End corporate welfare!

[Big Fitz]

The social contract we live under is called the Consitutuion of the United States of America, and all the laws which flow from that founding document.

We modify this social contract every time we change a law or policy.

Good. Show me the amendment or codicil or enumerated power that allows government to take for a from one citizen and give to another. If the constitution is our social contract, you need to show the power.

 

[Big Fitz]

The problem with ending welfare for the people is that those expenses will not just go away. They will be shifted to other parts of the economy probably at a higher cost.

Evidence supporting this ass-plucked theory? Even so, there will always be poor, regardless of what you do. They figured that out even in Biblical times.

You will never achieve utopia in life. Quit fucking up the works by acting in denial of this fact.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The problem with ending welfare for the people is that those expenses will not just go away. They will be shifted to other parts of the economy probably at a higher cost.

Evidence supporting this ass-plucked theory? Even so, there will always be poor, regardless of what you do. They figured that out even in Biblical times.

You will never achieve utopia in life. Quit fucking up the works by acting in denial of this fact.

Sure there have always been the poor but poor en mass due to policies is a problem we should address. All I am saying is that we should change those policies and the need for welfare will, for the most part, evaporate.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's part of the SOCIAL CONTRACT, Bri.

Can you produce this social contract and point to the clause that says do-gooders, through the power of government force have the right to steal my property to give to those they see fit?

Of course this proves the point you guys aren't against welfare... just corporations.

You SHOULD be against welfare, and let the chips fall where they may. After all, corporations, thanks to free trade are being forced to compete against unfair international competition that includes subsidized and state industry, unfair tariffs and other impediments to foreign markets. Oh the poor poor corporations need tax money to offset the losses they are suffering due to this unfair competition.

Yes I'm making fun of you.

The hypocrisy is stunning.

You may believe you're making fun of others, what in fact you've done and continue to do is expose your ignorance and inability to provide rational arguments. Asking to produce "this social contract" suggests to me your only understanding of political theory & practice comes from the AM Radio.

Of course you're not alone, this entire thread has been hyjacked by the dreaded Red Herring, a favorite practice of RWers', the Echo Chamber and the callous conservative. I repeat, once again the OP:

Today the government pays refiners 45 cents a gallon through a tax credit to refine corn-based ethanol. An additional 54 cents a gallon tarirff blocks imports of less expensive and more energy efficient sugar-based ethanol from Brazil. Corn-based ethanol is mandated by federal law benefitting the farm belt.

Big oil, big agra benefit and we the people lose. For details on this bill, which is supported by members of both parties, and opposed by those who represent special interests, see the source below.


Feinstein, GOP senator fight subsidies for ethanol

 

[Wry Catcher]

The social contract we live under is called the Consitutuion of the United States of America, and all the laws which flow from that founding document.

We modify this social contract every time we change a law or policy.

Good. Show me the amendment or codicil or enumerated power that allows government to take for a from one citizen and give to another. If the constitution is our social contract, you need to show the power.

Eminent Domain

You really are quite ignorant, BF. If you need more help I will cite the section of our Constitution wherein power for Eminent Domain is provided to the states.

 

[Big Fitz]

The problem with ending welfare for the people is that those expenses will not just go away. They will be shifted to other parts of the economy probably at a higher cost.

Evidence supporting this ass-plucked theory? Even so, there will always be poor, regardless of what you do. They figured that out even in Biblical times.

You will never achieve utopia in life. Quit fucking up the works by acting in denial of this fact.

Sure there have always been the poor but poor en mass due to policies is a problem we should address. All I am saying is that we should change those policies and the need for welfare will, for the most part, evaporate.

Fine fine, but not with my money. I'll give to the poor *I* think are deserving and you do the same. Keep your hands and tax code out of my wallet as a method for paying for your compassion.

 

[Big Fitz]

The social contract we live under is called the Consitutuion of the United States of America, and all the laws which flow from that founding document.

