Reverse Robin Hood?

[DGS49]

MSN

The linked essay argues that Trump and Musk still agree on the principle of taking from the "poor" and giving to the "rich."

Whether or not you agree with this assessment, why does nobody seem to ask the fundamental questions about entitlements, to wit, (1) Are they Constitutional, and (2) Are they wise, and (3) Can "we" afford them?

Article I of the Constitution makes NO PROVISION for Congress to give money to individuals. Search as long as you like, and you will find no "power" to pay for food, housing, education, or heathcare for individuals. Many Lefties incorrectly presume that the "general welfare" language authorizes Congress to spend on whatever it seems to promote the "general welfare," whatever that is. This argument is preposterous, and renders all of Section 8 superfluous.

Is it wise to extract money from some Americans to give it to others? No research supports this idea, with the operative principle being "dependency." Take away the "entitlement" and behavior will quickly fall into into line.

Manifestly, "we" lack the resources to pay for this cornucopia of vote-buying giveaways. I challenge anyone to present a rational argument that supports Federal entitlement programs. There is none.

I take the liberty of considering that SS is not an "entitlement" for the sake of this debate. It is separately funded and gets nothing out of FIT, which is the only thing that kept it from being declared unconstitutional from the beginning.

So rather than fretting about whether a tax cut is a "give-away" to The Rich, let's stop spending tax money on anything that is not authorized by the Constitution.

Budget balanced, immediately, like magic.

 

[rightwinger]

The General Welfare clause tasks Congress to do what is in the best interests of We the People

That is what makes sense

We are the wealthiest ******* nation on earth
We can afford to take care of our less fortunate

 

[DukeU]

The General Welfare clause tasks Congress to do what is in the best interests of We the People

That is what makes sense

We are the wealthiest ******* nation on earth
We can afford to take care of our less fortunate

Best interests of some people or all people?

Stealing from one person to give to another, benefits only one person.

 

[rightwinger]

Best interests of some people or all people?

Stealing from one person to give to another, benefits only one person.

Guess what Skippy?
Not every piece of legislation helps every person equally or at all

But as a whole, We the People benefit

 

[DGS49]

The General Welfare clause tasks Congress to do what is in the best interests of We the People

That is what makes sense

We are the wealthiest ******* nation on earth
We can afford to take care of our less fortunate

Your posting is stupid and uninformed, but just for giggles, why do you suppose it was necessary for the Chief Justice to characterize the penalty for no coverage under the ACA ("Obamacare") as a "tax" rather than a penalty in order to deem it Constitutional? If Congress can do whatever it deems to promote the "general welfare," what difference would it make? See the first paragraph of the linked article.

The Supreme Court's Stunning Decision on the Affordable Care Act | Brookings

With the Supreme Court’s decision on President Obama's universal healthcare mandate, William Galston examines what this means for America and the presidential election.

www.brookings.edu

Do yourself a favor and learn something.

 

[rightwinger]

Your posting is stupid and uninformed, but just for giggles, why do you suppose it was necessary for the Chief Justice to characterize the penalty for no coverage under the ACA ("Obamacare") as a "tax" rather than a penalty in order to deem it Constitutional? If Congress can do whatever it deems to promote the "general welfare," what difference would it make? See the first paragraph of the linked article.

The Supreme Court's Stunning Decision on the Affordable Care Act | Brookings

With the Supreme Court’s decision on President Obama's universal healthcare mandate, William Galston examines what this means for America and the presidential election.

www.brookings.edu

Do yourself a favor and learn something.

Obamacare was for the General Welfare of We the People ……found to be Constitutional
Court only ruled penalties were a tax

 

[DukeU]

Guess what Skippy?
Not every piece of legislation helps every person equally or at all

But as a whole, We the People benefit

How do I benefit from paying for a stranger's health insurance?

 

[rightwinger]

How do I benefit from paying for a stranger's health insurance?

You benefit from not having people dying in our streets

 

[initforme]

Medicare and social security are not entitlements and they ensure the survival of many of millions of retired people who worked incredibly hard for many years. We are a nation of immense wealth and what makes the US great is the fact that we have programs such as ss and medicare.

 

[rightwinger]

Medicare and social security are not entitlements and they ensure the survival of many of millions of retired people who worked incredibly hard for many years. We are a nation of immense wealth and what makes the US great is the fact that we have programs such as ss and medicare.

Also Medicaid

 

[DGS49]

rtwinger, you really are stupid or a troll. See ya.

 

[Zincwarrior]

How do I benefit from paying for a stranger's health insurance?

IN the real world, if we don't have some form of retirement and medical safety net and go back to the regime in 1925, you'll eventually have a regime change (violent or through new Amendments) and then it will be in whatever Constitution follows thereafter.

 

[rightwinger]

rtwinger, you really are stupid or a troll. See ya.

You fail again

Your interpretation of our Constitution is laughable

 

[DukeU]

IN the real world, if we don't have some form of retirement and medical safety net and go back to the regime in 1925, you'll eventually have a regime change (violent or through new Amendments) and then it will be in whatever Constitution follows thereafter.

So, save some money.

What's the problem?

 

[80zephyr]

The General Welfare clause tasks Congress to do what is in the best interests of We the People

That is what makes sense

We are the wealthiest ******* nation on earth
We can afford to take care of our less fortunate

Not in the big C.

 

[80zephyr]

You fail again

Your interpretation of our Constitution is laughable

AI Overview

In 1776, "general welfare" meant the well-being of all the people in the nation, not just a select few or a majority at the expense of a minority. It encompassed the idea that governments should strive to promote the health, happiness, and prosperity of all citizens. The concept was widely accepted, with governments seen as having a duty to ensure the well-being of their subjects.

 

[rightwinger]

AI Overview

In 1776, "general welfare" meant the well-being of all the people in the nation, not just a select few or a majority at the expense of a minority. It encompassed the idea that governments should strive to promote the health, happiness, and prosperity of all citizens. The concept was widely accepted, with governments seen as having a duty to ensure the well-being of their subjects.

Still applies today

 

[MarcATL]

Yes OP, under this BS doge we literally had the richest man in the world taking away from the poorest children on the planet.

Ultimately resulting in their deaths.

That's what you, and your immoral ilk, are cheering on.

I hope you're proud of yourself.

 

[80zephyr]

Still applies today

Lol. Not with individual welfare.

 

[rightwinger]

Lol. Not with individual welfare.

Of course it does
Having impoverished citizens without food, shelter and medical care is not beneficial for a society