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

[RDD_1210]

No... you're supposed to tell me.
You're the one with all the 'facts', right?
Without this fact, how can you argue that there's no way to derive an appreciable amonut of income tax revenue from those that aren't 'rich'?
Don't you need ot know how much income there is in order to make that statement?

But, here's a hint:
There are over 240 million people in the US that make under 250k/yr, and under 1.5 million that make more.
PINC-11 Table of Contents
PINC-01--Part 1

Why did you pick 250k as your cutoff point? When did I ever say that?

Its The Obama's cut-off point for the "rich". You appear to be a good Obamabot, so it seems natural that this number would be meaningful to you.

Even if not, the information in the links is valid and useful. Did you want to have a serious discussion about this, or not?

Sure, that information is good. But it has nothing to do with what I posted. Did you want to discuss what I actually posted and what you originally seemed to have a problem with?

 

[manifold]

Flaylo still hasnt responded to the fact that no one is claiming taxation is unconstitutional.

You're right, at least I haven't seen anyone make such a claim.

However, I've seen plenty here including yourself make the equally false claim that government funded general welfare programs are unconstitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why did you pick 250k as your cutoff point? When did I ever say that?

Its The Obama's cut-off point for the "rich". You appear to be a good Obamabot, so it seems natural that this number would be meaningful to you.

Even if not, the information in the links is valid and useful. Did you want to have a serious discussion about this, or not?

Sure, that information is good. But it has nothing to do with what I posted. Did you want to discuss what I actually posted and what you originally seemed to have a problem with?

Sure it does.

You brought up income tax; we're discussing income, and the taxes derived from it. You believe that those that are not rich do not have enough income to create meaningful tax revenue; that only the rich have enough income to be taxed meaningfully.

According to the sources I posted, the total income of the non-rich (<250k/yr, ) is 11x that of the rich (>250k/yr). This negates your claim.

If you do not believe 250k/yr is the correct cut, then tell me what is.

Also, for clarity, when you cite %50 - %50 of what?

 

[RDD_1210]

Its The Obama's cut-off point for the "rich". You appear to be a good Obamabot, so it seems natural that this number would be meaningful to you.

Even if not, the information in the links is valid and useful. Did you want to have a serious discussion about this, or not?

Sure, that information is good. But it has nothing to do with what I posted. Did you want to discuss what I actually posted and what you originally seemed to have a problem with?

Sure it does.

You brought up income tax; we're discussing income, and the taxes derived from it. You believe that those that are not rich do not have enough income to create meaningful tax revenue; that only the rich have enough income to be taxed meaningfully.

I said the bottom 50% don't have much to tax them on. I never said the non-rich. You did.

According to the sources I posted, the total income of the non-rich (<250k/yr, ) is 11x that of the rich (>250k/yr). This negates your claim.

It negates the claim you decided to make on my behalf, which has nothing to do with what I actually said.

If you do not believe 250k/yr is the correct cut, then tell me what is.

According to the studies I already posted, which you have refused to read. The bottom 50% have a total wealth at or below $93,100.

Also, for clarity, when you cite %50 - %50 of what?

Seriously? You are claiming how wrong I am and you haven't been able to grasp that 50% refers to the population of our country? How can you claim to negate what I've posted if you don't understand this basic piece of information?


So, you've just shown that you have no clue about what I posted and are completely oblivious to this entire topic. All it took was for me to massage your ego and tell you that you were right, to get you to start talking.....and show how truly ignorant you are. I don't know everything, far from it, but I do know how to read which seems to be a lot more then you can say.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I said the bottom 50% don't have much to tax them on. I never said the non-rich. You did.

The bottom 50% of all wage earners have more cumulative income than those who make >250K/yr - better than 50% more. ($673,381M v $1,020,708M)

If there is suffcient income among those who make >$250k/yr to generate meaningful tax revenue, there there's no way to argue that those among the bottom 50% of wage earners do not generate sufficient income to create meaningful tax revenue.

If you do not believe 250k/yr is the correct cut, then tell me what is.

According to the studies I already posted, which you have refused to read. The bottom 50% have a total wealth at or below $93,100.

