How do we stop "the poor" from being so problematic?

[P@triot]

That is correct. "General welfare". Could mean pretty much anything.

Which proves how idiotic your position is. Because that would mean unlimited power for the federal government and we all know (even the most radical left-wing asshat) that that is not the case.

Does the Constitution clarify the "general welfare" statement any further? Please enlighten me, since I need a lesson on the US Constitution.

Yeah - the U.S. Constitution makes it very clear that the federal government is explicitly restricted to the 18 enumerated powers. Therefore the "general welfare" clause couldn't possibly extend beyond those 18 enumerated powers.

As Thomas Jefferson explained - the "general welfare" clause appplies only to those specific 18 powers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If the clause was simply referring to the 18 enumerated powers of Congress it would not make any sense because the enumerated powers are listed in clause one and the following clauses.

If the founders thought that the US government could tax anybody to spend on anybody else or anything they desired, then what was the point for creating the Powers of Congress? What would be the point of the entire Constitution?

There is lot more to the constitution than the spending and taxing clause. Congress can create any tax that is in the general interest. However, the Supreme Court can use judicial review to block any legislation that violates the constitution or existing federal laws. So if Congress passes a tax that the court finds is not in general interest, they can block it.

To my knowledge, that's never happened. Furthermore is we now have a government that takes money from one group of people to give to another to buy votes. Commie Care is a good example of that. Plus they pass laws on private institutions that do the same, for instance government cell phones. Taxes don't pay for that, paying cell phone customers pay for that. And what about what DumBama did with credit card laws? He limited them from penalizing late and no payers, and the banking institutions had to recoup that money from responsible borrowers. Most irresponsible people are Democrats.

 

[P@triot]

Does the Constitution clarify the "general welfare" statement any further? Please enlighten me, since I need a lesson on the US Constitution.

I've posed this question three times now in this thread alone. In all three cases (danielpalos, Camp, Regent), the person I posed the question ran like hell and hasn't been back to the thread to respond to me. So I'll ask you now and see if you have the courage to admit you're dead-wrong:

If the Republican-controlled House, Senate, and White House decide to tomorrow that it is in the best interest of the "general welfare" to execute any and all individuals with a left-wing ideology, would you consider that constitutional and support it completely? Yes or No?

 

[Seawytch]

Jonathan Swift had a solution for the OP...

A Modest Proposal

For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland "Urban Areas" From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public

Jonathan Swift - A Modest Proposal

 

[Flopper]

Why should those jobs not be careers if that is all that is available or more importantly, that is all a person is capable of. You are disparaging people who are willing to work at low paying jobs without knowing why that person may be restricted to a low paying job. On the one hand, you are whining about people collecting assistance and on the other hand whining about them when they work at a low paying job.

Because in the real world humans with brains are suppose to tailor their lifestyle to their income and not leverage their employers to tailor their income to their lifestyle....you understand the concept right? Employers shouldn't be held accountable for Juans lack of intelligence and poor decision making....right?
Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs designed for high school kids and the brainless.
If 35 year old Juan and Guadalupe weren't trying to make burger flipping a lifelong career we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Would this be an issue if we sent 10 million or so Juan's and Guadalupe's home with their six anchors?
Doesn't that seem easier?

How many people out there that are flipping burgers as adults do you think have the intelligence to do anything more complex?

There are a lot of adults that are simply not smart, and it does not mean that they are lazy or they don't apply themselves or don't try hard. It means that they are not smart. And if flipping burgers, or collecting trash, or sweeping the floor is the best they can do, that's great. You should thank them for it, rather than telling them that they are a drain on society and they should try to make something of themselves.

Hey look...I see little wrong with adults working a child's job for life.
Where it becomes a wrong is when Juan, the burger flipper has six babies he can't afford on his salary then sends me the invoice and or begs and whines about needing more from consumers and taxpayers to pay for his poor decision making. Come on man... you can't be that stupid...not unless you're a Juan yourself?
In the real world if you want more you have to be willing to do more...you can't stand before your peers with a sad face and a hand out every time you want more. Sorry.

The fact is most people, particular young people think that there will be better times ahead. Somehow they will go back school, marry some rich dude, get this incredible job, and live happily ever after. However, with each year there hopes slip away.

Suzy, the waitress marries John who works in the car wash. Suzy's mom gives them money to live on. Then Suzy has a kid. John's decide he prefers drinking with the guys to dirty diapers. Suzy's solution is to have another kid which sends John off to seek his fortune and Suzy is left with a new born and a toddler and no way to support herself. This story is happening every day in very town in the country over and over.

