Put Your Money where Your Mouth Is!

[Wild Cobra]

Well, time and time again, I see liberals who want to add programs, raise taxes to fund projects, etc. Well, I say why should we pay more. Those of you who like all the government we have, then I say, go ahead. Pay for it:

Treasury Direct (https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454)

[boutons_deux]

As a "person-as-corporation", I consider any such donation to be tax-deductible as business expense, just like a "corporation-as-person". corporation = person, right?

[ElNono]

I do it every year and you do too, unless evading taxes is your thing...

[Wild Cobra]

I do it every year and you do too, unless evading taxes is your thing...
The link I gave allows you to pay more to the government than taxes owed. If you really want some of these programs that will cost tax payers more, then lead the way. Start now, paying extra money to our treasury. Show us you are willing to.

[SouthernFried]

As a "person-as-corporation", I consider any such donation to be tax-deductible as business expense, just like a "corporation-as-person". corporation = person, right?

Do you even know how this works?

Methinks it will require a google search on your part. After you've done your homework, get back to us.

[SouthernFried]

Well, time and time again, I see liberals who want to add programs, raise taxes to fund projects, etc. Well, I say why should we pay more. Pay for it:

Treasury Direct (https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454)


I do it every year and you do too, unless evading taxes is your thing...

I think it was quite obvious in the OP, that he was talking about continuously adding programs and raising taxes. Not paying or evading current ones. And his point is more than valid...YOUR the one who wants to add MORE, so YOU should be the ones who pay for it.

Personally, I want less...and I am more than willing to take the lessened tax burden that goes with it.

You want MORE, so YOU should be willing to take the increased tax burden that goes with that.

Fair is fair...and I'm all about fairness here.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think it was quite obvious in the OP, that he was talking about continuously adding programs and raising taxes. Not paying or evading current ones. And his point is more than valid...YOUR the one who wants to add MORE, so YOU should be the ones who pay for it.

Personally, I want less...and I am more than willing to take the lessened tax burden that goes with it.

You want MORE, so YOU should be willing to take the increased tax burden that goes with that.

Fair is fair...and I'm all about fairness here.

I agree, we should all pay in proporation to what we make and own. You own 1% of the assets in the country then you pay 1% of the total tax burden. You make alot you pay alot.. thanks guys for finally buying in. Fair is fair

[ElNono]

I think it was quite obvious in the OP, that he was talking about continuously adding programs and raising taxes. Not paying or evading current ones. And his point is more than valid...YOUR the one who wants to add MORE, so YOU should be the ones who pay for it.

Personally, I want less...and I am more than willing to take the lessened tax burden that goes with it.

You want MORE, so YOU should be willing to take the increased tax burden that goes with that.

Fair is fair...and I'm all about fairness here.

The link provided is to donate to pay off public debt, not to spend it on other/new programs.
And I certainly will be paying for my part of any of those new programs when they come in my tax bill. So will you. There isn't really an option, is there?

[Wild Cobra]

The link provided is to donate to pay off public debt, not to spend it on other/new programs.
And I certainly will be paying for my part of any of those new programs when they come in my tax bill. So will you. There isn't really an option, is there?
You think it matters? They spend money based on what their ever growing debt limit is. Pay some to the debt, and they can spend more.

[SouthernFried]

I agree, we should all pay in proporation to what we make and own. You own 1% of the assets in the country then you pay 1% of the total tax burden. You make alot you pay alot.. thanks guys for finally buying in. Fair is fair

Hard to debate a person with limited comprehension abilities.

We've been talking about paying for new govt programs and "added" govt tax liabilities. Those that want it should pay for it.

How you swerve that into a case for progressive taxation and paying in proportion to what an individual makes and owns privately...instead of what the OP stated about YOU wanting it, YOU should pay for it...I think is more a case for psychologist, than a political discussion.

But, just for the hell of it...Progressive taxation sucks too.

Thanks for playing.

[ElNono]

You think it matters? They spend money based on what their ever growing debt limit is. Pay some to the debt, and they can spend more.

No, I don't think it matters. That's exactly why I don't start silly threads like this one.

[Wild Cobra]

No, I don't think it matters. That's exactly why I don't start silly threads like this one.
I'm calling your bluff. You know, at least if you are as intelligent as I give you credit for, that I am right. It doesn't need to be a fund for the purpose of supporting government programs. In the end, what matters is the debt limit that congress from time to time has to increase to spend more.

