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

[manifold]

Oh SNAP!!

I gots links

Of course, with politicians on both sides of the aisle driven by incentives that have told them to ignore the 10th amendment, Americans suffer under laws and bureaucracies created in Washington that would not exist had politicians adhered to the Constitution's limiting ways. Simply put, nothing in the Constitution allows for the existence of the Departments of Education, Commerce and Energy (to name a few), government-sponsored entities such as Fannie Mae ( FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac ( FRE - news - people ), or ineffective bureaucracies such as the SEC and the FDA

Unconstitutional Spending - Forbes.com

google

Unconstitutional spending - Bing

Seems there's plenty.

Plenty in an academic vacuum sure.

But it's quite a different story out here in the real world.

Everyone esle is wrong cuz you say so.

Got it.

Fail.

You're opinion isn't really wrong, being that it's an opinion, it just runs contrary to over 200 years of legislative precedent is all.

Fact, not opinion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Plenty in an academic vacuum sure.

But it's quite a different story out here in the real world.

Everyone esle is wrong cuz you say so.

Got it.

Fail.

You're opinion isn't really wrong, being that it's an opinion, it just runs contrary to over 200 years of legislative precedent is all.

Fact, not opinion.

arguing for this long with a two-thumbs-up-his-ares misfit is beneath us.

move on is more than just a dot org

 

[Two Thumbs]

Plenty in an academic vacuum sure.

But it's quite a different story out here in the real world.

Everyone esle is wrong cuz you say so.

Got it.

Fail.

You're opinion isn't really wrong, being that it's an opinion, it just runs contrary to over 200 years of legislative precedent is all.

Fact, not opinion.

Sorry, I forgot that Forbes is well known for putting out misinformation on thier site.

oh wait

They are not.

 

[manifold]

Everyone esle is wrong cuz you say so.

Got it.

Fail.

You're opinion isn't really wrong, being that it's an opinion, it just runs contrary to over 200 years of legislative precedent is all.

Fact, not opinion.

Sorry, I forgot that Forbes is well known for putting out misinformation on thier site.

oh wait

They are not.

Obviously they do it well then.

 

[driveby]

Why should someone who worked hard to become rich and successful have to pay more taxes than a lazy leech like you ?......

lazy leech? is that what middle class people are now? lazy leeches? i think you might want to reassess that.

perhaps the better question is why should a W-2 employee carry the tax burden so that rich people can put more in savings and corporations can offshore our jobs?

Nope, clowns like failo are lazy leeches, not the middle class and i'm with you as far as corps. that outsource, i'm all for them paying a higher tax rate. I just don't go for this arbitrary " tax the hell out of the rich " across the board garbage. Also, people that constantly bastardize corporations gratuitously may want to reassess that notion, but that liberal kool aid is a tough addiction to break i suppose.......

 

[RDD_1210]

Why raise taxes when all they do is waste and blow our money. Screw em. It's time for the government to do without.

And why give tax cuts to the rich who don 't create jobs? Its not like you Repugs are giving Americans hope that tax cuts for the rich will do anything. Any way, the point is that Congress has the power to raise taxes and create taxes, something that Repugs deny and accuse the government of being gangsters. How can somebody be a fucking gangster when they're doing something constitutional and legal? Shithead!

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.

They poor, middle class and rich all did get the same tax cuts. The rich just want more. They want an extra tax cut and yet you think *that* is fair. LOL.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

sad thread.

two thumbs down

 

[mnbasketball]

The best way to solve this is just to get rid of the fed govt and let each state fend for their self. Get rid of every tax that is leveled and allow each state to tax as they wish. They can take care of anything they want or need al the way from ed. to highways to running their state.
Don't expect anything from anyone else for any reason. Basicly we just will be a nation of 50 nations all defending for themselves.

 

[Sallow]

Actually a good idea for a thread turned into a pissing match..and essentially done by the more Liberal posters.

Sad.

You don't convince people you are correct by insulting them..or reacting visciously to mild jabs. You do so by supporting your point of view with well reasoned posts.