So who is at fault with your scenario?

Maybe if Suzy didn't have the federal government to depend on taking care of her kids while her husband went out and drank, she would have never chanced having a kid in the first place unless she knew her relationship and future were secure.

What difference does it make? Unless we are planning on extracting some form of punishment or retribution, fault is irreverent.

Assuming these people are teens or in their early twenties, they are not considering goverment support when they have sex. In fact, it's probably the last thing on their mind.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because in the real world humans with brains are suppose to tailor their lifestyle to their income and not leverage their employers to tailor their income to their lifestyle....you understand the concept right? Employers shouldn't be held accountable for Juans lack of intelligence and poor decision making....right?
Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs designed for high school kids and the brainless.
If 35 year old Juan and Guadalupe weren't trying to make burger flipping a lifelong career we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Would this be an issue if we sent 10 million or so Juan's and Guadalupe's home with their six anchors?
Doesn't that seem easier?

How many people out there that are flipping burgers as adults do you think have the intelligence to do anything more complex?

There are a lot of adults that are simply not smart, and it does not mean that they are lazy or they don't apply themselves or don't try hard. It means that they are not smart. And if flipping burgers, or collecting trash, or sweeping the floor is the best they can do, that's great. You should thank them for it, rather than telling them that they are a drain on society and they should try to make something of themselves.

Hey look...I see little wrong with adults working a child's job for life.
Where it becomes a wrong is when Juan, the burger flipper has six babies he can't afford on his salary then sends me the invoice and or begs and whines about needing more from consumers and taxpayers to pay for his poor decision making. Come on man... you can't be that stupid...not unless you're a Juan yourself?
In the real world if you want more you have to be willing to do more...you can't stand before your peers with a sad face and a hand out every time you want more. Sorry.

The fact is most people, particular young people think that there will be better times ahead. Somehow they will go back school, marry some rich dude, get this incredible job, and live happily ever after. However, with each year there hopes slip away.

Suzy, the waitress marries John who works in the car wash. Suzy's mom gives them money to live on. Then Suzy has a kid. John's decide he prefers drinking with the guys to dirty diapers. Suzy's solution is to have another kid which sends John off to seek his fortune and Suzy is left with a new born and a toddler and no way to support herself. This story is happening every day in very town in the country over and over.

So who is at fault with your scenario?

Maybe if Suzy didn't have the federal government to depend on taking care of her kids while her husband went out and drank, she would have never chanced having a kid in the first place unless she knew her relationship and future were secure.

What difference does it make? Unless we are planning on extracting some form of punishment or retribution, fault is irreverent.

Assuming these people are teens or in their early twenties, they are not considering goverment support when they have sex. In fact, it's probably the last thing on their mind.

It's the last thing on their mind as is being irresponsible and careless because there is always a lending hand in our government unfortunately.

If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised if you end up with more irresponsible people. Now let me ask: do you think we have more irresponsible people today or more in 1960?

Even kids have to make life changing decisions. You can get your kid a drivers license at the age of 16 in most states, but that doesn't stop them from getting drunk one night and killing a family in an auto accident. Their age doesn't excuse their actions. They have to pay one way or another for making that mistake.

 

[AntonToo]

When minimum wage is increased (within sane limits) poor and middle class take home more pay while rich spend more.

If that were even remotely true, there wouldn't be a constant call to raise minimum wage. Think how many times it has been raised in your lifetime - over 8 to 12 times depending on your age.

This is just basic economics - not to mention common sense. When you raise minimum wage, business raises their prices to cover the new costs of labor. Those increased costs for products and services mean that the minimum wage worker is no further ahead (and will actually fall further behind at some point as they enter a higher tax bracket). All minimum wage increases do is cause artificial inflation and devalue the dollar for everyone.

No dumbas, there absolutely would be a call to raise the minimum wage to keep up with inflation minimum wage does not cause.

Top REAL minimum wage was ~$10 in the 1960s and the raises never kept up with inflation for the past 50 years.

 

[P@triot]

Jonathan Swift had a solution for the OP...

A Modest Proposal

For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland "Urban Areas" From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public

Jonathan Swift - A Modest Proposal

What....the....fuck?!?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Have bleeding heart liberals raise , feed, and love em all ....... problem solved

 

[P@triot]

When minimum wage is increased (within sane limits) poor and middle class take home more pay while rich spend more.

If that were even remotely true, there wouldn't be a constant call to raise minimum wage. Think how many times it has been raised in your lifetime - over 8 to 12 times depending on your age.