I say you are calling it silly because you have to rational way to disagree with me on this topic.

[Marcus Bryant]

Now all we need is for some white folks to start an 'awareness' campaign for the national debt.

[ElNono]

I'm calling your bluff. You know, at least if you are as intelligent as I give you credit for, that I am right. It doesn't need to be a fund for the purpose of supporting government programs. In the end, what matters is the debt limit that congress from time to time has to increase to spend more.

I say you are calling it silly because you have to rational way to disagree with me on this topic.

I call the entire proposition silly because no matter the mundane amount I would be able to donate, it won't:

A) Start the implementation of any of those new programs
B) Stop congress from increasing the debt limit and keep on spending on those new programs
C) Remove tax liabilities for those that do not donate to contribute in all those programs

I would even go as far as argue that even a non-mundane contribution would still be irrelevant as far as stopping those things.

The thing is, this is far from a partisan issue. One could argue that the vote is your best weapon for this, but that has been largely useless in the last few decades.

And BTW, my propositions have been largely tied to redistributing the way the current budget is spent, not necessarily increasing taxes.

[Wild Cobra]

I call the entire proposition silly because no matter the mundane amount I would be able to donate, it won't:

A) Start the implementation of any of those new programs
B) Stop congress from increasing the debt limit and keep on spending on those new programs
C) Remove tax liabilities for those that do not donate to contribute in all those programs

I would even go as far as argue that even a non-mundane contribution would still be irrelevant as far as stopping those things.

The thing is, this is far from a partisan issue. One could argue that the vote is your best weapon for this, but that has been largely useless in the last few decades.
But if you get 50 million like minded liberals to donate 5% or their wealth, it would make a difference.

And BTW, my propositions have been largely tied to redistributing the way the current budget is spent, not necessarily increasing taxes.
Is that possible?

Everything I see that liberals want to do, will add to the tax burden. Who's going to pay for it if those of you who want the programs don't?

[Marcus Bryant]

Doesn't $700 large to the Pentagon every year add to the burden?

[ElNono]

But if you get 50 million like minded liberals to donate 5% or their wealth, it would make a difference.

As opposed to 'conservatives' that are just as guilty of increasing spending?


Is that possible?
Everything I see that liberals want to do, will add to the tax burden. Who's going to pay for it if those of you who want the programs don't?


Doesn't $700 large to the Pentagon every year add to the burden?

[Wild Cobra]

But if you get 50 million like minded liberals to donate 5% or their wealth, it would make a difference.As opposed to 'conservatives' that are just as guilty of increasing spending?
Conservatives, NO. Republicans, YES, but still, not as guilty.

Have republicans increased spending in ways not authorized by constitution?

Example please.

[Marcus Bryant]

Maintaining bases in 70+ countries, not to mention maintaining the largest military in this history of mankind, one larger than the armed forces of all other nations, combined, certainly was not authorized in the Constitution.

I mean, if we want to get back to original intent, a standing army and naval armada of the magnitude the federal government has today was certainly not what the founders had in mind. It was definitely something they feared.

[Marcus Bryant]

But, I know, the founders only worried about socialism and non-evangelical Christians.

[Wild Cobra]

Maintaining bases in 70+ countries, not to mention maintaining the largest military in this history of mankind, one larger than the armed forces of all other nations, combined, certainly was not authorized in the Constitution.

I mean, if we want to get back to original intent, a standing army and naval armada of the magnitude the federal government has today was certainly not what the founders had in mind. It was definitely something they feared.
I agree that they wouldn't have imagined our military as it is today, but I will suggest that would agree to the necessity if they lived in our world today.

At least consider that idea. Don't dismiss it readily without some serious thought.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, time and time again, I see liberals who want to add programs, raise taxes to fund projects, etc. Well, I say why should we pay more. Those of you who like all the government we have, then I say, go ahead. Pay for it:

Treasury Direct (https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454)

Can we assume that all the conservatives will be funding the bill for the military, law enforcement and any faith-related programs then? :)

[Wild Cobra]

Can we assume that all the conservatives will be funding the bill for the military, law enforcement and any faith-related programs then? :)
Why? That's authorized by constitution. Social programs aren't.

[ElNono]

Why? That's authorized by constitution. Social programs aren't.

Can you prove this? I don't think you can.

