A great advert for Socialism

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare, is a general power just as much as providing for the common defense.

The items listed after the initial clause of Article I, Section 8 provide the definition of General Welfare and Common Defense of the NATION. None of those powers relate to expenditures for individual needs.

Providing for the general welfare must ensure, individuals benefit.

Social safety nets provide for the general welfare by providing for Individuals.

 

[Anathema]

Providing for the general welfare must ensure, individuals benefit.

Social safety nets provide for the general welfare by providing for Individuals.

The General Welfare of the NATION, not individual citizens. That is a collective power. If not, then Common Defense woild require the Government to provide personal security for every individual citizen.

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare must ensure, individuals benefit.

Social safety nets provide for the general welfare by providing for Individuals.

The General Welfare of the NATION, not individual citizens. That is a collective power. If not, then Common Defense woild require the Government to provide personal security for every individual citizen.

Why do you believe that? Do you believe the same thing of the common defense clause?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Norway's sovereign wealth fund is now worth $1,000,000,000,000

the Norwegians took their oil wealth and invested it in their people.

And now their pensions are fully funded.

Imagine that. A country that works for all its people and not just the few.

They're a great example.
The US government should use revenues from ANWR to fully fund Social Security.
Drill baby drill!!!

 

[danielpalos]

Norway's sovereign wealth fund is now worth $1,000,000,000,000

the Norwegians took their oil wealth and invested it in their people.

And now their pensions are fully funded.

Imagine that. A country that works for all its people and not just the few.

They're a great example.
The US government should use revenues from ANWR to fully fund Social Security.
Drill baby drill!!!

end the drug war! it should not affect, Individuals!

 

[Anathema]

Why do you believe that? Do you believe the same thing of the common defense clause?

The most basic reading of the Section, combined with even a minimal amount of historical research leads to the conclusion that the first clause is a general one, which is defined by the clauses that follow it.

Yes, the Common Defense clause is a general one as well. It refers to the necessity to provide for National Defense, not security of individual citizens in or outside the cointry. That is a personal responsibility, as is the personal welfare of individual citizens.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do you believe that? Do you believe the same thing of the common defense clause?

The most basic reading of the Section, combined with even a minimal amount of historical research leads to the conclusion that the first clause is a general one, which is defined by the clauses that follow it.

Yes, the Common Defense clause is a general one as well. It refers to the necessity to provide for National Defense, not security of individual citizens in or outside the cointry. That is a personal responsibility, as is the personal welfare of individual citizens.

Why do our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, affect Individuals?

 

[Anathema]

Those powers are in the same sentence. If one is a general power then so must the other.

Yes, they are both General Powers. That means they refer to the Welfare and Defense of the NATION, not specific, individual citizens.

Therefore, the Federal Government MAY NOT legally expend power or money on the defense or welfare of individuals. Unfortunately FDR ignored that limitation on welfare powers and has saddled us with massive debt and immorality because of thst.

 

[danielpalos]

Those powers are in the same sentence. If one is a general power then so must the other.

Yes, they are both General Powers. That means they refer to the Welfare and Defense of the NATION, not specific, individual citizens.

Therefore, the Federal Government MAY NOT legally expend power or money on the defense or welfare of individuals. Unfortunately FDR ignored that limitation on welfare powers and has saddled us with massive debt and immorality because of thst.

That is not true of the federal districts, why should it be true of federal policy?

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever--In the federal districts.

 

[2aguy]

Norway's sovereign wealth fund is now worth $1,000,000,000,000

the Norwegians took their oil wealth and invested it in their people.

And now their pensions are fully funded.

Imagine that. A country that works for all its people and not just the few.

And of course, you don't know what you are talking about...

Scandinavia Isn’t A Socialist Paradise

 

[Anathema]

That is not true of the federal districts, why should it be true of federal policy?

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever--In the federal districts.

The Federal District now has a name: Washington DC. Congress maintains total legislative control over the city. That does not mean such power extends beyond the city.

 

[2aguy]

Norway's sovereign wealth fund is now worth $1,000,000,000,000

the Norwegians took their oil wealth and invested it in their people.

And now their pensions are fully funded.

Imagine that. A country that works for all its people and not just the few.

And more truth......

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism | Corey Iacono

Democratic socialism purports to combine majority rule with state control of the means of production. However, the Scandinavian countries are not good examples of democratic socialism in action because they aren’t socialist.

In the Scandinavian countries, like all other developed nations, the means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not the community or the government, and resources are allocated to their respective uses by the market, not government or community planning.

While it is true that the Scandinavian countries provide things like a generous social safety net and universal healthcare, an extensive welfare state is not the same thing as socialism. What Sanders and his supporters confuse as socialism is actually social democracy, a system in which the government aims to promote the public welfare through heavy taxation and spending, within the framework of a capitalist economy. This is what the Scandinavians practice.

-------

For example, democratic socialists are generally opponents of global capitalism and free trade, but the Scandinavian countries have fully embraced these things. The Economist magazine describes the Scandinavian countries as “stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies.” Perhaps this is why Denmark, Norway, and Sweden rank among the most globalized countries in the entire world. These countries all also rank in the top 10 easiest countries to do business in.

-----

How do supporters of Bernie Sanders feel about the minimum wage? You will find no such government-imposed floors on labor in Sweden, Norway, or Denmark. Instead, minimum wages are decided by collective-bargaining agreements between unions and employers; they typically vary on an occupational or industrial basis. Union-imposed wages lock out the least skilled and do their own damage to an economy, but such a decentralized system is still arguably a much better way of doing things than having the central government set a one-size fits all wage policy that covers every occupation nationwide.

 

[danielpalos]

That is not true of the federal districts, why should it be true of federal policy?

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever--In the federal districts.

The Federal District now has a name: Washington DC. Congress maintains total legislative control over the city. That does not mean such power extends beyond the city.

Why do we have federal wars on crime, drugs and terror?

Providing for the general welfare spending, is in our Constitution.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Norway's sovereign wealth fund is now worth $1,000,000,000,000

the Norwegians took their oil wealth and invested it in their people.

And now their pensions are fully funded.

Imagine that. A country that works for all its people and not just the few.

And more truth......

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism | Corey Iacono

Democratic socialism purports to combine majority rule with state control of the means of production. However, the Scandinavian countries are not good examples of democratic socialism in action because they aren’t socialist.

In the Scandinavian countries, like all other developed nations, the means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not the community or the government, and resources are allocated to their respective uses by the market, not government or community planning.

While it is true that the Scandinavian countries provide things like a generous social safety net and universal healthcare, an extensive welfare state is not the same thing as socialism. What Sanders and his supporters confuse as socialism is actually social democracy, a system in which the government aims to promote the public welfare through heavy taxation and spending, within the framework of a capitalist economy. This is what the Scandinavians practice.

-------

For example, democratic socialists are generally opponents of global capitalism and free trade, but the Scandinavian countries have fully embraced these things. The Economist magazine describes the Scandinavian countries as “stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies.” Perhaps this is why Denmark, Norway, and Sweden rank among the most globalized countries in the entire world. These countries all also rank in the top 10 easiest countries to do business in.

-----

How do supporters of Bernie Sanders feel about the minimum wage? You will find no such government-imposed floors on labor in Sweden, Norway, or Denmark. Instead, minimum wages are decided by collective-bargaining agreements between unions and employers; they typically vary on an occupational or industrial basis. Union-imposed wages lock out the least skilled and do their own damage to an economy, but such a decentralized system is still arguably a much better way of doing things than having the central government set a one-size fits all wage policy that covers every occupation nationwide.

Free market loon trying to diss a model that works. Move along.

 

[Anathema]

Why do we have federal wars on crime, drugs and terror?

The types of crime, drugs and terror we attack on a Federal level are because they are inter-state crimes (crossing state lines) and/or issues that have an impact on the entire nation/government rather than local areas only.

Providing for the general welfare spending, is in our Constitution.

Only for the Welfare of the NATION. Not individual citizens. I've already explained this multiple times.

 

[2aguy]

Norway's sovereign wealth fund is now worth $1,000,000,000,000

the Norwegians took their oil wealth and invested it in their people.

And now their pensions are fully funded.

Imagine that. A country that works for all its people and not just the few.

And more truth......

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism | Corey Iacono

Democratic socialism purports to combine majority rule with state control of the means of production. However, the Scandinavian countries are not good examples of democratic socialism in action because they aren’t socialist.

In the Scandinavian countries, like all other developed nations, the means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not the community or the government, and resources are allocated to their respective uses by the market, not government or community planning.

While it is true that the Scandinavian countries provide things like a generous social safety net and universal healthcare, an extensive welfare state is not the same thing as socialism. What Sanders and his supporters confuse as socialism is actually social democracy, a system in which the government aims to promote the public welfare through heavy taxation and spending, within the framework of a capitalist economy. This is what the Scandinavians practice.

-------

For example, democratic socialists are generally opponents of global capitalism and free trade, but the Scandinavian countries have fully embraced these things. The Economist magazine describes the Scandinavian countries as “stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies.” Perhaps this is why Denmark, Norway, and Sweden rank among the most globalized countries in the entire world. These countries all also rank in the top 10 easiest countries to do business in.

-----

How do supporters of Bernie Sanders feel about the minimum wage? You will find no such government-imposed floors on labor in Sweden, Norway, or Denmark. Instead, minimum wages are decided by collective-bargaining agreements between unions and employers; they typically vary on an occupational or industrial basis. Union-imposed wages lock out the least skilled and do their own damage to an economy, but such a decentralized system is still arguably a much better way of doing things than having the central government set a one-size fits all wage policy that covers every occupation nationwide.

Free market loon trying to diss a model that works. Move along.

How about Norway pays for it's own military....an actual military that is capable of defending it's country? Let's see how fast they run through their money doing that.....but they don't have to, they sit back and hide behind the United States, and keep all of their money for their social welfare programs.....

 

[Cecilie1200]

No. It's exactly as it shoild be. If anything we need to reduce the ability of the Government to take land and land rights from citizens.

The Norwegian government is taking the benefits from its natural resources and giving it to its people.Nothing tops that. My government took our resources and bought bombs and gave tax cuts to the rich. And now we are all poorer for it.

No, according to your own article, they're taking benefits from OUR resources and giving it away. I'd say one thing tops that: being the people producing the prosperity that's been battened on to.

You have yet to explain to us how it is that WE, as eeeeevil as you insist we are, are the ones creating the wealth they're sharing.

You dont seem to understand how investment works. If Norway invests in any company then they own that part of it. It isnt yours it is theirs.

They also invest all over the world and not just the US.

Quite how you view something like Apple as "OURS" also puzzles me. Apple is not yours. It belongs to its shareholders which includes the Norwegian Sovereign Fund and in fact Tommy Tainant.

YOU don't seem to understand how investment works. For people to invest, the company must first exist and offer a good chance of returns. Again, noticeably, it is the United States, not Norway, which is producing those companies, returns, and opportunities. You're telling us how splendid Norway is in the same breath as admitting that they aren't splendid enough to produce their socialist giveaways without eeeeevil capitalists to do the work. That's not much of a "great advert for socialism", to point out that it requires capitalism to fund itself.

I don't doubt that figuring out the meaning and context of words frequently puzzles you. Americans talking about American-owned and -based companies, succeeding because of America's love of capitalism, and you have trouble figuring out who "we" would refer to. No wonder you're piss-stupid enough to gibber on about the wonders of socialism without even realizing you're actually pointing out how helpless and useless it is on its own.

I understand how it works very well. there is so much ignorant shit in your rant that I dont know where to start.

You seem to feel that a Norwegian socialist fund should not be investing in "American companies". What a joke. Why dont you ban all foreign investors and see what that does for your economy you fucking absolute clown.

Lemme give you a suggestion on where to start: the truth. It would make a refreshing change from what you normally spew.

I said anything about where Norway should or shouldn't invest their money? Really? THAT is what you took away from this? Jesus Christ, no wonder a two-letter word like "we" sends you into a quandary!

Okay, try to focus, Mensa Boy. Contrary to objecting to Norway investing in capitalism, I think it's an excellent idea. That's rather my point, in fact: that they MUST invest in eeeevil capitalism as the only way possible to fund their glorious socialism that allows them - and the pitiful likes of you - to crow about the glories of their socialist system which can't fund itself.

My objection is to having to listen to you prattle mindlessly about how superior socialism is to the capitalism it leeches from. It's rather like listening to Canada tout its moral superiority in not spending as much money on their military as the US "warmongers" do, when the only reason they can get away with doing it is because they live next door to us and let us do the heavy lifting of protecting them. The remora fish has no room to bitch about how horrible the shark is (look it the fuck up, moron. I'm not explaining the analogy to you.)

Bottom line, don't blither on about how your system is superior to that of the people who make your system possible. Dumbass.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do we have federal wars on crime, drugs and terror?

The types of crime, drugs and terror we attack on a Federal level are because they are inter-state crimes (crossing state lines) and/or issues that have an impact on the entire nation/government rather than local areas only.

Providing for the general welfare spending, is in our Constitution.

Only for the Welfare of the NATION. Not individual citizens. I've already explained this multiple times.

Why does the right wing support warfare spending that affects Individuals but not welfare spending that helps Individuals?

 

[danielpalos]

The Norwegian government is taking the benefits from its natural resources and giving it to its people.Nothing tops that. My government took our resources and bought bombs and gave tax cuts to the rich. And now we are all poorer for it.

