A great example of why socialism is better than "charity"

[Conservative65]

No it is not

The welfare clause is not a socialist clause and no one is responsible for the living of another person .

Our welfare clause is General and must solve for any exigency.

Which means you're supposed to do for yourself with the opportunities you have. If you don't use them, no one is responsible for you.

in right wing fantasy, you are Always right. Our welfare clause is general not specific to right wing interpretations.

Hopefully you'll starve, it will be lingering, and you'll suffer the entire time. That, or start doing for yourself.

only the right wing, never gets it. there is no power to provide for your right wing, general malfare; Only the general welfare.

Hope it's painful and lingering. I'd walk past you, laugh, spit on the ground, and watch you lick it up because you're thirsty.

 

[Conservative65]

No it is not required for any exigency it is only for indirect promotion

No, it isn't. Our welfare clause is general and must promote and provide for the welfare General.

It doesn't mean to provide for lazy POS that refuse to do for themselves.

we have recourse to laws not right wing forms of alleged morality due to our First Amendment.

You don't have a right to someone else's money, son. If you think you do, get off your ass and try to personally take it.

I don't. Congress does.

What you don't have is the guts.

You do have the right. I just gave you permission to try.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it isn't. Our welfare clause is general and must promote and provide for the welfare General.

It doesn't mean to provide for lazy POS that refuse to do for themselves.

we have recourse to laws not right wing forms of alleged morality due to our First Amendment.

You don't have a right to someone else's money, son. If you think you do, get off your ass and try to personally take it.

I don't. Congress does.

What you don't have is the guts.

You do have the right. I just gave you permission to try.

it doesn't take guts; it takes a good argument because we have a First Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

Our welfare clause is General and must solve for any exigency.

Which means you're supposed to do for yourself with the opportunities you have. If you don't use them, no one is responsible for you.

in right wing fantasy, you are Always right. Our welfare clause is general not specific to right wing interpretations.

Hopefully you'll starve, it will be lingering, and you'll suffer the entire time. That, or start doing for yourself.

only the right wing, never gets it. there is no power to provide for your right wing, general malfare; Only the general welfare.

Hope it's painful and lingering. I'd walk past you, laugh, spit on the ground, and watch you lick it up because you're thirsty.

right wing morality?

 

[Conservative65]

It doesn't mean to provide for lazy POS that refuse to do for themselves.

we have recourse to laws not right wing forms of alleged morality due to our First Amendment.

You don't have a right to someone else's money, son. If you think you do, get off your ass and try to personally take it.

I don't. Congress does.

What you don't have is the guts.

You do have the right. I just gave you permission to try.

it doesn't take guts; it takes a good argument because we have a First Amendment.

You've been provided with a good argument. You claim you have a right to it and have been given permission to try and take it. The only thing left is for you to man up, step up, and prove you truly think you should have a portion of it.

 

[Conservative65]

Which means you're supposed to do for yourself with the opportunities you have. If you don't use them, no one is responsible for you.

in right wing fantasy, you are Always right. Our welfare clause is general not specific to right wing interpretations.

Hopefully you'll starve, it will be lingering, and you'll suffer the entire time. That, or start doing for yourself.

only the right wing, never gets it. there is no power to provide for your right wing, general malfare; Only the general welfare.

Hope it's painful and lingering. I'd walk past you, laugh, spit on the ground, and watch you lick it up because you're thirsty.

right wing morality?

No, the results of your left wing mindset that someone owes you something.

 

[danielpalos]

we have recourse to laws not right wing forms of alleged morality due to our First Amendment.

You don't have a right to someone else's money, son. If you think you do, get off your ass and try to personally take it.

I don't. Congress does.

What you don't have is the guts.

You do have the right. I just gave you permission to try.

it doesn't take guts; it takes a good argument because we have a First Amendment.

You've been provided with a good argument. You claim you have a right to it and have been given permission to try and take it. The only thing left is for you to man up, step up, and prove you truly think you should have a portion of it.

You should be grateful there isn't a federalist in the House; he may go, "doctrinal on the right wing".

 

[Conservative65]

You don't have a right to someone else's money, son. If you think you do, get off your ass and try to personally take it.

I don't. Congress does.

What you don't have is the guts.

You do have the right. I just gave you permission to try.

it doesn't take guts; it takes a good argument because we have a First Amendment.

