I have not heard one. The statement is often linked to the statement that he is a socialist, as if one naturally implies the other, but I’ve not heard it explicitly stated.
I’ve also heard “he’s the worst president the country has ever had!!” as if it were self-evident. Not even vague litany of what he’s done to destroy the country.
Well, its only been proven that cutting taxes don’t create jobs, the argument is that raising taxes to their prior levels will eliminate jobs.
Assuming your numbers are correct…
The CBO tells us that $400 billion of the deficit is the result of the recession (lower revenues and higher spending from things like food stamps and unemployment).
About $600 billion comes from the Obama tax cuts ($270 billion/year to extend the bush tax cuts (about $225 billion of which was widely supported by Democrats to extend the Bush tax cuts to those families with less than $250K income); about $100 billion to reduce the social security tax contribution; about 70 billion in tax cuts for businesses; about 70 billion in tax cuts to the estate tax).
Now we also spend about 1$150 billion/year in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now if you got rid of these things, your deficit would be at $350 billion. and that $100 billion from the millionaire’s tax would cover a significant chunk.
Considering that cvongress is spending a lot of time trying to cut the deficit by a few million dollars by reducing federal funding for NPR and non-abortion medical services for women, a couple of billion dollars by cutting pay for federal employees, perhaps ten billion dollars by freezing social security payments, $100 billion seems like a pretty big fucking deal.
I don’t think it will actually amount to $100 billion dollars unless we adjust the capital gains rate but the point is that we are attacking this deficit issue on all fronts asking for everyone to make sacrifices except for the very wealthy.
Absolutely. Any idea that doesn’t completely close the gap is a bad idea. It’s just stupid liberal thinking.
Just to make the point clear, let’s talk about how real thinkers want to address the deficit.
One GOP proposal is to cut Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies and save $30 T. Now that’s real savings. (I’m sure it’s not just $30B as that would be too laughable to propose. Actually the GOP page mentions “$30M” – clearly a misprint.)
Another highlight of the GOP deficit reduction plan is to cut Minority Business Development Agency and save $2T. Not much, but every little bit helps. Again the GOP page quotes “$2M” – surely Democrat hacking sabotage to make the savings seem insignificant.
By cutting National Endowment for the Humanities the GOP hopes to save $6T, Clean Coal Technology cuts $18T and a whopping $51T savings out of National Park Service. Makes the <$1T class warfare idea look pretty trivial, hunh? (And, BTW, those evil Democrat hackers were at all these numbers too, replacing “T” with “M” in each case to make them look a million times smaller.)
I wonder if Terr grasps my point, shown facetiously above? Explaining trivia like this gets old: one wants to just type “Google No true Scotsman OR Kettle logic if you don’t understand.” Unfortunately some fallacies are so … well, fallacious … that they don’t have names.
I don’t buy into the “class warfare/job creator” stuff. I also think that correcting artificially low tax rates on certain groups isn’t “raising taxes”. It should be done as a matter of policy, not just as a fix for the deficit, though. Having said that, I would also favor more generous tax incentives for activities that stimulate the economy, i.e. expanding industries (job creation), investing in needed areas, etc. Something to give some assurance to folks sitting on their wallets that they can at least have some sort of backing for sticking their necks out a bit.
We’re arguing over either/or, when it should be both.
No, they can’t. The federal government should not be handing out welfare; there is no constitutional authority for doing so. “Promote the General Welfare” does NOT mean write welfare checks.
You’re misquoting.
It’s “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”
It relates to the taxing and spending power of Congress. I think it’s pretty much a safe assumption that keeping people from dying of starvation is in the best interests of the US as well as being good for the populace in general.
To be fair, he’s not misquoting on purpose. He’s never read it, he’s just going by whatever he heard on talk radio.
I take that back. It’s in the preamble:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
However, the preamble has no legal force.
You’re SOOOO mean.
So let me see if I understand you correctly here.
Raising tax rates by a small percentage for those making over $1,000,000 per year can fairly be called “class warfare”. Warfare against a group is a pretty serious charge, as I’m sure you can agree.
However, eliminating any federal financial support for the poor, causing them to not have enough to eat can NOT be called class warfare, because there is no constitutional authority to provide a social safety net for this particular group of citizens, and therefore federal government should not be in the business of assisting the poor.
Thus, it’s “war” against a class of people if the federal government chooses to adjust existing progressive tax rates for a group (0.01% of the wealthy), causing them to have a bit less money, but NOT “war” if the federal government chooses to eliminate assistance for a different class of people, which will likely cause some of them to die.
Does that sum it up?
ETA: and it appears that you’re basing this on a partial recollection of the preamble. Correct?
What? I was defending him!
The tax on millionaires will cut the deficit nearly 10 percent. That would seen like a good idea to me. Why does taxing the rich have to settle the dept all at once.? It also is not a one year bill, but will bring in more money year after year.
Obama has already addressed the Swiss bank accounts . Eleven Swiss banks have released the manes of the Americans who are hiding income and wealth. There is discussion of a deal . It will bring in more money.
There also is talk of closing loopholes that allow the corporations to evade all tax liabilities. Half pay no taxes and many get money back. that is wrong.
They are trying to simplify the tax code ,so tax evasion is not legalized.
There are lots of items coming down the line to help settle the deficits. It also includes the panel that is designed to cut costs.
So in a Dem admim. the deficits are being addressed. In Repub admins, they are skyrocketed deliberately. Clinton brought the deficits down to zero. That is what Dems do. Bush destroyed that. that is what Repubs do.
It’s also in in Article 1, Section 8 of the Consitution:
And that does have the force of law.
The sentence you quoted:
*
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;*
says that Congress has “Power” to tax, then says what the purpose of that power is - which is also explained more in the enumerated powers that follow. “providing for general Welfare of the United States” is not a “Power” that Congress has. It is its duty.
If you interpret that sentence as giving Congress the “power” of “general welfare”, you have to admit that “paying the Debts” of the United State is also Congress’s “power”. It is obvious that “Paying the Debts” cannot be a “power” - it’s a duty. So is the “provide for general Welfare” (and “provide for the common Defence”).
I was referring to Clothahump’s “promote” the general welfare quote.
I had remembered that wasn’t how it went in the constitution (i.e. provide for the common defense and general welfare) but had forgotten that it was also mentioned in the preamble which is where “promote the general welfare” is used.
In other words, Congress isn’t even allowed to eliminate welfare, since that’s a duty it must fulfill. But they’re perfectly empowered to raise taxes.
I don’t think you’re making the argument you think you’re making.
No. It is its duty to provide for US general welfare. As in “well-being” (since obviously there was no “welfare programs” at the time it was written). How? There are enumerated powers that follow that spell it out.
Those that think that “general welfare” is a separate clause are negating the rest of Article 1, Section 8. There is no need for enumeration of powers, since every one of them falls under “general welfare”.
I agree; Terr doesn’t seem to understand that he isn’t making the argument he thinks he’s making.