Wealth?
We're dscussing income and meaningful revenue derived from income tax.
Assets v liabilities has no effect on that.
I'll ask again:
If you do not believe 250k/yr is the correct cut, then tell me what is?

 

[RDD_1210]

I said the bottom 50% don't have much to tax them on. I never said the non-rich. You did.

The bottom 50% of all wage earners have more cumulative income than those who make >250K/yr - better than 50% more. ($673,381M v $1,020,708M)

If there is suffcient income among those who make >$250k/yr to generate meaningful tax revenue, there there's no way to argue that those among the bottom 50% of wage earners do not generate sufficient income to create meaningful tax revenue.

If you do not believe 250k/yr is the correct cut, then tell me what is.

According to the studies I already posted, which you have refused to read. The bottom 50% have a total wealth at or below $93,100.

Wealth?
We're dscussing income and meaningful revenue derived from income tax.
Assets v liabilities has no effect on that.
I'll ask again:
If you do not believe 250k/yr is the correct cut, then tell me what is?

Umm, I don't know what conversation you think we're having. But I have been talking about wealth this entire time. You can't switch the topic whenever you please since I have been talking about wealth and how its distributed among the population this entire time. And I already told you what the cutoff point is for wealth. Did you not read that either?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I said the bottom 50% don't have much to tax them on. I never said the non-rich. You did.

The bottom 50% of all wage earners have more cumulative income than those who make >250K/yr - better than 50% more. ($673,381M v $1,020,708M)

If there is suffcient income among those who make >$250k/yr to generate meaningful tax revenue, there there's no way to argue that those among the bottom 50% of wage earners do not generate sufficient income to create meaningful tax revenue.

According to the studies I already posted, which you have refused to read. The bottom 50% have a total wealth at or below $93,100.

Wealth?
We're dscussing income and meaningful revenue derived from income tax.
Assets v liabilities has no effect on that.
I'll ask again:
If you do not believe 250k/yr is the correct cut, then tell me what is?

Umm, I don't know what conversation you think we're having.

Income revenue available for taxation and if said revenue is sufficient to create meaningful tax revenues.
You argue that that those in bottom half of those holding wealth do not possess sufficient income to create a meaningful source of tax revenue.
Nothing supports this claim; the income tables speak strongly against it.

But I have been talking about wealth this entire time

Yes... and net wealth - assets v liabilities - has nothing to do with income available for taxation.
So... any reference you make to net wealth has no relevance to income available for taxation.

The point you miss:
You can have an insane amount of wealth, and no income.
You can have an insane amount of income, and a huge negative wealth.
And so, there's absolutely no way you can argue that those that hold little, no, or negative wealth have insufficient income to create meaningful tax revenues.

 

[BenNatuf]

Flaylo still hasnt responded to the fact that no one is claiming taxation is unconstitutional.

You're right, at least I haven't seen anyone make such a claim.

However, I've seen plenty here including yourself make the equally false claim that government funded general welfare programs are unconstitutional.

That would be because they are, welfare programs are not "general" welfare no matter how much you twist the words to try to make them mean that. Taking money from one person to give it to another does not provide for the "general welfare" it detracts from one persons welfare to give to anothers.

 

[kaz]

Flaylo still hasnt responded to the fact that no one is claiming taxation is unconstitutional.

You're right, at least I haven't seen anyone make such a claim.

However, I've seen plenty here including yourself make the equally false claim that government funded general welfare programs are unconstitutional.

When you say "government" you have to separate. Federal welfare programs are unconstitutional as there is no Constitutional authority and therefore they are Unconstitutional by the 10th amendment. But State welfare programs are not Unconstitutional. So your statement that "government" welfare is correct, though you have to specify which one because it matters.

 

[kaz]

Flaylo still hasnt responded to the fact that no one is claiming taxation is unconstitutional.

You're right, at least I haven't seen anyone make such a claim

I addressed this on page two. I'm not saying I'm the only one, not sure. But it was raised. This whole thread is based on a moronic liberal duh I don't get it because I'm an imbecilic liberal. The tea party is objecting to the constitutionality of SPENDING. It's being twisted into that they are saying the taxes are unconstitutional. And in a very lame way.

