Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Oh honey, that is so cute! You could not identify even one erroneous assertion I made.
Oh, honey, that is so NOT cute! I did identify one: your entire post.
Ha ha you are such a little trickster, babe.
Link where the Govt claims SS taxes are not taxes?
I've never had the Govt tell me it wasn't a tax. In fact on my paycheck it says "FICA tax."
Cite to official dribble, please.
I thought I'd help you out, sweetie, on this. Here's the cite to the Social Security Administration website, and you can read the very first sentence and see how the government characterizes SS payments.
Social Security Update 2009
You can thank me later, hon.
Ooh, wow! Umpteen decades of casual usage leads to one word on a website, and that becomes official government policy!
Thank you for demonstrating that you're an asshat, but I already knew that and don't much care.
While we're trading, "See, see, see!" government websites, check this one out:
Employer "Pick-Up" Contributions to Benefit Plans
What's that say there, "sweetie"? That's right. "Contributions".
Now, if we could possibly stop wasting time with all this "Look how clever I am! I can parse your words so that nothing ever gets discussed" bullshit, I'd like to get back to the issue of who does and doesn't pay the official taxes that officially fund the federal government's functions, which is the actual topic.
You've never heard the government say that Social Security isn't intended to be a tax to fund the federal government? Not my problem. Where were you when Al Gore kept blathering about the "lockbox"? Who's been keeping a secret from you the cute little fiction of "borrowing" from the Social Security fund, because it's not supposed to be for funding the government?
FYI, I have no idea what your employer prints on your paystub, and it's not really my problem. The government officially refers to them as "FICA contributions".
The full text of the Social Security Act is available online. Feel free to look it up and read it. It's pretty clear that it doesn't exist to fund the federal government, whatever shenanigans they've been up to since then. The arguments made in favor of passage of the Social Security Act, which included that it should be separate from the rest of the budget, are part of the public record. Again, that you're not aware of history is not my problem.
No, I didn't see a citation to back up your position in your post here, dear, but if you look in the post immediately above it, you can see where I helped you out.
What part of "Your ignorance is not my problem" made you think I was going to waste my day educating you? And it wasn't all that helpful for you to show me what a jackass you are, because I figured it out on my own, "dear".
Oh, honey, that is so NOT cute! I did identify one: your entire post.
Ha ha you are such a little trickster, babe.
I am not your "babe", nor your "dear", nor your "sweetie". You would have to achieve several more levels on the evolutionary ladder before you could aspire to such intimacy with me, so you might as well give up your lame-ass attempt at condescension in this regard.
Once again, your entire post was crap from beginning to end. Period.
Actually, darling, it is listed right there in Section 8, the very first of the listed powers of Congress, each of which is prefaced by "To...", each of which is set off by a semicolon:
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;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
etc.
And I agree, it is an explanation of a power, a power to provide for the general welfare as well as the other things identified in the clause.
Providing for the general welfare can't be a power AND the explanation for itself. Is English not your first language?
Let me translate for the education-impaired:
. . . Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
". . . Imposts and excises, IN ORDER to pay the debts and provide for the common defense . . ." is what that actually means. You will notice that each of the delineated powers, such as "To lay and collect taxes . . ." and "To borrow money . . ." and "To regulate commerce . . ." is listed in its own separate paragraph, the 18th-century equivalent of bulleting. However, ". . . to pay debts . . ." is not. It's listed as part of the paragraph concerning taxes, excises, etc. Why? Because it's not a power being granted. It's an explanation of WHY the power to collect taxes and such is being granted.
The Article explains what it means by "general welfare" when it specifies duties of Congress, just as it goes on to explain what it means by "common defense" when it lays out the specific military services Congress can set up and by what method. Nothing in the original text of the Constitution is written to be a blank carte blanche of power to any branch of government.
As I said, learn to read for context.
The words you capitalized, "IN ORDER" are not part of the text. Interesting comment you make to read "for context," which doesn't mean "to add in words to the text that don't exist" as you have to do to get your interpretation.
If we took your interpretation to mean that all it is saying is that Congress had the power to raise taxes and the rest is superfluous (and again, that interpretation assumes they added unnecessary language for the hell of it) Congress would not have the power to pay the debts of the United States, which is a nonsensical reading.
I thought I'd help you out, sweetie, on this. Here's the cite to the Social Security Administration website, and you can read the very first sentence and see how the government characterizes SS payments.
