The truth about taxes

[Spiderman]

No because like all good wafflers you neglect to say if the words changed or not. You seem unsure.

Did the word welfare change from then till now? You don't know, but what you do know is you're right. You just cant explain it and "because I think its right" isn't an acceptable answer in a debate

I posed the question to you? do you care to answer it or not?

First has the word changed or not? If so, HOW?


Let me see your tapping shoes

I asked you what the common accepted use of the term welfare meant when the constitution was written.

If you don't want to answer the question just say so?

Or do you want me to answer it for you? You're the one posing as the language authority here not me.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Back in the 50's and 60's we didn't have a debt problem, and taxes were 90% on the rich. Now taxes are less than 35% on the rich, and they're whining about the debt problem that they created. Want to fix the debt problem? Raise taxes back to 90% on the rich. The poor didn't create the debt problem. There are no poor in congress.

Unfortunately when progressives talk about increased higher taxes they become rather unaware of the effect such increases mean, and we need to look no further than the state of California to see such policies in action.

Following the passage of Proposition 30 in November 2012, California’s income tax rates have reached an astronomical 13.3% rate. Not only does California now have the most progressive income tax rates of all the states, individuals begin paying an 6% rate at $27,898 and an 8% rate at $38,727 in income, but it now surpassed Hawaii (11% top rate) as the state with the highest income tax rate in America.

California Income Tax Rates 2013 Now Highest in America | OrthodoxNet.com Blog
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/us/millionaires-consider-leaving-california-over-taxes.html?_r=0

STATE SALES TAX
California levies a 7.5 percent general sales and use tax on consumers, which is the highest statewide rate in the nation. Local governments are permitted to levy additional sales and use taxes, and the combined rate of the additional local taxes should not exceed 2 percent. However, some local governments have been given special dispensation to go above this cap.

GASOLINE TAX
California's combined local, state and federal gasoline taxes total 72 cents per gallon, the highest in the nation. (This includes the 3.5-cents-per-gallon increase approved in March 2013, effective July 1, 2013.)

PERSONAL INCOME TAX
California's personal income tax has the highest top rate and one of the most highly progressive structures in the nation. After passage of Proposition 30, California's top rate is 13.3 percent (including the 1 percent surcharge for mental health programs, for all personal income taxpayers with taxable income over $1 million).

CORPORATE INCOME TAX
"Corporations looking to relocate, or even establish, a business in the West may shy away from California, as the state's 8.84 percent flat rate is the highest corporate tax rate in the West,"

PROPERTY TAXES
As of July 1, 2012, property taxes in California were $1,458 per capita, ranked 15th highest nationally. Without Proposition 13, the 1978 voter-approved initiative that set limits on property taxes for California property owners, the state likely would rank even worse.

Many California property owners also are required to pay costly parcel taxes. These are annual property taxes (not based upon the value of the property) imposed by many school districts, special districts and other jurisdictions.

CalTax | Where Does California Rank?

THE END RESULT OF HIGH TAX RATES IN CALIFORNIA

In 2011, 254 California companies moved some or all of their work and jobs out of state, 26% more than in 2010, according to Irvine business consultant Joe Vranich who has been tracking these departures since 2009.

m.ocregister.com/articles/moved-342887-companies-texas.html

There were 1.3 million businesses in California at the end of 2012, 5.2 percent fewer than in the previous year (that’s about 73,000 fewer). To put that in perspective, Massachusetts lost 5,200 businesses, the second-highest amount

One must wonder what California officials think of South Dakota. Capital One recently announced it will open a new credit-card processing center in Sioux Falls at the same time it announced it will close its 850-employee Salinas facility by mid-2013.

http://www.thecalifornian.com/artic...t-Salinas-lays-off-850-workers?nclick_check=1

HOW ABOUT ALL THAT STATE REVENUE ....

California again trumped other states with a $617 billion debt. California’s debt is more than twice the size of New York‘s state debt, and New York has the second largest total debt burden in the nation.

