Taxing the wealthy more will have little to no impact on your life or anyone around you

[francoHFW]

No one actually paid a 90% rate..

I've explained that over and over again.

By the way, when it was 90%? None of them left.

Where were they going to go?

Businesses up and move on a heartbeat today. Unlike years ago when travel was dangerous and moving businesses overseas was not profitable, people had no choice but to put up with taxation.

Because we outpaced ourselves in wages, people in other countries work for far less money. Businesses can operate using our internet and computer systems. Companies no longer have to fly VIP's across the country or world to have meetings. They have meetings over the internet on one of our dozens of services--some even for free.

So for me to move my widget business is a no brainer if the government here is going to take all my money anyway. What do I have to lose? I have everything to gain by leaving the US.

YOU DO REALIZE IF YOU WANT TO DO BUSINESS IN THE US, REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU ARE H/Q, YOU WOULD OWE US TAXES RIGHT?

Reasonable taxes yes, unreasonable, no.

The US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Granted not all pay that tax, but still many do.

So it all depends on where your industry falls when it comes to taxation. Some do better here while others don't.

12.7% Effective rate. A disgrace. Many Big Corps don't pay their fair share.

Does that family of four paying zero in income taxes until the gross income is almost $50,000/year, based solely on the makeup of the family, pay their fair share?

Bs, hater dupe.. And yes. On average, they pay about 24% of income in ALL taxes and fees, while Mitt is back to about 8%. And GE 0%.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual. the right Only complains about the use of the other Peoples' money when the least wealthy may receive some social benefit.

How does socialism bail out problems it caused?

How many of those receiving social welfare handouts fund the pot from which they draw? The answer is none. If they are eligible to draw, they don't fund and vice versa.

how is it socialism's fault that capitalists want to socialize their costs and their taxes as much as possible?

why not simplify unemployment compensation funding into a general tax on firms? it would be much simpler than our current regime.

and, socialism requires social morals for free; thus, we Only have social problems due to a lack of morals.

capitalism can only engender capital morals for a price.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

If capitalists wanted to socialize their costs, they wouldn't be capitalists.

Why not let you bleeding hearts support those unemployed instead of expecting others to do it?

Whose morals? You lefties constantly talk about not having morals shoved on you then shove yours when it suits you.

If people like you would show the compassion you claim you have by using your own money, government wouldn't be necessary in that realm. If you see a need, meet it. The government doesn't need to be involved if you truly care as much as you say you do.

Here's the fun thing.

You folks have no problem whatsoever in giving folks with more money than be counted in multiple life times, tax breaks, subsidies and contracts.

The Military/Oil/Industrial complex receives the highest amount of "Socialism" in the world.

The result is, over 55 thousand soldiers committed to foreign bases, a good amount of animosity from the world and huge deficits and debt at home.

And we do this for what? To assure that criminally insane and extremely greedy people continue to fleece tax payers while states which should be finding a way to sustain their own economies, instead, rely on the government for military contracts and oil subsidies?

And then? You folks complain about people displaced by this madness and call them "lazy".

It's amazing.

Once again, there are no oil subsidies. Oil companies get the same tax write-offs as any other company, and in fact, less than most companies.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No such thing as corporate welfare. That's a Liberal term.

Equality of results? That's what those who won't do for themselves expect others to provide to them.

simple denial won't work on me. it is an analogy for comparison and contrast. corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare as a privilege and immunity; why are there more stringent means testing for the least wealthy?

Again, no such thing as corporate welfare.

thank you for ceding the point and the argument. you must explain why there is no such thing as corporate welfare.

You must explain how those actually paying taxes are receiving welfare. No such thing.

everybody pays taxes. only the Right is disingenuous to claim Only income taxes are real taxes.

Where does the spending money come from? Sales tax? Social Security tax? FICA tax? Medicare tax?

No, spending comes from income taxes.

 

[bripat9643]

"Underpaying" what? How does paying less grow government?

Creates government dependence, more need for welfare.

How can it create government dependence before anyone has become dependent on the government?

? Walmart for example pays so little that employees collect welfare. By paying so little walmart is creating government dependence and increasing the size of government. Meanwhile the waltons make billions each year not working. If they paid enough that employees were not on welfare it would decrease government dependence. Before you know it those people would probably want tax breaks.

