Tax the Rich

331 posts / 0 new

Animated fairy tale.

http://front.moveon.org/hollywood-legend-ed-asner-has-outraged-republica...

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

Yes, poly, the rich should be paying more in taxes. Wonder what % of his income and wealth Asner pays?

Government could tax 100% of incomes over $60,000 in the US and it would not make a dent in the national debt at the rate out of control spending of the government. Spending has to be cut. And stsrting with the out of control military and home land security spending would be where I would start. Since 9/11 $8 TRILLION has been spent for the illegal, immoral,unConstitutional wars, dod budget and homeland security. A full $2.6 trillion of that cannot be accounted for. What does that say about our government. And they want to cut SS and medicare?

We tax incomes in this country, NOT wealth. And wealthy hypocrits like Soros, Buffet, and Asner know that.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

Well since no single spending cut will fix the debt, we should start a massive redistribution campaign.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:Government could tax 100% of incomes over $60,000 in the US and it would not make a dent in the national debt at the rate out of control spending of the government. Spending has to be cut.
Another math challenged right winger who seems to believe added revenue is pointless if it doesn't solve all our deficit problems.

Of course Obama is also a fool here. The Bush tax cuts were sooooo irresponsible that in real dollars, individual income tax revenues have still not reached FY2000 levels. If these tax cuts could not be afforded back in 2001 when we were 6 trillion in debt... how can most of these irresponsible tax cuts be afforded now with 16 trillion in debt?

Seems GOP insanity is contagious.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

I like the wealth tax, and I think Soros and Asner would agree because both understand more than the progressive income tax. Our MONOPOLY game either is kept running by a gamemaster function taking the stashed wealth and "redistributing it" to those who have less. MONOPOLY is a simple reduction for heuristic purposes, and the game would be dull as dishwater were the rules only about keeping everything even and everyone able to pay and play. But, that is how real markets and real economies work.

I reject the "economic 'man' frame" that presumes that putting a price on everything will allow the magic of the market to factor the moral bottom line of our humanity. To pretend that the interests of a MONOPOLY game player projected as the game theory of economics makes any sense in this world or the next is nuts. No matter what you may have learned in the Biz School Catechism or from the Wizards of Wall St., "the economy" is not measured by the rate and extent of plunder available.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote drc2:

I like the wealth tax, and I think Soros and Asner would agree because both understand more than the progressive income tax.

Problem is it would probably take another amendment to the Constitution to have a wealth tax. The 16th only permits an income tax.
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.
Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

This is an excerpt from an article by Arthur Brooks:

Excerpt:

The practical answer to this problem involves common sense. What do most of America’s families do when they find they are overspending? They don’t send the kids out to get part-time jobs in order to increase family revenues–they cut back on their spending. Why? Because that’s what works to solve the problem.

The government can learn from families. In fact, the data show that when countries are trying to find their way out of a debt crisis, the more they rely on tax increases as opposed to spending cuts, the more likely they are to fail. My colleagues Kevin Hassett, Andrew Biggs, and Matt Jensen studied 21 developed countries that have attempted fiscal consolidation over the last 37 years. Some succeeded and returned to economic health; -others failed.

On average, failed attempts to close budget gaps relied 53 percent on tax increases and 47 percent on spending cuts. Successful consolidations averaged 85 percent spending cuts and 15 percent tax increases. Some of the most successful financial comebacks–like Finland’s in the late 1990s–involved more than 100 percent spending cuts, so that taxes could be lowered. The spending cuts by the successful countries centered on entitlements and government personnel.

Now let’s look at the moral argument against raising taxes. Why does the president want to increase America’s tax burden? You may think it’s just a way to increase revenues and reduce the deficit. But even the president knows he can’t solve the fiscal crisis by helping himself to bigger and bigger chunks of the income of America’s most successful people. Even if individuals earning more than $200,000 were taxed at a 100 percent marginal rate–and we confiscated their passports so they could not flee–the take would come to $1.27 trillion, or just 77 percent of this year’s deficit.

For the administration, it’s not about the money–as we have heard again and again, it’s about “fairness.” The president believes that we will be a better nation if we redistribute more money from those who have more to those who have less. How much more do we need to redistribute until our system is fair?

As you ponder this question, remember the facts: The wealthiest 5 percent of Americans already account for 59 percent of federal income taxes. Nearly half of our citizens pay no federal income taxes at all–yet two-thirds of us believe that everybody should at least pay something, even if just to remind ourselves that government isn’t free. The Tax Foundation reports that the percentage of Americans who are net takers from the tax system is nearing 70 percent."

While increasing taxes on the wealthiest 20% might increase revenues slightly, without massive reductions in spending the deficit will not even be addressed let alone reducing debt. While the excerpt said that spending cuts in sucessful countries centered on entitlements and government personnel, those countries did not have the massive amounts of military spending as does the US. I would certainly agree with cut backs in government personnel, but I think that military spending should be drastically cut, starting with the ridiculous amounts of waste and fraud and ending the empire building wars.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

Taxing the rich more should be to keep them from having TOO MUCH POWER! Why should money junkies get to run the show? They're only talent is piling up cash but dummies seem to worship that.

Time to make the rich pay their fair share and curb their abuse of power. It won't save the economy. The closest we came to that was in September of 2008 when Congress could have refused to pass ANY bailout and let the system collapse. That would have hurt far fewer people than it will now. The passage gave the rich more time to screw the poor to pay for the bankster's gambling debts. The economy is damaged beyond recovery. The more you put off the coming economic collapse the worse it will be. Or they will start WWIII as a form of suicide .... for everyone.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com quoting some moron:

This is an excerpt from an article by Arthur Brooks:

Excerpt:

The practical answer to this problem involves common sense. What do most of America’s families do when they find they are overspending? They don’t send the kids out to get part-time jobs in order to increase family revenues–they cut back on their spending. Why? Because that’s what works to solve the problem.

Yup no one in any family EVER gets a second job or seeks a raise... because NO financial problem is EVER a revenue problem. Come on Dar... quoting an idiot doesn't make suddenly make idiocy a self-evident truth.

Do you EVER intend to deal with the fact that the Bush tax cuts were SO irresponsible that in real dollars, individual income tax revenues are STILL not back up to CLINTON LEVELS??

