I'm a liberal and I don't believe any of that. How does that fit into yer claim of an "ideological fact of life"?
The motivation behind calls to marginally increase the taxes on wealthy households is:
- we need more money to fund needed public sector investments
- for a variety of reasons, wealthy households have collected nearly all the income gains achieved over the past thirty-five years, one of those reasons being massive tax cut giveaways to them
>>trying to make it sound its fair for those who make about 22% of the income paying even more than 40% of Federal income tax
Last year, the top one percent did indeed collect 22% of national income, but paid only 24% of all taxes. Federal income tax is only one tax collected in this country.
I'd say the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment is relevant here. And the US has legally binding international commitments to human rights that would also be violated by banning immigrants through a religious test.
>>The Constitution has banned groups of people on previous occasions - (slaves, women, American Indians, Torries, theocracies, terrorists, undocumented voters,<gun owners>)
How do you ban immigration by "theocracies"? Those aren't people.
Can you provide more information regarding the other groups in yer list? And what do you mean when you say "banned"? The group you may want to focus on is those horrible Chinese. But that practice was ended in 1943 when we decided that communists were even worse.
>>The Constitution is about creating and MAINTAINING a federal government that is more effective than a loose confederacy of states as was in The Articles of Confederation.
In part yes, and fwiw I support the federalist cause. But the document is about other things as well, for example major elements contained in the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments.
>>Trump NEVER criticized the military service of the son.
No one's saying he did. He saved that for Sen McCain.
>>Even though the son's loss was a loss to the family, that doesn't, because of political correctness, force Trump to be mute on the father's incorrect accusations of Trump's plan to vet Muslims.
No one's saying Trump shouldn't express his views in that regard.
>>Hillary campaign, the candidate of misinformation.
Did Frumpy ever meet Putin? Did he see "thousands and thousands" of people cheering in Jersey City during the 9/11 attacks? I'll save the other examples and ask you to comment on those.
Teat-suckers like Social Security recipients, Medicare beneficiaries, veterans, and those who collect funds expended by DOD.
2015 budget expenditures, in billions
Social Security and Medicare 1370
Defence 650
Veterans payments 92
Military retirement 52
That's $2.164 trillion, 59% of last year's spending. Add $251 billion (seven percent) for interest on the national debt, and you've accounted for two-thirds of outlays. You'll say all the people at the FBI and NSA and EPA and OSHA and NRC and CDC and NIH and NASA and NOAA and Treasury, State, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Commerce, etc are teat-suckers.
"Welfare" accounts for about ten percent of federal spending, and that includes money that goes to disabled teat-suckers.
>>I guarantee businesses and business owners would gladly - or at least willingly - pay additional taxes to support that infrastructure.
So why doesn't it get passed? Actually, Ryan did get started on this last year. Let's hope he continues to be successful in that regard.
>>we all know that's not where the Democrats want that extra cash to go.
They don't control the Congress. And again, are they blocking increases in infrastructure spending?
What are you talking about? At the federal level, the Congress enacts tax legislation.
