Do We Need Tax Reform?

[BulletProof]

If we limited our government spending to the things outlined by the constitution, we could triple the number of bases, double our military, and still have money left over to pay down debt, and cut taxes at the same time.

I see you're another libtard with delusions of being a conservative. Let's double the size of the military that's already twice the size it needs to be, right? Mo money, mo money taken from taxpayers for your wet dreams of mass murder. And, instead of cutting down the rest of government, you'll agree to increase funding on everything non-military, so that in trade you get your bigger military... it's the neocon way, since before Ronald Reagan.

How about we cut down the military to constitutional size: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy.

Nothing there about an Air Force. Oh look at that, a limit of two years on appropriations of money for the military.

 

[Andylusion]

I think it stinks that some big corps and the mega-rich get away with paying nothing or next to nothing. Taint right. Gotta be limits to deductions no matter what it's for, and also an overall limit to a certain % of your income. And one other thing, if you're going to provide healthcare for all then everybody needs to be paying for it.

It's not true. What you are saying isn't true.

And by the way, you can't get rich off deductions. In fact you lose money on dedications.

All deductions are money losers.

If you give $1,000 to charity for example. You get to deduct $1,000 from your tax able income. If your tax rate is 40%, that means you spent $1,000 to save $400 in taxes.

Same is true of rich people. If they give $10 Million dollars to charity, they only save their tax rate. 40%. That means they spent $10 Million, to save only $4 Million in taxes.

By the way, do you know why tax deductions exist? Before there were tax deductions, the rich didn't give anything to charities. Universities, charities for the poor, health care groups.... all of them were dying. Literally major universities were in major financial trouble, because when FDR jack up taxes on the rich, the rich stopped giving to charities.

So Universities with all those left-wing professors, sent lobbying groups to Washington, to ask for tax dedications for charitable giving.

BY THE WAY.... that's where LOBBYING CAME FROM!

So you people created all these things, that now you scream and cry about. It's YOU PEOPLE that caused this entire system to be created.

 

[Andylusion]

If we limited our government spending to the things outlined by the constitution, we could triple the number of bases, double our military, and still have money left over to pay down debt, and cut taxes at the same time.

I see you're another libtard with delusions of being a conservative. Let's double the size of the military that's already twice the size it needs to be, right? Mo money, mo money taken from taxpayers for your wet dreams of mass murder. And, instead of cutting down the rest of government, you'll agree to increase funding on everything non-military, so that in trade you get your bigger military... it's the neocon way, since before Ronald Reagan.

How about we cut down the military to constitutional size: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy.

Nothing there about an Air Force. Oh look at that, a limit of two years on appropriations of money for the military.

I highly doubt anyone would seriously make the argument that the air-force isn't a vital part of the navy and army.

And they do pass yearly defense appropriations for no longer than a two year term.

I don't think that is a violation of the constitution. But I could be wrong. I'm all for an amendment process to fix either of those.

Let's try and have an amendment process for Medicare, and see how that goes. Of course if we did, most people would be against it.

Beyond that, again, the military is one of the fundamental duties of the Federal Government. If you look at why we ditched the articles of confederation, for the constitution, it was specifically because of the military.

Now I don't see any need to expand our military, nor the number of bases we have around the world.

My point though, was that if we limited the Federal government to its constitutional duties, and stopped spending money on unconstitutional things, we could double the size of our military and still cut taxes and pay down the national debt.

That point.... is still true.

 

[BulletProof]

I highly doubt anyone would seriously make the argument that the air-force isn't a vital part of the navy and army.

And they do pass yearly defense appropriations for no longer than a two year term.

I don't think that is a violation of the constitution. But I could be wrong. I'm all for an amendment process to fix either of those.

Fair enough.

How big a loophole is the military clause? Unlimited military spending? Life-time of free medical care for vets, free college education for all soldiers, free citizenship for all joiners, policing dozens of countries, etc.? It seems to me that the two-year appropriations (along with a once constitutional ban on income taxes) were limiters on how much could be spent on the military, but those constitutional limiters are now off the table.

Let's try and have an amendment process for Medicare, and see how that goes. Of course if we did, most people would be against it.

