Coburn: End ‘Welfare For The Well-Off’

[Mr. Shaman]

Does the Bible say it's okay to steal from some in order to give to others? Or, does it say Christians should be charitable?

Nobody is stealing from you. You're being legally taxed as enacted by the legislature where YOU have fair and proportional representation, as determined by free and fair elections.

Oh, and the bible says to give unto Caesar that which it Caesar's.

"To promote the general welfare" does not mean tax one person to give to another.

Soooooooooooooooooo, Mr. English Major (who doesn't know the difference between there & their

).....what DOES it mean??

​

 

[eflatminor]

You the answer is "no", you can't point to the authority. Yea, I couldn't find it either.

Then either you can't read or you're lying. I suspect the latter. This is why I'm not bothering to cite it. You haven't an interest in the truth, your interest is in sound bytes and affirming your ideology at the expense of all that is sane or rational.

Well, I can read. I read every one of the enumerated powers. Not there. I read the 10th amendment making it crystal clear that if it's not in the enumerated powers, its a no-go for the feds. Maybe you're the liar???

 

[Inthemiddle]

Come on now E. You know they all point to the General Welfare Clause. The one thats in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and pertains to country wide Commerce not handouts.

Pertains to commerce? Where in the constitution does it say that?

The Congress has broad authority to spend as it sees fit for the general well being of the nation. This has been affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court. I know you don't like it. But that's all you have.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why would the well off be getting any type of subsidization anyways? I mean, it's common sense to not give people anything that they really dont need anyways.

When you're old-enough (to sign legal-documents), try gettin' a business-loan with a zeroed-out bank-account, Skippy.

 

[Seawytch]

I think that Senator Coburn realizes the depth that the subjects brought up by the OWS people are resonating with the American Public, and wants to be on the right side as this comes down on November 2012.

^^^^^ that...

 

[kiwiman127]

Who is stealing from whom?
Why is the working class seeing a decline in wealth and has seen flat wages for years? During the time frame which saw workers wages stagnate, the top tier saw their wealth and income rise.

Well, when some citizens are forced with the threat of incarceration to pay for charity directed towards other citizens, that would be theft. After all, if I mug you, take your money but then give it to a homeless person, have I not stolen from you?

That one segment of the population saw a decline in their wealth while another saw an increase does not mean the latter stole from the former. That is called a non sequitur, unless of course you have some evidence that money was taken from working class citizens and given to wealthy people. Do you?

The truth is you think MORE should be taken from the wealthy and distributed to the less wealthy. That is simply more stealing.

Now, back to your religious argument. How's that going???[/QUOTE]

I thought for sure that you would explain the chart I posted, but I guess not. All I got was talking points in the face of facts.
Wages are a huge part of operating a business. To satisfy the shareholders is to increase their dividends and as wages are a huge expense, one way to increase the dividends is to hold wages down and that's what exactly happened as the chart clearly shows. What groups benefit from increased dividends from the flat wages you might ask?

With the first chart we see corporate profits.
With the second chart we see who are the investors who gain from the profits.
Now look at the correlation to the corporate profits versus incomes for the working class which I will again post.
Is it stealing when one profits greatly by holding down the wages of the workers who contributed to the high profits? Legally, no. Morally, yes.

"Now, back to your religious argument. How's that going???"

What the Bible says about fair wages; " "Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty." (James 5:4

 

[Claudette]

Come on now E. You know they all point to the General Welfare Clause. The one thats in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and pertains to country wide Commerce not handouts.

Pertains to commerce? Where in the constitution does it say that?

The Congress has broad authority to spend as it sees fit for the general well being of the nation. This has been affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court. I know you don't like it. But that's all you have.

Well its awfully funny that no Govt in our history thought the General Welfare Clause meant handouts to either a company or a person. No Govt thought of using tax dollars in such a way.

So it stands to reason that it had to be the mindset of a set of politicians to put this into effect as it is now. Any idea who that would be?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Come on now E. You know they all point to the General Welfare Clause. The one thats in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and pertains to country wide Commerce not handouts.

Pertains to commerce? Where in the constitution does it say that?

The Congress has broad authority to spend as it sees fit for the general well being of the nation. This has been affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court. I know you don't like it. But that's all you have.

Well its awfully funny that no Govt in our history thought the General Welfare Clause meant handouts to either a company or a person. No Govt thought of using tax dollars in such a way.

So it stands to reason that it had to be the mindset of a set of politicians to put this into effect as it is now. Any idea who that would be?

I guess you've been under a rock for the past century....

 

[Claudette]

Pertains to commerce? Where in the constitution does it say that?

The Congress has broad authority to spend as it sees fit for the general well being of the nation. This has been affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court. I know you don't like it. But that's all you have.

Well its awfully funny that no Govt in our history thought the General Welfare Clause meant handouts to either a company or a person. No Govt thought of using tax dollars in such a way.

So it stands to reason that it had to be the mindset of a set of politicians to put this into effect as it is now. Any idea who that would be?

I guess you've been under a rock for the past century....

Nope. Nice answer though. LOL

A century ago no one would have though of using tax dollars the way they are used today. No one would have given money to a company or a person. You either made it on your own or you didn't.

 

[Inthemiddle]

A century ago no one would have though of using tax dollars the way they are used today. No one would have given money to a company or a person. You either made it on your own or you didn't.

Welfare has been around since colonial days.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it unconstitutional.

eflat does not get that he is subject to the constitutional and electoral process of the country, whether he approves or not. Tis what tis.

The problem is you, and the other nanny state fucks in Congress, don't believe you're subject to the Constitution. Otherwise, you could point to the authority we're discussing, which you can't. Oh the irony!

What you sillies out of the far right of the universe don't get is that (1) you don't know the Constitution and (2) you have to accept electoral and constitutional process.

Sorry, honey, tis what tis.

 

[uscitizen]

A century ago no one would have though of using tax dollars the way they are used today. No one would have given money to a company or a person. You either made it on your own or you didn't.

Welfare has been around since colonial days.

And several of our founding fathers profitted from the reveloution.

Paul Revere provided the copper to sheathe the USS Constitution.