Reality sets in for Oregon governor

[Billy_Kinetta]

By their own funds, or charity. Not government redistributing other people's money.

What if the voters want a government food assistance program?

So long as voluntary, no problem. Stealing money from Peter to pay Paul, however, is simple theft, and what the voters want be damned. Let them amend the Constitution.

Congress has the authority to levy taxes ONLY for those purposes mandated to it by the Constitution, and as you know those purposes are quite limited.

They don't have to amend the Constitution. The food stamp program hasn't been ruled unconstitutional.

But it is. Charity at gunpoint is not within the Constitutional authority of the government.

It is the POPULAR answer-----in fact-----Congenital Liberal democrat that I am----
I have noted that charity at gunpoint is the SANDERS appeal and it works for him

Popularity is irrelevant. If popularity were the primary issue we would quite possibly have developed into a Christian theocracy. We did not.

The Constitution is written in stone, and is the beginning and end of all law in America. Any law that falls outside of it is invalid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

Ask SassyAss how many thousands of dollars worth of tax breaks she gets for her 6 kids, that she has publicly stated she has.

LOL Lame argument, toad. Any tax break we get for our children is far out weighed by the amount of taxes we pay a year. Hell we pay more in capital gains than you probably make in a year

Compared to someone making the same taxable income as you? lol, you liar.

I guarantee you that your taxes are FAR less than someone making your taxable income but having no kids.

 

[irosie91]

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

COLD-------very cold. You are either very young, or very old and constipated
or just stupid. Circumstances change-------if you are very young you will learn----
if you are old -----you are HARD HEARTED

Wrong, you are. You think you are entitled to other people's money. That's as cold as it gets.

where have I said "I am entitled to other people's money"?-----

You don't understand your own words if you don't know. What does subsidy mean to you?

subsidy means governmental programs that fund stuff necessary to the common good--------undernourished kids does not serve the COMMON GOOD.
Over priced milk and eggs----does not serve the COMMON GOOD

 

[irosie91]

What if the voters want a government food assistance program?

So long as voluntary, no problem. Stealing money from Peter to pay Paul, however, is simple theft, and what the voters want be damned. Let them amend the Constitution.

Congress has the authority to levy taxes ONLY for those purposes mandated to it by the Constitution, and as you know those purposes are quite limited.

They don't have to amend the Constitution. The food stamp program hasn't been ruled unconstitutional.

But it is. Charity at gunpoint is not within the Constitutional authority of the government.

It is the POPULAR answer-----in fact-----Congenital Liberal democrat that I am----
I have noted that charity at gunpoint is the SANDERS appeal and it works for him

Popularity is irrelevant. If popularity were the primary issue we would quite possibly have developed into a Christian theocracy. We did not.

The Constitution is written in stone, and is the beginning and end of all law in America. Any law that falls outside of it is invalid.

how long has your brain been calcified?

 

[SwimExpert]

One of the most prominent feminists to champion the eugenic agenda was Margaret Sanger, the leader of the American birth control movement. Margaret Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent unwanted children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and incorporated the language of eugenics to advance the movement.[23][24]

So either

1. Margaret Sanger's promotion of birth control for the poor was a form of eugenics, or,

2. Sanger was not the eugenicist she is routinely accused of being, for such promotion.

Bravo. You've posed quite the dilemma here. This could really become a game changer on this board. This post has potential to become relevant across a solid 75% of discussions that are had around here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

Ask SassyAss how many thousands of dollars worth of tax breaks she gets for her 6 kids, that she has publicly stated she has.

A tax break isn't a gift, it's less money the government confiscates. Who's money is it anyway?

Once the tax laws are on the books, it's legally the government's money.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One of the most prominent feminists to champion the eugenic agenda was Margaret Sanger, the leader of the American birth control movement. Margaret Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent unwanted children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and incorporated the language of eugenics to advance the movement.[23][24]

So either

1. Margaret Sanger's promotion of birth control for the poor was a form of eugenics, or,

2. Sanger was not the eugenicist she is routinely accused of being, for such promotion.

Bravo. You've posed quite the dilemma here. This could really become a game changer on this board. This post has potential to become relevant across a solid 75% of discussions that are had around here.

Sarcasm?

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, back to the minimum wage.

On balance the low income people of Oregon won. They're getting substantial minimum wage increases.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

That's the eugenicist theory.

Nonsense.

One of the most prominent feminists to champion the eugenic agenda was Margaret Sanger, the leader of the American birth control movement. Margaret Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent unwanted children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and incorporated the language of eugenics to advance the movement.[23][24]

So either

1. Margaret Sanger's promotion of birth control for the poor was a form of eugenics, or,

2. Sanger was not the eugenicist she is routinely accused of being, for such promotion.

You fail to include the racist component of Sanger's theories. What's interesting is that the Democrats, who claim to be race neutral, have become so completely attached to them.

That said, her theories are irrelevant to this issue. I don't care how many kids poor people or anyone else have. It's none of my business. They can fuck and drop kids to their heart's content.

The government has no constitutional authority to force me or anyone else to support them.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

you would be amazed at the kinds of pressures some people face and the INJUSTICE of their own communities------and ALSO------just how STUPID lots of people are. For fun-----watch TV "paternity court"---

Wow. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything I said. Nothing.

Stick to the topic. Why is it "cold" to expect people to take reasonable measures to prevent themselves from becoming parents when they can't afford to be parents?

What about people who have kids in good faith and then their circumstances change ? Cancer doesnt recognise the deserving from the undeserving.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So long as voluntary, no problem. Stealing money from Peter to pay Paul, however, is simple theft, and what the voters want be damned. Let them amend the Constitution.

Congress has the authority to levy taxes ONLY for those purposes mandated to it by the Constitution, and as you know those purposes are quite limited.

They don't have to amend the Constitution. The food stamp program hasn't been ruled unconstitutional.

But it is. Charity at gunpoint is not within the Constitutional authority of the government.

It is the POPULAR answer-----in fact-----Congenital Liberal democrat that I am----
I have noted that charity at gunpoint is the SANDERS appeal and it works for him

Popularity is irrelevant. If popularity were the primary issue we would quite possibly have developed into a Christian theocracy. We did not.

The Constitution is written in stone, and is the beginning and end of all law in America. Any law that falls outside of it is invalid.

how long has your brain been calcified?

Please make sense so that I may reply.

 

[irosie91]

you would be amazed at the kinds of pressures some people face and the INJUSTICE of their own communities------and ALSO------just how STUPID lots of people are. For fun-----watch TV "paternity court"---

Wow. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything I said. Nothing.

Stick to the topic. Why is it "cold" to expect people to take reasonable measures to prevent themselves from becoming parents when they can't afford to be parents?

What about people who have kids in good faith and then their circumstances change ? Cancer doesnt recognise the deserving from the undeserving.

so true----and TRAGEDY of all kinds----------HAPPENS

 

[irosie91]

They don't have to amend the Constitution. The food stamp program hasn't been ruled unconstitutional.

But it is. Charity at gunpoint is not within the Constitutional authority of the government.

It is the POPULAR answer-----in fact-----Congenital Liberal democrat that I am----
I have noted that charity at gunpoint is the SANDERS appeal and it works for him

Popularity is irrelevant. If popularity were the primary issue we would quite possibly have developed into a Christian theocracy. We did not.

The Constitution is written in stone, and is the beginning and end of all law in America. Any law that falls outside of it is invalid.

how long has your brain been calcified?

Please make sense so that I may reply.

calcifications do HAPPEN in damaged brain tissue

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

But it is. Charity at gunpoint is not within the Constitutional authority of the government.

It is the POPULAR answer-----in fact-----Congenital Liberal democrat that I am----
I have noted that charity at gunpoint is the SANDERS appeal and it works for him

Popularity is irrelevant. If popularity were the primary issue we would quite possibly have developed into a Christian theocracy. We did not.

The Constitution is written in stone, and is the beginning and end of all law in America. Any law that falls outside of it is invalid.

how long has your brain been calcified?

Please make sense so that I may reply.

calcifications do HAPPEN in damaged brain tissue

Please make sense so that I may reply.

 

[koshergrl]

The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

COLD-------very cold. You are either very young, or very old and constipated
or just stupid. Circumstances change-------if you are very young you will learn----
if you are old -----you are HARD HEARTED

No, he's probably worked for a living and had to live within his means. It provides a whole realistic perspective on life, and economics, that is totally missing from the mentally ill entitlement whore perspective.

 

[NYcarbineer]

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

That's the eugenicist theory.

Nonsense.

One of the most prominent feminists to champion the eugenic agenda was Margaret Sanger, the leader of the American birth control movement. Margaret Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent unwanted children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and incorporated the language of eugenics to advance the movement.[23][24]

So either

1. Margaret Sanger's promotion of birth control for the poor was a form of eugenics, or,

2. Sanger was not the eugenicist she is routinely accused of being, for such promotion.

You fail to include the racist component of Sanger's theories. What's interesting is that the Democrats, who claim to be race neutral, have become so completely attached to them.

That said, her theories are irrelevant to this issue. I don't care how many kids poor people or anyone else have. It's none of my business. They can fuck and drop kids to their heart's content.

The government has no constitutional authority to force me or anyone else to support them.

Then stop paying your taxes and make that argument in court.

 

[SwimExpert]

you would be amazed at the kinds of pressures some people face and the INJUSTICE of their own communities------and ALSO------just how STUPID lots of people are. For fun-----watch TV "paternity court"---

Wow. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything I said. Nothing.

Stick to the topic. Why is it "cold" to expect people to take reasonable measures to prevent themselves from becoming parents when they can't afford to be parents?

What about people who have kids in good faith and then their circumstances change ? Cancer doesnt recognise the deserving from the undeserving.

What about flying unicorns with blue horns?

We can invoke any infinite number of hypothetical situations in your attempt to avoid the direct point.

 

[Iceweasel]

The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

Ask SassyAss how many thousands of dollars worth of tax breaks she gets for her 6 kids, that she has publicly stated she has.

LOL Lame argument, toad. Any tax break we get for our children is far out weighed by the amount of taxes we pay a year. Hell we pay more in capital gains than you probably make in a year

Also the reasoning is that kids grow up to be tax payers (usually) and are very expensive to raise so it's in all our best interests to ease up the tax burden on parents.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

Ask SassyAss how many thousands of dollars worth of tax breaks she gets for her 6 kids, that she has publicly stated she has.

LOL Lame argument, toad. Any tax break we get for our children is far out weighed by the amount of taxes we pay a year. Hell we pay more in capital gains than you probably make in a year

Also the reasoning is that kids grow up to be tax payers (usually) and are very expensive to raise so it's in all our best interests to ease up the tax burden on parents.

So suddenly you've plucked out a rationale for giving my money to the people with kids.

lol.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The general welfare of the population is
PROPERLY the purview of the ELECTED GOVERNMENT.

No. Maintaining an atmosphere of opportunity that promotes the general welfare of the population is the purview of government, not the charitable babysitiing of those who refuse to perform to their abilities.

try again--------subsidizing the absolute NECCESSITIES ------so that working people
can buy them is NOT BABYSITTING

If you can't afford the basics you shouldn't have children. We shouldn't pay you to raise your kids!

COLD-------very cold. You are either very young, or very old and constipated
or just stupid. Circumstances change-------if you are very young you will learn----
if you are old -----you are HARD HEARTED

No, he's probably worked for a living and had to live within his means. It provides a whole realistic perspective on life, and economics, that is totally missing from the mentally ill entitlement whore perspective.

You work?