Put medicare and medicaid together, most people are either on them, or close to someone who is. An Amendment would pass, with overwhelming support from the media and nearly every politician.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

goofy lie typical of the liberal IQ. Top 1% pay 42% of taxes not 1% as they should. Giving them a tax break down to 39% is not showering them with tax breaks. The tax breaks have gone to the bottom 50% who pay negative taxes ie they get more money than they are taxed . 1+1=2

How is it you know so much but are still so ignorant? The people with "negative taxes" have kids and are predominately single parents. Without kids, no negative taxes. Without kids, lower-income workers often pay a higher percentage to the feds than the mega-rich do, once you factor in the effective income tax rate for the mega-rich and the super-regressive payroll taxes on income.

Yeah, the poor pay a greater percentage of their income to the feds than billionaires. So, f1ck you and the Tea Pparty idiots who run around demanding tax cuts for the rich, while whining about the tax burden on the rich who are forced down to only six mansions instead of seven because of the their tax hardship.

Total ignorance. Top1% starts at $300,000. After taxes that's $150,000. Try running 6 mansions on that?

Also, miss managing your life dropping out of school and becoming a single parent doesn't mean you get to spend the rest of your life is a liberal leech. In liberal La La Land we punish those who live their life correctly and reward those who live their life incorrectly.
Where in the Constitution does it say we discriminate against the rich or in this case those who make $300,000 a year?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If we limited our government spending to the things outlined by the constitution, we could triple the number of bases, double our military, and still have money left over to pay down debt, and cut taxes at the same time.

I see you're another libtard with delusions of being a conservative. Let's double the size of the military that's already twice the size it needs to be, right? a longer

Exactly twice the size?? We should cut the military until we have absolutely no defense against Korean and North Korean Iranian Russian and Chinese missiles aimed at us!!! That way they can threaten us with destruction if we object to anything they do. It would be the perfect liberal foreign-policy

 

[The Derp]

First off, I think income tax should be illegal. Rich or poor, I'm against an income tax. It's wrong to take from the people who earn. Period.

So with what do you replace the revenue from income tax? BTW - I agree that we shouldn't tax income, however I do think we should tax carbon and waste. I think taxation should be used to influence social behavior, and by replacing an income tax with a carbon tax, we dynamically shift our economy to one where conservation takes priority and waste is taxed.

Second, everything does trickle down. Every single job in existence in this entire country, is due to trickle down.

No, it's not. What creates jobs isn't trickle-down, it's demand. No business hires anyone if there isn't demand for the product they produce. Giving money to the wealthy in the hopes it will "trickle down" is a load of crap, already disproved by the last 40 years. We were sold the false promise that if we cut taxes for the wealthy, they would increase their spending which will result in prosperity for all. Only, that doesn't happen. What happens instead is the wealthy hoard their money, don't circulate it in the economy, as the wealth they hoard begins to concentrate at the top. It's no coincidence that after the Bush Tax Cuts, economic growth was pitiful. In fact, without people using their homes as ATMs, Bush's trickle-down tax-cutting economy was the weakest in 80 years. His economy was sustained on debt. And that debt would eventually take down the entire economy.

I like to use this chart because it shows the hollow emptiness of Conservative policy:

There is no need at "upward wealth redistribution". The wealthy already pay more tax than all other groups combined.

In what terms? The wealthy may have a larger burden, but that's because you guys cut taxes for everyone...so you created an unfair burden and then exacerbated it. 40 years ago, the tax burden was far more equitable. Then you cut taxes. Then it wasn't. So how are you and your policy not to blame for the thing you are complaining about?

Also, if people were paid more, they would pay more in taxes (and take less in welfare). But you oppose raising wages, so again we have a masturbatory argument from the right-wing on a subject they know less than nothing about.

Moreover, it's not redistribution. A tax cut, isn't a redistribution of wealth, anymore than a mugger stealing your wallet, but leaving you $5 to get a taxi home, means the mugger was redistributing wealth to you.

It absolutely is redistribution and here's how, using Kansas as the most recent example; KS cut taxes for the rich in 2013, promising that they would "serve as a shot of adrenaline into the Kansas economy", and that they would "pay for themselves". Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader at the time, said that what Brownback did in Kansas was "exactly what we want to do here [in DC] but can't, for now." Governor Brownback even flew in Arthur Laffer (You know him, right? He's the guy whose economic dogma you adhere to) to tout the imagined predicted success of the tax cuts. Well what happened? Did they serve as a "shot of adrenaline"? Did they "pay for themselves"? Nope. Instead what happened was that KS' economic growth was below Obama's national average each year of the tax cuts. KS' job growth was also below Obama's national average. KS' surplus was turned into record deficits. KS' credit was downgraded twice. And more businesses were created across the border in Missouri, which raised taxes. But the important part that is germane to this subject as to how tax cuts are wealth redistribution is best expressed in the example of the KS State University System. Because revenue was cut, thanks to the tax cuts, the KS Board of Regents had to increase tuition costs to make up for the cut in funding from Topeka. So all those middle- and lower-income students, and their families, were forced to take out bigger loans just so their kids could attend a state school. The wealthy not paying taxes resulted in budget cuts for colleges that end up taking more money out of the pockets of the middle- and lower-class while putting money into the pockets of the wealthy, who didn't spend it like you promised they would.