**** UPDATE

SACRAMENTO (CBS13) – The combined debt of California’s state and local governments is at least $848 billion and could escalate past $1.1 trillion, according to a new report.

Much of the state’s debt comes from general obligation bonds —

$73.1 billion — funds for public works
$10.9 billion — unemployment insurance loans
$11.3 billion — total lease-revenue bonds
$49.7 billion — Estimated debt of K-12 public school districts
$68.1 billion — city government debt,
$22.1 billion —county government debt
$110.4 billion — redevelopment agencies and special districts
$128.3 billion — unfunded pension liabilities at 7.5 percent interest
$136.8 billion — unfunded retiree healthcare liability

Report: California?s Actual Debt At Least $848B; Could Pass $1.1T « CBS Sacramento

Now when you look to our own Federal Government, you find the Obama administration has pushed through on AVERAGE of over 800 regulations on small business. Add to that the new government mandate on health care the Democrats want to push on businesses, and we find that the economy is not at all "booming" in the private sector. So our nation through this administration has just spent over $7 TRILLION dollars with very little to show for it (you know, the not-so-shovel-ready jobs and all). The solution by many liberals, of course, is simply do more of the same.... just double down and "spend more". Such results coming out of the Obama administration and California, leaves into question whether progressives even know HOW to create a strong economy with a dramatic increase in private sector jobs (FULL employment).

As much as the left want to simply raise the debt ceiling, include another government controlled Trojan horse like Obamacare, and simply raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for it, much of the country don't agree with all these progressive policies. In fact over 70% of Americans surveyed believe our nation is heading down the WRONG direction.

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB10001424052970204774604576627180456112672?mg=reno64-wsj

 

[P@triot]

They always forget about General Welfare then they'll narrowly define general welfare so much it would be covered by just saying "because I don't like it"

So please explain it to me [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION]. How is taking from a select group of people (tax payers) and handing over what you have taken to another select group of people (parasites) "promoting the GENERAL welfare".

The "general" welfare is what's good for the overwhelming majority (at minimum - by definition - you'd have to say 80%). So even your absurd and desperate spin on the Constitution fails miserably. But hey, we're all still waiting for you to explain this one...

General Welfare includes General (broad)

Welfare: 1.well-being: somebody's state or condition with respect to whether he or she is healthy, safe, happy, or prospering
2.work to improve people's welfare: efforts, especially on the part of government and institutions, to ensure that the physical, social, and financial conditions under which people live are satisfactory
3.aid to people in need: financial aid and other benefits for people who are unemployed, below a specific income level, or otherwise requiring assistance, especially when provided by a government agency or program

Doesn't mention anywhere that everyone has to like it. Still don't understand?

This is absolute amazing. When I own [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION] he completely runs from the conversation and goes off the sanity rails on some other topic. CC - you're the one who went with the term GENERAL welfare. So why are you running lie a coward and changing the conversation again? You changed it to GENERAL welfare, so lets discuss the GENERAL welfare:

gen·er·al
ˈjenərəl/
adjective
1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.
"books of general interest"

synonyms: widespread, common, extensive, universal, wide, popular, public, mainstream

Still afraid to have a genuine conversation about the Constitution because you realize you are A.) wrong and B.) completely out of your league with someone who is actually informed?

So please try again CC - how does stealing from one select group (taxpayers) and give what was stolen to another select group (parasites like you) "promote the GENERAL welfare"?

Game over sweetie. You have been thoroughly owned here...

 

[P@triot]

They always forget about General Welfare then they'll narrowly define general welfare so much it would be covered by just saying "because I don't like it"

So please explain it to me [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION]. How is taking from a select group of people (tax payers) and handing over what you have taken to another select group of people (parasites) "promoting the GENERAL welfare".

The "general" welfare is what's good for the overwhelming majority (at minimum - by definition - you'd have to say 80%). So even your absurd and desperate spin on the Constitution fails miserably. But hey, we're all still waiting for you to explain this one...

