Obama to "spread wealth around"

[theHawk]

We'll he has finally admitted what his tax plan is. Tax rich people to "spread the wealth around".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owA2geM8OGg


Income redistribution is on the way! :pee:

[theHawk]

LOL


"Its not that I want to punish your success" ....but I am anyway!! LOL

[mundame]

LOL


"Its not that I want to punish your success" ....but I am anyway!! LOL


He's openly talking about giving away money from the people who make it to the people who don't make it even before he gets elected!!

He calls it "tax cuts" -- he means to take money from the 40% who actually pay taxes and give it to the 60% who don't pay taxes.

He's spreading the wealth, but not his own, ours.

Why is it okay to give away other people's wealth? I have never figured that one out.

[namvet]

he'll need the rich. and wants to take a shit on em???? and they'll take a shit on him............

[Joe Steel]

He's openly talking about giving away money from the people who make it to the people who don't make it even before he gets elected!!

He calls it "tax cuts" -- he means to take money from the 40% who actually pay taxes and give it to the 60% who don't pay taxes.

He's spreading the wealth, but not his own, ours.

Why is it okay to give away other people's wealth? I have never figured that one out.


"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..."

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

[hjmick]

"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..."

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

Yeah, and...?

[Mr. P]

He's openly talking about giving away money from the people who make it to the people who don't make it even before he gets elected!!

He calls it "tax cuts" -- he means to take money from the 40% who actually pay taxes and give it to the 60% who don't pay taxes.

He's spreading the wealth, but not his own, ours.

Why is it okay to give away other people's wealth? I have never figured that one out.


"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..."

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

Redistribution of income tax to individuals exceeds the intent of Article 1, Section 8. There is no mention of this practice anywhere in the constitution that I'm aware of.

It is clear it says "to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States" not individuals.

[Joe Steel]

Yeah, and...?

Don't you see the connection between taxes and the power to tax?

[Joe Steel]

Redistribution of income tax to individuals exceeds the intent of Article 1, Section 8. There is no mention of this practice anywhere in the constitution that I'm aware of.

It is clear it says "to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States" not individuals.

The economic welfare of the country depends on the economic welfare of citizens in the aggregate.

[hjmick]

The economic welfare of the country depends on the economic welfare of citizens in the aggregate.

But why do you believe it the responsibility of the government to take from group A and give to group B? At what point does personal responsibility enter into the equation?

[Joe Steel]

But why do you believe it the responsibility of the government to take from group A and give to group B? At what point does personal responsibility enter into the equation?

Taxes, by their nature, take from some and give to others. That's not controversial.

Personal responsibility isn't the primary concern of Congress. They're responsible for the welfare of the United States. If they determine it is best served by income redistribution, they have a fiduciary responsibility to enact appropriate legislation and to implement appropriate policies.

[Mr. P]

The economic welfare of the country depends on the economic welfare of citizens in the aggregate.

The intent of Article 1, Section 8 is to provide for the "opportunity/welfare" via defense, fairness of tax for each state etc. not to redistribute the wealth from those that have to those who have not through income tax.

[Immanuel]

The intent of Article 1, Section 8 is to provide for the "opportunity/welfare" via defense, fairness of tax for each state etc. not to redistribute the wealth from those that have to those who have not through income tax.

Not if you are liberal like JS. In that case, the intent of any part of the Constitution is what they want it to say, when they want it to say that and is subject to change at a moments notice.

Don't tell me you didn't know that?

Immie

[Mr. P]

Not if you are liberal like JS. In that case, the intent of any part of the Constitution is what they want it to say, when they want it to say that and is subject to change at a moments notice.

Don't tell me you didn't know that?

Immie

Ya, I know..it's the "living breathing changing" document stuff. It won't work though.

[Immanuel]

Ya, I know..it's the "living breathing changing" document stuff. It won't work though.

Unfortunately, it seems to be working very well.

Immie

[Mr. P]

Unfortunately, it seems to be working very well.

Immie

I still have faith in the Constitutional scholars.

