Liberals Think We're Jerks For Wanting To Control Spending

[M14 Shooter]

Sorry, you haven't convinced me. If you are so sure of your position,...

If you were so sure of your position, you'd respond with something more than a very middle-school level "Fuck you".

Fuck you, moron.

More proof that you understand your positions are unsound.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's significance is not that is it in the preamble, and for the third time and last I will point out, the phrase is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, to wit:
Article I, Section 8: Congressional Powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. 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;

Either you failed 8th grade US History or you haven't yet made it there....

Article I sec 8:1 provides Congress the power to spend; article 1 Sec 9:7 requires that all spending must be appropriated by Congress thru legislation.
The next 16 clauses specify in what areas Congress has the power to act
The last clause gives Congress the power to create legislation to affect these actions, including the power create legislation to appropriate funding.

There you go.

You LIE!!!! There, is that better than, Fuck you, moron? The truth is, Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 1 begins in this manner, and I quote:

"The Congress shall have power 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."

Now, I'm heading off to the dog park, where the dogs play and both their owner families and they are much more interesting and one hell of a lot better informed than you.

 

[JoeNormal]

One of the hallmarks of society - especially advanced technological society - is specialization. And one the the downsides of specialization is that as things change, one person's specialization might become obsolete. Or the person's physical or mental abilities might diminish to the point where they can no longer perform sufficiently within their specialization. It's important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term.

Why?
Understand that you are about to state your justification for state-enforced involuntary servitude....

You want people to buy into our society if they know going in that they'll be fucked if they hit the smallest bump in the road? Good luck with that.

People "bought into" our society long before there was any notion of some "freedom from failure" underwritten by state-enforced involuntary servitude.

Now then...... Please try to answer the question:
Why is is "important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term"?
Again: understand that you are about to state your justification for state-enforced involuntary servitude

People bought into our society long ago... You mean when they were given 40 acres and a mule? You mean back when they could grow their own food and have some kind of a life independent of others? Maybe it's not your fault you think we still live in that world. Do you live in Appalachia and go into town a couple of times a year?

On the other hand, if you're intelligent enough to understand that most people live in densely populated cities these days and that most of our basic needs are produced LONG distances from where they live, you'll also understand that it's impossible for most people to be self sufficient without the trappings of modern society. How do you propose that people live in an area that's been devastated by the loss of a major industry? Best case, they'll need food, water, shelter and transportation to get to a greener pasture? And more likely than not, they'll have to completely retool their skills. How do you propose that happens without a safety net?

 

[JoeNormal]

Oh lookie, another simpleminded assessment of freedom. Society gives you way more freedom than it takes away. A man alone on an island might not have to pay those onerous taxes to provide others some kind of safety net but he has to fight the elements, fend off wild animals, scrape for food and water and a hundred other thingss we might take for granted. If he were to be offered a chance to get back to civilization, he jump at it if he were in his right mind.

None of this changes the fact that you are happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude -- which is, of course,, the opposite of freedom.

Way to miss the point completely. If freedom to you means that you never have to do anything that you don't want to do, there is no such thing as freedom.

I missed nothing.
You fail to understand that your support of state-enforced involuntary servitude runs in diametric opposition to freedom.

You fail to understand that your concept of freedom is worthy of a toddler.

Really.
What enlightened, reasoned and meaningful definition of freedom inherently and necessarily includes the concept of state-enforced involuntary servitude -- that is, where said freedom cannot exist unless the state forces people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation?

If you think that charity and compassion are enough to keep things running during a widespread downturn/emergency, you never knew anyone who lived through the Great Depression. My dad's family did and I can tell you it left some scars. That's why we have some of the programs that exist today.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm more than happy to contribute to the general welfare - in addition to supporting my own family. Most decent people are.

You're also happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude, which is another thing entirely.

Oh lookie, another simpleminded assessment of freedom. Society gives you way more freedom than it takes away. A man alone on an island might not have to pay those onerous taxes to provide others some kind of safety net but he has to fight the elements, fend off wild animals, scrape for food and water and a hundred other thingss we might take for granted. If he were to be offered a chance to get back to civilization, he jump at it if he were in his right mind.

Society is one thing, government is another. There's no requirement to provide sustenance for parasites just because you want to live in a society. One is not dependent on the other, as sleazy weasels like you would have us believe.

