Trump 101: Raise Taxes On The Poor, Cut Taxes For The Rich

[ark steel]

Never. That's why we elected Trump.

Well, actually, turns out "conservative" was a misnomer for the person...

 

[ark steel]

I think it’s a great that you’re daughters’s roomate is going to be able to get an education and become a contributing, TAX PAYING, member of society rather than be stuck in a cycle of poverty that so many young people get sucked into through no fault of their own. Seeing as how a person can’t choose who gives birth to them, it’s good thing that there are options for kids that choose to take advantage of them. When you consider all of the things our government pisses away our money on, investing in a kid’s future isn’t such a horrible thing.

What is she gets a degree in gender studies instead of something actually useful?

That cycle of poverty can be broken. I've been poor. I didn't like it.

 

[Elfiero]

What taxes has he PREPOSED to raise on the poor? Eliminating subsidies is not raising your taxes. Of course all of this would be a moot point if we would scrap the income tax entirely and go to the FairTax.

You're right about the EITC being a subsidy.......a subsidy for all the businesses that fight tooth and nail to not have to pay the working poor a livable wage. It is in effect a tax increase if you get rid of it.

It's great for the economy anyway...you've never heard of trickle up economics? You give this tax cut(EITC) to the working poor and they invest it in goods and services. This investment then stimulates growth for the middle, upper middle, and wealthy class who work in or own the institutions that provide those goods and services.

 

[DBS1970]

You're right about the EITC being a subsidy.......a subsidy for all the businesses that fight tooth and nail to not have to pay the working poor a livable wage. It is in effect a tax increase if you get rid of it.

It's great for the economy anyway...you've never heard of trickle up economics? You give this tax cut(EITC) to the working poor and they invest it in goods and services. This investment then stimulates growth for the middle, upper middle, and wealthy class who work in or own the institutions that provide those goods and services.

I know once again a leftist is bad at math or chooses blind ideology over logic when they use the term "living wage". You can not operate a business and pay more for labor than the revenue it generates. If you pay $15 an hour for a job that makes $8.75 worth of product you go out of business real quick. What needs to take place and what you would push for if you actually cared would be for people NOT to breed children that they can not afford to raise. Furthermore you miss a fundamental premise of good governance: the government should be impartial and should not be favoring one citizen over another and picking winners and losers. What you are advocating for with EIC is patronage for votes.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Well, actually, turns out "conservative" was a misnomer for the person...

Trump isn't a Conservative, he's a Populist. He's a businessman who will look at what works to fix a problem, just that most of the time the solution will be Conservatism.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

I know once again a leftist is bad at math or chooses blind ideology over logic when they use the term "living wage". You can not operate a business and pay more for labor than the revenue it generates. If you pay $15 an hour for a job that makes $8.75 worth of product you go out of business real quick. What needs to take place and what you would push for if you actually cared would be for people NOT to breed children that they can not afford to raise. Furthermore you miss a fundamental premise of good governance: the government should be impartial and should not be favoring one citizen over another and picking winners and losers. What you are advocating for with EIC is patronage for votes.

I was down that road with the little company I used to own. Tried to pay enough to attract and retain good people, problem was that the public didn't want to pay what I had to charge to do that, along with all the taxe$ and in$urance that a legitimate business has to pay. Sold my company at a loss just to unload it and I'm teetering on the edge of bankruptcy as a result.

 

[DBS1970]

I Sold my company at a loss just to unload it and I'm teetering on the edge of bankruptcy as a result.

That's what you get for exploring the working class. You deserve to go bankrupt you evil 1%er.

 

[oneforthebus]

I think it’s a great that you’re daughters’s roomate is going to be able to get an education and become a contributing, TAX PAYING, member of society rather than be stuck in a cycle of poverty that so many young people get sucked into through no fault of their own. Seeing as how a person can’t choose who gives birth to them, it’s good thing that there are options for kids that choose to take advantage of them. When you consider all of the things our government pisses away our money on, investing in a kid’s future isn’t such a horrible thing.

