The Rich are Robbing the Poor Blind

[jet57]

I have. Several times.

There is no "peoples general welfare" anywhere.

Well, you need to reread my post, think about it, and then read the constitution once again.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

It's hard to earn $10M when nobody else in your country is working at all.

All the more reason for a healthy distribution of income. It's that income that moves through the production/income/consumption cycle.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Peoples general welfare.

Whose welfare do you think they were talking about, if not "the people's"?

 

[ttwtt78640]

All the more reason for a healthy distribution of income. It's that income that moves through the production/income/consumption cycle.

Relying on taxing anyone at 50% is not healthy.

 

[jimbo]

Well, you need to reread my post, think about it, and then read the constitution once again.

I've read it. Could you point me to peoples general welfare?

 

[jimbo]

Whose welfare do you think they were talking about, if not "the people's"?

The country's.

 

[eohrnberger]

According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years.
. . .
In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare

"not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare"
confirmed and supported by United States v. Butler, apparently.

 

[jet57]

I've read it. Could you point me to peoples general welfare?

Apparently you've read nothing dude. You're trying for the "technicality" and I'm not going to let you get away with it. This sophomoric right-wing "oooh got'cha!" bores me.

Reread my post, and then read the US constitution

 

[jimbo]

Apparently you've read nothing dude. You're trying for the "technicality" and I'm not going to let you get away with it. This sophomoric right-wing "oooh got'cha!" bores me.

Reread my post, and then read the US constitution

I take it you have no answer.

 

[jet57]

I take it you have no answer.

Uh no; it's apparent that you have no idea what you're talking about. Please follow my instructions in the last post and don't reply to me again until you have.

You're chasing your tail.

 

[jimbo]

Uh no; it's apparent that you have no idea what you're talking about. Please follow my instructions in the last post and don't reply to me again until you have.

You're chasing your tail.

I'll pretty much reply to any post I choose.

 

[calamity]

I wonder how many who argue against my op are hourly workers who have more debt than assets.

 

[What if...?]

It's hard to earn $10M when nobody else in your country is working at all.

Yet they all talk like they're the only ones that matter.

You should tell them.

 

[What if...?]

That of course depends upon which side of the political isle you're on and that has been the history of 'people's general welfare' and free markets since our founding. The monied interests in this country have done two things: first they changed the paradigm; they got a new generation to think of nothing except being a CEO and their portfolios. While that was going on, they changed the rules by which the monied interests had to operate. This is exactly how the plantation class of the Antebellum south did and how they explained away slavery and pitted people against each other "in the name of The Constitution and Liberty"... Please be very weary these days of the phrase "economic liberty. We know how the Antebellum south worked out and as we've seen of late it's going that way again. As the monied interests like to say, "nobody's going to give to you, you have to take it". They need to study Lenin on that account.

The new right-wing are confederates; don't kid yourself.

This has been the pattern of history.

Those at the top claim more and more of what is produced, either into private hands or to pay for conquest.

This eventually results in collapse or revolt.

Then we start the same process over with.

At the end of the day its a maladaptation to the adoption of the sedentary lifestyle.

Excess was kept in check by other tribespeople. They just told you "no" when you tried to claim half of the fruit in the valley because your grandpa saw it first.

Once we settled.down it eventually became necessary to lock up and dole out the food.

This created the concept of labor and the management class.

And rigid heirarchies. Walls and armed men to enforce their decisions.

And it was only a matter of time before they decided their job was much more important than all the other jobs so they deserved more. Much more.

Rinse and repeat for twelve thousand years and here we are.

Doing it again.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yet they all talk like they're the only ones that matter.

You should tell them.

Not only that, but they constantly strive to transfer ever more power and control to the federal level. When you have a government of 535 congress critters, of which you can vote for (or against) at most three of them every two to six years, then you are essentially powerless to change much of anything. Meanwhile, many now wish to give that same bunch of congress critters more control over education and medical care - you just can't fix stupid.

