Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[California Girl]

The Preamble

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.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

Have promote and provide come to mean the same thing? They really need to update the NewSpeak lexicon so that I can keep up with it.





Fail.

FlailGo is a rare breed. A human being completely devoid of intellect. Pity the fool, mo chara. Play nice - he doesn't cope well when he gets his ass kicked by a girl.

 

[Barb]

If those big companies ruin the conomy of our country causing people to be out of work who's going to take care of them? Damn sure not the big companies, so don't play that indivdual responsibility card with me, the big companies who screw up the economy are sure as hell not taking personal responsibility for their fuck ups the way they should be, because if they did it would be the big companies, not the government paying unemployment to those workers layed off because of the actions of the big heads that run the companies.

You Republican dipshits can't have it both ways, you can't expect the government to give you tax cuts to bolster job creation and be free of personal responsibility when the big companies fuck up and put people out of work without a penalty.

I think what you're trying to say here is that tax breaks geared towards job creation should also be contingent upon resulting...job creation, and that they should not be given sans the targeted result.

I agree they should be, and I agree they haven't been, but you leave yourself open to all manner of asshattery by they way you express your thoughts.

Are you saying you are for the government giving tax cuts but only if the government can dictate how those tax cuts are used? In this case for "job creation".

I'm saying that if the tax cuts are targeted for job creation (or whatever the target), their receipt should be contingent on meeting that (or those) targets.
Do you think companies that receive targeted incentives should skip off without meeting the requirements of receivership?

If someone was caught running a bed and breakfast from their section 8 housing, you would have issue with that, yes?

Why should corporations get anything from the US government while expatriating production and jobs to some other country? Why should a trans or multinational corporation be entitled to chapter eleven protection from a community they have no stake but an office and an answering machine in, no concern or loyalty towards, and to whom they contribute nothing? These incentives and protections traditionally had at least an expectation of reciprocity attached to them. It is high time and then some those expectations were codified into strict policy.

 

[Flaylo]

FlailGo is a rare breed. A human being completely devoid of intellect. Pity the fool, mo chara. Play nice - he doesn't cope well when he gets his ass kicked by a girl.

Shit, you again. Do you actually have something to contribute instead of quasi-feminism?

 

[saveliberty]

The Preamble

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.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

Seriously? Do we have to educate you memory loss victims weekly? The founders did not intend for these social programs ever. You choose your definitions and founder quotes carefully to craft your defenses. Social Security should be a voluntary program and as it was intended form the beginning, a SUPPLEMENTARY program for retirement. Not playing your stupid game today Flaylo, unless I get really bored later.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I think what you're trying to say here is that tax breaks geared towards job creation should also be contingent upon resulting...job creation, and that they should not be given sans the targeted result.

I agree they should be, and I agree they haven't been, but you leave yourself open to all manner of asshattery by they way you express your thoughts.

Are you saying you are for the government giving tax cuts but only if the government can dictate how those tax cuts are used? In this case for "job creation".

\
No dickhead, pay fucking attention you asshat. Republicans say tax cuts are needed to bolster job creation, well if thats the case they should only get tax cuts and or continue to get tax cuts if they are bolstering job creation. The tax cuts should only come with the added stipulation that the companies must pay the price if they fail to do what they're supposed to do with the tax cuts, they shouldn't get a fucking free ride.

Now look you pencil necked mother fucker... so far I have been very cordial and haven't used any vulgarities, I have asked questions in the most respectful of ways and I was hoping you would recipricate in kind. Now you fuck with me and I'll own your stupid ass because you have not a clue how to run a business. What you are suggesting is akin to marxism.

Tax relief measures that reduce marginal tax rates on capital and labor income will produce bigger gains in GDP than measures that only tinker with the size of after-tax income. This is because cuts in marginal tax rates both increase the after-tax wage rate and lower the cost of capital. They therefore tend to encourage individuals to work more and businesses to invest. Increases in labor supply, saving, and the domestic capital stock follow.

Between 2011 and 2016, extending the tax cuts would likely, relative to the current-law baseline:

Raise real gross domestic product (GDP) by an average of over $75 billion annually, and by nearly $100 billion in 2012;
Add an average of 709,000 jobs annually, and roughly 900,000 in 2012;
Lower the unemployment rate, which means that about 270,000 unemployed workers in 2012 alone would find jobs; and
Increase real personal income by an average of almost $200 billion annually.

The 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts: Economic Effects of Permanent Extension | The Heritage Foundation

Now stop dodging my question on why you think tax cuts equals charity you cowardly puke.

 

[Si modo]

The Preamble

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.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

Have promote and provide come to mean the same thing? They really need to update the NewSpeak lexicon so that I can keep up with it.





Fail.

FlailGo is a rare breed. A human being completely devoid of intellect. Pity the fool, mo chara. Play nice - he doesn't cope well when he gets his ass kicked by a girl.

Shit, you again. Do you actually have something to contribute instead of quasi-feminism?

You just provided support for what she just said.

 

[saveliberty]

Your objections to being crapped on are dually noted Flaylo. If your mind wasn't such as sewer, we wouldn't get confused.

 

[California Girl]

FlailGo is a rare breed. A human being completely devoid of intellect. Pity the fool, mo chara. Play nice - he doesn't cope well when he gets his ass kicked by a girl.

Shit, you again. Do you actually have something to contribute instead of quasi-feminism?

Yea.... I have something to contribute. You're a lying little misogynist who, because he can't cope with getting a butt kickin' by a female, resorts to stupid sigs that he cannot back up - because it is YET ANOTHER LIE. You lie so much, that any attempt at discourse is pointless. Stop lying, and I'll stop kicking your ass for lying. Easy.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I think what you're trying to say here is that tax breaks geared towards job creation should also be contingent upon resulting...job creation, and that they should not be given sans the targeted result.