We modify this social contract every time we change a law or policy.

Good. Show me the amendment or codicil or enumerated power that allows government to take for a from one citizen and give to another. If the constitution is our social contract, you need to show the power.

Eminent Domain

You really are quite ignorant, BF. If you need more help I will cite the section of our Constitution wherein power for Eminent Domain is provided to the states.

So then, why the bill of rights or constitution since the government has total power to do whatever it wants without redress?

Does this sound like something our founding fathers fought and died for? To be enslaved to 10,000 kings 1 mile away instead of 1 king 10,000 miles away?

This is nothing less of a casual distortion of original intent and is nothing short of despicable to claim it was the original plan. You also must recall... no wait, you probably don't... that for government to seize property in violation of the 4th amendment (illegal search and seizure) you must have reason AND a public benefit. Feeding individuals by seizing someone else's property with the money then gained by the sale of the property is not a proper use or understanding of the law.

Did you even read the process and requirements for Eminent domain as well? pfft! Talk about ignorant.

Oh, I said to point it out in the Constitution. You did not give me a section of the constitution, but a law site that is giving precedent. The two are not equal.

 

[DiamondDave]

The social contract we live under is called the Consitutuion of the United States of America, and all the laws which flow from that founding document.

We modify this social contract every time we change a law or policy.

Good. Show me the amendment or codicil or enumerated power that allows government to take for a from one citizen and give to another. If the constitution is our social contract, you need to show the power.

Eminent Domain

You really are quite ignorant, BF. If you need more help I will cite the section of our Constitution wherein power for Eminent Domain is provided to the states.

And the parts about compensation, fair value, etc??

Your eminent domain theory for entitlements and wealth redistribution are fucking laughable

 

[Wry Catcher]

Good. Show me the amendment or codicil or enumerated power that allows government to take for a from one citizen and give to another. If the constitution is our social contract, you need to show the power.

Eminent Domain

You really are quite ignorant, BF. If you need more help I will cite the section of our Constitution wherein power for Eminent Domain is provided to the states.

And the parts about compensation, fair value, etc??

Your eminent domain theory for entitlements and wealth redistribution are fucking laughable

You really don't (can't) understand.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Evidence supporting this ass-plucked theory? Even so, there will always be poor, regardless of what you do. They figured that out even in Biblical times.

You will never achieve utopia in life. Quit fucking up the works by acting in denial of this fact.

Sure there have always been the poor but poor en mass due to policies is a problem we should address. All I am saying is that we should change those policies and the need for welfare will, for the most part, evaporate.

Fine fine, but not with my money. I'll give to the poor *I* think are deserving and you do the same. Keep your hands and tax code out of my wallet as a method for paying for your compassion.

That is what I am for. Everyone get their hands out of our wallets.

 

[Big Fitz]

Asking to produce "this social contract" suggests to me your only understanding of political theory & practice comes from the AM Radio.

...Says the Huffypoo addict.

Of course you're not alone, this entire thread has been hyjacked by the dreaded Red Herring, a favorite practice of RWers', the Echo Chamber and the callous conservative. I repeat, once again the OP:

The OP said welfare. Every conservative I've seen has said SURE! Let's end ALL welfare. You've STILL to answer that challenge but run and cry and make excuses. I've seen less defensive from a fighter popping chaff, flares and jamming like a bitch.

You ready to concede the point all welfare is bad?

Today the government pays refiners 45 cents a gallon through a tax credit to refine corn-based ethanol. An additional 54 cents a gallon tarirff blocks imports of less expensive and more energy efficient sugar-based ethanol from Brazil. Corn-based ethanol is mandated by federal law benefitting the farm belt.

Fine. End it. Tomorrow.

Big oil, big agra benefit and we the people lose. For details on this bill, which is supported by members of both parties, and opposed by those who represent special interests, see the source below.