Even in Bush's best revenue years... FY07 individual income tax revenues were still $45 BILLION LESS than FY2000.... and $100 billion less in FY08.

We've went through 8 BUSH YEARS where such revenue should have shown some growth over Clinton's levels but did not. Yes of course spending is one problem. But so is revenue and this is the dirty little secret the GOP seems desperate to keep from the True Believers on the right.


Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

1. If people had access to decent payng jobs revenue would go up and spending for the social safety net would go down.

2. Corporations used to pay around 30-40% of revenue - now its under 10% - thats the wealthy getting away with low rates and tax breaks the average american can't take.

3. The wealthy pay a lower tax rate with their Capital Gains passive income - we need to tax passive income higher than regular income to send a message that true Wealth Creation is preferred to financial shinangans and wealth draining paper pushing.

4. The rich 1% now take home 90+ % of all new income - they should pay 90+% of all new taxes

5. Financialization is now around 40% of gdp - its Malinvestment on steroids - it got that power by bribing the kleptocrat politician - cut the legalized bribery schemes that's called the current election process

6. End nadta and all the other corporate welfare bills mislabeled as 'Free 'Trade that are stealing american jobs that pay a decent living wage in order to send profits overseas where they aren't taxed.

7. Start taxing WEALTH over 10 million per couple - small business owners face an alt min tax why not the wealthy who enjoy the fruits of governmental intervention?

8. Get rid of Homeland Security and cut the damn military budget already! If the freaking corporations want to do business in africa for example - they should try and Create the conditions that allow for Them to safely doing business there instead of the current predatory system that needs a usa military to protect their illicit profits and business schemes.

Scappoose's picture
Scappoose
Joined:
Mar. 30, 2012 7:49 am
Quote Scappoose:

2. Corporations used to pay around 30-40% of revenue - now its under 10% - thats the wealthy getting away with low rates the average american can't take.

Thom likes to quote some figure like this... but we can't compare the 50's to now. In 1965 Medicare started as well as a new tax to support it. Should corporations necessarily pay more for that program?

Of course the idea of who pays what percentage of total revenue when we have a one trillion deficit is a meaningless question. It's like the Right claiming the rich pay 70% of all income taxes... as if that 70% "prove" they are being soaked. In reality income tax revenues in constant dollars are still BELOW Clinton levels. And who bragged about taking 5 million people off the tax rolls? Bush2. We SHOULD be asking who pays what percentage of total spending.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

How does taking forty percent of income benefit to me? Yes we need to pay for the post offices roads military and a few other things, I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with food, housing, cell phones, transportation, college, vacations, drugs and everything else we give to the protected class through the welfare system that I will never use or qualify to access.
I am taking about Americans that are dependant on the government hand outs not what you progressives call corporate welfare.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am

Someone posted an IRS spread sheet in one of these threads and I can't find it. But one interesting factoid of note..

For the top 1% the tax rate averaged 33.13% in 1986.

It was 28.87% in 1995

By 2005 it had dropped to 23.23%.

But isn't the Orwellian Right always screaming we're soaking the rich because they now pay a larger percentage of the income tax pie? Of course they do.... but it's a SMALLER PIE. Bush2 bragged he took 5 MILLION taxpayers off the tax rolls.

In constant dollars individual income tax revenues are now still LOWER than Clinton's last year.

It's not surprising that our math wizs on the Right fall for that. They've fallen for such nonsense since 1981 and still haven't learned. Instead they've gotten more irrational now believing revenue plays NO role in the current deficit.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote firearm owner:How does taking forty percent of income benefit to me? Yes we need to pay for the post offices roads military and a few other things, I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with food, housing, cell phones, transportation, college, vacations, drugs and everything else we give to the protected class through the welfare system that I will never use or qualify to access. I am taking about Americans that are dependant on the government hand outs not what you progressives call corporate welfare.
It really doesn't matter what YOU think is constitutional because YOU can't think through what it means when the Constitution says it will promote and provide for the general welfare. It's just not one of your imaginary "18 jobs".

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

FO, once again my moderation and desire to come to a reasonable and sane gun safety public policy where we listen to responsible gun owners and bend over backwards to protect the sense of constitutional entitlement no matter how weird the hermeneutics has just about evaporated in the withering heat of advocates of guns such as you. Why is it that the advocates of gun rights tend to be those who make me least confident in the ability of gun owners to be responsible? Is it just me?

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote firearm owner:.....and everything else we give to the protected class through the welfare system that I will never use or qualify to access.
It's difficult to imagine you'd qualify, but didn't you claim you were in the Marines?

So how much will I be paying for YOUR VA care?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:How does taking forty percent of income benefit to me? Yes we need to pay for the post offices roads military and a few other things, I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with food, housing, cell phones, transportation, college, vacations, drugs and everything else we give to the protected class through the welfare system that I will never use or qualify to access. I am taking about Americans that are dependant on the government hand outs not what you progressives call corporate welfare.
It really doesn't matter what YOU think is constitutional because YOU can't think through what it means when the Constitution says it will promote and provide for the general welfare. It's just not one of your imaginary "18 jobs".

Yes it says promote and provide for the general welfare, but they ment for everyone equally not just the people they think deserves the fruits of my labor.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am
Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:.....and everything else we give to the protected class through the welfare system that I will never use or qualify to access.
It's difficult to imagine you'd qualify, but didn't you claim you were in the Marines?

So how much will I be paying for YOUR VA care?

Yes I was in the Marines and right now I do not see it costing you one dime.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am
Quote drc2:

FO, once again my moderation and desire to come to a reasonable and sane gun safety public policy where we listen to responsible gun owners and bend over backwards to protect the sense of constitutional entitlement no matter how weird the hermeneutics has just about evaporated in the withering heat of advocates of guns such as you. Why is it that the advocates of gun rights tend to be those who make me least confident in the ability of gun owners to be responsible? Is it just me?

