More conversations I get into

[Forever_frost]

I have no idea how to make this more simple:

So rather than pissing and moaning about the tax rates the rich pay, why not push for the rates of the middle class to be dropped to the same rates as what the rich are supposedly paying?
Like ·

6 people like this.
Jacob Liberty Or... We could [Que scary music] cut spending! *Gasp*
43 minutes ago · Like · 2

Me: Yep, cut spending, starting with money to the UN, the IMF and foreign aid. I just fixed the deficit issue
42 minutes ago · Like · 3

Douglas those items amount to nothing. Defense, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid: the only budget items that matter. the rest is chump change.
41 minutes ago · Like · 1

Me: Really? We pay 30% of the UN's operating budget. You're saying that's change? And defense is constitutional so that's a non starter. The welfare programs? Take a chainsaw to and tell the states if they want them, THEY'RE paying for them
35 minutes ago · Like · 3

Robert:If it isn't authorized by the Constitution, we shouls begin phasing it out. By the wat, Jacob, I would love to jump into that Wanka post below, but there is just WAY too much shit to unravel from Dana and Gregg
35 minutes ago via Mobile · Like · 1

Robert: Make everyone in the Obama administration pay the taxes they owe, that will probably pay for the Iraq war alone.
33 minutes ago via Mobile · Like · 1

Me:r Bingo Robert. Not in the Constitution, not a power of the fed.
33 minutes ago · Like · 2

Jacob Liberty Cut the war spending is what he means. Waste as well. Robert Buckey- I was waiting for someone to. My finger hurts from all the scrolling...
33 minutes ago · Like · 2

Me: Doesn't the federal workforce owe a billion in back taxes?
32 minutes ago · Like · 3

Chris:Because that would make sense...something our govt doesn't have!
31 minutes ago · Like · 3

Me: r Except war spending is actually an enumerated expense. And we spent less on 8 years in Iraq than Obama did at one time for the stimulus.
29 minutes ago · Like · 1

Douglas
"Really? We pay 30% of the UN's operating budget. You're saying that's change? And defense is constitutional so that's a non starter. The welfare programs? Take a chainsaw to and tell the states if they want them, THEY'RE paying for them" ...See more
27 minutes ago · Like

Jacob I know, but it is a waste of money and lives. Not to mention, entire departments need to be lopped off. Education, HUD, Energy, etc.
27 minutes ago · Like · 2

Jacob Providing for the general welfare means the common well-being. How the government goes about this is left up to experimentation. Obviously, we've experimented with welfarism and it hasn't worked.
23 minutes ago · Like · 1

Douglas some aspects of it have and some haven't.
22 minutes ago · Like


Douglas the food stamp program, in its current form, is a success.
22 minutes ago · Like

Jacob Too many free riders. The problem I have is the printing money aspect. Private charities would take over the "welfare" industry. As of now, they are discouraged to do so.
21 minutes ago · Like · 1

Me: Except General Welfare is explained in the enumerated powers. Otherwise there wouldn't be enumerated powers, it'd have stopped at general welfare and common defense.
20 minutes ago · Like · 2

Douglas it is obvious that they would not as they cannot. we incentivize private charity and it can't even cover the demand left over from existing programs. the notion that it could cover all demand is demonstratably false.
19 minutes ago · Like


Anyone but Obozo @Doglas - Handing out EDB cards that people are using to buy beer and cigs is NOT what I call success.

A good measure of success would be how many people are LEAVING this program - not how many are being ADDED to it.
19 minutes ago · Like · 1

Me: And the food stamp program is a wreck. I can link story after story of people abusing it and those that actually need it, getting 2-6 bucks.
19 minutes ago · Like · 2

Douglas one cannot purchase beer or cigarettes with an ebt card.
19 minutes ago · Like

Me:
James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” th...See more
18 minutes ago · Like · 1

Douglas the food stamp program is brilliant. for the miniscule percentage of taxes I pay to support this program people are fed and I am able to earn more money due to this demand. as a truck driver I have hauled a lot of grocery loads over the past few years rather than sitting around waiting for something.
17 minutes ago · Like

Douglas where is the clause that prohibits the federal government form engaging in these programs?
16 minutes ago · Like

Me: r Right, so because you take money from taxpayers to feed those who, if forced to feed themselves would limit their numbers, you provide yourself with income. Dear Lord, that's the same BS that the Department of Labor spews.
16 minutes ago · Like · 1

Jacob They are not incentivize, regulations have constantly pushed them out. Plus, the government gives them grants, but with that comes a labyrinth of rules.
16 minutes ago · Like

Me That would be the 10th amendment. Anything not expressly granted to the federal government belongs to the states.
15 minutes ago · Like · 1

me: Have you ever read the document?
15 minutes ago · Like

[Forever_frost]

