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

[Flopper]

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.

Although government may have no responsibility for the poor, the problems that arise out of poverty, drugs, crime, child abuse, slums, and squalor always become the problem of government.

 

[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.

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.

We live in a civilized society. It's why our government helps certain people. It's also why I feel compelled to help families through certain holidays.

I have no problem with our government lending a helping hand. I do have a problem with those who abuse it.

 

[AntonToo]

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.

Apparently you never read the responsibility to provide for General Welfare of the country clause.

YES, absolutely it is in the general interest of this country to help the poor and in particular to ensure people are paid above slave-grade compensation for their labor.

 

[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.

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

Nah, I know what doctrine of implied powers are and the legal and constitutional implications of "necessary and proper".
You are taking one side of a constitutional debate that has been going on for a long time and is still going on, and presenting the side you agree with as being a factual conclusion. You completely ignore what you were told about in an earlier post. That being, that the courts have sided with the Hamilton view in regards to the enumerated powers clause and supported what are called the "doctrine of implied powers".
So, Mr. Constitutional Scholar, 'splain what implied powers are and why they haven't neutered your enumerated powers misinformed fantasy.

 

[mudwhistle]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

Stop bringing more of them here hoping they'll vote for your lying asses.

 

[Seawytch]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

Stop bringing more of them here hoping they'll vote for your lying asses.

Them who?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Although government may have no responsibility for the poor, the problems that arise out of poverty, drugs, crime, child abuse, slums, and squalor always become the problem of government.

Seems the problem is always more severe while Democrats are in charge of the government.
Americans are among the most generous givers in the world....but Democrats always say we need to give more.
Not one white person in America today owns a slave yet we somehow have that negative DNA that makes us culpable for slavery in America.
Frankly even the most patient person would simply get fed up with constantly being accused by liberals that we aren't generous enough.

 

[mudwhistle]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

Stop bringing more of them here hoping they'll vote for your lying asses.

Them who?

Playing dumb are we?
Or are we actually this stupid?

 

[Seawytch]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

Stop bringing more of them here hoping they'll vote for your lying asses.

Them who?

Playing dumb are we?
Or are we actually this stupid?

The OP is talking about "the poor". You seem to be talking about immigrants. Do you have statistics showing that immigrants are more likely to be poor?

The South is home to over 40% of the nations poor people. Are they all immigrants?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

So the parents get immunity because of their children???

It's not apples and oranges in the sense of responsibility. You kill people because you got drunk and drove a vehicle, you pay. You get pregnant and have a child you can't support--taxpayers pay? Where is the equity in that?

There is no such thing as an accidental pregnancy. An accidental pregnancy implies that you got pregnant through no fault of your own. Kind of like you were just walking down the street minding your own business and tripped over something.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

I was not talking about what Congress blocked, I was talking about the Supreme Court blocking taxation.

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

Well good for you. You found a site 100 pages long which you know I won't read (and you didn't either) to try and make your point.

 

[mudwhistle]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

Stop bringing more of them here hoping they'll vote for your lying asses.

Them who?

Playing dumb are we?
Or are we actually this stupid?

The OP is talking about "the poor". You seem to be talking about immigrants. Do you have statistics showing that immigrants are more likely to be poor?

The South is home to over 40% of the nations poor people. Are they all immigrants?

You seem to have a problem thinking logically.
If you have problem dealing with poverty, what is the point of making it worse by not only encouraging the poor of other countries to flood our borders, but sending them here in paid flights sanctioned by renegade Hawaiian judges who used to be classmates of Obama?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

WTF is "top minimum wage?" As a child of the 60's, I entered the workforce in the 70's and minimum wage was somewhere in the $3.00 an hour range. $10.00 an hour? I would have been in my glory.

 

[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.

WTF is "top minimum wage?" As a child of the 60's, I entered the workforce in the 70's and minimum wage was somewhere in the $3.00 an hour range. $10.00 an hour? I would have been in my glory.

