Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your CRITERIA for NEED is subjective.... and even if you need 2000 calories, a roof, and a source of water, it is not owed to you... nor is it to derive benefit because you barely do enough (or do nothing) to obtain it... Is your need for $1000 a month for rent different than Joe Blow in Bald Knob Arkansas and his need for $200 a month for rent? Is it different than Joe Schmoe in South Dakota who lives in a cabin that he built? Is your need for food different because you go to Harris Teeter to get it than it is for Joe Schmoe who grows and harvests his? Not to mention entitlements that are not needs. Not to mention that many can and do provide for their basic needs on little to no income. Not to mention that some with no bills thrive on lower incomes and some who have spent beyond means have a hard time surviving on high incomes.... Situations are ALL different... and you subjectively lump or categorize based on your subjective criteria... and this is unequal treatment based on your feeling or perception...
This subjectivity is why we have corruption and pandering... and it has brought us to the fucked up situation we are in today...
That's a lot of text that answers nothing. Needs are not subjective. Like I said. Food, shelter and healthcare are not subjective needs. And in this country those things ARE owed to its citizens. Those are the basics. I'm not talking about entitlements or whatever other bullshit tangent you're trying to detour towards. Basic needs ARE guaranteed in this country, sorry you don't agree with that comrade.
Maybe you should find a society that fits better with your idea of equal. Know of any? Of course you don't.
What is needed by person X in situation Y in location Z is indeed SUBJECTIVE... and nothing takes away from the fact that you are indeed responsible for it, no matter how hard it is... and you are not owed benefit because of how hard it is for you
What is OWED to this country's citizens is the protection of freedoms and the equality in treatment.. your sustenance is not OWED to you, your basic personal needs are not owed to you.. you owe them to yourself and those who are in your family who need your support (children)
Nice try, but your little diversion doesn't wash.Oh, I see. So you make a claim and then it is the job of others to find out if that claim is legitimate or not. This is exactly how progressive debate. Make a claim and then saddle the task of verification onto the audience.
"We have to vote for the bill to find out what's in it."
Still waiting for you to explain how the basic needs of food, shelter and healthcare are "subjective". The reason that you can't explain this is the reason that your entire theory is flawed.
Your CRITERIA for NEED is subjective.... and even if you need 2000 calories, a roof, and a source of water, it is not owed to you... nor is it to derive benefit because you barely do enough (or do nothing) to obtain it... Is your need for $1000 a month for rent different than Joe Blow in Bald Knob Arkansas and his need for $200 a month for rent? Is it different than Joe Schmoe in South Dakota who lives in a cabin that he built? Is your need for food different because you go to Harris Teeter to get it than it is for Joe Schmoe who grows and harvests his? Not to mention entitlements that are not needs. Not to mention that many can and do provide for their basic needs on little to no income. Not to mention that some with no bills thrive on lower incomes and some who have spent beyond means have a hard time surviving on high incomes.... Situations are ALL different... and you subjectively lump or categorize based on your subjective criteria... and this is unequal treatment based on your feeling or perception...
This subjectivity is why we have corruption and pandering... and it has brought us to the fucked up situation we are in today...
That's a lot of text that answers nothing. Needs are not subjective. Like I said. Food, shelter and healthcare are not subjective needs. And in this country those things ARE owed to its citizens. Those are the basics. I'm not talking about entitlements or whatever other bullshit tangent you're trying to detour towards. Basic needs ARE guaranteed in this country, sorry you don't agree with that comrade.
Maybe you should find a society that fits better with your idea of equal. Know of any? Of course you don't.
Nice try, but your little diversion doesn't wash.Oh, I see. So you make a claim and then it is the job of others to find out if that claim is legitimate or not. This is exactly how progressive debate. Make a claim and then saddle the task of verification onto the audience.
"We have to vote for the bill to find out what's in it."
He made a claim and provided his link to support that claim. At that point, his burden of proof shifts to the one who objects to that claim. However, for your objection to have merit, it is up to you to show evidence to the contrary. Then the burden of proof would shift back to him for rebuttal and additional evidence.