How long have you been on this planet anyway?

For your information, minimum wage has always been that--minimum. So why focus on Walmart? Because you were told to focus on Walmart.

Walmart is no different than K-Mart, than Target, than Home Depot, than True Value Hardware, than any other entry level job. They all pay minimum wage.

When the left wants to brainwash people, they show you or tell you about the lowly shelf stocker at Walmart. Well soooorrrry. I'm sorry you didn't get an education or secure a trade, but that's not Walmart's fault.

What the left doesn't tell you is how well Walmart pays their managers, their warehouse people, their truck drivers, their office staff, everybody else but that floor washer you are so obsessed with.

Minimum wage is nothing new either. When I first got out into the workforce, minimum wage was $3.25 per hour. Yes, that was some years ago, but you still couldn't afford to support yourself. So what did we do if we were stuck at a minimum wage job? We worked more hours. We'd work 10 hour days plus the weekend if need be. If your job didn't offer weekend work, you found another job for the weekends. We would try to advance ourselves at the job we had. But what we didn't do is go on some welfare program because we had too much pride and welfare programs back then didn't pay anything.

Your rant has little to do with my point. Picked Walmart cause they are the largest employer. Like I said, paying so little increases government dependence.

Nope. Giving money to people that they haven't earned increases government dependence. You act as if Walmart is the legal guardian of its employees. It's not. Walmart is not responsible for the care and feeding of the people who work for it. No company is. The taxpayers aren't responsible either.

 

[Conservative65]

No such thing as corporate welfare. That's a Liberal term.

Equality of results? That's what those who won't do for themselves expect others to provide to them.

simple denial won't work on me. it is an analogy for comparison and contrast. corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare as a privilege and immunity; why are there more stringent means testing for the least wealthy?

Again, no such thing as corporate welfare.

thank you for ceding the point and the argument. you must explain why there is no such thing as corporate welfare.

You must explain how those actually paying taxes are receiving welfare. No such thing.

everybody pays taxes. only the Right is disingenuous to claim Only income taxes are real taxes.

No one is saying other taxes aren't real taxes. The left is foolish in thinking that because someone pays other taxes, it's justifies them not paying income taxes. If what you argued were true, because I pay income taxes, I shouldn't have to pay the other taxes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"Underpaying" what? How does paying less grow government?

Creates government dependence, more need for welfare.

How can it create government dependence before anyone has become dependent on the government?

? Walmart for example pays so little that employees collect welfare. By paying so little walmart is creating government dependence and increasing the size of government. Meanwhile the waltons make billions each year not working. If they paid enough that employees were not on welfare it would decrease government dependence. Before you know it those people would probably want tax breaks.

How long have you been on this planet anyway?

For your information, minimum wage has always been that--minimum. So why focus on Walmart? Because you were told to focus on Walmart.

Walmart is no different than K-Mart, than Target, than Home Depot, than True Value Hardware, than any other entry level job. They all pay minimum wage.

When the left wants to brainwash people, they show you or tell you about the lowly shelf stocker at Walmart. Well soooorrrry. I'm sorry you didn't get an education or secure a trade, but that's not Walmart's fault.

What the left doesn't tell you is how well Walmart pays their managers, their warehouse people, their truck drivers, their office staff, everybody else but that floor washer you are so obsessed with.

Minimum wage is nothing new either. When I first got out into the workforce, minimum wage was $3.25 per hour. Yes, that was some years ago, but you still couldn't afford to support yourself. So what did we do if we were stuck at a minimum wage job? We worked more hours. We'd work 10 hour days plus the weekend if need be. If your job didn't offer weekend work, you found another job for the weekends. We would try to advance ourselves at the job we had. But what we didn't do is go on some welfare program because we had too much pride and welfare programs back then didn't pay anything.

Your rant has little to do with my point. Picked Walmart cause they are the largest employer. Like I said, paying so little increases government dependence.

So that's Walmart's fault and not the government?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm one of those folks, nimrod, and I'm not doing it on your dime.

Yeah?

No tax write off you little thief?

What the **** are you talking about?