Read up on what REAL means, it's not that complicated.
Real vs. Nominal, High School Economics Topics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Minimum was the highest in REAL terms in the 1960s, with equivalent of around $10-11 in today's dollars. Meaning that $1.50 in 1960 bought around $10 in 2016 worth of goods.

 

[Seawytch]

What can and or will be done about it politically?
In keeping with current board rhetoric let's not be scared to get real honest here.
Our poor are our worst parents...they create more of their same.
Our poor suck the most government tit.
Our poor commits the most crime.
Our poor does the most drugs.
Our poor drinks and smokes the most.
Our poor have the most children they can't afford.
Our poor litters and vandalizes the most.
Our poor drives uninsured.
Our poor commits the most animal cruelty.
I could go on and on...and no Libby's, let's not deflect and divert to Wall Street criminals, big corporations..blah, blah, blah...Let's get real, let's get serious about our taxpayer draining bottom feeders....Whatta ya say?

Stop bringing more of them here hoping they'll vote for your lying asses.

Them who?

Playing dumb are we?
Or are we actually this stupid?

The OP is talking about "the poor". You seem to be talking about immigrants. Do you have statistics showing that immigrants are more likely to be poor?

The South is home to over 40% of the nations poor people. Are they all immigrants?

You seem to have a problem thinking logically.
If you have problem dealing with poverty, what is the point of making it worse by not only encouraging the poor of other countries to flood our borders, but sending them here in paid flights sanctioned by renegade Hawaiian judges who used to be classmates of Obama?

So, you can provide statistics that show immigrants are more likely to be poor?

Again, some 40+% of the nations poor is concentrated in the South. You really want to attribute that to immigration?

 

[tycho1572]

Stop bringing more of them here hoping they'll vote for your lying asses.

Them who?

Playing dumb are we?
Or are we actually this stupid?

The OP is talking about "the poor". You seem to be talking about immigrants. Do you have statistics showing that immigrants are more likely to be poor?

The South is home to over 40% of the nations poor people. Are they all immigrants?

You seem to have a problem thinking logically.
If you have problem dealing with poverty, what is the point of making it worse by not only encouraging the poor of other countries to flood our borders, but sending them here in paid flights sanctioned by renegade Hawaiian judges who used to be classmates of Obama?

So, you can provide statistics that show immigrants are more likely to be poor?

Again, some 40+% of the nations poor is concentrated in the South. You really want to attribute that to immigration?

I think democrats are most likely to be poor.

 

[Seawytch]

Them who?

Playing dumb are we?
Or are we actually this stupid?

The OP is talking about "the poor". You seem to be talking about immigrants. Do you have statistics showing that immigrants are more likely to be poor?

The South is home to over 40% of the nations poor people. Are they all immigrants?

You seem to have a problem thinking logically.
If you have problem dealing with poverty, what is the point of making it worse by not only encouraging the poor of other countries to flood our borders, but sending them here in paid flights sanctioned by renegade Hawaiian judges who used to be classmates of Obama?

So, you can provide statistics that show immigrants are more likely to be poor?

Again, some 40+% of the nations poor is concentrated in the South. You really want to attribute that to immigration?

I think democrats are most likely to be poor.

Only slightly...

Of course that may have something to do with...

 

[BrokeLoser]

Stop bringing more of them here hoping they'll vote for your lying asses.

Them who?

Playing dumb are we?
Or are we actually this stupid?

The OP is talking about "the poor". You seem to be talking about immigrants. Do you have statistics showing that immigrants are more likely to be poor?

The South is home to over 40% of the nations poor people. Are they all immigrants?

You seem to have a problem thinking logically.
If you have problem dealing with poverty, what is the point of making it worse by not only encouraging the poor of other countries to flood our borders, but sending them here in paid flights sanctioned by renegade Hawaiian judges who used to be classmates of Obama?

So, you can provide statistics that show immigrants are more likely to be poor?

Again, some 40+% of the nations poor is concentrated in the South. You really want to attribute that to immigration?

