Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Interesting how you criticize the government for doing something you don't like yet you wish to increase taxation to give more money to that same government.Bulcrap...they spend the money on food and rent and utilities, hardly things that come from China. Do some take advantage of the system? Yeah, mostly those illegal immigrants who sneak across our border and have kids then claim they aren't married while their husband works under the table. They send their money home so it can't be traced and are actually wealthier than some of our wealthiest people, especially when they go back to their own country.
It's the middleclass that's been losing ground....we need our middleclass to become a strong society again. I'm so glad you would rather the poor starve and die than give them money or help to become productive members of society, when the revolution starts, I hope you are one of the first to go, though in reality I know you will somehow survive and make it seem as though it was your idea.
No country can long survive with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few.
Oh, and immigrants who come here can get help not available to American citizens. Russians got low interest loans to purchase business when they then ran for 5 years tax free, the end of 5 years, they brought over their brother, or another relative, sold it to him, making a fortune and the brother then ran the business for 5 years tax free while paying for it with a low interest loan from our government. Ever wonder why businesses run by foreigners change hands so often? That's why.
It's also, probably, the main reason your Greek friend was able to advance as he did while most American citizens are tied to the bottom rung of the ladder with most of the middle rungs missing.
While my husband was unemployed and I was looking for work, I was astounded to find an organization paid by our tax dollars whose only purpose was in helping the Russians learn how to use our system. No such organization exists for American citizens..needless to say, they didn't hire me, and yeah, if I could have gotten the job I would have worked there, hating it all the time. It took me more than a year to find a job back then, the first time in my life it took me more than 2 weeks to find a job. When I found one, I kept it for a year and a half and then it was sent to India. So glad you didn't spend ONE penny to help us. I thank God every day for our luck and our family and our neighbors and friends, without which, we would have lost EVERYTHING. At the moment, I am also thanking God that you're not my neighbor.
Look, you are covering up yourself due to a weak argument.
You think that because you feel sorry for some people you have the right to be angry with those who don't feel worse about you feeling sorry.
Why would you expect a perfect stranger to do what your friends and neighbors SHOULD and did to help you?
BTW, you should have taken the job you thought you'd hate. Tough shit. Newsflash, most people do not "like" their jobs.
Now I must ask...Where in the OP's post did he mention ANYTHING about the Greek guy getting a special loan available only to foreigners?
You are full of shit.
There are literally millions of success stories about people who are self made millionaires that started with nothing. These are special people. Willing to do whatever it takes to become successful. Much of it self sacrifice. Those people should be commended. You show them only your contempt.
That is YOUR problem.
You envy them. You may even hate them. As far as you are concerned, they stole from you.
Meanwhile, you bitch and moan about how unfair life is. You admit you've never considered a career path. You flit from job to job, hating them all because those jobs did not pay you what "YOU think is fair".
I'm a mom of two special needs kids...my career path ended with their birth. I don't envy people like you, I feel sorry for them, not the same thing at all.
We have one of the most regressive tax systems in the world, not a good thing in any country.
Show me three people who have started with nothing and are now in the 1%? Just 3.
Even Bill Gates came from an upper middleclass family so you can't count him.
Wealth is not intended to be "distributed". Wealth is CREATED.Not really that true, Rabbi.
I agree that every dollar given must come from somewhere else, but I disagree (very much so) with your assessment that it's always "a waste....
Why?
When it comes down to affording the basic necessities of life (food, water, home), some folks have a vast overabundance of $$$s compared to others. Essentially, what this means is that some people can afford all the things they need to live, afford many of the (reasonable) things they want, have the ability to save money, and still have a reasonable amount leftover to donate to others.
So we end up with a situation where the:
a.) Impact of the tax on the donor is extremely minimal with regards to quality of life.
b.) Impact of the tax on the receiver is measurably beneficial; sometimes lifesaving, in fact.
What occurs is a net benefit to society, just by shuffling some money from person A to person B.
Heres another example. For me, donating $50/year to an orphanage results in virtually no measurable negative impact on my life. That money, however, will have a rather measurable positive impact on the orphanage. Result? Net benefit to society.
.
.
Here's the point you missed, Mensa Boy: how is it YOUR decision - or anyone else's - who "should" donate or how much they "should" donate, or who it "should" be donated to? The problem isn't that successful people mind giving to charity and helping others. The problem is that they mind YOU giving and helping with THEIR money.
You know who has an overabundance of money they don't deserve? The government, and the leftists who worship at its altar.
Listen lady friend,
My point is that we as humans are historically not that great at distributing wealth across society in the most net beneficial way. Wealth pools, the rich get richer, and eventually we end up with unstable societies that collapse into civil war. It happens over and over again and I don't want to see that happen here in America's future.