I personally have no trouble scrapping..here..but I do have trouble with seeing over reaction to otherwise reasonable conservative posters.

 

[kaz]

I'd like to hear one single example of something the government funds, or may choose to fund, that is unconstitutional.

Hint: There isn't one.

You're right, there isn't "one" there are endless examples. Just a few:

- Social security (9th and 10th Amendments)
- Medicare (9th and 10th Amendments)
- Medicaid (9th and 10th Amendments)
- The war on drugs (9th and 10th Amendments)
- The war in Iraq (not declared plus not defense of the United States)
- The war in Afghanistan (not declared plus not defense of the United States)
- Federal welfare (9th and 10th Amendments)
- The Department of Education (9th and 10th Amendments)
- The Department of Energy (9th and 10th Amendments)
- Enforcement of Roe v. Wade (9th and 10th Amendments)
- Funding of State welfare programs (9th and 10th Amendments)
- Federal unemployment (9th and 10th Amendments)
- Obamacare (9th and 10th Amendments)

Just a few

 

[kaz]

They poor, middle class and rich all did get the same tax cuts. The rich just want more. They want an extra tax cut and yet you think *that* is fair. LOL.

Well, since the bottom 46% of taxpayers payed zero taxes and in fact got money back from taxes they didn't pay in, they couldn't get a tax cut.

But don't worry, of the taxpayers who did pay taxes, the lower your tax rate was the higher your percentage tax cut was. When the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay almost no taxes and the top 5% pay 60% of taxes, isn't there a point where liberals can say you've won? Can that ever happen? At what point will you be satisfied? What should the top 5% of earners pay if 60% of all taxes still isn't enough for you?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They poor, middle class and rich all did get the same tax cuts. The rich just want more. They want an extra tax cut and yet you think *that* is fair. LOL.

Well, since the bottom 46% of taxpayers payed zero taxes and in fact got money back from taxes they didn't pay in, they couldn't get a tax cut.

But don't worry, of the taxpayers who did pay taxes, the lower your tax rate was the higher your percentage tax cut was. When the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay almost no taxes and the top 5% pay 60% of taxes, isn't there a point where liberals can say you've won? Can that ever happen? At what point will you be satisfied? What should the top 5% of earners pay if 60% of all taxes still isn't enough for you?

poor baby. must be hard to engage in such class warfare on the side of greed and wealth

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

They poor, middle class and rich all did get the same tax cuts. The rich just want more. They want an extra tax cut and yet you think *that* is fair. LOL.

Well, since the bottom 46% of taxpayers payed zero taxes and in fact got money back from taxes they didn't pay in, they couldn't get a tax cut.

But don't worry, of the taxpayers who did pay taxes, the lower your tax rate was the higher your percentage tax cut was. When the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay almost no taxes and the top 5% pay 60% of taxes, isn't there a point where liberals can say you've won? Can that ever happen? At what point will you be satisfied? What should the top 5% of earners pay if 60% of all taxes still isn't enough for you?

poor baby. must be hard to engage in such class warfare on the side of greed and wealth

Seriously, how old are you?

 

[kaz]

They poor, middle class and rich all did get the same tax cuts. The rich just want more. They want an extra tax cut and yet you think *that* is fair. LOL.

Well, since the bottom 46% of taxpayers payed zero taxes and in fact got money back from taxes they didn't pay in, they couldn't get a tax cut.

But don't worry, of the taxpayers who did pay taxes, the lower your tax rate was the higher your percentage tax cut was. When the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay almost no taxes and the top 5% pay 60% of taxes, isn't there a point where liberals can say you've won? Can that ever happen? At what point will you be satisfied? What should the top 5% of earners pay if 60% of all taxes still isn't enough for you?

poor baby. must be hard to engage in such class warfare on the side of greed and wealth

Right, you want their money and they won't give it to you, they are greedy. Got it.

