Cons say the government doesn't create jobs....

[rightwinger]

In a way, you are correct
We all belong to the American society and we all are expected to contribute for greater good

We are stronger as a society than we are as a bunch of individuals

I know you believe society and government are the same things. They are not.

Any American who thinks our big unlimited, expensive, and corrupt federal government is effective or beneficial, is not thinking.

No society can function without a government.

Those with the best government function at the best for their citizens

The historical evidence indicates you are wrong. Societies existed for thousands of years before government came into existence. There are cities in Turkey that are over 11,000 years old.

No society, no matter how small, operates without a government

Even the smallest tribe or clan has a government

No they don't. You have no idea what government is. Without a monopoly on the means of coercion, you don't have government

Even a tribe has a chief and tribal elders who run the tribe, enforce the rules and make decisions

You lose



.

 

[regent]

We the People voted them in and support Social Security, Medicare and Welfare

You are welcome to run for office if you can get enough We the People to vote for you

Really? You voted for Roosevelt and all the other Democrat criminals who approved the world's biggest Ponzi scheme?

We the People could have dumped Social Security at any time over the last 75 years

But it seems We the People like it

You only demonstrated a supremely naive understanding of politics. If Social Security was put up for a vote on a national referendum, it would get voted down. We all know that if paying social security taxes was optional then no one would pay them. When people want something, they are willing to pay for it. People have no trouble paying for cars and houses, but they don't pay for government programs unless force is used.

Yet, any politician who DARES to threaten Social Security gets voted out of office

Social Security is extremely popular...except with anarchists

That's how sectoral politics works. It's popular with current beneficiaries. Everyone under the age of 50 would like to see it eliminated. If it was put to a popular vote, it would get voted down.

If indeed the under 50's voted Social Security down would they be charity cases at 65? That is exactly why Social Security was implemented to force people to pay for their own old-age rather than become charity cases and rely totally on government. It's the old ant and grasshopper story in reality.

 

[bripat9643]

You were sucking off the taxpayers and providing them with nothing of value in return. You were a drain on the economy, a boat anchor, a useless tick on the ass of society.

Oh really?

I spent my paycheck on rent, which was income to my landlord.
I spent my paycheck on food, which was income to my grocer.
I spent my paycheck on clothing, which was income to my tailor.
I spent my paycheck on pot, which was income to my dealer.
I spent my paycheck on bitches and hoes, which was income to their pimps.​

How the fuck is putting money back into the system, a drain?

All the money you spent was first sucked out of some taxpayer's pocket. Those taxpayers could have spent it if it wasn't taken from them to give to your fat ass.

Demand comes from people with jobs. So what you've said is that jobs create jobs.

When will you libturds ever tire of regurgitating this idiocy?

People with jobs spend money; that's all the economy requires.

Really? What was the demand for the iPhone before Apple invested billions of dollars in it?

So what are you saying?

That there was no cell phone industry before the iPhone?

There were no smart phones. There were also no personal computers before Apple built the first one.

 

[bripat9643]

I know you believe society and government are the same things. They are not.

Any American who thinks our big unlimited, expensive, and corrupt federal government is effective or beneficial, is not thinking.

No society can function without a government.

Those with the best government function at the best for their citizens

The historical evidence indicates you are wrong. Societies existed for thousands of years before government came into existence. There are cities in Turkey that are over 11,000 years old.

No society, no matter how small, operates without a government

Even the smallest tribe or clan has a government

No they don't. You have no idea what government is. Without a monopoly on the means of coercion, you don't have government

Even a tribe has a chief and tribal elders who run the tribe, enforce the rules and make decisions

You lose

They can't use force against other members of the tribe. The only authority they have is from the respect they have earned from other members of the tribe. Government is defined as the monopoly on the use of force.

 

[bripat9643]

Really? You voted for Roosevelt and all the other Democrat criminals who approved the world's biggest Ponzi scheme?

We the People could have dumped Social Security at any time over the last 75 years

But it seems We the People like it

You only demonstrated a supremely naive understanding of politics. If Social Security was put up for a vote on a national referendum, it would get voted down. We all know that if paying social security taxes was optional then no one would pay them. When people want something, they are willing to pay for it. People have no trouble paying for cars and houses, but they don't pay for government programs unless force is used.