You've been provided with a good argument. You claim you have a right to it and have been given permission to try and take it. The only thing left is for you to man up, step up, and prove you truly think you should have a portion of it.

You should be grateful there isn't a federalist in the House; he may go, "doctrinal on the right wing".

You should be starving, lingering in pain, and wasting away.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't. Congress does.

What you don't have is the guts.

You do have the right. I just gave you permission to try.

it doesn't take guts; it takes a good argument because we have a First Amendment.

You've been provided with a good argument. You claim you have a right to it and have been given permission to try and take it. The only thing left is for you to man up, step up, and prove you truly think you should have a portion of it.

You should be grateful there isn't a federalist in the House; he may go, "doctrinal on the right wing".

You should be starving, lingering in pain, and wasting away.

why is that? is faith in the federal doctrine a Bad thing.

 

[Conservative65]

What you don't have is the guts.

You do have the right. I just gave you permission to try.

it doesn't take guts; it takes a good argument because we have a First Amendment.

You've been provided with a good argument. You claim you have a right to it and have been given permission to try and take it. The only thing left is for you to man up, step up, and prove you truly think you should have a portion of it.

You should be grateful there isn't a federalist in the House; he may go, "doctrinal on the right wing".

You should be starving, lingering in pain, and wasting away.

why is that? is faith in the federal doctrine a Bad thing.

Refusing to do for yourself and begging someone else to do it is.

 

[danielpalos]

it doesn't take guts; it takes a good argument because we have a First Amendment.

You've been provided with a good argument. You claim you have a right to it and have been given permission to try and take it. The only thing left is for you to man up, step up, and prove you truly think you should have a portion of it.

You should be grateful there isn't a federalist in the House; he may go, "doctrinal on the right wing".

You should be starving, lingering in pain, and wasting away.

why is that? is faith in the federal doctrine a Bad thing.

Refusing to do for yourself and begging someone else to do it is.

it is ok if it is for the general welfare but not the general warfare.

 

[Conservative65]

You've been provided with a good argument. You claim you have a right to it and have been given permission to try and take it. The only thing left is for you to man up, step up, and prove you truly think you should have a portion of it.

You should be grateful there isn't a federalist in the House; he may go, "doctrinal on the right wing".

You should be starving, lingering in pain, and wasting away.

why is that? is faith in the federal doctrine a Bad thing.

Refusing to do for yourself and begging someone else to do it is.

it is ok if it is for the general welfare but not the general warfare.

Not when the Constitution specifically says things about funding a military but absolutely nothing about supporting freeloaders.

 

[danielpalos]

You should be grateful there isn't a federalist in the House; he may go, "doctrinal on the right wing".

You should be starving, lingering in pain, and wasting away.

why is that? is faith in the federal doctrine a Bad thing.

Refusing to do for yourself and begging someone else to do it is.

it is ok if it is for the general welfare but not the general warfare.

Not when the Constitution specifically says things about funding a military but absolutely nothing about supporting freeloaders.

it has to be justified every two years. our Founding Fathers warned us against establishing a military-industrial complex.

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency expressed in our Constitution.

 

[Conservative65]

You should be starving, lingering in pain, and wasting away.

why is that? is faith in the federal doctrine a Bad thing.

Refusing to do for yourself and begging someone else to do it is.

it is ok if it is for the general welfare but not the general warfare.

Not when the Constitution specifically says things about funding a military but absolutely nothing about supporting freeloaders.

it has to be justified every two years. our Founding Fathers warned us against establishing a military-industrial complex.

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency expressed in our Constitution.

It is justified every two years.

Quote any founding father that used the term "military-industrial complex"

Social welfare isn't expressed in the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

why is that? is faith in the federal doctrine a Bad thing.

Refusing to do for yourself and begging someone else to do it is.

it is ok if it is for the general welfare but not the general warfare.

Not when the Constitution specifically says things about funding a military but absolutely nothing about supporting freeloaders.

it has to be justified every two years. our Founding Fathers warned us against establishing a military-industrial complex.

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency expressed in our Constitution.

It is justified every two years.

Quote any founding father that used the term "military-industrial complex"

Social welfare isn't expressed in the Constitution.

the Only Thing the right wing justified was Tax Cut Economics, not our alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

 

[Conservative65]

Refusing to do for yourself and begging someone else to do it is.

it is ok if it is for the general welfare but not the general warfare.

Not when the Constitution specifically says things about funding a military but absolutely nothing about supporting freeloaders.

it has to be justified every two years. our Founding Fathers warned us against establishing a military-industrial complex.

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency expressed in our Constitution.

It is justified every two years.

Quote any founding father that used the term "military-industrial complex"

Social welfare isn't expressed in the Constitution.

the Only Thing the right wing justified was Tax Cut Economics, not our alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

Since the government spends money on things for which it has no expressed authority (i.e.-social welfare), cutting taxes because that money shouldn't be spent on them is a good thing. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[danielpalos]

it is ok if it is for the general welfare but not the general warfare.

Not when the Constitution specifically says things about funding a military but absolutely nothing about supporting freeloaders.

it has to be justified every two years. our Founding Fathers warned us against establishing a military-industrial complex.

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency expressed in our Constitution.

It is justified every two years.

Quote any founding father that used the term "military-industrial complex"

Social welfare isn't expressed in the Constitution.

the Only Thing the right wing justified was Tax Cut Economics, not our alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

Since the government spends money on things for which it has no expressed authority (i.e.-social welfare), cutting taxes because that money shouldn't be spent on them is a good thing. Wouldn't you agree?

Whatever can you mean, our welfare clause is General and must include, social welfare.

 

[hadit]

The greedy way is thinking what someone else earned belongs to you.

I don't give a shit how you're doing. The only people I'm concerned with is me and my family. If you and yours go without, you should try harder and do better. You're not my concern nor should you be.

If that’s the way republicans make then people will do worse as the rich do better.

See? You are responsible for the growing gap between the rich and rest of us. A flat tax is fair but doesn’t work. Not as good as our unfair progressive tax.

Progressive tax is what voters should be voting for.

Unless they’re successful like us

Again, I don't care if you do worse. That's your problem, not mine.

Why wouldn't the poor support a progressive tax. It's easy to support something where you don't pay while believing those that are successful should pay more so your ass can get something for nothing.

raise the minimum wage Until the Poor, Pay their Fair Share!

Why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether? Give us a good answer this time.

...and raise enough tax revenue to even pay for AOC's green initiatives.

Do you seriously think a $100/hr MW would solve poverty? If so, you're thinking even less than I thought.

 

[hadit]

we have recourse to laws not right wing forms of alleged morality due to our First Amendment.

You don't have a right to someone else's money, son. If you think you do, get off your ass and try to personally take it.

I don't. Congress does.

What you don't have is the guts.

You do have the right. I just gave you permission to try.

it doesn't take guts; it takes a good argument because we have a First Amendment.

You've been provided with a good argument. You claim you have a right to it and have been given permission to try and take it. The only thing left is for you to man up, step up, and prove you truly think you should have a portion of it.

That would mean leaving the basement.

 

[sealybobo]

If that’s the way republicans make then people will do worse as the rich do better.

See? You are responsible for the growing gap between the rich and rest of us. A flat tax is fair but doesn’t work. Not as good as our unfair progressive tax.

Progressive tax is what voters should be voting for.

Unless they’re successful like us

Again, I don't care if you do worse. That's your problem, not mine.

Why wouldn't the poor support a progressive tax. It's easy to support something where you don't pay while believing those that are successful should pay more so your ass can get something for nothing.

raise the minimum wage Until the Poor, Pay their Fair Share!

Why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether? Give us a good answer this time.

...and raise enough tax revenue to even pay for AOC's green initiatives.

Do you seriously think a $100/hr MW would solve poverty? If so, you're thinking even less than I thought.

I think we should come up with this rule. In order for a company to get tax breaks, their CEO can't make more than 325 times the average worker.

Excellent News: Top CEOs Make 335 Times The Average American Worker

They are free to pay the CEO as much as they want but don't expect the tax breaks. Then the CEO will have to explain to the BOD why he's making 336 times the average worker when he knows it's hurting the company.

And then in the future, instead of the CEO giving himself a $10 million dollar bonus he might have to share it with employees in order to keep the tax break. So that might mean giving $5 million to the workers and he keeps the other $5 million.

Great idea that Republicans will HATE!