Ron Paul poised to take on the Fed at head of financial subcommittee

[DeistPaladin]

"The rich" do not generate the wealth of society. The middle class does. Some 80% of the jobs in this country are produced by small business like myself, the owners of which fall under the 250K bracket. Destroying the middle class will make America a third world country.

Taxing the rich more is only fair because they benefit more from society. If society collapsed, it would be no picnic for the poor but the rich have the most to lose. Since they use more resources (law enforcement, military protection, fire department protection, roads, etc.) they should rightfully pay more.

[theVOID]

Rich people use social services more? Yeah right paladin

[Ryft]

These individuals who want this strict interpretation of the Constitution always seem to forget that the preamble of the Constitution states ...

No, they do not. They are quite aware of what the preamble states. But they are also aware that the preamble is just that, a preamble; it is neither law nor carries the force of law. It simply states the reason behind establishing the Constitution. The meaning of "the general welfare" and the context in which the federal government is to promote it are "qualified by the detail of powers connected with them," as Madison wrote (i.e., enumerated within the Constitution itself), no less in the very first Article which immediately follows the preamble.

For the preservation of a constitutional republic (and thus the sovereignty and freedom of individuals), you definitely want in power those who are hardcore defenders of the U.S. Constitution.

If there was redistribution of the wealth, think of all of the human misery that would abate.

So who would redistribute that wealth, and by what authority? If anyone other than me redistributes my wealth, that is theft; and if the government by threat of law, that is tyranny. Philanthropic charity is not delegated to the federal government anywhere in the Constitution; that is the domain of the states, or more appropriately the people. A constitutional republic defies any attempt at a communist democracy, protected by the ramparts of the U.S. Constitution.

---

---

Since [the rich] use more resources (law enforcement, military protection, fire department protection, roads, etc.) they should rightfully pay more.

I would love to know what this mysterious, non-arbitrary number is that classifies "the rich" and why the left persists in racial and class warfare. But less generally to your point, in what way does "the rich" use more law enforcement, more military protection, etc.?

Incidentally, anyone who earns above $45,000 per year are in the top 1.7% of the richest people in the world (Milanovic, B. [2000]. "True World Income Distribution, 1988 and 1993: First calculations based on household surveys alone." World Bank Development Research Group. p. 30).

[DeistPaladin]

I would love to know what this mysterious, non-arbitrary number is that classifies "the rich"

I think the debated $250K a year in household income line is a conservative place to draw. Top 2% of incomes that now control half the wealth in this country might be another.

and why the left persists in racial and class warfare.

Oh good God man, why can't you acknowledge what already exists. Class warfare has been raging for 30 years now. The rich have been getting richer (the only economic effect of tax cuts) and the middle class is disappearing. The class war has been on for three decades now and the people are losing.

But less generally to your point, in what way does "the rich" use more law enforcement, more military protection, etc.?

They have more stuff. Ergo, they have more to protect and more to lose.

Incidentally, anyone who earns above $45,000 per year are in the top 1.7% of the richest people in the world (Milanovic, B. [2000]. "True World Income Distribution, 1988 and 1993: First calculations based on household surveys alone." World Bank Development Research Group. p. 30).

Bold emphasis mine. Good use of misleading statistics there.

[Tiberius]

They have more stuff. Ergo, they have more to protect and more to lose.

Show me one "rich" person who solely depends on public services like the police for protection. Private security contractors are far more useful to the rich since they can be hired to protect 24/7; a service the police do not provide. I guess this point goes right in with my point about the rich creating jobs.

[Minimalist]

Erm...jobs?

I'm sorry Adrian but I don't believe that you are that naive.

These rich mother-fuckers have been eliminating jobs left and right. Recent reports are that American corporations made record profits last year and still they refuse to hire workers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/busine...4econ.html

The reason for this is quite simple. Those CEOs pay themselves with stock options which they manipulate to maximize the return to THEM. They do not give a flying fuck about anyone except themselves. If they ruin the country in the process that's fine. They do not care. They do care about poisoning the political climate with attack ads so they can get their taxes cut still further by their republican lap dogs.

The let-em-eat-cake crowd should think about France in 1789.

[Tiberius]

I can't believe you are that naive. Actually, 'naive' is the wrong word for what you just described. I can't believe your mind is that conspiracy addled.

[Anomalocaris]

He didn't so much imply a conspiracy as indicate the pervasive existence of perverse incentives.

[lilyannerose]

No, they do not. They are quite aware of what the preamble states. But they are also aware that the preamble is just that, a preamble; it is neither law nor carries the force of law. It simply states the reason behind establishing the Constitution. The meaning of "the general welfare" and the context in which the federal government is to promote it are "qualified by the detail of powers connected with them," as Madison wrote (i.e., enumerated within the Constitution itself), no less in the very first Article which immediately follows the preamble.

And so, when the Constitution was created, Congress was given power in Article I Section 8 to raise funds for such a purpose:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to … provide for the … general Welfare of the United States.

This has been understood to mean that the Federal Government can supply $$ to the States and the States in turn are empowered to provide that $$ to the people.

For the preservation of a constitutional republic (and thus the sovereignty and freedom of individuals), you definitely want in power those who are hardcore defenders of the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution was designed for flexibility and further in order to become a hardcore defender of the Constitution one must be well versed in the intent of the Constitution and frankly most people are not that well versed. One needs to understand the intent of the Congress in it's language and don't lose sight of the fact that language has changed over the courses of the centuries.

So who would redistribute that wealth, and by what authority? If anyone other than me redistributes my wealth, that is theft; and if the government by threat of law, that is tyranny. Philanthropic charity is not delegated to the federal government anywhere in the Constitution; that is the domain of the states, or more appropriately the people. A constitutional republic defies any attempt at a communist democracy, protected by the ramparts of the U.S. Constitution.

I don't care who seizes the wealth for redistribution as long as that redistribution is used to assist the common man out of poverty and ignorance. The rich are just parasites upon the common population and contribute very little to the public good.

[Ryft]

This has been understood to mean that the federal government can ...

There are specific things regarding paying the "debts" and providing "for the common defence and general welfare of the United States" that Congress is empowered to appropriate federal tax revenue for. What are they? Hint: not a single one of them include redistributing anyone's wealth for philanthropic charity. You want to change that? The Constitution provides for an amendment process. Go for it (and good luck with that).

In order to become a hardcore defender of the Constitution, one must be well-versed in the intent of the Constitution and, frankly, most people are not that well versed.

Agreed. But what does that have to do with Ron Paul, or even myself as one of those hardcore defenders of the Constitution?

And don't lose sight of the fact that language has changed over the course of the centuries.

Irrelevant. The U.S. Constitution was written according to what the words meant back then, by people who were incapable of knowing what the words would mean over 200 years later.

I don't care who seizes the wealth for redistribution ...

So you are comfortable with tyranny. Good to know.