If you can't provide any evidence indicating his claim was wrong, then your objection is frivolous and would be thrown out in a court of law.
Your CRITERIA for NEED is subjective.... and even if you need 2000 calories, a roof, and a source of water, it is not owed to you... nor is it to derive benefit because you barely do enough (or do nothing) to obtain it... Is your need for $1000 a month for rent different than Joe Blow in Bald Knob Arkansas and his need for $200 a month for rent? Is it different than Joe Schmoe in South Dakota who lives in a cabin that he built? Is your need for food different because you go to Harris Teeter to get it than it is for Joe Schmoe who grows and harvests his? Not to mention entitlements that are not needs. Not to mention that many can and do provide for their basic needs on little to no income. Not to mention that some with no bills thrive on lower incomes and some who have spent beyond means have a hard time surviving on high incomes.... Situations are ALL different... and you subjectively lump or categorize based on your subjective criteria... and this is unequal treatment based on your feeling or perception...
This subjectivity is why we have corruption and pandering... and it has brought us to the fucked up situation we are in today...
That's a lot of text that answers nothing. Needs are not subjective. Like I said. Food, shelter and healthcare are not subjective needs. And in this country those things ARE owed to its citizens. Those are the basics. I'm not talking about entitlements or whatever other bullshit tangent you're trying to detour towards. Basic needs ARE guaranteed in this country, sorry you don't agree with that comrade.
Maybe you should find a society that fits better with your idea of equal. Know of any? Of course you don't.
I missed that passage in the constitution. We were granted the rights to obtain these needs freely. that is different than obtaining them FOR free. You LOLberals have it all backwards.
Can you point out the passage in the constitution that says the citizens are owed food, shelter and healthcare?
I'll wait here.
Nice try, but your little diversion doesn't wash.Oh, I see. So you make a claim and then it is the job of others to find out if that claim is legitimate or not. This is exactly how progressive debate. Make a claim and then saddle the task of verification onto the audience.
"We have to vote for the bill to find out what's in it."
He made a claim and provided his link to support that claim. At that point, his burden of proof shifts to the one who objects to that claim. However, for your objection to have merit, it is up to you to show evidence to the contrary. Then the burden of proof would shift back to him for rebuttal and additional evidence.
If you can't provide any evidence indicating his claim was wrong, then your objection is frivolous and would be thrown out in a court of law.
I think you cherry picked this and are not sure what you're talking about. This was not in reference to the OP, but to the debate taking place in the thread on a separate but related matter.
Should the taxes on the poor and middle class who currently don't pay federal income taxes be raised?
Except that, most of those who do not pay income taxes do not have enough income to do so, OR, like Mittens and his cronies, have accountants who hide their money in loopholes.
If the question is, 'Should the little old lady down the street who lives on her Social Security have to pay more in INCOME tax', of course not.
At it stands now, that same little old lady pays plenty of other taxes and there is no reason why the very poor should be forced to take on the responsibility of saving our economy from the damage the one percent have done on Wall Street.
To suggest otherwise, is nothing short of obscene abuse.
BTW, Etch A Sketch took a $77THOUSAND DOLLAR deduction for his horse. Why should he and his cronies NOT have to pay their fair share?
If you have no income, you pay no taxes in an equal treatment system.. but you also receive no benefit.. and that choice to make nothing puts you in your predicament..
And no.. Romney in an equal system with no loopholes or deductions would not be able to claim such a deduction.. and I fully support that
That's a lot of text that answers nothing. Needs are not subjective. Like I said. Food, shelter and healthcare are not subjective needs. And in this country those things ARE owed to its citizens. Those are the basics. I'm not talking about entitlements or whatever other bullshit tangent you're trying to detour towards. Basic needs ARE guaranteed in this country, sorry you don't agree with that comrade.
Maybe you should find a society that fits better with your idea of equal. Know of any? Of course you don't.
I missed that passage in the constitution. We were granted the rights to obtain these needs freely. that is different than obtaining them FOR free. You LOLberals have it all backwards.
Can you point out the passage in the constitution that says the citizens are owed food, shelter and healthcare?
I'll wait here.
Right there in the beginning
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.
You're welcome.
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the typical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government[2] as the U.S. Supreme Court has held:
the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,
prior to 1936, the General Welfare Clause was not considered an independent grant of power, but instead a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues in the interest of the general welfare.[5][6] In recent decades, the Court conferred upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion, including the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds.[7]
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose
Except that, most of those who do not pay income taxes do not have enough income to do so, OR, like Mittens and his cronies, have accountants who hide their money in loopholes.
If the question is, 'Should the little old lady down the street who lives on her Social Security have to pay more in INCOME tax', of course not.
At it stands now, that same little old lady pays plenty of other taxes and there is no reason why the very poor should be forced to take on the responsibility of saving our economy from the damage the one percent have done on Wall Street.
To suggest otherwise, is nothing short of obscene abuse.
BTW, Etch A Sketch took a $77THOUSAND DOLLAR deduction for his horse. Why should he and his cronies NOT have to pay their fair share?
If you have no income, you pay no taxes in an equal treatment system.. but you also receive no benefit.. and that choice to make nothing puts you in your predicament..
And no.. Romney in an equal system with no loopholes or deductions would not be able to claim such a deduction.. and I fully support that
You see in Dave's and a bunch of other people on this site's world, if you are unable to work, for whatever reason, you starve.Oh wait...I forgot...charity.....they expect the kindness of strangers to feed, clothe, educate and nurture poor people....the same people they probably refuse to even make eye contact with when they see one begging for spare change on the street.
They want to reshape America into Dickensonian England....please sir, may I have s'more?
That's a lot of text that answers nothing. Needs are not subjective. Like I said. Food, shelter and healthcare are not subjective needs. And in this country those things ARE owed to its citizens. Those are the basics. I'm not talking about entitlements or whatever other bullshit tangent you're trying to detour towards. Basic needs ARE guaranteed in this country, sorry you don't agree with that comrade.
Maybe you should find a society that fits better with your idea of equal. Know of any? Of course you don't.
What is needed by person X in situation Y in location Z is indeed SUBJECTIVE... and nothing takes away from the fact that you are indeed responsible for it, no matter how hard it is... and you are not owed benefit because of how hard it is for you
What is OWED to this country's citizens is the protection of freedoms and the equality in treatment.. your sustenance is not OWED to you, your basic personal needs are not owed to you.. you owe them to yourself and those who are in your family who need your support (children)
Wrong, wrong and wrong. You still can't tell me how food, shelter and healthcare are subjective needs. It's why you continue to try and move the conversation to "no one owes you anything...blah blah", which avoids the question that you can't answer. Basic needs are not subjective. That's what makes them basic.
I missed that passage in the constitution. We were granted the rights to obtain these needs freely. that is different than obtaining them FOR free. You LOLberals have it all backwards.
Can you point out the passage in the constitution that says the citizens are owed food, shelter and healthcare?
I'll wait here.
Right there in the beginning
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.
You're welcome.
General welfare is not the same as specific welfare. Even the first circuit court of appeals in two separate cases made this clear from the stand point of social security.
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the typical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government[2] as the U.S. Supreme Court has held:
the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,
prior to 1936, the General Welfare Clause was not considered an independent grant of power, but instead a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues in the interest of the general welfare.[5][6] In recent decades, the Court conferred upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion, including the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds.[7]
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: [T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose
General Welfare clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're welcome. You cocky little fucktard.
1) It is NOT false.... I fully support people working and either succeeding or failing all on their own... if you think the poor cannot or do not work their way out of situations in many cases, you are sadly mistaken... I for one came from a family situation where meat money was obtained by collecting cans and bottles to turn in for recycling money... where an entire back yard was used for the growing of food to eat and o preserve for use during the non harvesting months... I worked from the earliest I could.. mowing lawns and cleaning yards when under age, and working 35 hours a week during school, and working 2 jobs when I attended college and before I joined the military, and did everything I could along the way to get to an upper 5% income... work brings success, choices bring success, effort brings success, not handouts
2) It is NOT wrong... NO entitlement lifts out the poor... the more money thrown into entitlement systems, the more we have in entitlement systems... it is a cycle of ensuring poverty and promoting laziness when basic needs are thought to be owed to you simply for your existence
3) You CRITERIA for need is subjective.... and you cannot grasp that you are responsible for meeting your needs, no matter how hard it is to do so, or how easy... it is not owed to you, nor should you get special treatment for it being difficult... your personal situation is your personal situation... you wish a pass based on that subjective criteria.. I wish for equal and blind treatment of all regardless of circumstance
Still waiting for you to explain how the basic needs of food, shelter and healthcare are "subjective". The reason that you can't explain this is the reason that your entire theory is flawed.
Your CRITERIA for NEED is subjective.... and even if you need 2000 calories, a roof, and a source of water, it is not owed to you... nor is it to derive benefit because you barely do enough (or do nothing) to obtain it... Is your need for $1000 a month for rent different than Joe Blow in Bald Knob Arkansas and his need for $200 a month for rent? Is it different than Joe Schmoe in South Dakota who lives in a cabin that he built? Is your need for food different because you go to Harris Teeter to get it than it is for Joe Schmoe who grows and harvests his? Not to mention entitlements that are not needs. Not to mention that many can and do provide for their basic needs on little to no income. Not to mention that some with no bills thrive on lower incomes and some who have spent beyond means have a hard time surviving on high incomes.... Situations are ALL different... and you subjectively lump or categorize based on your subjective criteria... and this is unequal treatment based on your feeling or perception...
This subjectivity is why we have corruption and pandering... and it has brought us to the fucked up situation we are in today...
Not to mention that the preamble is an invocation.. not a part granting power to the government... Christ, we learned that in 11th grade
What is needed by person X in situation Y in location Z is indeed SUBJECTIVE... and nothing takes away from the fact that you are indeed responsible for it, no matter how hard it is... and you are not owed benefit because of how hard it is for you
What is OWED to this country's citizens is the protection of freedoms and the equality in treatment.. your sustenance is not OWED to you, your basic personal needs are not owed to you.. you owe them to yourself and those who are in your family who need your support (children)
Wrong, wrong and wrong. You still can't tell me how food, shelter and healthcare are subjective needs. It's why you continue to try and move the conversation to "no one owes you anything...blah blah", which avoids the question that you can't answer. Basic needs are not subjective. That's what makes them basic.
You refuse to accept it... it has been shown... basic needs of person X in location Y in situation Z are indeed subjective and differing
I missed that passage in the constitution. We were granted the rights to obtain these needs freely. that is different than obtaining them FOR free. You LOLberals have it all backwards.
Can you point out the passage in the constitution that says the citizens are owed food, shelter and healthcare?
I'll wait here.
Right there in the beginning
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.
You're welcome.
General welfare is not the same as specific welfare. Even the first circuit court of appeals in two separate cases made this clear from the stand point of social security.
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the typical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government[2] as the U.S. Supreme Court has held:
the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,
prior to 1936, the General Welfare Clause was not considered an independent grant of power, but instead a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues in the interest of the general welfare.[5][6] In recent decades, the Court conferred upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion, including the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds.[7]
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose
General Welfare clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're welcome. You cocky little fucktard.
Right there in the beginning
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.
You're welcome.
General welfare is not the same as specific welfare. Even the first circuit court of appeals in two separate cases made this clear from the stand point of social security.
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the typical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government[2] as the U.S. Supreme Court has held:
the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,
prior to 1936, the General Welfare Clause was not considered an independent grant of power, but instead a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues in the interest of the general welfare.[5][6] In recent decades, the Court conferred upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion, including the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds.[7]
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: [T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose
General Welfare clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're welcome. You cocky little fucktard.
Your Wiki quote uses Thomas Jefferson??? LMAO. First off, he wasn't even in the country during the Constitutional debate. He was busy on a shopping trip in France. Second, his closest ally, Madison argued for limited general welfare, and lost to the Federalist argument. If you want to know what General Welfare means, might I suggest reading the winning side, from a principal of that argument?
Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