[ElNono]

Conservatives, NO. Republicans, YES, but still, not as guilty.
Have republicans increased spending in ways not authorized by constitution?
Example please.

Sure, just as guilty.

Who passed Medicare Part D? Who invented the TARP?

And the constitution doesn't specify the amount of spending on the military. Congress is authorized to spend half as much or less on it.

[Wild Cobra]

Can you prove this? I don't think you can.
Go away with that nonsense. It doesn't even deserve a reponse.

I'll tell you what. Find a 100 yr old dictionary like the 1906 I have, or older. Look at what several key words in the constitution mean before words started changing in meaning. Once you do that, we might have a worthy debate. Until then, you haven't a clue, and I'm not going to explain it line by line.

[Wild Cobra]

Who passed Medicare Part D?
RINO's, partially as a stunt to make points, doing what democrats promised to do for 40 years and make them look bad.

Who invented the TARP?
Invented? I don't know, but it was a democrat controlled congress that passed it, and president Bush was damned either way. If he didn't sign it, he still would have been blamed.

trust me. I say he was wrong for not vetoing it.

And the constitution doesn't specify the amount of spending on the military. Congress is authorized to spend half as much or less on it.
Evidence please.

[ChumpDumper]

Go away with that nonsense. It doesn't even deserve a reponse.

I'll tell you what. Fins a 100 yr old dictionary like the 1906 I have, or older. Look at what several key words in the constitution mean before words started changing in meaning. once you do that, we might have a worthy debate. Until then, you haven't a clue, and I'm not going to explain it line by line.So you can't prove it.

OK.

[Wild Cobra]

So you can't prove it.

OK.
No, I can. I'm not going to attempt to change people's minds who don't have the proper resources at their fingertips. even then, I think it would be a waste of time. People like you simply are to biased to change.

[ElNono]

RINO's, partially as a stunt to make points, doing what democrats promised to do for 40 years and make them look bad.

Republicans. The rest are excuses.


Invented? I don't know, but it was a democrat controlled congress that passed it, and president Bush was damned either way. If he didn't sign it, he still would have been blamed.

The executive requested and sent the first memo to congress (the infamous two page document).
In other words, Republicans. The rest are excuses.


trust me. I say he was wrong for not vetoing it.

Trust me, his office was the proponent and he even went on TV to ask congress to accelerate the process and pass it after it didn't go through the first time. He was first in line to sign on that thing.


Evidence please.

Do you see a concrete number on the Constitution on how much must be spent on the military? How about a percentage of the GDP?
I don't. If you do, please link/quote it.

[ElNono]

Go away with that nonsense. It doesn't even deserve a reponse.


So you can't prove it and I have to take our word for it.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you see a concrete number on the Constitution on how much must be spent on the military? How about a percentage of the GDP?
I don't. If you do, please link/quote it.
Exactly. So just how do you derive a maximum?

[Wild Cobra]

So you can't prove it and I have to take our word for it.
You simple mind is making me want to put you on ignore.

Just how much of a hardbound 1906 do you expect me to type for reference.

Go fuck yourself.

[ElNono]

Exactly. So just how do you derive a maximum?

You don't. You leave it to the discretion of Congress, who is in charge of budgeting. Now, as much a discretion Congress has for assigning x money, they have the ability to assign x/2 money...

[ElNono]

You simple mind is making me want to put you on ignore.

Just how much of a hardbound 1906 do you expect me to type for reference.

Go fuck yourself.

Just quote the relevant parts of the Constitution. Specifically the part where Congress has the discretion to budget but it specifically forbids social spending. You know, here's an opportunity to show everybody how studied you are on this topic.

Resorting to defensive stands and silly insults really helps my cause, not yours.

[ElNono]

I mean, even the US Postal Service was explicitly authorized by the Constitution, and mandated to be profit-neutral.
Looks like those founding fathers were a bunch of socialists! :rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

You don't. You leave it to the discretion of Congress, who is in charge of budgeting. Now, as much a discretion Congress has for assigning x money, they have the ability to assign x/2 money...
Then explain please:

And the constitution doesn't specify the amount of spending on the military. Congress is authorized to spend half as much or less on it.

[ElNono]

Then explain please:


You don't. You leave it to the discretion of Congress, who is in charge of budgeting. Now, as much a discretion Congress has for assigning x money, they have the ability to assign x/2 money...