Yet, any politician who DARES to threaten Social Security gets voted out of office

Social Security is extremely popular...except with anarchists

That's how sectoral politics works. It's popular with current beneficiaries. Everyone under the age of 50 would like to see it eliminated. If it was put to a popular vote, it would get voted down.

If indeed the under 50's voted Social Security down would they be charity cases at 65? That is exactly why Social Security was implemented to force people to pay for their own old-age rather than become charity cases and rely totally on government. It's the old ant and grasshopper story in reality.

I couldn't care less how you attempt to justify it. The bottom line is the majority of Americans would vote it down. So much for the will of the majority.

 

[Boss]

And quite technically speaking, jobs DO create jobs. More jobs means more people have income to spend and this increase in demand creates more jobs.

The problem with wingnut is he can't think dynamically. I guess he figures if the rich person doesn't run out there with his tax rebate and use it to directly hire someone, the money just becomes inconsequential. Like maybe the rich person uses it to get fires started in the fireplace or to line their bird cage. Maybe they just like to stack all their money under the mattress and sleep on it? Anything but actually spending it on stuff.... which would create jobs.

Tax cuts on the middle class, create jobs, because they have more money to spend.

Tax cuts on the rich, do not create jobs, until there is a demand for investment. Otherwise, they sit on that cash waiting for an opportunity.

At that point, if the private sector won't invest in the economy, then it is up to the government to step in, do what they are Constitutionally required to do and provide for the "general welfare" of the country, by putting money back into the system in the form of infrastructure projects, which puts the middle class back to work, which they, in turn, start spending their paychecks, which reduces warehouse stockpiles, which then creates demand for more products, which then spurs the private sector back into investment and production.

At that point, the government can back off and reduce the debt from additional tax revenues.

Several points to make...

"Tax cuts on the middle class, create jobs, because they have more money to spend.
Tax cuts on the rich, do not create jobs, until there is a demand for investment. Otherwise, they sit on that cash waiting for an opportunity."

Sorry, I don't know any rich people who don't spend money or have nicer things than the middle class. What is the purpose of being wealthy if they aren't going to spend it? The idea that wealthy people all live frugally and don't spend their money is ludicrous. So the tax cuts are spent by rich people the same as everyone and to borrow from one of your recent anecdotes... the economy doesn't care if it's rich people money.

I also want to take exception with "rich, middle class and poor" designations. Someone who reports a high income for the year may not be "rich" at all... maybe it's a convenience store worker who hit the lotto? Maybe someone's parent died and left a small inheritance? Or perhaps they own a small business and file as an individual as all small businesses do? You don't know the circumstances, you just ignorantly assume people who earn high incomes are wealthy. Here's an eye-opener for ya... most rich people do not earn taxable incomes.

"...if the private sector won't invest in the economy, then it is up to the government to step in, do what they are Constitutionally required to do and provide for the "general welfare" of the country, by putting money back into the system in the form of infrastructure projects, which puts the middle class back to work, which they, in turn, start spending their paychecks, which reduces warehouse stockpiles, which then creates demand for more products, which then spurs the private sector back into investment and production."

Sorry, but you are perverting what the general welfare clause means. First, it does not call for government to "provide for the general welfare of the country." The SCOTUS has ruled (repeatedly) that it "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments." Jacobson v. Massachusetts

You are citing a policy position of FDR which he had to stack the SCOTUS in order to implement. What's even more astounding is, it's a policy which absolutely failed to revive the economy during the Great Depression. In other words... it did not work as you describe above. FDR nearly lost his first re-election bid because his plans didn't do what he claimed they would. It wasn't until FDR eased monetary constraints on private sector capitalists that the economy began to turn around. WWII didn't hurt him any either.

In Federalist 41, James Madison writes:

"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases."

