fraud, and abuse continues. We must put a stop to this...

Taxpayers Foot Bill for ‘Doggie Hamlet’

One mans Doggie Hamlet is another mans Shakespeare

Shhhh.... Poodle's just upset he wasn't called for the role.

Just yesterday, he heard the great man tell him how much he pays in taxes, right before he told Poodle to go fetch his coffee from the Starbucks. And Poodle said, "I want to be just like him when I grow up!"

 

[P@triot]

The repulsive waste, fraud, and abuse continues. We must put a stop to this...

Taxpayers Foot Bill for ‘Doggie Hamlet’

One mans Doggie Hamlet is another mans Shakespeare

And neither can be legally funded by the U.S. government. They simply do not have the authority to spend my tax dollars on art, plays, etc. (no matter how badly you want to spin it).

 

[rightwinger]

The repulsive waste, fraud, and abuse continues. We must put a stop to this...

Taxpayers Foot Bill for ‘Doggie Hamlet’

One mans Doggie Hamlet is another mans Shakespeare

And neither can be legally funded by the U.S. government. They simply do not have the authority to spend my tax dollars on art, plays, etc. (no matter how badly you want to spin it).

Of course they do

Government can spend money on art and culture to enhance the General Welfare of We the People

Is the Government allowed to spend money on National Parks?

 

[P@triot]

Of course they do.

"Do" and "Can" are two distinctly separate concepts my friend. For instance, men do rape women. But by law, they cannot rape women. I've explained this to you many times. Why do you continue to struggle with it?

Government can spend money on art and culture to enhance the General Welfare of We the People

First of all, that does not "enhance" anything. Secondly, as I've taught you many times already, the "General Welfare" is in reference to the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government. Art is not one of those 18 enumerated powers. Theatre is not one of those 18 enumerated powers. Education is not one of those 18 enumerated powers.

Is the Government allowed to spend money on National Parks?

Of course not. Parks are not one of the 18 enumerated powers. Your entire game of pretending like you don't know any of this after I've taught you for years is really juvenile you know.

 

[P@triot]

Government can spend money on art and culture to enhance the General Welfare of We the People

We the People don't want them to. It violates the U.S. Constitution. That's why We the People elected a Republican to the White House. That's why We the People elected a Republican House. That's why We the People elected a Republican Senate. That's why We the People elected 33 Republican Governors.

One would think that you the anti-American marxists would have figured this out already.

 

[P@triot]

Government can spend money on art and culture to enhance the General Welfare of We the People

The General Welfare is limited to the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government only. If they weren't, then the federal government would have unlimited powers. For instance, they could execute everyone with an IQ under 90 such as yourself, proclaiming that is (and I quote) "for the General Welfare". Do you realize how stupid you sound now?

“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 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” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch 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, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

 

[rightwinger]

Of course they do.

"Do" and "Can" are two distinctly separate concepts my friend. For instance, men do rape women. But by law, they cannot rape women. I've explained this to you many times. Why do you continue to struggle with it?

Government can spend money on art and culture to enhance the General Welfare of We the People

First of all, that does not "enhance" anything. Secondly, as I've taught you many times already, the "General Welfare" is in reference to the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government. Art is not one of those 18 enumerated powers. Theatre is not one of those 18 enumerated powers. Education is not one of those 18 enumerated powers.

Is the Government allowed to spend money on National Parks?

Of course not. Parks are not one of the 18 enumerated powers. Your entire game of pretending like you don't know any of this after I've taught you for years is really juvenile you know.

We the People will decide what congress can and cannot spend money on for our general welfare

 

[P@triot]

We the People will decide what congress can and cannot spend money on for our general welfare

Nope. You the anti-American marxists do not. The U.S. Constitution dictates what Congress can and cannot spend money on. That's just a simple fact. If you the anti-American marxists want to spend money on something now permitted in the U.S. Constitution, then you the anti-American marxists must get the votes necessary to amend the U.S. Constitution for your anti-American marxist vision. Sorry. I know that requires work and you anti-American marxists don't like work, but that's just the legal requirement of our system.