What part isn't clear? They can budget $350 billion for the Pentagon instead of $700+ billion. They would still be fulfilling the Constitutional mandate to fund the military. They could budget 1 single dollar and still fulfill the Constitutional mandate.

The Constitution leaves to Congress the discretion to provide the funds as part of their budgeting process. It doesn't specifically indicates what amount that should be, for reasons that SHOULD BE obvious.

[Wild Cobra]

That's right El-Don't-Know...

Ignore your own previous statement that I responded to, and act like you didn't say it.

Bye.

I'm done with your silliness for today.

[ElNono]

:lol

What part you don't understand of:

And the constitution doesn't specify the amount of spending on the military. Congress is authorized to spend half as much or less on it.

I guess I should have added 'of what it spends now', to make it dummy proof?

You still haven't provided the quote where the Constitution forbids Congress from budgeting social programs...

[Darrin]

Well, time and time again, I see liberals who want to add programs, raise taxes to fund projects, etc. Well, I say why should we pay more. Those of you who like all the government we have, then I say, go ahead. Pay for it:

Treasury Direct (https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454)

That's why it's in my signature. We all could all benefit from getting the 12 trillion dollar debt under control. Please, if you can spare it, throw some money at the problem.

[LnGrrrR]

WC, ElNono's proposition is rather simple.

The Constitution says that the Congress can vote for a standing army. It does not say how much MUST be spent. So theoretically, Congress could vote to only spend $1000 a year for an army, correct?

Also, doesn't it mention providing for the "common good"? Who's to say your definition of the common good trumps someone else's?

[ElNono]

The Constitution says that the Congress can vote for a standing army. It does not say how much MUST be spent. So theoretically, Congress could vote to only spend $1000 a year for an army, correct?

I have little doubt he understood it the first time around...

[spurster]

First of all, I am sorry to hear about many of you starving and homeless because of ruinous taxes.

Also, the constitution states that "The Congress shall have power to ... provide for the ... general welfare of the United States". Pretty much everything can fit under that umbrella.

As for voluntary taxes, I do buy Lotto tickets.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, ElNono's proposition is rather simple.

I know. The two of you are missing what I said.


The Constitution says that the Congress can vote for a standing army. It does not say how much MUST be spent. So theoretically, Congress could vote to only spend $1000 a year for an army, correct?

Did I say otherwise?


Also, doesn't it mention providing for the "common good"? Who's to say your definition of the common good trumps someone else's?

Where?

Promote the general welfare;

Provide for the common defense;

Insure the blessings of liberty.

Where is provide for the common good in the preamble, constitution, or amendments? I'm not aware of it.

As for our misunderstanding:

El: "Congress is authorized to spend half as much or less on it."

Me: "Evidence please."

El: "Do you see a concrete number on the Constitution on how much must be spent on the military? How about a percentage of the GDP?
I don't. If you do, please link/quote it."

Me: "Exactly. So just how do you derive a maximum?"

El: You don't. You leave it to the discretion of Congress, who is in charge of budgeting. Now, as much a discretion Congress has for assigning x money, they have the ability to assign x/2 money..."

I see El Nono meant at first that congress can reduce the spending. However, how he worded it, It appeared as if he was saying congress is only authorized to spend half or less. Congress can spend more if they want. It looks like this was my misunderstanding. I was wanting El Nono to show me why congress was only authorized to spend half of what they do on the military.

My bad...

Sorry El Nono.

[ElNono]

It's all good :tu

I'm glad we're clear...

[byrontx]

Wish the wingnuts were as cost-conscious when it came to starting unneeded wars. Iraq $710,918,351,904 ...and counting.

[Wild Cobra]

Wish the wingnuts were as cost-conscious when it came to starting unneeded wars. Iraq $710,918,351,904 ...and counting.
Is that the cost above the normal military expenditures?

Still cheaper than the health care plan.

[LnGrrrR]

I know. The two of you are missing what I said.

Did I say otherwise?

Where?

Promote the general welfare;

Provide for the common defense;

Insure the blessings of liberty.

Where is provide for the common good in the preamble, constitution, or amendments? I'm not aware of it.

As for our misunderstanding:

El: "Congress is authorized to spend half as much or less on it."

Me: "Evidence please."

El: "Do you see a concrete number on the Constitution on how much must be spent on the military? How about a percentage of the GDP?
I don't. If you do, please link/quote it."

Me: "Exactly. So just how do you derive a maximum?"

El: You don't. You leave it to the discretion of Congress, who is in charge of budgeting. Now, as much a discretion Congress has for assigning x money, they have the ability to assign x/2 money..."

I see El Nono meant at first that congress can reduce the spending. However, how he worded it, It appeared as if he was saying congress is only authorized to spend half or less. Congress can spend more if they want. It looks like this was my misunderstanding. I was wanting El Nono to show me why congress was only authorized to spend half of what they do on the military.

My bad...

Sorry El Nono.

Ah, I meant general welfare. You and I both know that "general welfare" meant something different than it does now.

However, there's nothing stating that we have to use the original language of those who wrote the Constitution and maintain that. Words do change over time... heck, look at the phrase, "All men are created equal"... certainly, the definition of what constituted a man has changed, as it relates to their right to freedom.

[Winehole23]

If the original US Constitution, including the Reconstruction Amendments specifically designed to effectuate liberty for emancipated persons in the 1860's, had already been in effect for their descendants in the 1960's, no civil or voting rights adjustments would have been necessary as a national policy.

[Wild Cobra]

Ah, I meant general welfare. You and I both know that "general welfare" meant something different than it does now.

However, there's nothing stating that we have to use the original language of those who wrote the Constitution and maintain that. Words do change over time... heck, look at the phrase, "All men are created equal"... certainly, the definition of what constituted a man has changed, as it relates to their right to freedom.That type of attitude makes the constitution meaningless. If you wish to change the constitution, there is an amendment process. With your approach, all it takes is convincing far fewer people than the amendment process does, and it degrades the constitution.

[LnGrrrR]

That type of attitude makes the constitution meaningless. If you wish to change the constitution, there is an amendment process. With your approach, all it takes is convincing far fewer people than the amendment process does, and it degrades the constitution.

Are you saying that every law that isn't specifically enumerated or spelled out in the Constitution is unconstitutional?

As of THIS MOMENT, the law has determined that certain programs are LEGAL. That, in effect, makes them constitutional, unless challenged in a court of law. Do you disagree?

(You can certainly argue that something is unconstitutional, as I did with warrantless wiretapping. However, until it is actually CHALLENGED, then it is legal by default as long as it does not cross any existing laws.)

[DMX7]

Conservatives, NO. Republicans, YES, but still, not as guilty.


Interesting distinction. Maybe conservatives should nominate people for like congressional offices. Then they can have like pre-elections to determine who will run in the general election. Then those candidates might win, and conservatives may finally have a voice in Washington.

[Wild Cobra]

Are you saying that every law that isn't specifically enumerated or spelled out in the Constitution is unconstitutional?

No. You're twisting what I meant and I think you know it.


As of THIS MOMENT, the law has determined that certain programs are LEGAL. That, in effect, makes them constitutional, unless challenged in a court of law. Do you disagree?

I was referring to your apparent desire to change the meaning of the constitutional intent, as words have changes. That's how I read what you said.


(You can certainly argue that something is unconstitutional, as I did with warrantless wiretapping. However, until it is actually CHALLENGED, then it is legal by default as long as it does not cross any existing laws.)

And laws should be clear enough and judges original to intent, and most constitutional questions shouldn't even arise. The constitution is pretty clear on most types of issues.

"Promote the general Welfare" in no way means welfare as we know it to day. Government is suppose to do things that create a better atmosphere in this nation for us to thrive in. Not redistribution of wealth. That hurts others. Excessive taxes and several types of regulations are contrary to this intent. The government operates outside the constitution in these manners and c so many more.

[LnGrrrR]

"Promote the general Welfare" in no way means welfare as we know it to day. Government is suppose to do things that create a better atmosphere in this nation for us to thrive in. Not redistribution of wealth. That hurts others. Excessive taxes and several types of regulations are contrary to this intent. The government operates outside the constitution in these manners and c so many more.

Yes, the definition of welfare today is different from our founding fathers. However, different does not equal unconstitutional.

If it's written into law, and hasn't been overturned by the judicial system, it's de facto constitutional.

Using the idea that taxes today are excessive can also be used on the previous 'standing army' argument. You argued that there was no way our founding fathers could have foreseen the way the world is today, correct? That is why the Founding Fathers idea that we should remain relatively neutral, and not engage in wars unless absolutely necessary, is outdated. One could say the same of your "welfare" argument.