Congress's First Power Demolishes Tea Party's "Constitutional Principle"

[Stephanie]

lol, Paul Abrams and Failgo are both Constitution idiots.

AND the general welfare.

good luck trying to sell that line the way you all want to MISINTERPERT IT.

Of course with the progressives-Socialist teaching in a lot of schools today, who knows.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I've got a few really nice liberal friends who understand how companies, corporations, things in general work. They'd be ashamed of Flaylo.

 

[manifold]

Paul Abrams: Congress's First Power Demolishes Tea Party's "Constitutional Principle"

One wonders if Congressman Paul, or any of the Tea Partiers running on such a platform actually bothered to read the Constitution, or whether they just purchased worn, dog-eared copies to convey that impression.

The very first enumerated power granted to Congress in Article I, section 8, of the Constitution definitively dispels their belief. Unlike the third power, the "Commerce Clause" that has been the subject of centuries of Supreme Court interpretation to determine what is interstate commerce is in a growing, changing and increasingly integrated economy, Congress's first power requires no such midwifery.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The first 14 words grant Congress the power to raise money -- the 16th Amendment added "income tax" to the means (Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises) allowed to raise money.

The next 17 words, "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States", specify what the money raised is to be used for.

Most simply stated, Clause 1 grants Congress the power to raise money to pay the debts and spend on the common defense AND the general welfare.

The Repugs have yet to explain how raising taxes is unconstitutional.

Wouldn't that mean that the tax has to be a flat tax?

Not even close.

 

[manifold]

Paul Abrams: Congress's First Power Demolishes Tea Party's "Constitutional Principle"

One wonders if Congressman Paul, or any of the Tea Partiers running on such a platform actually bothered to read the Constitution, or whether they just purchased worn, dog-eared copies to convey that impression.

The very first enumerated power granted to Congress in Article I, section 8, of the Constitution definitively dispels their belief. Unlike the third power, the "Commerce Clause" that has been the subject of centuries of Supreme Court interpretation to determine what is interstate commerce is in a growing, changing and increasingly integrated economy, Congress's first power requires no such midwifery.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;The first 14 words grant Congress the power to raise money -- the 16th Amendment added "income tax" to the means (Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises) allowed to raise money.

The next 17 words, "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States", specify what the money raised is to be used for.

Most simply stated, Clause 1 grants Congress the power to raise money to pay the debts and spend on the common defense AND the general welfare.

The Repugs have yet to explain how raising taxes is unconstitutional.

OH so the constitution says a progressive federal tax system, where people have to pay tax percentage that is based on income levels, is unconstitutional.

Ahem

Yes the federal government was given the ability to tax as long as said taxes were uniform throughout the united states. Donald Trump paying more in federal income tax, as a percentage of income, than I do is unconstitutional.

Also not even close.

 

[gekaap]

Yes the federal government was given the ability to tax as long as said taxes were uniform throughout the united states. Donald Trump paying more in federal income tax, as a percentage of income, than I do is unconstitutional.

Untrue. Take note of what is says. It grants power to lay taxes, duties, imposts and excises. Then it stipulates that duties, imports, and excises must be uniform. It explicitly leaves out taxes from the limitation of being uniform.

Furthermore, the uniformity of which is talks about is uniformity across the land, i.e. across state lines. Even if taxation were included, it would just mean that the federal government could not tax the people of California more than the people of Vermont.

 

[manifold]

But you must admit, the irony of alleged strict constructionists reading 'flat tax' into the phrasing 'uniform' is still pretty damn funny in and of itself.

 

[mnbasketball]

We give tax cuts to the poor so in all fairness we should give tax cuts to the rich, unless of course you are a bigot which you clearly are. Thanks. In Advance.

OK, lets just scrap every tax and start over, no sales taxes, no fed or state tax, no user taxes.

Ok now how do we run the country and keep it going?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Yes the federal government was given the ability to tax as long as said taxes were uniform throughout the united states. Donald Trump paying more in federal income tax, as a percentage of income, than I do is unconstitutional.

Untrue. Take note of what is says. It grants power to lay taxes, duties, imposts and excises. Then it stipulates that duties, imports, and excises must be uniform. It explicitly leaves out taxes from the limitation of being uniform.

