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

[xotoxi]

Sorry snowflake...you lose.

Yes he would...because there have always been radical left-wing fascists such as yourself frustrated by the U.S. Constitution preventing power over others and as such, looking for ways to circumvent it and discrediting it.

Ad hominems.

I win.

"Ad hominem"? How are fascists during Thomas Jefferson's era an "Ad hominem"? Are you now proclaiming that you were around back then as well?

"radical left-wing fascists such as yourself"

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I am a radical left-wing fascist, therefore I can only conclude that you called me this out of frustration of losing the argument.

But alas, we will never agree, nor change each others minds. So I propose that we cease our discussion.

Thank you.

 

[P@triot]

The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[5][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.
General welfare clause - Wikipedia

Do you know what the beauty of the U.S. Constitution is? It never authorized the Supreme Court (or any other body) to determine what it says. It is the supreme law of the land, written in stone, and says exactly what it says.

 

[P@triot]

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I am a radical left-wing fascist

Your hate for the U.S. Constitution and your desperate desire to pervert what it says for your agneda.

 

[xotoxi]

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I am a radical left-wing fascist

Your hate for the U.S. Constitution and your desperate desire to pervert what it says for your agneda.

I have no agenda. And where did I say anything about hating the Constitution?

 

[AntonToo]

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.

Yes, that makes sense when it's explained properly; something you failed to do. However I strongly disagree with it. I remember what you could afford making minimum wage back then.

Dude are you serious?

You don't know what REAL is, can't bother to look it up and then blame me for not assuming your ignorance of basic economics? Rediculous.

Dollar's buying power today is a small fraction of what it bought in 1960s. What do you disagree with?

I disagree with the buying power. I was in the workforce in 76 when (according to your chart) was about nine bucks an hour today. I think you can buy more things today on nine bucks an hour than minimum wage back then.

There are people who's job it is to estimate inflation, broken down by type of consumption (low end in this case). I will take their expert estimates over your guesstimation...so should you.

Here are some food price comparisons:

Supermarket Food Prices In 1976 As Compared To 2016

Okay, is that because minimum wage is so low or because environmentalists were so smart they thought burning up our food supply would not drastically increase the cost of food?

lol.

Look buddy, before your mind runs too far away just take this with you - inflation happens with or without minimum wage, so just because minimum wage gets raised once in a while doesn't mean it is actually growing in real terms.

We've had REAL $10 minimum wage before and somehow those years still managed to be the good ol' days we keep hearing about from conservatives.

 

[Billo_Really]

Hate me? Seems like you hate anybody that disagrees with you. But then again, you're a lib so that's quite normal.

No, I don't hate you. I don't care for the things you say, but hating you personally, that would be dumb. I don't know you personally. So no, I don't hate you.

BTW, I'm not looking for agreement. I don't think I could handle a world where everyone felt the same way about everything.

Now how 'bout that poor..........................Lebron!

I noticed you got JR back.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Unfortunately, yes parents do get immunity; that is they get food and shelter because they have children to raise. Conservatives have never been able to come up with a way of punishing the parents for being poor without punishing the children.

Conservative's war against the poor has reached a new low. In red states like Alabama, where many students are on reduced price lunches, school officials put tags on children that say, "I need lunch money", so kids will be shamed by their classmates in hopes that will cause parents to come up with lunch money.

New Mexico recently passed a law forbidden schools from punishing children with negative lunchroom balances. Some school serve kids without money the "sandwich of same" which is a slice of cheese between two slices of white bread. Other schools force children without lunch money to clean the lunchrooms in front of their classmates to work off the debt. Probably the worst incident was a 3rd grader who was forced to wear a sign that his parents were deadbeats resulting in a beating by classmates and his removal from the school.
New Mexico Outlaws School ‘Lunch Shaming’

Sorry I don't trust the Dailylunch.com, but I don't. Neither do I trust the NY Times which is an arm of the Democrat party.

As for ways to punish the parents instead of the children, I came up with an idea long ago: anybody applying for public assistance has to be fixed before getting one red cent. That's it. No more having children while on welfare.

School lunch? I remember that when I was in school. The kid with the free lunch would sell it at half price to a kid who's parents gave him lunch money. Then he would buy a candy bar or something. The rest of the money both kids saved they used to buy cigarettes or pot. Great program.

I don't know what school lunch costs today because it's subsidized by the taxpayers anyway, but let's say that a lunch costs four dollars. Four dollars is twenty bucks a week. If a parent doesn't have twenty bucks to give to their kid, that kid should be taken away from the parents.

Plus I would be willing to bet anything that many of those kids with free lunch belong to a family that uses food stamps and can easily make a lunch from that stipend. And I would bet that most of those kids getting free lunch have a cell phone with data for pictures, internet and video chat with their friends.

You must have been away from school a long time. In almost all schools today, lunchrooms have a account for each kid in which either the parent or district deposits funds monthly. No cash or lunch vouchers changes hands.

The National School Lunch Program was not a program to feed the poor. Conservatives have characterized it as such but that is entirely false. The sole purpose was to improve student performance in schools and reduce disciple problems.

The program was started in the US in 1946. It is based on sound research as well as empirical evidence that goes back several hundred years. It's value has been confirm over and over. When kids don't receive adequate meals at breakfast and lunch, no matter the reason, they do poorly in school and create discipline problems.

Anyone that has taught kids understands how hard it is to teach hungry kids. They don't pay attention and cause classroom disruptions. Even just a couple of hungry kids can destroy the learning experience for a class.

Today school lunch programs very similar to the US program are operating in over 60 countries.

I see. So now it's the taxpayers liability to feed kids so they can learn in taxpayer schools?

Do you think kids could learn better if we also had taxpayer cars so they could get to school? How about taxpayer cigarettes? After all, how can a kid learn if he or she craves tar and nicotine? Do you think kids can learn better if they were dressed nicely? Shouldn't we have taxpayer clothing as well?

I swear, liberals are doing everything they can to relieve parents from their obligations and burdening taxpayers with those obligations instead. 20 trillion in debt, but what about the kids?????

You're working from the premise that the only one that benefits from the education of the child is the child and thus government should not pay any expenses in that regard. All costs should be born by the child or parents.

I, on the other hand believe the child's education benefits more than just the child. Therefore government should pay a portion of the costs because society as well as the child benefits.

Since we have completely opposite philosophical beliefs, I don't think we will agree on any point in this discussion.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, Cleveland, I knew that you were radical, but I thought only Hitler forced sterilization on unproductive members of society.

Live, and learn!

I don't suggest anything that non-government dependents do. You get married, get a job, and have a family that your wages support. When you have enough kids, you get yourself fixed so you can't have anymore children because you resources can't support them.

Why is it "Hitleresque" to suggest that people who don't pay for their children do the same? And it's not forced sterilization. If you don't want to get fixed, get a fucken job and support your kids like everybody else does.

This is clear case how Democrats want more poor people for power. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, so when you pay poor people to have poor children, how can you expect to eliminate poverty?

You've outed yourself, Clev. Your next step should be to set the equivalent of the Reichstag on fire!

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No, it doesn't. Those powers are examples and qualifications of the general powers.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Dear, you don't know what you are talking about. The general welfare clause means exactly that. It is not a private welfare clause, nor a specific welfare clause, nor even a major welfare clause, it is a general welfare clause.

We don't have a general defense clause.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Providing for the general welfare is not charity.

 

[OnePercenter]

The answer is simple. Raise minimum wage to $15.00/hr.

Comprehension problems I presume?

I just got done stating to you that places that took huge increases in minimum wage had no impact on the so-called poor because they simply worked less hours. And you come back with "the answer is simple, raise minimum wage to $15.00 per hour?"

Here in the city of Cleveland, it's an entirely Democrat run government which is how it got ran into a hole. But a few months ago, the city tried to increase the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Even these liberal Democrats voted it down. Why? Because they knew it would chase industry out of Cleveland and into the suburbs.

The next step was to convince the county (Cuyahoga) to adopt Cleveland's idea so that businesses would not have to move to the suburbs. The county refused to go along with the idea for the same reason: it would chase businesses out of the county to adjoining counties.

When you create problems for businesses, businesses respond, and not likely in a positive way. It's one of the reasons tax abatements work when trying to attract businesses to your city or state. Show them that you are willing to give them tax breaks to make it financially easier to run their business, and they will choose you over a higher taxed city or state.

National minimum wage of $15.00/hr.

What if a business can't afford to pay $15 minimum wage? This is common, even in states with high costs of living like California.

Name one business that can't afford to pay a $15.00 minimum wage.

Every small business in the country barely making a profit and or breaking even.
Do you think there are any of those?

Business in this country is making profit at record levels.

 

[OnePercenter]

The answer is simple. Raise minimum wage to $15.00/hr.

Comprehension problems I presume?

I just got done stating to you that places that took huge increases in minimum wage had no impact on the so-called poor because they simply worked less hours. And you come back with "the answer is simple, raise minimum wage to $15.00 per hour?"

Here in the city of Cleveland, it's an entirely Democrat run government which is how it got ran into a hole. But a few months ago, the city tried to increase the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Even these liberal Democrats voted it down. Why? Because they knew it would chase industry out of Cleveland and into the suburbs.

The next step was to convince the county (Cuyahoga) to adopt Cleveland's idea so that businesses would not have to move to the suburbs. The county refused to go along with the idea for the same reason: it would chase businesses out of the county to adjoining counties.

When you create problems for businesses, businesses respond, and not likely in a positive way. It's one of the reasons tax abatements work when trying to attract businesses to your city or state. Show them that you are willing to give them tax breaks to make it financially easier to run their business, and they will choose you over a higher taxed city or state.

National minimum wage of $15.00/hr.

What if a business can't afford to pay $15 minimum wage? This is common, even in states with high costs of living like California.

Name one business that can't afford to pay a $15.00 minimum wage.

Bernie Sanders For President

Bernie Sanders Supports $15 Minimum Wage, Pays Interns $12 Per Hour

Republicans pay $7.25/hr, and a Democrat pays $12.00/hr. Good for him!

 

[danielpalos]

Folks...take a step back for a moment. Take a deep breath. And now consider the position of the left - which is essentially this:

If a person has a "need" they have every right to take by force (though government) that which does not belong to them. This is completely and totally "rational" in the mind of a left-wing lunatic. If you can't afford healthcare, you have a right to steal it from someone else. If you can't afford housing, you have a right to steal it from someone else.

Now let's just apply their "logic" equally here. Let's just say that I'm not terribly successful with the ladies. Let's say I've gone a year without having sex. By left-wing "logic", since they are entitled to take 20% of my healthcare, I'm equally entitled to take 20% of their wife. I mean....what about my "needs"? I should be able to take 20% of their wife by force. So 73 days per year I can have a left-wingers wife ANY way I want to have her.

And what if you can't have children? Some couples can't. Well, again, by left-wing "logic" I am entitled to their children 73 days per year. They must stay in my home, entertain me, etc. And there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. I'm entitled to it by their own logic. Just like I can't stop them from stealing my income for housing, food, healthcare, etc., they can't stop me from stealing their wife and children 20% of the time. The U.S. Constitution says so!

Just a wall of text. Consider the position of the right wing: Work or die, and work harder for less so the rich can get richer faster.

 

[danielpalos]

So if Congress was to decide that they wanted to deliver mail on Sundays, make a 57¢ coin, punish pirates by tickling them, and promote the general welfare of the citizens of the United States by giving each of them a puppy, they would have the power to do so, based on how the Constitution is written.

Uh....no they wouldn't. Because providing puppies is not one of the 18 enumerated powers.

Neither are wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[danielpalos]

You can quote TJ as often as you want, but it doesn't change the ambiguity.

First of all - there is no "ambiguity". It says exactly what it says and it very clear. However, for those who are a little slow, Thomas Jefferson clarified it for them.

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

Sorry snowflake...you lose.

nope; you need to give the right wing "the memo" so they can start winding down our alleged wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[danielpalos]

You can quote TJ as often as you want, but it doesn't change the ambiguity.

First of all - there is no "ambiguity". It says exactly what it says and it very clear. However, for those who are a little slow, Thomas Jefferson clarified it for them.

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

Sorry snowflake...you lose.

If there was no ambiguity in what Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 ("general welfare") actually means, Thomas Jefferson would not have to make a clarifying statements 25 and 37 years after the Constitution was ratified.

Where in the Constitution does it say "restrained to those specifically enumerated"? It doesn't.

And because Jefferson clarified what he had meant decades after the Constitution had been ratified, does not change the fact that he did not write what he intended in 1788.