 

[The Derp]

- ask Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac how giving credit to those who can't afford it works out.

Was fine for them...it was your friends in the private sector who didn't get their loans backed by GSEs that caused the trouble:

GSE's had nothing to do with the shitty mortgages your Conservative buddies on Wall Street were pushing:

Clearly you can see that the two blue nlines start skyrocketing upward around 2006, yet GSE-backed loans remained constant. So how could GSE's have caused private label subprimes to increase in delinquency? The answer is they couldn't. Which would make your argument 100%, unadulterated bullshit.

 

[BULLDOG]

Any reason to believe their tax scheme will do anything for the average household, or will it all go to the rich guys?

Since all Conservative tax reform proposals are the same, the goal is to shower the wealthy in tax breaks because Conservatives think they will "trickle down". Even though nothing has trickled down, ever. Even though the entire premise of their economic ideology is a load of fantastical horseshit that relies on faith. So "tax reform" is just another attempt at upward wealth redistribution.

First off, I think income tax should be illegal. Rich or poor, I'm against an income tax. It's wrong to take from the people who earn. Period.

Second, everything does trickle down. Every single job in existence in this entire country, is due to trickle down.

Every single thing you own of value, every service you get that you use and enjoy, is wealth that trickled down to you from the rich and wealthy.

Trickle down is how the entire world works.

There is no need at "upward wealth redistribution". The wealthy already pay more tax than all other groups combined.

Moreover, it's not redistribution. A tax cut, isn't a redistribution of wealth, anymore than a mugger stealing your wallet, but leaving you $5 to get a taxi home, means the mugger was redistributing wealth to you.

Spouting mindless stupidity, is dumb. Cut it out.

If a tax cut is 'redistribution" then the standard deduction for the lowest income earners is the biggest redistribution of wealth to the poor in the entire world. Think before you speak. Use your brain.

Yes, there is some trickle down. The problem is what is an acceptable rate of trickle down? So far, the minute amount that does trickle down is so small compared to the amounts given to the rich. Trickle down is nothing more than piling more money on the table of the rich, in hopes that eventually some will fall off so the poor can get to it. Unfortunately, the rich use the wealth piled on the table to get a bigger table.

 

[BulletProof]

Total ignorance. Top1% starts at $300,000. After taxes that's $150,000. Try running 6 mansions on that?

The phrase I've been using is "mega-rich". Obviously, the definition must be rich enough to own six mansions. Your definition of the top 1% doesn't fit.

Neocunt, here are the marginal rates:
Mega-rich: 15% (the top capital gains rate)
Start of the 1%: 33% (33% tax bracket, payroll taxes are limited)
middle-class: 40% (25% bracket plus 15.2% payroll taxes)

 

[jillian]

The average American family spent more money on taxes in 2016 than they did on food and clothing, according to a new analysis.

CNSNews.com cites a recent Bureau of Labor Statistics study that showed the following:

• American households spent an average of $10,489 on local, state, and federal taxes last year.
• They spent $7,203 on food and $1,803 on clothing in 2016.
• The average tax bill increased from $7,423 in 2013 to $10,489 in 2016.
• The only household expense higher than taxes last year was housing, which averaged $18,886. That figure includes mortgage and rent payments, utilities, and other related costs.

CNS?

alternative facts

CNSNews's file

 

[Andylusion]

I highly doubt anyone would seriously make the argument that the air-force isn't a vital part of the navy and army.

And they do pass yearly defense appropriations for no longer than a two year term.

I don't think that is a violation of the constitution. But I could be wrong. I'm all for an amendment process to fix either of those.

Fair enough.

How big a loophole is the military clause? Unlimited military spending? Life-time of free medical care for vets, free college education for all soldiers, free citizenship for all joiners, policing dozens of countries, etc.? It seems to me that the two-year appropriations (along with a once constitutional ban on income taxes) were limiters on how much could be spent on the military, but those constitutional limiters are now off the table.

