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

[M14 Shooter]

How about responding to my whole post. Which is the point I have been making all along.

I took specific exception to a particular point you made.
You have since admitted your error.
Party on, Garth.

Pathetic.

Yes, your claim was indeed pathetic, made more so by your continued refusal to admit that you were wrong.

But, some people are like that - so wrapped up in what they think they know that they don't pay any attention to the drivel they spout, and then cannot muster the honesty and courage necessary to admit their error until beaten profusely about the head and shoulders with a blunt object.

That's OK - you'll grow up. Someday. Maybe.

 

[RDD_1210]

LOL, how else should I prove my point? Links to documented studies are no good now?

Making a statement and supporting it by vomiting links and providing links to long studies doesn't cut it, no. You need to provide answers that make sense and supporting with documentation, not say, here spend reading hours reading this and it'll make sense. I asked a simple question, I got a flood of BS in response.

But your "credentials" are sufficient?

Sufficient for what? I didn't make a claim, you did.

Oh, I see. The second sentence is too far in for you? Holy fuck you're pathetic. Here I'll do the work for you......again. My god you are lazy. You are what is wrong with this country. Sheer laziness. If only you worked as hard as you complain, we'd be much better off.

"The wealth or net worth of U.S. households is a stock measure of the difference between the value of their assets and their liabilities"

"I" am pathetic? Talk about a pathetic non-answer. Wealth = assets less liabilities. It's like asking what Cal Ripken's lifetime batting average as and you answer the number of hits he got divided by the number of plate appearances. No duh. It never ceases to amaze me no matter how stupid I think liberals are their point was even more inane then the most inane thing I imagined.

So, from the points I originally raise, I'll dumb it down for you the best I can, though it won't be enough.

- Did the statistics count home ownership? The references I saw were to portfolios and investments, not personal assets. But I couldn't find a definition. For the middle class, their home is typically by far their biggest investment.

- Did it count the net present value of pensions and social security? Again, the references seemed to indicate they didn't.

- Did they even count 401Ks or IRAs? The references were just unclear on this one.

Here's an easy one. Does your "definition" of wealth answer any of those questions? The answer is no. Oops, gave you a freeby, that was easy.

Here's the funny part. I made a statement and provided evidence. I've yet to see one shred of support from you that disproves ANYTHING I said. Contrary to what you want us to believe, your credentials aren't going to cut it.

You made a snide remark about my statement and driving me home after drinking the kool-aid. If I'm wrong about what I said, fine, but show me why with proof. Refusing to look at what I posted and dismissing it because its too long to read isn't going to convince me that the data is wrong. But I'll be happy to read anything compelling that you feel is worthy and shows information that disputes what I said.

 

[RDD_1210]

I took specific exception to a particular point you made.
You have since admitted your error.
Party on, Garth.

Pathetic.

Yes, your claim was indeed pathetic, made more so by your continued refusal to admit that you were wrong.

But, some people are like that - so wrapped up in what they think they know that they don't pay any attention to the drivel they spout, and then cannot muster the honesty and courage necessary to admit their error until beaten profusely about the head and shoulders with a blunt object.

That's OK - you'll grow up. Someday. Maybe.

You nitpicked a single portion of what I said rather then looking at the context. Congratulations.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here's the funny part. I made a statement and provided evidence. I've yet to see one shred of support from you that disproves ANYTHING I said.

Except the part wher you said the people included in your 50% figure could not be taxed because they had nothing that could be taxed.
How quickly they forget.

 

[Charles_Main]

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!

Delusional. Everyone who spends money helps Create Jobs, the Rich have more money, and spend more money. Plain and simple.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Pathetic.

Yes, your claim was indeed pathetic, made more so by your continued refusal to admit that you were wrong.

But, some people are like that - so wrapped up in what they think they know that they don't pay any attention to the drivel they spout, and then cannot muster the honesty and courage necessary to admit their error until beaten profusely about the head and shoulders with a blunt object.

That's OK - you'll grow up. Someday. Maybe.

You nitpicked a single portion of what I said rather then looking at the context. Congratulations.

The "context"? That some people have more wealth than others?
Woo hoo. What a revalation.

 

[RDD_1210]

Here's the funny part. I made a statement and provided evidence. I've yet to see one shred of support from you that disproves ANYTHING I said.

Except the part wher you said the people included in your 50% figure could not be taxed because they had nothing that could be taxed.
How quickly they forget.

Because they really don't have much of anything. If you were honest and answered the rest of my question to you in my earlier post we could discuss this. But you refuse to, so where does that leave us. You think you've won something and you're still an idiot. Again, congratulations.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Yeah, class warfare is wrong, unless of course you are waging it against public sector workers as you try to strip them of their rights and make them pay more because they make more and have better benefits than private sector workers. Then it's ok. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

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!

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

Why should public workers be forced to give up their rights and pay more because they have better pay, benefits and are better off than their lazy ass private sector counterparts??

Funny how the right loves class warfare when they are the ones waging it and despise it when it targets those who sat back, laid people off as the country fell and refused to lift a finger as others were told that they needed to tighten their belts and make sacrifices.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here's the funny part. I made a statement and provided evidence. I've yet to see one shred of support from you that disproves ANYTHING I said.

Except the part wher you said the people included in your 50% figure could not be taxed because they had nothing that could be taxed.
How quickly they forget.

Because they really don't have much of anything.

"Not much of anythng" and "nothing" mean different things.

You claimed absolutes like "cannot be taxed", "have nothing that can be taxed" and "have no income or property". You already admitted you were wrong about that - and lookie here, you're wrong about nothng that you said has been disproven.

its not MY fault you don't pay attention to what you are saying.

 

[RDD_1210]

Except the part wher you said the people included in your 50% figure could not be taxed because they had nothing that could be taxed.
How quickly they forget.

Because they really don't have much of anything.

"Not much of anythng" and "nothing" mean different things.

You claimed absolutes like "cannot be taxed", "have nothing that can be taxed" and "have no income or property". You already admitted you were wrong about that - and lookie here, you're wrong about nothng that you said has been disproven.

its not MY fault you don't pay attention to what you are saying.

Fine they can be taxed. You were right. Is that better? Now will you have a real discussion about what I asked?

What can you realistically get out of those people? They have VERY little to spare. What will taxing them achieve? It will only make their lives more difficult while doing very little to impact our deficit. You're hurting a whole lot of the population for very little return.

 

[kaz]

Here's the funny part. I made a statement and provided evidence. I've yet to see one shred of support from you that disproves ANYTHING I said. Contrary to what you want us to believe, your credentials aren't going to cut it.

Here's the funny part, I've asked you these questions now for the third time:

- Did the statistics count home ownership? The references I saw were to portfolios and investments, not personal assets. But I couldn't find a definition. For the middle class, their home is typically by far their biggest investment.

- Did it count the net present value of pensions and social security? Again, the references seemed to indicate they didn't.

- Did they even count 401Ks or IRAs? The references were just unclear on this one

Vomiting links or linking to long studies doesn't answer these questions. My point was not to say the studies were wrong but to ask what they considered "wealth." They seem to not include most of the assets that the bottom half holds, if that's the case they can be correct and the conclusion can be irrelevant. You don't even grasp the conversation we're having. Your generic definition of "wealth" demonstrated that and you're still not getting it. How you count wealth is the question. Do you even think you know how they counted it?

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Apparently you did not even bother reading the thread before you spewed out your contribution to the pissing match.

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.

It's out and out stewpuddity like this that cause no one to ever respect anything you say.

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

Still love how the entitlement junky, wealth redistribution wacko left wingers ALWAYS love to only go off a portion of article 1 section 8... they always leave off the words after 'general welfare', because it changes the whole meaning when taken in context of the union and not individuals

And that's just from the first page. LOL

 

[RDD_1210]

Here's the funny part. I made a statement and provided evidence. I've yet to see one shred of support from you that disproves ANYTHING I said. Contrary to what you want us to believe, your credentials aren't going to cut it.

Here's the funny part, I've asked you these questions now for the third time:

- Did the statistics count home ownership? The references I saw were to portfolios and investments, not personal assets. But I couldn't find a definition. For the middle class, their home is typically by far their biggest investment.

- Did it count the net present value of pensions and social security? Again, the references seemed to indicate they didn't.

- Did they even count 401Ks or IRAs? The references were just unclear on this one

Vomiting links or linking to long studies doesn't answer these questions. My point was not to say the studies were wrong but to ask what they considered "wealth." They seem to not include most of the assets that the bottom half holds, if that's the case they can be correct and the conclusion can be irrelevant. You don't even grasp the conversation we're having. Your generic definition of "wealth" demonstrated that and you're still not getting it. How you count wealth is the question. Do you even think you know how they counted it?

