Trump, tax reform, and socialist Democrat leaders

[mobulis]

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@Rurudyne

Wealth redostribution is not a delegated power given the federal government.

From wiki.

This article is about the post–World War II legislation. For the modern bill, see Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008.

The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, also known as the G.I. Bill, was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as G.I.s). It was designed by the American Legion, who helped push it through Congress by mobilizing its chapters (along with the Veterans of Foreign Wars); the goal was to provide immediate rewards for practically all World War II veterans.

The act avoided the highly disputed postponed life insurance policy payout for World War I veterans that caused political turmoil for a decade and a half after that war.[1] Benefits included dedicated payments of tuition and living expenses to attend high school, college or vocational/technical school, low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business, as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It was available to all veterans who had been on active duty during the war years for at least 90 days and had not been dishonorably discharged—exposure to combat was not required.[2] The recipients did not pay any income tax on the G.I. benefits, since they were not considered earned income.[3]

By 1956, roughly 7.8 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits, some 2.2 million to attend colleges or universities and an additional 5.6 million for some kind of training program.[4]

Historians and economists judge the G.I. Bill a major political and economic success—especially in contrast to the treatments of World War I veterans—and a major contribution to America’s stock of human capital that encouraged long-term economic growth.[5][6][7]

The G.I. Bill is not a redistribution of wealth. It is a legitimate expenditure tied to Congress’s military powers listed beneath Article 1, Section, Section 8, Clause 1,:

“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . . “

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, destroy and subjugate a prosperous and freedom loving people than by importing the world’s poverty stricken and criminal populations into their country and making the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such an invasion.

Nope, its wealth redistribution.

JWK

You don’t think it is because you approve.

[johnwk2]

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@Rurudyne

Wealth redostribution is not a delegated power given the federal government.

From wiki.

This article is about the post–World War II legislation. For the modern bill, see Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008.

The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, also known as the G.I. Bill, was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as G.I.s). It was designed by the American Legion, who helped push it through Congress by mobilizing its chapters (along with the Veterans of Foreign Wars); the goal was to provide immediate rewards for practically all World War II veterans.

The act avoided the highly disputed postponed life insurance policy payout for World War I veterans that caused political turmoil for a decade and a half after that war.[1] Benefits included dedicated payments of tuition and living expenses to attend high school, college or vocational/technical school, low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business, as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It was available to all veterans who had been on active duty during the war years for at least 90 days and had not been dishonorably discharged—exposure to combat was not required.[2] The recipients did not pay any income tax on the G.I. benefits, since they were not considered earned income.[3]

By 1956, roughly 7.8 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits, some 2.2 million to attend colleges or universities and an additional 5.6 million for some kind of training program.[4]

Historians and economists judge the G.I. Bill a major political and economic success—especially in contrast to the treatments of World War I veterans—and a major contribution to America’s stock of human capital that encouraged long-term economic growth.[5][6][7]

The G.I. Bill is not a redistribution of wealth. It is a legitimate expenditure tied to Congress’s military powers listed beneath Article 1, Section, Section 8, Clause 1,:

“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . . “

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, destroy and subjugate a prosperous and freedom loving people than by importing the world’s poverty stricken and criminal populations into their country and making the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such an invasion.

Nope, its wealth redistribution.

JWK

You don’t think it is because you approve.

I do not consider expenditures for Congress’ listed functions as wealth redistribution. But I do consider expenditures from our federal treasury for socialist welfare programs, e.g., food stamps, section 8 housing, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. SNAP, Pel Grants, Medicaid, etc., as wealth redistribution ___ a taking from the paychecks of those who have earned their wages, which is then transferred to the unproductive for their personal economic needs and have not earned such revenue.

JWK

The unavoidable truth is, our Fifth Column democrat political leaders’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by confiscating and redistributing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

[mobulis]

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@Rurudyne

Wealth redostribution is not a delegated power given the federal government.