His point is quite clear... IF the general welfare clause is, as you claim, an all-encompassing authority of government to do whatever it thinks is best for the "general welfare" of the country, there is no need to enumerate the powers in the following Articles. It makes no sense to say... You can do whatever the hell you please as long as you call it "general welfare" but, oh by the way... here is a list of the specific things you are allowed to do.

Madison goes on to explain "general welfare" simply refers to the enumerated powers listed in the subsequent Articles. This was perfectly natural grammatical styling of the day and as Madison points out... it's hard to find a reason for such an awkward description of authority to legislate in all possible cases. Why not skip the Articles and just say... Government has authority to do whatever it thinks is best for the general welfare?

 

[rightwinger]

No society can function without a government.

Those with the best government function at the best for their citizens

The historical evidence indicates you are wrong. Societies existed for thousands of years before government came into existence. There are cities in Turkey that are over 11,000 years old.

No society, no matter how small, operates without a government

Even the smallest tribe or clan has a government

No they don't. You have no idea what government is. Without a monopoly on the means of coercion, you don't have government

Even a tribe has a chief and tribal elders who run the tribe, enforce the rules and make decisions

You lose

They can't use force against other members of the tribe. The only authority they have is from the respect they have earned from other members of the tribe. Government is defined as the monopoly on the use of force.

You think a chief can't use force against another member of the tribe? They could banish anyone who disobeys the tribal elders

You lose again

 

[rightwinger]

We the People could have dumped Social Security at any time over the last 75 years

But it seems We the People like it

You only demonstrated a supremely naive understanding of politics. If Social Security was put up for a vote on a national referendum, it would get voted down. We all know that if paying social security taxes was optional then no one would pay them. When people want something, they are willing to pay for it. People have no trouble paying for cars and houses, but they don't pay for government programs unless force is used.

Yet, any politician who DARES to threaten Social Security gets voted out of office

Social Security is extremely popular...except with anarchists

That's how sectoral politics works. It's popular with current beneficiaries. Everyone under the age of 50 would like to see it eliminated. If it was put to a popular vote, it would get voted down.

If indeed the under 50's voted Social Security down would they be charity cases at 65? That is exactly why Social Security was implemented to force people to pay for their own old-age rather than become charity cases and rely totally on government. It's the old ant and grasshopper story in reality.

I couldn't care less how you attempt to justify it. The bottom line is the majority of Americans would vote it down. So much for the will of the majority.

The majority of Americans have shown for the last 75 years that they would not vote it down

How successful was Bush in trying to privatize social security?

 

[bripat9643]

The historical evidence indicates you are wrong. Societies existed for thousands of years before government came into existence. There are cities in Turkey that are over 11,000 years old.

No society, no matter how small, operates without a government

Even the smallest tribe or clan has a government

No they don't. You have no idea what government is. Without a monopoly on the means of coercion, you don't have government

Even a tribe has a chief and tribal elders who run the tribe, enforce the rules and make decisions

You lose

They can't use force against other members of the tribe. The only authority they have is from the respect they have earned from other members of the tribe. Government is defined as the monopoly on the use of force.

You think a chief can't use force against another member of the tribe? They could banish anyone who disobeys the tribal elders

You lose again

No, they don't use force against other members of the tribe. If a tribe member is banished, it's only because all the other tribe members agree to banish him. There is no police force that takes orders from the chief. The tribal elders don't give orders. The only offer advice to the tribe.

You're a fucking idiot who doesn't know the slightest thing about how other societies are organized.

 

[bripat9643]

You only demonstrated a supremely naive understanding of politics. If Social Security was put up for a vote on a national referendum, it would get voted down. We all know that if paying social security taxes was optional then no one would pay them. When people want something, they are willing to pay for it. People have no trouble paying for cars and houses, but they don't pay for government programs unless force is used.

Yet, any politician who DARES to threaten Social Security gets voted out of office

Social Security is extremely popular...except with anarchists

That's how sectoral politics works. It's popular with current beneficiaries. Everyone under the age of 50 would like to see it eliminated. If it was put to a popular vote, it would get voted down.

If indeed the under 50's voted Social Security down would they be charity cases at 65? That is exactly why Social Security was implemented to force people to pay for their own old-age rather than become charity cases and rely totally on government. It's the old ant and grasshopper story in reality.

