Democrat Congressman: "I dont care about the U.S. Constitution"

[tonymctones]

Again,

ANY TAXATION voted on by Congress is legal under ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8 of the United States Constitution!

Section 8: 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;

you have liberal idiots on this board and in congress using the argument that not providing health insurance is a violation of our "pursuit of happiness"

you dont think that taxation could be viewed as a violation of our "pursuit of happiness"

[240 is Back]

Is 'general health' of americans considered 'general welfare'?

We elected representatives who decided this is what was meant.  In 2010, they decided this is what it meant.

I suppose if we don't like it, we can elect individuals who can solve this problem without changing things to univ healthcare.  But, they had 12 years of congress and didn't do anything to stop it, so this bill passed.

Thanks jeze for pointing out section 8 here.

[Jezebelle]

you have liberal idiots on this board and in congress using the argument that not providing health insurance is a violation of our "pursuit of happiness"

you dont think that taxation could be viewed as a violation of our "pursuit of happiness"

Again, the Pursuit of Happiness is irrelevant.  

Congress has the Power to Lay and Collect Taxes and apply them uniformly.  The Power of the Purse.

A violation of "The Pursuit of Happiness" is NOT a Violation of any kind nor grounds for being Unconstitutional.


My personal belief is that the Constitution needs to be amended, ALL FEDERAL TAXES REPEALED with the INSTALLATION of a National Sales Tax with no tax on Used items and Items Necessary for life, such as food.

And then give the States the Power to add their own taxation as they see fit.

[drkaje]

Isn't taxation supposed to be fair and with adequate representation?

If majority whims are the only justification Libs need for a bad bill they all better STFU if a republican majority repeals it.

We definitely need something but it has to be affordable/sustainable.

[Jezebelle]

Isn't taxation supposed to be fair and with adequate representation?

If majority whims are the only justification Libs need for a bad bill they all better STFU if a republican majority repeals it.

We definitely need something but it has to be affordable/sustainable.

No No No!  The people should NEVER "just STFU" when it comes to any legislation no matter what party introduces it.

[Soul Crusher]

Isn't taxation supposed to be fair and with adequate representation?

If majority whims are the only justification Libs need for a bad bill they all better STFU if a republican majority repeals it.

We definitely need something but it has to be affordable/sustainable.

These libs like 240 and TA dont understand that the whole purpose of the constitution was supposed to be a check on the power of govt and define its releationship with the states, not to empower it to be Santa Claus with everyone elses' money to buy votes.  

Thats what occurred in Rome and what partially led that Republic to fall.    

[240 is Back]

'If majority whims are the only justification Libs need for a bad bill they all better STFU if a republican majority repeals it.  '

The Repubs would need 67 seats for a veto-proof ability to repeal healthcare in 2010.  That is impossible, even if they won every available seat in 10.

They *could* try it in 2013.  But at this point, it's only the extreme voices still talking repeal.  The amount of undo-ing by then would be impossible.  "Repeal and replace" is their new catch-phrase, as they realize this.  By 2013, the people will have adjusted slowly to the new system and it won't be that noticable.  To announce 'we're brining back the donut hole and pre-existing conditions, and your 23 year old kid is kicked off your policy, and the costs aren't controlled anymore' wouldn't be a good political move.

This ship has sailed.  

[240 is Back]

''These libs like 240 and TA dont understand that the whole purpose of the constitution was supposed to be a check on the power of govt and define its releationship with the states, not to empower it to be Santa Claus with everyone elses' money to buy votes.  "

TA, you seem to know your stuff.  What is the purpose of the constitition?

[Bindare_Dundat]

Shouldnt have to pay for any "rights".

[tonymctones]

Again, the Pursuit of Happiness is irrelevant.  

Congress has the Power to Lay and Collect Taxes and apply them uniformly.  The Power of the Purse.

A violation of "The Pursuit of Happiness" is NOT a Violation of any kind nor grounds for being Unconstitutional.


My personal belief is that the Constitution needs to be amended, ALL FEDERAL TAXES REPEALED with the INSTALLATION of a National Sales Tax with no tax on Used items and Items Necessary for life, such as food.

And then give the States the Power to add their own taxation as they see fit.

Disagree the pursuit of happiness is very important especially when you have ppl who use that to justify legislation...ppl were pissed about the patriot act I was one of them, you cannot use the idea that "its for your own good" to help pass legislation

also there is nothing uniformed about this nothing uniformed in the way they collect the taxes and nothing uniformed in the way the distribute the tax money collected...

[Soul Crusher]

Shouldnt have to pay for any "rights".