Furthermore, the uniformity of which is talks about is uniformity across the land, i.e. across state lines. Even if taxation were included, it would just mean that the federal government could not tax the people of California more than the people of Vermont.

Fair enough.

Now lets define "General Welfare"

If it did include tax in the 2nd half it would actually be unconstitutional for taxes to be progressive as the tax would not be uniform when someone making a million in NY pays more than someone making 50k in california......but like you said they left out TAX in the last part.

Rep for you.

 

[Two Thumbs]

We're not going off topic with rightwing bitching and moaning, the point is that the government has the power to raise and collect taxes, suck on that bitches, because you Repugs keep saying its unconstitutional when in fact it is so play good constitutional patriots and honor the document you claim to be experts on. Shitheads!

Hey fuck wad, it's a free country and we can go off topic on the pos thread of yours you arrogant corn holer.






meh, not as much fun talking like a spoiled immature brat as flaygo makes it seem.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

But you must admit, the irony of alleged strict constructionists reading 'flat tax' into the phrasing 'uniform' is still pretty damn funny in and of itself.

Hey now at least he actually explained himself.......some of us are actually open minded enough to question what they hold to be true.

I've been posting here long enough mainfold, I thought you would know that you could have pointed to my error and I would accept it as long as I was truly making an error.

Im kinda dissapointed in the manifold

















Ok I'm over it mani

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

We give tax cuts to the poor so in all fairness we should give tax cuts to the rich, unless of course you are a bigot which you clearly are. Thanks. In Advance.

OK, lets just scrap every tax and start over, no sales taxes, no fed or state tax, no user taxes.

Ok now how do we run the country and keep it going?

A 30% flat federal income tax for every single american with ZERO tax breaks or exemptions available.

If that turns out to be too much revenue we can use the extra to pay down the debt then lower the rate once we do, if its not enough raise the rate.

And yes I do understand that 30% for me is a tax increase and would technically be a "tax cut" for richer people. However the stipulation that there will be no exemptions or tax breaks will actually turn it into a tax increase for the rich.....hopefully.

 

[Two Thumbs]

But you must admit, the irony of alleged strict constructionists reading 'flat tax' into the phrasing 'uniform' is still pretty damn funny in and of itself.

That's why I ask questions.

The poster that gave me a straight answer will get rep, while all you get is this



Enjoy

 

[mnbasketball]

I don't know about that going off topic, I told a joke the other day and got jumped on big time by some.

But let's talk about what it takes to run our govt's and provide them with what we need to pay for it.

So lets just find out what is needed and then split it up evenly by %. since this also would inclue any income drived in any manner, I'm thinking it will be a great thing for 75% of us. But then we will have a big argument on what is needed and what is worth what and who is worth what aren't we?

 

[Oddball]

We give tax cuts to the poor so in all fairness we should give tax cuts to the rich, unless of course you are a bigot which you clearly are. Thanks. In Advance.

OK, lets just scrap every tax and start over, no sales taxes, no fed or state tax, no user taxes.

Ok now how do we run the country and keep it going?

A 30% flat federal income tax for every single american with ZERO tax breaks or exemptions available.

If that turns out to be too much revenue we can use the extra to pay down the debt then lower the rate once we do, if its not enough raise the rate.

And yes I do understand that 30% for me is a tax increase and would technically be a "tax cut" for richer people. However the stipulation that there will be no exemptions or tax breaks will actually turn it into a tax increase for the rich.....hopefully.

We would've been just as well off remaining under King George.

I weep for my nation.

 

[manifold]

Gosh, I didn't know that irony was so offensive to some of you.

 

[Two Thumbs]

We give tax cuts to the poor so in all fairness we should give tax cuts to the rich, unless of course you are a bigot which you clearly are. Thanks. In Advance.

OK, lets just scrap every tax and start over, no sales taxes, no fed or state tax, no user taxes.

Ok now how do we run the country and keep it going?

A 30% flat federal income tax for every single american with ZERO tax breaks or exemptions available.

If that turns out to be too much revenue we can use the extra to pay down the debt then lower the rate once we do, if its not enough raise the rate.