I guess a liberal can't understand the idea of not being on a side, so this is probably a waste of pixels. But I am on the side of the individual. Dumping the problems of one side through government force on another other side as you do is something I will oppose no matter who the sides are. Since I'm not advocating taking anyone's money, not sure how you can twist that into "greed." Nor do I can see how your wanting to take money and distribute it according to your personal ideology isn't greed.

Frederic Bastiat : When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it

Read this and you will recognize it as a perfect mirror reflection of yourself.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well, since the bottom 46% of taxpayers payed zero taxes and in fact got money back from taxes they didn't pay in, they couldn't get a tax cut.

But don't worry, of the taxpayers who did pay taxes, the lower your tax rate was the higher your percentage tax cut was. When the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay almost no taxes and the top 5% pay 60% of taxes, isn't there a point where liberals can say you've won? Can that ever happen? At what point will you be satisfied? What should the top 5% of earners pay if 60% of all taxes still isn't enough for you?

poor baby. must be hard to engage in such class warfare on the side of greed and wealth

Seriously, how old are you?

hello?


have you considered how pathetically sophomoric your screen name is?

most likely NOT.


thank you.


move on you fuckin' nitwit

 

[RDD_1210]

They poor, middle class and rich all did get the same tax cuts. The rich just want more. They want an extra tax cut and yet you think *that* is fair. LOL.

Well, since the bottom 46% of taxpayers payed zero taxes and in fact got money back from taxes they didn't pay in, they couldn't get a tax cut.

But don't worry, of the taxpayers who did pay taxes, the lower your tax rate was the higher your percentage tax cut was. When the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay almost no taxes and the top 5% pay 60% of taxes, isn't there a point where liberals can say you've won? Can that ever happen? At what point will you be satisfied? What should the top 5% of earners pay if 60% of all taxes still isn't enough for you?

Well when 50% of the population owns 2.5% of the overall wealth of the country, there is NOTHING to tax those people on. You can't bleed a stone. While 70% of the nations wealth is held by the top 10% and the gap just continues to widen because they continue to have some of the best tax breaks the wealthy have ever had in this country. Shame on you for defending this behavior. Remind us again who's best interest you have in mind? Ensuring the rich continue to get richer or the middle class become poor?

 

[kaz]

Well when 50% of the population owns 2.5% of the overall wealth of the country...

You're chugging the Kool-Aid a little heavy there and getting delirious, my friend. You're not driving home, I'll take you...

 

[RDD_1210]

Well when 50% of the population owns 2.5% of the overall wealth of the country...

You're chugging the Kool-Aid a little heavy there and getting delirious, my friend. You're not driving home, I'll take you...

That's the best you can reply with?

I'll help you with your research since you seem to not understand how this works.

Google Search

Pick any chart you want.

Admit you were wrong.

 

[Sallow]

Well when 50% of the population owns 2.5% of the overall wealth of the country...

You're chugging the Kool-Aid a little heavy there and getting delirious, my friend. You're not driving home, I'll take you...

That's basically true.

 

[kaz]

Well when 50% of the population owns 2.5% of the overall wealth of the country...

You're chugging the Kool-Aid a little heavy there and getting delirious, my friend. You're not driving home, I'll take you...

That's the best you can reply with?

I'll help you with your research since you seem to not understand how this works.

Google Search

Pick any chart you want.

Admit you were wrong.

First, this only covered married couples between 60-69. Second, I couldn't find a definition of "wealth," but all the references seemed to be regarding financial investments only and it wasn't clear that it even included 401Ks or IRAs. In order to calculate "wealth" you have to also include pensions, social security and assets. And finally, it did not seem to calculate real estate other then again financial investments in real estate, I saw no references to direct real estate holdings. A lot of the top 50/bottom 50 split is not just income but more rural versus urban areas and in urban areas, they own their homes and have far lower equity then higher income. That the bottom 50 own 3% of "wealth" if you have all inclusive wealth is preposterous and if you don't include all it's an agenda definition.

If you want me to admit I was wrong, you have to have something that's clearer then financial investments of married 60-69 year old couples only.