Democrats should pay MORE and Higher Taxes

Democrats should pay MORE and Higher Taxes. Independents should pay MORE and HIGHER taxes SOMETIMES (when they agree with Democrats). We are to be a nation of laws. The Highest law of the Land is indeed the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 Clause 1 clearly states the following in part.

"The Congress shall have power to… provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;…"​

Then later on in the same sentence (completing the single thought) very specific authorizations are detailed to BOTH "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." There are many enumerated authorizations or POWERS to provide for the common defense like "To raise and support armies" and "to provide and maintain a navy." There are also several enumerated powers to provide for the general welfare like "To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting…,"and To establish post offices and post roads." It's all very clear as it is all in black-and-white right in the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment sought to make it even more clear in case there were any questions and is below:

Amendment X
" 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.​

It's official. It's Constitutional. It's the law. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution… are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The States, or in this case the People can do that which the federal government cannot, and is therefore prohibited. We have thrown away that Constitutional provision to adopt Democrat spending and Democrat activist government. Since most federal spending was created by Leftist Democrats against, and in spite of Constitutional limitations THEY should pay THAT bill. Tax rates should reflect the way people vote. If you vote to spend money not authorized by the Constitution you should pay a higher tax rate, or YOU should pay for what YOU want… Is that not "American?" Yes Democrats should pay higher taxes because of what they believe

 

I'm assuming the OP was supposed to be ironic and humorous, yet I didn't find it very funny. Swamp_Music needs to work on his sense of humor, or just possibly his logic and grasp of the Constitution he cites in the OP.

 

Yup a lame attempt at humor.

Jay Leno warns about not trying this at home -- too dangerous for amateurs.

 

You're assuming way too much. This kind of crap is a right-wing meme that completely ignores actual federal spending and the fact that most of the obligated spending that we are faced with now originated during the 12 years that the Republicans controlled Congress.

 

Oh I was making no attempt at humor at all. I was being VERY serious. Why do you think the idea if "paying for what YOU want" is humorous…? I don't think FORCING others at the point-of-a-gun to pay for what you want is humorous at all. I consider it theft or robbery!

 

Give specifics of that spending that is not authorized for in the Constitution. I can give Trillions of examples of dollars spent on Democrat violations of the Constitution.

Real simple. IF people want to take the power not listed In the Constitution to do something they also get to take the responsibility. In this case they get to pay more. Want the government to pay for free contraception and abortions? Great pay more in taxes to cover your own largess. Want to pay for people NOT working? Great! Pay more in taxes for your own largess… And so it goes!

 

So wait you believe that we should be able to change the tax code bases upon party affiliations? I must ask what powers would you propose this legislation be put under, I assume you want it to be federal taxes since you just said democrat (and independent but your focus was democrat). So if I have this right you want the federal government to have the power to tax people based upon the party they voted for and you don't see what's wrong with this?

See if you actually wanted to make a constructive argument you could have said that the government shouldn't pay for certain things and they should be privately run instead of making this stupid argument.

 

Yes I wholeheartedly agree!! All things not listed in the Constitution should be done on a state level or privately. That is what the Tenth Amendment states after all. If the Highest Law in the Land were actually followed the federal government would be much smaller, and would not need to run deficits. Article 1, Section 8 is one complete sentence. It states the government has the power to tax to raise money for providing for the general welfare and common defense, which the one sentence later defines. There is no taxing provision to raise money for that which IS NOT enumerated as a governing power in the Constitution. Democrats destroyed all that after Democrat FDR threatened the Supreme Court in 1937 so they would stop ruling his "New Deal" unconstitutional. Google the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine!"

If Democrat voters actually had to pay for what the vote for there would be far fewer Democrat voters! lol

 

I've actually considered this before. Partisan tax increases. It's an interesting idea when you consider that it's the Democrats that always want to raise taxes and the wealthy Democrats that always say, "I want my taxes raised," while everybody else wants to be left alone. Wouldn't a tax increase solely on wealthy Democrats make everyone happy?

 

And it's the red states who spend the majority of the money raised.

 

Then why are Democrats so opposed to spending cuts?