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.

 

[manifold]

Flaylo still hasnt responded to the fact that no one is claiming taxation is unconstitutional.

You're right, at least I haven't seen anyone make such a claim.

However, I've seen plenty here including yourself make the equally false claim that government funded general welfare programs are unconstitutional.

That would be because they are, welfare programs are not "general" welfare no matter how much you twist the words to try to make them mean that. Taking money from one person to give it to another does not provide for the "general welfare" it detracts from one persons welfare to give to anothers.

I understand your argument, and it is reasonable. I also understand the equally reasonable argument that paved roads, safe bridges, and a healthy, educated population is indeed 'general' welfare. Unfortunately for you, precedent is not on your side. Unless of course you can cite a 'general' welfare program that has been found to be unconstitutional.

 

[manifold]

Flaylo still hasnt responded to the fact that no one is claiming taxation is unconstitutional.

You're right, at least I haven't seen anyone make such a claim.

However, I've seen plenty here including yourself make the equally false claim that government funded general welfare programs are unconstitutional.

When you say "government" you have to separate. Federal welfare programs are unconstitutional as there is no Constitutional authority and therefore they are Unconstitutional by the 10th amendment. But State welfare programs are not Unconstitutional. So your statement that "government" welfare is correct, though you have to specify which one because it matters.

So can I conclude that your contention is the US Federal Government has been violating the Consititution for at least a century plus? And furthermore, do you harbor the belief or expectation that said violation(s) may be remedied? If so, how?

 

[kaz]

You're right, at least I haven't seen anyone make such a claim.

However, I've seen plenty here including yourself make the equally false claim that government funded general welfare programs are unconstitutional.

When you say "government" you have to separate. Federal welfare programs are unconstitutional as there is no Constitutional authority and therefore they are Unconstitutional by the 10th amendment. But State welfare programs are not Unconstitutional. So your statement that "government" welfare is correct, though you have to specify which one because it matters.

So can I conclude that your contention is the US Federal Government has been violating the Consititution for at least a century plus? And furthermore, do you harbor the belief or expectation that said violation(s) may be remedied? If so, how?

So a long running habit of Unconstitutional behavior makes it somehow Constitutional? So you'd have agreed with the Dred Scott decision because the Constitution had been violated for a prolonged period of time? My solution is to enforce the Constitution and let States have their own welfare systems which would be far more effective anyway. Should overturning Dred Scott have have required a transition plan other then freeing the slaves?

 

[kaz]

You're right, at least I haven't seen anyone make such a claim.

However, I've seen plenty here including yourself make the equally false claim that government funded general welfare programs are unconstitutional.

That would be because they are, welfare programs are not "general" welfare no matter how much you twist the words to try to make them mean that. Taking money from one person to give it to another does not provide for the "general welfare" it detracts from one persons welfare to give to anothers.

I understand your argument, and it is reasonable. I also understand the equally reasonable argument that paved roads, safe bridges, and a healthy, educated population is indeed 'general' welfare. Unfortunately for you, precedent is not on your side. Unless of course you can cite a 'general' welfare program that has been found to be unconstitutional.

Roads and bridges (which are roads) are Constitutional for the federal government because they are in the Constitution.

Education is not and the No Child Gets Ahead program and all Federal Educational funding are flagrantly Unconstitutional, just like Welfare.

The Constitution is a document of "enumerated powers." An easy test of if something is Constitutional is if it's enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[manifold]

So a long running habit of Unconstitutional behavior makes it somehow Constitutional?

Yes, for better or worse. Unless and until the SCOTUS says otherwise.

So you'd have agreed with the Dred Scott decision because the Constitution had been violated for a prolonged period of time?

A non-sequitur, red herring and strawman all rolled into one sentence. Nice work.

My solution is to enforce the Constitution and let States have their own welfare systems which would be far more effective anyway.

It must suck that this leaves you nobody to vote for.

 

[manifold]

Roads and bridges (which are roads) are Constitutional for the federal government because they are in the Constitution.