Douglas if we are to get into the business of limiting the number of certain groups of people it would be much faster to march them into gas chambers rather than slowly starving them.
15 minutes ago · Like

Douglas however I do not see a worker who, due to economic circumstances completely out of his or her control, to be worthy of extinction.
14 minutes ago · Like

Me: r You're again going for nilism vs federalism. If we don't want the federal government to do it, we dont' want it done at all. Bastiat handled that only a few years after the Communist Manifesto came out. Would you like his response to your VERY outdated argument?
14 minutes ago · Like · 2

Me
Not limiting certain people. Saying you're responsible for yourself. If you're popping out kids, you have an obligation to pay for them.
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between governme...See more
13 minutes ago · Like · 2

Me Worthy of extinction? You're saying that someone hungry will not work to fill their bellies? I can tell you, as someone who grew up dirt poor wondering where my next meal would come from, we did not look to government, I was out mowing grass, picking cotton, helping in gardens, digging ditches, as a CHILD to help feed myself and my family
12 minutes ago · Like · 2

Douglas yes, and I do recall that the constitution gives the congress the power to: " lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" so the 10th amendment would not be applicable in limiting or eliminating this function.
11 minutes ago · Like

Douglas "Worthy of extinction? You're saying that someone hungry will not work to fill their bellies? " they may want to work, but there might not be any work for them due to economic forces beyond their control.
10 minutes ago · Like

Me Yep, take in money, not spend it. They can take in all the money they want, but only can spend it in certain instances. And outside of those instances, it belongs to the states
10 minutes ago · Like

Douglas sometimes there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone.
9 minutes ago · Like

Me Wrong, there's always work to be done. Yards cut, trees trimmed, cars washed. We have some of the fattest poor people in the world. Why? Dollar menus. For 2 bucks a day you can get more calories than you need to survive. Try again.
9 minutes ago · Like

Douglas defense and the general welfare are mentioned.
9 minutes ago · Like

Douglas both appear to be equal in constitutionality.
8 minutes ago · Like

Me: And again, goes back to the 10th amendment, which is the power of law, Supreme Law of the Land. Any power not expressly granted to the federal government belongs to the states.
8 minutes ago · Like

Me: And both are then explained in the ENUMERATED POWERS
7 minutes ago · Like

Douglas your assumptions about there always being work available do not contradict the fact that there is not.
7 minutes ago · Like

Me: r Okay Doug, let's look at this your way. You claim general welfare is open ended. Why are there 18 enumerated powers and amendments?
7 minutes ago · Like · 1

Douglas in fact, I can satisfy and settle the matter all together. the 2nd amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." we understand the militia to be the citizenry in a loose sense, so if our main defense is a well armed citizen, it would also make sense that such a citizen should also be well fed.
5 minutes ago · Like

Me Unless you actually read it. You have the militia act of 179(3?) where it required everyone to be armed and trained. But again, 10th amendment is clear. Fed has 18 enumerated powers, rest belongs to teh states. This isn't hard to understand. You just have to understand basic english
2 minutes ago · Like

Me Your arugment was weak when Marx did it, it's even weaker today
about a minute ago · Like

[Geor!]

You're out of your mind if you think I'm actually going to try and make sense of all of that.

[Forever_frost]

Basically, guy tried saying the General welfare clause covers food stamps and welfare and I disagreed

[TheSlimOne]

Basically, guy tried saying the General welfare clause covers food stamps and welfare and I disagreed

Agree with you. Obviously someone twisted the meaning from how it was actually meant. The governments job is to provide for the common welfare. At some point some dipshit said "we are going to give money to people that need it and call it welfare so it is protected by the Constitution.

I am all for giving money to people that need it but here is my take on it. If I am giving you money I am going to set whatever rules I feel like. If you want the money, you will have to follow my rules. (Pull up your pants or whatever I like, right?)

1) Drug Testing, mandatory. NO EXCUSES!
2) If you can't find a job, then I will find one for you to do to earn the money I am giving you. (picking up trash on highway, mowing public property, etc, etc)
3) I am not paying you to have children, if you have more, that is not my problem, you are not going to get more money. I will provide you with birth control if you choose, but the check will not increase with the number of children
4) Since I am giving you money, there is no need for you to do a TAX RETURN, if you do one and get a return, I will go ahead and take that.
5) Section 8 housing is gone, like right now, You will live in Military Style "Open-Bay" barracks.

The reasons for these extremely strict rules in my eyes is these. You have to make people want to get off of welfare. "If I sit at home and make a new baby every year, my check will get bigger. Each child I have gets me $2000 more in tax credit."

I am sure I would have about the shortest stint in public office in the history of politics but, at least I would be doing what I feel is right. I'm sure many of the hard working Americans would have to agree. LOL!