General Welfare includes General (broad)

Welfare: 1.well-being: somebody's state or condition with respect to whether he or she is healthy, safe, happy, or prospering
2.work to improve people's welfare: efforts, especially on the part of government and institutions, to ensure that the physical, social, and financial conditions under which people live are satisfactory
3.aid to people in need: financial aid and other benefits for people who are unemployed, below a specific income level, or otherwise requiring assistance, especially when provided by a government agency or program

Doesn't mention anywhere that everyone has to like it. Still don't understand?

But the Constitution says "for the GENERAL welfare". You've covered welfare, now please cover GENERAL [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION].

See what happens when your ignorant of the topic CC? You pin yourself into a corner with ignorance. You're the one who specifically cited "promote the GENERAL welfare" - so lets talk about the GENERAL welfare of America.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I posed the question to you? do you care to answer it or not?

First has the word changed or not? If so, HOW?


Let me see your tapping shoes

I asked you what the common accepted use of the term welfare meant when the constitution was written.

If you don't want to answer the question just say so?

Or do you want me to answer it for you? You're the one posing as the language authority here not me.

I'm simply using the dictionary. I guess you call that being a language expert but its easy to find information. No certification required

And I'm asking did it mean something different then? If so how do you know that to suggest such a ridiculous thing?

 

[ClosedCaption]

So please explain it to me [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION]. How is taking from a select group of people (tax payers) and handing over what you have taken to another select group of people (parasites) "promoting the GENERAL welfare".

The "general" welfare is what's good for the overwhelming majority (at minimum - by definition - you'd have to say 80%). So even your absurd and desperate spin on the Constitution fails miserably. But hey, we're all still waiting for you to explain this one...

General Welfare includes General (broad)

Welfare: 1.well-being: somebody's state or condition with respect to whether he or she is healthy, safe, happy, or prospering
2.work to improve people's welfare: efforts, especially on the part of government and institutions, to ensure that the physical, social, and financial conditions under which people live are satisfactory
3.aid to people in need: financial aid and other benefits for people who are unemployed, below a specific income level, or otherwise requiring assistance, especially when provided by a government agency or program

Doesn't mention anywhere that everyone has to like it. Still don't understand?

But the Constitution says "for the GENERAL welfare". You've covered welfare, now please cover GENERAL [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION].

See what happens when your ignorant of the topic CC? You pin yourself into a corner with ignorance. You're the one who specifically cited "promote the GENERAL welfare" - so lets talk about the GENERAL welfare of America.

You just gave the definition of General. Lol, you're funny.

 

[P@triot]

They always forget about General Welfare then they'll narrowly define general welfare so much it would be covered by just saying "because I don't like it"

So please explain it to me [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION]. How is taking from a select group of people (tax payers) and handing over what you have taken to another select group of people (parasites) "promoting the GENERAL welfare".

The "general" welfare is what's good for the overwhelming majority (at minimum - by definition - you'd have to say 80%). So even your absurd and desperate spin on the Constitution fails miserably. But hey, we're all still waiting for you to explain this one...

General Welfare includes General (broad)

Welfare: 1.well-being: somebody's state or condition with respect to whether he or she is healthy, safe, happy, or prospering
2.work to improve people's welfare: efforts, especially on the part of government and institutions, to ensure that the physical, social, and financial conditions under which people live are satisfactory
3.aid to people in need: financial aid and other benefits for people who are unemployed, below a specific income level, or otherwise requiring assistance, especially when provided by a government agency or program

Doesn't mention anywhere that everyone has to like it. Still don't understand?

Sweetie, you're really degrading Socrates by using him as your avatar like you are some "great thinker". This is just embarrassing now. You're the one hung up on the GENERAL welfare. So lets discuss GENERAL (we all know what welfare means - but apparently you libtards don't know what GENERAL means).

