Politics & Stuff

[Vesper 30,085]

10 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

I've already named one in the form of Alexandria Cortez.

She wants to provide free tuition and free healthcare for all. How does she mean to do this? By raising tax rates nearly 70% on the wealthy. Taking their earned income and redistributing it to others. IE Socialism. Even that wouldn't be enough to fund it all. What's more concerning, is that she proposed banks to 'print more money'....

So again, tell me how this doesn't go against the US Constitution? 

I look forward to it. Haven't had a debate in ages. 

FFS look at what the top marginal tax rate was under EISENHOWER in the 1950's.

90 to 92%

That was a time of unprecedented prosperity for the vast majority of Americans, with the lowest wealth inequality in the history of the nation. Wealth inequality is the number one interlocked statistic to the overall health of a nation state. It is determinate on basically everything within the society. The USA was close to the fairest distribution of wealth for decades post WWII. Now it is down into the 130th to 140th nation in the world. IRAN has more equal wealth distribution.

Also, you are acting like so so many will all of sudden get 70% of their income taken. BULLSHIT. It is only that high on income over 10 MILLION per year.

Pro tip

It isn't just income tax that will sort this. The US (and all nations) needs to have a 1% financial turnover tax (with a 1 million USD per annum exemption so small investors are not encumbered). That actually (if it was done) would make the higher INCOME taxes (perhaps ALL income taxes) unnecessary.

 

[MoroccanBlue 5,375]

46 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Against the US constitution? Truly WTF. There is ZERO thats states anything about what overriding philosophy drives US federal expenditures.

 

The US Constitution was written to protect your individual rights. Not the rights of the collective. Every American has a constitutional right, that no one can force you to do something that goes against your negative rights. Me having to go to jail because I don't want to give someone money to go to college, goes against my negative rights. They are using my money for someone else's consumption. Against my will.  So again, Socialism goes against the US Constitution. 

Me giving my money away for public goods, such as roads, police force, and military, isn't socialist.

46 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Socialism (or what you are latching onto as a false smear) didn't even exist when the US constitution was written. 

Try to at least understand basic poltical history before you post such rubbish.

The USA wouldn't be the USA if it was founded on socialism. The founding fathers were smarter than that. Look at the destruction Marxist ideology has brought. 

34 minutes ago, Vesper said:

FFS look at what the top marginal tax rate was under EISENHOWER in the 1950's.

90 to 92%

That was a time of unprecedented prosperity for the vast majority of Americans, with the lowest wealth inequality in the history of the nation. Wealth inequality is the number one interlocked statistic to the overall health of a nation state. It is determinate on basically everything within the society. The USA was close to the fairest distribution of wealth for decades post WWII. Now it is down into the 130th to 140th nation in the world. IRAN has more equal wealth distribution.

A little bit of context would be beneficial here. 

Pro Tips:

A. The United States would need the same economic competition as it was in the 1950's for this to work. So to suit this agenda, let's forget about a little country called China and lets pretend all of Europe and Japan are recovering after a world war. 

B. The government wasn't paying for Medicare and Medicaid

C. Inflation. 

D. The baby boom drove massive spending on productivity. 

 

34 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Pro tip

It isn't just income tax that will sort this. The US (and all nations) needs to have a 1% financial turnover tax (with a 1 million USD per annum exemption so small investors are not encumbered). That actually (if it was done) would make the higher INCOME taxes (perhaps ALL income taxes) unnecessary.

 

Still waiting to hear how it doesn't go against the constitution. 

[Vesper 30,085]

1 minute ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Still waiting to hear how it doesn't go against the constitution. 

Show me the EXACT part of the constitution that specifies ANYTHING that outlaws ANYTHING that AOC advocates

seriously laughable shit

you are embarrassing yourself

btw

are you a Trump fan?

also

do you support USA Republican party form of governance?

 

[MoroccanBlue 5,375]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

Show me the EXACT part of the constitution that specifies ANYTHING that outlaws ANYTHING that AOC advocates

seriously laughable shit

you are embarrassing yourself

btw

are you a Trump fan?

also

do you support USA Republican party form of governance?

 

The 14th amendment of the Constitution. The right of the individual. The right to liberty and self government. "Every American has their right to control their own affairs, free of external government control." This is fundamentally the definition of our negative rights.

AOC wants to have free tuition and free healthcare for all. How does she intend to do so? By taxing the wealthy 70%. So I am being forced against my own affairs, my own money, to give it to someone else who hasn't earned it. That exactly goes against the US Constitution. 

I want to give my money to roads, the police, and the military because I consume it. Public goods. I do not want to give my money to someone else for them to consume. Especially when I get no benefit. Unless I am willing to do so, that is just theft. 

I have so far countered all of your arguments and you have yet to prove to me why AOC isn't an imbecile. Yet apparently i'm embarrassing myself? You support the future of the democratic party who wants to spend nearly our entire budget for her proposals, and thinks the solution to fund all of this is to tax the wealthy and "print more money" 

If you must know, I am republican and didn't vote for Trump. In fact, I won't vote again next term unless Sasse runs against him. 

[Vesper 30,085]

58 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

The 14th amendment of the Constitution. The right of the individual. The right to liberty and self government. "Every American has their right to control their own affairs, free of external government control." This is fundamentally the definition of our negative rights.

AOC wants to have free tuition and free healthcare for all. How does she intend to do so? By taxing the wealthy 70%. So I am being forced against my own affairs, my own money, to give it to someone else who hasn't earned it. That exactly goes against the US Constitution. 

I want to give my money to roads, the police, and the military because I consume it. Public goods. I do not want to give my money to someone else for them to consume. Especially when I get no benefit. Unless I am willing to do so, that is just theft. 

I have so far countered all of your arguments and you have yet to prove to me why AOC isn't an imbecile. Yet apparently i'm embarrassing myself? You support the future of the democratic party who wants to spend nearly our entire budget for her proposals, and thinks the solution to fund all of this is to tax the wealthy and "print more money" 

If you must know, I am republican and didn't vote for Trump. In fact, I won't vote again next term unless Sasse runs against him. 

None of what you posted is against the US constitution.

Laughably ignorant.

 

 

[Caeruleus 1,148]

It seem we gonna have BREXIT without a deal. UK citizens, you shouldn't leve the European union /EU/. It is our common homeland. You destroyed european dream and you destroyed your economy. Populism and ultranationalism is power of destruction  

[MoroccanBlue 5,375]

13 hours ago, Vesper said:

None of what you posted is against the US constitution.

Laughably ignorant.

 

 

Taking my money against my will for someone else's consumption, isn't against the constitution?

 I just showed you it does! 

[Vesper 30,085]

3 hours ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Taking my money against my will for someone else's consumption, isn't against the constitution?

 I just showed you it does! 

you really do not even understand the basics of your own instrument of government, ie. the US Constitution

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi

 

16th Amendment

 

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

you rant on that is unconstitutional to use your tax money for other people's education, healthcare, etc etc etc (basically anything that YOU deem unworthy)

Oki, then, explain Medicare, Medicaid, Federal education grants, etc etc etc

try not paying your taxes because you have yer knickers in a twist that someone you do not like benefits from the government

Pro tip

it wont end well

 

you are out of your depth sunshine

when I get more time I will give you the full hair dryer à la Fergie

[MoroccanBlue 5,375]

2 minutes ago, Vesper said:

you really do not even understand the basics of your own instrument of government, ie. the US Constitution

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi

16th Amendment

 

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

you rant on that is unconstitutional to use your tax money for other people's education, healthcare, etc etc etc (basically anything that YOU deem unworthy)

Oki, then, explain Medicare, Medicaid, Federal education grants, etc etc etc

try not paying your taxes because you have yer knickers in a twist that someone you do not like benefits from the government

Pro tip

it wont end well

 

you are out of your depth sunshine

when I get more time I will give you the full hair dryer à la Fergie

Have you not been reading what I've posted. I've brought this up three times now 

The 16th Amendment allows the federal government to collect income tax. Tax that goes directly to public roads and transport, military, and police force. These are considered public goods as these are goods we ALL consume. We ALL drive on the same roads. We ALL are protected by the police and we ALL are protected by our military. 

There is NOTHING in the constitution that states the government can seize my money, and give it to someone else for them to consume. That is down right theft. AOC means to tax me 70%, just so someone I don't even know can go to college for free. 

 

 

I honestly look forward to your hyped up response, because so far you haven't done anything to defend yourself nor counter my arguments appropriately. 

 

 

[Vesper 30,085]

42 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

Have you not been reading what I've posted. I've brought this up three times now 

The 16th Amendment allows the federal government to collect income tax. Tax that goes directly to public roads and transport, military, and police force. These are considered public goods as these are goods we ALL consume. We ALL drive on the same roads. We ALL are protected by the police and we ALL are protected by our military. 

There is NOTHING in the constitution that states the government can seize my money, and give it to someone else for them to consume. That is down right theft. AOC means to tax me 70%, just so someone I don't even know can go to college for free. 

 

 

I honestly look forward to your hyped up response, because so far you haven't done anything to defend yourself nor counter my arguments appropriately. 

 

 

Congress has the absolute power of the purse, it can spend money on whatever it deems fit, with the POTUS signature. If the POTUS vetos it (either proactively or via pocket veto) then Congress can override his veto and the money is spent. The ONLY thing you can do, if you do not like what they spend money on, is to vote in enough members to stop the spending you do not like. The SCOTUS can intervene in specific cases where there are legal challenges. Obamacare was such a case.

The SCOTUS found it CONSTITUTIONAL in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) The Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate to buy health insurance as a constitutional exercise of Congress's taxing power.

Thus my posting of the 16th Amendment as an example of Congress's power of the purse (both revenue raising and then appropriations themselves..

Again, you do not even have a basic knowledge of your own country's method of constitutional government.

The US Constitution is NOT some crackpot anarcho-capitalistic, minarchist, Ayn Randian Objectivist claptrap, or whatever else fringe libertarian pseudo philosophical ode to 'I got mine so FUCK YOU!' lunacy.

You want it to be, then vote in enough of your fellow travellers (not just at Federal level, but in 38 state legislatures too, as that is the threshold) and AMEND IT!

good luck with that buttercup!

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

 

Article I

Article I describes the design of the legislative branch of US Government -- the Congress.  Important ideas include the separation of powers between branches of government (checks and balances), the election of Senators and Representatives, the process by which laws are made, and the powers that Congress has.  See more...

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

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;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

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.

 

Spending power

Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, Congress is granted the power to lay and collect taxes in order "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and General Welfare of the United States."  As required by United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), Congress must exercise its power to tax and spend for the "general welfare". Through use of its spending power, Congress is able to place a requirement on states that compliance with specified conditions must take place before the state will be considered to meet the qualification requirement for federal funds.  Under a test provided in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987),  for Congress to place a  condition on receipt of federal funds by a state, the spending has to serve the general welfare, the condition placed on the state must be unambiguous, the condition has to relate to the particular federal program, unconstitutional action cannot be a contingency of receipt of the funds, and the amount in question cannot be so great that it can be considered coercive to the state's acceptance of the condition.

 

 

[MoroccanBlue 5,375]

24 minutes ago, Vesper said:

Congress has the absolute power of the purse, it can spend money on whatever it deems fit, with the POTUS signature. If the POTUS vetos it (either proactively or via pocket veto) then Congress can override his veto and the money is spent. The ONLY thing you can do, if you do not like what they spend money on, is to vote in enough members to stop the spending you do not like. The SCOTUS can intervene in specific cases where there are legal challenges. Obamacare was such a case.

The SCOTUS found it CONSTITUTIONAL in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) The Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate to buy health insurance as a constitutional exercise of Congress's taxing power.

Thus my posting of the 16th Amendment as an example of Congress's power of the purse (both revenue raising and then appropriations themselves..

Again, you do not even have a basic knowledge of your own country's method of constitutional government.

The US Constitution is NOT some crackpot anarcho-capitalistic, minarchist, Ayn Randian Objectivist claptrap, or whatever else fringe libertarian pseudo philosophical ode to 'I got mine so FUCK YOU!' lunacy.

You want it to be, then vote in enough of your fellow travellers (not just at Federal level, but in 37 state legislatures too, as that is the threshold) and AMEND IT!

good luck with that buttercup!

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

 

President Obama and the Democratic party creating laws that go against the original US constitution, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

I don't think you are getting it. AOC is meaning to create laws that go against the Constitution, just as Obama did in 2010. The fact you think that by merely changing the original US constitution, is OK, is worrying. Not only that, but it shows the dangers of Socialism. 

72% of Americans say the healthcare mandate is unconstitutional. https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/03/01/the-constitutional-issue-in-obamacare-isnt-cost-but-control/#10f311b6cef9

54% of Americans who think the healthcare mandate is a good thing, say its unconstitutional.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/03/01/the-constitutional-issue-in-obamacare-isnt-cost-but-control/#10f311b6cef9

 

And what did this mandate do? A mandate more than 70% of the country viewed as unconstitutional? Add 940 Billion in debt. The most debt out of any presidential policy. 