You see, you can make claims like the conversation is going right over my head or you can post ANYTHING that refutes what I said. Instead, you'll continue to bitch and I'll continue to do your work. Again pulled from the very same documents I posted which are too much work for you to read.

"Every third year since 1983, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors has conducted a survey of U.S. households known as the Survey of Consumer Finances that collects information on their annual income in the prior calendar year and on their assets and liabilities at the time of the survey.8 The net worth data are based on an extensive array of both financial (checking deposits, savings accounts, CD’s, stocks, bonds, retirement accounts, life insurance) and nonfinancial assets (vehicles, homes, land, ranches, non-residential property, business equity)."

So instead of supporting your statement that I'm drinking the Kool-aid with some actual facts, you'll continue to not read what I post and find something about it to discredit so you don't have to bother actually trying to support anything you claim. You have NOTHING to support you so your only hope is to tout your imaginary credentials and try to discredit my sources. Yet again, you are the definition of lazy.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

Read the quotes in my signature. All you need to know.

Oh and you guys keep crying about Civil Discourse but can not even refer to Republicans with out making silly childish Changes to the Name. Repugs... LOL Grow the fuck up.

 

[yota5]

Flaylo, you're missing the point. None of us are arguing about the necessity to pay taxes. We are demanding that congress exercise fiscal responsibility. This uncontrolled spending must stop. It is unsustainable. Uncontrolled spending is bankrupting this country. However, it seems that liberals don't mind higher taxes because even their leaders don't pay taxes. One only needs look at the Sec. of the Treasury to substantiate that claim. Those of us who work for a living resent the burden of carrying the unproductive segment of our society on our backs. I'm pleased to see that some of our politicians have heard the people and are working to put our financial house back in order.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because they really don't have much of anything.

"Not much of anythng" and "nothing" mean different things.

You claimed absolutes like "cannot be taxed", "have nothing that can be taxed" and "have no income or property". You already admitted you were wrong about that - and lookie here, you're wrong about nothng that you said has been disproven.

its not MY fault you don't pay attention to what you are saying.

Fine they can be taxed. You were right.

Yes, I know I was right. I knew it before I responded the first time.
So did you, but you had to be forced to admit it.

Is that better? Now will you have a real discussion about what I asked?

Sure.
Riddle me this:
What number of people in the US make >$250k/yr? What is their income, totalled?
What number of people in the US make <250k/yr? What is there income, totalled?

 

[RDD_1210]

"Not much of anythng" and "nothing" mean different things.

You claimed absolutes like "cannot be taxed", "have nothing that can be taxed" and "have no income or property". You already admitted you were wrong about that - and lookie here, you're wrong about nothng that you said has been disproven.

its not MY fault you don't pay attention to what you are saying.

Fine they can be taxed. You were right.

Yes, I know I was right. I knew it before I responded the first time.
So did you, but you had to be forced to admit it.

Is that better? Now will you have a real discussion about what I asked?

Sure.
Riddle me this:
What number of people in the US make >$250k/yr? What is their income, totalled?
What number of people in the US make <250k/yr? What is there income, totalled?

I give up. Tell me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fine they can be taxed. You were right.

Yes, I know I was right. I knew it before I responded the first time.
So did you, but you had to be forced to admit it.

Is that better? Now will you have a real discussion about what I asked?

Sure.
Riddle me this:
What number of people in the US make >$250k/yr? What is their income, totalled?
What number of people in the US make <250k/yr? What is there income, totalled?

I give up. Tell me.

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.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032010/perinc/new11_000.htm
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032010/perinc/new01_001.htm

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes, I know I was right. I knew it before I responded the first time.
So did you, but you had to be forced to admit it.


Sure.
Riddle me this:
What number of people in the US make >$250k/yr? What is their income, totalled?
What number of people in the US make <250k/yr? What is there income, totalled?

I give up. Tell me.

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?

I said the bottom 50% owns 2.5% of the wealth.
I asked how do you tax people who collectively own 2.5% of the wealth.
I never once said people making under 250k vs. those making over 250k.

So, why did you decide to use 250k as the number since I never once used that figure?