This IS why the Supreme Court appointments are so critical.

[Little-Acorn]

Unfortunately, it seems to be working very well.

Immie

If the intent was to dodge the intent of the Contitution, yes, it's working very well. But if the intent was to obey the spirit and letter of the law, then no, it's flatly failing.

The former was true, of course. The intent was to thwart the intent of the Constitution, which was to keep the Federal government small and limited to only certain functions. That didn't suit the big-government liberals (in both parties), and they have been trying to violate the Constitution without getting caught, for more than a century now.

BTW, one of the things the Constitution was expressly designed to prevent, was what is inaccurately called "wealth redistribution" today. The Const says that there are only certain things the Fed govt is allowed to spend tax money on: Defense, courts, other things the Const specifically names as powers of the Fed govt, and in general things that benefit ALL states equally ("the General Welfare"). No special interests, nothing for Colorado only, or blacks only, or carpenters only ("Particular Welfare").

In other words, the socialism Obama is pushing with this plumber in Ohio, if flatly illegal and unconstitutional.

Only by carefully misreading the General Welfare clause, do the leftists have any hope of pretending that what they are trying to do is legal.

[theHawk]

Obama's whole plateform is unconstitutional. Where in the Constitution is authority given the government to overtake the health care industry?

[avatar4321]

"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..."

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

what part of that says its okay to take from the people who work to give to the people who dont? Or that such a scheme is a good idea?

[avatar4321]

The economic welfare of the country depends on the economic welfare of citizens in the aggregate.

which is exactly why its stupid to take money away from people in an effort to generate wealth

[avatar4321]

Taxes, by their nature, take from some and give to others. That's not controversial.

Personal responsibility isn't the primary concern of Congress. They're responsible for the welfare of the United States. If they determine it is best served by income redistribution, they have a fiduciary responsibility to enact appropriate legislation and to implement appropriate policies.

Actually, by the natures taxes should take money from everyone to give something to everyone.

Otherwise its just called grand larceny.

[Yurt]

Taxes, by their nature, take from some and give to others. That's not controversial.

Personal responsibility isn't the primary concern of Congress. They're responsible for the welfare of the United States. If they determine it is best served by income redistribution, they have a fiduciary responsibility to enact appropriate legislation and to implement appropriate policies.

that is not the way i read the constituion....it does not say that taxes can be levied so the government can take your money and give it to others...maybe you can show me the clause where it says that

[mundame]

that is not the way i read the constituion....it does not say that taxes can be levied so the government can take your money and give it to others...maybe you can show me the clause where it says that


Why bother? That horse has long since left the barn. We already have a progressive income tax that is redistributed.

And right now huge monies are being redistributed to banks, and much talk of a moratorium on foreclosures so that people who are not paying for their houses can live in them without paying for longer, while they get a "tax rebate" even though they have never paid any taxes.

So to talk about whether the Constitution allows any of this is beside the point.

[MtnBiker]

Article 1 describes powers for the Legislative branch of government not the Executive, Obama is running for the President which is the executive branch. Not to mention, that general does not mean specific or individual.



Most people do not want a government that will attempt to decide on who should recieve what. Except for those that want to recieve something from those that produce wealth for the country.

[Joe Steel]

The intent of Article 1, Section 8 is to provide for the "opportunity/welfare" via defense, fairness of tax for each state etc. not to redistribute the wealth from those that have to those who have not through income tax.

Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution. Where does it define "general welfare?"

[Joe Steel]

Not if you are liberal like JS. In that case, the intent of any part of the Constitution is what they want it to say, when they want it to say that and is subject to change at a moments notice.

Don't tell me you didn't know that?

Immie


The words of the Constitution are subject to rules of construction. In the absence of any explicit definition, they are defined by context or common usage.

[Mr. P]

Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution. Where does it define "general welfare?"

It doesn't define "general welfare" nor does Article 1, Section 8 provide for redistribution of wealth through income taxes.


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.

Note "promote the general Welfare" not "provide the general Welfare". Yes both "promote" and "provide" are used in the Constitution, read in context their meaning and the intent of the writers is clear.

