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

[RDD_1210]

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.

LOL, you clicked the first graph only and decided to eliminate ALL the other charts based upon what you deem to be insufficient data size in a single graph that still supports my point. How lazy are you? Pick another graph in the results if you don't like the dataset in the first graph....there are plenty to choose from that support what I said. Pathetic.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't know why, but I really gave Flaylo more credit than he is showing right now. His argument, of course, has one major flaw. And that would be that no one has ever claimed that raising taxes was unconstitutional.

We oppose taxes being raised because we are already paying 1/3rd of our paycheck to the government. Every American with a job has to work until at least April before they are done paying the government. This is an incredibly heavy burden. It's wrong to oppress the people with such a burden even if Congress can legally do it.

It's time we lighten the burdens on the people imposed by the Government. That mans lowering the oppressive taxes, cutting the very unnecessary spending (much of which is unconstitutional), and eliminating burdensome and useless regulations.

 

[kaz]

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.

LOL, you clicked the first graph only and decided to eliminate ALL the other charts based upon what you deem to be insufficient data size in a single graph that still supports my point. How lazy are you? Pick another graph in the results if you don't like the dataset in the first graph....there are plenty to choose from that support what I said. Pathetic.

I clicked on a bunch of them, and they all suffered from the same lack of definitions. The term "wealth" is not unambiguous and I shouldn't have to figure out how they are defining it, they should tell me. I'm a six sigma black belt, a math major, and an MBA and when you present charts you define your terms, something they consistently failed to do. When that happens and you see numbers and they start drawing specific conclusions from them with no definition of what was measured much less how it was measured, two terms pop in to a critical mind:

1) agenda

2) BS

Lazy is not caring what they meant by "wealth" and just getting off because the conclusions drawn served your political agenda

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

LOL, you clicked the first graph only and decided to eliminate ALL the other charts based upon what you deem to be insufficient data size in a single graph that still supports my point. How lazy are you? Pick another graph in the results if you don't like the dataset in the first graph....there are plenty to choose from that support what I said. Pathetic.

I clicked on a bunch of them, and they all suffered from the same lack of definitions. The term "wealth" is not unambiguous and I shouldn't have to figure out how they are defining it, they should tell me. I'm a six sigma black belt, a math major, and an MBA and when you present charts you define your terms, something they consistently failed to do. When that happens and you see numbers and they start drawing specific conclusions from them with no definition of what was measured much less how it was measured, two terms pop in to a critical mind:

1) agenda

2) BS

Lazy is not caring what they meant by "wealth" and just getting off because the conclusions drawn served your political agenda

So you're an outright liar too? Because if you spent 10 minutes looking for how they defined "wealth" you would have found it but you're too stubborn to actually look

I'll do your legwork AGAIN

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers/concentration.2001.10.pdf

http://www.clms.neu.edu/publication/documents/Wealth_in_America.pdf

Those are just two of the studies that you could have easily found if you weren't completely lazy that clearly establish how they define wealth. No, instead you felt the need to inform me how smart you are. LOL.

Feel free to post anything that proves me wrong with data that you feel is sufficiently qualified. I'd LOVE to see it.

 

[manifold]

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

Can you point out one that has been found to be unconstitutional please?

Here's a hint: There isn't one.

 

[Flaylo]

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.......

Bitch, I'm the the military since 15 years, how the fuck am I a leech? I earn every penny I make and earn even less than my civilian counterparts on the outside, who the fuck are you to call somebody a leech you dumb motherfucker?

 

[Agit8r]

Objectively speaking, that wasn't a very well thought out article.

 

[skeptic]

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

Because billionaires don't actually work a million times harder than burger flippers? Or in most cases they don't even work at all. They just talk, think and scam a million times more than working people.

 

[driveby]

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.......

Bitch, I'm the the military since 15 years, how the fuck am I a leech? I earn every penny I make and earn even less than my civilian counterparts on the outside, who the fuck are you to call somebody a leech you dumb motherfucker?

Awww, you don't like being labeled huh? Stop being a bitch and labeling everyone else, like you did in the OP for starters, you dumb motherfucker......

 

[driveby]

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

Because billionaires don't actually work a million times harder than burger flippers? Or in most cases they don't even work at all. They just talk, think and scam a million times more than working people.

Jesus Christ....

 

[BenNatuf]

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!

Perhaps you have an example to support your strawman?

 

[Bern80]

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.

Tax breaks alone can not in of themselves widen the gap between rich and poor. Tax breaks don't generate wealth RDD. The logic of that doesn't even work. You claim the gap between rich and poor is getting wider because of tax breaks for the rich? Tax breaks for the rich REDUCES their burden. The tax breaks for the poor ELIMIATES their tax burden. And yet people like you STILL insist the the system is unfair in favor of the rich. And of course in liberal no accountability ville the problem couldn't possibly be that a large segment of the population simply isn't taking the actions neccessary to generate more wealth, could it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well when 50% of the population owns 2.5% of the overall wealth of the country, there is NOTHING to tax those people on.

False. You can tax them on any number of things.
Income. Property. Purchases.

 

[BenNatuf]

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?

50% aof the people do nothing to increase their wealth. Selling a service (labor) which has a static value over time will not increase your wealth. Aside from that there is not a finite "bucket O' wealth" to draw from, people increase their share of wealth by increasing the amount of wealth in the overall economy, not by taking it from anyone else.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

Yes, it is true that if you sell a static value service in a growing economy your percentage of holdings in the economy will decrease while your personal holdings remain the same. If you want your percentage to increase do something to increase it, don't expect those who do to gift it to you.

 

[TheSeeker]

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.

Some Liberals are simply STUCK ON STUPID!

The Tea Party isn't against the right of Congress to levy taxes or even to raise them if it's warranted.

They are against huge government, out of control spending of the taxpayer's money, and government that absolutely refuses to listen to the voice of the people.

 

[Mad Scientist]

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.

Liberals have yet to show us where it says in the Constitution that Congress can bankrupt the nation with massive spending and give the responsibility for the nations money supply to the Private Federal Reserve.

 

[TheSeeker]

I love it when Liberals try to tell the Tea Party what the Tea Party stands for and then attempt to lecture them on a straw man argument they just set up.

If the OP and the author of the quoted article had a CLUE what the Tea Party was about and stated it correctly, they may have a point.

But since they misrepresent what the Tea Party is all about, it only proves their CLUELESSNESS.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I love it when Liberals try to tell the Tea Party what the Tea Party stands for and then attempt to lecture them on a straw man argument they just set up.

The OP has yet to address this, though ti thas been raised several times.
He is obvously not interested in a reasoned debate.

 

[RDD_1210]

Well when 50% of the population owns 2.5% of the overall wealth of the country, there is NOTHING to tax those people on.

False. You can tax them on any number of things.
Income. Property. Purchases.

Huh? If they collectively own 2.5% of the total wealth there is practically nothing left to tax them on. You don't make any sense.