Article 1, Section 8 - Question for Conservatives

The Constitution is plainly written. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The bit about common debt is irrelevant. First, the English Empire acquired a debt on the colonies' behalf, and when we were separated we did not acquire a share of that original debt. Second, the states do not of right acquire an equal share of the debt. For example, in the years leading up to the Civil War, the southern states paid roughly 4/5ths of the taxes, and roughly 4/5ths of the federal spending was in the North, creating an effective wealth transfer from South to North, which you would suggest they owe further on, and that they could not rightly be relieved of w/o 3/4ths of the states so approving. That's preposterous. The right to govern comes from the people, not from the acquiescence of the separate states. When the states feel so unjustly treated, they don't need to humbly ask permission to be released. Such is a violation of natural law, making a free state a satrapy.

Article 5, again, does not deal with secession, it deals with amendments to the Constitution. It does not deal with secession. Just as with the 10th amendment, you're adding your own quips and phrases to the Constitution and deliberately ignoring the clear phrasing of it.

And slavery was a violation (as you here interpret 'the right of the people' as the right of individual people, I assume you'll hold the same for the 2nd amendment interpretations - it's been a while since I've seen you in that topic). Slavery was a violation of the DOI, of the 9th, and of natural law - yet would you make the freedom and self-governance of an entire state slave to 1/3rd of Congress or 1/4th of the states?

 

The Tenth Amendment says just that...

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
​

 

It does Only use the word, delegated; not, keep and bear nor acquire and possess.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you re-state the actual point you believe you made?

 

I agree. Income tax was oozed into existence by the same scum that saddled us with the Federal Reserve system. It is also the second plank of the Communist Manifesto. The IRS should be abolished asap....Cheers

 

We also have the federal government telling us what the NSA is doing is perfectly legal.

Government ABUSE power all the time. That's why the constitution was meant to LIMIT the federal government, not create a rights breaking, terrorizing, tyrannical welfare state.

 

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
General welfare of the United States, not giving welfare to the people of the United States. You completely twisted that statement. Has nothing to do with social programs

 

You mean you don't hear any solution that involves the government handing you something for nothing so you don't actually have to DO anything yourself.

The answer to building the middle class is SIMPLE. It's called getting a college education. I provided the links that prove it.

You've provided nothing but endless whining and how you should be handed a middle class lifestyle without actually DOING ANYTHING to achieve it.

 

In case you missed, some of us have been criticizing our federal government for being willing to merely call kettles black instead of fixing a moral Standard for the People.

 

You mean the same ones who disappeared after Obama got elected?

 

It is about the policies, not the civil Person holding the office. In any case, why let our federal Congress off the hook; they have several generations of combined education and experience.

 

Support and bolster the middle class... and this society will most likely do just fine.

 

That's code word for redistribute more wealth.

 

No, it really isn't.

Your view of it all, is way too narrow an biased to grasp what I'm sharing.

So be it.

 

So enlighten me on this "plan" of yours.

 

They simply build up the most sophisticated and convoluted memes around whatever they talk about. They garner votes by being deceptive.

Promoting (even investing-in) the GENERAL WELFARE is this nation's best bet. I mean, it's not as though we haven't tried funneling INSANE amounts of wealth into the hands of a few. That's surely didn't work well... did it?

They cannot fully rationalize nor justify it; that is why most of what they say and do is so extreme or radical.

Even so, people are catching-on to the Right-wing BS. Their days of relatively easy success using their current 'memes' are numbered.

 

Once again the "tax burden" is all of the taxation a person is subjected to.

Social Security and Medicare are social welfare programs that are supported by taxation. Dispite the rhetoric the taxes collected are not used to provide the benefits to the person that pays the taxes. Paying the Social Security/Medicare taxes is no different than paying income taxes that fund other government welfare programs except that it is a dedicated welfare tax funding specific welfare programs. In fact Congress could, if it decided to, terminate Social Security and Medicare tomorrow ending all benefits regardless of how much someone had paid in FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxes and the person would not receive a rebate of even one dime. Finally it is estimated that about 40% of those that pay Social Security and Medicare taxes never collect any retirement or medical benefits!! It is taxation that reduces the disposable income of the person no different than any other form of taxation with the exception that it is imposed on gross income, is involunutary for workers, and is the highest single tax paid by most Americans.

 

Your spin on SSI and Medicare is duly noted and recorded.

Your inability to prove that "poor" people pay more in percentage than "rich" people is duly noted and recorded.

 

Wow, old thread!

Thing is, when the constitution was written, "general welfare" did not mean "welfare programs" because welfare programs as we know them today did not exist back then. Those who created the modern welfare programs deliberately chose the term "welfare" because they felt it would hold up against constitutional law arguments. This play on words doesn't mean that the constitution explicitly intended for the federal government to provided people with free rides.

I have never seen anyone back up this argument with sources. I am guessing that there is a reason for this.

 

why sound the alarm now; we already bailed out the wealthiest.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess the right really doesn't have a problem with income redistribution, as long as the least wealthy receive no benefit from it under our form of Capitalism.

 

And you cheered it on too didn't you!? "Look at how great the stock market is! Obama is an economic master!"

 

How much in general taxes would be the difference in percentages, between a pan hander and a person of wealth under our form of Capitalism.

- - - Updated - - -

Correcting for "market failures" is one function of government.

 

Not at all; I have been against using the resources of our republic to simply "purchase" the support of the wealthiest on for-profit basis.

 

?

Translation: I nedz foo stamps and cecton 8 housin cause I forgots togoto colige and gets an edumacation.

 

Ah huh....

Name one "market failure" of the free market. All I can see is managed markets failing like the home montage market collapsing...

Also, state the federal governments Constitutional authority to manipulate markets.

 

Should you do that before running for Congress?

- - - Updated - - -

Social costs are externalities to capital based markets and are often overlooked, as a result.