 

That is the issue with Socialism. It leads to economic decay. 

 

I await your response. 

 

 

[Unionjack 7,531]

49 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

The 16th Amendment allows the federal government to collect income tax. Tax that goes directly to public roads and transport, military, and police force. These are considered public goods as these are goods we ALL consume. We ALL drive on the same roads. We ALL are protected by the police and we ALL are protected by our military. 

Sorry to but in as I'm enjoying your chat.

But so you are OK about your taxes going towards the copt,military,roads - that you consume. But don't you get sick? What happens if you cant afford your or a loved ones treatment in hospital?

How about if you cant afford to send your child to school or college?

Its not just everyone else you are paying these taxes to help. Its to your benefit too.

We in the UK might moan about our Social security system and how newcommers to the country get their benifits too easily (yes in some cases peeps come here and do take the piss to get free housing,meds etc) but the option would be that many would go sick and homeless other wise.

[MoroccanBlue 5,375]

14 minutes ago, Unionjack said:

Sorry to but in as I'm enjoying your chat.

But so you are OK about your taxes going towards the copt,military,roads - that you consume. But don't you get sick? What happens if you cant afford your or a loved ones treatment in hospital?

How about if you cant afford to send your child to school or college?

Its not just everyone else you are paying these taxes to help. Its to your benefit too.

We in the UK might moan about our Social security system and how newcommers to the country get their benifits too easily (yes in some cases peeps come here and do take the piss to get free housing,meds etc) but the option would be that many would go sick and homeless other wise.

A. I want healthcare to become a free market. Not regulated. Affordable healthcare for those who can afford it. 

B. If you can't afford to send you child to college you shouldn't be having children. Not planning for your child's future is just bad parenting. I came to the states at 19, worked two jobs and put myself full time in a technical college. Not having that as an excuse. The opportunity is there. 

 

I'm not familiar with UK laws, but in the states, The original US constitution protects your individual rights. No one can seize your money and give it to someone else. It's an argument of morality. 

 

 

[Unionjack 7,531]

1 minute ago, MoroccanBlue said:

B. If you can't afford to send you child to college you shouldn't be having children. Not planning for your child's future is just bad parenting. I came to the states at 19, worked two jobs and put myself full time in a technical college. Not having that as an excuse. The opportunity is there. 

How about if you was doing the 2 jobs,2;4 kids,mortgage up to your eyeballs,big gas guzzler in the garage. And you became ill. You couldn't work. You couldn't afford insurance. You was going to lose your house to the bank as you cant goto work OR you had been made redundant or something?

You have no savings as you was on minimal wage. No family to ask for help.

What do you do then?

Have your kids go into care? Then go live in the car?

Shit happens. We might TRY our best to plan for the future but Ive found that lifes a bitch at times and all good intentions mean nothing!

[MoroccanBlue 5,375]

21 minutes ago, Unionjack said:

How about if you was doing the 2 jobs,2;4 kids,mortgage up to your eyeballs,big gas guzzler in the garage. And you became ill. You couldn't work. You couldn't afford insurance. You was going to lose your house to the bank as you cant goto work OR you had been made redundant or something?

You have no savings as you was on minimal wage. No family to ask for help.

What do you do then?

Have your kids go into care? Then go live in the car?

Shit happens. We might TRY our best to plan for the future but Ive found that lifes a bitch at times and all good intentions mean nothing!

Extreme hypothetical there 

A. You shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them. 

B. You shouldn't have a mortgage if you can't afford it. (Thank god banks are more strict after the 2008 crises.) 

C. You shouldn't be working for a company that doesn't have workers comp. Which shouldn't be any as every business is required to have it in the States. 

 

So if I was working 2 jobs, had a mortgage, had 4 kids, got ill and worked for an employer that couldn't insure me if I got ill or injured, which all led to my house being foreclosed. I would say tough shit. No one's fault by my own. I shouldn't have planned my expenditures so naively and not plan ahead in case something like this would happen. Especially the situation I'm in. 

 

What led to that, is a mixture of very bad decisions. So we as Americans, should be forced against our will, to pay for those people's bad decisions? Do you not see the moral objection with that?