It's not a horrible thing but the problem is the subsidies for poor are creating out of control tuition hikes for everyone else. And as I mentioned, there is no incentive for people on the income fringes to save for college because if you have any money sitting around you get penalized for that. I don't know what the solution is, but it has gotten way out of control.

Sure, there are fabulously wealthy people for whom college tuition is no big deal, but like most things the people who really get hit are in the middle. The people who educated themselves and did everything right and make a decent living get whacked for it. Eventually some of those people are going to realize they're better off not working so hard.

Why do you think there is such a divide between rich and poor? At a certain level of income, it really doesn't benefit you all that much to improve your situation. You lose a lot of goodies that way.

 

[Troglodyte]

Never. That's why we elected Trump.

Don’t you feel stupid now? #$700BillionDefenseBill

 

[DBS1970]

Don’t you feel stupid now? #$700BillionDefenseBill

No because national defense is a constitutionally mandated duty of the federal government. I would be upset if it was more paying the lazy to have children and vote DNC.

 

[Badcat]

Don’t you feel stupid now? #$700BillionDefenseBill

You should be the one feeling stupid. Why do republican Presidents have to spend so much on Defense? Because of the neglect of Democrats. Reagan had to spend because of that ***** Carter. Bush because of Clinton (I experienced this first hand). And now Trump because of Obama. Imagine if Obama spent the money on defense rather than paying Iran billions. It's like democratic Presidents were bullied in high school and they're too afraid to stand up to anyone. "Her Iran, take my lunch money, don't beat me up"

*******.

 

[Badcat]

I think it’s a great that you’re daughters’s roomate is going to be able to get an education and become a contributing, TAX PAYING, member of society rather than be stuck in a cycle of poverty that so many young people get sucked into through no fault of their own. Seeing as how a person can’t choose who gives birth to them, it’s good thing that there are options for kids that choose to take advantage of them. When you consider all of the things our government pisses away our money on, investing in a kid’s future isn’t such a horrible thing.

As do I, but I also wonder why my daughter and I have to rack up enormous debt that she'll have to pay back over 30 years? Her payments will be $1,000 a month near the end of the 30 years. That is a house payment! Meanwhile her roommate walks out of graduation debt free, takes an entry level position in whatever her major is, and can live fairly comfortably. My daughter will need to find a job that can cover her living expenses AND her education debt. She can't just take the entry level position like her roommate can. Finding jobs that cover costs are difficult and I fully expect my daughter to have to work two jobs, and she will because that's how she was raised. How is that for white privilege?

 

[ark steel]

No because national defense is a constitutionally mandated duty of the federal government. I would be upset if it was more paying the lazy to have children and vote DNC.

is that what they meant by "PROVIDE" for the common defense? Crazy talk.

 

[ark steel]

How is that for white privilege?

Enjoy!

 

[ark steel]

You should be the one feeling stupid. Why do republican Presidents have to spend so much on Defense? Because of the neglect of Democrats. Reagan had to spend because of that ***** Carter. Bush because of Clinton (I experienced this first hand). And now Trump because of Obama. Imagine if Obama spent the money on defense rather than paying Iran billions. It's like democratic Presidents were bullied in high school and they're too afraid to stand up to anyone. "Her Iran, take my lunch money, don't beat me up"

*******.

Those "Peace Dividends" were awesome, yes?

 

[Spike]

hahahahaha

 

[Superman]

Don’t you feel stupid now? #$700BillionDefenseBill

so you feel that the members of the military should not receive a raise in correlation to inflation?
do you also feel that our military should engage in situations without the absolute best weaponry we can provide them with?
do you feel that the aid our military provides to other countries grows on trees?

it's absolutely ******* AWESOME that you brought this up.
do you know why, flog? oh, do you ******* know why?

because you're absolutely, 100% unequivocally supporting your President, Donald J Trump, 45 as you call him, in demanding that other countries help foot he bill for us defending them. Because you bring this up, you acknowledge that our defense spending is enormous. And you, in your elitist wisdom, also see that it could be lower if we weren't helping defend every ******* country on the ******* planet at our own ******* expense.

thank you, flog, for supporting YOUR President, Donald J. Trump.

