I can just picture it. After a few beers, and after listening to Trump lambaste people in the government, occasionally making his goofy-ass face for emphasis, he is challenged.
"What?!? Are you kidding? I would president the shit out of this country".
I wonder how such a system would affect a potential candidates ability to create a "treasure chest" for the election. Would the risk of supporting an non-electable candidate make them more cautious? Being a cynic, I think one possibility would be that PACs and wealthier citizens would spend their money trying to influence the media, even more so than today.
It's a nice idea, but it only addresses the symptom - not the cause. Besides, the same turkeys would just return again (i.e. this isn't Trump nor Killary's first run for the WH).
The real problem is the electorate (us). The candidates are a reflection of the general population. We get the govt we deserve.
Then for Trump to get so far ahead, doesn't that mean he does in fact reflect a large segment of the population (at least the Conservatives)? He embodies that "sick and tired" feeling with his angry rhetoric - thus he's a mirror of how many in the country feel right now (myself included).
Sanders also mirrors a large portion of the Liberal population. He says what's really on their minds (i.e. punish the wealthy, level the playing field, give us free stuff, etc.).
Roughly 50% of the country doesn't pay any federal taxes - due to tax credits, etc.. Do you support making them pay their fair share as well?
I remember my deadbeat neighbor, who couldn't hold a job for more than a month (and who's now in prison), once got a $9,000 refund one year. He spent it all on toys: 4wheeler, guns, strobe lights (to make his car look like a cop's). He didn't earn any of that money. That's our money he spent.
Hearing that about half of the US households pay no federal taxes seems incredibly unfair... until you consider how much the bottom half actually own.
In 1995, the bottom 50% owned 3.6% of our nation's wealth. In 2010, which is the latest year in which I could find such information, it was down to 1%. Just imagine a pie chart, with a little sliver representing the portion the bottom 50% owns. That's astounding to me.
I am for a flat income tax, so long as their are zero deductions, and capital gains is considered income. That seems the fairest way for everyone to pay their fair share.
Our nation was founded on equal rights, not equal wealth/income. We don't have a constitutional right to a certain level of wealth, or a certain percentage of that pie chart you mentioned.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
So if the constitution makes no mention of assisting the poor, you feel the government should not do so?
Correct, because that's not the role of government. Government's role is to protect our rights and liberties, to ensure we remain free. Outside of that, the federal gov't should remain silent.
Private charities and churches can (and do) step up and help the poor all the time.
Now I understand why you see Bernie as a socialist. It makes perfect sense.
I see wealth inequality as a major issue. If current trends continue, there will eventually be only two, very distinct classes in America - the extremely affluent, and the extremely impoverished. Having the poor had to rely on charity of others would only hasten the dystopia I fear may be coming.
Phil, I think you are assuming that Bernie will make everyone equally wealthy. But every other socialist has made everyone equally miserable.
Seriously, there is no quick ticket to wealth Phil. You're gonna have to work for it. [Or, be satisfied with whatever government thinks you deserve this month.
That's exactly the case the Bolsheviks made (re: the two classes). Then eventually showed the world how a true dystopia is made. History repeats itself I'm afraid.
Personally, I'm convinced we're destined for communism. The warning signs are everywhere right now. The following that Sanders has with the younger generation is really telling. It may not happen this election cycle, or the next, but I'm convinced it will happen (probably in my lifetime too).
A friend of mine is from Poland and he remembers living under communism. He can't believe the course we're on. He sees it coming like we do. These fools that support Bernie will do us in, if not this election, then the next - with some other commie fruitcake.
It will happen, oh yes it will (Wayne Campbell impersonation).
Very true. I'm actually looking forward to starting my own kingdom here soon. The faceman will be a benevolent king.
"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".
To say constitutional law is not my strong suite would be an understatement, but doesn't it depend on the interpretation of "general welfare".
It's not about government cheese Phil.
The Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to forcibly confiscate wealth from one group of individuals and transfer the wealth to another group. The method authorized for this confiscation of wealth is taxation and the method for its distribution is welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. This transfer of wealth is authorized by the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.