When you say "the south" you are referring to Southern California...right?
Think per capita....if nearly 4 in 10 legal hispanics are on the tit it's probably safe to assume that at minimum at least that many Mexican immigrants who speak zero English would follow the trend...no?
Here's some facts from a pretty credible source: 21.3% of US Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month
Who Participated in Welfare?
The black population: At 41.6 percent, blacks were more likely to participate in government assistance programs in an average month.
o The black participation rate was followed by Hispanics at 36.4 percent, Asians or Pacific
Islanders at 17.8 percent, and non-Hispanic whites at 13.2 percent.


California - 12% of the nations population, 33% of the nations welfare recipients
Note that Hawaii and New York are fighting CA for that number one spot....also note all three are blue states. Here you go:
It Looks Like Red States Take Most in Federal 'Welfare' from this Map. But Looks Can Be Deceiving.
California’s Welfare Benefits: Boom or Bust?
"There has been much discussion about immigrants in the United States from everywhere around the world. Yet, why is it that California seems to attract the most immigrants of any state? Indeed, while the state is only 12% of the nation’s population, it is home to 33% of welfare residents. According to a report published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) on January 26, 2015, there is a correlation between generous welfare benefits and an increase in immigration.

In total, California outspends every other state in public welfare spending – in 2014, it spent $22.4 billion. In contrast, the next closest state, New York, spent $11.9 billion. That being said, does this make California a magnet for immigrants? Not necessarily. It is more of an anchor – a reason why residents stay for long periods of time in the state. However, to deny that there is no magnet would be incorrect. According to George J. Borjas, the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of the aforementioned report, the reason as to why people decide to relocate is due to “income-maximizing behavior.” Immigrants have already accepted that there are certain fixed costs that are inevitable because of migration, so it is natural that they will flock towards the places with the highest benefits. Empirical evidence suggests that it is because of these differences that there are an increasingly disproportionate number of immigrants among states. While there is the possibility of alternative explanations for this phenomenon, the conclusion that Borjas draws using the wealth-maximization hypothesis is one such testable method.

However, upon closer examination, on a per-capita basis, California’s seemingly generous benefits pale in data comparison to other states. For example, it spends approximately $179 for every resident, behind $233 in Hawaii and $256 in New York. Furthermore, approximately 8.9% of California residents live in poverty, the highest of any state. Despite this, the number of people immigrating to California increases exponentially each year."

 

[mudwhistle]

Stop bringing more of them here hoping they'll vote for your lying asses.

Them who?

Playing dumb are we?
Or are we actually this stupid?

The OP is talking about "the poor". You seem to be talking about immigrants. Do you have statistics showing that immigrants are more likely to be poor?

The South is home to over 40% of the nations poor people. Are they all immigrants?

You seem to have a problem thinking logically.
If you have problem dealing with poverty, what is the point of making it worse by not only encouraging the poor of other countries to flood our borders, but sending them here in paid flights sanctioned by renegade Hawaiian judges who used to be classmates of Obama?

So, you can provide statistics that show immigrants are more likely to be poor?

Again, some 40+% of the nations poor is concentrated in the South. You really want to attribute that to immigration?

I shouldn't have to show you that. History should have taught you that.
I suppose all of those folks arriving during the potato famine and all of the mass migration from 1850 - 1930 was all rich MoFos.
And the South you speak of could be Southern Texas and California. Huge illegal populations.

Jesus, do you ever crack a history book?

Nope. You think everyone comes here are rich kids on student visas.

 

[P@triot]

Nah, I know what doctrine of implied powers are and the legal and constitutional implications of "necessary and proper".

You can't have it both ways chief. Either the "General Welfare" clause is restricted to the 18 enumerated powers or it's not. If it's not - then the federal government has unlimited powers so long as they deem something for the "general welfare".

In which case, the Republican-controlled House, Senate, and White House could determine tomorrow that it is in the interest of the "general welfare" of the United States to execute all Democrats (which it really would be in the best interest of the United States to do) and by your own idiotic definition, that would be completely legal/constitutional.