Although I'm not god and do not claim to know the best formula for redistribution, I think it's a common sense realization to acknowledge that there exists a thing called excessive wealth accumulation, and that some people in this world could stand to give more in the name of lifting their fellow humans out of poverty.
The less people we have struggling to find something to eat, pay their medical bills, make ends meet, the more people we'll have working on solving our most pressing issues and creating additional wealth for all to benefit in.
I never once mentioned in my posts that this redistribution would be best conducted by our gov't (as you seem to allude to in your post). I suggested that we start by eliminating excessive money in and around our political campaigns, as it corrupts the Democratic process by granting an unfair advantage to the most powerful amongst us. Another solution would be education reform. Either way, I never suggested that the government forcefully redistribute the money and that's the point that YOU seemed to have missed.
.
Provide "for" the general welfare
Do what is best for the country
^ still clueless.
so what do you believe the general welfare clause intended? and before you answer, i'd refer you to helvering v davis so you don't replace the law which applies, with your own opinion.
^ still clueless.
so what do you believe the general welfare clause intended? and before you answer, i'd refer you to helvering v davis so you don't replace the law which applies, with your own opinion.
It's a mission statement; a topic sentence setting up the enumeration of those things the Constitution considers to be "the general welfare" that follows it.
Considering that you pretend to have gone to law school, one would think you would know something that's so incredibly basic to English composition.
Not really that true, Rabbi.
I agree that every dollar given must come from somewhere else, but I disagree (very much so) with your assessment that it's always "a waste....
Why?
When it comes down to affording the basic necessities of life (food, water, home), some folks have a vast overabundance of $$$s compared to others. Essentially, what this means is that some people can afford all the things they need to live, afford many of the (reasonable) things they want, have the ability to save money, and still have a reasonable amount leftover to donate to others.
So we end up with a situation where the:
a.) Impact of the tax on the donor is extremely minimal with regards to quality of life.
b.) Impact of the tax on the receiver is measurably beneficial; sometimes lifesaving, in fact.
What occurs is a net benefit to society, just by shuffling some money from person A to person B.
Heres another example. For me, donating $50/year to an orphanage results in virtually no measurable negative impact on my life. That money, however, will have a rather measurable positive impact on the orphanage. Result? Net benefit to society.
.
.
Here's the point you missed, Mensa Boy: how is it YOUR decision - or anyone else's - who "should" donate or how much they "should" donate, or who it "should" be donated to? The problem isn't that successful people mind giving to charity and helping others. The problem is that they mind YOU giving and helping with THEIR money.
You know who has an overabundance of money they don't deserve? The government, and the leftists who worship at its altar.
Listen lady friend,
My point is that we as humans are historically not that great at distributing wealth across society in the most net beneficial way. Wealth pools, the rich get richer, and eventually we end up with unstable societies that collapse into civil war. It happens over and over again and I don't want to see that happen here in America's future.
Although I'm not god and do not claim to know the best formula for redistribution, I think it's a common sense realization to acknowledge that there exists a thing called excessive wealth accumulation, and that some people in this world could stand to give more in the name of lifting their fellow humans out of poverty.
The less people we have struggling to find something to eat, pay their medical bills, make ends meet, the more people we'll have working on solving our most pressing issues and creating additional wealth for all to benefit in.
I never once mentioned in my posts that this redistribution would be best conducted by our gov't (as you seem to allude to in your post). I suggested that we start by eliminating excessive money in and around our political campaigns, as it corrupts the Democratic process by granting an unfair advantage to the most powerful amongst us. Another solution would be education reform. Either way, I never suggested that the government forcefully redistribute the money and that's the point that YOU seemed to have missed.
.
Sell it to someone who's gullible enough to buy it.
Which isn't taking money from half the citizens to provide a home, food, education, medical, etc. for the other half from cradle to grave.
The Constitution actually defines what it considers to be the "general welfare" for which Congress is allowed to provide. Sadly, so many Americans have been educated by leftist teaching drones that they don't have the reading comprehension to grasp that the law doesn't lay down a list of specific jobs only to then say, "Or, you know, whatever you feel like doing".
Does it? Where?
The Constitution actually defines what it considers to be the "general welfare" for which Congress is allowed to provide. Sadly, so many Americans have been educated by leftist teaching drones that they don't have the reading comprehension to grasp that the law doesn't lay down a list of specific jobs only to then say, "Or, you know, whatever you feel like doing".
Does it? Where?
Come on Cecilie ...show us
The Constitution actually defines what it considers to be the "general welfare" for which Congress is allowed to provide. Sadly, so many Americans have been educated by leftist teaching drones that they don't have the reading comprehension to grasp that the law doesn't lay down a list of specific jobs only to then say, "Or, you know, whatever you feel like doing".
Does it? Where?
Come on Cecilie ...show us
Does it? Where?