No, according to your own article, they're taking benefits from OUR resources and giving it away. I'd say one thing tops that: being the people producing the prosperity that's been battened on to.

You have yet to explain to us how it is that WE, as eeeeevil as you insist we are, are the ones creating the wealth they're sharing.

You dont seem to understand how investment works. If Norway invests in any company then they own that part of it. It isnt yours it is theirs.

They also invest all over the world and not just the US.

Quite how you view something like Apple as "OURS" also puzzles me. Apple is not yours. It belongs to its shareholders which includes the Norwegian Sovereign Fund and in fact Tommy Tainant.

YOU don't seem to understand how investment works. For people to invest, the company must first exist and offer a good chance of returns. Again, noticeably, it is the United States, not Norway, which is producing those companies, returns, and opportunities. You're telling us how splendid Norway is in the same breath as admitting that they aren't splendid enough to produce their socialist giveaways without eeeeevil capitalists to do the work. That's not much of a "great advert for socialism", to point out that it requires capitalism to fund itself.

I don't doubt that figuring out the meaning and context of words frequently puzzles you. Americans talking about American-owned and -based companies, succeeding because of America's love of capitalism, and you have trouble figuring out who "we" would refer to. No wonder you're piss-stupid enough to gibber on about the wonders of socialism without even realizing you're actually pointing out how helpless and useless it is on its own.

I understand how it works very well. there is so much ignorant shit in your rant that I dont know where to start.

You seem to feel that a Norwegian socialist fund should not be investing in "American companies". What a joke. Why dont you ban all foreign investors and see what that does for your economy you fucking absolute clown.

Lemme give you a suggestion on where to start: the truth. It would make a refreshing change from what you normally spew.

I said anything about where Norway should or shouldn't invest their money? Really? THAT is what you took away from this? Jesus Christ, no wonder a two-letter word like "we" sends you into a quandary!

Okay, try to focus, Mensa Boy. Contrary to objecting to Norway investing in capitalism, I think it's an excellent idea. That's rather my point, in fact: that they MUST invest in eeeevil capitalism as the only way possible to fund their glorious socialism that allows them - and the pitiful likes of you - to crow about the glories of their socialist system which can't fund itself.

My objection is to having to listen to you prattle mindlessly about how superior socialism is to the capitalism it leeches from. It's rather like listening to Canada tout its moral superiority in not spending as much money on their military as the US "warmongers" do, when the only reason they can get away with doing it is because they live next door to us and let us do the heavy lifting of protecting them. The remora fish has no room to bitch about how horrible the shark is (look it the fuck up, moron. I'm not explaining the analogy to you.)

Bottom line, don't blither on about how your system is superior to that of the people who make your system possible. Dumbass.

How many "public sector means of production", like Hoover Dam or the Fed, do we need to end our income tax?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Norway's sovereign wealth fund is now worth $1,000,000,000,000

the Norwegians took their oil wealth and invested it in their people.

And now their pensions are fully funded.

Imagine that. A country that works for all its people and not just the few.

And more truth......

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism | Corey Iacono

Democratic socialism purports to combine majority rule with state control of the means of production. However, the Scandinavian countries are not good examples of democratic socialism in action because they aren’t socialist.

In the Scandinavian countries, like all other developed nations, the means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not the community or the government, and resources are allocated to their respective uses by the market, not government or community planning.

While it is true that the Scandinavian countries provide things like a generous social safety net and universal healthcare, an extensive welfare state is not the same thing as socialism. What Sanders and his supporters confuse as socialism is actually social democracy, a system in which the government aims to promote the public welfare through heavy taxation and spending, within the framework of a capitalist economy. This is what the Scandinavians practice.

-------

For example, democratic socialists are generally opponents of global capitalism and free trade, but the Scandinavian countries have fully embraced these things. The Economist magazine describes the Scandinavian countries as “stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies.” Perhaps this is why Denmark, Norway, and Sweden rank among the most globalized countries in the entire world. These countries all also rank in the top 10 easiest countries to do business in.

-----

How do supporters of Bernie Sanders feel about the minimum wage? You will find no such government-imposed floors on labor in Sweden, Norway, or Denmark. Instead, minimum wages are decided by collective-bargaining agreements between unions and employers; they typically vary on an occupational or industrial basis. Union-imposed wages lock out the least skilled and do their own damage to an economy, but such a decentralized system is still arguably a much better way of doing things than having the central government set a one-size fits all wage policy that covers every occupation nationwide.

Free market loon trying to diss a model that works. Move along.

Socialist loon trying to diss the system that makes his socialism possible at all. Toddle away.