I couldn't care less how you attempt to justify it. The bottom line is the majority of Americans would vote it down. So much for the will of the majority.

The majority of Americans have shown for the last 75 years that they would not vote it down

How successful was Bush in trying to privatize social security?

How have they shown that? Did they get a chance to vote on it?

 

[kaz]

...Cons say Obama doesn't deserve credit for cutting unemployment in have, because the government can't create jobs.

But now Jeb Bush is promising to create 19 million jobs. And Trump is promising to create the most jobs of any previous POTUS.

Hypocrisy IS the GOP.

You got that right

 

[rightwinger]

No society, no matter how small, operates without a government

Even the smallest tribe or clan has a government

No they don't. You have no idea what government is. Without a monopoly on the means of coercion, you don't have government

Even a tribe has a chief and tribal elders who run the tribe, enforce the rules and make decisions

You lose

They can't use force against other members of the tribe. The only authority they have is from the respect they have earned from other members of the tribe. Government is defined as the monopoly on the use of force.

You think a chief can't use force against another member of the tribe? They could banish anyone who disobeys the tribal elders

You lose again

No, they don't use force against other members of the tribe. If a tribe member is banished, it's only because all the other tribe members agree to banish him. There is no police force that takes orders from the chief. The tribal elders don't give orders. The only offer advice to the tribe.

You're a fucking idiot who doesn't know the slightest thing about how other societies are organized.

Very few government leaders today have the power to punish and use force that tribal chiefs had

Off with your head

 

[rightwinger]

Yet, any politician who DARES to threaten Social Security gets voted out of office

Social Security is extremely popular...except with anarchists

That's how sectoral politics works. It's popular with current beneficiaries. Everyone under the age of 50 would like to see it eliminated. If it was put to a popular vote, it would get voted down.

If indeed the under 50's voted Social Security down would they be charity cases at 65? That is exactly why Social Security was implemented to force people to pay for their own old-age rather than become charity cases and rely totally on government. It's the old ant and grasshopper story in reality.

I couldn't care less how you attempt to justify it. The bottom line is the majority of Americans would vote it down. So much for the will of the majority.

The majority of Americans have shown for the last 75 years that they would not vote it down

How successful was Bush in trying to privatize social security?

How have they shown that? Did they get a chance to vote on it?

Every year for 75 years

What representatives have gotten anywhere promoting your anarchy? Why don't you try it?

 

[regent]

We the People could have dumped Social Security at any time over the last 75 years

But it seems We the People like it

You only demonstrated a supremely naive understanding of politics. If Social Security was put up for a vote on a national referendum, it would get voted down. We all know that if paying social security taxes was optional then no one would pay them. When people want something, they are willing to pay for it. People have no trouble paying for cars and houses, but they don't pay for government programs unless force is used.

Yet, any politician who DARES to threaten Social Security gets voted out of office

Social Security is extremely popular...except with anarchists

That's how sectoral politics works. It's popular with current beneficiaries. Everyone under the age of 50 would like to see it eliminated. If it was put to a popular vote, it would get voted down.

If indeed the under 50's voted Social Security down would they be charity cases at 65? That is exactly why Social Security was implemented to force people to pay for their own old-age rather than become charity cases and rely totally on government. It's the old ant and grasshopper story in reality.

I couldn't care less how you attempt to justify it. The bottom line is the majority of Americans would vote it down. So much for the will of the majority.

No, the will of the majority is not a poster telling the people what their will might be, but rather our representatives voting for the will of the majority. And that's sort of how it works in America.

 

[bripat9643]

No they don't. You have no idea what government is. Without a monopoly on the means of coercion, you don't have government

Even a tribe has a chief and tribal elders who run the tribe, enforce the rules and make decisions

You lose

They can't use force against other members of the tribe. The only authority they have is from the respect they have earned from other members of the tribe. Government is defined as the monopoly on the use of force.