One of the hallmarks of society - especially advanced technological society - is specialization. And one the the downsides of specialization is that as things change, one person's specialization might become obsolete. Or the person's physical or mental abilities might diminish to the point where they can no longer perform sufficiently within their specialization. It's important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term. Here's a newsflash for you. It's highly likely that at some point, you will become one of the people who you refer to as parasites now.

ROFL! I've changed my specialization several times already. Retraining is a fact of life. People sitting on their thumbs because their specialization became obsolete are just lazy. Why should I have to support them?

As for your physical and mental abilities diminishing, we have insurance for that.

The bottom line is that changing technology is no justification for becoming a parasite.

 

[bripat9643]

One of the hallmarks of society - especially advanced technological society - is specialization. And one the the downsides of specialization is that as things change, one person's specialization might become obsolete. Or the person's physical or mental abilities might diminish to the point where they can no longer perform sufficiently within their specialization. It's important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term.

Why?
Understand that you are about to state your justification for state-enforced involuntary servitude....

You want people to buy into our society if they know going in that they'll be fucked if they hit the smallest bump in the road? Good luck with that.

People "bought into" our society long before there was any notion of some "freedom from failure" underwritten by state-enforced involuntary servitude.

Now then...... Please try to answer the question:
Why is is "important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term"?
Again: understand that you are about to state your justification for state-enforced involuntary servitude

People bought into our society long ago... You mean when they were given 40 acres and a mule? You mean back when they could grow their own food and have some kind of a life independent of others? Maybe it's not your fault you think we still live in that world. Do you live in Appalachia and go into town a couple of times a year?

On the other hand, if you're intelligent enough to understand that most people live in densely populated cities these days and that most of our basic needs are produced LONG distances from where they live, you'll also understand that it's impossible for most people to be self sufficient without the trappings of modern society. How do you propose that people live in an area that's been devastated by the loss of a major industry? Best case, they'll need food, water, shelter and transportation to get to a greener pasture? And more likely than not, they'll have to completely retool their skills. How do you propose that happens without a safety net?

Industries don't disappear overnight. Intelligent people can read the writing on the wall and develop new skills before the ones they have become obsolete.

A lot of people are unemployed simply because they are unwilling to move. I have no sympathy for them. I've moved about a half dozen times to get a better job.

 

[bripat9643]

None of this changes the fact that you are happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude -- which is, of course,, the opposite of freedom.

Way to miss the point completely. If freedom to you means that you never have to do anything that you don't want to do, there is no such thing as freedom.

I missed nothing.
You fail to understand that your support of state-enforced involuntary servitude runs in diametric opposition to freedom.

You fail to understand that your concept of freedom is worthy of a toddler.

Really.
What enlightened, reasoned and meaningful definition of freedom inherently and necessarily includes the concept of state-enforced involuntary servitude -- that is, where said freedom cannot exist unless the state forces people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation?

If you think that charity and compassion are enough to keep things running during a widespread downturn/emergency, you never knew anyone who lived through the Great Depression. My dad's family did and I can tell you it left some scars. That's why we have some of the programs that exist today.

In the first place, if government wasn't constantly meddling in the economy, we wouldn't have depressions. Those are entirely the creations of government mismanagement. In the second place, "a few scars" is hardly sufficient justification for totally remaking society.

 

[JoeNormal]

I'm more than happy to contribute to the general welfare - in addition to supporting my own family. Most decent people are.

You're also happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude, which is another thing entirely.

Oh lookie, another simpleminded assessment of freedom. Society gives you way more freedom than it takes away. A man alone on an island might not have to pay those onerous taxes to provide others some kind of safety net but he has to fight the elements, fend off wild animals, scrape for food and water and a hundred other thingss we might take for granted. If he were to be offered a chance to get back to civilization, he jump at it if he were in his right mind.

Society is one thing, government is another. There's no requirement to provide sustenance for parasites just because you want to live in a society. One is not dependent on the other, as sleazy weasels like you would have us believe.

One of the hallmarks of society - especially advanced technological society - is specialization. And one the the downsides of specialization is that as things change, one person's specialization might become obsolete. Or the person's physical or mental abilities might diminish to the point where they can no longer perform sufficiently within their specialization. It's important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term. Here's a newsflash for you. It's highly likely that at some point, you will become one of the people who you refer to as parasites now.

ROFL! I've changed my specialization several times already. Retraining is a fact of life. People sitting on their thumbs because their specialization became obsolete are just lazy. Why should I have to support them?