Social Security Update 2009
You can thank me later, hon.
Ooh, wow! Umpteen decades of casual usage leads to one word on a website, and that becomes official government policy!
Thank you for demonstrating that you're an asshat, but I already knew that and don't much care.
While we're trading, "See, see, see!" government websites, check this one out:
Employer "Pick-Up" Contributions to Benefit Plans
What's that say there, "sweetie"? That's right. "Contributions".
LOL! Employer "pick-up" has nothing to do with SS taxes.
Now, if we could possibly stop wasting time with all this "Look how clever I am! I can parse your words so that nothing ever gets discussed" bullshit, I'd like to get back to the issue of who does and doesn't pay the official taxes that officially fund the federal government's functions, which is the actual topic.
Sure thing. You are the one who wanted to argue for several posts that SS payments are not taxes. Glad we got that straightened out.
No, I didn't see a citation to back up your position in your post here, dear, but if you look in the post immediately above it, you can see where I helped you out.
What part of "Your ignorance is not my problem" made you think I was going to waste my day educating you? And it wasn't all that helpful for you to show me what a jackass you are, because I figured it out on my own, "dear".
LOL -- and that's the thanks I get for researching and giving you a citation to clarify your misconception.
Providing for the general welfare can't be a power AND the explanation for itself. Is English not your first language?
Let me translate for the education-impaired:
. . . Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
". . . Imposts and excises, IN ORDER to pay the debts and provide for the common defense . . ." is what that actually means. You will notice that each of the delineated powers, such as "To lay and collect taxes . . ." and "To borrow money . . ." and "To regulate commerce . . ." is listed in its own separate paragraph, the 18th-century equivalent of bulleting. However, ". . . to pay debts . . ." is not. It's listed as part of the paragraph concerning taxes, excises, etc. Why? Because it's not a power being granted. It's an explanation of WHY the power to collect taxes and such is being granted.
The Article explains what it means by "general welfare" when it specifies duties of Congress, just as it goes on to explain what it means by "common defense" when it lays out the specific military services Congress can set up and by what method. Nothing in the original text of the Constitution is written to be a blank carte blanche of power to any branch of government.
As I said, learn to read for context.
The words you capitalized, "IN ORDER" are not part of the text. Interesting comment you make to read "for context," which doesn't mean "to add in words to the text that don't exist" as you have to do to get your interpretation.
... ignoramus ... Dumbass ....
Ha ha you are such a little trickster, babe.
I am not your "babe", nor your "dear", nor your "sweetie". You would have to achieve several more levels on the evolutionary ladder before you could aspire to such intimacy with me, so you might as well give up your lame-ass attempt at condescension in this regard.
Once again, your entire post was crap from beginning to end. Period.
Well, that's fine. I'll tell you what. If you don't like being called condescending little names like "sweetie," don't start out doing it to others, and particularly me. Deal?
The words you capitalized, "IN ORDER" are not part of the text. Interesting comment you make to read "for context," which doesn't mean "to add in words to the text that don't exist" as you have to do to get your interpretation.
... ignoramus ... Dumbass ....
You know, for someone who was just whining about being called names, you sling them pretty well.
But I don't have to engage in a discussion with someone calling me names. If you want to have a discussion without juvenile name calling, smarmy remarks or condescending labels like "sweetie", I'll be happy to do so.
Till then, if any one else wants to discuss the meaning of "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States" I'll be happy to oblige.
... ignoramus ... Dumbass ....
You know, for someone who was just whining about being called names, you sling them pretty well.
I whined about nothing, , ....
You know, for someone who was just whining about being called names, you sling them pretty well.
I whined about nothing, , ....
If anyone else wants to discuss the interpretation of Art I Sec 8 of the Constitution, I'll be happy to do so.
I whined about nothing, , ....
If anyone else wants to discuss the interpretation of Art I Sec 8 of the Constitution, I'll be happy to do so.
Well simply discussing the topic endlessly isn't on my list of priorities, but I will say that this is one of the areas where I feel the Confederate Constitution is superior to our own. They kept any "general welfare clause" out of their Constitution entirely, just to avoid such a situation as this.
If anyone else wants to discuss the interpretation of Art I Sec 8 of the Constitution, I'll be happy to do so.