I think it is just you, I am reasonable, I have no problem with background checks as long as nothing is recorded. No gun registration. I have no problem with training classes to make sure they people that own the weapons know how to use them. I have a problem with the government telling me what I can own. While confiscating a portion of my pay to support people that have no desire to support themselves.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am
Quote firearm owner:
Quote drc2:

FO, once again my moderation and desire to come to a reasonable and sane gun safety public policy where we listen to responsible gun owners and bend over backwards to protect the sense of constitutional entitlement no matter how weird the hermeneutics has just about evaporated in the withering heat of advocates of guns such as you. Why is it that the advocates of gun rights tend to be those who make me least confident in the ability of gun owners to be responsible? Is it just me?

I think it is just you, I am reasonable, I have no problem with background checks as long as nothing is recorded. No gun registration. I have no problem with training classes to make sure they people that own the weapons know how to use them. I have a problem with the government telling me what I can own. While confiscating a portion of my pay to support people that have no desire to support themselves.

You have to be on a register to vote, to drive, to travel abroad, to fill a prescription, to pay taxes, to collect social security, to pay rent, utilities or mortgages, but a gun register scares the ___t out you. You might want to use your va benfits for a check up. Irrational fears manifest themselves in many ways and usually cause problems.

The snap program goes to people who are working and taking care of themselves, it is merely an assist and costs you next to nothing.

I look forward to the new straw purchase prosecutions of gun buyers and runners. 20 years in prison for dealing death is mild. Any responsible gun owner would want a registry to prove they are responsible. Guns used in crimes traced back to irresponsable gun owners won't affect the responsible owners one iota. Lawsuits and criminal prosecution of the irresponsible owners helps the responsible owners distinguish themselves from the nuts.[unless you are a gun nut, then I understand the fear of being found out]. The mother of the shady hook massacre perpatrator was irresponsible. Had she faced a possible prison sentence and civil litigation, not to mention loss of custody she might have secured her toys.

The US has the lowest tax burden of any of the advanced countries, it has the biggest military expense in the world, republicans have never wanted to pay for anything since reagan. GHW tried to correct that ignorant path, Clinton succeeded, then the criminal 5 subverted the constitution and delivered the country lock, stock, and barrel to their cohorts.

What Are Some Characteristics of SNAP Beneficiaries?

In 2010, about three out of four SNAP households included a child, a person age 60 or older, or a disabled person. Most people who received SNAP benefits lived in households with very low income, about $8,800 per year on average in that year. The average monthly SNAP benefit per household was $287, or $4.30 per person per day. On average, SNAP benefits boosted gross monthly income by 39 percent for all participating households and by 45 percent for households with children.

The homeless don't get snap as far as I know. If you are living in your car you don't qualify, too much assets. [their car is registered, their guns are not]

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote firearm owner:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:How does taking forty percent of income benefit to me? Yes we need to pay for the post offices roads military and a few other things, I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with food, housing, cell phones, transportation, college, vacations, drugs and everything else we give to the protected class through the welfare system that I will never use or qualify to access. I am taking about Americans that are dependant on the government hand outs not what you progressives call corporate welfare.
It really doesn't matter what YOU think is constitutional because YOU can't think through what it means when the Constitution says it will promote and provide for the general welfare. It's just not one of your imaginary "18 jobs".

Yes it says promote and provide for the general welfare, but they ment for everyone equally not just the people they think deserves the fruits of my labor.

Really? You KNOW what "general welfare" means? Show us. Oh, that's right. You don't need to show credible sources. We're all to trust in your delusions of infallibility.

BTW how many times do I have to ask you where in your scheme of what the Constitution stands for falls Madison's high priority in the FIRST Congress to tax seamen to create a system of federal hospitals for them? Which of your "18 jobs" does this fall under? And surely this is redistribution of wealth since not all would receive those services.

And pray tell Einstein.... if We The People have pissed away some 15 TRILLION on ourselves the past 30 years that we REFUSED TO TAX OURSELVES FOR.... how much of what we spend is YOUR labor? We are the Free Lunch generation... and are oblivious to how we are partying at our kid's and grand kid's expense. And right wingers are more spoiled rotten than the rest of us. They've also been getting the free lunch yet they actually whine they're overtaxed.

Grow up FO. You make me sick.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote firearm owner:

I think it is just you, I am reasonable, I have no problem with background checks as long as nothing is recorded. No gun registration. I have no problem with training classes to make sure they people that own the weapons know how to use them. I have a problem with the government telling me what I can own. While confiscating a portion of my pay to support people that have no desire to support themselves.

Pray tell... where is there ANY constitutional protection against gun registration? Fear of registration is an issue with gun nut paranoids. So how is your paranoia "reasonable"?

Never mind. This thread is about taxing the rich.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote firearm owner:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:.....and everything else we give to the protected class through the welfare system that I will never use or qualify to access.
It's difficult to imagine you'd qualify, but didn't you claim you were in the Marines?

So how much will I be paying for YOUR VA care?

Yes I was in the Marines and right now I do not see it costing you one dime.

You mean there was NO cost to ANY taxpayers for you're being in the Marines? And there'll be no cost to ANY taxpayer if you get any GI benefits, use the VA medical services, or get some sort of pension or disability?

Ya right. Our needlessly large military is one of the biggest expenses in the budget... and to you it doesn't matter because as we know... the Right isn't against pissing away money on maintaining a world-wide military presence or on their corporate buddies. It's against spending money on things they don't approve of.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

And there is no way of cutting government spending? Bullshit!