And yes I do understand that 30% for me is a tax increase and would technically be a "tax cut" for richer people. However the stipulation that there will be no exemptions or tax breaks will actually turn it into a tax increase for the rich.....hopefully.

30%!!!

Are you HIGH?!?!?!?!

I don't give 30% of anything to the government. They have not shown, and will not show that they will properly spend that much of my money.

 

[manifold]

We give tax cuts to the poor so in all fairness we should give tax cuts to the rich, unless of course you are a bigot which you clearly are. Thanks. In Advance.

OK, lets just scrap every tax and start over, no sales taxes, no fed or state tax, no user taxes.

Ok now how do we run the country and keep it going?

A 30% flat federal income tax for every single american with ZERO tax breaks or exemptions available.

If that turns out to be too much revenue we can use the extra to pay down the debt then lower the rate once we do, if its not enough raise the rate.

And yes I do understand that 30% for me is a tax increase and would technically be a "tax cut" for richer people. However the stipulation that there will be no exemptions or tax breaks will actually turn it into a tax increase for the rich.....hopefully.

I'd get on board with that.

 

[mnbasketball]

A 30% flat federal income tax for every single american with ZERO tax breaks or exemptions available.

were not talking fed tax, were talking get rid of all taxes, realestate tax, sales tax, gas tax, fed tax, state tax, anything that is a tax or a fee.

Figure out what it takes to run the country and then as a % of all income(wages, gifts, investments,unemployment,or any source of money) and divide what is needed by what is made.

and that will be your tax rate.

 

[kaz]

Paul Abrams: Congress's First Power Demolishes Tea Party's "Constitutional Principle"

One wonders if Congressman Paul, or any of the Tea Partiers running on such a platform actually bothered to read the Constitution, or whether they just purchased worn, dog-eared copies to convey that impression.

The very first enumerated power granted to Congress in Article I, section 8, of the Constitution definitively dispels their belief. Unlike the third power, the "Commerce Clause" that has been the subject of centuries of Supreme Court interpretation to determine what is interstate commerce is in a growing, changing and increasingly integrated economy, Congress's first power requires no such midwifery.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The first 14 words grant Congress the power to raise money -- the 16th Amendment added "income tax" to the means (Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises) allowed to raise money.

The next 17 words, "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States", specify what the money raised is to be used for.

Most simply stated, Clause 1 grants Congress the power to raise money to pay the debts and spend on the common defense AND the general welfare.

The Repugs have yet to explain how raising taxes is unconstitutional.

No matter how utterly stupid I think liberals are, they continue to impress me. This doesn't even make sense to the low bar you constantly set for yourselves and fail to achieve anyway.

The tea party is objecting to what we are spending the money on. Arguing we have the right to collect taxes doesn't mean that means you can spend the money on anything you want. What you spend it on has to be Constitutional. My God, how stupid are you, that's so completely obvious.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

We give tax cuts to the poor so in all fairness we should give tax cuts to the rich, unless of course you are a bigot which you clearly are. Thanks. In Advance.

OK, lets just scrap every tax and start over, no sales taxes, no fed or state tax, no user taxes.

Ok now how do we run the country and keep it going?

A 30% flat federal income tax for every single american with ZERO tax breaks or exemptions available.

If that turns out to be too much revenue we can use the extra to pay down the debt then lower the rate once we do, if its not enough raise the rate.

And yes I do understand that 30% for me is a tax increase and would technically be a "tax cut" for richer people. However the stipulation that there will be no exemptions or tax breaks will actually turn it into a tax increase for the rich.....hopefully.

30%!!!

Are you HIGH?!?!?!?!

I don't give 30% of anything to the government. They have not shown, and will not show that they will properly spend that much of my money.

I know its roughly a 25% increase on my current tax burden, and yes I'm the anti-tax guy, but I am a realist.

We have to either do something like that or eliminate entire government entitlement programs if we are going to sustain our government financially.


Right now my federal rate is in the low 20's I think. At least i'm realistic unlike many of these flat tax people who say "10%" as if it would be enough to sustain what we have allowed the government to grow to.