Let's try and have an amendment process for Medicare, and see how that goes. Of course if we did, most people would be against it.

Put medicare and medicaid together, most people are either on them, or close to someone who is. An Amendment would pass, with overwhelming support from the media and nearly every politician.

Well again, the entire purpose of the Federal Government, is to defend the country. Military is the defacto mission of the Federal Government. It's not a loophole... it's the whole point.

If defense wasn't the necessary evil it is... there would be no constitution.

And again... the Military is a fraction of the cost of the government.
2016

In 2016, the Federal Government spent $3.5 Trillion dollars. Of that, only $500 Billion went to the military.

So we spent $3 Trillion dollars more than the constitutional mandates for the Federal Government.

Let's first cut the unconstitutional stuff, before we cut constitutional spending.

To me, complaining about military spending, when we are unconstitutionally spending trillions more, is equal to having someone rob your house every single month, and say you should cut cable TV to save money. How about you first stop the guy stealing your stuff, and stop that loss of money first?

 

[BulletProof]

Well again, the entire purpose of the Federal Government, is to defend the country.

Only a few sentences in the whole Constitution have anything to do with defending the country. And, none of our modern military adventures have anything to do with defending the country. In fact, just the opposite. They drain American blood and money, and invite terrorism.

In 2016, the Federal Government spent $3.5 Trillion dollars. Of that, only $500 Billion went to the military.

That's why we can't cut anything. Everyone says that such-and-such pet program is only x% of the federal budget. Excluding healthcare and SS (which supposedly is separate, anyway), military spending is nearly half of the federal budget. In 2010, spending peaked at $721 billion. In 2016, it was $611 billion, and Congress is already increasing military spending again.

 

[The Derp]

Well again, the entire purpose of the Federal Government, is to defend the country.

And provide for the general welfare. So you're doing the typical Conservative thing where you lop off part of a sentence then misrepresent what that sentence means. You guys do that shit all the ******* time, and it's time you get called on it.

The Constitution makes it crystal clear that the government has the power to tax in order to provide for both the common defense and general welfare of the country. So pretending that it's only half the statement belies an intellectual dishonesty that drives everything you believe. Everything. So, to not mince words, everything you believe is a lie. A lie that comes from the (deliberate) obstinacy and/or obfuscation just so you don't have to admit you're wrong on a message board.

*******. PATHETIC.

And again... the Military is a fraction of the cost of the government.

Our Defense budget is roughly 1/3 of the overall budget, and even with all that money, we weren't protected from 9/11, anthrax attacks, or Russian hackers. So what ******* good does spending $650B on defense if we can't even protect people in this country from threats? It seems to me that the military is more a giant welfare program for Conservatives who keep plants open that produce weapons the Pentagon doesn't even want.

*******. PATHETIC.

In 2016, the Federal Government spent $3.5 Trillion dollars. Of that, only $500 Billion went to the military.

First of all, the Defense Budget last year was $582B, not $500B. Get your facts straight. That does not include the war spending, of which another $150B is thrown on top of it. So you're at about $730B. Now, if you really wanted to get technical, you could also throw in the cost of Homeland Security on top of that too, which adds another $44B on top of that. So now you're at about $775B. So it's not "a fraction" as you say. It's about 20% of the budget.

*******. PATHETIC.

So we spent $3 Trillion dollars more than the constitutional mandates for the Federal Government.

The Constitution mandates that Congress has the power to levy taxes and tarriffs to provide for the general welfare as well as defense. Again, it's part of the sentence you leave out deliberately. Why?

 

[Bonzi]

The average American family spent more money on taxes in 2016 than they did on food and clothing, according to a new analysis.

CNSNews.com cites a recent Bureau of Labor Statistics study that showed the following:

• American households spent an average of $10,489 on local, state, and federal taxes last year.
• They spent $7,203 on food and $1,803 on clothing in 2016.
• The average tax bill increased from $7,423 in 2013 to $10,489 in 2016.
• The only household expense higher than taxes last year was housing, which averaged $18,886. That figure includes mortgage and rent payments, utilities, and other related costs.

No. We need Government spending reform

 

[Andylusion]

First off, I think income tax should be illegal. Rich or poor, I'm against an income tax. It's wrong to take from the people who earn. Period.

So with what do you replace the revenue from income tax? BTW - I agree that we shouldn't tax income, however I do think we should tax carbon and waste. I think taxation should be used to influence social behavior, and by replacing an income tax with a carbon tax, we dynamically shift our economy to one where conservation takes priority and waste is taxed.