Come on Cecilie ...show us
Extreme income inequality is not conducive to a sound economy, but it too late at night to explain The Wealth of Nations to individuals who believe Glenn Beck is an intellectual.
Interesting how you criticize the government for doing something you don't like yet you wish to increase taxation to give more money to that same government.
Look, you are covering up yourself due to a weak argument.
You think that because you feel sorry for some people you have the right to be angry with those who don't feel worse about you feeling sorry.
Why would you expect a perfect stranger to do what your friends and neighbors SHOULD and did to help you?
BTW, you should have taken the job you thought you'd hate. Tough shit. Newsflash, most people do not "like" their jobs.
Now I must ask...Where in the OP's post did he mention ANYTHING about the Greek guy getting a special loan available only to foreigners?
You are full of shit.
There are literally millions of success stories about people who are self made millionaires that started with nothing. These are special people. Willing to do whatever it takes to become successful. Much of it self sacrifice. Those people should be commended. You show them only your contempt.
That is YOUR problem.
You envy them. You may even hate them. As far as you are concerned, they stole from you.
Meanwhile, you bitch and moan about how unfair life is. You admit you've never considered a career path. You flit from job to job, hating them all because those jobs did not pay you what "YOU think is fair".
I'm a mom of two special needs kids...my career path ended with their birth. I don't envy people like you, I feel sorry for them, not the same thing at all.
We have one of the most regressive tax systems in the world, not a good thing in any country.
Show me three people who have started with nothing and are now in the 1%? Just 3.
Even Bill Gates came from an upper middleclass family so you can't count him.
If you had borne your children a couple of years down the road from now, the possibility that government review boards might consider them defective enough to be ineligible for the requisite life-long medical care might just become the new reality. If obamatax is allowed to remain as is and is fully instated as planned, there will be some pretty disappointing surprises.
Does it? Where?
Come on Cecilie ...show us
Article I Section 8.
Nope. We pay enough as it is.Dunce.Give me a break. What's the limit on Super PAC contributions? Do you realize that these campaign machines are being run by our candidate's close friends and relatives, and are going to lead us into a MULTI BILLION dollar election cycle?
Do you realize that politicians today spend 30% of their time (on taxpayer's watches) fundraising? You don't think that they take into account their multi-million dollar donors when voting on regulation mandates and economic reform policies?
You need to get wise, my friend.
.
Do you know why they spend so much fundraising? Reagan got elected with the support of about a dozen people. After that each individual could only give so much. So now the candidates have to run after millions of people rather than do any actual campaigning.
What is your alternative? Ban campaign contributions and let only rich people, who can spend their own money, or incumbents, who have automatic advantages, get elected?
No - of course not.
How about publicly funded elections through tax credits (I read this idea somewhere in a book)? Each US taxpayer would have the option to donate $50 of their tax dollars to a Presidential candidate, and if they opt out, the $50 will still be deducted from their annual income (so there's really no reason to opt out).
That could generate billions of dollars, and would be much less corrupting than the setup we have today...
.
Which isn't taking money from half the citizens to provide a home, food, education, medical, etc. for the other half from cradle to grave.
The Constitution actually defines what it considers to be the "general welfare" for which Congress is allowed to provide. Sadly, so many Americans have been educated by leftist teaching drones that they don't have the reading comprehension to grasp that the law doesn't lay down a list of specific jobs only to then say, "Or, you know, whatever you feel like doing".
Why should the poor be expected to pay taxes? They're poor! If they are working poor they still pay all taxes (i.e. income tax, etc.) cept payroll tax.
And it at this point you drift away from reality.Not really that true, Rabbi.
I agree that every dollar given must come from somewhere else, but I disagree (very much so) with your assessment that it's always "a waste....
Why?
When it comes down to affording the basic necessities of life (food, water, home), some folks have a vast overabundance of $$$s compared to others. Essentially, what this means is that some people can afford all the things they need to live, afford many of the (reasonable) things they want, have the ability to save money, and still have a reasonable amount leftover to donate to others.
So we end up with a situation where the:
a.) Impact of the tax on the donor is extremely minimal with regards to quality of life.
b.) Impact of the tax on the receiver is measurably beneficial; sometimes lifesaving, in fact.
What occurs is a net benefit to society, just by shuffling some money from person A to person B.
Heres another example. For me, donating $50/year to an orphanage results in virtually no measurable negative impact on my life. That money, however, will have a rather measurable positive impact on the orphanage. Result? Net benefit to society.
.
.
Here's the point you missed, Mensa Boy: how is it YOUR decision - or anyone else's - who "should" donate or how much they "should" donate, or who it "should" be donated to? The problem isn't that successful people mind giving to charity and helping others. The problem is that they mind YOU giving and helping with THEIR money.
You know who has an overabundance of money they don't deserve? The government, and the leftists who worship at its altar.
it's not THEIR money!