No kidding Bindare.  That is why most of these libs have ZERO clue about what the hell they are talking about.  

[drkaje]

These libs like 240 and TA dont understand that the whole purpose of the constitution was supposed to be a check on the power of govt and define its releationship with the states, not to empower it to be Santa Claus with everyone elses' money to buy votes.  

Thats what occurred in Rome and what partially led that Republic to fall.    

The forefathers knew Govt power had to be limited, lest it crush the citizenry.

[George Whorewell]

'Life Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness never meant stealing from one citizen to give something to another.'

Isn't ANY form of taxation defined as stealing from one citizen to give to another? 

Are you saying the writers of the Constitution were agaisnt ALL taxes?  Or just taxation without reprsentation?  If you look at it that way, the people of america chose a lib 59 senators and a lib president - and when they enact lib policies on taxation - it's almost a perfect working example of taxation WITH representation.

Unless you can show us where the founding fathers wrote there should be NO taxation of any kind?

No, that's not what any form of taxation is. When my house is on fire, I expect the fire department to show up. That is a service I am paying for with my tax money. The same applies with collecting my trash, and keeping the streets safe.  When you consider that half the country doesn't pay taxes and that the increase in taxes being shoved down America's throat by the left is directly funneled back down to the 50% that don't pay to begin with, it's stealing. My tax dollars are now going to subsidize the expansion of the US government to pay for healthcare, social services and other extras that  I am never ever going to use and that normal, functional members of society pay for themselves. In addition to that, throw in the absurd amount of taxes I already pay for basic necessities of the state, social security, etc.+ all of the garbage social welfare programs prior to this healthcare debacle.   If it's not theft, it certainly feels like it.

[BodyProSite]

well its clear that the liberal assclowns dont care about the constitution,  look at how the commie in chief cheated and lied his way to passing healthcare,  and progressives have even been quoted saying that the constitution is a road bump,  yet there are still uneducated, idiots  or bums looking for free habdouts that support these scumbags pieces of shit

[240 is Back]

Personally, I think a flat-rate income tax, or "per person tax", where every american pays $2k a year for roads and national defense, is the most fair way to do it.

If you don't like your "america fee", you can move.  These nukes and roads aren't free.  Or, just make it a consumption deal.

The idea of "you make more, you should pay more" is completely unfair, without a doubt.

What was the tax position of the founding fathers?  Anyone know?  Who got taxed what in 1800, 1810, 1820?

[Soul Crusher]

Personally, I think a flat-rate income tax, or "per person tax", where every american pays $2k a year for roads and national defense, is the most fair way to do it.

If you don't like your "america fee", you can move.  These nukes and roads aren't free.  Or, just make it a consumption deal.

The idea of "you make more, you should pay more" is completely unfair, without a doubt.

What was the tax position of the founding fathers?  Anyone know?  Who got taxed what in 1800, 1810, 1820?

The govt was very small and existed mostly off of tariffs and duties. 

[240 is Back]

'The govt was very small and existed mostly off of tariffs and duties.  '

Did the founding fathers charge more taxes from the rich, than they did from the poor?  Does anybody know?  Was it FAIR and EQUAL then?  Or has this "earn more, pay more" policy been there for 100% of American history?

[George Whorewell]

And FYI for our constitutional law internet scholars, taxing for the general welfare does not automatically make it constitutional to levy a tax for every single thing that Congress can somehow claim falls under the guise of "General Welfare". Talk about a slippery slope, the tax code in this country would quadruple in size over night if that were true. Next up, a tax on oxygen, sunlight and being ugly. The money from those three taxes will be put in play to create a government agency dedicated to giving poor, unattractive people plastic surgery, or killing them-- whatever Uncle Sam feels is best.

There is no federal police power. States have traditionally taken the initiative to regulate their own healthcare systems.

[Tito24]

No kidding Bindare.  That is why most of these libs have ZERO clue about what the hell they are talking about.  

Why do you want some people with pre-existing medical conditions to pay out the arse?

[Jezebelle]

'The govt was very small and existed mostly off of tariffs and duties.  '

Did the founding fathers charge more taxes from the rich, than they did from the poor?  Does anybody know?  Was it FAIR and EQUAL then?  Or has this "earn more, pay more" policy been there for 100% of American history?

Lincoln was the first to enact a National Income Tax in order to pay for the Civil War to raise and sustain an Army.  Lincoln signed the Revenue Act of 1861  This created a flat tax of 3% on incomes above $800 ($19,307 in current dollars), which was later changed by the Revenue Act of 1862 to a progressive rate structure.