From wiki.

This article is about the post–World War II legislation. For the modern bill, see Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008.

The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, also known as the G.I. Bill, was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as G.I.s). It was designed by the American Legion, who helped push it through Congress by mobilizing its chapters (along with the Veterans of Foreign Wars); the goal was to provide immediate rewards for practically all World War II veterans.

The act avoided the highly disputed postponed life insurance policy payout for World War I veterans that caused political turmoil for a decade and a half after that war.[1] Benefits included dedicated payments of tuition and living expenses to attend high school, college or vocational/technical school, low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business, as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It was available to all veterans who had been on active duty during the war years for at least 90 days and had not been dishonorably discharged—exposure to combat was not required.[2] The recipients did not pay any income tax on the G.I. benefits, since they were not considered earned income.[3]

By 1956, roughly 7.8 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits, some 2.2 million to attend colleges or universities and an additional 5.6 million for some kind of training program.[4]

Historians and economists judge the G.I. Bill a major political and economic success—especially in contrast to the treatments of World War I veterans—and a major contribution to America’s stock of human capital that encouraged long-term economic growth.[5][6][7]

The G.I. Bill is not a redistribution of wealth. It is a legitimate expenditure tied to Congress’s military powers listed beneath Article 1, Section, Section 8, Clause 1,:

“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . . “

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, destroy and subjugate a prosperous and freedom loving people than by importing the world’s poverty stricken and criminal populations into their country and making the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such an invasion.

Nope, its wealth redistribution.

JWK

You don’t think it is because you approve.

I do not consider expenditures for Congress’ listed functions as wealth redistribution. But I do consider expenditures from our federal treasury for socialist welfare programs, e.g., food stamps, section 8 housing, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. SNAP, Pel Grants, Medicaid, etc., as wealth redistribution ___ a taking from the paychecks of those who have earned their wages, which is then transferred to the unproductive for their personal economic needs and have not earned such revenue.

JWK

The unavoidable truth is, our Fifth Column democrat political leaders’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by confiscating and redistributing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

So according to you they should just be left to die. Got it.

[highroller]

Wealth Redistribution is the United States is as old as the constitution itself. The sugar industry is a perfect example of wealth redistribution. They have been protected from competition since 1789, and we pay three times as much as the rest of the world for sugar.

"a taking from the paychecks of those who have earned their wages, which is then transferred to the unproductive for their personal economic needs and have not earned such revenue."

[johnwk2]

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@Rurudyne

Wealth redostribution is not a delegated power given the federal government.

From wiki.

This article is about the post–World War II legislation. For the modern bill, see Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008.

The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, also known as the G.I. Bill, was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as G.I.s). It was designed by the American Legion, who helped push it through Congress by mobilizing its chapters (along with the Veterans of Foreign Wars); the goal was to provide immediate rewards for practically all World War II veterans.

The act avoided the highly disputed postponed life insurance policy payout for World War I veterans that caused political turmoil for a decade and a half after that war.[1] Benefits included dedicated payments of tuition and living expenses to attend high school, college or vocational/technical school, low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business, as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It was available to all veterans who had been on active duty during the war years for at least 90 days and had not been dishonorably discharged—exposure to combat was not required.[2] The recipients did not pay any income tax on the G.I. benefits, since they were not considered earned income.[3]

By 1956, roughly 7.8 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits, some 2.2 million to attend colleges or universities and an additional 5.6 million for some kind of training program.[4]

Historians and economists judge the G.I. Bill a major political and economic success—especially in contrast to the treatments of World War I veterans—and a major contribution to America’s stock of human capital that encouraged long-term economic growth.[5][6][7]

The G.I. Bill is not a redistribution of wealth. It is a legitimate expenditure tied to Congress’s military powers listed beneath Article 1, Section, Section 8, Clause 1,:

“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . . “

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, destroy and subjugate a prosperous and freedom loving people than by importing the world’s poverty stricken and criminal populations into their country and making the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such an invasion.