It's a business expense paid for by my clients. I have enough frequent flyer miles to get an automatic upgrade almost every time I fly. That's how most people end up in business class. It's a reward for being a loyal customer.

You don't write off this travel?

You'd be unique. Most businesses that send people to travel on airplanes, write it off.


Taxes for business travelers: What is and isn't deductible

And by the way, along with the write off, they get those miles.

Double dip.

The get the write off because THEY front the money for the travel....
Its the same as Comp time in lieu of overtime.
The company trades the worker for additional time off at straight time, while the employee essentially fronts the overtime pay.
They get more paid time off in return. If my employer switched us to comp time, I'd love it. More paid free time? Are you kidding? That's a bonus!
Conversely, the employer and employee get to realize the savings from the additional taxation collected as overtime wages are taxed at a much higher rate. Everybody wins.

When you deduct the travel from taxes, that means less taxes are collected.

It's:

A. A subsidy to the company that is doing the deduction.
B. It's a subsidy to the travel industry.
C. It's a subsidy to the credit card industry.

Someone has to pay for that.

Travel is a business expense. I deduct it all the time when I do my taxes. Legitimate business deductions are not "subsidies" to anyone.

I'll repeat this one more time for all you leftwing numskulls:

The income tax authorizes Congress to levy a tax on incomes. "Income" is defined as "revenues" minus expenses.

Nothing you have listed doesn't fit the definition of "expenses." It's therefore not taxable income.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Only a stupid company would want to pay the tax set by this federal government...

Yep, REAL patriots you CONS are

So patriotism is acting stupidly against your own interests?

Right, I'm the liberal brand of patriot.

Liberal Dictionary:
=====================================
Patriot - Sucker

Yeah those rich guys are hurting since conservative/GOP policy has pushed US debt to $18 trillion right?

Funny. It was only 10 trillion when DumBama took office with a Democrat Congress.

80% of Obama's is fixing the corrupt Booosh World Depression and helping its victims (STILL 400 billion a year). And not dumb at all.

DumBama couldn't fix a bicycle tire. Who are you trying to kid?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've read a lot. Would you care to see what I read?

I didn't think so.

Absolutely. But I'm afraid it's Pubcrappe. I'm always asking for links. Links?

JUL 7, 2013 @ 10:00 AM 6,904 VIEWS
It's Time To Sequester Green Energy Subsidies, Not Mythical Oil And Gas Tax Breaks

"Using a very broad definition applied by Oil Change International, the term “subsidies” refers to: “any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers, or lowers the price paid by consumers.” So based upon the first of these criteria, let’s assume that the president is referring to three types of oil and gas company tax “loopholes”: 1) an oil depletion allowance; 2) expensing drilling costs; and 3), a credit for taxes paid to foreign nations during foreign operations (a foreign tax credit). Yet in one form or another, these same advantages are extended to other industries as well, and often with more generous benefits.

Oil depletion allowances, the first category, principally apply to small independent producers, with similar benefits available for all mineral extraction, timber industries, etc., allowing them to pass the depletion on to individual investors. Large integrated corporations haven’t been eligible for these since the mid-1970s. Expensing indirect drilling costs involves writing off expenses in the year incurred rather than capitalizing them and writing them off over several years. Closing this “loophole” would only change the timing of taking he expense, not the total amounts of the so-called “subsidy”. The third category, a tax credit for taxes paid to foreign nations, is available for all international companies. This provides an offset to foreign taxes, often paid as royalties, so that the companies aren’t taxed twice on the same income.

The oil and gas extraction and refining has already been singled out to receive even fewer tax breaks than other industries. Whereas Section 199 of the “American Job Creation Act of 2004” provides a 9% deduction from net income for businesses engaged in “qualified production activities”, oil and gas was penalized and limited to a 6% deduction. Passed with strong bipartisan congressional support, the intent was to provide a competitive advantage to domestic companies engaged in product manufacturing, sales, leasing or licensing, and production-related software activities.

Many manufacturing industries, including farm equipment, appliances and pharmaceuticals take advantage of the full Section 199 deduction. Even highly profitable companies like Microsoft and Apple get those breaks, as do some foreign companies that operate factories in the U.S."

