"Income Inequality": So What?

[thereisnospoon]

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.

My kids are both autistic, both ends of the spectrum. Someone had to be here to take care of them, therefore, I couldn't go back to work once they started school as I'd intended. However, due to circumstances, there are several times during our 31 years of marriage when my husband has been out of work and he had to take care of the kdis while I found a job. The last time was the worst, it took me more than a year. When I found it, I was happy, it was second shift so when my husband was rehired at his job, I kept mine, until it was sent to India. Changes in our laws could have prevented that. My youngest, who is low functioning is finally in a living arrangement with 24/7 care. To get that, I had to threaten suicide. He's over 6 feet tall at at the time weighed over 200 pounds. He's ripped up parts of our house, my bathroom is still covered in plywood due to the damage he did. The state wouldn't provide help for him 24/7 in our home, which actually would have been cheaper for them. My husband and I are getting old, we can't handle it anymore. My husband has Parkinson's now.

I do not carp and moan about what other people have. I whine about the growing income gap which is not good for our country. I can see the deterioration of our country. I volunteer so I see the homeless. Do you know how many people are being laid off in their 50's and not being hired due to their age? heck, one woman was complaining to me that she was laid off at 74 and can't get another job. What the heck is wrong with our country when a 74 year old woman has to work and can't find work and ends up on the streets?

If you have the patience to care for two autistic children, you have my utmost respect and admiration in that regard.
Whining about the so called income gap is not going to change your situation. You can complain all you like. At the end of the complaining session, you are still taking care of two autistic kids.
Older people ARE victims of ageism. 100%.
It's a pervasive problem and should be given the same attention as sex or racial discrimination.
The problem is twofold. One it IS illegal to discriminate based on age. TWO, older people just do not have the support that other groups have in the case of discrimination on the job. In other words, attorneys just do not find age discrimination cases particularly "sexy".

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Not sure how its harder necessarily. My brother has no high school diploma - but he has a GED, two Bachelor's degrees from LSU and a Masters from American University and does quite well.

My son is certainly welcome to do the same if high school bores him - though I think I will probably ask he be enrolled in college - or some kind of school - until he would have graduated high school

Now THAT is achievement.. Bravo!!!!!

 

[Againsheila]

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?

The problem you have is you believe everyone has an ulterior motive.
That is a result of your upbringing. YOUR problem.

Motive or not, that is the result....do you deny it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Really? How so? Is it your assertion that requiring one to identify one's self is "taking away" that person's right to vote?
Please....If you had an ounce of integrity and cherished your vote, you'd be in support of voter fraud prevention.

Amazing. I'm technically poor, by the government's standards, and I had no difficulty whatsoever voting in the special Congressional election we just had last month. Breezed right in and back out in less than ten minutes. That whole "producing identification" thing didn't even slow my stride.

For an attempt to take away my right to vote, it sure was piss-poor. Someone's gonna have to step up their game.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

The problem you have is you believe everyone has an ulterior motive.
That is a result of your upbringing. YOUR problem.

Motive or not, that is the result....do you deny it?

categorically, YES.
I believe everyone has goodness in their heart.
And even if there is a profit motive as a side benefit, so what?
Why does profit bother you?
Look, these kids get free computers. The company gets to pay their people to make more of the machines. The company gets to sell more. Everybody wins!
Gosh, you must be bitter.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's not enough, now the con's want to take away the poor's right to vote.

Really? How so? Is it your assertion that requiring one to identify one's self is "taking away" that person's right to vote?
Please....If you had an ounce of integrity and cherished your vote, you'd be in support of voter fraud prevention.

Amazing. I'm technically poor, by the government's standards, and I had no difficulty whatsoever voting in the special Congressional election we just had last month. Breezed right in and back out in less than ten minutes. That whole "producing identification" thing didn't even slow my stride.

For an attempt to take away my right to vote, it sure was piss-poor. Someone's gonna have to step up their game.

Are you and Mrs Foxfire sisters or cousins? Because both you and she are pretty darn smart

 

[Againsheila]

The problem you have is you believe everyone has an ulterior motive.
That is a result of your upbringing. YOUR problem.

Motive or not, that is the result....do you deny it?

categorically, YES.
I believe everyone has goodness in their heart.
And even if there is a profit motive as a side benefit, so what?
Why does profit bother you?
Look, these kids get free computers. The company gets to pay their people to make more of the machines. The company gets to sell more. Everybody wins!
Gosh, you must be bitter.