Second, everything does trickle down. Every single job in existence in this entire country, is due to trickle down.

No, it's not. What creates jobs isn't trickle-down, it's demand. No business hires anyone if there isn't demand for the product they produce. Giving money to the wealthy in the hopes it will "trickle down" is a load of crap, already disproved by the last 40 years. We were sold the false promise that if we cut taxes for the wealthy, they would increase their spending which will result in prosperity for all. Only, that doesn't happen. What happens instead is the wealthy hoard their money, don't circulate it in the economy, as the wealth they hoard begins to concentrate at the top. It's no coincidence that after the Bush Tax Cuts, economic growth was pitiful. In fact, without people using their homes as ATMs, Bush's trickle-down tax-cutting economy was the weakest in 80 years. His economy was sustained on debt. And that debt would eventually take down the entire economy.

I like to use this chart because it shows the hollow emptiness of Conservative policy:

There is no need at "upward wealth redistribution". The wealthy already pay more tax than all other groups combined.

In what terms? The wealthy may have a larger burden, but that's because you guys cut taxes for everyone...so you created an unfair burden and then exacerbated it. 40 years ago, the tax burden was far more equitable. Then you cut taxes. Then it wasn't. So how are you and your policy not to blame for the thing you are complaining about?

Also, if people were paid more, they would pay more in taxes (and take less in welfare). But you oppose raising wages, so again we have a masturbatory argument from the right-wing on a subject they know less than nothing about.

Moreover, it's not redistribution. A tax cut, isn't a redistribution of wealth, anymore than a mugger stealing your wallet, but leaving you $5 to get a taxi home, means the mugger was redistributing wealth to you.

It absolutely is redistribution and here's how, using Kansas as the most recent example; KS cut taxes for the rich in 2013, promising that they would "serve as a shot of adrenaline into the Kansas economy", and that they would "pay for themselves". Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader at the time, said that what Brownback did in Kansas was "exactly what we want to do here [in DC] but can't, for now." Governor Brownback even flew in Arthur Laffer (You know him, right? He's the guy whose economic dogma you adhere to) to tout the imagined predicted success of the tax cuts. Well what happened? Did they serve as a "shot of adrenaline"? Did they "pay for themselves"? Nope. Instead what happened was that KS' economic growth was below Obama's national average each year of the tax cuts. KS' job growth was also below Obama's national average. KS' surplus was turned into record deficits. KS' credit was downgraded twice. And more businesses were created across the border in Missouri, which raised taxes. But the important part that is germane to this subject as to how tax cuts are wealth redistribution is best expressed in the example of the KS State University System. Because revenue was cut, thanks to the tax cuts, the KS Board of Regents had to increase tuition costs to make up for the cut in funding from Topeka. So all those middle- and lower-income students, and their families, were forced to take out bigger loans just so their kids could attend a state school. The wealthy not paying taxes resulted in budget cuts for colleges that end up taking more money out of the pockets of the middle- and lower-class while putting money into the pockets of the wealthy, who didn't spend it like you promised they would.

I agree that we shouldn't tax income, however I do think we should tax carbon and waste.

While that idea seems sound, it results in other problems. First conservation hasn't taken hold in Europe where such taxes exist. And additionally, the premise seems to be built on the idea that people, and companies can't move.

The results from Europe is that companies have moved operations out of the country, to avoid expensive carbon and waste taxes. This is why a dozen different companies have opened shop in Alabama.

It absolutely is redistribution and here's how, using Kansas as the most recent example

No, not even close.

First off, it wasn't a failure at all. Before the tax cuts, Kansas had a negative growth rate of -0.3%.
The year after the tax cuts, they had a growth rate of 1.8%.

So the tax cut was in fact, effective.

Now I will grant you that the tax cut has a very small effect. Very small.

The problem with that argument is that the tax cut itself was very small.
The top marginal tax rate in Kansas was only 6.45%... so it was small to begin with. Then it dropped only to 4.6%. A 1.8% cut is barely anything.

If you make $250,000 a year, that means you saved $4.5 Thousand dollars. Are you telling me, that $4.5 thousand dollars is going to radically change the entire economy? Of course not.

And don't try to convince me that Kansas is secretly the home of hundreds of thousands of billionaires. It isn't.

Further, what bothers me the most, is that they compare the job growth in Kansas to the national average, and then claim it didn't work. The problem is, the job growth rate before the tax cuts was even lower, and of course well below the national average. So in fact, they are doing better now, than they had before.

The only area where there is any case for failure, is the surplus going to a deficit. Well of course the whole point of a tax cut is to make the citizens better off, and the government less well off. And the governor pushed to cut spending. That was part of the deal. You spend less on government bureaucrats, and the citizens have more.

But instead the Kansas legislature not only refuse to cut spending, but increased spending by over a billion dollars.

So let's see ..... you cut taxes and increase spending.... what do you think was going to happen? This is like Reagan. Reagan planned to cut spending over and over. But the democrap controled congress over spent Reagan's budget every single year.

Then you blame Reagan, for what the democraps did? No. Same here. This isn't a failure of the tax cuts. By any measure the tax cuts are working. This isn't a failure of the governor. He his plan was cut taxes and cut spending. Not cut taxes and drastically increase spending.

You people failed here. Not us.

 

[Andylusion]

- ask Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac how giving credit to those who can't afford it works out.

Was fine for them...it was your friends in the private sector who didn't get their loans backed by GSEs that caused the trouble:

GSE's had nothing to do with the shitty mortgages your Conservative buddies on Wall Street were pushing:

Clearly you can see that the two blue nlines start skyrocketing upward around 2006, yet GSE-backed loans remained constant. So how could GSE's have caused private label subprimes to increase in delinquency? The answer is they couldn't. Which would make your argument 100%, unadulterated bullshit.

No you are wrong. IF it was only those people who didn't get their loans backed by the GSEs... then we would expect that Fannie and Freddie would have been the most stable and fiscally sound institutions in the country.

Instead, the amount of money lost by the GSEs dwarfs all the rest combined.

 

[Andylusion]

Well again, the entire purpose of the Federal Government, is to defend the country.

And provide for the general welfare. So you're doing the typical Conservative thing where you lop off part of a sentence then misrepresent what that sentence means. You guys do that shit all the ******* time, and it's time you get called on it.

The Constitution makes it crystal clear that the government has the power to tax in order to provide for both the common defense and general welfare of the country. So pretending that it's only half the statement belies an intellectual dishonesty that drives everything you believe. Everything. So, to not mince words, everything you believe is a lie. A lie that comes from the (deliberate) obstinacy and/or obfuscation just so you don't have to admit you're wrong on a message board.

*******. PATHETIC.

And again... the Military is a fraction of the cost of the government.

Our Defense budget is roughly 1/3 of the overall budget, and even with all that money, we weren't protected from 9/11, anthrax attacks, or Russian hackers. So what ******* good does spending $650B on defense if we can't even protect people in this country from threats? It seems to me that the military is more a giant welfare program for Conservatives who keep plants open that produce weapons the Pentagon doesn't even want.

*******. PATHETIC.

In 2016, the Federal Government spent $3.5 Trillion dollars. Of that, only $500 Billion went to the military.

First of all, the Defense Budget last year was $582B, not $500B. Get your facts straight. That does not include the war spending, of which another $150B is thrown on top of it. So you're at about $730B. Now, if you really wanted to get technical, you could also throw in the cost of Homeland Security on top of that too, which adds another $44B on top of that. So now you're at about $775B. So it's not "a fraction" as you say. It's about 20% of the budget.

*******. PATHETIC.

So we spent $3 Trillion dollars more than the constitutional mandates for the Federal Government.

The Constitution mandates that Congress has the power to levy taxes and tarriffs to provide for the general welfare as well as defense. Again, it's part of the sentence you leave out deliberately. Why?

You are quickly proving yourself to be too immature, and more like a snotty ignorant brat.

The general welfare clause, is a limitation on government. It means you can't make a law that benefits one group of people at the expense of others. A law can only provide for the general welfare, meaning everyone benefits equally.

Not at the expense of the young, for the benefit of the old... like social security.
Not at the expense of the healthy, for the benefit of the sick.
Not at the expense of the mothers with children, at the expense of everyone else.

If you doubt that, then read what Thomas Jefferson wrote...

"Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action"​

Now let me explain those long words, for an ignorant PATHETIC brat like yourself, that still needs his intellectual diapers changed.....

The general welfare clause is not a blank check to justify every childish spoiled brat demand you have.

Instead it is limited to the enumerated powers. It means that you can't just raise money for any purpose some spoiled PATHETIC brat forum poster demands, but rather only those powers given to the Federal Government by the constitution.

I would rather not swap spit with a jackass. You are clearly not adult enough for a conversation of any intelligence.

But if you want to continue talking this way on the forum, I'll be more than happy to continue exposing your childishness.