  1. The federal government made at least $72 billion in improper payments in 2008.[1]
  2. Washington spends $92 billion on corporate welfare (excluding TARP) versus $71 billion on homeland security.[2]
  3. Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties.[3]
  4. Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them -- costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually -- fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.[4]
  5. The Congressional Budget Office published a "Budget Options" series identifying more than $100 billion in potential spending cuts.[5]
  6. Examples from multiple Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports of wasteful duplication include 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 safe water programs.[6]
  7. Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.[7]
  8. A GAO audit classified nearly half of all purchases on government credit cards as improper, fraudulent, or embezzled. Examples of taxpayer-funded purchases include gambling, mortgage payments, liquor, lingerie, iPods, Xboxes, jewelry, Internet dating services, and Hawaiian vacations. In one extraordinary example, the Postal Service spent $13,500 on one dinner at a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, including "over 200 appetizers and over $3,000 of alcohol, including more than 40 bottles of wine costing more than $50 each and brand-name liquor such as Courvoisier, Belvedere and Johnny Walker Gold." The 81 guests consumed an average of $167 worth of food and drink apiece.[8]
  9. Federal agencies are delinquent on nearly 20 percent of employee travel charge cards, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually.[9]
  10. The Securities and Exchange Commission spent $3.9 million rearranging desks and offices at its Washington, D.C., headquarters.[10]
  11. The Pentagon recently spent $998,798 shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas and $293,451 sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida.[11]
  12. Over half of all farm subsidies go to commercial farms, which report average household incomes of $200,000.[12]
  13. Health care fraud is estimated to cost taxpayers more than $60 billion annually.[13]
  14. A GAO audit found that 95 Pentagon weapons systems suffered from a combined $295 billion in cost overruns.[14]
  15. The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers $146 million annually in flight upgrades.[15]
  16. Washington will spend $126 million in 2009 to enhance the Kennedy family legacy in Massachusetts. Additionally, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) diverted $20 million from the 2010 defense budget to subsidize a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute.[16]
  17. Federal investigators have launched more than 20 criminal fraud investigations related to the TARP financial bailout.[17]
  18. Despite trillion-dollar deficits, last year's 10,160 earmarks included $200,000 for a tattoo removal program in Mission Hills, California; $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming; and $75,000 for the Totally Teen Zone in Albany, Georgia.[18]
  19. The federal government owns more than 50,000 vacant homes.[19]
  20. The Federal Communications Commission spent $350,000 to sponsor NASCAR driver David Gilliland.[20]
  21. Members of Congress have spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars supplying their offices with popcorn machines, plasma televisions, DVD equipment, ionic air fresheners, camcorders, and signature machines -- plus $24,730 leasing a Lexus, $1,434 on a digital camera, and $84,000 on personalized calendars.[21]
  22. More than $13 billion in Iraq aid has been classified as wasted or stolen. Another $7.8 billioncannot be accounted for.[22]
  23. Fraud related to Hurricane Katrina spending is estimated to top $2 billion. In addition, debit cards provided to hurricane victims were used to pay for Caribbean vacations, NFL tickets, Dom Perignon champagne, "Girls Gone Wild" videos, and at least one sex change operation.[23]
  24. Auditors discovered that 900,000 of the 2.5 million recipients of emergency Katrina assistance provided false names, addresses, or Social Security numbers or submitted multiple applications.[24]
  25. Congress recently gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon on a Boeing 737.[25]
  26. The Transportation Department will subsidize up to $2,000 per flight for direct flights between Washington, D.C., and the small hometown of Congressman Hal Rogers (R-KY) -- but only on Monday mornings and Friday evenings, when lawmakers, staff, and lobbyists usually fly. Rogers is a member of the Appropriations Committee, which writes the Transportation Department's budget.[26]
  27. Washington has spent $3 billion re-sanding beaches -- even as this new sand washes back into the ocean.[27]
  28. A Department of Agriculture report concedes that much of the $2.5 billion in "stimulus" funding for broadband Internet will be wasted.[28]
  29. The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were refundable.[29]
  30. Washington spends $60,000 per hour shooting Air Force One photo-ops in front of national landmarks.[30]
  31. Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 on admission to entertainment events, $48,250 on gambling,$69,300 on cruises, and $73,950 on exotic dance clubs and prostitutes.[31]
  32. Members of Congress are set to pay themselves $90 million to increase their franked mailings for the 2010 election year.[32]
  33. Congress has ignored efficiency recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services that would save $9 billion annually.[33]
  34. Taxpayers are funding paintings of high-ranking government officials at a cost of up to $50,000 apiece.[34]
  35. The state of Washington sent $1 food stamp checks to 250,000 households in order to raise state caseload figures and trigger $43 million in additional federal funds.[35]
  36. Suburban families are receiving large farm subsidies for the grass in their backyards -- subsidies that many of these families never requested and do not want. [36]
  37. Congress appropriated $20 million for "commemoration of success" celebrations related to Iraq and Afghanistan.[37]
  38. Homeland Security employee purchases include 63-inch plasma TVs, iPods, and $230 for a beer brewing kit.[38]
  39. Two drafting errors in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act resulted in a $2 billion taxpayer cost.[39]
  40. North Ridgeville, Ohio, received $800,000 in "stimulus" funds for a project that its mayor described as "a long way from the top priority."[40]
  41. The National Institutes of Health spends $1.3 million per month to rent a lab that it cannot use.[41]
  42. Congress recently spent $2.4 billion on 10 new jets that the Pentagon insists it does not need and will not use.[42]
  43. Lawmakers diverted $13 million from Hurricane Katrina relief spending to build a museum celebrating the Army Corps of Engineers -- the agency partially responsible for the failed levees that flooded New Orleans.[43]
  44. Medicare officials recently mailed $50 million in erroneous refunds to 230,000 Medicare recipients.[44]
  45. Audits showed $34 billion worth of Department of Homeland Security contracts contained significant waste, fraud, and abuse.[45]
  46. Washington recently spent $1.8 million to help build a private golf course in Atlanta, Georgia.[46]
  47. The Advanced Technology Program spends $150 million annually subsidizing private businesses; 40 percent of this funding goes to Fortune 500 companies.[47]
  48. Congressional investigators were able to receive $55,000 in federal student loan funding for a fictional college they created to test the Department of Education.[48]
  49. The Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually not to farm their land.[49]
  50. The Commerce Department has lost 1,137 computers since 2001, many containing Americans' personal data.[50]
  51. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/10/50-examples-of-government-waste
darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am

http://pontificus.com/tag/government-inefficiency/

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

And there is no way of cutting government spending? Bullshit!

RED HERRING ALERT: I don't know anyone here who has said there can't be spending cuts. But what I DO see here is people you YOU Dar, complain that there should be no REVENUE increases.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Repeat again for the mentally challenged peepot!

FROM POST #2;

ME, "Yes, poly, the rich should be paying more in taxes. Wonder what % of his income and wealth Asner pays?"

WTF do you not understasnd about that, you effin stawman poster? That is all peepot can do is post strawman crap. Moonbats like Asner, Moore, Soros, Buffet, etc are HYPOCRITS, like you, pisspot!