It's Time To Sequester Green Energy Subsidies, Not Mythical Oil And Gas Tax Breaks

Forbes is Murdoch- this guy is a bought off POS

1. Forbes, Larry Bell, and the Climate of Corruption...
   thinkprogress.org/.../07/207304/forbes-larry-bell-and-the...
   Jan 06, 2011 · Architecture professor and columnist Larry Bell has a new book of climate science disinformation out, Climate of Corruption. You can save yourself the tro
   
   
2. Larry Bell - SourceWatch
   www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Larry_Bell
   Nov 09, 2011 · Larry Bell is a weekly columnist for Forbes Magazine with no evident climate expertise who writes columns dismissing climate science, . He is listed as ...

Oh, so you don't like Forbes now do ya?

Well I'll go further left. How about FactCheck?

Oil Company Tax Breaks?

Both leading Democratic candidates have referred to tax breaks to oil companies:

Clinton, July 23, 2007: First of all, I have proposed a strategic energy fund that I would fund by taking away the tax break for the oil companies, which have gotten much greater under Bush and Cheney.

Obama, June 22, 2007: In the face of furious lobbying, Congress brushed aside incentives for the production of more renewable fuels in favor of more tax breaks for the oil and gas companies.

Both candidates are referring to H.R. 6, the 2005 energy bill that contained $14.3 billion in subsidies for energy companies. However, as we’ve reported numerous times, a vast majority of those subsidies (all but $2.8 billion) were for nuclear power, energy-efficient cars and buildings, and renewable fuels research. In addition, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the tax changes in the 2005 energy bill produced a net tax increase for the oil and gas companies, as we’ve reported time and time and time again. They did get some breaks, but they had more taken away.

Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks

When you mess with the best, you die like the rest.

Sounds like a good bill except the billions going to oil companies swimming in profits. I mean ridiculous profits and low taxes.

Comprehension problems again? Didn't you bother reading the article? Oil companies get no more of a tax write-off than any other industry in the US.

 

[francoHFW]

Yep, REAL patriots you CONS are

So patriotism is acting stupidly against your own interests?

Right, I'm the liberal brand of patriot.

Liberal Dictionary:
=====================================
Patriot - Sucker

Yeah those rich guys are hurting since conservative/GOP policy has pushed US debt to $18 trillion right?

Funny. It was only 10 trillion when DumBama took office with a Democrat Congress.

80% of Obama's is fixing the corrupt Booosh World Depression and helping its victims (STILL 400 billion a year). And not dumb at all.

DumBama couldn't fix a bicycle tire. Who are you trying to kid?

So you live on another planet...We have the best economy on this planet, with no corrupt Pub bubble/bust/scandal.

 

[francoHFW]

Absolutely. But I'm afraid it's Pubcrappe. I'm always asking for links. Links?

JUL 7, 2013 @ 10:00 AM 6,904 VIEWS
It's Time To Sequester Green Energy Subsidies, Not Mythical Oil And Gas Tax Breaks

"Using a very broad definition applied by Oil Change International, the term “subsidies” refers to: “any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers, or lowers the price paid by consumers.” So based upon the first of these criteria, let’s assume that the president is referring to three types of oil and gas company tax “loopholes”: 1) an oil depletion allowance; 2) expensing drilling costs; and 3), a credit for taxes paid to foreign nations during foreign operations (a foreign tax credit). Yet in one form or another, these same advantages are extended to other industries as well, and often with more generous benefits.

Oil depletion allowances, the first category, principally apply to small independent producers, with similar benefits available for all mineral extraction, timber industries, etc., allowing them to pass the depletion on to individual investors. Large integrated corporations haven’t been eligible for these since the mid-1970s. Expensing indirect drilling costs involves writing off expenses in the year incurred rather than capitalizing them and writing them off over several years. Closing this “loophole” would only change the timing of taking he expense, not the total amounts of the so-called “subsidy”. The third category, a tax credit for taxes paid to foreign nations, is available for all international companies. This provides an offset to foreign taxes, often paid as royalties, so that the companies aren’t taxed twice on the same income.

The oil and gas extraction and refining has already been singled out to receive even fewer tax breaks than other industries. Whereas Section 199 of the “American Job Creation Act of 2004” provides a 9% deduction from net income for businesses engaged in “qualified production activities”, oil and gas was penalized and limited to a 6% deduction. Passed with strong bipartisan congressional support, the intent was to provide a competitive advantage to domestic companies engaged in product manufacturing, sales, leasing or licensing, and production-related software activities.

Many manufacturing industries, including farm equipment, appliances and pharmaceuticals take advantage of the full Section 199 deduction. Even highly profitable companies like Microsoft and Apple get those breaks, as do some foreign companies that operate factories in the U.S."

It's Time To Sequester Green Energy Subsidies, Not Mythical Oil And Gas Tax Breaks

Forbes is Murdoch- this guy is a bought off POS

1. Forbes, Larry Bell, and the Climate of Corruption...
   thinkprogress.org/.../07/207304/forbes-larry-bell-and-the...
   Jan 06, 2011 · Architecture professor and columnist Larry Bell has a new book of climate science disinformation out, Climate of Corruption. You can save yourself the tro
   
   
2. Larry Bell - SourceWatch
   www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Larry_Bell
   Nov 09, 2011 · Larry Bell is a weekly columnist for Forbes Magazine with no evident climate expertise who writes columns dismissing climate science, . He is listed as ...

Oh, so you don't like Forbes now do ya?

Well I'll go further left. How about FactCheck?

Oil Company Tax Breaks?

Both leading Democratic candidates have referred to tax breaks to oil companies:

Clinton, July 23, 2007: First of all, I have proposed a strategic energy fund that I would fund by taking away the tax break for the oil companies, which have gotten much greater under Bush and Cheney.

Obama, June 22, 2007: In the face of furious lobbying, Congress brushed aside incentives for the production of more renewable fuels in favor of more tax breaks for the oil and gas companies.

Both candidates are referring to H.R. 6, the 2005 energy bill that contained $14.3 billion in subsidies for energy companies. However, as we’ve reported numerous times, a vast majority of those subsidies (all but $2.8 billion) were for nuclear power, energy-efficient cars and buildings, and renewable fuels research. In addition, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the tax changes in the 2005 energy bill produced a net tax increase for the oil and gas companies, as we’ve reported time and time and time again. They did get some breaks, but they had more taken away.

Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks

When you mess with the best, you die like the rest.

Sounds like a good bill except the billions going to oil companies swimming in profits. I mean ridiculous profits and low taxes.

Comprehension problems again? Didn't you bother reading the article? Oil companies get no more of a tax write-off than any other industry in the US.

The giant corps ALL get ridiculous write offs now duh. 12.6% EFFECTIVE rate.

 

[Sallow]

Here's the fun thing.

You folks have no problem whatsoever in giving folks with more money than be counted in multiple life times, tax breaks, subsidies and contracts.

The Military/Oil/Industrial complex receives the highest amount of "Socialism" in the world.

The result is, over 55 thousand soldiers committed to foreign bases, a good amount of animosity from the world and huge deficits and debt at home.

And we do this for what? To assure that criminally insane and extremely greedy people continue to fleece tax payers while states which should be finding a way to sustain their own economies, instead, rely on the government for military contracts and oil subsidies?

And then? You folks complain about people displaced by this madness and call them "lazy".

It's amazing.

How can someone that produces a product you wouldn't have without them and pays taxes on the profits it makes be socialist?

It's not actually.

When the government is working for an elite group of corporations and funneling tax payer money to them?

That's "corporatism" as Mussolini used to call it.

And it's known as "fascism" by everyone else.

WOW. So when the gov't buys TP for its office bathrooms that is fascism?

I tell ya, there is nothing on planet earth dimmer than a loony leftist.
Nothing.

Well no.

The government buying and supporting this crap:






To the tune of over 600 billion dollars a year?

IS..

So funding something that the Constitution specifically says is a delegated power of Congress to fund is wrong yet funding something for which the Constitution says nothing is perfectly OK with you?

Specifically?

The navy is the only part of the military that the government is mandated to fund.

It is not mandated to fund a permanent standing Army.
It is not mandated to fund an Air Force.

And the ground forces specified by the Constitution are made up of the Militia.

Which by the way is what the second amendment is really about, having an army on the cheap.

And if you really want to get down to brass tacks, the Constitution makes no provision to go to private firms to equip the military. Jefferson was the first President to do that during the Barbary Coast war despite the objection of Congress.

 

[Conservative65]

How can someone that produces a product you wouldn't have without them and pays taxes on the profits it makes be socialist?

It's not actually.

When the government is working for an elite group of corporations and funneling tax payer money to them?

That's "corporatism" as Mussolini used to call it.

And it's known as "fascism" by everyone else.

WOW. So when the gov't buys TP for its office bathrooms that is fascism?

I tell ya, there is nothing on planet earth dimmer than a loony leftist.
Nothing.

Well no.

The government buying and supporting this crap:






To the tune of over 600 billion dollars a year?

IS..

So funding something that the Constitution specifically says is a delegated power of Congress to fund is wrong yet funding something for which the Constitution says nothing is perfectly OK with you?

Specifically?

The navy is the only part of the military that the government is mandated to fund.

It is not mandated to fund a permanent standing Army.
It is not mandated to fund an Air Force.

And the ground forces specified by the Constitution are made up of the Militia.

Which by the way is what the second amendment is really about, having an army on the cheap.

And if you really want to get down to brass tacks, the Constitution makes no provision to go to private firms to equip the military. Jefferson was the first President to do that during the Barbary Coast war despite the objection of Congress.

Why don't you show me the part that says food stamps, public housing, WIC, social security, medicare, medicaid, healthcare, etc.

Your complaint is how it's done in an attempt to try and say it shouldn't be done with the military.

 

[Sallow]

socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual. the right Only complains about the use of the other Peoples' money when the least wealthy may receive some social benefit.

How does socialism bail out problems it caused?

How many of those receiving social welfare handouts fund the pot from which they draw? The answer is none. If they are eligible to draw, they don't fund and vice versa.

how is it socialism's fault that capitalists want to socialize their costs and their taxes as much as possible?

why not simplify unemployment compensation funding into a general tax on firms? it would be much simpler than our current regime.

and, socialism requires social morals for free; thus, we Only have social problems due to a lack of morals.

capitalism can only engender capital morals for a price.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

If capitalists wanted to socialize their costs, they wouldn't be capitalists.

Why not let you bleeding hearts support those unemployed instead of expecting others to do it?

Whose morals? You lefties constantly talk about not having morals shoved on you then shove yours when it suits you.

If people like you would show the compassion you claim you have by using your own money, government wouldn't be necessary in that realm. If you see a need, meet it. The government doesn't need to be involved if you truly care as much as you say you do.

Here's the fun thing.

You folks have no problem whatsoever in giving folks with more money than be counted in multiple life times, tax breaks, subsidies and contracts.

The Military/Oil/Industrial complex receives the highest amount of "Socialism" in the world.

The result is, over 55 thousand soldiers committed to foreign bases, a good amount of animosity from the world and huge deficits and debt at home.

And we do this for what? To assure that criminally insane and extremely greedy people continue to fleece tax payers while states which should be finding a way to sustain their own economies, instead, rely on the government for military contracts and oil subsidies?

And then? You folks complain about people displaced by this madness and call them "lazy".

It's amazing.

Once again, there are no oil subsidies. Oil companies get the same tax write-offs as any other company, and in fact, less than most companies.

Well yeah, there are..


Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

US taxpayers subsidising world's biggest fossil fuel companies

The Government Is Still Spending Billions To Subsidize Fossil Fuels


Those aren't counting the military adventurism that protects "American Interests" in the Middle East. Namely Oil.

 

[Sallow]

It's not actually.

When the government is working for an elite group of corporations and funneling tax payer money to them?

That's "corporatism" as Mussolini used to call it.

And it's known as "fascism" by everyone else.

WOW. So when the gov't buys TP for its office bathrooms that is fascism?

I tell ya, there is nothing on planet earth dimmer than a loony leftist.
Nothing.

Well no.

The government buying and supporting this crap:






To the tune of over 600 billion dollars a year?

IS..

So funding something that the Constitution specifically says is a delegated power of Congress to fund is wrong yet funding something for which the Constitution says nothing is perfectly OK with you?

Specifically?

The navy is the only part of the military that the government is mandated to fund.

It is not mandated to fund a permanent standing Army.
It is not mandated to fund an Air Force.

And the ground forces specified by the Constitution are made up of the Militia.

Which by the way is what the second amendment is really about, having an army on the cheap.

And if you really want to get down to brass tacks, the Constitution makes no provision to go to private firms to equip the military. Jefferson was the first President to do that during the Barbary Coast war despite the objection of Congress.

Why don't you show me the part that says food stamps, public housing, WIC, social security, medicare, medicaid, healthcare, etc.

Your complaint is how it's done in an attempt to try and say it shouldn't be done with the military.

You made a post stating something about the Constitution which was wrong.

And the Constitution is pretty specific about how the military should get funded. The Congress has gone around that.

However the Constitution has several pretty broad clauses about "General Welfare" which are not specific.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the Constitution has several pretty broad clauses about "General Welfare" which are not specific.

100% stupid and liberal. It has one clause and it is very specific.

 

[Conservative65]

WOW. So when the gov't buys TP for its office bathrooms that is fascism?

I tell ya, there is nothing on planet earth dimmer than a loony leftist.
Nothing.

Well no.

The government buying and supporting this crap:






To the tune of over 600 billion dollars a year?

IS..

So funding something that the Constitution specifically says is a delegated power of Congress to fund is wrong yet funding something for which the Constitution says nothing is perfectly OK with you?

Specifically?

The navy is the only part of the military that the government is mandated to fund.

It is not mandated to fund a permanent standing Army.
It is not mandated to fund an Air Force.

And the ground forces specified by the Constitution are made up of the Militia.

Which by the way is what the second amendment is really about, having an army on the cheap.

And if you really want to get down to brass tacks, the Constitution makes no provision to go to private firms to equip the military. Jefferson was the first President to do that during the Barbary Coast war despite the objection of Congress.

Why don't you show me the part that says food stamps, public housing, WIC, social security, medicare, medicaid, healthcare, etc.

Your complaint is how it's done in an attempt to try and say it shouldn't be done with the military.

You made a post stating something about the Constitution which was wrong.

And the Constitution is pretty specific about how the military should get funded. The Congress has gone around that.

However the Constitution has several pretty broad clauses about "General Welfare" which are not specific.

Broad clauses that you bleeding heart misuse on a regular basis.

Article I, Section 8 says to raise and support armies. The next clause say navy.

 

[Sallow]

the Constitution has several pretty broad clauses about "General Welfare" which are not specific.

100% stupid and liberal. It has one clause and it is very specific.

No, it's not.

And it's in the preamble and the first clause in section 8.

There is nothing specific about it.

 

[Sallow]

Well no.

The government buying and supporting this crap:






To the tune of over 600 billion dollars a year?

IS..

So funding something that the Constitution specifically says is a delegated power of Congress to fund is wrong yet funding something for which the Constitution says nothing is perfectly OK with you?

Specifically?

The navy is the only part of the military that the government is mandated to fund.

It is not mandated to fund a permanent standing Army.
It is not mandated to fund an Air Force.

And the ground forces specified by the Constitution are made up of the Militia.

Which by the way is what the second amendment is really about, having an army on the cheap.

And if you really want to get down to brass tacks, the Constitution makes no provision to go to private firms to equip the military. Jefferson was the first President to do that during the Barbary Coast war despite the objection of Congress.

Why don't you show me the part that says food stamps, public housing, WIC, social security, medicare, medicaid, healthcare, etc.

Your complaint is how it's done in an attempt to try and say it shouldn't be done with the military.

You made a post stating something about the Constitution which was wrong.

And the Constitution is pretty specific about how the military should get funded. The Congress has gone around that.

However the Constitution has several pretty broad clauses about "General Welfare" which are not specific.

Broad clauses that you bleeding heart misuse on a regular basis.

Article I, Section 8 says to raise and support armies. The next clause say navy.

For no more than 2 years.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the Constitution has several pretty broad clauses about "General Welfare" which are not specific.

100% stupid and liberal. It has one clause and it is very specific.

No, it's not.

And it's in the preamble and the first clause in section 8.

There is nothing specific about it.

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.- Madison

"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



Our tenet ever was... that 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 that 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; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148