I'm a mom of two special needs kids...my career path ended with their birth. I don't envy people like you, I feel sorry for them, not the same thing at all.
We have one of the most regressive tax systems in the world, not a good thing in any country.
Show me three people who have started with nothing and are now in the 1%? Just 3.
Even Bill Gates came from an upper middleclass family so you can't count him.
If you had borne your children a couple of years down the road from now, the possibility that government review boards might consider them defective enough to be ineligible for the requisite life-long medical care might just become the new reality. If obamatax is allowed to remain as is and is fully instated as planned, there will be some pretty disappointing surprises.
Felix Sabates...Cam here in one of the Cuban boat lifts in the late 50's with nothing. He is a multi millionaire with his investments mainly in real estate and the auto sales business.
Wayne Huizenga....
Came from the suburbs of Chicago. Graduated from a tiny liberal arts college and returned home. He started business with a a SINGLE garbage truck. Years later that garbage truck became Waste Management Corp.
Mentioning Bill Gates. Middle class is not exactly an advantage. In any event, Gates's brilliance and drive to succeed where other had failed is what made him the richest guy on the planet.
Please..Don't use PC buzz terms like "special needs". It's insulting.
It implies the person is "less than normal".
Why is it you cannot just be honest and say what ails your kids instead of hiding behind terms like "special needs"?
You are a whiner. You carp and moan about what other people have . You whine about not being able to get the job you want. Then you backtrack by saying your career days ended when your "special needs" kids were born...
Look genius, no matter who's shoulder on which you cry, you cannot have it both ways.
You think constantly promoting yourself like Trump does is easy? What is it your business if Romney wants to make a lot of money? He has given away more money in the last 10 years than you will make in a lifetime.
It becomes my business when rich people use their wealth to buy politicians or judges to make laws so they can make more money. It is my business if rich people in their greed, destroy the middle class of America, and create a third world nation.
As for Trump giving away money, who cares.
That's not enough, now the con's want to take away the poor's right to vote.
The US Constitution is a LIMITING document. Therefore if there is no provision that allows the government to do something, it may/shall NOT.To insure the freedom and liberty of the people is not abridged.
Period.
It does not mean "government stipends".
Never did.
Article 1 Section 8
SECTION 8.
The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Nowhere does that state or imply the federal government "may" or "shall" institute a system of entitlements for the poor or less fortunate who's malady is of their own doing and it is to funded by taxation of those who are working and producing .
Now, if your knee jerk reaction is going to be "so what your saying is we should just let the poor die in the streets?"..You can stow it. That's not what I stated or implied.
Read the phrase in italics.
Nor does it say it may not or shall not.
That aside, how many are poor due to their 'own' doing?
The problem you have is you believe everyone has an ulterior motive.Pop Quiz:
Warren Buffet wants to "spend" 100 million dollars in the way that provides the greatest benefit to Society. These are his options:
(1) Send the IRS an extra $100,000,000.00 with his next tax return (this is permissible under U.S. law); or
(2) Send a check for $100,000,000.00 to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, where it will be distributed to various charitable initiatives; or
(3) Go out and purchase American-made goods and services (boats, cars, furniture, artworks, golf lessons, etc) having a total cost of $100,000,000.00.
Which of the three options will provide the greatest benefit to Society. And why?
option 3 of course.
Those people which work for the employer from which those goods were purchased, in turn are paid a wage for their work. They then take their wages and spend on goods and services. It works down the line.
Example number 1.....The federal government is the least efficient of all. Most of the money given to the government will go to administration. Another portion will go to the general fund to spent on non-essential items. The remainder will spent unwisely as is the track record of our federal government.
Example number 2....I do not know for whom the Gates foundation works. I would find out first these two things: One, of the money collected by the fund ,what percentage is spent of administration and payroll?..Two, who are the beneficiaries of the the charities?
If the charities are non-partisan or apolitical, I would be inclined to favor the Gates foundation. That is only if there were no other options.
I think business and work is the steam that drives the economic engine. Tis best to stimulate the private sector with private money.
The thing that annoys me about the Gates Foundation is that they work really hard to provide computers for every student in new schools. That pretty much guarantees income for Gates as they don't provide new computers a few years down the line to the school that has become dependent on them and now needs new ones.
Kind of like a drug pusher, huh?
My daughter dropped out of school in her junior year, despite the fact that I was regularly monitoring her classes, because she was bored out of her mind. She dropped with my approval, with my admonishment that she would have a harder "row to hoe". I also told her that she would be required to have a job within the month and her GED within six months. Both requirements were fulfilled. She also finished her first semester in the university before deciding to be a stay-at-home mom who dedicated herself to bringing her children up herself. She's now studying to become a veterinarian.
Come on Cecilie ...show us
Article I Section 8.
Fail