As for your physical and mental abilities diminishing, we have insurance for that.

The bottom line is that changing technology is no justification for becoming a parasite.

My profession is challenging enough that I can detect the increasing difficulty of staying on top of it. Yours never was to begin with. Plus given the resiliancy of large companies to heal from the wounds of ineptitude, you might be able to keep your little charade going almost indefinitely.

If your company kept you afloat during the times of retraining, consider yourself lucky. I'm sure you were even more inept during those times than you are now. Unfortunately, many people are left high and dry when the gravy train stops.

 

[JoeNormal]

One of the hallmarks of society - especially advanced technological society - is specialization. And one the the downsides of specialization is that as things change, one person's specialization might become obsolete. Or the person's physical or mental abilities might diminish to the point where they can no longer perform sufficiently within their specialization. It's important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term.

Why?
Understand that you are about to state your justification for state-enforced involuntary servitude....

You want people to buy into our society if they know going in that they'll be fucked if they hit the smallest bump in the road? Good luck with that.

People "bought into" our society long before there was any notion of some "freedom from failure" underwritten by state-enforced involuntary servitude.

Now then...... Please try to answer the question:
Why is is "important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term"?
Again: understand that you are about to state your justification for state-enforced involuntary servitude

People bought into our society long ago... You mean when they were given 40 acres and a mule? You mean back when they could grow their own food and have some kind of a life independent of others? Maybe it's not your fault you think we still live in that world. Do you live in Appalachia and go into town a couple of times a year?

On the other hand, if you're intelligent enough to understand that most people live in densely populated cities these days and that most of our basic needs are produced LONG distances from where they live, you'll also understand that it's impossible for most people to be self sufficient without the trappings of modern society. How do you propose that people live in an area that's been devastated by the loss of a major industry? Best case, they'll need food, water, shelter and transportation to get to a greener pasture? And more likely than not, they'll have to completely retool their skills. How do you propose that happens without a safety net?

Industries don't disappear overnight. Intelligent people can read the writing on the wall and develop new skills before the ones they have become obsolete.

A lot of people are unemployed simply because they are unwilling to move. I have no sympathy for them. I've moved about a half dozen times to get a better job.

You're one of those 'lucky' people who don't give a fuck about anyone but yourself. Of course you've moved half a dozen times. You probably didn't have any friends or family to make you think twice.

Things can change very quickly. The factory where I work was shut down over a period of a few months. They kept all of us professionals but I really felt bad for the people who had given decades of faithful service for the company.

 

[bripat9643]

You're also happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude, which is another thing entirely.

Oh lookie, another simpleminded assessment of freedom. Society gives you way more freedom than it takes away. A man alone on an island might not have to pay those onerous taxes to provide others some kind of safety net but he has to fight the elements, fend off wild animals, scrape for food and water and a hundred other thingss we might take for granted. If he were to be offered a chance to get back to civilization, he jump at it if he were in his right mind.

Society is one thing, government is another. There's no requirement to provide sustenance for parasites just because you want to live in a society. One is not dependent on the other, as sleazy weasels like you would have us believe.

One of the hallmarks of society - especially advanced technological society - is specialization. And one the the downsides of specialization is that as things change, one person's specialization might become obsolete. Or the person's physical or mental abilities might diminish to the point where they can no longer perform sufficiently within their specialization. It's important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term. Here's a newsflash for you. It's highly likely that at some point, you will become one of the people who you refer to as parasites now.

ROFL! I've changed my specialization several times already. Retraining is a fact of life. People sitting on their thumbs because their specialization became obsolete are just lazy. Why should I have to support them?

As for your physical and mental abilities diminishing, we have insurance for that.

The bottom line is that changing technology is no justification for becoming a parasite.

My profession is challenging enough that I can detect the increasing difficulty of staying on top of it. Yours never was to begin with. Plus given the resiliancy of large companies to heal from the wounds of ineptitude, you might be able to keep your little charade going almost indefinitely.

If your company kept you afloat during the times of retraining, consider yourself lucky. I'm sure you were even more inept during those times than you are now. Unfortunately, many people are left high and dry when the gravy train stops.

"mine never was" what? You don't even know what I do, so you look ridiculous making claims about the training my job requires.

I trained myself. The companies I work for almost never want to pay for training or retraining. They only want people who already have the skills they need. In short, your entire post is bullshit.

If people are left "high and dry," it's almost always their own fault. And working for a living is not a "gravy train." I make a lot of money but I work my tail off.

 

[bripat9643]

Why?
Understand that you are about to state your justification for state-enforced involuntary servitude....

You want people to buy into our society if they know going in that they'll be fucked if they hit the smallest bump in the road? Good luck with that.

People "bought into" our society long before there was any notion of some "freedom from failure" underwritten by state-enforced involuntary servitude.

Now then...... Please try to answer the question:
Why is is "important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term"?
Again: understand that you are about to state your justification for state-enforced involuntary servitude

People bought into our society long ago... You mean when they were given 40 acres and a mule? You mean back when they could grow their own food and have some kind of a life independent of others? Maybe it's not your fault you think we still live in that world. Do you live in Appalachia and go into town a couple of times a year?

On the other hand, if you're intelligent enough to understand that most people live in densely populated cities these days and that most of our basic needs are produced LONG distances from where they live, you'll also understand that it's impossible for most people to be self sufficient without the trappings of modern society. How do you propose that people live in an area that's been devastated by the loss of a major industry? Best case, they'll need food, water, shelter and transportation to get to a greener pasture? And more likely than not, they'll have to completely retool their skills. How do you propose that happens without a safety net?

Industries don't disappear overnight. Intelligent people can read the writing on the wall and develop new skills before the ones they have become obsolete.

A lot of people are unemployed simply because they are unwilling to move. I have no sympathy for them. I've moved about a half dozen times to get a better job.

You're one of those 'lucky' people who don't give a fuck about anyone but yourself. Of course you've moved half a dozen times. You probably didn't have any friends or family to make you think twice.

Things can change very quickly. The factory where I work was shut down over a period of a few months. They kept all of us professionals but I really felt bad for the people who had given decades of faithful service for the company.

Of course I have friend and family. However, one time when I moved, when the tech bubble popped, all my friends had already moved away to get other jobs. There were none left where I lived. If you refuse to move where the work is because you want to be near your friends and family, then you've made your bed, so why should I be taxed to pay your bills?

Life is full of challenges, but the idea that your problems should also become mine by force of law is pure tyranny.

 

[danielpalos]

We could be solving simple poverty through the force of law and call it, socialism bailing out Capitalism, like usual.

 

[JoeNormal]

Oh lookie, another simpleminded assessment of freedom. Society gives you way more freedom than it takes away. A man alone on an island might not have to pay those onerous taxes to provide others some kind of safety net but he has to fight the elements, fend off wild animals, scrape for food and water and a hundred other thingss we might take for granted. If he were to be offered a chance to get back to civilization, he jump at it if he were in his right mind.

Society is one thing, government is another. There's no requirement to provide sustenance for parasites just because you want to live in a society. One is not dependent on the other, as sleazy weasels like you would have us believe.

One of the hallmarks of society - especially advanced technological society - is specialization. And one the the downsides of specialization is that as things change, one person's specialization might become obsolete. Or the person's physical or mental abilities might diminish to the point where they can no longer perform sufficiently within their specialization. It's important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term. Here's a newsflash for you. It's highly likely that at some point, you will become one of the people who you refer to as parasites now.

ROFL! I've changed my specialization several times already. Retraining is a fact of life. People sitting on their thumbs because their specialization became obsolete are just lazy. Why should I have to support them?

As for your physical and mental abilities diminishing, we have insurance for that.

The bottom line is that changing technology is no justification for becoming a parasite.

My profession is challenging enough that I can detect the increasing difficulty of staying on top of it. Yours never was to begin with. Plus given the resiliancy of large companies to heal from the wounds of ineptitude, you might be able to keep your little charade going almost indefinitely.

If your company kept you afloat during the times of retraining, consider yourself lucky. I'm sure you were even more inept during those times than you are now. Unfortunately, many people are left high and dry when the gravy train stops.

"mine never was" what? You don't even know what I do, so you look ridiculous making claims about the training my job requires.

I trained myself. The companies I work for almost never want to pay for training or retraining. They only want people who already have the skills they need. In short, your entire post is bullshit.

If people are left "high and dry," it's almost always their own fault. And working for a living is not a "gravy train." I make a lot of money but I work my tail off.

The people in my line of work get MBAs when they realize they can't keep up. It's that much more difficult. I went through a phase six months ago when I wondered if it might be my turn. Fortunately, I was able to adapt. If you're a manager, you have a less challenging job than I do.

 

[bripat9643]

We could be solving simple poverty through the force of law and call it, socialism bailing out Capitalism, like usual.

Socialism doesn't solve poverty, it creates poverty. Capitalism has brought billions of people out of poverty and raised the average standard of living to heights not even dreamed of just a couple of centuries ago.

Socialism is the system of parasites. It destroys. It doesn't create.

 

[bripat9643]

Society is one thing, government is another. There's no requirement to provide sustenance for parasites just because you want to live in a society. One is not dependent on the other, as sleazy weasels like you would have us believe.

One of the hallmarks of society - especially advanced technological society - is specialization. And one the the downsides of specialization is that as things change, one person's specialization might become obsolete. Or the person's physical or mental abilities might diminish to the point where they can no longer perform sufficiently within their specialization. It's important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term. Here's a newsflash for you. It's highly likely that at some point, you will become one of the people who you refer to as parasites now.

ROFL! I've changed my specialization several times already. Retraining is a fact of life. People sitting on their thumbs because their specialization became obsolete are just lazy. Why should I have to support them?

As for your physical and mental abilities diminishing, we have insurance for that.

The bottom line is that changing technology is no justification for becoming a parasite.

My profession is challenging enough that I can detect the increasing difficulty of staying on top of it. Yours never was to begin with. Plus given the resiliancy of large companies to heal from the wounds of ineptitude, you might be able to keep your little charade going almost indefinitely.

If your company kept you afloat during the times of retraining, consider yourself lucky. I'm sure you were even more inept during those times than you are now. Unfortunately, many people are left high and dry when the gravy train stops.

"mine never was" what? You don't even know what I do, so you look ridiculous making claims about the training my job requires.

I trained myself. The companies I work for almost never want to pay for training or retraining. They only want people who already have the skills they need. In short, your entire post is bullshit.

If people are left "high and dry," it's almost always their own fault. And working for a living is not a "gravy train." I make a lot of money but I work my tail off.

The people in my line of work get MBAs when they realize they can't keep up. It's that much more difficult. I went through a phase six months ago when I wondered if it might be my turn. Fortunately, I was able to adapt. If you're a manager, you have a less challenging job than I do.

I got out of the management game a long time ago. Now I'm what they call a "solution architect."

 

[JoeNormal]

One of the hallmarks of society - especially advanced technological society - is specialization. And one the the downsides of specialization is that as things change, one person's specialization might become obsolete. Or the person's physical or mental abilities might diminish to the point where they can no longer perform sufficiently within their specialization. It's important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term. Here's a newsflash for you. It's highly likely that at some point, you will become one of the people who you refer to as parasites now.

ROFL! I've changed my specialization several times already. Retraining is a fact of life. People sitting on their thumbs because their specialization became obsolete are just lazy. Why should I have to support them?

As for your physical and mental abilities diminishing, we have insurance for that.

The bottom line is that changing technology is no justification for becoming a parasite.

My profession is challenging enough that I can detect the increasing difficulty of staying on top of it. Yours never was to begin with. Plus given the resiliancy of large companies to heal from the wounds of ineptitude, you might be able to keep your little charade going almost indefinitely.

If your company kept you afloat during the times of retraining, consider yourself lucky. I'm sure you were even more inept during those times than you are now. Unfortunately, many people are left high and dry when the gravy train stops.

"mine never was" what? You don't even know what I do, so you look ridiculous making claims about the training my job requires.

I trained myself. The companies I work for almost never want to pay for training or retraining. They only want people who already have the skills they need. In short, your entire post is bullshit.

If people are left "high and dry," it's almost always their own fault. And working for a living is not a "gravy train." I make a lot of money but I work my tail off.

The people in my line of work get MBAs when they realize they can't keep up. It's that much more difficult. I went through a phase six months ago when I wondered if it might be my turn. Fortunately, I was able to adapt. If you're a manager, you have a less challenging job than I do.

I got out of the management game a long time ago. Now I'm what they call a "solution architect."

That's cool. Sounds like a good gig. I have more respect for you now than I did an hour ago.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *

Sorry, you haven't convinced me.

LOL. Like there was ever any chance of you having an open mind or being subject to persuasion by truthful facts and valid logic?

If you are so sure of your position, explain to all of us why so many decisions are 5-4?

MY "position" on what aspect of this entire conversation? But, cutting to the chase: I am quite sure that the SCOTUS took for itself the power of Judicial Review just as I am sure that it is a matter of implication rather than an explicit grant of authority. And it comes up with lots of non unanimous decisions because it is a body of human beings who view things through the filter of their own biases, prejudices, experiences, etc.

It's not at all clear why that makes the slightest difference here.


And by the way, unlike you, I already know what the the term "GENERAL WELFARE" meant when used in the PREAMBLE. I knew it without even having to look it up. But since you say you recognize that it is not a binding part of the Constitution, it makes it curious why you now attach such undue significance to it.

It's significance is not that is it in the preamble, and for the third time and last I will point out, the phrase is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, to wit:

Article I, Section 8: Congressional Powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. 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;...

Wait. Did you just write "to pay the debts?"

And "the General Welfare" means a lot of things, but it does NOT mean the 'Welfare Roles.' A GENERAL welfare necessarily applies to all, not just a chosen and select few. It might apply to roads and bridges and tunnels and it might apply to a Navy or an Air Force (the latter two going hand in hand with with providing for the common defense).

Take a look at:
CRS LII Annotated Constitution Article I

Thank you, I'm still looking through this source; I've saved it in my legal resource file. Time will tell if the hermeneutics cited by the authorities at Cornell will disabuse me of my understanding of the text.

Wry, as you know, we often disagree on pretty fundamental things. But, it is only fair to give you a little bit of props for at least being open-minded enough to look into it and contemplate an alternative to the way you have "seen" the matter in the past.

Nicely done.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's significance is not that is it in the preamble, and for the third time and last I will point out, the phrase is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, to wit:
Article I, Section 8: Congressional Powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. 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;

Either you failed 8th grade US History or you haven't yet made it there....

Article I sec 8:1 provides Congress the power to spend; article 1 Sec 9:7 requires that all spending must be appropriated by Congress thru legislation.
The next 16 clauses specify in what areas Congress has the power to act
The last clause gives Congress the power to create legislation to affect these actions, including the power create legislation to appropriate funding.

There you go.

You LIE!!!! There, is that better than, Fuck you, moron? The truth is, Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 1 begins in this manner, and I quote:

"The Congress shall have power 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."

Now, I'm heading off to the dog park, where the dogs play and both their owner families and they are much more interesting and one hell of a lot better informed than you.

Funny how you think any of this negates anything I said.

 

[M14 Shooter]

One of the hallmarks of society - especially advanced technological society - is specialization. And one the the downsides of specialization is that as things change, one person's specialization might become obsolete. Or the person's physical or mental abilities might diminish to the point where they can no longer perform sufficiently within their specialization. It's important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term.

Why?
Understand that you are about to state your justification for state-enforced involuntary servitude....

You want people to buy into our society if they know going in that they'll be fucked if they hit the smallest bump in the road? Good luck with that.

People "bought into" our society long before there was any notion of some "freedom from failure" underwritten by state-enforced involuntary servitude.

Now then...... Please try to answer the question:
Why is is "important that people in these situations are supported in some way, whether it's long or short term"?
Again: understand that you are about to state your justification for state-enforced involuntary servitude

People bought into our society long ago...

Correct, thusly proving that "freedom from failure" is not necessary for that "buy in".
Now then, did you have an effective response to what I said?

 

[M14 Shooter]

None of this changes the fact that you are happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude -- which is, of course,, the opposite of freedom.

Way to miss the point completely. If freedom to you means that you never have to do anything that you don't want to do, there is no such thing as freedom.

I missed nothing.
You fail to understand that your support of state-enforced involuntary servitude runs in diametric opposition to freedom.

You fail to understand that your concept of freedom is worthy of a toddler.

Really.
What enlightened, reasoned and meaningful definition of freedom inherently and necessarily includes the concept of state-enforced involuntary servitude -- that is, where said freedom cannot exist unless the state forces people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation?

If you think that charity and compassion are enough to keep things running during a widespread downturn/emergency, you never knew anyone who lived through the Great Depression. My dad's family did and I can tell you it left some scars. That's why we have some of the programs that exist today.

Since you completely dodged the question, I'll ask again:
What enlightened, reasoned and meaningful definition of freedom inherently and necessarily includes the concept of state-enforced involuntary servitude -- that is, where said freedom cannot exist unless the state forces people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation?