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

[Flopper]

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.

We certainly don't, and let me explain why:

A woman has kids she can't support nor intended to support, so she goes to the taxpayers for that support.

So we pay for her kids food, shelter and medical bills. If she does work, we pay for her kids childcare at childcare centers.

Then the kid goes to taxpayer funded schools. At least where I live, over half of my property tax goes to educate other people's kids in a school that I nor any of my tenants have kids in.

So the kid graduates, and if left to Democrats, we would be paying for this kids college until they graduated which could take anywhere from two to eight years.

Society should pay for the advantages this person could offer.........Until the age of 26 ????

The average US life expectancy is 78 years old. What you are suggesting is that we (the taxpayers) take care of people over one-third of their life. Sorry, but some of us have to take care of ourselves first. I've already paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to support other people's kids. Asking those people to fund the rest is not asking all that much.

What you're missing is that most people that receive welfare support from the government in the form of welfare TANF, food stamps, etc. have jobs and are providing for a significant portion of their living expenses. You are also ignoring the fact that there are limits on government support. People without children are limited to only few months on food stamps. Welfare, TANF is limited to 60 months for most people. Free lunches in school are for the very poor. For example, parents with one child in most states can not have a combined gross income over $26,000 to qualify their child for free lunches. Fully subsided housing has even more restrictive income limits. For the vast number of people on federal welfare programs, support is only a supplement to their earned income.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

We certainly don't, and let me explain why:

A woman has kids she can't support nor intended to support, so she goes to the taxpayers for that support.

So we pay for her kids food, shelter and medical bills. If she does work, we pay for her kids childcare at childcare centers.

Then the kid goes to taxpayer funded schools. At least where I live, over half of my property tax goes to educate other people's kids in a school that I nor any of my tenants have kids in.

So the kid graduates, and if left to Democrats, we would be paying for this kids college until they graduated which could take anywhere from two to eight years.

Society should pay for the advantages this person could offer.........Until the age of 26 ????

The average US life expectancy is 78 years old. What you are suggesting is that we (the taxpayers) take care of people over one-third of their life. Sorry, but some of us have to take care of ourselves first. I've already paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to support other people's kids. Asking those people to fund the rest is not asking all that much.

What you're missing is that most people that receive welfare support from the government in the form of welfare TANF, food stamps, etc. have jobs and are providing for a significant portion of their living expenses. You are also ignoring the fact that there are limits on government support. People without children are limited to only few months on food stamps. Welfare, TANF is limited to 60 months for most people. Free lunches in school are for the very poor. For example, parents with one child in most states can not have a combined gross income over $26,000 to qualify their child for free lunches. Fully subsided housing has even more restrictive income limits. For the vast number of people on federal welfare programs, support is only a supplement to their earned income.

And how does that discount or dismiss what I said? I'm paying enough of my hard earned money for other people's kids. It's not like I get a "thank you" from them; they only demand more.

Our country is 20 trillion in debt. Our parents, grandparents and great grandparents always had the goal to make this a better country for their children than what they lived in. They worked a lot of hours, saved what they could, and tried to pass the wealth (what little they had) on to the next generation.

Now it's just the opposite. Screw the next generation, just take, take, and take no matter who's money you are taking. Our debt for all these goodies will have to be repaid by people not even born yet, but screw them. I want my free "whatever" and I want it now!

 

[danielpalos]

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.

We certainly don't, and let me explain why:

A woman has kids she can't support nor intended to support, so she goes to the taxpayers for that support.

So we pay for her kids food, shelter and medical bills. If she does work, we pay for her kids childcare at childcare centers.

Then the kid goes to taxpayer funded schools. At least where I live, over half of my property tax goes to educate other people's kids in a school that I nor any of my tenants have kids in.

So the kid graduates, and if left to Democrats, we would be paying for this kids college until they graduated which could take anywhere from two to eight years.

Society should pay for the advantages this person could offer.........Until the age of 26 ????

The average US life expectancy is 78 years old. What you are suggesting is that we (the taxpayers) take care of people over one-third of their life. Sorry, but some of us have to take care of ourselves first. I've already paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to support other people's kids. Asking those people to fund the rest is not asking all that much.

What you're missing is that most people that receive welfare support from the government in the form of welfare TANF, food stamps, etc. have jobs and are providing for a significant portion of their living expenses. You are also ignoring the fact that there are limits on government support. People without children are limited to only few months on food stamps. Welfare, TANF is limited to 60 months for most people. Free lunches in school are for the very poor. For example, parents with one child in most states can not have a combined gross income over $26,000 to qualify their child for free lunches. Fully subsided housing has even more restrictive income limits. For the vast number of people on federal welfare programs, support is only a supplement to their earned income.

And how does that discount or dismiss what I said? I'm paying enough of my hard earned money for other people's kids. It's not like I get a "thank you" from them; they only demand more.

Our country is 20 trillion in debt. Our parents, grandparents and great grandparents always had the goal to make this a better country for their children than what they lived in. They worked a lot of hours, saved what they could, and tried to pass the wealth (what little they had) on to the next generation.

Now it's just the opposite. Screw the next generation, just take, take, and take no matter who's money you are taking. Our debt for all these goodies will have to be repaid by people not even born yet, but screw them. I want my free "whatever" and I want it now!

we have a general welfare clause; we do not have a general warfare clause. now you know where the debt is coming from. i don't take the right wing seriously if they are not serious enough to enact, war time tax rates.

When is the right wing going to, "get serious"?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

We certainly don't, and let me explain why:

A woman has kids she can't support nor intended to support, so she goes to the taxpayers for that support.

So we pay for her kids food, shelter and medical bills. If she does work, we pay for her kids childcare at childcare centers.

Then the kid goes to taxpayer funded schools. At least where I live, over half of my property tax goes to educate other people's kids in a school that I nor any of my tenants have kids in.

So the kid graduates, and if left to Democrats, we would be paying for this kids college until they graduated which could take anywhere from two to eight years.

Society should pay for the advantages this person could offer.........Until the age of 26 ????

The average US life expectancy is 78 years old. What you are suggesting is that we (the taxpayers) take care of people over one-third of their life. Sorry, but some of us have to take care of ourselves first. I've already paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to support other people's kids. Asking those people to fund the rest is not asking all that much.

What you're missing is that most people that receive welfare support from the government in the form of welfare TANF, food stamps, etc. have jobs and are providing for a significant portion of their living expenses. You are also ignoring the fact that there are limits on government support. People without children are limited to only few months on food stamps. Welfare, TANF is limited to 60 months for most people. Free lunches in school are for the very poor. For example, parents with one child in most states can not have a combined gross income over $26,000 to qualify their child for free lunches. Fully subsided housing has even more restrictive income limits. For the vast number of people on federal welfare programs, support is only a supplement to their earned income.

And how does that discount or dismiss what I said? I'm paying enough of my hard earned money for other people's kids. It's not like I get a "thank you" from them; they only demand more.

Our country is 20 trillion in debt. Our parents, grandparents and great grandparents always had the goal to make this a better country for their children than what they lived in. They worked a lot of hours, saved what they could, and tried to pass the wealth (what little they had) on to the next generation.

Now it's just the opposite. Screw the next generation, just take, take, and take no matter who's money you are taking. Our debt for all these goodies will have to be repaid by people not even born yet, but screw them. I want my free "whatever" and I want it now!

we have a general welfare clause; we do not have a general warfare clause. now you know where the debt is coming from. i don't take the right wing seriously if they are not serious enough to enact, war time tax rates.

When is the right wing going to, "get serious"?

we have a general welfare clause; we do not have a general warfare clause.

How is anybody supposed to take you seriously when you don't even understand our language yet? You are so uneducated you don't even realize that welfare had an entirely different meaning back in the 1700's than it has today.

General welfare did not mean government give you everything you need or want to live.

Instead of coming here and repeating over and over and over again the same shit, try reading for a change and learn something:

What does the General Welfare Clause really mean?

 

[Flopper]

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.

We certainly don't, and let me explain why:

A woman has kids she can't support nor intended to support, so she goes to the taxpayers for that support.

So we pay for her kids food, shelter and medical bills. If she does work, we pay for her kids childcare at childcare centers.

Then the kid goes to taxpayer funded schools. At least where I live, over half of my property tax goes to educate other people's kids in a school that I nor any of my tenants have kids in.

So the kid graduates, and if left to Democrats, we would be paying for this kids college until they graduated which could take anywhere from two to eight years.

Society should pay for the advantages this person could offer.........Until the age of 26 ????

The average US life expectancy is 78 years old. What you are suggesting is that we (the taxpayers) take care of people over one-third of their life. Sorry, but some of us have to take care of ourselves first. I've already paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to support other people's kids. Asking those people to fund the rest is not asking all that much.

What you're missing is that most people that receive welfare support from the government in the form of welfare TANF, food stamps, etc. have jobs and are providing for a significant portion of their living expenses. You are also ignoring the fact that there are limits on government support. People without children are limited to only few months on food stamps. Welfare, TANF is limited to 60 months for most people. Free lunches in school are for the very poor. For example, parents with one child in most states can not have a combined gross income over $26,000 to qualify their child for free lunches. Fully subsided housing has even more restrictive income limits. For the vast number of people on federal welfare programs, support is only a supplement to their earned income.

And how does that discount or dismiss what I said? I'm paying enough of my hard earned money for other people's kids. It's not like I get a "thank you" from them; they only demand more.

Our country is 20 trillion in debt. Our parents, grandparents and great grandparents always had the goal to make this a better country for their children than what they lived in. They worked a lot of hours, saved what they could, and tried to pass the wealth (what little they had) on to the next generation.

Now it's just the opposite. Screw the next generation, just take, take, and take no matter who's money you are taking. Our debt for all these goodies will have to be repaid by people not even born yet, but screw them. I want my free "whatever" and I want it now!

No one should thank you for your tax dollars that go to social programs because it's not charity. It's your share of the cost of maintaining society. Just as your tax dollars maintain roads, street lighting, public sanitation, fire and police protection to make our towns and cities safer, cleaner, and healthier, so do social programs. Without these programs our cites would look like those in 3rd world countries plagued by disease, millions of people living on the streets and garbage dumps, food riots, and increased crime in every city.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

We certainly don't, and let me explain why:

A woman has kids she can't support nor intended to support, so she goes to the taxpayers for that support.

So we pay for her kids food, shelter and medical bills. If she does work, we pay for her kids childcare at childcare centers.

Then the kid goes to taxpayer funded schools. At least where I live, over half of my property tax goes to educate other people's kids in a school that I nor any of my tenants have kids in.

So the kid graduates, and if left to Democrats, we would be paying for this kids college until they graduated which could take anywhere from two to eight years.

Society should pay for the advantages this person could offer.........Until the age of 26 ????

The average US life expectancy is 78 years old. What you are suggesting is that we (the taxpayers) take care of people over one-third of their life. Sorry, but some of us have to take care of ourselves first. I've already paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to support other people's kids. Asking those people to fund the rest is not asking all that much.

What you're missing is that most people that receive welfare support from the government in the form of welfare TANF, food stamps, etc. have jobs and are providing for a significant portion of their living expenses. You are also ignoring the fact that there are limits on government support. People without children are limited to only few months on food stamps. Welfare, TANF is limited to 60 months for most people. Free lunches in school are for the very poor. For example, parents with one child in most states can not have a combined gross income over $26,000 to qualify their child for free lunches. Fully subsided housing has even more restrictive income limits. For the vast number of people on federal welfare programs, support is only a supplement to their earned income.

And how does that discount or dismiss what I said? I'm paying enough of my hard earned money for other people's kids. It's not like I get a "thank you" from them; they only demand more.

Our country is 20 trillion in debt. Our parents, grandparents and great grandparents always had the goal to make this a better country for their children than what they lived in. They worked a lot of hours, saved what they could, and tried to pass the wealth (what little they had) on to the next generation.

Now it's just the opposite. Screw the next generation, just take, take, and take no matter who's money you are taking. Our debt for all these goodies will have to be repaid by people not even born yet, but screw them. I want my free "whatever" and I want it now!

No one should thank you for your tax dollars that go to social programs because it's not charity. It's your share of the cost of maintaining society. Just as your tax dollars maintain roads, street lighting, public sanitation, fire and police protection to make our towns and cities safer, cleaner, and healthier, so do social programs. Without these programs our cites would look like those in 3rd world countries plagued by disease, millions of people living on the streets and garbage dumps, food riots, and increased crime in every city.

There is taxation for the purpose of benefiting society as a whole. Charity is when you take money from one group of people and give it to another, and that's what you are advocating.

Then you categorize everything as helping society as a whole when it's not. As I pointed out, you can use benefiting society with a number of things from air conditioning in your home to hedges out in your front yard.

When I talk about benefiting society, I mean directly. Roads benefit us all directly because we all use roads whether you drive or not. A police department benefits everybody directly because even if you never call them, they are a deterrent to crime to some capacity, and it's illegal to take law into your own hands.

Education benefits society as much as government buying us a car so we can get to work in the morning. Education mostly benefits individuals, and since you want to pass the buck to people that have money, it's wealth transfer and charity--not benefiting society.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

 

[danielpalos]

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.

We certainly don't, and let me explain why:

A woman has kids she can't support nor intended to support, so she goes to the taxpayers for that support.

So we pay for her kids food, shelter and medical bills. If she does work, we pay for her kids childcare at childcare centers.

Then the kid goes to taxpayer funded schools. At least where I live, over half of my property tax goes to educate other people's kids in a school that I nor any of my tenants have kids in.

So the kid graduates, and if left to Democrats, we would be paying for this kids college until they graduated which could take anywhere from two to eight years.

Society should pay for the advantages this person could offer.........Until the age of 26 ????

The average US life expectancy is 78 years old. What you are suggesting is that we (the taxpayers) take care of people over one-third of their life. Sorry, but some of us have to take care of ourselves first. I've already paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to support other people's kids. Asking those people to fund the rest is not asking all that much.

What you're missing is that most people that receive welfare support from the government in the form of welfare TANF, food stamps, etc. have jobs and are providing for a significant portion of their living expenses. You are also ignoring the fact that there are limits on government support. People without children are limited to only few months on food stamps. Welfare, TANF is limited to 60 months for most people. Free lunches in school are for the very poor. For example, parents with one child in most states can not have a combined gross income over $26,000 to qualify their child for free lunches. Fully subsided housing has even more restrictive income limits. For the vast number of people on federal welfare programs, support is only a supplement to their earned income.

And how does that discount or dismiss what I said? I'm paying enough of my hard earned money for other people's kids. It's not like I get a "thank you" from them; they only demand more.

Our country is 20 trillion in debt. Our parents, grandparents and great grandparents always had the goal to make this a better country for their children than what they lived in. They worked a lot of hours, saved what they could, and tried to pass the wealth (what little they had) on to the next generation.

Now it's just the opposite. Screw the next generation, just take, take, and take no matter who's money you are taking. Our debt for all these goodies will have to be repaid by people not even born yet, but screw them. I want my free "whatever" and I want it now!

we have a general welfare clause; we do not have a general warfare clause. now you know where the debt is coming from. i don't take the right wing seriously if they are not serious enough to enact, war time tax rates.

When is the right wing going to, "get serious"?

we have a general welfare clause; we do not have a general warfare clause.

How is anybody supposed to take you seriously when you don't even understand our language yet? You are so uneducated you don't even realize that welfare had an entirely different meaning back in the 1700's than it has today.

General welfare did not mean government give you everything you need or want to live.

Instead of coming here and repeating over and over and over again the same shit, try reading for a change and learn something:

What does the General Welfare Clause really mean?

No, it does not have any different meaning today than in the 1700's. All y'all have, is fallacy.

General welfare means just that, it does not mean the major welfare nor the specific welfare nor even the common welfare.

There is no common offense clause nor any general warfare clause. Yet, the right wing claims we can allegedly wage perpetual war on crime, drugs, and terror. Where are those powers to be found the power to provide for the common defense, not the general defense?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

We certainly don't, and let me explain why:

A woman has kids she can't support nor intended to support, so she goes to the taxpayers for that support.

So we pay for her kids food, shelter and medical bills. If she does work, we pay for her kids childcare at childcare centers.

Then the kid goes to taxpayer funded schools. At least where I live, over half of my property tax goes to educate other people's kids in a school that I nor any of my tenants have kids in.

So the kid graduates, and if left to Democrats, we would be paying for this kids college until they graduated which could take anywhere from two to eight years.

Society should pay for the advantages this person could offer.........Until the age of 26 ????

The average US life expectancy is 78 years old. What you are suggesting is that we (the taxpayers) take care of people over one-third of their life. Sorry, but some of us have to take care of ourselves first. I've already paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to support other people's kids. Asking those people to fund the rest is not asking all that much.

What you're missing is that most people that receive welfare support from the government in the form of welfare TANF, food stamps, etc. have jobs and are providing for a significant portion of their living expenses. You are also ignoring the fact that there are limits on government support. People without children are limited to only few months on food stamps. Welfare, TANF is limited to 60 months for most people. Free lunches in school are for the very poor. For example, parents with one child in most states can not have a combined gross income over $26,000 to qualify their child for free lunches. Fully subsided housing has even more restrictive income limits. For the vast number of people on federal welfare programs, support is only a supplement to their earned income.

And how does that discount or dismiss what I said? I'm paying enough of my hard earned money for other people's kids. It's not like I get a "thank you" from them; they only demand more.

Our country is 20 trillion in debt. Our parents, grandparents and great grandparents always had the goal to make this a better country for their children than what they lived in. They worked a lot of hours, saved what they could, and tried to pass the wealth (what little they had) on to the next generation.

Now it's just the opposite. Screw the next generation, just take, take, and take no matter who's money you are taking. Our debt for all these goodies will have to be repaid by people not even born yet, but screw them. I want my free "whatever" and I want it now!

No one should thank you for your tax dollars that go to social programs because it's not charity. It's your share of the cost of maintaining society. Just as your tax dollars maintain roads, street lighting, public sanitation, fire and police protection to make our towns and cities safer, cleaner, and healthier, so do social programs. Without these programs our cites would look like those in 3rd world countries plagued by disease, millions of people living on the streets and garbage dumps, food riots, and increased crime in every city.

There is taxation for the purpose of benefiting society as a whole. Charity is when you take money from one group of people and give it to another, and that's what you are advocating.

Then you categorize everything as helping society as a whole when it's not. As I pointed out, you can use benefiting society with a number of things from air conditioning in your home to hedges out in your front yard.

When I talk about benefiting society, I mean directly. Roads benefit us all directly because we all use roads whether you drive or not. A police department benefits everybody directly because even if you never call them, they are a deterrent to crime to some capacity, and it's illegal to take law into your own hands.

Education benefits society as much as government buying us a car so we can get to work in the morning. Education mostly benefits individuals, and since you want to pass the buck to people that have money, it's wealth transfer and charity--not benefiting society.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Taxation is, Redistribution of wealth. Are there no works of Art that Congress has spent our tax monies on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We certainly don't, and let me explain why:

A woman has kids she can't support nor intended to support, so she goes to the taxpayers for that support.

So we pay for her kids food, shelter and medical bills. If she does work, we pay for her kids childcare at childcare centers.

Then the kid goes to taxpayer funded schools. At least where I live, over half of my property tax goes to educate other people's kids in a school that I nor any of my tenants have kids in.

So the kid graduates, and if left to Democrats, we would be paying for this kids college until they graduated which could take anywhere from two to eight years.

Society should pay for the advantages this person could offer.........Until the age of 26 ????

The average US life expectancy is 78 years old. What you are suggesting is that we (the taxpayers) take care of people over one-third of their life. Sorry, but some of us have to take care of ourselves first. I've already paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to support other people's kids. Asking those people to fund the rest is not asking all that much.

What you're missing is that most people that receive welfare support from the government in the form of welfare TANF, food stamps, etc. have jobs and are providing for a significant portion of their living expenses. You are also ignoring the fact that there are limits on government support. People without children are limited to only few months on food stamps. Welfare, TANF is limited to 60 months for most people. Free lunches in school are for the very poor. For example, parents with one child in most states can not have a combined gross income over $26,000 to qualify their child for free lunches. Fully subsided housing has even more restrictive income limits. For the vast number of people on federal welfare programs, support is only a supplement to their earned income.

And how does that discount or dismiss what I said? I'm paying enough of my hard earned money for other people's kids. It's not like I get a "thank you" from them; they only demand more.

Our country is 20 trillion in debt. Our parents, grandparents and great grandparents always had the goal to make this a better country for their children than what they lived in. They worked a lot of hours, saved what they could, and tried to pass the wealth (what little they had) on to the next generation.

Now it's just the opposite. Screw the next generation, just take, take, and take no matter who's money you are taking. Our debt for all these goodies will have to be repaid by people not even born yet, but screw them. I want my free "whatever" and I want it now!

we have a general welfare clause; we do not have a general warfare clause. now you know where the debt is coming from. i don't take the right wing seriously if they are not serious enough to enact, war time tax rates.

When is the right wing going to, "get serious"?

we have a general welfare clause; we do not have a general warfare clause.

How is anybody supposed to take you seriously when you don't even understand our language yet? You are so uneducated you don't even realize that welfare had an entirely different meaning back in the 1700's than it has today.

General welfare did not mean government give you everything you need or want to live.

Instead of coming here and repeating over and over and over again the same shit, try reading for a change and learn something:

What does the General Welfare Clause really mean?

No, it does not have any different meaning today than in the 1700's. All y'all have, is fallacy.

General welfare means just that, it does not mean the major welfare nor the specific welfare nor even the common welfare.

There is no common offense clause nor any general warfare clause. Yet, the right wing claims we can allegedly wage perpetual war on crime, drugs, and terror. Where are those powers to be found the power to provide for the common defense, not the general defense?

Obviously you didn't go to the link I provided. It's all explained there. But if you wish to ignore it and believe what you want, then there is nothing I can do to correct you.

 

[danielpalos]

What you're missing is that most people that receive welfare support from the government in the form of welfare TANF, food stamps, etc. have jobs and are providing for a significant portion of their living expenses. You are also ignoring the fact that there are limits on government support. People without children are limited to only few months on food stamps. Welfare, TANF is limited to 60 months for most people. Free lunches in school are for the very poor. For example, parents with one child in most states can not have a combined gross income over $26,000 to qualify their child for free lunches. Fully subsided housing has even more restrictive income limits. For the vast number of people on federal welfare programs, support is only a supplement to their earned income.

And how does that discount or dismiss what I said? I'm paying enough of my hard earned money for other people's kids. It's not like I get a "thank you" from them; they only demand more.

Our country is 20 trillion in debt. Our parents, grandparents and great grandparents always had the goal to make this a better country for their children than what they lived in. They worked a lot of hours, saved what they could, and tried to pass the wealth (what little they had) on to the next generation.

Now it's just the opposite. Screw the next generation, just take, take, and take no matter who's money you are taking. Our debt for all these goodies will have to be repaid by people not even born yet, but screw them. I want my free "whatever" and I want it now!

we have a general welfare clause; we do not have a general warfare clause. now you know where the debt is coming from. i don't take the right wing seriously if they are not serious enough to enact, war time tax rates.

When is the right wing going to, "get serious"?

we have a general welfare clause; we do not have a general warfare clause.

How is anybody supposed to take you seriously when you don't even understand our language yet? You are so uneducated you don't even realize that welfare had an entirely different meaning back in the 1700's than it has today.

General welfare did not mean government give you everything you need or want to live.

Instead of coming here and repeating over and over and over again the same shit, try reading for a change and learn something:

What does the General Welfare Clause really mean?

No, it does not have any different meaning today than in the 1700's. All y'all have, is fallacy.

General welfare means just that, it does not mean the major welfare nor the specific welfare nor even the common welfare.

There is no common offense clause nor any general warfare clause. Yet, the right wing claims we can allegedly wage perpetual war on crime, drugs, and terror. Where are those powers to be found the power to provide for the common defense, not the general defense?

Obviously you didn't go to the link I provided. It's all explained there. But if you wish to ignore it and believe what you want, then there is nothing I can do to correct you.

All y'all have, is fallacy.

General welfare means just that, it does not mean the major welfare nor the specific welfare nor even the common welfare.

There is no common offense clause nor any general warfare clause. Yet, the right wing claims we can allegedly wage perpetual war on crime, drugs, and terror. Where are those powers to be found in the power to provide for the common defense, not the general defense?

 

[Flopper]

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.

We certainly don't, and let me explain why:

A woman has kids she can't support nor intended to support, so she goes to the taxpayers for that support.

So we pay for her kids food, shelter and medical bills. If she does work, we pay for her kids childcare at childcare centers.

Then the kid goes to taxpayer funded schools. At least where I live, over half of my property tax goes to educate other people's kids in a school that I nor any of my tenants have kids in.

So the kid graduates, and if left to Democrats, we would be paying for this kids college until they graduated which could take anywhere from two to eight years.

Society should pay for the advantages this person could offer.........Until the age of 26 ????

The average US life expectancy is 78 years old. What you are suggesting is that we (the taxpayers) take care of people over one-third of their life. Sorry, but some of us have to take care of ourselves first. I've already paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to support other people's kids. Asking those people to fund the rest is not asking all that much.

What you're missing is that most people that receive welfare support from the government in the form of welfare TANF, food stamps, etc. have jobs and are providing for a significant portion of their living expenses. You are also ignoring the fact that there are limits on government support. People without children are limited to only few months on food stamps. Welfare, TANF is limited to 60 months for most people. Free lunches in school are for the very poor. For example, parents with one child in most states can not have a combined gross income over $26,000 to qualify their child for free lunches. Fully subsided housing has even more restrictive income limits. For the vast number of people on federal welfare programs, support is only a supplement to their earned income.

And how does that discount or dismiss what I said? I'm paying enough of my hard earned money for other people's kids. It's not like I get a "thank you" from them; they only demand more.

Our country is 20 trillion in debt. Our parents, grandparents and great grandparents always had the goal to make this a better country for their children than what they lived in. They worked a lot of hours, saved what they could, and tried to pass the wealth (what little they had) on to the next generation.

Now it's just the opposite. Screw the next generation, just take, take, and take no matter who's money you are taking. Our debt for all these goodies will have to be repaid by people not even born yet, but screw them. I want my free "whatever" and I want it now!

No one should thank you for your tax dollars that go to social programs because it's not charity. It's your share of the cost of maintaining society. Just as your tax dollars maintain roads, street lighting, public sanitation, fire and police protection to make our towns and cities safer, cleaner, and healthier, so do social programs. Without these programs our cites would look like those in 3rd world countries plagued by disease, millions of people living on the streets and garbage dumps, food riots, and increased crime in every city.

There is taxation for the purpose of benefiting society as a whole. Charity is when you take money from one group of people and give it to another, and that's what you are advocating.

