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

[Flaylo]

For people accusing me of being a more liberal poster who getting out control and insulting, fuck off, the problem with the Democratic Party right now is that they take too much shit, much of it vile and false from the Republicans and don't do a good enough job with returning the favor likewise, but with facts, they think publicly acting civil is going to automatically make people come out and vote for them, thats fucking rubbish, just look at last year's midterms. People here insult me so I insult back back but with facts. Everybody has their ways of dealing with people and I chose mine.

 

[Flaylo]

Sure, this is a "mild jab" but my jabs are overreacting, such bullshit being spewed, I will always keep guns blazing.

 

[drsmith1072]

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

Nice opinion based rant but got any proof??? What has actually legally deemed that the things you listed are unconstitutional and stopped any of the above?

 

[kaz]

Instead, you'll continue to bitch and I'll continue to do your work

Yeah yeah. To challenge your point is to bitch and asking you to support your point is your doing my work for me. We've covered this.

Again pulled from the very same documents I posted which are too much work for you to read

Right, I should have read long studies to figure out the answers to my questions about your point.

"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 they don't list pensions or social security. They claim homes. That 50% percent own 3% if you include those is BS. You're a useless liberal drone if you believe that. Half the country including their pensions and homes own 3% of the assets. Right.

Yet again, you are the definition of lazy.

Your go to point. You linked to long studies and I wasn't willing to read them to answer questions about your argument, the "definition" of lazy. It is, but you're fingers pointed in the wrong direction by oh, 180 degrees.

 

[skookerasbil]

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!

s0n...........this class warfare shit is theoretical BS these days. The American people have said "fcukk you" to the far left nutballs. Trust me.........go check out any 2010 election map............the amount of red is fcukking dizzying. Michael Moore is up in Wisconsin............ends up on the boob last night. Maybe 179 people think he gets it...........while hundreds of millions are watching laughing their balls off.


Fringe left was en vogue back in 2008.............got a big old ball kick a few months ago.


But do go ahead and post up these gay threads. Indeed..........since there is an internet, there is always a forum for irrelevant thinking to be made public!!


Happy now??????????????

 

[RDD_1210]

Instead, you'll continue to bitch and I'll continue to do your work

Yeah yeah. To challenge your point is to bitch and asking you to support your point is your doing my work for me. We've covered this.

Again pulled from the very same documents I posted which are too much work for you to read

Right, I should have read long studies to figure out the answers to my questions about your point.

"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 they don't list pensions or social security. They claim homes. That 50% percent own 3% if you include those is BS. You're a useless liberal drone if you believe that. Half the country including their pensions and homes own 3% of the assets. Right.

Yet again, you are the definition of lazy.

Your go to point. You linked to long studies and I wasn't willing to read them to answer questions about your argument, the "definition" of lazy. It is, but you're fingers pointed in the wrong direction by oh, 180 degrees.

LOL, I knew you would move the goal posts.

So since according to your expert opinion, these studies are so flawed, please show me ANY study that you feel is well researched and proves what I said was way off base. I'm open to learning, so please link me to what you feel is a quality piece of information that isn't as flawed as these are. I mean you're so sure that I'm completely wrong, you must have a reason for it, lets see it. Post something......ANYTHING.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Do you even realize how your post could easilly be attributed to the right's position in this whole union busting situation?? LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

And yet when all of the polls oppose what the right is trying to do, it's the right who refuses to listen to will of the people even as they charge ahead screaming "elections have consequences". Funny how the "will of the people" only seems to matter when it supports what republcians want to do.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

And yet they continue support and back a party that has created huge government with out of control spending of the taxpayer's money and absolutely refuses to listen to the voice of the people when it runs counter to their agenda.

 

[kaz]

LOL, I knew you would move the goal posts.

So since according to your expert opinion, these studies are so flawed, please show me ANY study that you feel is well researched and proves what I said was way off base. I'm open to learning, so please link me to what you feel is a quality piece of information that isn't as flawed as these are. I mean you're so sure that I'm completely wrong, you must have a reason for it, lets see it. Post something......ANYTHING.

Move the goal posts? I've repeated the same questions through the conversation. Look, you don't care so I'm going to concede and let you claim victory. I have extensive experience in financial markets and wealth management, I'm not going to look up studies to show what I have personal knowledge of. But others may read this besides you, so I tell them what the issue is, you can ignore it and claim victory because you have an article that's supporting your religious liberal objectives. Win-win. There are two gaping holes in what they did.

