Middle class could face higher taxes under Republican plan, analysis finds

[Listening]

You have yet to demonstrate any factual inaccuracies in the analysis. You base your position completely on the party that published the report, based on the Tax Policy Center's facts. Yet you claim because it came from Democrats, it can't be trusted. If it came from Republicans, you'd be supporting even the most inane fact.

You won't even address the basic issue of who will be hit the hardest, as a percentage of income, if the home mortgage deduction is repealed. Who was hit the hardest when Reagan had the credit card and auto loan installment interest deduction repealed?

You're the hack, and without the mental ability to think for yourself. Now get back to making your lame flames in your sig lines and responding to posts with single emoticons. That seems to be your forte.

unlike you, I take anything from one side that claims the other side is evil, with a large grain of salt. unlike you, I don't take whatever one party says and consider it Gospel.

unlike you, I do have a mind of my own, and I use it. In this case, I used it to determine that I don't trust the Democrats to make a fair and impartial analysis of a Republican plan, any more than I trust the Republicans to make a fair and impartial analysis of a Democrat plan.

It's called, having an open mind. You should try it instead of simply regurgitating any anti GOP thought that you see come from the Dems.

Dumb ass.

You're getting your ass kicked.

Take off your cheerleading outfit.

It is showing off your blubbery thighs.

 

[Steelplate]

But yet even the retarded janitor deserves a wage that he can raise a family on...go figure.

Where is that written ?

In the book of common sense.

 

[Listening]

But yet even the retarded janitor deserves a wage that he can raise a family on...go figure.

Where is that written ?

In the book of common sense.

Not in my copy.

Sorry.

Maybe you have not seen the latest revision.

Get in the game.

 

[Steelplate]

Yeah let's just keep letting the working and middle class lose more and more and handing it to the very few at the top...that'll solve everything.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Your CRITERIA for NEED is subjective.... and even if you need 2000 calories, a roof, and a source of water, it is not owed to you... nor is it to derive benefit because you barely do enough (or do nothing) to obtain it... Is your need for $1000 a month for rent different than Joe Blow in Bald Knob Arkansas and his need for $200 a month for rent? Is it different than Joe Schmoe in South Dakota who lives in a cabin that he built? Is your need for food different because you go to Harris Teeter to get it than it is for Joe Schmoe who grows and harvests his? Not to mention entitlements that are not needs. Not to mention that many can and do provide for their basic needs on little to no income. Not to mention that some with no bills thrive on lower incomes and some who have spent beyond means have a hard time surviving on high incomes.... Situations are ALL different... and you subjectively lump or categorize based on your subjective criteria... and this is unequal treatment based on your feeling or perception...

This subjectivity is why we have corruption and pandering... and it has brought us to the fucked up situation we are in today...

That's a lot of text that answers nothing. Needs are not subjective. Like I said. Food, shelter and healthcare are not subjective needs. And in this country those things ARE owed to its citizens. Those are the basics. I'm not talking about entitlements or whatever other bullshit tangent you're trying to detour towards. Basic needs ARE guaranteed in this country, sorry you don't agree with that comrade.

Maybe you should find a society that fits better with your idea of equal. Know of any? Of course you don't.

I missed that passage in the constitution. We were granted the rights to obtain these needs freely. that is different than obtaining them FOR free. You LOLberals have it all backwards.

Can you point out the passage in the constitution that says the citizens are owed food, shelter and healthcare?


I'll wait here.

That's a lot of text that answers nothing. Needs are not subjective. Like I said. Food, shelter and healthcare are not subjective needs. And in this country those things ARE owed to its citizens. Those are the basics. I'm not talking about entitlements or whatever other bullshit tangent you're trying to detour towards. Basic needs ARE guaranteed in this country, sorry you don't agree with that comrade.

Maybe you should find a society that fits better with your idea of equal. Know of any? Of course you don't.

I missed that passage in the constitution. We were granted the rights to obtain these needs freely. that is different than obtaining them FOR free. You LOLberals have it all backwards.

Can you point out the passage in the constitution that says the citizens are owed food, shelter and healthcare?


I'll wait here.

Right there in the beginning

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You're welcome.

Right there in the beginning

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You're welcome.

General welfare is not the same as specific welfare. Even the first circuit court of appeals in two separate cases made this clear from the stand point of social security.

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the typical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government[2] as the U.S. Supreme Court has held:

the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,
prior to 1936, the General Welfare Clause was not considered an independent grant of power, but instead a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues in the interest of the general welfare.[5][6] In recent decades, the Court conferred upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion, including the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds.[7]
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose

General Welfare clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You're welcome. You cocky little fucktard.

Who said anything about specific welfare? Not me. Nothing that you cited says that general welfare does not include ensuring the basic needs of 'We the People'. In fact, what you quoted supports what I said. Thanks!

Remind me again why you're closer to being poor than being rich. It's because you're lazy and have chosen to not work hard, right?

You're, and this is absolutely no surprise coming from a "the government owes me food, shelter and healthcare, a ******* liar. It's right int he above posting. YOu tell me the general welfare clause means that in this country you are OWED food, shelter and health care. Then turn around and back peddle and say you never said that.


You are a typical lying ass progressive LOLberal that thinks everything can be obtained for free and that you're owed it. What a ******* moron.

 

[Steelplate]

No where does it say that the general welfare doesn't either....it's up to the POTUS, Congress and the SCOTUS to determine that....according to the will of the people.....and no, corporations are not people.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If we can add whatever we want to the constitution in interpretation, we might as well throw it out and do whatever the decider wants. Because if it is up for interpretation in any fashion based on what not is in there, we can be sure the entire thing is meaningless. If it isn't in there, it isn't there deliberately. Unless food, shelter and healthcare were brand new starting in 1935. Which LOLberal morons, I bet they believe that.

 

[chikenwing]

The report, prepared by Senate Democrats...

The report is based on the analysis of the Tax Policy Center. Do you dispute any of the facts it provides? Who do you think is going to be hit the hardest, percentage of income wise, if the home mortgage deduction is repealed?

Last week raising taxes were a good thing,now it is not??

 

[Steelplate]

If we can add whatever we want to the constitution in interpretation, we might as well throw it out and do whatever the decider wants. Because if it is up for interpretation in any fashion based on what not is in there, we can be sure the entire thing is meaningless. If it isn't in there, it isn't there deliberately. Unless food, shelter and healthcare were brand new starting in 1935. Which LOLberal morons, I bet they believe that.

Which is YOUR interpretation. If enough people believe as you, then those things will disappear. You don't get to dictate your interpretation to the rest of society.

 

[Desperado]

It's certainly not unfair to read the Ryan and Romney plans and figure out where they're going to recoup the trillions the proposal is going to cost. The ball should be in their court. Give some details, or stop lying.

We are talking about the article in the original post?
There were no details in that article. So Im not going to get all worked up about speculation.
Lot's of places they can cut out the fat. Again, maybe they will decide to cut spending instead of increasing their revenue.
However doubtful that maybe, we can always hope.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Im not interpreting it anyway except for what is explicitly written. Food, shelter and healthcare, in this case, are not in the constitution and provisions provided by the govt. They do not appear in there. Neither does, "basic needs" or any other nonsense LOLberal wishlist they would like to drain the public wealth to get for "free".

******* LOLberals. Thicker than bricks and liars to boot. Anything to get something for free, right, LOLberals?

 

[Steelplate]

Oh...so you are a fundamentalist...which is....in itself, an interpretation.

Edit: gunfire Christians think everyone us going to hell...except them, of course....same thing with your fundamentalist interpretation of the constitution. Your absoluteness is your idiocy.

 

[Listening]

Yeah let's just keep letting the working and middle class lose more and more and handing it to the very few at the top...that'll solve everything.

Different subject.

And the two do not follow.

As usual, you try to bridge where there isn't one.

 

[Listening]

Oh...so you are a fundamentalist...which is....in itself, an interpretation.

Edit: gunfire Christians think everyone us going to hell...except them, of course....same thing with your fundamentalist interpretation of the constitution. Your absoluteness is your idiocy.

Sorry....

But for anyone who isn't interested in picking the pockets of others...it is quite clear.

There is nothing ambiguous about the 10th or Federalist 45.

And the country behaved that way until evil FDR decided he was above it all.

And this should help on the other subject:

http://www.darkcanyon.net/How General The General Welfare Clause.htm

OK, let’s see what they had to say and put this question to rest. Let’s ask James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Could they possibly shed any light on this?

"With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

Because we know you are to lazy to look:

#45

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

 

[Steelplate]

Here's the deal slick....this isn't 1787 anymore. And I also question the motivations of the wealthiest and most powerful of those times in the making of those supposedly hard and fast rules for our country. Most of them were slave owners, and in Jefferson's case.......he inherited that wealth, along with the property that Monticello sits on today......which, btw was sold after his death.....why? To pay off his debts....nice role model, huh?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So you want to throw out the constitution because you do not believe in America. Thanks for coming clean you uneducated communist thinking moron. 1979 Russia called and would like you to return home. Your rubble pile is lonely.

 

[Steelplate]

So you want to throw out the constitution because you do not believe in America. Thanks for coming clean you uneducated communist thinking moron. 1979 Russia called and would like you to return home. Your rubble pile is lonely.

I don't want to throw out anything...just do not accept your "**** you, I got mine" interpretation of it.

The Constitution calls for equality. If you numbnuts can demand equal taxation, the I suppose that the people that it will be hurt the most by it can demand equal wealth. But that's right....it's only valid when the demand comes from your side.

In short....both your pipe dream of a flat tax and the far lefty's of income equality...is just that...a pipe dream. A realistic goal should be to find a happy medium....which not letting the elderly starve, having a safety net for the poor and having some kind of Nationalized minimal health care does.

BTW....ask me what my feelings are on the current welfare system is....I'll give you a hint: my wife and I just spent a week in the Blue Ridge Parkway......figure it out.

 

[Rinata]

unlike you, I take anything from one side that claims the other side is evil, with a large grain of salt. unlike you, I don't take whatever one party says and consider it Gospel.

unlike you, I do have a mind of my own, and I use it. In this case, I used it to determine that I don't trust the Democrats to make a fair and impartial analysis of a Republican plan, any more than I trust the Republicans to make a fair and impartial analysis of a Democrat plan.

It's called, having an open mind. You should try it instead of simply regurgitating any anti GOP thought that you see come from the Dems.

Dumb ass.

You're getting your ass kicked.

Take off your cheerleading outfit.

It is showing off your blubbery thighs.

Get some new material, dummy, and get over yourself. You are so self-important and think that you are just so cool. You're not. You are a copycat without an original thought in your head and haven't enough sense to come in out of the rain.

So don't get mad at me because you got your ass handed to you on a platter. Serves you right.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Here's the deal slick....this isn't 1787 anymore. And I also question the motivations of the wealthiest and most powerful of those times in the making of those supposedly hard and fast rules for our country. Most of them were slave owners, and in Jefferson's case.......he inherited that wealth, along with the property that Monticello sits on today......which, btw was sold after his death.....why? To pay off his debts....nice role model, huh?

So you want to throw out the constitution because you do not believe in America. Thanks for coming clean you uneducated communist thinking moron. 1979 Russia called and would like you to return home. Your rubble pile is lonely.

I don't want to throw out anything...just do not accept your "**** you, I got mine" interpretation of it.

The Constitution calls for equality. If you numbnuts can demand equal taxation, the I suppose that the people that it will be hurt the most by it can demand equal wealth. But that's right....it's only valid when the demand comes from your side.

In short....both your pipe dream of a flat tax and the far lefty's of income equality...is just that...a pipe dream. A realistic goal should be to find a happy medium....which not letting the elderly starve, having a safety net for the poor and having some kind of Nationalized minimal health care does.

BTW....ask me what my feelings are on the current welfare system is....I'll give you a hint: my wife and I just spent a week in the Blue Ridge Parkway......figure it out.

I not interpreting. I'm following the words within their frame. You are trying to revise it. Not surpiring. As you lie about not wanting to change it.

 

[RDD_1210]

That's a lot of text that answers nothing. Needs are not subjective. Like I said. Food, shelter and healthcare are not subjective needs. And in this country those things ARE owed to its citizens. Those are the basics. I'm not talking about entitlements or whatever other bullshit tangent you're trying to detour towards. Basic needs ARE guaranteed in this country, sorry you don't agree with that comrade.

Maybe you should find a society that fits better with your idea of equal. Know of any? Of course you don't.

I missed that passage in the constitution. We were granted the rights to obtain these needs freely. that is different than obtaining them FOR free. You LOLberals have it all backwards.

Can you point out the passage in the constitution that says the citizens are owed food, shelter and healthcare?


I'll wait here.

General welfare is not the same as specific welfare. Even the first circuit court of appeals in two separate cases made this clear from the stand point of social security.



General Welfare clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You're welcome. You cocky little fucktard.

Who said anything about specific welfare? Not me. Nothing that you cited says that general welfare does not include ensuring the basic needs of 'We the People'. In fact, what you quoted supports what I said. Thanks!

Remind me again why you're closer to being poor than being rich. It's because you're lazy and have chosen to not work hard, right?

You're, and this is absolutely no surprise coming from a "the government owes me food, shelter and healthcare, a ******* liar. It's right int he above posting. YOu tell me the general welfare clause means that in this country you are OWED food, shelter and health care. Then turn around and back peddle and say you never said that.


You are a typical lying ass progressive LOLberal that thinks everything can be obtained for free and that you're owed it. What a ******* moron.

Here's a tip. If you're going to try and correct my spelling/grammar you better be damned sure that your own post isn't full of mistakes. Are you ******* serious?

Where did I say "I" was owed anything. I haven't but if that is what you need to do to make your argument, have at it chief. I'm doing just fine but I know not everyone is as fortunate as I am, so I don't adopt the **** you I got mine attitude that you people love to boast. Only difference, you don't have yours....you're all broke too!! Amazing, truly.

And you're a typical broke conservative who blames all the poor people for the countries problems, but NOT you, you're the rare exception who pays taxes and "would never take a dime". It's all those other poor and lower middle class people who are the problem. LOL.

Talk about a ******* hypocrite, you're just as bad as all the other whiney ass CONservatives who want everyone else to stay broke like you are so you endorse politicians who promise to keep you broke. Dare to dream big guy! Here's an idea, start sending checks to your favorite millionaire directly, that will surely break you free from the ranks of the lower middle class. Bwahaahahahahaahah!!!

Dumbass.