Nope, its wealth redistribution.

JWK

You don’t think it is because you approve.

I do not consider expenditures for Congress’ listed functions as wealth redistribution. But I do consider expenditures from our federal treasury for socialist welfare programs, e.g., food stamps, section 8 housing, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. SNAP, Pel Grants, Medicaid, etc., as wealth redistribution ___ a taking from the paychecks of those who have earned their wages, which is then transferred to the unproductive for their personal economic needs and have not earned such revenue.

JWK

The unavoidable truth is, our Fifth Column democrat political leaders’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by confiscating and redistributing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

So according to you they should just be left to die. Got it.

You apparently do not embrace the distinction between Charitable giving vs. tyranny!

“Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man’s labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny.” See Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792

JWK

It is so sad that our nation’s moral compass, in general, has been corrupted to such a degree that there is confusion between charitable giving as distinguished from tax tyranny!

[highroller]

To make sure there are not people dying in the street is not tyranny unless you have a very warped view of tyranny.

tyr·an·ny - /ˈtirənē/ - noun

-cruel and oppressive government or rule.

synonyms: despotism, absolute power, autocracy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, Fascism; More

• a nation under cruel and oppressive government.

• cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.

-(especially in ancient Greece) rule by one who has absolute power without legal right.

BTW, where were the massive lines for the soup kitchens this past depression like there were in the 1930s? There weren’t any because of programs like SNAP!

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@highroller

Wealth Redistribution is the United States is as old as the constitution itself. The sugar industry is a perfect example of wealth redistribution. They have been protected from competition since 1789, and we pay three times as much as the rest of the world for sugar.

Hang on. We’re paying way to much as a country for health care and sugar? How does that make any friggin sense?

[Rurudyne]

The Left wants government action for “this, that and the other thing” (channeling Gilligan) but has no hang ups over those being illegal. It isn’t that they want it because it’s unlawful but that being lawful or not isn’t an important consideration. Arbitrary government is just their thing if that’s what it takes and they just do as they please, Constitution be darned, as they’ve done since FDR.

[Rurudyne]

Tariffs are lawful.

Actually taking money from folks through their taxes, or just by printing money willy nilly, and giving it to other folks just because they’re there is not lawful.

[mobulis]

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@Rurudyne

Wealth redostribution is not a delegated power given the federal government.

From wiki.

This article is about the post–World War II legislation. For the modern bill, see Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008.

The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, also known as the G.I. Bill, was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as G.I.s). It was designed by the American Legion, who helped push it through Congress by mobilizing its chapters (along with the Veterans of Foreign Wars); the goal was to provide immediate rewards for practically all World War II veterans.

The act avoided the highly disputed postponed life insurance policy payout for World War I veterans that caused political turmoil for a decade and a half after that war.[1] Benefits included dedicated payments of tuition and living expenses to attend high school, college or vocational/technical school, low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business, as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It was available to all veterans who had been on active duty during the war years for at least 90 days and had not been dishonorably discharged—exposure to combat was not required.[2] The recipients did not pay any income tax on the G.I. benefits, since they were not considered earned income.[3]

By 1956, roughly 7.8 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits, some 2.2 million to attend colleges or universities and an additional 5.6 million for some kind of training program.[4]

Historians and economists judge the G.I. Bill a major political and economic success—especially in contrast to the treatments of World War I veterans—and a major contribution to America’s stock of human capital that encouraged long-term economic growth.[5][6][7]

The G.I. Bill is not a redistribution of wealth. It is a legitimate expenditure tied to Congress’s military powers listed beneath Article 1, Section, Section 8, Clause 1,:

“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . . “

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, destroy and subjugate a prosperous and freedom loving people than by importing the world’s poverty stricken and criminal populations into their country and making the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such an invasion.

Nope, its wealth redistribution.