 

[Elfiero]

is that what they meant by "PROVIDE" for the common defense? Crazy talk.

And "promote the general welfare" truly insane those founders.....................

 

[Spike]

All aboard!

good boy




Trump Tax Cuts Gain Momentum as Senator Rand Paul Goes 'All In'

U.S. Republican senator Rand Paul on Friday appeared to back the Trump administration's sweeping tax cut plan, saying he was "all in" for massive tax cuts even as the Senate passed a key budget measure without his support one day earlier.

On Thursday, the Republican-controlled Senate approved the budget resolution for the 2018 fiscal year, with Paul casting the lone Republican vote against it. That approval paves the way for their tax-cut proposal that would add up to $1.5 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade to pay for the cuts.

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday signaled optimism for passage of the cuts, saying Paul would back the proposed tax measure when it comes up for a vote.

"The Budget passed late last night, 51 to 49. We got ZERO Democrat votes with only Rand Paul (he will vote for Tax Cuts) voting against," Trump wrote on Twitter. "This now allows for the passage of large scale Tax Cuts (and Reform), which will be the biggest in the history of our country!"

Paul responded with his own tweet, saying, "I’m all in for tax cuts @realDonaldTrump. The biggest, boldest cuts possible - and soon!"

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...n-momentum-as-rand-paul-goes-all-in/23250373/

 

[DBS1970]

And "promote the general welfare" truly insane those founders.....................

I have always wondered how the left construes that to mean taking money from those who have earned it and buying the votes of those who do no work with it. Especially since the constitution spells out that The federal government shall only have the enumerated powers in the constitution. You see the constitution says very clearly that Congress may raise an army and the Navy. It provides that Congress may apoint and commission the officers of said army and navy. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a passage about the federal government taking taxes from producers and paying them out to a dependent underclass in exchange for votes. You see promoting the general welfare means and always has meant fostering a free society where peaceful industrious people have the ability and liberty to prosper.

 

[ark steel]

Among the many, many, many...etc. things Elfie doesn't seem to understand is the difference between "provide" and "promote "....

 

[Steeltime]

I have always wondered how the left construes that to mean taking money from those who have earned it and buying the votes of those who do no work with it. Especially since the constitution spells out that The federal government shall only have the enumerated powers in the constitution. You see the constitution says very clearly that Congress may raise an army and the Navy. It provides that Congress may apoint and commission the officers of said army and navy. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a passage about the federal government taking taxes from producers and paying them out to a dependent underclass in exchange for votes. You see promoting the general welfare means and always has meant fostering a free society where peaceful industrious people have the ability and liberty to prosper.

The Constitution sets forth in some detail Congress' power. Article 1, Section 8 provides:

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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Social engineers and fans of government largesse cite the "general welfare" clause as support for their position, but that clause must be read in conjunction with the other enumerated powers. Specifically, the "general welfare" of the people must be promoted by way of the listed powers. Otherwise, why list the powers of Congress if the "general welfare" clause allows Congress to tax and spend on anything it deems related to the "general welfare"? That would be like listing 10 powers a CEO has, and then finding that an introductory statement of purpose allows the CEO to do anything he wants. If that is so, then why list the powers the CEO has??

The maxim describing the limitation of powers where such powers are enumerated, and the role that a statement of general purpose or basis for the listed powers, is "ejusdem generis." Ejusdem generis is Latin for "of the same kind," and is a rule of statutory (and Constitutional) interpretation, defined as follows: "Of the same kind, class, or nature. In statutory construction, the 'ejusdem generis rule' is that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned."