Education is not and the No Child Gets Ahead program and all Federal Educational funding are flagrantly Unconstitutional, just like Welfare.

The Constitution is a document of "enumerated powers." An easy test of if something is Constitutional is if it's enumerated in the Constitution.

Too bad we didn't have anybody with your pedigree of wisdom and insight when the document was written, ratified and molded by precedent in our country's formative years. Perhaps then all this unfortunate unconsititutionality might have been avoided.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That would be because they are, welfare programs are not "general" welfare no matter how much you twist the words to try to make them mean that. Taking money from one person to give it to another does not provide for the "general welfare" it detracts from one persons welfare to give to anothers.

I understand your argument, and it is reasonable. I also understand the equally reasonable argument that paved roads, safe bridges, and a healthy, educated population is indeed 'general' welfare. Unfortunately for you, precedent is not on your side. Unless of course you can cite a 'general' welfare program that has been found to be unconstitutional.

Roads and bridges (which are roads) are Constitutional for the federal government because they are in the Constitution.

Note too that the interstate highway system was created under the auspices of national defense. Gotta be able to get the troops where ney need to go.

 

[kaz]

So a long running habit of Unconstitutional behavior makes it somehow Constitutional?

Yes, for better or worse. Unless and until the SCOTUS says otherwise.

So you'd have agreed with the Dred Scott decision because the Constitution had been violated for a prolonged period of time?

A non-sequitur, red herring and strawman all rolled into one sentence. Nice work.

First, you don't know what a strawman is because that wasn't one. You may want to google "strawman argument" before you incorrectly use the term again. Not sure how it's a red-herring, though the next part may answer that. How was it a non-sequitur? You said if the Constitution had been violated a prolonged period of time then it's Constitutional. That's preposterous, but let's say it's true. How was Dred Scott not right then? How could they overturn law by your argument that had been practiced a prolonged period of time? Dred Scott was a man, the Constitution doesn't specify "white" men. His Constitutional rights were being violated. As are mine by Unconstitutional taxes and government programs that immorally enslave people to government. Explain how it does not flow that Dred Scott was property because that was the practice for long before the decision by your just stated logic violating the Constitution long enough makes it Constitutional.

My solution is to enforce the Constitution and let States have their own welfare systems which would be far more effective anyway.

It must suck that this leaves you nobody to vote for.

Yes, it does. I'm under no illusions that's going to change either.

 

[kaz]

Roads and bridges (which are roads) are Constitutional for the federal government because they are in the Constitution.

Education is not and the No Child Gets Ahead program and all Federal Educational funding are flagrantly Unconstitutional, just like Welfare.

The Constitution is a document of "enumerated powers." An easy test of if something is Constitutional is if it's enumerated in the Constitution.

Too bad we didn't have anybody with your pedigree of wisdom and insight when the document was written, ratified and molded by precedent in our country's formative years. Perhaps then all this unfortunate unconsititutionality might have been avoided.

Actually we did. In the Constitutional convention the bill of rights went no where. Not because anyone opposed them, but because people didn't think it was necessary because the majority thought government didn't have the power to violate them anyway. The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, originally felt that way as well and only got behind them to bring some on board who were concerned about Federal power.

Alexander Hamilton on the Bill of Rights:

"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations"

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

The erosion of the Constitution other then Lincoln, who you could argue whether it was justified to preserve the country, really began under Wilson with the two worst Amendments in our Constitution for the Income Tax and for direct election of Senators. And FDR shredded it and it's been downhill since.

 

[BenNatuf]

Roads and bridges (which are roads) are Constitutional for the federal government because they are in the Constitution.

Education is not and the No Child Gets Ahead program and all Federal Educational funding are flagrantly Unconstitutional, just like Welfare.

The Constitution is a document of "enumerated powers." An easy test of if something is Constitutional is if it's enumerated in the Constitution.

Too bad we didn't have anybody with your pedigree of wisdom and insight when the document was written, ratified and molded by precedent in our country's formative years. Perhaps then all this unfortunate unconsititutionality might have been avoided.

It was avoided for about 150 years.