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Repeat again for the mentally challenged peepot!

FROM POST #2;

ME, "Yes, poly, the rich should be paying more in taxes. Wonder what % of his income and wealth Asner pays?"

WTF do you not understasnd about that, you effin stawman poster? That is all peepot can do is post strawman crap. Moonbats like Asner, Moore, Soros, Buffet, etc are HYPOCRITS, like you, pisspot!

Oops... Sorry. I did read that but must have considered your right wing claim taxing the rich would accomplish nothing... and your refusal to acknowledge that income tax revenues in real dollars have been BELOW Clinton's last year for 12 years... AND your insistence we must cut spending... as more of typical Tax Crackpot positions. Oh, and NOTHING about pissing away about 450 BILLION on interest last year? Compared to that everything on your list is peanuts. Why aren't you asking why the Right NEVER seems to talk about interest? It totaled 2.9 TRILLION during Bush's 8 years.

But where have YOU proved anyone here was against ALL spending cuts? THAT, Fluffy, was the red herring.

Just because you spew accusations doesn't mean their true.

As to where I've been a hypocrite... that's another red herring.

Gee... Dar, that's two unfounded accusations.

Try taking some responsibility for YOUR blather sometime. Or is that something only those on the Left do?

I won't hold my breath waiting.

BTW, just what IS your position on more revenues beside wanting the rich to pay some unstated amount more... which you claim will NOT help the deficit? Is there any reason one should take this ONE revenue increase as ANY indication you really favor substantially more revenue?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:How does takingforty percent of income benefit to me? Yes we need to pay for the post offices roads military and a few other things, I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with food, housing, cell phones, transportation, college, vacations, drugs and everything else we give to the protected class through the welfare system that I will never use or qualify to access. I am taking about Americans that are dependant on the government hand outs not what you progressives call corporate welfare.
It really doesn't matter what YOU think is constitutional because YOU can't think through what it means when the Constitution says it will promote and provide for the general welfare. It's just not one of your imaginary "18 jobs".

Yes it says promote and provide for the general welfare, but they ment for everyone equally not just the people they think deserves the fruits of my labor.

Really? You KNOW what "general welfare" means? Show us. Oh, that's rightYoudon't need to show credible sources. We're all to trust in your delusions of infallibility.

BTW how many times do I have to ask you where in your scheme of what the Constitution stands for falls Madison's high priority in the FIRST Congress to tax seamen to create a system of federal hospitals for them? Which of your "18 jobs" does this fall under? And surely this is redistribution of wealth since not all would receive those services.

And pray tell Einstein.... if We The People have pissed away some 15 TRILLION on ourselves the past 30 years that we REFUSED TO TAX OURSELVES FOR.... how much of what we spend is YOUR labor? We are the Free Lunch generation... and are oblivious to how we are partying at our kid's and grand kid's expense. And right wingers are more spoiled rotten than the rest of us. They've also been getting the free lunch yet they actually whine they're overtaxed.

Grow up FO. You make me sick.

Let's look at the marine time hospital bill that was past. The merchant marines and the cost guard were the ones using the hospitals that they were paying for out of their labor. The constitution also states that the federal government has to raise and support the army and the navy. Well the coast guard was is now part of the military. So the military members that used the hospitals also paid for them.

The average welfare recipient today does not pay for the services they use, Because they pay no federal taxes.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am
Quote douglaslee:
Quote firearm owner:
Quote drc2:

FO, once again my moderation and desire to come to a reasonable and sane gun safety public policy where we listen to responsible gun owners and bend over backwards to protect the sense of constitutional entitlement no matter how weird the hermeneutics has just about evaporated in the withering heat of advocates of guns such as you. Why is it that the advocates of gun rights tend to be those who make me least confident in the ability of gun owners to be responsible? Is it just me?

I think it is just you, I am reasonable, I have no problem with background checks as long as nothing is recorded. No gun registration. I have no problem with training classes to make sure they people that own the weapons know how to use them. I have a problem with the government telling me what I can own. While confiscating a portion of my pay to support people that have no desire to support themselves.

You have to be on a register to vote, to drive, to travel abroad, to fill a prescription, to pay taxes, to collect social security, to pay rent, utilities or mortgages, but a gun register scares the ___t out you. You might want to use your va benfits for a check up. Irrational fears manifest themselves in many ways and usually cause problems.

The snap program goes to people who are working and taking care of themselves, it is merely an assist and costs you next to nothing.

I look forward to the new straw purchase prosecutions of gun buyers and runners. 20 years in prison for dealing death is mild. Any responsible gun owner would want a registry to prove they are responsible. Guns used in crimes traced back to irresponsable gun owners won't affect the responsible owners one iota. Lawsuits and criminal prosecution of the irresponsible owners helps the responsible owners distinguish themselves from the nuts.[unless you are a gun nut, then I understand the fear of being found out]. The mother of the shady hook massacre perpatrator was irresponsible. Had she faced a possible prison sentence and civil litigation, not to mention loss of custody she might have secured her toys.

The US has the lowest tax burden of any of the advanced countries, it has the biggest military expense in the world, republicans have never wanted to pay for anything since reagan. GHW tried to correct that ignorant path, Clinton succeeded, then the criminal 5 subverted the constitution and delivered the country lock, stock, and barrel to their cohorts.

What Are Some Characteristics of SNAP Beneficiaries?

In 2010, about three out of four SNAP households included a child, a person age 60 or older, or a disabled person. Most people who received SNAP benefits lived in households with very low income, about $8,800 per year on average in that year. The average monthly SNAP benefit per household was $287, or $4.30 per person per day. On average, SNAP benefits boosted gross monthly income by 39 percent for all participating households and by 45 percent for households with children.

The homeless don't get snap as far as I know. If you are living in your car you don't qualify, too much assets. [their car is registered, their guns are not]

How did hilter use the gun registry?

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am
Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:.....and everything else we give to the protected class through the welfare system that I will never use or qualify to access.
It's difficult to imagine you'd qualify, but didn't you claim you were in the Marines?

So how much will I be paying for YOUR VA care?