You think a chief can't use force against another member of the tribe? They could banish anyone who disobeys the tribal elders

You lose again

No, they don't use force against other members of the tribe. If a tribe member is banished, it's only because all the other tribe members agree to banish him. There is no police force that takes orders from the chief. The tribal elders don't give orders. The only offer advice to the tribe.

You're a fucking idiot who doesn't know the slightest thing about how other societies are organized.

Very few government leaders today have the power to punish and use force that tribal chiefs had

Off with your head

ROFL! You are such a fucking moron. When Congress passes a law, why does anyone obey it? Because if you don't men with guns will come to your house and arrest you. They will eventually kill you if you continue to resist. Tribal leaders had no power to punish anyone. Beheadings never occurred until the rise of the state.

 

[bripat9643]

You only demonstrated a supremely naive understanding of politics. If Social Security was put up for a vote on a national referendum, it would get voted down. We all know that if paying social security taxes was optional then no one would pay them. When people want something, they are willing to pay for it. People have no trouble paying for cars and houses, but they don't pay for government programs unless force is used.

Yet, any politician who DARES to threaten Social Security gets voted out of office

Social Security is extremely popular...except with anarchists

That's how sectoral politics works. It's popular with current beneficiaries. Everyone under the age of 50 would like to see it eliminated. If it was put to a popular vote, it would get voted down.

If indeed the under 50's voted Social Security down would they be charity cases at 65? That is exactly why Social Security was implemented to force people to pay for their own old-age rather than become charity cases and rely totally on government. It's the old ant and grasshopper story in reality.

I couldn't care less how you attempt to justify it. The bottom line is the majority of Americans would vote it down. So much for the will of the majority.

No, the will of the majority is not a poster telling the people what their will might be, but rather our representatives voting for the will of the majority. And that's sort of how it works in America.

No, that isn't the will of the majority. That's the will of a gang of sleazy politicians who lie to the public constantly. Who said anything about a poster?

 

[bripat9643]

That's how sectoral politics works. It's popular with current beneficiaries. Everyone under the age of 50 would like to see it eliminated. If it was put to a popular vote, it would get voted down.

If indeed the under 50's voted Social Security down would they be charity cases at 65? That is exactly why Social Security was implemented to force people to pay for their own old-age rather than become charity cases and rely totally on government. It's the old ant and grasshopper story in reality.

I couldn't care less how you attempt to justify it. The bottom line is the majority of Americans would vote it down. So much for the will of the majority.

The majority of Americans have shown for the last 75 years that they would not vote it down

How successful was Bush in trying to privatize social security?

How have they shown that? Did they get a chance to vote on it?

Every year for 75 years

What representatives have gotten anywhere promoting your anarchy? Why don't you try it?

Nope. The electorate has never voted on Social Security.

 

[rightwinger]

If indeed the under 50's voted Social Security down would they be charity cases at 65? That is exactly why Social Security was implemented to force people to pay for their own old-age rather than become charity cases and rely totally on government. It's the old ant and grasshopper story in reality.

I couldn't care less how you attempt to justify it. The bottom line is the majority of Americans would vote it down. So much for the will of the majority.

The majority of Americans have shown for the last 75 years that they would not vote it down

How successful was Bush in trying to privatize social security?

How have they shown that? Did they get a chance to vote on it?

Every year for 75 years

What representatives have gotten anywhere promoting your anarchy? Why don't you try it?

Nope. The electorate has never voted on Social Security.

Another anarchist unfamiliar with the constitution

 

[Boss]

Another anarchist unfamiliar with the constitution

Not much different than a left-wing moron unfamiliar with the constitution.

 

[Boss]

No, the will of the majority is not a poster telling the people what their will might be, but rather our representatives voting for the will of the majority. And that's sort of how it works in America.

Except, that's often NOT how it works at all. Take the recent Gay Marriage issue. The "will of the people" has been very clear, they overwhelmingly do not support Gay Marriage. COURTS have stepped in and overruled the "will of the people" in California and elsewhere. Other state legislatures passed laws that were unpopular among their constituency, because of pressure, money and lobbying from the LGBT activists. Finally, the SCOTUS issued a ruling which struck down the "will of the people" in numerous states and took the matter out of our hands entirely.