This is just basic economics - not to mention common sense. When you raise minimum wage, business raises their prices to cover the new costs of labor. Those increased costs for products and services mean that the minimum wage worker is no further ahead (and will actually fall further behind at some point as they enter a higher tax bracket). All minimum wage increases do is cause artificial inflation and devalue the dollar for everyone.

No dumbas, there absolutely would be a call to raise the minimum wage to keep up with inflation minimum wage does not cause.

Top REAL minimum wage was ~$10 in the 1960s and the raises never kept up with inflation for the past 50 years.

Snowflake...no matter how much your cry about this...the results are in. Raising minimum wage results in devaluation of the dollar through inflation, a reduction in work hours, a reduction in jobs, a reduction in businesses, and a reduction in tax revenues to the government. These are not the idiotic "theoretical" equations from left-wing institutions desperate to create propaganda. These are the real world results.

 

[tycho1572]

I don't see the poor as being problematic. I see them as a sign of failure.
A sign of failure that our government has limited responsibility for.

 

[Flopper]

If the clause was simply referring to the 18 enumerated powers of Congress it would not make any sense because the enumerated powers are listed in clause one and the following clauses.

If the founders thought that the US government could tax anybody to spend on anybody else or anything they desired, then what was the point for creating the Powers of Congress? What would be the point of the entire Constitution?

There is lot more to the constitution than the spending and taxing clause. Congress can create any tax that is in the general interest. However, the Supreme Court can use judicial review to block any legislation that violates the constitution or existing federal laws. So if Congress passes a tax that the court finds is not in general interest, they can block it.

To my knowledge, that's never happened. Furthermore is we now have a government that takes money from one group of people to give to another to buy votes. Commie Care is a good example of that. Plus they pass laws on private institutions that do the same, for instance government cell phones. Taxes don't pay for that, paying cell phone customers pay for that. And what about what DumBama did with credit card laws? He limited them from penalizing late and no payers, and the banking institutions had to recoup that money from responsible borrowers. Most irresponsible people are Democrats.

Congress has blocked legislation many times most recently, the ACA requirement that states adopt expanded Medicaid.
Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia

If the clause was simply referring to the 18 enumerated powers of Congress it would not make any sense because the enumerated powers are listed in clause one and the following clauses.

If the founders thought that the US government could tax anybody to spend on anybody else or anything they desired, then what was the point for creating the Powers of Congress? What would be the point of the entire Constitution?

There is lot more to the constitution than the spending and taxing clause. Congress can create any tax that is in the general interest. However, the Supreme Court can use judicial review to block any legislation that violates the constitution or existing federal laws. So if Congress passes a tax that the court finds is not in general interest, they can block it.

To my knowledge, that's never happened. Furthermore is we now have a government that takes money from one group of people to give to another to buy votes. Commie Care is a good example of that. Plus they pass laws on private institutions that do the same, for instance government cell phones. Taxes don't pay for that, paying cell phone customers pay for that. And what about what DumBama did with credit card laws? He limited them from penalizing late and no payers, and the banking institutions had to recoup that money from responsible borrowers. Most irresponsible people are Democrats.

Both political parties have transferred money from one group, being tax payers to other groups to buy votes, too many to list.

There are a number of cases where taxing laws were found unconstitutional.
Acts of Congress Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court of the United States

 

[Camp]

Does the Constitution clarify the "general welfare" statement any further? Please enlighten me, since I need a lesson on the US Constitution.

I've posed this question three times now in this thread alone. In all three cases (danielpalos, Camp, Regent), the person I posed the question ran like hell and hasn't been back to the thread to respond to me. So I'll ask you now and see if you have the courage to admit you're dead-wrong:

If the Republican-controlled House, Senate, and White House decide to tomorrow that it is in the best interest of the "general welfare" to execute any and all individuals with a left-wing ideology, would you consider that constitutional and support it completely? Yes or No?

You got no response because of the stupidity of your question.

 

[P@triot]

Does the Constitution clarify the "general welfare" statement any further? Please enlighten me, since I need a lesson on the US Constitution.

I've posed this question three times now in this thread alone. In all three cases (danielpalos, Camp, Regent), the person I posed the question ran like hell and hasn't been back to the thread to respond to me. So I'll ask you now and see if you have the courage to admit you're dead-wrong:

If the Republican-controlled House, Senate, and White House decide to tomorrow that it is in the best interest of the "general welfare" to execute any and all individuals with a left-wing ideology, would you consider that constitutional and support it completely? Yes or No?

You got no response because of the stupidity of your question.

Bwahahahahaha! Game over. You know you're dead wrong.