Feinstein, GOP senator fight subsidies for ethanol

Busted link. Again, I've no qualms with cutting big business off the public teat. I'm all for ending social engineering through the tax code on all levels. Why won't you come clean and join me on this?

That's right. It's not about welfare to you. It's about damaging captialism, corporations and 'rich people'. Class warfare has no shame in it's hypocrisy.

Now, are you done cracking your skull on the bottom of the pool, or do you have another dive left in you?

 

[Big Fitz]

Good. Show me the amendment or codicil or enumerated power that allows government to take for a from one citizen and give to another. If the constitution is our social contract, you need to show the power.

Eminent Domain

You really are quite ignorant, BF. If you need more help I will cite the section of our Constitution wherein power for Eminent Domain is provided to the states.

And the parts about compensation, fair value, etc??

Your eminent domain theory for entitlements and wealth redistribution are fucking laughable

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DiamondDave again.

Kthxbai!

 

[DiamondDave]

Eminent Domain

You really are quite ignorant, BF. If you need more help I will cite the section of our Constitution wherein power for Eminent Domain is provided to the states.

And the parts about compensation, fair value, etc??

Your eminent domain theory for entitlements and wealth redistribution are fucking laughable

You really don't (can't) understand.

No... I really don't try and change understanding for political gain or communal mentality.... unlike you...

You just want... and want government as the tool to take it at whim for your use... whether the contributor is compensated for their personal property or not... you want someone else's income and earning for your want for a feeling of generosity which you do not wish to fill by your own means

 

[Oddball]

It's part of the SOCIAL CONTRACT, Bri.

Can you produce this social contract and point to the clause that says do-gooders, through the power of government force have the right to steal my property to give to those they see fit?

Sure. BF, no problem.

The social contract we live under is called the Consitutuion of the United States of America, and all the laws which flow from that founding document.

We modify this social contract every time we change a law or policy.

Wrong-o, Skeezix.

The Constitution fro the United States is the contract that POLITICIANS take an oath to protect, defend and adhere to, in order to protect the rights of We the People.

The "social contract" as it is invoked by the authoritarian Fabian/progressive liberoidal douchebag like Fly Catcher, is a mythical strawman that would end up being ruled an unenforceable contract of adhesion if it existed in actual reality.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Can you produce this social contract and point to the clause that says do-gooders, through the power of government force have the right to steal my property to give to those they see fit?

Sure. BF, no problem.

The social contract we live under is called the Consitutuion of the United States of America, and all the laws which flow from that founding document.

We modify this social contract every time we change a law or policy.

Wrong-o, Skeezix.

The Constitution fro the United States is the contract that POLITICIANS take an oath to protect, defend and adhere to, in order to protect the rights of We the People.

The "social contract" as it is invoked by the authoritarian Fabian/progressive liberoidal douchebag like Fly Catcher, is a mythical strawman that would end up being ruled an unenforceable contract of adhesion if it existed in actual reality.

I actually enjoy being lectured on political theory and practice as well as ConLaw by Odd-dude. The entire thrust of his argument is based on personally attacking anyone - and in particular Wry Catcher - who doesn't bleat the same tired and absurd dogma of the fringe.

Notice Odd-dude and BF and the rest of echo chamber members all bleat the same tune, usually thanking each other for insipid posts repeating the same tired theme based on an ideology of sand.

It's not in the Constitution, so it ain't legal buster earns high honors and positve reap from other fringers, most of whom seem to have never taken a HS course in Civics let alone studied law.

 

[Steelplate]

No... I really don't try and change understanding for political gain or communal mentality.... unlike you...

You just want... and want government as the tool to take it at whim for your use... whether the contributor is compensated for their personal property or not... you want someone else's income and earning for your want for a feeling of generosity which you do not wish to fill by your own means

What a fucked up, self centered view that is. Who said we don't want to add our own means to the pot? Ohhhh... that's right. Conservatives.

