It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by schuyler
... and the bottom 47% pay nothing at all.
Originally posted by TreadUpon
To the OP from the title on down:
Your premise is seriously bent at such an early stage of this argument that it's no wonder you don't get it.
1. An extension of the current (and decade old) tax rate is NOT a CUT!
2. TAXES are dollars you EARN that the government TAKES.
3. WELFARE is DOLLARS you DIDN'T EARN that the government GIVES.
4. As for the "demographic", are you reintroducing class warfare or want redistribution based on frivolous spending?
Until you understand the definition of the terms you're using, reason will not work with you.
Once you think you got it start here: When the government runs out of our money it's because they spent too much, not because they didn't take enough!
Originally posted by aching_knuckles
On Thursday, the Republicans refused to sponsor funding for 9/11 first responders, many of whom are sick and dying. They refused to give them the aid they need until the Democrats allowed the tax cuts for the top 2%. Not the tax cuts for EVERYBODY, but just for the top 2%
www.silive.com...
So you support this? You agree with this? If not, how can you suport Republicans? Werent the Republicans the ones saying "Youre either with us or youre against us?" Republicans repeatedly prove themselves to be against us, and if you cant see that, then you are brainwashed.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
You have projected an assumption upon me in attempts to prove that because I do not think like you, then I must be brainwashed. I trust no politician in any party. I reserve respect for those that choose and default towards liberty.
So one, I never laid claim that I am a Republican. Two, never said I agree with your above quotes and tactics.
Originally posted by BobbinHood
Try owning a business. You'll be lucky if the government only takes away HALF of everything you make. Now try hiring new people with what you have left. It just doesn't work.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by aching_knuckles
I am sorry but as much as you just wish I were a Republican it just isn't true. I asked you about where the numbers came from because usually when people post statistics they provide a source of their conclusions. I wasn't attacking, just wanting to know so I have a baseline of where you are coming from.
Unfortunately you have decided to make this a Repub/Demo argument. So be it, but it looks like you are the one that is brainwashed and not I sir.
Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Please prove these 2 assertions using specific examples and citing Supreme Court cases regarding the unconstitionality of social programs.
Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Please prove these 2 assertions using specific examples and citing Supreme Court cases regarding the unconstitionality of social programs.
You want me to prove a negative?
There is no need to search SCOTUS cases, as I, just like you ( I assume) are perfectly capable of reading the Constitution on your own.
Article 1 Section 8 says nothing about Congress having the authority to waste taxpayer money on social assistance programs, or healthcare for that matter.
Do you really need someone to interpret something you are able to read and presumably understand?
Cutting enough (completely eradicating social programs and the like) would provide the funds to solve the financial problem these 2 idiotic wars have gotten us in to.
Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[13] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.[14] To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.
Actually, Im wondering if you actually read the Constitution, as in the preamble it calls on the Federal Government to "promote general welfare". It is known as "The General Welfare" clause. It gives Congress the power to levy taxes for things which all of society benefits.
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson
Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by MMPI2
It's awful funny how your corporations become "fictional entities" when it comes to their responsibility to contribute their fair share of taxes but when it comes to political contributions, they instantly become "people" with all of their inalienable rights. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
You obviously are incapable of discerning the difference between general vs individual.
General = benefits the nation as a whole.
Sending out a welfare check to someone doesnt benefit the nation, it alleviates individual suffering.
Whether you like it or not, I am correct. The founding fathers back up my argument.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by aching_knuckles
I am unsure why you have taken such a hostile tone. We are discussing and debating the the pros/cons of the mislabeled 'tax cuts'; which they are not, it is an extension of current tax law.
Since I asked where the numbers came from, you have been throwing up straw-men and I am unsure why you have gone to this tactic. My best guess is you have a deep rooted animosity towards anyone that has been smart and wise with their choices and have accumulated savings, wealth and a skill that is in demand.