The general welfare clause has absolutely nothing to do with the confiscation of wealth from one group of individuals and the transferring of it to another. Progressives have completely distorted the meaning of that clause.
This clause only grants congress the power to collect taxes for the promotion of a general state of well-being for the country as a whole provided the money collected will only be spent by congress according to the powers granted to congress.
This clause authorizes congress to collect taxes from various sources to pay off national debts, provide for common defense, and the general welfare.
This clause is the first in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The section is titled the powers of congress. Nothing in this clause authorizes congress to spend any money. The rest of the section spells out the areas where congress has the power to spend the taxes whose collection is authorized in clause 1. These items spelled out in the remaining clauses of the section all pertain to paying off debts, providing common defense and general welfare of the nation.
Progressives have completely ignored the definition of the phrase “general welfare” that was universally accepted by the framers of the constitution. They have substituted the 18th century definition of general welfare with a modern definition that is the polar opposite of the original.
Thanks for the reply Bud.
If you're interested...
According to this page:
With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause; Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers, in other words, as little more than a power of self–support.
This has been a thorny issue for quite some time. From the little I know, I agree more with Madison's position than I do with Hamilton's. Once you say Congress can tax and spend on anything which can be construed as being for "the general welfare", you open up Pandora's box. That's all that's needed to create a ginormous national debt.
So if Congress doesn't have the power to spend money on social welfare programs, what do you think happens to the poor? I don't see charity as a viable solution. Certainly some people could use a good kick in the ass, but others do not. Some people, through no fault of their own, find themselves in poverty.
This is a bit off topic, but during my Catholic upbringing I remember being taught things like "do onto others as you would have them do onto you", and how it would be "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven". I also remember that, even as a child, I questioned how the Catholics I knew could behave the way they did, and still pontificate about these teachings. I'm not sure there is an answer, other than "we are all sinners", but that still makes many of us hypocrites.
My parents also taught me that I am lucky to have been born into this country, and have the possessions that I have. I have come to believe that the only difference between me and a poor person is that I happened to win the parent lottery.
It's great that you have such great concern for the less fortunate. One of my favorite charities is Food For The Poor foodforthepoor.org Your charity dollar goes a long way with this organization. They do work in places where people have no clue where their next meal is coming from, or a drink of safe water. The work they do is life changing.
Phil, when you send a dollar to this organization, $0.956 cents goes to the helping the poor.
When you send a dollar to the government, they need another $10 just to record that they received it! There is no less efficient organization than our government. They are the least likely to do any good with it.
How long have they been 'fighting poverty'? And, how many more are impoverished since they started?
No Phil, food stamps is not what the Constitution is referring to. But, the constitution does guarantee everyone equal opportunity. So, how about we streamline government to do what is supposed to do - protect the nation and ensure a healthy environment for business to flourish, hire people so they can make some money and take care of their own needs and maybe have a little left to send to charity? How about caring enough for the people to help them fend for themselves instead of having to count on someone else to cater to their every need?
I agree with Xara_T. Excellent post!
You know, I started doing my taxes a few days ago, and your post just made me realize that, while we gave to organizations like American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Assoc, etc... we didn't gave to an organization whose mission is to help the poor.
I did a little sleuthing and foodforthepoor.org looks like a great choice. We will give to this organization this year.
Many good blessings to you Phil!
Thank you. Samaritan's Purse looks like another good one - and 88%+ goes to the services provided. Tht's really pretty good.
Great explanation. Thanks.
Yes, there are those that get back more than they put in (my neighbor was certainly one of them). But there are still many others that get 100% of what they paid in, effectively paying nothing in federal taxes. Roughly half the country right now has no "skin in the game".
I'm just curious, because when someone says the rich should pay their fair share, the words "fair" and "share" are so subjective. Especially considering half don't pay a dime. I can almost guarantee all of the Occupy protesters don't pay any taxes at all. And yet they're constantly demanding others should pay more.
You might get your wish!
In United States politics, a brokered convention is a situation in which no single candidate has secured a pre-existing majority of delegates (whether those selected by primary elections and caucuses, or superdelegates) prior to the first official vote for a political party's presidential candidate at its nominating ...