Nope, just a parent that objects to schools spending educational dollars on computers for each child in the school when a computer lab makes more cents <yes, I spelled it that way on purpose>. Not everybody wins...the taxpayer loses...plus the child becomes dependent on the computer for everything..also not a good thing. The only true winner is Bill Gates and his company, remember, computer pusher....

I really feel for this generation when the computers go down...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really? How so? Is it your assertion that requiring one to identify one's self is "taking away" that person's right to vote?
Please....If you had an ounce of integrity and cherished your vote, you'd be in support of voter fraud prevention.

Amazing. I'm technically poor, by the government's standards, and I had no difficulty whatsoever voting in the special Congressional election we just had last month. Breezed right in and back out in less than ten minutes. That whole "producing identification" thing didn't even slow my stride.

For an attempt to take away my right to vote, it sure was piss-poor. Someone's gonna have to step up their game.

Are you and Mrs Foxfire sisters or cousins? Because both you and she are pretty darn smart

Not that I'm aware of. I think the only relevant connection between us is that we're both conservative women, who tend to be a few orders of magnitude smarter than the standard liberal whiner types. It's amazing what you can accomplish when you don't think of your reproductive organs as birth defects.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Does it? Where?

Come on Cecilie ...show us

Article I Section 8.

Article I Secion 8 does not define 'general welfare'.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm not sure where to start.

Then please don't. The last thing this thread - nay, this board - needs is more mindless blithering from somebody who doesn't know their arse from their elbow and proves it with every post.

Why in the hell do you keep showing up then?

I'd be careful who you champion and who thanks you...

 

[Dr Grump]

sex to describe those of us with vaginas AND brains.

I certainly think you are a vagina - although there is synonym that suits better. And please, don't flatter yourself Sweetpea. The words "cesspit" and 'brains" should never be used in the same sentence...at least in the sense that one is trying to complement the other...

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

More meaningless drivel...

You do realise that everybody in the US/World can't be millionaires, right? In order for your uber-capitalistic Nirvana to work? You do get that,right?

 

[Dr Grump]

The US Constitution is a LIMITING document. Therefore if there is no provision that allows the government to do something, it may/shall NOT.
Most people that are poor exist that way by their own doing.
For example, the typical trailer park dwelling low income person, is usually unmotivated, likely to have poor eating habits, is not particularly interested in personal responsibility, abuses drugs, drinks too much, spends unwisely and feels entitled to any and all public assistance they can get their hands on.
I have seen them, met them, worked in their homes.
ON the other hand there are those who are physically or mentally unable to sustain themselves because they cannot function in a permanent job, are unable to get to and from work, have physical or mental disabilities that prevent them form working.
THESE are the people who I have no problem helping. THESE are the people who are deserving of our attention.
Not the lazy fucking parasites who with one generation after another become wards of the State because they have one thing in common. That is knowing how to game the system.

I think that is half the problem. I agree with regard to lazy people...almost everybody does. But you righties seem to think any body who lives in a trailer park or has a low paying job, it is their fault. Let's look at rightie Nirvana again - so, who collects the rubbish, sweeps the streets, stacks the shelves at Walmart, delivers papers, flips burgers at your favourite fast food outlet? Under your perfect world, these jobs can't exist because we're all too busy being millionaires...

 

[Dr Grump]

Are you and Mrs Foxfire sisters or cousins? Because both you and she are pretty darn smart

Great way to insult Foxie...

 

[Dr Grump]

Not that I'm aware of. I think the only relevant connection between us is that we're both conservative women, who tend to be a few orders of magnitude smarter than the standard liberal whiner types. It's amazing what you can accomplish when you don't think of your reproductive organs as birth defects.

God, I almost barfed...

What I love about the Cesspit...her humility..and how wrong she is about her own intellectual capability...Note to Cesspit: Having one's head stuck up one's massive arse is not a sign of intelligence, 'K. Great contortionist act for sure, but intellect? uh-uh

Oh, and whatever the antonym of misogynist is - that sums you up My Dear...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Come on Cecilie ...show us

Article I Section 8.

Article I Secion 8 does not define 'general welfare'.

Yes, it does, to anyone who understands reading comprehension and didn't flunk out of high school English.