They are not counting pensions or social security. People are getting checks for the rest of their lives and they are counting that as wealth of zero.

If they are counting homes, they are counting it at best at book value and not market value. The bottom half move far less frequently then the top half and not marking their homes to market is dramatically undervaluing them.

So of the two largest assets of the bottom half, if you don't count checks they will get the rest of their lives as wealth and and don't mark their homes to market, then I do believe you could get to 3% of all wealth.

Poor is not a bank balance. It is a lifestyle. People who don't save have less money, not people who earn less. What makes the rich rich is living below their means. What makes the poor poor is spending money they don't have. That is why pensions and homes are their primary assets, they sort of happen w/o effort. So yes, the top half have a very large portion of the wealth. But 3% if you count all assets and mark them to market is preposterous.

Now, you can show once again you don't care because you have no intellectual curiosity and my point contradicts your liberal religion and win the argument because if you don't have any actual content to provide or interest in learning anything I'm out.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

You changed the question. You asked what was unconstitutional that is funded by the government. Asked and answered.

Now you're asking what the government has decided it can't do because it's unconstitutional. The ultimate in sheep you are, you have the rights government tells you that you have.

He asked for what IS unconstitutional and you gave a list based on your opinion of what you believe is unconstitutional, not what actually IS or has been found to be unconstitutional.

 

[Avatar4321]

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

 

[kaz]

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

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

You changed the question. You asked what was unconstitutional that is funded by the government. Asked and answered.

Now you're asking what the government has decided it can't do because it's unconstitutional. The ultimate in sheep you are, you have the rights government tells you that you have.

He asked for what IS unconstitutional and you gave a list based on your opinion of what you believe is unconstitutional, not what actually IS or has been found to be unconstitutional.

Fair enough. Show the constitutional authority for any of those programs and I'll concede they are constitutional. If you can't, I win by the 10th amendment.

 

[drsmith1072]

You could tax them...

Good to see you've -finally- gotten over youeself and are now willing to admit that your statement was wrong, and, in fact, that these people CAN be taxed.
Was that so difficult?

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

Good luck with that. He actually got busted for editing other peoples posts in one of his own threads not to long ago. He is a cherry picker and will only address the excerpts of posts that he takes ouf context so he can try to reframe the debate. Notice how he jumped in the middle of your debate with kaz and chose to focus only on one sentence as he ignored the context of the whole discussion. It's his MO so don't expect him to change it anytime soon.

 

[RDD_1210]

LOL, I knew you would move the goal posts.

So since according to your expert opinion, these studies are so flawed, please show me ANY study that you feel is well researched and proves what I said was way off base. I'm open to learning, so please link me to what you feel is a quality piece of information that isn't as flawed as these are. I mean you're so sure that I'm completely wrong, you must have a reason for it, lets see it. Post something......ANYTHING.

Move the goal posts? I've repeated the same questions through the conversation. Look, you don't care so I'm going to concede and let you claim victory. I have extensive experience in financial markets and wealth management, I'm not going to look up studies to show what I have personal knowledge of. But others may read this besides you, so I tell them what the issue is, you can ignore it and claim victory because you have an article that's supporting your religious liberal objectives. Win-win. There are two gaping holes in what they did.

They are not counting pensions or social security. People are getting checks for the rest of their lives and they are counting that as wealth of zero.

If they are counting homes, they are counting it at best at book value and not market value. The bottom half move far less frequently then the top half and not marking their homes to market is dramatically undervaluing them.

So of the two largest assets of the bottom half, if you don't count checks they will get the rest of their lives as wealth and and don't mark their homes to market, then I do believe you could get to 3% of all wealth.

Poor is not a bank balance. It is a lifestyle. People who don't save have less money, not people who earn less. What makes the rich rich is living below their means. What makes the poor poor is spending money they don't have. That is why pensions and homes are their primary assets, they sort of happen w/o effort. So yes, the top half have a very large portion of the wealth. But 3% if you count all assets and mark them to market is preposterous.

Now, you can show once again you don't care because you have no intellectual curiosity and my point contradicts your liberal religion and win the argument because if you don't have any actual content to provide or interest in learning anything I'm out.

Thanks for providing more context. I asked before for more info....more then just...."you're wrong" so I'm glad you took some time to add further info this time. I actually looked up what you said about pensions and SS and found articles that gave a lot of good information about how they can be calculated in to wealth. I told you I was willing to learn, always will be, I just wanted you to show me something to read. I can only go off of what I have come across so far. I haven't found data however, yet, that combines all of these factors in to a single wealth model. I've now seen them separated but I'd love to see a holistic view.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

This is the best tactic right wingers on this board have to offer. They claim you are wrong without showing how, then they refuse to answer your questions as they avoid and ignore them even as they demand that you answer their questions and have the debate only on their terms.

