"Fair Share"?

Person A asks a question. Person B (that would be me) asks an analogous question to point out how silly person A's question is.

Person C (you) then steps in and claims that, for asking the question (that he didn't really expect an answer to because that's not why he asked it) person B (again, that would be me) should answer person C's analogous question.

No. Originally Posted by Doove

OK, I will give it a try.
I honestly do not know what or where to cut. The Federal Government is grossly innefficiant in administering many of the programs, (at least we are told they are), that everybody seems to harp on.

The fact is, anything you do will affect someone in a gross manner. Cut DOD spending, and highly skilled jobs are lost. Cut welfare, and people are on the street and kids are hungry. Cut SS and older people who do depend on it are left with a standard of living that is deplorable.

We might have reached a point of no return. It is a simple fact that as the population grows older, there are, percentage wise, fewer young workers to support the ones who are no longer in the work force. These younger workers are expected to foot the bill by paying more into the system.
The fact is, if the Country is to survive, taxes will have to be raised on everybody that has a job. I think it is a fair question to ask 'how much", because the real answer will probably scare the crap out of everyone. The upper end brackets will probably have to pay as much as 70 percent, and all below that will have to anti-up a percentage that reflects their income. Those making up to $30,000, 20%; up tp $80,000, 35%, and so on. I am sure the IRS can come up with all the math that will insure it to be progressive.
All income will have to be treat equal, whether earned, unearned, or what ever, and be taxed at the same rate as a wage as reflected by a typical W-2.
People who work, or earn money in any fashion, will simply have to learn to live with less to support those who can't work, will not work, or have reached retirement.
We are talking about getting a handle on trillions, and trillions of dollars in Federal Spending. Nobody seems to be willing to give up anything, so it will have to come down to taking more from those that are still productive in the workforce.

Granted, I don't like this. But in my opinion, the train has already left the station. This Country is now in a downward spiral where there simply is not enough people in the workforce to support the population that is not. If this last election taught us anything, it is that the voting public is willing to vote for candidates that will continue things exactly the way they are. That means do not take away anything you are giving me now or anything you promised me in the future.

Somebody has to pay. The only question that remains is how much.

Fuck we had to lead the rotcy boys around bu the nose so they wouldn't get lost.Keep working and you will learn how to spell distinguished.... Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I normally could care less, but don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house.

There should be a comma after "Fuck", "bu" should be by, and there should be a space between "lost." and "Keep".

Now, back to our normal programming

OK, I will give it a try.
I honestly do not know what or where to cut. The Federal Government is grossly innefficiant in administering many of the programs, (at least we are told they are), that everybody seems to harp on.

The fact is, anything you do will affect someone in a gross manner. Cut DOD spending, and highly skilled jobs are lost. Cut welfare, and people are on the street and kids are hungry. Cut SS and older people who do depend on it are left with a standard of living that is deplorable.

We might have reached a point of no return. It is a simple fact that as the population grows older, there are, percentage wise, fewer young workers to support the ones who are no longer in the work force. These younger workers are expected to foot the bill by paying more into the system.
The fact is, if the Country is to survive, taxes will have to be raised on everybody that has a job. I think it is a fair question to ask 'how much", because the real answer will probably scare the crap out of everyone. The upper end brackets will probably have to pay as much as 70 percent, and all below that will have to anti-up a percentage that reflects their income. Those making up to $30,000, 20%; up tp $80,000, 35%, and so on. I am sure the IRS can come up with all the math that will insure it to be progressive.
All income will have to be treat equal, whether earned, unearned, or what ever, and be taxed at the same rate as a wage as reflected by a typical W-2.
People who work, or earn money in any fashion, will simply have to learn to live with less to support those who can't work, will not work, or have reached retirement.
We are talking about getting a handle on trillions, and trillions of dollars in Federal Spending. Nobody seems to be willing to give up anything, so it will have to come down to taking more from those that are still productive in the workforce.

Granted, I don't like this. But in my opinion, the train has already left the station. This Country is now in a downward spiral where there simply is not enough people in the workforce to support the population that is not. If this last election taught us anything, it is that the voting public is willing to vote for candidates that will continue things exactly the way they are. That means do not take away anything you are giving me now.

Somebody has to pay. The only question that remains is how much. Originally Posted by Jackie S

The debt and the unfunded liabilities are too big; we've waited too long to deal with the problem. Massive cuts in entitlement spending are the only way to avert a collapse and that's not going to happen because it's not politically possible. That means we're headed for an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression seem like a walk in the park.

The interest rate we pay on the federal debt is going to go up dramatically. The higher interest rate will cause the deficit to explode which will make investors demand even higher interest rates to buy the debt. At that point, we're caught in a vicious cycle.

We will have no choice but to buy back our debt by printing money. The currency will be worthless in a few years.

I normally could care less, but don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house.

There should be a comma after "Fuck", "bu" should be by, and there should be a space between "lost." and "Keep".

Now, back to our normal programming Originally Posted by Jackie S

thanks glad you found something to waste your time on.

You’ve been authoritatively rebuked, ExNYer! Article I, Section 8, says it all! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No, actually the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 1, Section 8 says it all.

And the Supremes say that Congress has plenary power to tax and spend. They put minor restrictions on taxing power and almost no restrictions on spending power. That is left to Congress' discretion. More to come below.

ring;1051998636]Sorry, Laz, but you are wrong. Congress cannot collect taxes and drop the defense budget to “$0” – that’s unconstitutional. Originally Posted by I B Hanke[SIZE=3

You're the only person on the planet who believes that. Not even Justice Story believed that.

Justice Story's commentaries on Article 1, Section 8, made the point that clause 1 gave a taxing power Congress to, among other things, promote the general welfare. But that clause did NOT give Congress unlimited power to do whatever it wanted in the name of the general welfare. Story made the accurate observation that to interpret it otherwise would defeat the purposes of the Constitution. The Constitution was intended to spell out (i.e., enumerate) the powers of the federal government, which were supposed to be limited. If promoting the general welfare was some exception that meant Congress could do whatever it wanted to promote the general welfare, then the exception would swallow the rule and the Constitution would provide no meaningful limits Congress power. That is an essential conservative argument and one I completely agree with.

You, however, has completely perverted that argument to say that Congress MUST spend some amount of money (although you haven't said how much) on defense.

You fail to understand the difference between a POWER to tax and a MANDATE to spend. There is NO mandate to spend. It is entirely in Congress discretion.

Also, [/SIZE]for some strange reason, you cannot seem to find any "welfare" projects that the Congress is mandated to spend on. Just defense. Why is that?

Article I, Section 8, clause 1 states: "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." Note the added emphasis and that there are no “should’s”, “may’s” or “maybe’s” in the text – Article I, Section 8, emphatically states Congress’s power to tax exists because it has to “provide for the common defence”, & etc., and that interpretation is based on Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story’s authoritative determination. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I see what the problem is now. You're semi-illiterate.

The "shall" you are obsessed about applies to "Power". That is, "Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes ... to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare..."

You have twisted this to mean "shall pay for defense". But that isn't what is means. The spending is discretionary. In fact, the taxing is discretionary as well. The mere fact that Congress has the power to tax does NOT mean it has a mandate to tax. It could get rid of taxes and simply charge fees for services instead (now that would be a SMALL government).

Interestingly enough, the "power" to tax also applies to "pay the debts" of the United States. Would you like to go on record as saying that Congress is MANDATED to spend taxes on servicing our debt to China and can NEVER repudiate debt because to do so would be "unconstitutional" - just like NOT spending on defense?

Article I, Section 8, emphatically states Congress’s power to tax exists because it has to “provide for the common defence”, & etc., and that interpretation is based on Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story’s authoritative determination. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Actually, why don't we look at what the Supreme Court says about spending decisions, m'kay?

Here is a nice excerpt from Wikipedia, which I am sure you have been deliberately NOT quoting. It even talks about Justice Story.
-------------------------------------------------------
Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.' in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison's narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.

Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, disavowing almost entirely any role for judicial review of Congressional spending policies, thereby conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to Congress's own discretion. Even more recently, in South Dakota v. Dole the Court held Congress possessed power to indirectly influence the states into adopting national standards by withholding, to a limited extent, federal funds. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! Holy shit Batman! Actual Supreme Court cases that say that Congress can pretty much spend on whatever is wants to and the Supreme Court won't even review it.

And what else did we learn? Justice Story wasn't even discussing providing for the common defence - he was defining the limits of promoting the general welfare.

But all in all, I LOVE that phrase in bold font about the Supreme Court "disavowing almost entirely any role for judicial review of Congressional spending policies.

Don't you love it? That pretty much says it all doesn't it IB HankerWRONG?

If the Supreme's aren't going to review Congressional spending, who EXACTLY is going to declare it unconstitutional if Congress decides to zero out the DoD?

YOU?

Your belief that the Constitution mandates spending on anything (not just defense) is every bit as idiotic as your belief that the constitutional permits secession from the Union.

The President answers to The Voters and Impeachment
The Supreme Court answers to Impeachment.
The Congress answers to the Voters
.

And IBCrying answers to EVERYBODY!

Oh Lord, grant me the serenity...

How dare you, asshole. How fucking dare you?

You gonna tell me that draftees weren't real soldiers? That they didn't get their blood spilled for no goddamned reason, while pussies like you sat behind the lines drinking commandeered whiskey, Neidermeyer?

I guess that something you earned by wearing your Killer Commando clothes to high school. or was it just to get out of gym?

I resent the shit out of your comment. You piss on the memory of fallen Americans, and are less than nothing to me. I think you owe all of the 650,000 who were drafted in my era a big apology and a big thank you.

GEEK DIPSHIT! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

you talking to me? where did I saying anything about "draftees were not real soldiers?

or is just more of your babble babble

Fuck we had to lead the rotcy boys around bu the nose so they wouldn't get lost.Keep working and you will learn how to spell distinguished.... Originally Posted by i'va biggen

yea, your a real tough guy on the internet while you sit in your mother's basement

as to my spelling, I posted at 11:31pm and I was on my 4th scotch, what was your excuse?

you talking to me? where did I saying anything about "draftees were not real soldiers?

or is just more of your babble babble Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

You know what you said. and so did we Sgt. Fury. You're a lying cocksucker. Obviously you realize it and are now furiously backpedaling.

Im guessing you chose the military to suck off the Government teat.

fucking weenie ROTC queer!

yea, your a real tough guy on the internet while you sit in your mother's basement Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

No, no. You've confused him with ChoomCzar.

No, actually the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 1, Section 8 says it all.

And the Supremes say that Congress has plenary power to tax and spend. They put minor restrictions on taxing power and almost no restrictions on spending power. That is left to Congress' discretion. More to come below.


You're the only person on the planet who believes that. Not even Justice Story believed that.

Justice Story's commentaries on Article 1, Section 8, made the point that clause 1 gave a taxing power Congress to, among other things, promote the general welfare. But that clause did NOT give Congress unlimited power to do whatever it wanted in the name of the general welfare. Story made the accurate observation that to interpret it otherwise would defeat the purposes of the Constitution. The Constitution was intended to spell out (i.e., enumerate) the powers of the federal government, which were supposed to be limited. If promoting the general welfare was some exception that meant Congress could do whatever it wanted to promote the general welfare, then the exception would swallow the rule and the Constitution would provide no meaningful limits Congress power. That is an essential conservative argument and one I completely agree with.

You, however, has completely perverted that argument to say that Congress MUST spend some amount of money (although you haven't said how much) on defense.

You fail to understand the difference between a POWER to tax and a MANDATE to spend. There is NO mandate to spend. It is entirely in Congress discretion.

Also, [/SIZE]for some strange reason, you cannot seem to find any "welfare" projects that the Congress is mandated to spend on. Just defense. Why is that?


I see what the problem is now. You're semi-illiterate.

The "shall" you are obsessed about applies to "Power". That is, "Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes ... to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare..."

You have twisted this to mean "shall pay for defense". But that isn't what is means. The spending is discretionary. In fact, the taxing is discretionary as well. The mere fact that Congress has the power to tax does NOT mean it has a mandate to tax. It could get rid of taxes and simply charge fees for services instead (now that would be a SMALL government).

Interestingly enough, the "power" to tax also applies to "pay the debts" of the United States. Would you like to go on record as saying that Congress is MANDATED to spend taxes on servicing our debt to China and can NEVER repudiate debt because to do so would be "unconstitutional" - just like NOT spending on defense?


Actually, why don't we look at what the Supreme Court says about spending decisions, m'kay?

Here is a nice excerpt from Wikipedia, which I am sure you have been deliberately NOT quoting. It even talks about Justice Story.
-------------------------------------------------------
Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.' in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison's narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.

Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, disavowing almost entirely any role for judicial review of Congressional spending policies, thereby conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to Congress's own discretion. Even more recently, in South Dakota v. Dole the Court held Congress possessed power to indirectly influence the states into adopting national standards by withholding, to a limited extent, federal funds. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! Holy shit Batman! Actual Supreme Court cases that say that Congress can pretty much spend on whatever is wants to and the Supreme Court won't even review it.

And what else did we learn? Justice Story wasn't even discussing providing for the common defence - he was defining the limits of promoting the general welfare.

But all in all, I LOVE that phrase in bold font about the Supreme Court "disavowing almost entirely any role for judicial review of Congressional spending policies.

Don't you love it? That pretty much says it all doesn't it IB HankerWRONG?

If the Supreme's aren't going to review Congressional spending, who EXACTLY is going to declare it unconstitutional if Congress decides to zero out the DoD?

YOU?

Your belief that the Constitution mandates spending on anything (not just defense) is every bit as idiotic as your belief that the constitutional permits secession from the Union.
Originally Posted by ExNYer

You’ve been authoritatively rebuked, ExNYer, and you’ve had your ass handed to you to boot! Justice Story addressed and put to rest every one of your fallacious claims. Pack-up your lame-ass and fallacious POV and your lame-ass hypotheticals and carry them on down the road.

You’ve been authoritatively rebuked, ExNYer, and you’ve had your ass handed to you to boot! Justice Story addressed and put to rest every one of your fallacious claims. Pack-up your lame-ass and fallacious POV and your lame-ass hypotheticals and carry them on down the road. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You can repeat that as often as you want, but everyone knows you are wrong.

I even gave you the Supreme Court cases above and you STILL think it is unconstitutional for Congress to not spend money on defense.

The referenced materials even discussed what Justice Story said and you still can't get it straight.

You can NEVER admit when you are wrong, IB Hankerwrong.

Congress can zero out the DoD any time it wants to do so. And the only remedy will be the next election cycle when voters kick them out. That is pretty much what the Supreme Court's stance is one tax and spending issues.

So, no, there is NO mandated spending under the Constitution.

And you still cannot secede from the Union.

You can repeat that as often as you want, but everyone knows you are wrong.

I even gave you the Supreme Court cases above and you STILL think it is unconstitutional for Congress to not spend money on defense.

The referenced materials even discussed what Justice Story said and you still can't get it straight.

You can NEVER admit when you are wrong, IB Hankerwrong.

Congress can zero out the DoD any time it wants to do so. And the only remedy will be the next election cycle when voters kick them out. That is pretty much what the Supreme Court's stance is one tax and spending issues.

So, no, there is NO mandated spending under the Constitution.

And you still cannot secede from the Union.
Originally Posted by ExNYer

If repeating the facts is necessary; then the facts will be repeated: You’ve been authoritatively rebuked, ExNYer, and you’ve had your ass handed to you to boot! Justice Story addressed and repudiated every one of your fallacious assertions. So it's you who will not admit you are wrong, ExNYer. It's time for you to pack-up your lame-ass and fallacious POV and your lame-ass hypotheticals and carry them on down the road, ExNYer.