In your panic, you realized you had pinned yourself into a corner with your ignorance. So please explain how targeting one specific group of people (tax payers) and stealing from them to give what was stolen to another specific group of people (parasites such as yourself) "promote the GENERAL welfare" of America?

gen·er·al
ˈjenərəl/
adjective
1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.
"books of general interest"
synonyms: widespread, common, extensive, universal, wide, popular, public, mainstream

 

[P@triot]

General Welfare includes General (broad)

Welfare: 1.well-being: somebody's state or condition with respect to whether he or she is healthy, safe, happy, or prospering
2.work to improve people's welfare: efforts, especially on the part of government and institutions, to ensure that the physical, social, and financial conditions under which people live are satisfactory
3.aid to people in need: financial aid and other benefits for people who are unemployed, below a specific income level, or otherwise requiring assistance, especially when provided by a government agency or program

Doesn't mention anywhere that everyone has to like it. Still don't understand?

But the Constitution says "for the GENERAL welfare". You've covered welfare, now please cover GENERAL [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION].

See what happens when your ignorant of the topic CC? You pin yourself into a corner with ignorance. You're the one who specifically cited "promote the GENERAL welfare" - so lets talk about the GENERAL welfare of America.

You just gave the definition of General. Lol, you're funny.

says the girl who just gave the definite of welfare in an attempt to run from the conversation

 

[P@triot]

First has the word changed or not? If so, HOW?


Let me see your tapping shoes

I asked you what the common accepted use of the term welfare meant when the constitution was written.

If you don't want to answer the question just say so?

Or do you want me to answer it for you? You're the one posing as the language authority here not me.

I'm simply using the dictionary. I guess you call that being a language expert but its easy to find information. No certification required

And I'm asking did it mean something different then? If so how do you know that to suggest such a ridiculous thing?

Then use it to look up GENERAL welfare...

So please explain how targeting one specific group of people (tax payers) and stealing from them to give what was stolen to another specific group of people (parasites such as yourself) "promote the GENERAL welfare" of America?

gen·er·al
ˈjenərəl/
adjective
1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.
"books of general interest"
synonyms: widespread, common, extensive, universal, wide, popular, public, mainstream

 

[Spiderman]

First has the word changed or not? If so, HOW?


Let me see your tapping shoes

I asked you what the common accepted use of the term welfare meant when the constitution was written.

If you don't want to answer the question just say so?

Or do you want me to answer it for you? You're the one posing as the language authority here not me.

I'm simply using the dictionary. I guess you call that being a language expert but its easy to find information. No certification required

And I'm asking did it mean something different then? If so how do you know that to suggest such a ridiculous thing?

So a dictionary from the 1700s would have exactly the same definition as the one you used?

I asked you if the meaning was different then. You took that as something other than a simple question.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I asked you what the common accepted use of the term welfare meant when the constitution was written.

If you don't want to answer the question just say so?

Or do you want me to answer it for you? You're the one posing as the language authority here not me.

I'm simply using the dictionary. I guess you call that being a language expert but its easy to find information. No certification required

And I'm asking did it mean something different then? If so how do you know that to suggest such a ridiculous thing?

So a dictionary from the 1700s would have exactly the same definition as the one you used?

I asked you if the meaning was different then. You took that as something other than a simple question.

Maybe? You're free to show me where its different or take one side instead of this constant hand wringing.

I don't know why Rott keeps asking for the definition of general while posting the definition of general. Multiple personalities maybe?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I posed the question to you? do you care to answer it or not?

First has the word changed or not? If so, HOW?


Let me see your tapping shoes

I asked you what the common accepted use of the term welfare meant when the constitution was written.

If you don't want to answer the question just say so?

Or do you want me to answer it for you? You're the one posing as the language authority here not me.

If you want to know the views of how the Founders may have felt about welfare, here you go:

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
― Benjamin Franklin

This is why they wrote in the preamble their belief government should "PROMOTE" the general welfare, or the Declaration of Independence states that the individual God given rights are for "Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness". They never once stated that it's the role of government to guarantee or even make provision FOR individual happiness. This is what Progressives have a hard time understanding. You won't find a Founding Father advocating that it's the role of government to provide whatever the individual is in need of, through entitlement or government welfare.

 

[ClosedCaption]

No because like all good wafflers you neglect to say if the words changed or not. You seem unsure.

Did the word welfare change from then till now? You don't know, but what you do know is you're right. You just cant explain it and "because I think its right" isn't an acceptable answer in a debate

Spiderman is playing a game where hes physically unable to come to a conclusion.

He doesn't know if the word welfare meant something different but he's sure of....something. I'm wrong but he cant explain it. So now his defense lies in question marks. lol

 

[P@triot]

No because like all good wafflers you neglect to say if the words changed or not. You seem unsure.

Did the word welfare change from then till now? You don't know, but what you do know is you're right. You just cant explain it and "because I think its right" isn't an acceptable answer in a debate

Spiderman is playing a game where hes physically unable to come to a conclusion.

He doesn't know if the word welfare meant something different but he's sure of....something. I'm wrong but he cant explain it. So now his defense lies in question marks. lol

[MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION] is playing a game where hes physically unable to come to a conclusion.

He doesn't know if the word GENERAL meant something different but he's sure of....something. I'm right, but he can't admit it. So now his defense lies in avoiding the discussion...

Sweetie, you're really degrading Socrates by using him as your avatar like you are some "great thinker". This is just embarrassing now. You're the one hung up on the GENERAL welfare. So lets discuss GENERAL (we all know what welfare means - but apparently you libtards don't know what GENERAL means).

In your panic, you realized you had pinned yourself into a corner with your ignorance. So please explain how targeting one specific group of people (tax payers) and stealing from them to give what was stolen to another specific group of people (parasites such as yourself) "promote the GENERAL welfare" of America?

gen·er·al
ˈjenərəl/
adjective
1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.
"books of general interest"
synonyms: widespread, common, extensive, universal, wide, popular, public, mainstream

 

[ClosedCaption]

No because like all good wafflers you neglect to say if the words changed or not. You seem unsure.

Did the word welfare change from then till now? You don't know, but what you do know is you're right. You just cant explain it and "because I think its right" isn't an acceptable answer in a debate

Spiderman is playing a game where hes physically unable to come to a conclusion.

He doesn't know if the word welfare meant something different but he's sure of....something. I'm wrong but he cant explain it. So now his defense lies in question marks. lol

[MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION] is playing a game where hes physically unable to come to a conclusion.

He doesn't know if the word GENERAL meant something different but he's sure of....something. I'm right, but he can't admit it. So now his defense lies in avoiding the discussion...

Sweetie, you're really degrading Socrates by using him as your avatar like you are some "great thinker". This is just embarrassing now. You're the one hung up on the GENERAL welfare. So lets discuss GENERAL (we all know what welfare means - but apparently you libtards don't know what GENERAL means).

In your panic, you realized you had pinned yourself into a corner with your ignorance. So please explain how targeting one specific group of people (tax payers) and stealing from them to give what was stolen to another specific group of people (parasites such as yourself) "promote the GENERAL welfare" of America?

gen·er·al
ˈjenərəl/
adjective
1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.
"books of general interest"
synonyms: widespread, common, extensive, universal, wide, popular, public, mainstream

Well Rott the way that happens is everyone, not just the rich, pays taxes. Those taxes are used for the good of the public in general. Which means my tax dollars may go to someone or something that has nothing to do with me directly. Repaving a road I'll never drive on, playgrounds my kids wont ever play on or feeding people who are not myself.

That is how taxes work. Don't like it blame the Egyptians, I believe they came up with progressive taxation or the Romans.

This is life...don't like it, no one is stopping you from exiting

 

[P@triot]

Spiderman is playing a game where hes physically unable to come to a conclusion.

He doesn't know if the word welfare meant something different but he's sure of....something. I'm wrong but he cant explain it. So now his defense lies in question marks. lol

[MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION] is playing a game where hes physically unable to come to a conclusion.

