A great example of why socialism is better than "charity"

[danielpalos]

If that’s the way republicans make then people will do worse as the rich do better.

See? You are responsible for the growing gap between the rich and rest of us. A flat tax is fair but doesn’t work. Not as good as our unfair progressive tax.

Progressive tax is what voters should be voting for.

Unless they’re successful like us

Again, I don't care if you do worse. That's your problem, not mine.

Why wouldn't the poor support a progressive tax. It's easy to support something where you don't pay while believing those that are successful should pay more so your ass can get something for nothing.

raise the minimum wage Until the Poor, Pay their Fair Share!

Why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether? Give us a good answer this time.

...and raise enough tax revenue to even pay for AOC's green initiatives.

Do you seriously think a $100/hr MW would solve poverty? If so, you're thinking even less than I thought.

it would be a higher tax bracket and generating more tax revenue per person.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It has nothing to do with left or right you are simply wrong.

the Constitution does not support your argument.

yes, it does; want to argue about it?

No it does not and we already did argue it and you were proven wrong and got owned

we have a general welfare clause; i must be right even though i am on the left.

It proves you wrong because ti has nothing to do with socialism

welfare has everything to with socialism.

And both are failures

 

[Soupnazi630]

No it is not

The welfare clause is not a socialist clause and no one is responsible for the living of another person .

Our welfare clause is General and must solve for any exigency.

No it is not required for any exigency it is only for indirect promotion

No, it isn't. Our welfare clause is general and must promote and provide for the welfare General.

It doesn't mean to provide for lazy POS that refuse to do for themselves.

we have recourse to laws not right wing forms of alleged morality due to our First Amendment.

There is no law mandating welfare or socialism

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Not when the Constitution specifically says things about funding a military but absolutely nothing about supporting freeloaders.

I'd say that the “takings” clause of the Fifth Amendment pretty much shoots down supporting freeloaders. Freeloaders are only supported by government through the use of private property taken without just compensation.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No it is not

The welfare clause is not a socialist clause and no one is responsible for the living of another person .

Our welfare clause is General and must solve for any exigency.

Which means you're supposed to do for yourself with the opportunities you have. If you don't use them, no one is responsible for you.

in right wing fantasy, you are Always right. Our welfare clause is general not specific to right wing interpretations.

Hopefully you'll starve, it will be lingering, and you'll suffer the entire time. That, or start doing for yourself.

only the right wing, never gets it. there is no power to provide for your right wing, general malfare; Only the general welfare.

There is no law mandating welfare which is immoral.

It has nothing to do with you being a right winger and everything to with you being uneducated and proven wrong.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No it is not required for any exigency it is only for indirect promotion

No, it isn't. Our welfare clause is general and must promote and provide for the welfare General.

It doesn't mean to provide for lazy POS that refuse to do for themselves.

we have recourse to laws not right wing forms of alleged morality due to our First Amendment.

You don't have a right to someone else's money, son. If you think you do, get off your ass and try to personally take it.

I don't. Congress does.

They do not either.

 

[hadit]

Again, I don't care if you do worse. That's your problem, not mine.

Why wouldn't the poor support a progressive tax. It's easy to support something where you don't pay while believing those that are successful should pay more so your ass can get something for nothing.

raise the minimum wage Until the Poor, Pay their Fair Share!

Why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether? Give us a good answer this time.

...and raise enough tax revenue to even pay for AOC's green initiatives.

Do you seriously think a $100/hr MW would solve poverty? If so, you're thinking even less than I thought.

it would be a higher tax bracket and generating more tax revenue per person.

And very few people would have those jobs. Most would be out of work and unable to afford the basics of life. What do you think you'd pay for a burger when the guy that feeds the cow gets $100/hr? And the guy that takes your money? And the guy that empties the trash cans?

I use that as an absurd example to force MW increase advocates to acknowledge that increasing labor costs increase prices and/or kills jobs, it's just a matter of degree. If anyone seriously thought jacking it that high would solve poverty, it would have been done long ago. It wouldn't.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, it does; want to argue about it?

No it does not and we already did argue it and you were proven wrong and got owned

we have a general welfare clause; i must be right even though i am on the left.

It proves you wrong because ti has nothing to do with socialism

welfare has everything to with socialism.

And both are failures

Our Constitution is no failure.

 

[danielpalos]

Our welfare clause is General and must solve for any exigency.

No it is not required for any exigency it is only for indirect promotion

No, it isn't. Our welfare clause is general and must promote and provide for the welfare General.

It doesn't mean to provide for lazy POS that refuse to do for themselves.

we have recourse to laws not right wing forms of alleged morality due to our First Amendment.

There is no law mandating welfare or socialism

Our welfare clause is general and is mandated.

We have no immigration clause or wall building clause.

 

[danielpalos]

Not when the Constitution specifically says things about funding a military but absolutely nothing about supporting freeloaders.

I'd say that the “takings” clause of the Fifth Amendment pretty much shoots down supporting freeloaders. Freeloaders are only supported by government through the use of private property taken without just compensation.

Congress has the Power to Tax, to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

Our welfare clause is General and must solve for any exigency.

Which means you're supposed to do for yourself with the opportunities you have. If you don't use them, no one is responsible for you.

in right wing fantasy, you are Always right. Our welfare clause is general not specific to right wing interpretations.

Hopefully you'll starve, it will be lingering, and you'll suffer the entire time. That, or start doing for yourself.

only the right wing, never gets it. there is no power to provide for your right wing, general malfare; Only the general welfare.

There is no law mandating welfare which is immoral.

It has nothing to do with you being a right winger and everything to with you being uneducated and proven wrong.

Our Constitution is express not implied.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it isn't. Our welfare clause is general and must promote and provide for the welfare General.

It doesn't mean to provide for lazy POS that refuse to do for themselves.

we have recourse to laws not right wing forms of alleged morality due to our First Amendment.

You don't have a right to someone else's money, son. If you think you do, get off your ass and try to personally take it.

I don't. Congress does.

They do not either.

Yes, they do.

 

[danielpalos]

raise the minimum wage Until the Poor, Pay their Fair Share!

Why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether? Give us a good answer this time.

...and raise enough tax revenue to even pay for AOC's green initiatives.

Do you seriously think a $100/hr MW would solve poverty? If so, you're thinking even less than I thought.

it would be a higher tax bracket and generating more tax revenue per person.

And very few people would have those jobs. Most would be out of work and unable to afford the basics of life. What do you think you'd pay for a burger when the guy that feeds the cow gets $100/hr? And the guy that takes your money? And the guy that empties the trash cans?

I use that as an absurd example to force MW increase advocates to acknowledge that increasing labor costs increase prices and/or kills jobs, it's just a matter of degree. If anyone seriously thought jacking it that high would solve poverty, it would have been done long ago. It wouldn't.

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed solves simple poverty and automatically stabilizes our economy.

 

[deanrd]

This doesn't make sense since Red States live off the teat of Blut States.
And they suck.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No it does not and we already did argue it and you were proven wrong and got owned

we have a general welfare clause; i must be right even though i am on the left.

It proves you wrong because ti has nothing to do with socialism

welfare has everything to with socialism.

And both are failures

Our Constitution is no failure.

Welfare and socialism always is and the constitution mandates neither

 

[Soupnazi630]

No it is not required for any exigency it is only for indirect promotion

No, it isn't. Our welfare clause is general and must promote and provide for the welfare General.

It doesn't mean to provide for lazy POS that refuse to do for themselves.

we have recourse to laws not right wing forms of alleged morality due to our First Amendment.

There is no law mandating welfare or socialism

Our welfare clause is general and is mandated.

We have no immigration clause or wall building clause.

Welfare is not mandated and a wall is a proper function of government

 

[danielpalos]

we have a general welfare clause; i must be right even though i am on the left.

It proves you wrong because ti has nothing to do with socialism

welfare has everything to with socialism.

And both are failures

Our Constitution is no failure.

Welfare and socialism always is and the constitution mandates neither

we should promote and provide for the general welfare not the general warfare.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it isn't. Our welfare clause is general and must promote and provide for the welfare General.

It doesn't mean to provide for lazy POS that refuse to do for themselves.

we have recourse to laws not right wing forms of alleged morality due to our First Amendment.

There is no law mandating welfare or socialism

Our welfare clause is general and is mandated.

We have no immigration clause or wall building clause.

Welfare is not mandated and a wall is a proper function of government

Welfare is expressed and a wall is not.

 

[hadit]

Why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether? Give us a good answer this time.

...and raise enough tax revenue to even pay for AOC's green initiatives.

Do you seriously think a $100/hr MW would solve poverty? If so, you're thinking even less than I thought.

it would be a higher tax bracket and generating more tax revenue per person.

And very few people would have those jobs. Most would be out of work and unable to afford the basics of life. What do you think you'd pay for a burger when the guy that feeds the cow gets $100/hr? And the guy that takes your money? And the guy that empties the trash cans?

I use that as an absurd example to force MW increase advocates to acknowledge that increasing labor costs increase prices and/or kills jobs, it's just a matter of degree. If anyone seriously thought jacking it that high would solve poverty, it would have been done long ago. It wouldn't.

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed solves simple poverty and automatically stabilizes our economy.

No.

 

[hadit]

It doesn't mean to provide for lazy POS that refuse to do for themselves.

we have recourse to laws not right wing forms of alleged morality due to our First Amendment.

There is no law mandating welfare or socialism

Our welfare clause is general and is mandated.

We have no immigration clause or wall building clause.

Welfare is not mandated and a wall is a proper function of government

Welfare is expressed and a wall is not.

No.