Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wanker on October 02, 2003, 09:23:38 AM
-
Quote by Mietla from another thread:
How can anyone be against a tax cut (in any shape and form) is beyond me.
Starve the f* beast which is eating us alive. 80-90 % of things they spend the money on is unconstitutional.
Yeah, I know, I know, but if f* "feels" good, so screw the Constitution.
I did a little research, and discovered that he is not quite correct in his assesment.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
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;
Amendment XVI - Income taxes authorized. Ratified 2/3/1913.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Seems pretty straight forward to me. All you right wingers who claim that the government is stealing your money are wrong. You are also wrong in stating that the only thing the government can do with that money is provide for national defense.
Do you, or do you not, believe in the sanctity of the US Constitution and its amendments?
-
What the framers meant by 'general welfare' has been expanded to mean 'anything a politician can imagine.'
If the framers intended the US government to be a welfare state, why did the constitution need to be amended 150 years later to allow for a federal income tax?
-
True, but isn't that reasonable considering how societies grow and develop over centuries?
General welfare can mean many things. Like national health care, to name only one. Health care sounds like a basic necessity to support my general welfare.
-
Free sex is good for the general welfare.
-
If the framers intended the US government to be a welfare state, why did the constitution need to be amended 150 years later to allow for a federal income tax?
Ra, with that line of reasoning, it follows to ask why any amendments were allowed. If the Framers had intended for women to vote, why did the constitution need to be amended 150 years later to allow all Americans the right to vote?
See what I mean?
-
I can't find the amendment which allows a federal welfare state. See what I mean?
-
Where in the constitution or the amendments do you see anything specifically prohibiting the government from providing for the welfare of it's people?
-
The 10th amendment.
-
Originally posted by banana
Where in the constitution or the amendments do you see anything specifically prohibiting the government from providing for the welfare of it's people?
Government providing for the welfare of it's people..
Hmmmm...
Where have I heard this before.....
Hmmmm...
The People's Park....
The People's Army....
I know I've seen this somewhere....
-
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.
But the constitution *does* provide the government with the power to provide for the welfare of its citizens. See my original post.
The 10th amendment does not prohibit this as you claim.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Government providing for the welfare of it's people..
Hmmmm...
Where have I heard this before.....
Hmmmm...
The People's Park....
The People's Army....
I know I've seen this somewhere....
Yes, muckmaw, you've seen it here:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
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;
-
The federal government was established to do things the states could not do, or could not do well, individually. Denfense, international treaties, etc. The constitution was written to ensure that the federal government did not take over all power. If the framers had intended for the federal government to be responsible for the general welfare of each state's citizens, they would have made that clear. It says 'general welfare of the United States', not 'general welfare of the citizens of each state'. A trade agreement with a foreign country is an example of something done for the general welfare of the United States.
ra
-
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
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
FLAT TAX
-
I can't see how they could've made it any clearer, Ra. It's right there in black & white.
-
FLAT TAX
Sounds good to me.
-
Originally posted by banana
Seems pretty straight forward to me. All you right wingers who claim that the government is stealing your money are wrong. You are also wrong in stating that the only thing the government can do with that money is provide for national defense.
Well let's see,
20~30%.........Income Tax
15%...............Self Employment Tax
5~10%...........Property Tax (of my net)
8.25%.............Sales Tax (on most of what I buy)
Various other taxes on things like my ISP and Cell phone
It may not technically be theft but it sure makes my bellybutton sore.
-
Originally posted by banana
I can't see how they could've made it any clearer, Ra. It's right there in black & white.
Yes, if you assume that 'general welfare' means 'anything goes'. Despite article 8 allowing taxation, they had to amend the constitution to allow taxation of income. But the 'general welfare' clause itself seems to have almost no limits.
ra
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Well let's see,
20~30%.........Income Tax
15%...............Self Employment Tax
5~10%...........Property Tax (of my net)
8.25%.............Sales Tax (on most of what I buy)
Various other taxes on things like my ISP and Cell phone
It may not technically be theft but it sure makes my bellybutton sore.
Mine, too. I didn't say I liked the amount that we're taxed. My intent was to disprove some of the things zealots like Mietla and his ilk dream up on this board.