He doesn't know if the word GENERAL meant something different but he's sure of....something. I'm right, but he can't admit it. So now his defense lies in avoiding the discussion...

Sweetie, you're really degrading Socrates by using him as your avatar like you are some "great thinker". This is just embarrassing now. You're the one hung up on the GENERAL welfare. So lets discuss GENERAL (we all know what welfare means - but apparently you libtards don't know what GENERAL means).

In your panic, you realized you had pinned yourself into a corner with your ignorance. So please explain how targeting one specific group of people (tax payers) and stealing from them to give what was stolen to another specific group of people (parasites such as yourself) "promote the GENERAL welfare" of America?

gen·er·al
ˈjenərəl/
adjective
1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.
"books of general interest"
synonyms: widespread, common, extensive, universal, wide, popular, public, mainstream

Well Rott the way that happens is everyone, not just the rich, pays taxes. Those taxes are used for the good of the public in general. Which means my tax dollars may go to someone or something that has nothing to do with me directly. Repaving a road I'll never drive on, playgrounds my kids wont ever play on or feeding people who are not myself.

That is how taxes work. Don't like it blame the Egyptians, I believe they came up with progressive taxation or the Romans.

This is life...don't like it, no one is stopping you from exiting

Again [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION], how does that help the GENERAL welfare? You may not drive on a road - but a huge portion of the population will (hence general). But when a specific group is rewarded at the expense of another specific group, that is not the GENERAL welfare. That is a specific, minority welfare who is "promoted" at the detriment of the other, specific group.

So I'll give you another chance. I never said I must personally benefit (just like you may personally never drive on a road). But you specifically cited the GENERAL welfare as defense for the unconstitutional social entitlements. So the burden is on you to explain how the GENERAL (ie all or most) benefit when a specific group is targeted and a different specific group is rewarded.

Can we just agree that you have an irrational stance? That you believe in and support marxism, but that you cannot, in any way, use the U.S. Constitution to justify your irrational belief because the Constitution made it very clear that the federal government is restricted to the 18 enumerated powers and redistributing private wealth is not one of them. Just be honest for once. You'd be amazed how good it feels.

You have a right to your own opinions. You do not have the right to your own facts. And the facts are very clear - all government socialist entitlement programs are 100% unconstitutional and cannot be justified by the nonsensical "but.....but.....but...the government has the right to tax". Taxes are strictly and explicitly for the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government. NOT for creating new social programs.

 

[JoeB131]

[LIST

I can only imagine the aneurism [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] is having right now having all of his lies exposed by indisputable facts. Owning Dumbocrats by exposing their hypocrisy since 2011...

Why? ALl these taxes are great things...

Well, I'm not thrilled with cigarette taxes, because they HAVEN'T Killed smoking as a habit.

NOr Do I have much of a problem with targetted tax breaks to create jobs.

But the rich still need to pay their fair share.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Spiderman is playing a game where hes physically unable to come to a conclusion.

He doesn't know if the word welfare meant something different but he's sure of....something. I'm wrong but he cant explain it. So now his defense lies in question marks. lol

[MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION] is playing a game where hes physically unable to come to a conclusion.

He doesn't know if the word GENERAL meant something different but he's sure of....something. I'm right, but he can't admit it. So now his defense lies in avoiding the discussion...

Sweetie, you're really degrading Socrates by using him as your avatar like you are some "great thinker". This is just embarrassing now. You're the one hung up on the GENERAL welfare. So lets discuss GENERAL (we all know what welfare means - but apparently you libtards don't know what GENERAL means).

In your panic, you realized you had pinned yourself into a corner with your ignorance. So please explain how targeting one specific group of people (tax payers) and stealing from them to give what was stolen to another specific group of people (parasites such as yourself) "promote the GENERAL welfare" of America?

gen·er·al
ˈjenərəl/
adjective
1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.
"books of general interest"
synonyms: widespread, common, extensive, universal, wide, popular, public, mainstream

Well Rott the way that happens is everyone, not just the rich, pays taxes. Those taxes are used for the good of the public in general. Which means my tax dollars may go to someone or something that has nothing to do with me directly. Repaving a road I'll never drive on, playgrounds my kids wont ever play on or feeding people who are not myself.

That is how taxes work. Don't like it blame the Egyptians, I believe they came up with progressive taxation or the Romans.

This is life...don't like it, no one is stopping you from exiting

Your first mistake is believing that everyone pays taxes. I'd really like to see you back up that statement.

 

[zeke]

First has the word changed or not? If so, HOW?


Let me see your tapping shoes

I asked you what the common accepted use of the term welfare meant when the constitution was written.

If you don't want to answer the question just say so?

Or do you want me to answer it for you? You're the one posing as the language authority here not me.

If you want to know the views of how the Founders may have felt about welfare, here you go:

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
― Benjamin Franklin

This is why they wrote in the preamble their belief government should "PROMOTE" the general welfare, or the Declaration of Independence states that the individual God given rights are for "Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness". They never once stated that it's the role of government to guarantee or even make provision FOR individual happiness. This is what Progressives have a hard time understanding. You won't find a Founding Father advocating that it's the role of government to provide whatever the individual is in need of, through entitlement or government welfare.

I am wondering what the founding fathers would think of the fact that the private sector is unwilling or unable to offer enough work opportunities so that poor people on welfare could find work and get off welfare.

Would the founding fathers simply let them die in the street if they tried and couldn't find work? Or would they help them with government aid? And if the job situation didn't improve for years and years, what would the Founding Fathers do with that General Welfare clause then? Ignore it?

I am sure one of you right wing founding father experts know the answer. Don't you all communicate via Wiji Board with the Founders?

 

[P@triot]

I am wondering what the founding fathers would think of the fact that the private sector is unwilling or unable to offer enough work opportunities so that poor people on welfare could find work and get off welfare.

Would the founding fathers simply let them die in the street if they tried and couldn't find work? Or would they help them with government aid? And if the job situation didn't improve for years and years, what would the Founding Fathers do with that General Welfare clause then? Ignore it?

I am sure one of you right wing founding father experts know the answer. Don't you all communicate via Wiji Board with the Founders?

First of all [MENTION=35352]zeke[/MENTION] - the private sector has the capacity to take about 75 - 100 million off of welfare and put them to work. But that would require Dumbocrats to do two things: stop punishing effort & success and adhere to the Constitution.

Second, we do know how our founding fathers would handle the remaining citizens of who work would not be available. And it's not because we "communicate" with them "via Wiji Board" as your snarky post stated, but rather, because we actually read & learn from history. Gasp! What a "radical" concept

Shak already posted that well known quote from Benjamin Franklin. But to clarify this for all of you anti-constitutional Dumbocrats - you make the utterly absurd case that there are two choices and two choices only: communism or nihilism. In your very distorted perception it is either government controls all and provides for the people or people die in the streets. There is a third (and much better option). It's called freedom. It's called family. It's called charity. It's called churches. It's called communities. Of his own free will, Bill Gates has spent $60 billion of his own money to date ensuring that people are not "dying in the streets". Think about that. $60 billion. The federal government did not have to put a gun to his head and it has not jeopardized this nation with debt (because unlike the federal government - Bill understands finance).

If I fell on hard times, I wouldn't need the federal government, my family would take me in. If my family magically disappeared, my friends would take me in. If my friends also all magically disappeared, my neighbors would take me in. If my neighbors all magically disappeared, my church would take me in (and I have literally seen them do this and I have personally assisted them when they have). And if my church magically disappeared, I would turn to the endless public charities that exist.

But obviously, there is no liberal fairytale rainbowed unicorn scenario where all of those people would disappear. Yet that is literally the case liberals attempt to make everyday for why we need communism in the U.S. Because somewhere there is some helpless, hapless, hopeless invalid with no family, no friends, no neighbors/community, no church, and no charities...