[theHawk]

Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution. Where does it define "general welfare?"


I think you've missed the whole thing.

[Yurt]

promote the general welfare means "spread the wealth"

give me a break...the term welfare when the founders wrote the constitution did not at all include our modern understanding of the welfare system...they did not even have one back then...

[Yurt]

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;


United States = the Government, not citizens, not spread the wealth, IMO

i believe the founders only meant the welfare of the government, in that, to keep the government running efficiently....NOT...to take income from me and give it to someone else...i sincerely doubt such a notion even entered our political history until the 20th century, maybe late 19th...

[Abbey Marie]

The words of the Constitution are subject to rules of construction. In the absence of any explicit definition, they are defined by context or common usage.

So you think our founding fathers drafted the Constitution in the hopes of achieving a Socialist country? Are you kidding?

[Immanuel]

So you think our founding fathers drafted the Constitution in the hopes of achieving a Socialist country? Are you kidding?

The scary thing is that no, he is not kidding.

Immie

[Joe Steel]

It doesn't define "general welfare" nor does Article 1, Section 8 provide for redistribution of wealth through income taxes.

It does if Congress believes redistribution will provide for the general welfare.


Note "promote the general Welfare" not "provide the general Welfare". Yes both "promote" and "provide" are used in the Constitution, read in context their meaning and the intent of the writers is clear.

Look-up "promote." It permits anything which makes attainment of a greater level of welfare more likely. To "promote" is to support efforts toward achievement of a goal.

[Joe Steel]

So you think our founding fathers drafted the Constitution in the hopes of achieving a Socialist country? Are you kidding?

Socialist would be too strong a word. However, they certainly would approve of something like the social democracies of Western Europe.

[Joe Steel]

promote the general welfare means "spread the wealth"

give me a break...the term welfare when the founders wrote the constitution did not at all include our modern understanding of the welfare system...they did not even have one back then...

See the anti-federalist paper Brutus V. It discusses "general welfare" and makes a good argument for interpreting the phrase as just about anything you want it to mean.

That understanding would be consistent with the acts of Congress in the years just after the creation of the government. They did just about anything they wanted to do without the slightest concern for the constitutionality of the act. That is, the founding generation believed they could do whatever they thought had to be done. That's a strong argument for an expansive interpretation.

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like little joesteal has decided that enough time has gone by since the last time his "general welfare" tripe was debunked, that he hopes people have forgotten how many times he has been beaten down on the subject, and he thinks he can try to make someone believe it again.

See http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=16170&highlight=General+Welfare&page=2 , posts 20 and 22, for starters, they point to many more times little joe had had his head handed to him on this subject.

In short, in 1789 "general Welfare" meant the welfare of all Americans equally, as opposed to "particular welfare", which meant the welfare of selected individuals or special interest groups like carpenters, or Pennsylvanians, or blacks, etc.

The "General Welfare" clause in the Constitution, is a RESTRICTION on what tax money can be spent on: it means taxes can be spent only on things that benefit the entire country equally.

Redistributing wealth as little joe, and Barack, want to is flatly unconstitutional.

[mundame]

Redistributing wealth as little joe, and Barack, want to is flatly unconstitutional.


I ask again: So what?

Since the progressive income tax, since the New Deal, since Social Security has been shown to be NOT a trust fund but a redistribution from generation to generation, isn't that horse so far out of the barn and several hills away that there is no use even bringing it up?

There already is redistribution.

The only question now is, how much.

[mundame]

I'm opposed to the progressive income tax myself.

That's never done me much good, though.

You can say this or that in common use is "unconstitutional," but what good will that do you if it's happening constantly?

[Yurt]

See the anti-federalist paper Brutus V. It discusses "general welfare" and makes a good argument for interpreting the phrase as just about anything you want it to mean.

That understanding would be consistent with the acts of Congress in the years just after the creation of the government. They did just about anything they wanted to do without the slightest concern for the constitutionality of the act. That is, the founding generation believed they could do whatever they thought had to be done. That's a strong argument for an expansive interpretation.

just because an argument exist, does not make the argument right...further, just because "recent" governmental activity acts, IMO, contrary to the founding fathers will, does not mean that just because the recent government does something, that is what the founders intended.

notice the welfare refers to the government, NOT the individual citizen...what do you think of that argument?

when i have time i will review your recommended reading

[Yurt]

quick question JS:

do you believe that the power to promote the general welfare of the UNITED STATES is unlimited?

[Yurt]

i couldn't wait...i skimmed it and it appears to contradict your POV joesteele:

3d. What limitation, if any, is set to the exercise of this power by the constitution.

...

but the power to lay and collect has great latitude; it will lead to the passing a vast number of laws, which may affect the personal rights of the citizens of the states, expose their property to fines and confiscation, and put their lives in jeopardy: it opens a door to the appointment of a swarm of revenue and excise officers to pray [sic] upon the honest and industrious part of the community, eat up their substance, and riot on the spoils of the country.


...

2d. We will next enquire into what is implied in the authority to pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry this power into execution.

If the power of laying imposts will not be sufficient, some other specific mode of raising a revenue should have been assigned the general government; many may be suggested in which their power may be accurately defined and limited, and it would be much better to give them authority to lay and collect a duty on exports, not to exceed a certain rate per cent, than to have surrendered every kind of resource that the country has, to the complete abolition of the state governments, and which will introduce such an infinite number of laws and ordinances, fines and penalties, courts, and judges, collectors, and excisemen, that when a man can number them, he may enumerate the stars of Heaven.

I shall resume this subject in my next, and by an induction of particulars shew, that this power, in its exercise, will subvert all state authority, and will work to the oppression of the people, and that there are no restrictions in the constitution that will soften its rigour, but rather the contrary.

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1672


care to explain how this paper supports your view that the government should be allowed unlimited power to tax anything and everything for any and every purpose the government deems necessary and proper?

[Abbey Marie]

Socialist would be too strong a word. However, they certainly would approve of something like the social democracies of Western Europe.

Joe, you have a whole lot to learn about our Founding Fathers (and Mothers), and in fact about that whole generation. These were the very essence of bootstrap guys.

[mundame]

These were the very essence of bootstrap guys.


Yes, that post was just too out in the stratosphere for me. I did think, well, if it's true they wanted socialism, why didn't they invent THAT while they were inventing a nation?

[Mr. P]

It does if Congress believes redistribution will provide for the general welfare.



Look-up "promote." It permits anything which makes attainment of a greater level of welfare more likely. To "promote" is to support efforts toward achievement of a goal.

To "promote" does not mean "provide" look it up.

[Immanuel]

To "promote" does not mean "provide" look it up.

It does if you are a liberal and you want it to.

Just as Welfare now only means the failed government program that is the prime example for redistribution of wealth.

Immie

[Mr. P]

I ask again: So what?

Since the progressive income tax, since the New Deal, since Social Security has been shown to be NOT a trust fund but a redistribution from generation to generation, isn't that horse so far out of the barn and several hills away that there is no use even bringing it up?

There already is redistribution.

The only question now is, how much.

Gotta bring it up to make folks aware and change it to what it should be, right?

Otherwise we have the ole frog in the pan of hot water thing...no one knows they're dead until it's too late.

[manu1959]

I ask again: So what?

Since the progressive income tax, since the New Deal, since Social Security has been shown to be NOT a trust fund but a redistribution from generation to generation, isn't that horse so far out of the barn and several hills away that there is no use even bringing it up?

There already is redistribution.

The only question now is, how much.

so because it has been this way for a while we should just accept it.....

what an absurd notion....that isn't change it is business as usual.....

[mundame]

so because it has been this way for a while we should just accept it.....

what an absurd notion....that isn't change it is business as usual.....


You think you're going to change the country to make welfare and the progressive income tax illegal?

Hey, go at it. I think I'll sit back in this rocking chair and watch you.



Do you have a windmill-tilting act, too?

[mundame]

Gotta bring it up to make folks aware and change it to what it should be, right?

Otherwise we have the ole frog in the pan of hot water thing...no one knows they're dead until it's too late.


Well said, Mr. P -------------

But I think frog legs are for supper tonight.

It's too late and we're dead.

[Yurt]

You think you're going to change the country to make welfare and the progressive income tax illegal?

Hey, go at it. I think I'll sit back in this rocking chair and watch you.



Do you have a windmill-tilting act, too?

but the power to lay and collect has great latitude; it will lead to the passing a vast number of laws, which may affect the personal rights of the citizens of the states, expose their property to fines and confiscation, and put their lives in jeopardy: it opens a door to the appointment of a swarm of revenue and excise officers to pray [sic] upon the honest and industrious part of the community, eat up their substance, and riot on the spoils of the country.


...

2d. We will next enquire into what is implied in the authority to pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry this power into execution.

If the power of laying imposts will not be sufficient, some other specific mode of raising a revenue should have been assigned the general government; many may be suggested in which their power may be accurately defined and limited, and it would be much better to give them authority to lay and collect a duty on exports, not to exceed a certain rate per cent, than to have surrendered every kind of resource that the country has, to the complete abolition of the state governments, and which will introduce such an infinite number of laws and ordinances, fines and penalties, courts, and judges, collectors, and excisemen, that when a man can number them, he may enumerate the stars of Heaven.

I shall resume this subject in my next, and by an induction of particulars shew, that this power, in its exercise, will subvert all state authority, and will work to the oppression of the people, and that there are no restrictions in the constitution that will soften its rigour, but rather the contrary.

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.o...?document=1672

it took america much longer than time we have had income tax to become an independent nation....guess we all should have sat by and watched....

[Mr. P]

Well said, Mr. P -------------

But I think frog legs are for supper tonight.

It's too late and we're dead.

Severely wounded maybe, but not dead yet.

Privatize SSI and adopt the fair tax. This Country will rebound like a supper ball.
Just my opinion...but I think I'm correct.

[Joe Steel]

just because an argument exist, does not make the argument right...further, just because "recent" governmental activity acts, IMO, contrary to the founding fathers will, does not mean that just because the recent government does something, that is what the founders intended.

notice the welfare refers to the government, NOT the individual citizen...what do you think of that argument?

when i have time i will review your recommended reading

The phrase "united states" does not refer to the government. It refers to the state, i.e. "a politically organized body of people."

[Joe Steel]

i couldn't wait...i skimmed it and it appears to contradict your POV joesteele:

I don't think so.

[quote]The great objects then are declared in this preamble in general and indefinite terms to be to provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and an express power being vested in the legislature to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the general government. The inference is natural that the legislature will have an authority to make all laws which they shall judge necessary for the common safety, and to promote the general welfare. This amounts to a power to make laws at discretion.

Congress can do anything it wishes.

[Joe Steel]

Joe, you have a whole lot to learn about our Founding Fathers (and Mothers), and in fact about that whole generation. These were the very essence of bootstrap guys.

Sorry, no.

Constituting a government with the power to tax and borrow to provide for general welfare belies that idea.

[Joe Steel]

To "promote" does not mean "provide" look it up.

Promote can include provide.

[Mr. P]

Promote can include provide.

Sure, but not in the context you are attempting to use it regarding the Constitution, it ain't in there.

Take a seat Joe, we don't interpret the Constitution nor it's intent based on todays changed meaning of certain words.

[Joe Steel]

Sure, but not in the context you are attempting to use it regarding the Constitution, it ain't in there.

Nonsense.

It is used in Art. 1, Sec. 8 to define the powers of Congress. It says, essentially, the powers are to be used for the benefit of the United States.


Take a seat Joe, we don't interpret the Constitution nor it's intent based on todays changed meaning of certain words.

Exactly. My construction is perfectly consistent with the contemporaneous meaning of the phrase.

[Abbey Marie]

Sorry, no.

Constituting a government with the power to tax and borrow to provide for general welfare belies that idea.


Nonsense.

[red states rule]

Seems the guy who started all this is not backing down

Joe the Plumber Calls Obama's Tax Plan Socialist, Sawyer Defends It
By Noel Sheppard
October 16, 2008 - 10:08 ET

Joe the Plumber, aka Joe Wurzelbacher the Ohio man that has suddenly become the face of the presidential campaign, told ABC's Diane Sawyer Thursday that Barack Obama's tax plan to spread the wealth is "a very socialist view, and it's incredibly wrong."

Predictably, Sawyer defended Obama's position by saying it's only a three percent tax increase that people making over $250,000 would be required to pay.

Deliciously, the "Good Morning America" guest wasn't backing down

watch the video here

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FeX3zfvIwAA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FeX3zfvIwAA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/16/joe-plumber-calls-obamas-tax-plan-socialist-sawyer-defends-it

[Mr. P]

Seems the guy who started all this is not backing down

Joe the Plumber Calls Obama's Tax Plan Socialist, Sawyer Defends It
By Noel Sheppard
October 16, 2008 - 10:08 ET

Joe the Plumber, aka Joe Wurzelbacher the Ohio man that has suddenly become the face of the presidential campaign, told ABC's Diane Sawyer Thursday that Barack Obama's tax plan to spread the wealth is "a very socialist view, and it's incredibly wrong."

Predictably, Sawyer defended Obama's position by saying it's only a three percent tax increase that people making over $250,000 would be required to pay.

Deliciously, the "Good Morning America" guest wasn't backing down

watch the video here

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FeX3zfvIwAA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FeX3zfvIwAA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/16/joe-plumber-calls-obamas-tax-plan-socialist-sawyer-defends-it

:clap::clap::clap:

THANKS for posting that...can't rep ya..

[red states rule]

Looks like Obama want all of us attain the Amercia dream - up until you make $250,000/yr then you will be screwed over

[Mr. P]

Nonsense.

It is used in Art. 1, Sec. 8 to define the powers of Congress. It says, essentially, the powers are to be used for the benefit of the United States.



I'd suggest you review the preamble, Joe. It says "promote" not "provide".

Generally a preamble is a declaration which aids in the interpretation of any ambiguities within the document to which it is prefixed. Once you grasp that you'll realize that "provide" in Art. 1, Sec. 8 does not mean redistribution of wealth via income taxes to individuals. Not to mention, Article 1 doesn't even mention income taxes.

[Yurt]

[QUOTE=Yurt;309202]i couldn't wait...i skimmed it and it appears to contradict your POV joesteele:

I don't think so.



Congress can do anything it wishes.

give me a break...it said such a reading would ruin this country and oppress people....be honest...i even underlined and bolded the parts for you but you ignore those

pathetic

[Yurt]

but the power to lay and collect has great latitude; it will lead to the passing a vast number of laws, which may affect the personal rights of the citizens of the states, expose their property to fines and confiscation, and put their lives in jeopardy: it opens a door to the appointment of a swarm of revenue and excise officers to pray [sic] upon the honest and industrious part of the community, eat up their substance, and riot on the spoils of the country.


...

2d. We will next enquire into what is implied in the authority to pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry this power into execution.

If the power of laying imposts will not be sufficient, some other specific mode of raising a revenue should have been assigned the general government; many may be suggested in which their power may be accurately defined and limited, and it would be much better to give them authority to lay and collect a duty on exports, not to exceed a certain rate per cent, than to have surrendered every kind of resource that the country has, to the complete abolition of the state governments, and which will introduce such an infinite number of laws and ordinances, fines and penalties, courts, and judges, collectors, and excisemen, that when a man can number them, he may enumerate the stars of Heaven.

I shall resume this subject in my next, and by an induction of particulars shew, that this power, in its exercise, will subvert all state authority, and will work to the oppression of the people, and that there are no restrictions in the constitution that will soften its rigour, but rather the contrary.

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.o...?document=1672

it took america much longer than time we have had income tax to become an independent nation....guess we all should have sat by and watched....

:dance: