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.
The needs are the same...the cost of those needs may differ from region to region, but the needs themselves are NOT subjective.
No...the needs are the same...period.The needs are the same...the cost of those needs may differ from region to region, but the needs themselves are NOT subjective.
And who is responsible for your needs?? And do your needs, the amounts of your needs, and the types of your needs change depending on who you are, you situation, your location, etc??
I'll give you a hint.. You are.. and yes they do
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
Let me check again.....nope, that has not been shown anywhere. There is no place in this country or planet even where basic needs don't involve food, shelter and health.
No...the needs are the same...period.The needs are the same...the cost of those needs may differ from region to region, but the needs themselves are NOT subjective.
And who is responsible for your needs?? And do your needs, the amounts of your needs, and the types of your needs change depending on who you are, you situation, your location, etc??
I'll give you a hint.. You are.. and yes they do
The needs are the same...the cost of those needs may differ from region to region, but the needs themselves are NOT subjective.
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.
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
General welfare (as in promote) in the preamble is an invocation, not a granting of power
General Welfare as used in article 1 section 8 is generally used out of context by libs... leaving off the very important part of "of the United States"... which in context shows that it is the general welfare of the UNION (as in the union of states) that is to be provided for... not each individual need for the welfare of each individual...
But nice try.. a little understanding of common English might help
Too early to tell because the article is making a big assumption. It states "Republicans have declined to identify their targets' but then it assumes the biggest loopholes are the ones the Republicans will target. Time will only tell if Congress will even consider eliminating popular tax breaks such as: employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and retirement savingsRepublicans have declined to identify their targets. However, , some of the biggest loopholes on the books are popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and retirement savings which disproportionately benefit the upper middle class.. .
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
General welfare (as in promote) in the preamble is an invocation, not a granting of power
General Welfare as used in article 1 section 8 is generally used out of context by libs... leaving off the very important part of "of the United States"... which in context shows that it is the general welfare of the UNION (as in the union of states) that is to be provided for... not each individual need for the welfare of each individual...
But nice try.. a little understanding of common English might help
So "We the People of the United States" means nothing to you. Interesting.
Someone is back peddling now. Keep grasping for those straws. You're doing a great job, really you are.
quite frankly, you are a douchebag. Go live in a fucking cave for a while...and your side's "anti-green" stance would make clean, potable water a much harder task....but then again...you don't give a shit about any of that, do you? You only really give a shit about yourself.No...the needs are the same...period.And who is responsible for your needs?? And do your needs, the amounts of your needs, and the types of your needs change depending on who you are, you situation, your location, etc??
I'll give you a hint.. You are.. and yes they do
Quite frankly, you are not versed in the real world...
But then again.. basic human survival need can be handled with rice, a cave, and a stream/source of water... but somehow I think you speak of needs more than that.. which goes beyond need and is completely SUBJECTIVE as to what and how much it is
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.
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
General welfare (as in promote) in the preamble is an invocation, not a granting of power
General Welfare as used in article 1 section 8 is generally used out of context by libs... leaving off the very important part of "of the United States"... which in context shows that it is the general welfare of the UNION (as in the union of states) that is to be provided for... not each individual need for the welfare of each individual...
But nice try.. a little understanding of common English might help
Are you disputing the Tax Foundation report, or any facts contained therein? If not, you're clearly the troll on this thread. The facts, as they stand, demonstrate that the GOP plan will significantly raise taxes on the middle class, while drastically reducing taxes on those who make $1,000,000 or more.
It also seems that ignorance is your forte.
Facts? The "fact" is that the Democrats who made this report up ASSUMED to know what the GOP tax proposals would encompass. All the Tax Foundation report states is IF the tax proposals were carried out as the Democrats have ASSUMED then taxes would go up on the Middle Class. That doesn't mean that there actually IS a GOP plan that does that...it just means that the Democrats who made this report were able to formulate a GOP plan that did.
Which one was explicitly denied by the GOP? Both Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney have similar tax cuts, and claim that they'll be paid by eliminating some deductions. What deductions could possibly make up for the shortfall of the tax rate cuts they're proposing.
The only non-denial denial is that neither Ryan, Romney, nor GOP leadership will tell us what exactly the cuts are.
General welfare (as in promote) in the preamble is an invocation, not a granting of power
General Welfare as used in article 1 section 8 is generally used out of context by libs... leaving off the very important part of "of the United States"... which in context shows that it is the general welfare of the UNION (as in the union of states) that is to be provided for... not each individual need for the welfare of each individual...
But nice try.. a little understanding of common English might help
So "We the People of the United States" means nothing to you. Interesting.
Someone is back peddling now. Keep grasping for those straws. You're doing a great job, really you are.
Read the fucking preamble.. it is an INVOCATION.. not a granting of power to the government
Educate yourself
But yet even the retarded janitor deserves a wage that he can raise a family on...go figure.
you honestly think the Democrats can be trusted to be fair and impartial, don't you.
Sad.
You have yet to demonstrate any factual inaccuracies in the analysis. You base your position completely on the party that published the report, based on the Tax Policy Center's facts. Yet you claim because it came from Democrats, it can't be trusted. If it came from Republicans, you'd be supporting even the most inane fact.
You won't even address the basic issue of who will be hit the hardest, as a percentage of income, if the home mortgage deduction is repealed. Who was hit the hardest when Reagan had the credit card and auto loan installment interest deduction repealed?
You're the hack, and without the mental ability to think for yourself. Now get back to making your lame flames in your sig lines and responding to posts with single emoticons. That seems to be your forte.
unlike you, I take anything from one side that claims the other side is evil, with a large grain of salt. unlike you, I don't take whatever one party says and consider it Gospel.
unlike you, I do have a mind of my own, and I use it. In this case, I used it to determine that I don't trust the Democrats to make a fair and impartial analysis of a Republican plan, any more than I trust the Republicans to make a fair and impartial analysis of a Democrat plan.
It's called, having an open mind. You should try it instead of simply regurgitating any anti GOP thought that you see come from the Dems.
Dumb ass.
Too early to tell because the article is making a big assumption. It states "Republicans have declined to identify their targets' but then it assumes the biggest loopholes are the ones the Republicans will target. Time will only tell if Congress will even consider eliminating popular tax breaks such as: employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and retirement savingsRepublicans have declined to identify their targets. However, , some of the biggest loopholes on the books are popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and retirement savings which disproportionately benefit the upper middle class.. .
So....how is it in the "general welfare" of our once great country to minimize the workforce to lower andlower wage scales and benefits, move jobs to countries that employ people at a rate no one here can survive on, hide trillions in assets in tax haven countries, and see the wealthiest scream for more and more of the same every goddamned year?
Answer? It's not.
Too early to tell because the article is making a big assumption. It states "Republicans have declined to identify their targets' but then it assumes the biggest loopholes are the ones the Republicans will target. Time will only tell if Congress will even consider eliminating popular tax breaks such as: employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and retirement savingsRepublicans have declined to identify their targets. However, , some of the biggest loopholes on the books are popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and retirement savings which disproportionately benefit the upper middle class.. .
It's certainly not unfair to read the Ryan and Romney plans and figure out where they're going to recoup the trillions the proposal is going to cost. The ball should be in their court. Give some details, or stop lying.