Yes I was in the Marines and right now I do not see it costing you one dime.

You mean there was NO cost to ANY taxpayers for you're being in the Marines? And there'll be no cost to ANY taxpayer if you get any GI benefits, use the VA medical services, or get some sort of pension or disability?

Ya right. Our needlessly large military is one of the biggest expenses in the budget... and to you it doesn't matter because as we know... the Right isn't against pissing away money on maintaining a world-wide military presence or on their corporate buddies. It's against spending money on things they don't approve of.

You asked how much my va was going to cost you, I am not currently on nor do I see me using any va services in the near future. So you will not be paying one dime towards my va benefits

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am

Had the Clinton tax rates been kept, and the scotus not stole the election, Gore would have listened to the PDB, no 9/11, no wars, entire national debt paid in full by 2010, as calculated by the CBO. No debt means no interest or 450 billion in cash each year just from being responsible and paying for what you spend. You could blame the whole mess on Sandy [Day O'conner], she admitted the reasoning on accepting the Bush v Gore was specious, meaning it shouldn't have been heard or adjudicated, the SCOFL should not have been over ruled. The 5 criminals were all republican appointees, republicans killed the economy, the constitution, the rule of law, and leeched the middle class into poverty.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

How can you claim that MORE revenue will HELP REDUCE even the deficit (forget the debt) IF spending continues to increase as it always has? YOUR claims are baseless. When and where have any significant and meaningful reductions in spending EVER taken place? Just because you spew accusations doen't mean they are true either. Your delusions of grandeur do not make your stawman arguments valid.

Do you think there is any way that taxing the rich will solve the deficit? At some rate of taxtion the rich will merely move or shift their income which would reduce actual revenues. Then what have you done? Explain how much YOU would tax the rich (or even incomes over $100,000) and significantly reduce the deficit.

Who do you think specifically gets paid that $450 billion in interest?

Ospender has no real plans to cut spending. His plan was just another redistribution scam and to pay off his political supporters. Government spending has been proven to be ineffective.

How much have we gotten for the 100's of biliions spent on education over the last 20 years? Test scores have risen zero.

How effective has the billions spent on the war on drugs been?

How about healthcare spending? Do Americans live longer? Nope. Chileans live longer. LOL

How about the $8 TRILLION spent on defense, homeland security, and the illegal, immoral, unConstitutional wars? Are we safer? The Pentagon's budget cannot even be audited. And have admitted that as much as $2.6 TRILLION cannot even be accounted for. Billions has gone missing in Iraq.

Government spending kills capital. Why economic growth been sluggish at best? Why do we jump from one financial crisis to another? Because the government controls, mismanages, and misallocates more and more economic resources. And yet, the moonbats constantly call for more government control and spending.

The middleclass gets screwed in the process.

The list I cited was just some examples of government waste and fraud and was NOT, as YOU stated, peanuts. If those "peanuts" were eliminated, would it not help reduce the deficit?

Taxing the rich more to a point will help but Ospenders redistribution scam will NOT work. SPENDING must be cut. Starting with waste and fraud in military, medicare and medicaid.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am
  1. The federal government made at least $72 billion in improper payments in 2008.[1]
  2. Washington spends $92 billion on corporate welfare (excluding TARP) versus $71 billion on homeland security.[2]
  3. Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties.[3]
  4. Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them -- costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually -- fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.[4]
  5. The Congressional Budget Office published a "Budget Options" series identifying more than $100 billion in potential spending cuts.[5] . . . etc., etc. etc
Copied and pasted straight from The Heritage Foundation
Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Actually here is a link with a chart.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/05/a-scary-graph...

Learn to read, and work on your comprehension skills.

The US cut spending after the War in Vietnam ended, and cut spending after the 1990 Budget Control Act went into effect in, and Clinton stuck to it.

All the big spending increases come in the 1981 - 1991, and 2001 - 2009.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote firearm owner:
Quote Pierpont:

BTW how many times do I have to ask you where in your scheme of what the Constitution stands for falls Madison's high priority in the FIRST Congress to tax seamen to create a system of federal hospitals for them? Which of your "18 jobs" does this fall under? And surely this is redistribution of wealth since not all would receive those services.

Let's look at the marine time hospital bill that was past. The merchant marines and the cost guard were the ones using the hospitals that they were paying for out of their labor. The constitution also states that the federal government has to raise and support the army and the navy. Well the coast guard was is now part of the military. So the military members that used the hospitals also paid for them. The average welfare recipient today does not pay for the services they use, Because they pay no federal taxes.

What in god's name are you babbling about? Madison was pushing for a bill for disabled seamen... not disabled Navy or Coast Guard men. This has NOTHING to do with Congress's power to raise an army or navy. There is NO specific power for what Madison proposed. Yet it eventually passed. So was it unconstitutional? We had a long discussion about this last year... and the congressional record doesn't provide enough information... at least not yet. We all burnt out on that debate. But we can DEDUCE from where it derived its constitutionality. I believe it was covered by Congress's power to tax to provide for the general welfare. No one came up with a better theory.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

How can you claim that MORE revenue will HELP REDUCE even the deficit (forget the debt) IF spending continues to increase as it always has? YOUR claims are baseless. When and where have any significant and meaningful reductions in spending EVER taken place? Just because you spew accusations doen't mean they are true either. Your delusions of grandeur do not make your stawman arguments valid.

Thanks for proving my point. I screwed up and no matter how much it pained me to apologize to someone I have no respect for... I did. You, on the other hand DO believe you can make all the false and unsupported allegations you want and even when they're brought to your attention REFUSE to retract or apologize... but then go on to make more accusations.

No doubt this is your idea of an intelligent debate. The World According to Dar per the slabs she was handed on the mountain by the burning bush is she can invent her own facts, make all the false accusations she wants, and no one dare challenge her.

Who really has delusions of infallibility here, uh Toots?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote firearm owner:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:.....and everything else we give to the protected class through the welfare system that I will never use or qualify to access.
It's difficult to imagine you'd qualify, but didn't you claim you were in the Marines?

So how much will I be paying for YOUR VA care?

Yes I was in the Marines and right now I do not see it costing you one dime.

But YOUR standard was

Quote firearm owner:

How does taking forty percent of income benefit to me? Yes we need to pay for the post offices roads military and a few other things, I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with food, housing, cell phones, transportation, college, vacations, drugs and everything else we give to the protected class through the welfare system that I will never use or qualify to access. I am taking about Americans that are dependent on the government hand outs not what you progressives call corporate welfare.

So what if I believe that when the government hired you... using taxpayer money, it wasn't for a job I and perhaps MILLIONS of taxpayers did NOT want taxpayer money spent on? If Bush was not such a war monger who broke the military with his illegal invasion of Iraq, we might not have "needed" you... and that money could have been saved. The assumption that underlies your posts is that OF COURSE we needed to spend taxpayer money on YOU and what YOU want. But then YOU can decide who can NOT get such money.

Since when are YOU the only judge of what taxpayer money should be spent on?

So: DIRECT QUESTION: what did YOU do while in the Marines that EVERY taxpayer would agree was worth the money we spent on you?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:.....and everything else we give to the protected class through the welfare system that I will never use or qualify to access.
It's difficult to imagine you'd qualify, but didn't you claim you were in the Marines?

So how much will I be paying for YOUR VA care?

Yes I was in the Marines and right now I do not see it costing you one dime.

But YOUR standard was

Quote firearm owner:

How does taking forty percent of income benefit to me? Yes we need to pay for the post offices roads military and a few other things, I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with food, housing, cell phones, transportation, college, vacations, drugs and everything else we give to the protected class through the welfare system that I will never use or qualify to access. I am taking about Americans that are dependent on the government hand outs not what you progressives call corporate welfare.

So what if I believe that when the government hired you... using taxpayer money, it wasn't for a job I and perhaps MILLIONS of taxpayers did NOT want taxpayer money spent on? If Bush was not such a war monger who broke the military with his illegal invasion of Iraq, we might not have "needed" you... and that money could have been saved. The assumption that underlies your posts is that OF COURSE we needed to spend taxpayer money on YOU and what YOU want. But then YOU can decide who can NOT get such money.

Since when are YOU the only judge of what taxpayer money should be spent on?

So: DIRECT QUESTION: what did YOU do while in the Marines that EVERY taxpayer would agree was worth the money we spent on you?

I want the federal government to spend the money on the items in article one section eight of the constitution and that is all. If they want to provide welfare charge the people that use it for the use of it.

I was in the marines long before the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan that congress approved. However the marines are a department of the navy so they are a constitutionally mandated military force that has been in existence since nov 10 1775.

I could say it is none of your business but I have not problem with you knowing what I did in the marines, I started out as a field wireman, a mechanic, a radio operator,a m60 machine gunner, and a scout sniper.

So again how does taking a large portion of my labor to support those unwilling to support themselves help me?

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am
Quote firearm owner:

So again how does taking a large portion of my labor to support those unwilling to support themselves help me?

Kaiser Wilhelm I was the first to realize that in the absence of a decent and just society, the people will listen to rabble rousers like Thomas Paine, Robespierre and Karl Marx. The rich and powerful, those who have much, have an incentive to avoid mobs of desperately poor people from deciding they are done with being oppressed by a tyrannical government that fails to address their basic needs. So the Kaiser instituted the welfare state in Germany in the 1870's - 1900 era. It worked quite nicely for the Germans.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:
Quote Pierpont:

BTW how many times do I have to ask you where in your scheme of what the Constitution stands for falls Madison's high priority in the FIRST Congress to tax seamen to create a system of federal hospitals for them? Which of your "18 jobs" does this fall under? And surely this is redistribution of wealth since not all would receive those services.

Let's look at the marine time hospital bill that was past. The merchant marines and the cost guard were the ones using the hospitals that they were paying for out of their labor. The constitution also states that the federal government has to raise and support the army and the navy. Well the coast guard was is now part of the military. So the military members that used the hospitals also paid for them. The average welfare recipient today does not pay for the services they use, Because they pay no federal taxes.

What in god's name are you babbling about? Madison was pushing for a bill for disabled seamen... not disabled Navy or Coast Guard men. This has NOTHING to do with Congress's power to raise an army or navy. There is NO specific power for what Madison proposed. Yet it eventually passed. So was it unconstitutional? We had a long discussion about this last year... and the congressional record doesn't provide enough information... at least not yet. We all burnt out on that debate. But we can DEDUCE from where it derived its constitutionality. I believe it was covered by Congress's power to tax to provide for the general welfare. No one came up with a better theory.

You really do not understand what the bill was, it was for merchant marines which are sailors and dock workers and the coast guard. Under war time conditions the merchant marines are pressed into military service for the good of the nation and the coast guard is well the coast guard. Read the bill before you make a fool of yourself.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am

Joe Kennedy said that he would gladly give up half his wealth if he could keep the other half. The mob takes care of its soldiers and their families, and wins the loyalty of those who give up their lives to keep the system working. This does not require saintly virtues to perceive the self-interest involved in feeding the Golden Goose instead of cooking it.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:
Quote firearm owner:

So again how does taking a large portion of my labor to support those unwilling to support themselves help me?

Kaiser Wilhelm I was the first to realize that in the absence of a decent and just society, the people will listen to rabble rousers like Thomas Paine, Robespierre and Karl Marx. The rich and powerful, those who have much, have an incentive to avoid mobs of desperately poor people from deciding they are done with being oppressed by a tyrannical government that fails to address their basic needs. So the Kaiser instituted the welfare state in Germany in the 1870's - 1900 era. It worked quite nicely for the Germans.

That system ended up with massive inflation that lead to the rise of the Nazi's what a good system.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am
Quote drc2:

Joe Kennedy said that he would gladly give up half his wealth if he could keep the other half. The mob takes care of its soldiers and their families, and wins the loyalty of those who give up their lives to keep the system working. This does not require saintly virtues to perceive the self-interest involved in feeding the Golden Goose instead of cooking it.

He was talking about charity not government confiscation

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am

Huh! You really want to post crap like this, FO? You want us to ignore everything that happened between Kaiser Wilhelm I and Hitler? Egad, come back when you have something.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

SO WHAT? Can Art disprove any of those numbers or just that it did not come from a moonbat source? Are you naive enough to believe that there is no waste and fraud and misspending by the government? What the hell is your point, Art?