Then you categorize everything as helping society as a whole when it's not. As I pointed out, you can use benefiting society with a number of things from air conditioning in your home to hedges out in your front yard.

When I talk about benefiting society, I mean directly. Roads benefit us all directly because we all use roads whether you drive or not. A police department benefits everybody directly because even if you never call them, they are a deterrent to crime to some capacity, and it's illegal to take law into your own hands.

Education benefits society as much as government buying us a car so we can get to work in the morning. Education mostly benefits individuals, and since you want to pass the buck to people that have money, it's wealth transfer and charity--not benefiting society.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

But social welfare does benefit society as a whole, not just those that receive the benefits. We discovered that centuries of go. There is ample evidence of the damage to society that occurs when people don't have food, shelter, access to healthcare and education. We all lose.

We all pay tax dollars for programs that we may not personally use, money for parks, money to protect wildlife, money to protect the environment, money to support museums, money for national monuments, money for space exploration, money for scientific research, money for recreation facilities, money for tribal lands, money for national and international disasters, and of course social welfare programs. These are all things we may never use, but they certainly make our nation, cities, and towns a better place to live.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We certainly don't, and let me explain why:

A woman has kids she can't support nor intended to support, so she goes to the taxpayers for that support.

So we pay for her kids food, shelter and medical bills. If she does work, we pay for her kids childcare at childcare centers.

Then the kid goes to taxpayer funded schools. At least where I live, over half of my property tax goes to educate other people's kids in a school that I nor any of my tenants have kids in.

So the kid graduates, and if left to Democrats, we would be paying for this kids college until they graduated which could take anywhere from two to eight years.

Society should pay for the advantages this person could offer.........Until the age of 26 ????

The average US life expectancy is 78 years old. What you are suggesting is that we (the taxpayers) take care of people over one-third of their life. Sorry, but some of us have to take care of ourselves first. I've already paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to support other people's kids. Asking those people to fund the rest is not asking all that much.

What you're missing is that most people that receive welfare support from the government in the form of welfare TANF, food stamps, etc. have jobs and are providing for a significant portion of their living expenses. You are also ignoring the fact that there are limits on government support. People without children are limited to only few months on food stamps. Welfare, TANF is limited to 60 months for most people. Free lunches in school are for the very poor. For example, parents with one child in most states can not have a combined gross income over $26,000 to qualify their child for free lunches. Fully subsided housing has even more restrictive income limits. For the vast number of people on federal welfare programs, support is only a supplement to their earned income.

And how does that discount or dismiss what I said? I'm paying enough of my hard earned money for other people's kids. It's not like I get a "thank you" from them; they only demand more.

Our country is 20 trillion in debt. Our parents, grandparents and great grandparents always had the goal to make this a better country for their children than what they lived in. They worked a lot of hours, saved what they could, and tried to pass the wealth (what little they had) on to the next generation.

Now it's just the opposite. Screw the next generation, just take, take, and take no matter who's money you are taking. Our debt for all these goodies will have to be repaid by people not even born yet, but screw them. I want my free "whatever" and I want it now!

No one should thank you for your tax dollars that go to social programs because it's not charity. It's your share of the cost of maintaining society. Just as your tax dollars maintain roads, street lighting, public sanitation, fire and police protection to make our towns and cities safer, cleaner, and healthier, so do social programs. Without these programs our cites would look like those in 3rd world countries plagued by disease, millions of people living on the streets and garbage dumps, food riots, and increased crime in every city.

There is taxation for the purpose of benefiting society as a whole. Charity is when you take money from one group of people and give it to another, and that's what you are advocating.

Then you categorize everything as helping society as a whole when it's not. As I pointed out, you can use benefiting society with a number of things from air conditioning in your home to hedges out in your front yard.

When I talk about benefiting society, I mean directly. Roads benefit us all directly because we all use roads whether you drive or not. A police department benefits everybody directly because even if you never call them, they are a deterrent to crime to some capacity, and it's illegal to take law into your own hands.

Education benefits society as much as government buying us a car so we can get to work in the morning. Education mostly benefits individuals, and since you want to pass the buck to people that have money, it's wealth transfer and charity--not benefiting society.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

But social welfare does benefit society as a whole, not just those that receive the benefits. There is ample evidence of the damage to society that occurs when people don't have food, shelter, access to healthcare, and when kids don't get an education. We all lose.

We all pay tax dollars for programs that we may not personally use, money for parks, money to protect wildlife, money to protect the environment, money to support museums, money for national monuments, money for space exploration, money for scientific research, money for recreation facilities, money for tribal lands, money for national and international disasters, and of course social welfare programs. These are all things we may never use, but they certainly make our nation, cities, and towns a better place to live.

And how much better place would it be to live when this country goes into default because of too much borrowing?

If you give people an easy way out, they will not try very hard. If people have a more difficult time, they will try harder.

Taxes should only be used if they are spent on directly benefiting everybody, because to use the excuse of indirectly benefiting anybody, just about anything can be put in that category.

Me going to work everyday benefits society. I can keep up my home to keep home values up in my neighborhood, I create tax money for my city, state and federal government that way, I don't have to use any government social programs, but because of those indirect benefits to society, that doesn't mean that government should buy me a car and pay my insurance so I can get to work and do these things.

Currently we do have people without homes, people don't have access to healthcare coverage (me being one of those people) and people not eating properly. But believe it or not, the country and society are doing just fine.

 

[Flopper]

What you're missing is that most people that receive welfare support from the government in the form of welfare TANF, food stamps, etc. have jobs and are providing for a significant portion of their living expenses. You are also ignoring the fact that there are limits on government support. People without children are limited to only few months on food stamps. Welfare, TANF is limited to 60 months for most people. Free lunches in school are for the very poor. For example, parents with one child in most states can not have a combined gross income over $26,000 to qualify their child for free lunches. Fully subsided housing has even more restrictive income limits. For the vast number of people on federal welfare programs, support is only a supplement to their earned income.

And how does that discount or dismiss what I said? I'm paying enough of my hard earned money for other people's kids. It's not like I get a "thank you" from them; they only demand more.

Our country is 20 trillion in debt. Our parents, grandparents and great grandparents always had the goal to make this a better country for their children than what they lived in. They worked a lot of hours, saved what they could, and tried to pass the wealth (what little they had) on to the next generation.

Now it's just the opposite. Screw the next generation, just take, take, and take no matter who's money you are taking. Our debt for all these goodies will have to be repaid by people not even born yet, but screw them. I want my free "whatever" and I want it now!

No one should thank you for your tax dollars that go to social programs because it's not charity. It's your share of the cost of maintaining society. Just as your tax dollars maintain roads, street lighting, public sanitation, fire and police protection to make our towns and cities safer, cleaner, and healthier, so do social programs. Without these programs our cites would look like those in 3rd world countries plagued by disease, millions of people living on the streets and garbage dumps, food riots, and increased crime in every city.

There is taxation for the purpose of benefiting society as a whole. Charity is when you take money from one group of people and give it to another, and that's what you are advocating.

Then you categorize everything as helping society as a whole when it's not. As I pointed out, you can use benefiting society with a number of things from air conditioning in your home to hedges out in your front yard.

When I talk about benefiting society, I mean directly. Roads benefit us all directly because we all use roads whether you drive or not. A police department benefits everybody directly because even if you never call them, they are a deterrent to crime to some capacity, and it's illegal to take law into your own hands.

Education benefits society as much as government buying us a car so we can get to work in the morning. Education mostly benefits individuals, and since you want to pass the buck to people that have money, it's wealth transfer and charity--not benefiting society.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

But social welfare does benefit society as a whole, not just those that receive the benefits. There is ample evidence of the damage to society that occurs when people don't have food, shelter, access to healthcare, and when kids don't get an education. We all lose.

We all pay tax dollars for programs that we may not personally use, money for parks, money to protect wildlife, money to protect the environment, money to support museums, money for national monuments, money for space exploration, money for scientific research, money for recreation facilities, money for tribal lands, money for national and international disasters, and of course social welfare programs. These are all things we may never use, but they certainly make our nation, cities, and towns a better place to live.

And how much better place would it be to live when this country goes into default because of too much borrowing?

If you give people an easy way out, they will not try very hard. If people have a more difficult time, they will try harder.

Taxes should only be used if they are spent on directly benefiting everybody, because to use the excuse of indirectly benefiting anybody, just about anything can be put in that category.

Me going to work everyday benefits society. I can keep up my home to keep home values up in my neighborhood, I create tax money for my city, state and federal government that way, I don't have to use any government social programs, but because of those indirect benefits to society, that doesn't mean that government should buy me a car and pay my insurance so I can get to work and do these things.

Currently we do have people without homes, people don't have access to healthcare coverage (me being one of those people) and people not eating properly. But believe it or not, the country and society are doing just fine.

If taxes should only be spent on what directly benefits everybody this country would be a pretty crappy place to live.
No education for kids whose parents can't or refuse to pay
No tax dollars for national monuments or parks
No tax dollars for museums
No tax dollars trails
No tax dollars for wildlife protection
No tax dollars for natural disasters
No tax dollars for public beaches
No tax dollars for public swimming pools
No tax dollars recreation centers
No tax dollars for basic scientific research
No tax dollars for public restrooms
No tax dollars for sidewalks
No tax dollars space exportation
No tax dollars for outdoor concerts, fireworks, or fairs
No tax dollars for the facilities for the disable
No tax dollars for facilities for the mentally handicapped.
Etc.....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And how does that discount or dismiss what I said? I'm paying enough of my hard earned money for other people's kids. It's not like I get a "thank you" from them; they only demand more.

Our country is 20 trillion in debt. Our parents, grandparents and great grandparents always had the goal to make this a better country for their children than what they lived in. They worked a lot of hours, saved what they could, and tried to pass the wealth (what little they had) on to the next generation.

Now it's just the opposite. Screw the next generation, just take, take, and take no matter who's money you are taking. Our debt for all these goodies will have to be repaid by people not even born yet, but screw them. I want my free "whatever" and I want it now!

No one should thank you for your tax dollars that go to social programs because it's not charity. It's your share of the cost of maintaining society. Just as your tax dollars maintain roads, street lighting, public sanitation, fire and police protection to make our towns and cities safer, cleaner, and healthier, so do social programs. Without these programs our cites would look like those in 3rd world countries plagued by disease, millions of people living on the streets and garbage dumps, food riots, and increased crime in every city.

There is taxation for the purpose of benefiting society as a whole. Charity is when you take money from one group of people and give it to another, and that's what you are advocating.

Then you categorize everything as helping society as a whole when it's not. As I pointed out, you can use benefiting society with a number of things from air conditioning in your home to hedges out in your front yard.

When I talk about benefiting society, I mean directly. Roads benefit us all directly because we all use roads whether you drive or not. A police department benefits everybody directly because even if you never call them, they are a deterrent to crime to some capacity, and it's illegal to take law into your own hands.

Education benefits society as much as government buying us a car so we can get to work in the morning. Education mostly benefits individuals, and since you want to pass the buck to people that have money, it's wealth transfer and charity--not benefiting society.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

But social welfare does benefit society as a whole, not just those that receive the benefits. There is ample evidence of the damage to society that occurs when people don't have food, shelter, access to healthcare, and when kids don't get an education. We all lose.

We all pay tax dollars for programs that we may not personally use, money for parks, money to protect wildlife, money to protect the environment, money to support museums, money for national monuments, money for space exploration, money for scientific research, money for recreation facilities, money for tribal lands, money for national and international disasters, and of course social welfare programs. These are all things we may never use, but they certainly make our nation, cities, and towns a better place to live.

And how much better place would it be to live when this country goes into default because of too much borrowing?

If you give people an easy way out, they will not try very hard. If people have a more difficult time, they will try harder.

Taxes should only be used if they are spent on directly benefiting everybody, because to use the excuse of indirectly benefiting anybody, just about anything can be put in that category.

Me going to work everyday benefits society. I can keep up my home to keep home values up in my neighborhood, I create tax money for my city, state and federal government that way, I don't have to use any government social programs, but because of those indirect benefits to society, that doesn't mean that government should buy me a car and pay my insurance so I can get to work and do these things.

Currently we do have people without homes, people don't have access to healthcare coverage (me being one of those people) and people not eating properly. But believe it or not, the country and society are doing just fine.

If taxes should only be spent on what directly benefits everybody this country would be a pretty crappy place to live.
No education for kids whose parents can't or refuse to pay
No tax dollars for national monuments or parks
No tax dollars for museums
No tax dollars trails
No tax dollars for wildlife protection
No tax dollars for natural disasters
No tax dollars for public beaches
No tax dollars for public swimming pools
No tax dollars recreation centers
No tax dollars for basic scientific research
No tax dollars for public restrooms
No tax dollars for sidewalks
No tax dollars space exportation
No tax dollars for outdoor concerts, fireworks, or fairs
No tax dollars for the facilities for the disable
No tax dollars for facilities for the mentally handicapped.
Etc.....

I won't go through your entire list, but I'll comment on a few:

Kids education: if we didn't have public education, then maybe people wouldn't have kids they couldn't take care of.

National monuments or parks. How does that benefit society as a whole?

Museums. Never been to one and probably never will. I've lived fine without them.

Trails: local tax dollars--not federal.

Public swimming pools, again, local tax dollars most likely voted on by the citizens of that city.

Space exploration: benefits all of society one way or another.

Tax dollars for concerts, fireworks and fairs. All could be paid for with an admission charge. Only those who want those things would pay for them. Again, paid for with local tax dollars and not federal.

Recreation centers. Again, how does that benefit all of society?

You see now that what I've been saying is true. You can put anything under the category of society benefits including entertainment.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Jesus Christ was a man who traveled through the land
A hard-working man and brave
He said to the rich, "Give your money to the poor,"
But they laid Jesus Christ in His grave

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Jesus Christ was a man who traveled through the land
A hard-working man and brave
He said to the rich, "Give your money to the poor,"
But they laid Jesus Christ in His grave

Jesus wanted people to give of themselves. He never once preached about government forcefully taking from people to give to the poor.

 

[jasonnfree]

Jesus Christ was a man who traveled through the land
A hard-working man and brave
He said to the rich, "Give your money to the poor,"
But they laid Jesus Christ in His grave

Jesus wanted people to give of themselves. He never once preached about government forcefully taking from people to give to the poor.

But Jesus did chase the money changers out of the temple. Now we give bailouts to the money changers.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

But Jesus did chase the money changers out of the temple. Now we give bailouts to the money changers.

Now we put them in Important Government Positions


Washington Post: “Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs president, is capitalizing on his new position as director of Trump’s National Economic Council......

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Jesus Christ was a man who traveled through the land
A hard-working man and brave
He said to the rich, "Give your money to the poor,"
But they laid Jesus Christ in His grave

Jesus wanted people to give of themselves. He never once preached about government forcefully taking from people to give to the poor.

He said pay whatever the Government says to pay . There is no record of Jesus throwing a "hissy fit " because the Government helped the poor

"..Render to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God's" was Jesus recorded response as to whether one should pay taxes to the Emperor .... it did not matter that the Emperor was spending the Taxes on Bread and Circus back in Rome and using it to pay his Army Centurions ...he said pay up..

I am sure if Jesus had no issue with taxes under those circumstances, it stands to Reason that he would not say " stop paying taxes they are feeding the poor"...you feel me ?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Jesus Christ was a man who traveled through the land
A hard-working man and brave
He said to the rich, "Give your money to the poor,"
But they laid Jesus Christ in His grave

Jesus wanted people to give of themselves. He never once preached about government forcefully taking from people to give to the poor.

He said pay whatever the Government says to pay . There is no record of Jesus throwing a "hissy fit " because the Government helped the poor

"..Render to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God's" was Jesus recorded response as to whether one should pay taxes to the Emperor .... it did not matter that the Emperor was spending the Taxes on Bread and Circus back in Rome and using it to pay his Army Centurions ...he said pay up..

I am sure if Jesus had no issue with taxes under those circumstances, it stands to Reason that he would not say " stop paying taxes they are feeding the poor"...you feel me ?

Would you really like the story behind what Jesus said? I can post the link if you'd like. It doesn't mean what you think it does.