 

[jaeger19]

I wonder how many who argue against my op are hourly workers who have more debt than assets.

Well the issue isn;t really the rich robbing the poor.. its the baby boomers robbing everyone else. You take a look at the entitlement reforms that have been introduced.. especially from one paul ryan... baby boomers will get medicare and social security just like now.. and the younger generation will get screwed. this isn;t a rich versus poor.. this is a generational issue.

 

[KLATTU]

This has been the pattern of history.

Those at the top claim more and more of what is produced, either into private hands or to pay for conquest.
n.

what a bizarro-world Marxist interpretation of reality.

Is that how it works? Things are produced and people lay 'claim' to them?

 

[What if...?]

what a bizarro-world Marxist interpretation of reality.

Is that how it works? Things are produced and people lay 'claim' to them?

Name a revolt or social collapse, not a result of natural disaster, that wasn't the result of excesses by those at the top.

I can't think of one. I've made this claim repeatedly without counter.

Your turn.

 

[jaeger19]

Name a revolt or social collapse, not a result of natural disaster, that wasn't the result of excesses by those at the top.

I can't think of one. I've made this claim repeatedly without counter.

Your turn.

I'll bite.

The American revolution. It was started by those very top wealthiest americans. In fact just about everyone signing that declaration of independence was wealthy.

 

[What if...?]

I'll bite.

The American revolution. It was started by those very top wealthiest americans. In fact just about everyone signing that declaration of independence was wealthy.

And Europeans came here why again?

They were revolting against what?

I never made any claim about WHO revolted.

Only WHY.

And a hundred years later, there was another revolt.

Again in response to wealth and power.

 

[Media_Truth]

Relying on taxing anyone at 50% is not healthy.

Warren Buffet professed that he pays a small percentage of taxes than his secretary. I'll tell you what's not healthy. A skyrocketing deficit that will shortly exceed $1 Trillion.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...r-plus-deficits-fiscal-ruin-column/986236002/

Though no one in Washington will admit it, our nation's finances are in deep trouble. Spending is up, revenue is down, and this will only get worse.

 

[Sabre]

All this complaining about the rich and taxes simply means to me people do not understand how the tax system works, what taxes are for and who pays what.

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax

And the bottom 20%? They get paid by Uncle Sam

There is a short informative video at this link that explains a lot in simple terms I think most would understand.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-income-tax-1428674384

 

[Media_Truth]

All this complaining about the rich and taxes simply means to me people do not understand how the tax system works, what taxes are for and who pays what.

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax

And the bottom 20%? They get paid by Uncle Sam

There is a short informative video at this link that explains a lot in simple terms I think most would understand.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-income-tax-1428674384

Written by the 1%ers. Do you realize that, in most states, a single person is eligible for food stamps, if they make less than $21K per year. Minimum wage adds up to about $14K per year. So your 20% number is not surprising at all. This is exactly the situation that the Oligarchs want, so they can convince you that their regressive policies are warranted. Are you going to continue to buy into it? FAUX News is their voice, and they know exactly how to manipulate.

 

[What if...?]

Written by the 1%ers. Do you realize that, in most states, a single person is eligible for food stamps, if they make less than $21K per year. Minimum wage adds up to about $14K per year. So your 20% number is not surprising at all. This is exactly the situation that the Oligarchs want, so they can convince you that their regressive policies are warranted. Are you going to continue to buy into it? FAUX News is their voice, and they know exactly how to manipulate.

And you'll notice they don't include share of all income when they talk about how much those "top earners" pay.

 

[Media_Truth]

And you'll notice they don't include share of all income when they talk about how much those "top earners" pay.

I'll reply with 2 points:
First, it's meaningless, unless you are contending that the gap between the rich and poor is actually decreasing.

Second, Warren Buffett says that he pays a lesser percent in taxes than his secretary. Are you accusing him of lying?