I want some of my income... some of your income, and some of the people's income that has benefited the Most our of our society's to help those who either aren't ABLE to... or can't seem to get our from under the crushing undertow that is poverty.

Yes... before you start... I know. People in other countries have much deeper poverty problems than ours. That, I guess... is too bad. Let their countries deal with their own problems for once. Let's get OUR country on it's feet. After than, we can tackle our deficit problem(or a little of both at the same time), THEN... when we are stabilized... we can try and help out those poor unfortunates in other countries.

 

[editec]

The social contract we live under is called the Consitutuion of the United States of America, and all the laws which flow from that founding document.

We modify this social contract every time we change a law or policy.

Good. Show me the amendment or codicil or enumerated power that allows government to take for a from one citizen and give to another. If the constitution is our social contract, you need to show the power.

I need to find you?

What am I your legal clerk?

Here, be my guest.

FindLaw: Cases and Codes

 

[Big Fitz]

Sure. BF, no problem.

The social contract we live under is called the Consitutuion of the United States of America, and all the laws which flow from that founding document.

We modify this social contract every time we change a law or policy.

Wrong-o, Skeezix.

The Constitution fro the United States is the contract that POLITICIANS take an oath to protect, defend and adhere to, in order to protect the rights of We the People.

The "social contract" as it is invoked by the authoritarian Fabian/progressive liberoidal douchebag like Fly Catcher, is a mythical strawman that would end up being ruled an unenforceable contract of adhesion if it existed in actual reality.

I actually enjoy being lectured on political theory and practice as well as ConLaw by Odd-dude. The entire thrust of his argument is based on personally attacking anyone - and in particular Wry Catcher - who doesn't bleat the same tired and absurd dogma of the fringe.

Notice Odd-dude and BF and the rest of echo chamber members all bleat the same tune, usually thanking each other for insipid posts repeating the same tired theme based on an ideology of sand.

It's not in the Constitution, so it ain't legal buster earns high honors and positve reap from other fringers, most of whom seem to have never taken a HS course in Civics let alone studied law.

Translation: I got my ass handed to me for 11 pages and still won't admit I'm a fucking retard and wrong.

 

[editec]

Can you produce this social contract and point to the clause that says do-gooders, through the power of government force have the right to steal my property to give to those they see fit?

Sure. BF, no problem.

The social contract we live under is called the Consitutuion of the United States of America, and all the laws which flow from that founding document.

We modify this social contract every time we change a law or policy.

Wrong-o, Skeezix.

Now there's a pet name I haven't heard in a long time.

The Constitution fro the United States is the contract that POLITICIANS take an oath to protect, defend and adhere to, in order to protect the rights of We the People.

Yes, and so...?

The "social contract" as it is invoked by the authoritarian Fabian/progressive liberoidal douchebag like Fly Catcher, is a mythical strawman that would end up being ruled an unenforceable contract of adhesion if it existed in actual reality.

Say what?

Every society has a social contract, either written (like our Constitution) or implied (as in "English common law).

In our case, the foundation of our social contract is outlined in the US constitution.

Upon that foundation all other federal laws derived.

Now you may not like that answer, but to deny it is just plain silly.

 

[Big Fitz]

The social contract we live under is called the Consitutuion of the United States of America, and all the laws which flow from that founding document.

We modify this social contract every time we change a law or policy.

Good. Show me the amendment or codicil or enumerated power that allows government to take for a from one citizen and give to another. If the constitution is our social contract, you need to show the power.

I need to find you?

What am I your legal clerk?

Here, be my guest.

FindLaw: Cases and Codes

My copy of the constitution I have does not have any enumerated power in it giving any of the power you seem to think it has for wholesale taking like you desire. You're making the assertion. And providing no proof.

As for being a law-clerk, I wouldn't trust you to sit the right way on a toilet.

And poor Wry. Still won't answer the challenge, or shall I just start taking his avoidance as admission he's no interest in ending welfare, just hurting capitalism, corporations and productive people.