JWK

You don’t think it is because you approve.

I do not consider expenditures for Congress’ listed functions as wealth redistribution. But I do consider expenditures from our federal treasury for socialist welfare programs, e.g., food stamps, section 8 housing, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. SNAP, Pel Grants, Medicaid, etc., as wealth redistribution ___ a taking from the paychecks of those who have earned their wages, which is then transferred to the unproductive for their personal economic needs and have not earned such revenue.

JWK

The unavoidable truth is, our Fifth Column democrat political leaders’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by confiscating and redistributing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

So according to you they should just be left to die. Got it.

You apparently do not embrace the distinction between Charitable giving vs. tyranny!

“Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man’s labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny.” See Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792

JWK

It is so sad that our nation’s moral compass, in general, has been corrupted to such a degree that there is confusion between charitable giving as distinguished from tax tyranny!

Like I said, according to you they should just be left to die. Got it.

[mobulis]

@Rurudyne

Tariffs are lawful.

Actually taking money from folks through their taxes, or just by printing money willy nilly, and giving it to other folks just because they’re there is not lawful.

So any time we have given humanitarian aid its illegal.

[Rurudyne]

If the federal government is doing it, or at least how it has done it, yes.

The thing about Leftists is that they’re actually quite unimaginative, they just have done things because it being lawful or not didn’t matter to them.

Take, for example, providing health care.

Now, in Marbury we find Marshall noting that the enumeration of specific Powers is what proves that those are the Only Powers (or else the enumeration serves no purpose and is a superfluity). It can be correctly observed that the 10th Amendment “amens” this idea.

But what has not been as much noted is the complementary idea that if there are conditional exceptions to the rule of delegated powers actually given then these prove that they are the ONLY exceptions whereby the federal may, circumstantially, claim more general power. There are TWO such enumerations in the Constitution. One involves the Territories and affects writing Rules and Regulations (but not Appropriations) and the other notable affects what would become the seat of government, Washington DC, and it includes “all circumstances whatsoever” which would include spending.

As I’ve pointed out in the past this same consideration is why the Smithsonian is lawful, at least in so far as it is physically within D.C. Likewise a giant eyesore of a “National Hospital” constructed generally along the line of old county hospitals could be a place for citizens to go to receive means tested and subsidized care. They would actually have to GO THERE, but it would be much easier to round up money for a bus ticket than an operation.

To make room for it they could knock down a bunch of worse that worthless law and lobby firms, or some monuments to national greatness (which seem to have only become more needful as the government has embraced Arbitrary governance and progressivism anyway). Having a great Capitol City isn’t a virtue, let its skyline be an architectural horror if that’s what it takes.

[highroller]

The last 40 years have been awfully unlawful as the Federal government has printing trillions to benefits the super wealthy then.

-Cutting Taxes under Reagan (exploded the debt)
-A small reprieve under Clinton (paying down the debt)
-Cutting Taxes under Bush II (exploding the debt)
-Making defense contractor owners more money than one can even conceive with trillions spent in Iraq
-Bailing out our financial institutions when they were stupid
-Continuing the wars under Obama
-Cutting taxes under Trump (exploding the debt…AGAIN!!!)

Debt has to be paid somehow either by future tax hikes or cuts to spending programs and THAT is a generational transfer of wealth. Or is it back to deficits don’t matter now…?

[johnwk2]

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@Rurudyne

Wealth redostribution is not a delegated power given the federal government.

From wiki.

This article is about the post–World War II legislation. For the modern bill, see Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008.

The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, also known as the G.I. Bill, was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as G.I.s). It was designed by the American Legion, who helped push it through Congress by mobilizing its chapters (along with the Veterans of Foreign Wars); the goal was to provide immediate rewards for practically all World War II veterans.

The act avoided the highly disputed postponed life insurance policy payout for World War I veterans that caused political turmoil for a decade and a half after that war.[1] Benefits included dedicated payments of tuition and living expenses to attend high school, college or vocational/technical school, low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business, as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It was available to all veterans who had been on active duty during the war years for at least 90 days and had not been dishonorably discharged—exposure to combat was not required.[2] The recipients did not pay any income tax on the G.I. benefits, since they were not considered earned income.[3]

By 1956, roughly 7.8 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits, some 2.2 million to attend colleges or universities and an additional 5.6 million for some kind of training program.[4]

Historians and economists judge the G.I. Bill a major political and economic success—especially in contrast to the treatments of World War I veterans—and a major contribution to America’s stock of human capital that encouraged long-term economic growth.[5][6][7]

The G.I. Bill is not a redistribution of wealth. It is a legitimate expenditure tied to Congress’s military powers listed beneath Article 1, Section, Section 8, Clause 1,:

“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . . “

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, destroy and subjugate a prosperous and freedom loving people than by importing the world’s poverty stricken and criminal populations into their country and making the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such an invasion.

Nope, its wealth redistribution.

JWK

You don’t think it is because you approve.

I do not consider expenditures for Congress’ listed functions as wealth redistribution. But I do consider expenditures from our federal treasury for socialist welfare programs, e.g., food stamps, section 8 housing, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. SNAP, Pel Grants, Medicaid, etc., as wealth redistribution ___ a taking from the paychecks of those who have earned their wages, which is then transferred to the unproductive for their personal economic needs and have not earned such revenue.

JWK

The unavoidable truth is, our Fifth Column democrat political leaders’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by confiscating and redistributing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

So according to you they should just be left to die. Got it.

You apparently do not embrace the distinction between Charitable giving vs. tyranny!

“Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man’s labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny.” See Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792

JWK

It is so sad that our nation’s moral compass, in general, has been corrupted to such a degree that there is confusion between charitable giving as distinguished from tax tyranny!

Like I said, according to you they should just be left to die. Got it.

You above charge is not only unsubstantiated, it’s a personal and disgusting insult.

JWK

Our socialist Democrat Party Leadership’s offer for free government cheese is really not free. It first addicts and then enslaves participants on an iron fisted socialist run plantation.

[mobulis]

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@Rurudyne

Wealth redostribution is not a delegated power given the federal government.

From wiki.

This article is about the post–World War II legislation. For the modern bill, see Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008.

The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, also known as the G.I. Bill, was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as G.I.s). It was designed by the American Legion, who helped push it through Congress by mobilizing its chapters (along with the Veterans of Foreign Wars); the goal was to provide immediate rewards for practically all World War II veterans.

The act avoided the highly disputed postponed life insurance policy payout for World War I veterans that caused political turmoil for a decade and a half after that war.[1] Benefits included dedicated payments of tuition and living expenses to attend high school, college or vocational/technical school, low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business, as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It was available to all veterans who had been on active duty during the war years for at least 90 days and had not been dishonorably discharged—exposure to combat was not required.[2] The recipients did not pay any income tax on the G.I. benefits, since they were not considered earned income.[3]

By 1956, roughly 7.8 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits, some 2.2 million to attend colleges or universities and an additional 5.6 million for some kind of training program.[4]

Historians and economists judge the G.I. Bill a major political and economic success—especially in contrast to the treatments of World War I veterans—and a major contribution to America’s stock of human capital that encouraged long-term economic growth.[5][6][7]

The G.I. Bill is not a redistribution of wealth. It is a legitimate expenditure tied to Congress’s military powers listed beneath Article 1, Section, Section 8, Clause 1,:

“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . . “

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, destroy and subjugate a prosperous and freedom loving people than by importing the world’s poverty stricken and criminal populations into their country and making the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such an invasion.

Nope, its wealth redistribution.

JWK

You don’t think it is because you approve.

I do not consider expenditures for Congress’ listed functions as wealth redistribution. But I do consider expenditures from our federal treasury for socialist welfare programs, e.g., food stamps, section 8 housing, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. SNAP, Pel Grants, Medicaid, etc., as wealth redistribution ___ a taking from the paychecks of those who have earned their wages, which is then transferred to the unproductive for their personal economic needs and have not earned such revenue.

JWK

The unavoidable truth is, our Fifth Column democrat political leaders’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by confiscating and redistributing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

So according to you they should just be left to die. Got it.

You apparently do not embrace the distinction between Charitable giving vs. tyranny!

“Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man’s labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny.” See Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792

JWK

It is so sad that our nation’s moral compass, in general, has been corrupted to such a degree that there is confusion between charitable giving as distinguished from tax tyranny!

Like I said, according to you they should just be left to die. Got it.

You above charge is not only unsubstantiated, it’s a personal and disgusting insult.

JWK

Our socialist Democrat Party Leadership’s offer for free government cheese is really not free. It first addicts and then enslaves participants on an iron fisted socialist run plantation.

Your the one that doesn’t want the govt to help people not me.

[johnwk2]

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@Rurudyne

Wealth redostribution is not a delegated power given the federal government.

From wiki.

This article is about the post–World War II legislation. For the modern bill, see Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008.

The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, also known as the G.I. Bill, was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as G.I.s). It was designed by the American Legion, who helped push it through Congress by mobilizing its chapters (along with the Veterans of Foreign Wars); the goal was to provide immediate rewards for practically all World War II veterans.

The act avoided the highly disputed postponed life insurance policy payout for World War I veterans that caused political turmoil for a decade and a half after that war.[1] Benefits included dedicated payments of tuition and living expenses to attend high school, college or vocational/technical school, low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business, as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It was available to all veterans who had been on active duty during the war years for at least 90 days and had not been dishonorably discharged—exposure to combat was not required.[2] The recipients did not pay any income tax on the G.I. benefits, since they were not considered earned income.[3]

By 1956, roughly 7.8 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits, some 2.2 million to attend colleges or universities and an additional 5.6 million for some kind of training program.[4]

Historians and economists judge the G.I. Bill a major political and economic success—especially in contrast to the treatments of World War I veterans—and a major contribution to America’s stock of human capital that encouraged long-term economic growth.[5][6][7]

The G.I. Bill is not a redistribution of wealth. It is a legitimate expenditure tied to Congress’s military powers listed beneath Article 1, Section, Section 8, Clause 1,:

“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . . “

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, destroy and subjugate a prosperous and freedom loving people than by importing the world’s poverty stricken and criminal populations into their country and making the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such an invasion.

Nope, its wealth redistribution.

JWK

You don’t think it is because you approve.

I do not consider expenditures for Congress’ listed functions as wealth redistribution. But I do consider expenditures from our federal treasury for socialist welfare programs, e.g., food stamps, section 8 housing, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. SNAP, Pel Grants, Medicaid, etc., as wealth redistribution ___ a taking from the paychecks of those who have earned their wages, which is then transferred to the unproductive for their personal economic needs and have not earned such revenue.

JWK

The unavoidable truth is, our Fifth Column democrat political leaders’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by confiscating and redistributing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

So according to you they should just be left to die. Got it.

You apparently do not embrace the distinction between Charitable giving vs. tyranny!

“Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man’s labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny.” See Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792

JWK

It is so sad that our nation’s moral compass, in general, has been corrupted to such a degree that there is confusion between charitable giving as distinguished from tax tyranny!

Like I said, according to you they should just be left to die. Got it.

You above charge is not only unsubstantiated, it’s a personal and disgusting insult.

JWK

Our socialist Democrat Party Leadership’s offer for free government cheese is really not free. It first addicts and then enslaves participants on an iron fisted socialist run plantation.

Your the one that doesn’t want the govt to help people not me.

I see you are still making an unsubstantiated charge. The truth is, I don’t want our federal government violating our federal Constitution under the guise of helping people.

JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

[mobulis]

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@johnwk2

@mobulis

@Rurudyne

Wealth redostribution is not a delegated power given the federal government.

From wiki.

This article is about the post–World War II legislation. For the modern bill, see Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008.

The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, also known as the G.I. Bill, was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as G.I.s). It was designed by the American Legion, who helped push it through Congress by mobilizing its chapters (along with the Veterans of Foreign Wars); the goal was to provide immediate rewards for practically all World War II veterans.

The act avoided the highly disputed postponed life insurance policy payout for World War I veterans that caused political turmoil for a decade and a half after that war.[1] Benefits included dedicated payments of tuition and living expenses to attend high school, college or vocational/technical school, low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business, as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It was available to all veterans who had been on active duty during the war years for at least 90 days and had not been dishonorably discharged—exposure to combat was not required.[2] The recipients did not pay any income tax on the G.I. benefits, since they were not considered earned income.[3]

By 1956, roughly 7.8 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits, some 2.2 million to attend colleges or universities and an additional 5.6 million for some kind of training program.[4]

Historians and economists judge the G.I. Bill a major political and economic success—especially in contrast to the treatments of World War I veterans—and a major contribution to America’s stock of human capital that encouraged long-term economic growth.[5][6][7]

The G.I. Bill is not a redistribution of wealth. It is a legitimate expenditure tied to Congress’s military powers listed beneath Article 1, Section, Section 8, Clause 1,:

“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . . “

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, destroy and subjugate a prosperous and freedom loving people than by importing the world’s poverty stricken and criminal populations into their country and making the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such an invasion.

Nope, its wealth redistribution.

JWK

You don’t think it is because you approve.

I do not consider expenditures for Congress’ listed functions as wealth redistribution. But I do consider expenditures from our federal treasury for socialist welfare programs, e.g., food stamps, section 8 housing, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. SNAP, Pel Grants, Medicaid, etc., as wealth redistribution ___ a taking from the paychecks of those who have earned their wages, which is then transferred to the unproductive for their personal economic needs and have not earned such revenue.

JWK

The unavoidable truth is, our Fifth Column democrat political leaders’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by confiscating and redistributing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

So according to you they should just be left to die. Got it.

You apparently do not embrace the distinction between Charitable giving vs. tyranny!

“Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man’s labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny.” See Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792

JWK

It is so sad that our nation’s moral compass, in general, has been corrupted to such a degree that there is confusion between charitable giving as distinguished from tax tyranny!

Like I said, according to you they should just be left to die. Got it.

You above charge is not only unsubstantiated, it’s a personal and disgusting insult.

JWK

Our socialist Democrat Party Leadership’s offer for free government cheese is really not free. It first addicts and then enslaves participants on an iron fisted socialist run plantation.

Your the one that doesn’t want the govt to help people not me.

I see you are still making an unsubstantiated charge. The truth is, I don’t want our federal government violating our federal Constitution under the guise of helping people.

JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

And if the constitution was amended?

[Rurudyne]

@highroller

The last 40 years have been awfully unlawful as the Federal government has printing trillions to benefits the super wealthy then.

-Cutting Taxes under Reagan (exploded the debt)
-A small reprieve under Clinton (paying down the debt)
-Cutting Taxes under Bush II (exploding the debt)
-Making defense contractor owners more money than one can even conceive with trillions spent in Iraq
-Bailing out our financial institutions when they were stupid
-Continuing the wars under Obama
-Cutting taxes under Trump (exploding the debt…AGAIN!!!)

Debt has to be paid somehow either by future tax hikes or cuts to spending programs and THAT is a generational transfer of wealth. Or is it back to deficits don’t matter now…?

Tax cuts are not spending on unlawful objects. The idea that they are is about as spurious and ill considered as, well, the rest of progressivism.

As for exploding the deficits, maybe if you had an awareness of when and why the Democrats in Congress first changed the budgeting rules from zero BLB to the sorts that assumes across the board increases you’d at least have a clue. Revenues increased under Reagan. But SPENDING increased faster in so small measure because the Democrats went on a spending spree, and it is they who unleashed the genie.

When, after the Contract With America the House rules were once again returned to zero BLB the growth of spending slowed enough for something like daylight at the end of the tunnel to appear on the horizon.

Here I will refer you to an old article called Not So Radical Republicans from Reason, 1998, which is online to read. The article helps to underscore what I’ll say next.

“Republicans” have never been monolithic and they’ve always had their spendthrift liberals, often called moderates. Even in 1998, as described in the article, these folks had begun to itch to spend freely and found allies with the ever eager to spend Democrats. That said they have a history of being able to restrain spending for purely partisan reasons if a Democrat is in the White House.

Democrats, I will briefly mention, have no such qualms about spending. They will never pay a price with their base for being spendthrift and know that any Republican POTUS will. They also seem to work, as you seem to, from the idea that it’s all government’s anyway … which is why they can cast tax cuts as if expenses/spending.

But back to Republicans. Discounting that Jumping Jim Jeffords handed the Dems the Senate post election, once W was in office the moderates, which had included Jeffords while he was in the party, quickly realized that they were the go to people if he wanted any of his agenda. Thus began their reign of spending that saw no vetoes whatsoever until the Republican voters, sick of the spending, stayed home in 2006. After that the Democrats REALLY showed us what spendthrift was!

And once Obama was in? Funny thing, the moderates that voted with Democrats for Part D voted in lockstep against Obamaharm … remember what I wrote earlier about being able to go along with more conservative Republicans when opposing a Democrat POTUS?

Now, under Trump, because they were so opposed to him, these same moderates stayed in opposition mode for a good part of a year … but now they are back at wanting to spend freely as would be predictable.

Progressives ARE the problem, they ARE the main cause of the debt. It doesn’t matter which party they are in.

The roots of this run deep. Nixon infamously said that we’re all Keynesians now but even as he said it it was ceasing to be true. Keynes said to CUT spending in good times as a complement to increaseing spending in bad. That is not what politicians believe or do. Certainly by the time Reagan entered office it was absolutely the case that people saw good times as an opportunity to spend more and bad times as a need for more spending.

More spending is the only constant, especially with progressives. They are NOT Keynesians, they are Keystone Keynesians (think Keystone Cops for comparison). Yet even then there is a difference. Really real Leftist can really really spend and also blame for too much spending. They can pat themselves on the back for others restraining what their bunch would have done had they not lost the Congress and act like Republicans who’ve got a less virulent version of the same disease are out of control, then ignore what their bunch does.

Truly, the seriousness of the charges going just one way doesn’t even begin to capture the visceral putrid stink that is the Left.

[Rurudyne]

Do you really think so-called progressives in either party could admit that we’ve not had governance by constitutional means for such amendments to be even proposed by them? Do you think FDR and Eisenhower (who rubber stamped FDR with his no-repeal guff) can be recast into the true roles they had in casting aside the Constitution for Arbitrary government? Or do you think they could admit that the modern Court is in willful abeyance? Finally, do you think that they could admit their love for Arbitrary government?

Because that’s what it would take for progressives to in numbers start demanding that the Constitution be amended to allow all this progressivism to actually be lawful.

I don’t see that happening.

Those who might propose such an effort are more likely to oppose the progressivism itself, that assumed that the government needing to (in their estimation) meant that the government should and can.

[the_kalculators]

Donald Trump, during his presidency, pursued tax reform in 2017, aiming to stimulate economic growth. His policies included tax cuts for individuals and corporations. Socialist Democrat leaders, often critical of such reforms, argue for progressive taxation and increased social spending to address economic disparities. The debate around tax policy remains a central point of contention between political ideologies in the United States.