In Federalist 41, James Madison wrote that the "general welfare" clause was not to be broadly construed as a general grant of power, and instead that the clause was to be read in context with the enumerated powers. Madison wrote, "Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases."

In short, DBS' approach is supported by a legal doctrine that our nation has followed for centuries and by a primary contributor to the founding of the nation and interpretation of the Constitution, James Madison.

 

[ark steel]

The Constitution sets forth in some detail Congress' power. Article 1, Section 8 provides:

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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Social engineers and fans of government largesse cite the "general welfare" clause as support for their position, but that clause must be read in conjunction with the other enumerated powers. Specifically, the "general welfare" of the people must be promoted by way of the listed powers. Otherwise, why list the powers of Congress if the "general welfare" clause allows Congress to tax and spend on anything it deems related to the "general welfare"? That would be like listing 10 powers a CEO has, and then finding that an introductory statement of purpose allows the CEO to do anything he wants. If that is so, then why list the powers the CEO has??

The maxim describing the limitation of powers where such powers are enumerated, and the role that a statement of general purpose or basis for the listed powers, is "ejusdem generis." Ejusdem generis is Latin for "of the same kind," and is a rule of statutory (and Constitutional) interpretation, defined as follows: "Of the same kind, class, or nature. In statutory construction, the 'ejusdem generis rule' is that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned."

In Federalist 41, James Madison wrote that the "general welfare" clause was not to be broadly construed as a general grant of power, and instead that the clause was to be read in context with the enumerated powers. Madison wrote, "Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases."

In short, DBS' approach is supported by a legal doctrine that our nation has followed for centuries and by a primary contributor to the founding of the nation and interpretation of the Constitution, James Madison.

Unpossible.

 

[Elfiero]

Among the many, many, many...etc. things Elfie doesn't seem to understand is the difference between "provide" and "promote "....

Again: I understand more in my little toe than all of you overweight brain addled Reich Wingers combined can even dream of grasping.

Article 1 Section 8
1: 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;

Do you now know why taxes are collected numbskull? You also need to look up the entire meaning of the word promote. Luckily the founders elaborated beyond the preamble; they just couldn't fix future stupid, also known as CONservatism.

 

[DBS1970]

The Constitution sets forth in some detail Congress' power. Article 1, Section 8 provides:

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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Social engineers and fans of government largesse cite the "general welfare" clause as support for their position, but that clause must be read in conjunction with the other enumerated powers. Specifically, the "general welfare" of the people must be promoted by way of the listed powers. Otherwise, why list the powers of Congress if the "general welfare" clause allows Congress to tax and spend on anything it deems related to the "general welfare"? That would be like listing 10 powers a CEO has, and then finding that an introductory statement of purpose allows the CEO to do anything he wants. If that is so, then why list the powers the CEO has??

The maxim describing the limitation of powers where such powers are enumerated, and the role that a statement of general purpose or basis for the listed powers, is "ejusdem generis." Ejusdem generis is Latin for "of the same kind," and is a rule of statutory (and Constitutional) interpretation, defined as follows: "Of the same kind, class, or nature. In statutory construction, the 'ejusdem generis rule' is that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned."

In Federalist 41, James Madison wrote that the "general welfare" clause was not to be broadly construed as a general grant of power, and instead that the clause was to be read in context with the enumerated powers. Madison wrote, "Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases."

In short, DBS' approach is supported by a legal doctrine that our nation has followed for centuries and by a primary contributor to the founding of the nation and interpretation of the Constitution, James Madison.

I have been through this with Elfie before. I pointed out how Patrick Henry during the ratification debates in the Virginia House of Burgesses basically called James Madison's sanity into question over how the use of the wording of "General Welfare" was a license for tyranny as the national government could claim any law they made was necessary for the welfare of the nation. I also pointed out how this was the beginning of the push for the bill of rights and how the 9th And 10th Amendments further restrict and nullify the notion that the national government had broad leeway to do things under the general welfare clause. Its amazing how leftists ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments as well.