 

That is utterly ridiculous.

 

Nope, try again... The surpluses of which you speak were because Democrat Clinton signed legislation that came from a REPUBLICAN Congress. Bush spent the majority of the money fighting two wars or defending the country; all Constitutional expenditures. Obama ( A Democrat) wishes to slash the military ( a Constitutional expenditure) while greatly expanding the unconstitutional Democrat Welfare State. What "corporate welfare?" ALLOWING people to keep what the earn is not welfare. Subsides ARE corporate welfare, but we are not spending trillions on such subsidies.

 

The Necessary and Proper clause is below.

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

Afraid you are wrong or just spreading propaganda. Article 1, Section 8 is ONE complete sentence and thought. The Necessary and Proper clause is part of the one complete sentence. That clause states it only applies to the "foregoing Powers". There are no such POWERS for the Democrat creations of the Welfare State, Freddie and Fannie, SS, Obamacare, and the like. IF Democrats WANT these things THEY should pay for them. The Supremacy Clause simply says the Constitution, not Democrat Law is superior.

 

If Democrats wish to more highly tax the "Evil Rich" because they have MORE of IT (money), Republicans should wish to tax Democrats because the want to spend MORE of IT.

That's fair! Right?

Just want Democrats to pay their Fair Share…

 

That' possibly the most illogical thing I've ever read. Confusing a small economic class of society with a political party with a core support of at least a third of active American voters? Or what about a poor working class Democrat who knows he is no better of than he was a decade ago while the very rich are quite a bit wealthier both nominally AND AS A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR SHARE OF THE NATION'S TOTAL WEALTH. Why should he be forced to pay higher taxes for a perfectly reasonable political position? The concept is ludicrous.

 

Don't know why you deem it illogical for Democrats to pay more for that which they want than someone who does not want it at all... YOUR logic escapes me...

 

Don't know why some would say it was illogical, or a "CAT scan" were needed for the wish that those who want something should pay the price.

Why should it be mandatory that we pay for the privileges of others through our tax money? Shouldn't those who wish to extend and grant such privileges pay for them? The Left says "NO!" The left thinks those who so desire are illogical and need a "CAT scan." We can see why the country is in such bad shape...

I believe Margaret Thatcher's famous quote went something like this:

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."​

Yes indeed, that is a big problem! One day very soon, the Left will have to use their own money!!!

 

Also, nothing the US government does is unconstitutional. Like it nor not, but the citizenry (ie, you lot) have no role in interpreting the constitution. The constitution isn't itself "law" the judiciary's interpretation of the constitution limits and/or grants powers to the congress, and on that basis, congress decides what the laws will be and what the government will do. You guys really need to learn something about your own nation's constitution if you're going to use it to debate issues from a legal standpoint. Something is only unconstitutional if the judiciary decides it is, what doesn't the American-Right understand about that?

 

NO, I find it not only funny but also true. If we had back what we have spent on LBJ's GREAT SOCIETY, we would be sitting as a nation, fat and pretty.

 

It's not??? Now, just where did you come up with that fool idea???

The US Supreme Court has declared a total of 1,315 laws (as of 2002, the most recent year for which statistics are available; the database may be updated in 2012) unconstitutional using the process of judicial review.

 

And as such, those laws are constitutional. But the other tens of thousands of laws laws and congressional acts not contested by the judiciary are frequently decried by the citizenry as "unconstitutional" citing only their interpretation of the constitution. The constitution only means what the judiciary interprets it to mean, and it is only applied insofar as the judiciary hasn't decided on reasonable caveats.

 

The US had a surplus in the nineties, perhaps you should look elsewhere if you want to blame something for America's deficit?

 

US Constitution, Article 6, Paragraph 2.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.​

Judges are to be like professional football referees, or baseball umpires. they are to throw "flags" or call balls and strikes, not MAKE law! Their decisions must conform to the Constitution as they can't amend it from the bench by judicial review. Judging AGAINST the Constitution is against federal law and an impeachable offense.

 

Your "rant" would mean so much more, if the republicans could be trusted to bear true witness to even their own republican doctrine.