I agree they should be, and I agree they haven't been, but you leave yourself open to all manner of asshattery by they way you express your thoughts.

Are you saying you are for the government giving tax cuts but only if the government can dictate how those tax cuts are used? In this case for "job creation".

I'm saying that if the tax cuts are targeted for job creation (or whatever the target), their receipt should be contingent on meeting that (or those) targets.
Do you think companies that receive targeted incentives should skip off without meeting the requirements of receivership?

If someone was caught running a bed and breakfast from their section 8 housing, you would have issue with that, yes?

Why should corporations get anything from the US government while expatriating production and jobs to some other country? Why should a trans or multinational corporation be entitled to chapter eleven protection from a community they have no stake but an office and an answering machine in, no concern or loyalty towards, and to whom they contribute nothing to? These incentives and protections traditionally had at least an expectation of reciprocity attached to them. It is high time and then some those expectations were codified into strict policy.

So you're ok with the government telling you how to spend your money. Interesting, but not suprising being that it comes from a liberal minded person.

Your strawman is lame.

A tax cut is a reduction in taxes. The government is not giving you anything.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The Preamble

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.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

Promote and Provide have two different meanings. You should look them up.

 

[California Girl]

"promote the general Welfare".... As has already been pointed out for the terminally stupid... "Promote" not "Provide".

Might I, respectfully, suggest that those who do not understand the difference between those two words, get a fucking dictionary and learn it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's unconstitutional to repeal social programs?

News to me.

News to me too.

All these social programs are nothing more than socialistic charity. Taking money from the group that earns it and giving it to those that kinda sorta forgot to get a job. Kinda sorta forgot to take birth control and kinda sorta have no sense of responsibility whatsoever.

There is no charity in the Constitution. No using of the public largess for charitable reasons.

Funny how that GW clause wan't used as charity until FDR started rewriting things to suite his views.

Kinda funny how no one up until then even considered using the public largesse as charity.

Charity: Not in the Constitution

No charity no problem, tell the Republicans to quit lobbying for charity taxcuts for the richest of rich and big businesses and anyone thats paying their corrupted asses off, thats only fair right? The need for social programs for the poor and needy wouldn't exist if the conditions that caused them were eliminated.

Good grief... So, if 2% of the population just paid more taxes everything woule be ok? Really... you're that brainwashed?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Preamble

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.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

Would forcing something on the people that they do not want be insuring domestic Tranquility

 

[Flaylo]

"promote the general Welfare".... As has already been pointed out for the terminally stupid... "Promote" not "Provide".

Might I, respectfully, suggest that those who do not understand the difference between those two words, get a fucking dictionary and learn it.

So when Republicans lobby to cut off funding for social welfare to help the poor, are they promoting the general welfare of the people? No, their actions contradict the Constitution.

 

[Flaylo]

Are you saying you are for the government giving tax cuts but only if the government can dictate how those tax cuts are used? In this case for "job creation".

I'm saying that if the tax cuts are targeted for job creation (or whatever the target), their receipt should be contingent on meeting that (or those) targets.
Do you think companies that receive targeted incentives should skip off without meeting the requirements of receivership?

If someone was caught running a bed and breakfast from their section 8 housing, you would have issue with that, yes?

Why should corporations get anything from the US government while expatriating production and jobs to some other country? Why should a trans or multinational corporation be entitled to chapter eleven protection from a community they have no stake but an office and an answering machine in, no concern or loyalty towards, and to whom they contribute nothing to? These incentives and protections traditionally had at least an expectation of reciprocity attached to them. It is high time and then some those expectations were codified into strict policy.

So you're ok with the government telling you how to spend your money. Interesting, but not suprising being that it comes from a liberal minded person.

Your strawman is lame.

A tax cut is a reduction in taxes. The government is not giving you anything.

So you're ok with big businesses pocketing the tax cut money while you proportionally pay more taxes for your hard work? Fucking idiot, wipe your ass.

 

[California Girl]

"promote the general Welfare".... As has already been pointed out for the terminally stupid... "Promote" not "Provide".

Might I, respectfully, suggest that those who do not understand the difference between those two words, get a fucking dictionary and learn it.

So when Republicans lobby to cut off funding for social welfare to help the poor, are they promoting the general welfare of the people? No, their actions contradict the Constitution.

You're a lying little misogynist.

 

[Flaylo]

FlailGo is a rare breed. A human being completely devoid of intellect. Pity the fool, mo chara. Play nice - he doesn't cope well when he gets his ass kicked by a girl.

Shit, you again. Do you actually have something to contribute instead of quasi-feminism?

You just provided support for what she just said.

Oh great, another feminazi.

 

[California Girl]

The Preamble

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.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

Promote and Provide have two different meanings. You should look them up.

You may as well talk to a wall. FlailGo is as dumb as a brick.

 

[Flaylo]

"promote the general Welfare".... As has already been pointed out for the terminally stupid... "Promote" not "Provide".

Might I, respectfully, suggest that those who do not understand the difference between those two words, get a fucking dictionary and learn it.

So when Republicans lobby to cut off funding for social welfare to help the poor, are they promoting the general welfare of the people? No, their actions contradict the Constitution.

You're a lying little misogynist.

You refusal to answer is an answer, thank you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"promote the general Welfare".... As has already been pointed out for the terminally stupid... "Promote" not "Provide".

Might I, respectfully, suggest that those who do not understand the difference between those two words, get a fucking dictionary and learn it.

So when Republicans lobby to cut off funding for social welfare to help the poor, are they promoting the general welfare of the people? No, their actions contradict the Constitution.

contradiction? Yes lets talk about contradiction example 1.
Would forcing something on the people that they do not want be insuring domestic Tranquility