-
Originally posted by ra
Yes, if you assume that 'general welfare' means 'anything goes'. Despite article 8 allowing taxation, they had to amend the constitution to allow taxation of income. But the 'general welfare' clause itself seems to have almost no limits.
ra
I agree, a lot of it is perception of their original meaning. Similar to the greyness of the "Right to bear arms" part of the 2nd amendment.
-
general welfare in the day this was crafted meant roads and bridges
how many unemployed ppl were spittin out kids, watching opra while collecting "general welfare" checks back then?
they are rolling over in their graves as you put these words in their mouths by distorting their meaning for your agenda ...
-
Originally posted by banana
But the constitution *does* provide the government with the power to provide for the welfare of its citizens. See my original post.
The 10th amendment does not prohibit this as you claim.
We are the Government...by and for the people ya know?
We went to war over a 4% tax....now it's like 75% inclusive of all forms of taxation. Waste is another factor that annoys me.
I'm all for paying taxes....it's what they've done with my money over the years that is really the problem.
-
We are the Government...by and for the people ya know?
Well, then *we* had better do a better job of coming up with candidates who will stop wasting our money.
The American people have the power to change it. It's called the vote. But we struggle to get 40% to vote on election day. That is sad.
-
Originally posted by banana
I agree, a lot of it is perception of their original meaning. Similar to the greyness of the "Right to bear arms" part of the 2nd amendment.
The 2nd amendment is not as grey as anti-gunners want it to be. There was once an effort to depict it as an amendment which would only allow guns to be owned by citizens in 'a well regulated militia.' That effort has been abandoned as it is overwhelmingly obvious, by reading the founders' writings on the subject, that it the founders intended for individuals to have the right to bear arms.
As far as 'general welfare of the United States', which is only a small and relatively vague clause in a larger section, how does this scenario strike you:
Congress, in its infinite wisdom, passes a law to tax 100% of US income, and redistribute the money in a more fair and humanitarian way. In your opinion, is there anything in the constitution that would prevent this?
ra
-
banana,
Connecticut, Florida, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah and Virginia did not ratify the 16th.
Kentucky, Tennessee and Wyoming reported ratification of the 16th, but there's no evidence they actually did so.
Further, in States that DID ratify, their State Constitutions require the Governor to sign. In 5 ratifying states, the Governor DID NOT sign as required.
There were 48 states then with 36 needed to ratify. 48 - 15 = 33.
Sorry, no Income Tax. :)
17 other States have missing or incomplete evidence of ratification.
Time for a "do over". Maybe when we cut off their money totally, they'll give us a simpler system like Flat + Sales.
:D
-
Some forms of government assistance are fine by me. I think the pell grant is a good example. If you are of low income, you can receive a grant for school you do not have to pay back. If someone with no skill or trade is put through a welding course or some other trade or skill(nurse for example), then I think this is a good investment. In time, the taxes they pay would have more than payed for their training. I also think that people who make too much $$ to qualify for a pell grant should not have to pay interest on the $$ they borrow. They are being penalized already by having to borrow the $$ in the first place. And if that is being a liberal, so be it.
-
Toad,
The 16th Amendment, proposed on July 12, 1909.
State Date *
Alabama Aug 10, 1909
Kentucky Feb 8, 1910
South Carolina Feb 19, 1910
Illinois Mar 1, 1910
Mississippi Mar 7, 1910
Oklahoma Mar 10, 1910
Maryland Apr 8, 1910
Georgia Aug 3, 1910
Texas Aug 16, 1910
Ohio Jan 19, 1911
Idaho Jan 20, 1911
Oregon Jan 23, 1911
Washington Jan 26, 1911
Montana Jan 30, 1911
Indiana Jan 30, 1911
California Jan 31, 1911
Nevada Jan 31, 1911
South Dakota Feb 3, 1911
Nebraska Feb 9, 1911
North Carolina Feb 11, 1911
Colorado Feb 15, 1911
North Dakota Feb 17, 1911
Kansas Feb 18, 1911
Michigan Feb 23, 1911
Iowa Feb 24, 1911
Missouri Mar 16, 1911
Maine Mar 31, 1911
Tennessee Apr 7, 1911
Arkansas Apr 22, 1911
Wisconsin May 26, 1911
New York Jul 12, 1911
Arizona Apr 6, 1912
Minnesota Jun 11, 1912
Louisiana Jun 28, 1912
West Virginia Jan 31, 1913
New Mexico Feb 3, 1913 *
Massachusetts Mar 4, 1913
New Hampshire Mar 7, 1913
I count 38 states.
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Eagler
general welfare in the day this was crafted meant roads and bridges
how many unemployed ppl were spittin out kids, watching opra while collecting "general welfare" checks back then?
they are rolling over in their graves as you put these words in their mouths by distorting their meaning for your agenda ...
Right on. The same goes for other American icons. "Give me your tired, your poor, your hudled masses yearning to breathe free." doesn't mean that America intends to pay for the languishing of the refuse of the world. It means that it provides the opportunity for them to make a life for themselves and expects them to do so.
-
Originally posted by banana
Well, then *we* had better do a better job of coming up with candidates who will stop wasting our money.
The American people have the power to change it. It's called the vote. But we struggle to get 40% to vote on election day. That is sad.
You're right....it's our fault....shame on us all.
We have allowed years of abuse to continue because we are lazy and selfish as a nation....as long as I have my 2.2 kids, the hot tub, the bigscreen tv and two German cars in the driveway...just do what ya have to, but don't mess with my own personal utopia.
We reap what we sow.
-
We reap what we sow.
I haven't reaped a sow in years!
-
Originally posted by Rude
You're right....it's our fault....shame on us all.
We have allowed years of abuse to continue because we are lazy and selfish as a nation....as long as I have my 2.2 kids, the hot tub, the bigscreen tv and two German cars in the driveway...just do what ya have to, but don't mess with my own personal utopia.
We reap what we sow.
I dunno Rude, I do vote. It's still illegal to shoot politicians, right?
-
AkIron, it is in Texas. Not sure about them.."Yankee" states.
-
Bottom line:
Did not ratify: Connecticut, Florida, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah and Virginia 7
Kentucky, Tennessee and Wyoming reported ratification of the 16th, but there's no evidence they actually did so. 3
Failure of Governor or other official to sign, although required by State Constitution: Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Washington 5 additional "new" ones
Totals: 7 + 3 + 5 = 15
Not enough States proven legally ratified.
Need more?
Missing or incomplete evidence of ratification, but reported as ratified: Delaware, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Sourh Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Wyoming 7 additional "new" ones
Argue with this guy, he's looking for folks to disprove him:
The Law That Never Was (http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/ratification.asp)
Throw out the present system as unratified. It's are ONLY chance to get a complete "new sheet of paper" system.
The present system is a mess; even the IRS admits that. Look at the AMT.
And, I think a case CAN be made that it never was properly ratified. Cheez... we gotta try... it's our ONLY hope.
-
For example:
The federal government claims that the State of Kentucky was the second state to ratify the amendment, such action taking place on February 8, 1910. But, the records of the State of Kentucky reveal a far different picture. These records show that the Kentucky House proposed a resolution to adopt the amendment and then sent that resolution to the Senate in early February, 1910. On February 8, 1910, the Kentucky Senate voted upon that resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed. The Kentucky Senate never did ratify that amendment, but federal officials, being in possession of documents showing this rejection, fraudulently claimed otherwise."
Can anyone disprove this?
Another:
The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
-
banana,
The drafters of the constitution in their letters confirmed that the authority to provide for "general Welfare" applied to specifically enumerated powers of the government - specifically those listed in Section 8.
The founders were explicit about enumerated powers doctrine - stating that "the power the people give to government, to exercise on their behalf, is strictly limited. The 10th Ammendment confirms that.
It is kind of hard to make a case that an all-inclusive "general Welfare" clauses were "strictly limited" or that the stated delegated this power to the federal government and thus are not allowed to provide for the general welfare of state residents.
Anyway, this issue will never be resolved academically because the wording is not specific enough to prevent multiple interpretations, especially since the meaning of the words "provide" and "regulate" changed over the two hundred years, as well as the notions of what constitutes "public welfare".
miko
-
Anyway, this issue will never be resolved academically because the wording is not specific enough to prevent multiple interpretations, especially since the meaning of the words "provide" and "regulate" changed over the two hundred years, as well as the notions of what constitutes "public welfare".
Agreed.