Article I, Section 8 is basically a paragraph-long run-on sentence. It begins with its topic phrase that sets out the purpose of Congress' powers (to pay debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare) and how it's going to have the ability to achieve that (by the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises). We know that this is a topic sentence - a mission statement for the rest of the paragraph, in essence - by the fact that there IS a rest of the paragraph. Had the Framers intended the words "general welfare" to mean "do whatever the hell you think is a good idea", they'd have stopped right there.

The second phrase - To borrow money on the credit of the United States - gives the other way that Congress will have the ability to achieve its purposes, should it be necessary.

Every other phrase after that constitutes (you should excuse the expression) the "common defense and general welfare" the provision of which Congress was given the power to "lay and collect Taxes", etc. Had these phrases not been intended for the specific purpose of defining "common defense and general welfare", there would have been no point in including them in this paragraph/sentence.

The Founding Fathers were articulate, literate, educated men. There is no reason to believe that they knew less about communicating in written form than the average high school graduate should.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Article I Section 8.

Article I Secion 8 does not define 'general welfare'.

Yes, it does, to anyone who understands reading comprehension and didn't flunk out of high school English.

Article I, Section 8 is basically a paragraph-long run-on sentence. It begins with its topic phrase that sets out the purpose of Congress' powers (to pay debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare) and how it's going to have the ability to achieve that (by the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises). We know that this is a topic sentence - a mission statement for the rest of the paragraph, in essence - by the fact that there IS a rest of the paragraph.

Any time an argument starts with the word "basically" in the first sentence, you know its bullshit.

Had the Framers intended the words "general welfare" to mean "do whatever the hell you think is a good idea", they'd have stopped right there.

If they had stopped right there, the Congress would not have the power to regulate commerce or borrow money or enforce intellectual property rights, etc etc. Jeez you're dumb. The power to spend money for the general welfare does not convey any regulatory power, it confers mere spending authority. If you can't understand the difference you're stupid.

The second phrase - To borrow money on the credit of the United States - gives the other way that Congress will have the ability to achieve its purposes, should it be necessary.

Every other phrase after that constitutes (you should excuse the expression) the "common defense and general welfare" the provision of which Congress was given the power to "lay and collect Taxes", etc. Had these phrases not been intended for the specific purpose of defining "common defense and general welfare", there would have been no point in including them in this paragraph/sentence.

The general welfare clause is a separate grant of power, not restricted by the grants of power that follow. See Alexander Hamilton, Justice Story, and the Supreme Court in US v Butler. This is basic Constitutional law, moron.

The Founding Fathers were articulate, literate, educated men. There is no reason to believe that they knew less about communicating in written form than the average high school graduate should.

I'm fairly certain that Alexander Hamilton was a Founding Father.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Article I Secion 8 does not define 'general welfare'.

Yes, it does, to anyone who understands reading comprehension and didn't flunk out of high school English.

Article I, Section 8 is basically a paragraph-long run-on sentence. It begins with its topic phrase that sets out the purpose of Congress' powers (to pay debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare) and how it's going to have the ability to achieve that (by the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises). We know that this is a topic sentence - a mission statement for the rest of the paragraph, in essence - by the fact that there IS a rest of the paragraph. Had the Framers intended the words "general welfare" to mean "do whatever the hell you think is a good idea", they'd have stopped right there.

The second phrase - To borrow money on the credit of the United States - gives the other way that Congress will have the ability to achieve its purposes, should it be necessary.

Every other phrase after that constitutes (you should excuse the expression) the "common defense and general welfare" the provision of which Congress was given the power to "lay and collect Taxes", etc. Had these phrases not been intended for the specific purpose of defining "common defense and general welfare", there would have been no point in including them in this paragraph/sentence.

The general welfare clause is a separate grant of power, not restricted by the grants of power that follow. See Alexander Hamilton, Justice Story, and the Supreme Court in US v Butler. This is basic Constitutional law, moron.

The Founding Fathers were articulate, literate, educated men. There is no reason to believe that they knew less about communicating in written form than the average high school graduate should.

I'm fairly certain that Alexander Hamilton was a Founding Father.

Wow. You found one guy, who was pretty regularly at odds with every other prominent Signatory over his whackjob notions about monarchies, banks, and federal power. Noticeably, every single thing he tried to suggest for the Constitution got shot down.

Way to interpret the Constitution: "Fuck those other guys. It means what the guy who got voted down and talked over wanted!" Oh, and the traditional liberal "Fuck the words of the Constitution! Look at what the Supreme Court said! Thinking for yourself is for radicals!"

Now you know why I kept putting those provisos about "flunking high school" in there. I mean, damn, PoohPoo. Would it kill you to pick up a frigging book once in a while?

Let's look at Hamilton's "expertise" on the Constitution, shall we?

He supported proportional representation in both Houses of Congress. Shot down. Even the other two delegates from his state disagreed with him.

He supported a lifetime term for the President, with strong executive powers. Shot down.

He supported a monarchical executive on the British model, as a check on the power of "the masses". Shot down.

He actually left the Constitutional Convention at the point where he was told that there would be no monarchy, and came back in time to slap his signature on it, which was virtually the only thing he contributed to the document.

So tell me again how HE'S the one we need to look at for what the people who actually DRAFTED the thing intended?

The "benefits" of a liberal public school education on display, folks. "Never mind what the words say. Look what someone TOLD me they meant!"

 

[Dr Grump]

Any time an argument starts with the word "basically" in the first sentence, you know its bullshit.

Bingo

The general welfare clause is a separate grant of power, not restricted by the grants of power that follow.See Alexander Hamilton, Justice Story, and the Supreme Court in US v Butler. This is basic Constitutional law, moron.

I like how she clings to the Alexander Hamilton part of your post but appears to ignore the part I bolded...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes, it does, to anyone who understands reading comprehension and didn't flunk out of high school English.

Article I, Section 8 is basically a paragraph-long run-on sentence. It begins with its topic phrase that sets out the purpose of Congress' powers (to pay debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare) and how it's going to have the ability to achieve that (by the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises). We know that this is a topic sentence - a mission statement for the rest of the paragraph, in essence - by the fact that there IS a rest of the paragraph. Had the Framers intended the words "general welfare" to mean "do whatever the hell you think is a good idea", they'd have stopped right there.

The second phrase - To borrow money on the credit of the United States - gives the other way that Congress will have the ability to achieve its purposes, should it be necessary.

Every other phrase after that constitutes (you should excuse the expression) the "common defense and general welfare" the provision of which Congress was given the power to "lay and collect Taxes", etc. Had these phrases not been intended for the specific purpose of defining "common defense and general welfare", there would have been no point in including them in this paragraph/sentence.

The general welfare clause is a separate grant of power, not restricted by the grants of power that follow. See Alexander Hamilton, Justice Story, and the Supreme Court in US v Butler. This is basic Constitutional law, moron.





I'm fairly certain that Alexander Hamilton was a Founding Father.

Wow. You found one guy, who was pretty regularly at odds with every other prominent Signatory over his whackjob notions about monarchies, banks, and federal power. Noticeably, every single thing he tried to suggest for the Constitution got shot down.

Yeah "one guy" who wrote 51 of the 85 Federalist Papers. That's all!

Way to interpret the Constitution: "Fuck those other guys. It means what the guy who got voted down and talked over wanted!" Oh, and the traditional liberal "Fuck the words of the Constitution! Look at what the Supreme Court said! Thinking for yourself is for radicals!"

The words of the Constitution quite clearly state that the Congress had the power to tax for the general welfare.

Now you know why I kept putting those provisos about "flunking high school" in there.

Because only stupid people read Supreme Court opinions? Is that why?

I mean, damn, PoohPoo. Would it kill you to pick up a frigging book once in a while?

Which book would you suggest?

Let's look at Hamilton's "expertise" on the Constitution, shall we?

He supported proportional representation in both Houses of Congress. Shot down. Even the other two delegates from his state disagreed with him.

He supported a lifetime term for the President, with strong executive powers. Shot down.

He supported a monarchical executive on the British model, as a check on the power of "the masses". Shot down.

He actually left the Constitutional Convention at the point where he was told that there would be no monarchy, and came back in time to slap his signature on it, which was virtually the only thing he contributed to the document.

Those aren't his views on the ratified Constitution, those are his unratified proposals for the Constitution that never came to pass. That you don't even know the difference is pretty sad.

So tell me again how HE'S the one we need to look at for what the people who actually DRAFTED the thing intended?

Why isn't he? Because you hate him?

The "benefits" of a liberal public school education on display, folks. "Never mind what the words say. Look what someone TOLD me they meant!"

The words say the Congress had the power to tax and spend to provide for the general welfare. You're the one who seeks to move away from the literal meaning of those words by bullshitting. "Well, basically, its a run-on sentence, and bla bla bla"




And BTW, is it OK with you if legislators pass laws according to the jurisprudence laid down by the Court, or should they consult with YOU instead?