Well simply discussing the topic endlessly isn't on my list of priorities, but I will say that this is one of the areas where I feel the Confederate Constitution is superior to our own. They kept any "general welfare clause" out of their Constitution entirely, just to avoid such a situation as this.
That's interesting. I know little about the Confederate Constitution. But I suspect they were especially concerned about federal power and thus took out things that could be read to expanding it.
The government funded ones NEVER aid the poor, they just keep them at bay. Personal experience trumps anything you have for me, but yes, I did think like that, that the poor were oppressed by the rich, it wasn't until I was completely broke that I saw the difference, then I saw what hands were reaching out and which were just handing out. To get any perspective on reality you have to immerse yourself in it, to understand the systems in place and what the players are doing you have to be in one of two extreme positions, I was in such a position. It changes you, teaches you, and you can grow a lot from it. They even have groups that take students from schools and have them experience being in such a situation for a week, spoke to a couple of groups myself (question and answer times in the shelters themselves with us who lived there). Though a week is not enough time to fully submerse yourself in that situation many of them learn a lot. I was there for almost 7 years (give or take a few months). It only takes a year to fully understand it, but if you did go through it, the loss of self respect, the loss of freedom, the complete lack of independence, you will see, the rich are the ones who give it back not the government. Taxing them more would only force them to be unable to fund these great privately run programs, and be honest, when have you ever seen the government do what's right or budget well enough to actually help anyone but themselves?
[The government] possesses some unique features that distinguish it from the firm. Such features allows the government to regulate competition, reduce uncertainty and provide a relatively stable exchange environment. Specifically, in the area of industrial policy, the government can help private enterprises tackle uncertainty in the following ways: first, locating the focal point by initiating projects; providing assurance and guarantees to the large investment project; and facilitating the exchange of information; second, reducing excessive competition by granting exclusive rights; and third, facilitating learning and diffusion of technologies, and assisting infant industry firms to build up competence. The history of developmental success indicates that the market and the state are not opposed forms of social organisation, but interactively linked (Rodrik, 1997, p. 437). In the prospering and dynamic nations, public-private coordination tends to prevail. Dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination explain the successful economic performances in the post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrialising economies. It is their governments' consistent and coordinated attentiveness to the economic problems that differentiates the entrepreneurial states (Yu, 1997) from the predatory states (Boaz and Polak, 1997).
With all of the talk for the need to cut taxes and spending, if given the opportunity, what would the people here on this board offer as a solution? A couple making $50,000/year, what would be a fair percentage for them? If they made $100,000? Or $250,000? Why don't some of you suggest a fair percentage for those I just mentioned and for those making 1 to 5 to 10 million dollars/year? Do a little research and crunch some numbers and see what you would impose if you were fighting two wars, trying to maintain an infrastructure, keep the agencies open that serve the American people, etc. Do not forget to consider the special needs of your own state, things that are important to you, but those from the other forty-nine states call pork. See if you could balance a federal budget, and at the same time pay down the trillions of dollars of the national debt.
Google should have the information you will need to make a ballpark estimate.
Flat tax 25% of everything you make over and above half the country's current median annual income.
Actually it applies to the citizens of the country.Wuh? That's just silly, Kevin. The states cannot restrict freedom of expression or the right to bear arms or anything else that can be construed as a civil right. If that were true, each and every state could deny guns to their citizens.
We were speaking hypothetically. The state Constitution would have to authorize the state government to restrict those freedoms, and I doubt there are any state Constitutions that do that and I doubt that the citizens of the states would vote to amend their Constitution to do so.
However, the United States Constitution does not apply to the states whatsoever. It only applies to the federal government.
Did you miss the DC gun ruling?
So the mayor is actually powerless and so too are the citizens that live there? Do you think a state can constitutionally decide that its citizens may not own guns?Actually it applies to the citizens of the country.We were speaking hypothetically. The state Constitution would have to authorize the state government to restrict those freedoms, and I doubt there are any state Constitutions that do that and I doubt that the citizens of the states would vote to amend their Constitution to do so.
However, the United States Constitution does not apply to the states whatsoever. It only applies to the federal government.
Did you miss the DC gun ruling?
Washington DC is FEDERAL property run exclusively BY the Federal Government, You may want to check where DC gets its money from. The 10 mile square of land that is DC is FEDERAL. It is IN the Constitution.