The Revenue Act of 1862 (July 1, 1862, Ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432), was passed by the United States Congress to help fund the American Civil War. The Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln, introducing the first progressive rate income tax to the country.
The office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was established,[1] with the Act specifying that Federal income tax was a temporary measure that would terminate in "the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six").
Annual income of U.S. residents, to the extent it exceeded $600, was taxed at a 3% rate; those earning over $10,000 per year were taxed at a 5% rate.[2] With respect to the income tax liability generated by the salaries of "officers, or payments to persons in the civil, military, naval, or other employment or service of the United States, including senators and representatives and delegates in Congress", the law also imposed a duty on paymasters to deduct and withhold the income tax, and to send the withheld tax to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.[3]
This Act repealed the flat rate income tax that had been established by the Revenue Act of the previous year.
To assure timely collection, income tax was "withheld at the source" by the employer.

[Jezebelle]

Lincoln was the first to enact a National Income Tax in order to pay for the Civil War to raise and sustain an Army.  Lincoln signed the Revenue Act of 1861  This created a flat tax of 3% on incomes above $800 ($19,307 in current dollars), which was later changed by the Revenue Act of 1862 to a progressive rate structure.



The Revenue Act of 1862 (July 1, 1862, Ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432), was passed by the United States Congress to help fund the American Civil War. The Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln, introducing the first progressive rate income tax to the country.
The office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was established,[1] with the Act specifying that Federal income tax was a temporary measure that would terminate in "the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six").
Annual income of U.S. residents, to the extent it exceeded $600, was taxed at a 3% rate; those earning over $10,000 per year were taxed at a 5% rate.[2] With respect to the income tax liability generated by the salaries of "officers, or payments to persons in the civil, military, naval, or other employment or service of the United States, including senators and representatives and delegates in Congress", the law also imposed a duty on paymasters to deduct and withhold the income tax, and to send the withheld tax to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.[3]
This Act repealed the flat rate income tax that had been established by the Revenue Act of the previous year.
To assure timely collection, income tax was "withheld at the source" by the employer.

Numbers are adjusted for inflation.  So in today`s dollars anyone making up to 13,259 was taxed at 3 percent and anyone making over 220,993 was taxed at 5 percent in the 1862 Revenue Act.
$600=$13,259
$10,000=$220,993

[Jezebelle]

And FYI for our constitutional law internet scholars, taxing for the general welfare does not automatically make it constitutional to levy a tax for every single thing that Congress can somehow claim falls under the guise of "General Welfare". Talk about a slippery slope, the tax code in this country would quadruple in size over night if that were true. Next up, a tax on oxygen, sunlight and being ugly. The money from those three taxes will be put in play to create a government agency dedicated to giving poor, unattractive people plastic surgery, or killing them-- whatever Uncle Sam feels is best.

There is no federal police power. States have traditionally taken the initiative to regulate their own healthcare systems.

After Lincoln`s tax plan expired in 1866 for the war, it wasn`t until 1894 that the Income Tax would return with the Wilson-Gorman tariff, which imposed the first peacetime income tax. The rate was 2% on income over $4000, which meant fewer than 10% of households would pay any.

So in effect, taxing the rich.

[Jezebelle]

History of top rates

In 1913, the top tax rate was 7% on incomes above $500,000 ($10 million 2007 dollars).

During World War I, the top rate rose to 77% and the income threshold to be in this top bracket increased to $1,000,000 ($16 million 2007 dollars); after the war, the top rate was scaled down to a low of 24% and the income threshold for paying this rate fell to a low of $100,000 ($1 million 2007 dollars).

During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose from pre-war levels. In 1939, the top rate was 75% applied to incomes above $5,000,000 ($75 million 2007 dollars).

During 1944 and 1945, the top rate was its all-time high at 94% applied to income above $200,000.

Since 1964, the threshold for paying top income tax rate has generally been between $200,000 and $400,000. The one exception is the period from (stupid Ronald Reagan  )1982-1992 when the top income tax brackets were removed and incomes above around $100,000 (varies by year) paid the top rate.

From 1988-1990, the threshold for paying the top rate was even lower, with incomes above $29,750 to $32,450 ($51,000 2007 dollars) paying the top rate of 28% in those years.

[240 is Back]

Ah, so Obama is just doing what presidents ahve done for 150 years.

i agree it sucks, but we aren't going to change 150 years of history here.

[Soul Crusher]

Ah, so Obama is just doing what presidents ahve done for 150 years.

i agree it sucks, but we aren't going to change 150 years of history here.