The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Powerful Paintings...

If this was an income tax then why did we need the 16th amendment? The "general welfare of the united states" clearly refers to the country/government upkeep not its citizens. It is clear from the documents that our founders wrote, what they were reading and discussing at the time and their correspondence with each other then and for years afterwards, that they NEVER intended for the government to provide anything other than the security for its citizens to live free and take care of themselves.

I have no problem paying taxes to pay for infrastructure and defense. Someone in D.C., who is supposed to be working for me, takes my time and hard word to give to someone else so that he can continue to get elected, THAT I have a problem with.

But while we're on the "your share" kick. Does this mean that since I'm part of the 51% that pay income tax I get to kick the free loading 49% off of the road and tell them they can't use my roads and breath my air? What a ridiculous argument!

While we may not be suffering from rioting for starvation we are certainly suffering the ill effects, all over the country, of rioting because your ilk want what they haven't earned and isn't theirs and they want Uncle Sam to go take it for them and give it to them.

Alright, here is my offer - you (all of you conservatives) keep your FUD out of general forums, this includes removing all political sigs, and I will stop making you look ignorant in front of your peers.

Do we have a deal?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA You should take that show on the road hoss. You're funny. You've not successfully rebutted a single argument. Sweet dreams there in your fantasy land.

*edit I'm changing my sig right now.

First, and for the unmitigated record, you are an idiot. Pure and simple. The worst part if, you seem to really believe your perspective, so let me help you out scholar of the United States Constitution that you are...

The Commerce Clause states that Congress has the right "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". It has nothing to do with "taxes" beyond establishing tarrifs for commerce.

The Supreme Court has ruled on the congressional power of interstate commerce regulation repeatedly. In a decision from 1918- Hammer v Dagenhart- The court took the position that when goods, services or commerce was used to produce "evil" between states- ie.. rotten food, prostitutes, liquor.. The congress could regulate. The court said in each instance that the weight of the permissible regulation was based on the weight of the issue.

In Katzenbach v. McClung- 1964, the Court found that Congress can have regulatory right over local business if that business effects interstate trade. Again..dealing with interstate commerce and trade.

The Commerce Clause conitnues to be a major issue with the country and the Supreme Court, which has changed rulings on it about 25 times and I expect there will be more. It is terrible the way congress attempts to slide things under the Commerce Clause, much the same way your trying to, and then expect people to consume it like tripe.

And for the record, I am neither a conservative or a liberal.

If it was just simple as raising taxes to cure all the problems most wouldn't have a problem with it.
The problem is taxing more and spending more is not helping.
Look at the education system. Private schools can spend 2k per kid to get the same results as a public school that spends 8k per kid.

Like Jet likes to say 2+2=4.

Nice to see you finally conceding, would be nice if you could do it with more class, but I am not picky.



You are ultra-conservative. Wear it with pride or keep up with denial, ether way it doesn't affect me.

lets be honest Sinij you are poking a bear in the eye on purpose.

LOL..typical responses fromm the un-informed and uneducated button pusher. Can you do me a favor, if you are in-deed in my country, can you please exit, north or south.

I knew there would be no decent responses, since you have yet to be able to adequately explain any of your points. Basically, I suggest you just enjoy pushing buttons, and you have zero clue about anything worthwhile.

My estimation of your intelligence stands I'm afraid.

HAHA...Helemoto, we came to the same conclusion around the same moment..to funny. LOL

You do realize that constitutionality (or lack of thereof) of entitlement programs has nothing to do with taxes? One is question 'can we'/'should we', another is 'how would we'.

This not so fine distinction that baffles our raging friends is that they could not wrap their heads around legality/constitutionality of entitlement programs. They hate this normal and expected aspect of the government function so much that they would rather try to claim illegality than debate the issue. So much loaded language, so much rage. Delicious.

When you say "all our problems" I assume you refer to deficit, and yes raising taxes from historic lows should be part of the solution. Other part should be cutting spending, and yes entitlement programs, defense spending and many other 'sacred cows' should be reduced (but never eliminated!). Until you doing both - cutting spending and increasing taxes you are only dealing with half-measures and/or unevenly distribute burden of cuts.

You don't get to pick and choose. You pay your taxes and then elect people to direct priorities. If they spend all your tax money on hookers and blow, well you should have voted better, but you still got to pay.