BTW I noticed when you showed how your link did indeed define "wealth" and how instead of admitting that he was wrong in claiming that it didn't he tried to spin and deflect. LOL Funny how that works out.

 

[beowolfe]

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.

Wouldn't that mean that the tax has to be a flat tax?

Actually, no. It wouldn't have to be. The constitution is silent on the type of taxes it gives congress the right to implement. Initially, there were only tariffs on imports.

 

[kaz]

Thanks for providing more context. I asked before for more info....more then just...."you're wrong" so I'm glad you took some time to add further info this time. I actually looked up what you said about pensions and SS and found articles that gave a lot of good information about how they can be calculated in to wealth.

How you value them, and you may have read this, is to take the Net Present Value. Basically you have to select a discount rate and take the present value of each nominal check, which you calculate using the discount rate. That is highly subjective though in the case of pensions because what discount rate do you use and how many checks are you going to get? And are the checks indexed to anything? In terms of an asset, that NPV is the value of the asset which is what you would use in your wealth calculation.

I told you I was willing to learn, always will be, I just wanted you to show me something to read

OK, fair enough. I'm fairly new to the site. I get stone walled by liberal ideologs a lot, I need to keep an open mind. I didn't think you were grasping what I was referring to, but obviously I wasn't trying hard enough.

I can only go off of what I have come across so far. I haven't found data however, yet, that combines all of these factors in to a single wealth model. I've now seen them separated but I'd love to see a holistic view.

Defining wealth is easy, net assets - net liabilities. As you indicated before. The trick is measuring it and there is no perfect way to do that and never will be because to do that you need to know the future, like what interest rates will be to measure the present value of pensions and social security checks. Also for homes, how do you measure market value cleanly for a home that's not listed? Do you use tax base? How do you know what condition it's in?

Measuring wealth for any political purpose is very doubtful because even the most well intentioned measurer of wealth has highly subjective judgments to make and when any political implication is going to be drawn from it that creates a huge conflict of interest in an area with huge subjectivity.

 

[RDD_1210]

Thanks for providing more context. I asked before for more info....more then just...."you're wrong" so I'm glad you took some time to add further info this time. I actually looked up what you said about pensions and SS and found articles that gave a lot of good information about how they can be calculated in to wealth.

How you value them, and you may have read this, is to take the Net Present Value. Basically you have to select a discount rate and take the present value of each nominal check, which you calculate using the discount rate. That is highly subjective though in the case of pensions because what discount rate do you use and how many checks are you going to get? And are the checks indexed to anything? In terms of an asset, that NPV is the value of the asset which is what you would use in your wealth calculation.

I told you I was willing to learn, always will be, I just wanted you to show me something to read

OK, fair enough. I'm fairly new to the site. I get stone walled by liberal ideologs a lot, I need to keep an open mind. I didn't think you were grasping what I was referring to, but obviously I wasn't trying hard enough.

I can only go off of what I have come across so far. I haven't found data however, yet, that combines all of these factors in to a single wealth model. I've now seen them separated but I'd love to see a holistic view.

Defining wealth is easy, net assets - net liabilities. As you indicated before. The trick is measuring it and there is no perfect way to do that and never will be because to do that you need to know the future, like what interest rates will be to measure the present value of pensions and social security checks. Also for homes, how do you measure market value cleanly for a home that's not listed? Do you use tax base? How do you know what condition it's in?

Measuring wealth for any political purpose is very doubtful because even the most well intentioned measurer of wealth has highly subjective judgments to make and when any political implication is going to be drawn from it that creates a huge conflict of interest in an area with huge subjectivity.

Yeah and I am use to so often being told, "no you're wrong" or "that's dumb" without any sort of backup, proof or reasoning. So when you seemed to not want to show me why you thought I was incorrect, I just assumed you were like most others on this site. I am definitely liberal but I am not opposed to being taught something new, so thanks for the good info.

Now I'm just waiting for Mini14 to explain what the hell is talking about with his last post which I have no idea how it relates to what I posted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

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.
How can you argue that there's no way to derive an appreciable amonut of income tax revenue from those that aren't 'rich' if you don't know how much income there is acrss those that are rich and those that are not?

Did you want to have a serious discussion about this, or not?