Jefferson was advocating the Republican Doctrine, not the federal doctrine.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Comprehension problems I presume?

I just got done stating to you that places that took huge increases in minimum wage had no impact on the so-called poor because they simply worked less hours. And you come back with "the answer is simple, raise minimum wage to $15.00 per hour?"

Here in the city of Cleveland, it's an entirely Democrat run government which is how it got ran into a hole. But a few months ago, the city tried to increase the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Even these liberal Democrats voted it down. Why? Because they knew it would chase industry out of Cleveland and into the suburbs.

The next step was to convince the county (Cuyahoga) to adopt Cleveland's idea so that businesses would not have to move to the suburbs. The county refused to go along with the idea for the same reason: it would chase businesses out of the county to adjoining counties.

When you create problems for businesses, businesses respond, and not likely in a positive way. It's one of the reasons tax abatements work when trying to attract businesses to your city or state. Show them that you are willing to give them tax breaks to make it financially easier to run their business, and they will choose you over a higher taxed city or state.

National minimum wage of $15.00/hr.

What if a business can't afford to pay $15 minimum wage? This is common, even in states with high costs of living like California.

Name one business that can't afford to pay a $15.00 minimum wage.

Every small business in the country barely making a profit and or breaking even.
Do you think there are any of those?

Business in this country is making profit at record levels.

NEGATIVE.
That's an awfully ambiguous statement...nice try.
Your right, Google, Apple, Microsoft and the like are killing it.
There's about 19,000 companies with 500 or more employees and 28 million "small businesses". Small businesses create 64% of new private sector jobs.
Most small businesses do not become profitable until their third year in business. I know many small business owners who definitely are not getting rich...they employ many people, turn lots of cash but at the end of the day they aren't taking much home.
You people really need to stop categorizing all businesses in with McDonald's and the majors. Small business is the heart and soul of this nation.

 

[OnePercenter]

How do you account for the >3M working class poor?

That would have to be studied on a case by case basis. More than likely those people made a lot of mistakes in life and that's what contributed to their plight.

I work in industry and deal with customers who use temporary services. When they get busy and ask their temporary help to work overtime, many times they refuse. Why? Because it would interfere with one of their government goodies--usually food stamps.

Temporaries keep their income purposely low so they can continue to collect handouts. That puts them in this category of "working poor" that you speak of. There have even been stories of places with huge minimum wage increases that makes employees work less hours for the same reason.

The answer is simple. Raise minimum wage to $15.00/hr.

Comprehension problems I presume?

I just got done stating to you that places that took huge increases in minimum wage had no impact on the so-called poor because they simply worked less hours. And you come back with "the answer is simple, raise minimum wage to $15.00 per hour?"

Here in the city of Cleveland, it's an entirely Democrat run government which is how it got ran into a hole. But a few months ago, the city tried to increase the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Even these liberal Democrats voted it down. Why? Because they knew it would chase industry out of Cleveland and into the suburbs.

The next step was to convince the county (Cuyahoga) to adopt Cleveland's idea so that businesses would not have to move to the suburbs. The county refused to go along with the idea for the same reason: it would chase businesses out of the county to adjoining counties.

When you create problems for businesses, businesses respond, and not likely in a positive way. It's one of the reasons tax abatements work when trying to attract businesses to your city or state. Show them that you are willing to give them tax breaks to make it financially easier to run their business, and they will choose you over a higher taxed city or state.

National minimum wage of $15.00/hr.

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?

The minimum wage was established so employers couldn't screw their employees. Unfortunately for American workers, Republicans have done well in keeping wages low.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Thanks, friend.

I looked up the 18 enumerated powers...

and unless there is a DIFFERENT list of 18 enumerated powers, the FIRST of the 18 states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" (emphasis mine)

Therefore the "general welfare" clause couldn't possibly extend beyond those 18 enumerated powers because it is ONE OF THE 18 ENUMERATED POWERS.

If I am wrong, and there is another 18 enumerated powers, please show me.

Thank you,

That only applies to the Republican Doctrine. They don't mind a drug war or terror that is not listed, either.

That's true.

And what is this:

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

Does that mean that armies were meant to be created and defunded every two years?

It has to be brought up for funding every two years.