 

[P@triot]

A sign of failure that our government has limited responsibility for.

Our government has zero responsibility for the poor. That's not why government exists.

 

[P@triot]

 

[Flopper]

How many people out there that are flipping burgers as adults do you think have the intelligence to do anything more complex?

There are a lot of adults that are simply not smart, and it does not mean that they are lazy or they don't apply themselves or don't try hard. It means that they are not smart. And if flipping burgers, or collecting trash, or sweeping the floor is the best they can do, that's great. You should thank them for it, rather than telling them that they are a drain on society and they should try to make something of themselves.

Hey look...I see little wrong with adults working a child's job for life.
Where it becomes a wrong is when Juan, the burger flipper has six babies he can't afford on his salary then sends me the invoice and or begs and whines about needing more from consumers and taxpayers to pay for his poor decision making. Come on man... you can't be that stupid...not unless you're a Juan yourself?
In the real world if you want more you have to be willing to do more...you can't stand before your peers with a sad face and a hand out every time you want more. Sorry.

The fact is most people, particular young people think that there will be better times ahead. Somehow they will go back school, marry some rich dude, get this incredible job, and live happily ever after. However, with each year there hopes slip away.

Suzy, the waitress marries John who works in the car wash. Suzy's mom gives them money to live on. Then Suzy has a kid. John's decide he prefers drinking with the guys to dirty diapers. Suzy's solution is to have another kid which sends John off to seek his fortune and Suzy is left with a new born and a toddler and no way to support herself. This story is happening every day in very town in the country over and over.

So who is at fault with your scenario?

Maybe if Suzy didn't have the federal government to depend on taking care of her kids while her husband went out and drank, she would have never chanced having a kid in the first place unless she knew her relationship and future were secure.

What difference does it make? Unless we are planning on extracting some form of punishment or retribution, fault is irreverent.

Assuming these people are teens or in their early twenties, they are not considering goverment support when they have sex. In fact, it's probably the last thing on their mind.

It's the last thing on their mind as is being irresponsible and careless because there is always a lending hand in our government unfortunately.

If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised if you end up with more irresponsible people. Now let me ask: do you think we have more irresponsible people today or more in 1960?

Even kids have to make life changing decisions. You can get your kid a drivers license at the age of 16 in most states, but that doesn't stop them from getting drunk one night and killing a family in an auto accident. Their age doesn't excuse their actions. They have to pay one way or another for making that mistake.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Getting drunk and killing someone in a car accident is a criminal offense. Having a child is not. In fact, 37% of all children born in the US are unexpected or an accident.

A surprising number of people consider the birth of child, even to poor people to be a good thing.

When we're talking about tax payer dollars to support children in poverty, what their parents did or did not do is irrelevant unless you consider punishing the children is the proper course of action.

 

[tycho1572]

A sign of failure that our government has limited responsibility for.

Our government has zero responsibility for the poor. That's not why government exists.

I've never had an issue with our government helping certain people. We absolutely should be helping people who can't help themselves.

 

[P@triot]

A sign of failure that our government has limited responsibility for.

Our government has zero responsibility for the poor. That's not why government exists.

I've never had an issue with our government helping certain people. We absolutely should be helping people who can't help themselves.

You may not have an issue with it - but that doesn't change the fact that they have no business being involved in charity. It violates every principle of our founding, our government, and the U.S. Constitution.

 

[AntonToo]

When minimum wage is increased (within sane limits) poor and middle class take home more pay while rich spend more.

If that were even remotely true, there wouldn't be a constant call to raise minimum wage. Think how many times it has been raised in your lifetime - over 8 to 12 times depending on your age.

This is just basic economics - not to mention common sense. When you raise minimum wage, business raises their prices to cover the new costs of labor. Those increased costs for products and services mean that the minimum wage worker is no further ahead (and will actually fall further behind at some point as they enter a higher tax bracket). All minimum wage increases do is cause artificial inflation and devalue the dollar for everyone.

No dumbas, there absolutely would be a call to raise the minimum wage to keep up with inflation minimum wage does not cause.

Top REAL minimum wage was ~$10 in the 1960s and the raises never kept up with inflation for the past 50 years.

Snowflake...no matter how much your cry about this...the results are in. Raising minimum wage results in devaluation of the dollar through inflation, a reduction in work hours, a reduction in jobs, a reduction in businesses, and a reduction in tax revenues to the government. These are not the idiotic "theoretical" equations from left-wing institutions desperate to create propaganda. These are the real world results.

If that's the results how come CBO economists directly say that you are full of shit?