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am
Quote drc2:

Huh! You really want to post crap like this, FO? You want us to ignore everything that happened between Kaiser Wilhelm I and Hitler? Egad, come back when you have something.

Like I asked before what direct benefit do I receive? The welfare recipient receives food, housing, cell phones, money for vacations, illegal drugs, they get their whole life handed to them. What direct benefit do I receive, do I receive cheaper food? No cheaper housing? No a free cell phone? No so again what direct benefit do I receive for sacraficibg a chuck of my labor to support them. Other than seeing some one live better than me off of my labor.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am

Again, more strawman bullshit from pisspot. I stand by my assertions in post #33. Peepot did not or could not answer any of those questions I posed and can't prove any of them false, so as usual, he resorted to his standard strawman rants.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 9:27 am
Quote firearm owner:
Quote Pierpont:

So what if I believe that when the government hired you... using taxpayer money, it wasn't for a job I and perhaps MILLIONS of taxpayers did NOT want taxpayer money spent on? If Bush was not such a war monger who broke the military with his illegal invasion of Iraq, we might not have "needed" you... and that money could have been saved. The assumption that underlies your posts is that OF COURSE we needed to spend taxpayer money on YOU and what YOU want. But then YOU can decide who can NOT get such money.

Since when are YOU the only judge of what taxpayer money should be spent on?

So: DIRECT QUESTION: what did YOU do while in the Marines that EVERY taxpayer would agree was worth the money we spent on you?

I want the federal government to spend the money on the items in article one section eight of the constitution and that is all. If they want to provide welfare charge the people that use it for the use of it.

I was in the marines long before the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan that congress approved. However the marines are a department of the navy so they are a constitutionally mandated military force that has been in existence since nov 10 1775.

Of course you EVADED the question. If you believe that YOU should have some right to approve what your tax dollars go towards... then others have that same right and many might believe we wasted taxpayer money on YOU. In reality YOU have HAVE been a major expense to the taxpayers. Do you think your training, housing, equipment, pay, etc were FREE?

Your justification that OF COURSE, money should be spent on you is weak. Yes there's congressional authority to create a military. But the authority to use it is limited. Or maybe not.

Like "general welfare"... a concept YOU want to have strict limits on... "common defense" is also opened ended. Many believe it does NOT include authority to expend the meaning of "common defense" to every corner of the globe... or to outspend nearly every other nation COMBINED on our military.

Sorry FO... by your own standard you were one of those "takers" living off the fruits of the taxpayer's wages... and no doubt you will be eligible for benefits which we also will have to pay for.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote firearm owner trying to bluff his way out of his mess:

You really do not understand what the bill was, it was for merchant marines which are sailors and dock workers and the coast guard. Under war time conditions the merchant marines are pressed into military service for the good of the nation and the coast guard is well the coast guard. Read the bill before you make a fool of yourself.

You can't help making a fool of YOURSELF, can you FO? Unfortunately you'll learn nothing from your bluff. You'll find some other way to protect your fragile ego... or your obvious laziness to actually do some research into what you claim. I can't wait to see what lame excuse you come up with.

Here's the ENTIRE 1798 bill that passed... there is NO reference to coast guard, the navy, war or any of those other terms you think you can use to pin this to Congress's power to create a military. It's the nation's first mandated health care system for CIVILIANS. I ask AGAIN... where did Congress find the authority to start this program where we can see it have NOTHING to do with the military?

1798.CHAP. [94.] An Act For The Relief Of Sick And Disabled Seamen.

§ 1. Be it enacted, Sfc. That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the number of seamen that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States, and shall pay, to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed ; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.

§ 2. That from and after the first day of September next, no collector shall grant to any ship or vessel whose enrollment or license for carrying on the coasting trade has expired, a new enrollment or license, before the master of such ship or vessel shall first render a true account to the collector, of the number of seamen, and the time they have severally been employed on board such ship or vessel, during the continuance of the license which has so expired, and pay to such collector twenty cents per month for every month such seamen have been severally employed asafore said; which sum the said master is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen. And if any such master shall render a false account of the number of men, and the length of time they have severally been employed, as is herein required, he shall forfeit and pay one hundred dollars.

§ 3. That it shall be the duty of the several collectors to make a quarterly return of the sums collected by them, respectively, by virtue of this act, to the secretary of the treasury; and the president of the United States is hereby authorized, out of the same, to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick, or disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established in the several ports of the United States, or in ports where no such institutions exist, then in such other manner as he shall direct: Provided, that the moneys collected in anyone district, shall be expended within the same.

§4. That if any surplus shall remain of the moneys to be collected by virtue of this act, after defraying the expense of such temporary relief and support, that the same, together with such private donations as may be made for that purpose, (which the president is hereby authorized to receive,) shall be invested in the stock of the United States, under the direction of the president; and when, in his opinion, a sufficient fund shall be accumulated, he is hereby authorized to purchase or receive cessions or donations of ground or buildings, in the name of the United States, and to cause buildings, when necessary, to be erected as hospitals for the accommodation of sick and disabled seamen.

§ 5. That the president of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to nominate and appoint, in such ports of the United States as he may think proper, one or more persons, to be called directors of the marine hospital of the United States, whose duty it shall be to direct the expenditure of the fund assigned for their respective ports, according to the third section of this act; to provide for the accommodation of sick and disabled seamen, under such general instructions as shall be given by the president of the United States for that purpose, and also, subject to the like general instructions, to direct and govern such hospitals, as the president may direct to be built in the respective ports: and that the said directors shall hold their offices during the pleasure of the president, who is authorized to fill up all vacancies that may be occasioned by the death or removal of any of the persons so to be appointed. And the said directors shall render an account of the moneys received and expended by them, once in every quarter of a year, to the secretary of the treasury, or such other person as the president shall direct; but no other allowance or compensation shall be made to the said directors, except the payment of such expenses as they may incur in the actual discharge of the duties required by this act.

Approved, July 16, 1798.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

No, dumbass. The troubles in Germany were not caused by the welfare state, but rather the heavy burdens from Great War reparations. If you are so totally ignorant, don't type.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system