"Income Inequality": So What?

[Cecilie1200]

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!

You ever contemplate how many of the Federalist Papers ended up being dead wrong? Think about it. The Federalists promised people everything under the sun about how things were going to be under the Constitution, and it turned out that they were mostly talking through their hats, and the concerns and objections of the anti-Federalists were much more realistic visions of how things actually turned out.

This, of course, is all aside from how little effect the Federalist Papers actually had on anything. And are you now seriously trying to tell me that a bunch of opinion essays are more valid indicators of Constitutional law than the words of the Constitution itself?

But if you really want to look at just one guy out of all the men who signed the Constitution, how about James Madison, the guy known as "the Father of the US Constitution"? When he was asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied, "If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once."

Gee, who do you think had a better handle on the aims of the Constitutional Convention? The Father of the Constitution, who actually stayed for the whole Convention, or the guy who walked away because the rest of the Convention refused to agree to have a king?

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

The words of the Constitution ALSO quite clearly state what "the general welfare" is. The question you leftist dipshits never answer - because you can't - is "If the framers of our Constitution, who labored so resolutely in Philadelphia that torridly hot summer in 1787, intended the powers of Congress to have no boundaries, why did they bother to enumerate seventeen?"

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to grow any more intestinal fortitude than your amoeba-brained compatriots and actually answer it this time.

Because only stupid people read Supreme Court opinions? Is that why?
Which book would you suggest?

Christ on a pogo stick, are you stupid. "Which book"? I'm suggesting, in the strongest possible terms, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I don't need to suggest anything else for you to read. It's right freaking THERE, although I suppose I could hunt up a book on improving your reading comprehension and recommend it, if necessary.

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.

Thanks for proving yet again that you CAN'T FUCKING READ. I just got done saying they were his proposals. Note how every one is followed by "Shot Down". The point, which flew right the hell over your obviously-empty little brain holder, is that the man contributed nothing whatsoever to the finished document but his signature, and that he didn't even hang around to take part in the entire discussion. He's not exactly an expert on what the rest of them put on paper after his departure.

This is actually better than what you morons usually come up with, which is "Well, Thomas Jefferson said . . ." At least this time the one person you dredged up that we're supposed to listen to above all the others and above the actual words of the Constitution was in the country at the time. It's an improvement. Brava.

Why isn't he? Because you hate him?

Ohmigod, you leftists are such CHILDREN. Everything in the frigging world is about emotion to you jackasses. "Hate him"? Seriously? The man died 164 years before I was born. I have no personal feelings about him at all, you retard.

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"

Riiight, Sparkles. Reading the rest of the Article is "bullshitting" now. "The clear meaning is JUST THOSE WORDS. No context needed!" And you wonder why I hold your reading comprehension - and education in general - in such contempt.

One more time, Mensa Girl. If the "clear meaning" of "provide for the common defense and the general welfare" is "Congress can do whatever the fuck it pleases", why did the Framers bother to include the entire rest of that Section? What's it there for? I'm just DYING for one of you to develop the sack to even acknowledge that that question exists, let alone try to answer it.

YOU'RE the one who seeks to move away from the clear meaning of the words by cutting and pruning out the ones you don't want to read.

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?

No, tweeko, I'M not the one who thinks the law changes according to what I've decided is a better idea today. That's strictly the province of leftists like you, and your "emanations from the penumbra". What's okay with ME - which you would already know, if you had a teaspoon of brains - is that legislators should pass laws according to what's laid down by the US Constitution. They're welcome to be guided by court jurisprudence as well, so long as it doesn't contradict the words of the Constitution in some half-assed attempt at judicial legislation. But the Constitution takes precedence over everything else, including Supreme Court power grabs.

 

[editec]

Here's what I am pretty sure of....

If somebody doesn't get why huge wealth inequity will distort a system like ours, nothing anyone can say is going to make those folks get it.

Basically what they are telegraphing by even asking such a newbie economics question is that they don't understand jackshit about the macro-economy.

 

[Liability]

Here's what I am pretty sure of....

If somebody doesn't get why huge wealth inequity will distort a system like ours, nothing anyone can say is going to make those folks get it.

Basically what they are telegraphing by even asking such a newbie economics question is that they don't understand jackshit about the macro-economy.

A typical dodge from vomitec.

Whether we know much about macro-economics is irrelevant.

The thing that is relevant is whether there is any actual utility in the clamor from morons like you to "do something about 'income inequality.'"

First of all, you dip stick, you need to define your terms a whole lot more clearly.

Secondly, you need to actually make the case that "income inequality" is a thing that should be avoided.

Go ahead:

Is there some point at which "income inequality" actually serves to make the economy malfunction?​

Assuming there is such a point, however you happen to define that term, then identify that point. ​

And just to avoid typical liberal chicanery, state it in advance: what exactly does income inequality cause?​

Now, of course, the payoff question: if your brilliant "plan" to remedy the "evil" of "income inequality" is not just some new way of demanding confiscatory taxes on income from the "wealthy" so as to redistribute it to the "poor," then how do you propose to "remedy" the alleged "problem?"​

 

[The Rabbi]

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.



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.

If that were the case then there would be no point to enumerating powers. Congress could simply do whatever it wanted. That belies the idea of a government of limited powers, which is the basis for Federalism.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

I noticed you couldn't find 3, and the 2 you did find, got their riches before the new corporate laws of the 70's. and the outsource laws of the 80's and on.

 

[Againsheila]

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 they get it all back from the federal government and their respective state governments.
The people riding in the boat should have to pay something for their trip.
It's high time those who benefit the most from the largess of government are required to contribute. This could be done through a fair or flat tax.

How do you get blood from a turnip, please explain?

 

[kwc57]

The sad thing is that a majority of Americans aren't greedy. Most want to work, pay their taxes, have children, watch saturday football and pursue happiness in that manner. Some other Americans want to pursue happiness by making money, lots of money. Maybe there is a greed gene? Why, for example, does Mitt Romney need more than the 250 million he has stashed overseas? How much is enough for the Romney's of America? As for hard work, the hardest work some rich do is carefully select rich parents. Trump combing his hair might be the hardest work Trump does. Now I have to wonder who does comb Trump's hair?

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.

Sounds like you just found incentive to become a good rich bastard and use your wealth to counteract the evil rich bastards. Go for it!

 

[JoeNormal]

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.

Wow, what an incredibly douchy thing to say. You're a credit to your conservative ideology.

 

[kwc57]

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.

Here’s 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.

Here's the point YOU missed...over the past decades the wealth of the upper 10% has increased by over 200% while the wealth of the rest of us has stagnated or gone down....Do you really believe the top 10% deserve more wealth that the bottom 90% of us combined??????

If they earned it, of course. If they stole it, no. If they "stole" it as many of you believe, then it is illegal. I don't see the government putting them in handcuffs and taking them to trial, do you?

 

[kwc57]

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.

So you'll be exiting the board? Thank you!

 

[Katzndogz]

The sad thing is that a majority of Americans aren't greedy. Most want to work, pay their taxes, have children, watch saturday football and pursue happiness in that manner. Some other Americans want to pursue happiness by making money, lots of money. Maybe there is a greed gene? Why, for example, does Mitt Romney need more than the 250 million he has stashed overseas? How much is enough for the Romney's of America? As for hard work, the hardest work some rich do is carefully select rich parents. Trump combing his hair might be the hardest work Trump does. Now I have to wonder who does comb Trump's hair?

Donald Trump works 85 hours a week.

First Job: Donald Trump - Forbes.com

Are you willing to work 85 hours a week?

 

[regent]

America should still be a nation in progress, but our movement seems to have stopped, we are wallowing. We seemed to have had even more movement during the Great Depression, certainly during and after the war.
Now we seem to have stopped, Congress sits, each side determined the other party does not get to make a decision or look good. We seem to take glee when our economy sinks into a morass of nothing, and we point to the other political party as the cause. The bills before Congress are so weakened and meaningless when passed, it takes years to clean them up and functioning as they should. In the meantime other nations seem to revel in our backwardness and go on with their progress. Everything in America seems to be about money. Money, always important in America, has become our ruler. At one time we elected Washington's, Jeffersons, because we thought they were good for the nation; today a candidate runs on how rich he is.

 

[Katzndogz]

We are tipping into a society of takers.

During the Great Depression what the people wanted was a job because without it you and your family was out on the street hoping for a bowl at a soup kitchen maintained by the few people who still had money. Today there is HUD housing, food stamps, welfare, free medical care, the sky is the limit. The choice isn't between working and starvation, it's between working and a comfy form of poverty.

During the Great Depression someone might show up at the door offering to chop wood for a sandwich then take half home to the family. Today, someone would show up at the door, kill the homeowner take whatever he had and send the family down to the WIC office.

Here is what we have today.

Five facing charges after allegedly killing delivery driver, then taking food home to eat | StarNewsOnline.com

After shooting Zhen Bo Liu on a dark Wilmington street, the gunmen stole his food delivery of chicken wings and shrimp fried rice and shared the meal among their accomplices at a nearby house. After eating, they returned to view Liu's body and rummage through his car.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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

It's more difficult because employers, like the greater populace, has bought into the myth that having a high school degree is somehow better than a GED. Depending on where you decide to go to college, acceptance with a GED may be more difficult than with a HS diploma. Fortunately, the University of Alaska has programs that help Alaskan residents to start university studies without that all-important diploma.
One of my sisters quit school in her junior year, too. She went right to university in an advanced studies program. For bright youngsters, there has always been a challenge to remain in school when almost all your schoolmates are studying at their grade level, or below. It seems to be even more the case now. Like I mentioned, I sat in on several of my daughter's classes and was absolutely appalled at the level of teaching and the lack of challenge. The only kids getting attention were the ones who should have been put on the street long before. I really feel sorry for so many kids who want to study, learn, and make good grades. (I home schooled my daughter through 9th and 10th grades, she went back to regular classes on her request. When my daughter and her family return to Alaska, I will certainly encourage home-schooling my grandchildren.)

 

[Liability]

IF the size of the pies keep growing and more and more pies are made, then the fact that the very rich are getting richer (more so and faster) than the poor doesn't mean that the poor are getting poorer.

One of the many problems the alarmist "income inequality" liberals have is their determined inability/unwillingness to see that this was never a zero sum game.

Ignorant dishonest twits.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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...

In many ways, we are severely handicapped by our technology. How many young people now know how to use a slide rule? How about a compass and a map? And how can anyone imagine the time when we actually had to be home to answer the phone when it rang?

 

[auditor0007]

"Income Inequality" has been the most often-heard catchphrase for today's Progressives, who constantly seek new reasons to badmouth the United States. We are told that (1) "income inequality" is a symptom of a fundamentally flawed and "unfair" society, and (2) Government must DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! And of course, (3) the only way anything will be done about it is if we re-elect Barry.

In its simplest terms, the difference between those who have the greatest incomes and those who have the least tends to increase when (A) Masses of people make disastrous life choices like having illegitimate children, dropping out of school, and adopting generally unproductive life, and (B) new technology and other developments make it possible for individuals to achieve greater and greater financial success over time. Hence, the difference between the people at the bottom, who have nothing, and the people at the top, who have more and more over time, tends to increase.

The question of whether this is actually a "problem," or merely a fact of life is a valid one. Would it be a problem if the difference between the smartest and the dumbest kids in the class kept increasing? Why? The difference between the fastest and the slowest runners in the race? Why? It may be a problem for the poorest, the dumbest, and the slowest, but as long as they have the means to improve themselves, then what does that have to do with Government? If Government were standing in the way of people who were making all the right choices but could not succeed, then by all means Government should get out of the way. But this is manifestly not the case in the U.S. We have hundreds of give-aways and programs to help people achieve whatever their talents and perseverence allow.

Surely, we are not so stupid as to believe that the Economy is a "zero-sum proposition," in which if one person gets "more" that necessarily requires that someone else get "less." New wealth is being created constantly, both in fact and by fiat, so we NEVER have the situation where one person's success (other than a thief) prevents others from pursuing their own success. The "pie" is infinitely flexible.

I submit that "income inequality" is not a problem, and that even if it were, it is not a problem created or exacerbated by Government. Furthermore, it is not a problem for which the Constitution gives Government (Congress) the mandate or even the power to resolve, particularly when the resolution would involve taking money from innocent citizens and distributing it to the unworthy.

If an American citizen is outraged about the phenomenon of "income inequality," then that citizen should do everything in her power to communicate to those at the bottom to (1) stop the self-destructive life choices (having illegitimate children, alcohol and drug abuse, welfare dependency, dropping out of school), (2) take advantage of free public education and other means of improving oneself, and (3) follow the example of many generations of immigrants who started with nothing and achieved success by hard work.

It won't improve the statistics on "income inequality." As long as the economy is growing that will increase, but it might address an acute problem for some individuals.

To the Libs reading this I ask: First, why is "income inequality" a problem? Second, What would you suggest as a solution? Third, What gives Government the power or the right to effect this solution? (Please refer to the United States Constitution)

The same old argument that continues to ignore one major fact; while the income of the wealthiest has grown by nearly 300%, everyone else's has remained stagnant, and this has happened at a time when productivity has increased substantially. Those who provide the labor to increase productivity should see some type of end reward for the work they do. Instead, what we have seen is all of that reward go to a very small percentage of the population. This did not happen because that small percentage of people worked harder or smarter. It happened because the rules of the game were rigged in favor of those very people.

The end result of all this is that it is leading us to a two class society, the haves and the have nots. This could eventually lead us to looking a lot like Mexico, but it won't. What those of you on the right don't understand is that if it gets too far out of control, those who are getting fucked the most will revolt at the polls. Eventually, we could end up with a situation where true socialism takes hold. You should check the history books. The thing that always precedes socialism or communism is a state where the very few become too wealthy and too powerful while the rest of society suffers. It just is not in the best interest of the very wealthy to allow this to happen. Unfortunately, greed can be a terrible thing and lead people to making terrible choices. Protecting the wealthy comes at a cost, and that cost is making certain that the majority of everyone else is reaping some of the benefits. That has nothing to do with making everything equal for everyone, it just means that the little guy is not getting completely fucked.

 

[gallantwarrior]

"Income Inequality" has been the most often-heard catchphrase for today's Progressives, who constantly seek new reasons to badmouth the United States. We are told that (1) "income inequality" is a symptom of a fundamentally flawed and "unfair" society, and (2) Government must DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! And of course, (3) the only way anything will be done about it is if we re-elect Barry.

In its simplest terms, the difference between those who have the greatest incomes and those who have the least tends to increase when (A) Masses of people make disastrous life choices like having illegitimate children, dropping out of school, and adopting generally unproductive life, and (B) new technology and other developments make it possible for individuals to achieve greater and greater financial success over time. Hence, the difference between the people at the bottom, who have nothing, and the people at the top, who have more and more over time, tends to increase.

The question of whether this is actually a "problem," or merely a fact of life is a valid one. Would it be a problem if the difference between the smartest and the dumbest kids in the class kept increasing? Why? The difference between the fastest and the slowest runners in the race? Why? It may be a problem for the poorest, the dumbest, and the slowest, but as long as they have the means to improve themselves, then what does that have to do with Government? If Government were standing in the way of people who were making all the right choices but could not succeed, then by all means Government should get out of the way. But this is manifestly not the case in the U.S. We have hundreds of give-aways and programs to help people achieve whatever their talents and perseverence allow.

Surely, we are not so stupid as to believe that the Economy is a "zero-sum proposition," in which if one person gets "more" that necessarily requires that someone else get "less." New wealth is being created constantly, both in fact and by fiat, so we NEVER have the situation where one person's success (other than a thief) prevents others from pursuing their own success. The "pie" is infinitely flexible.

I submit that "income inequality" is not a problem, and that even if it were, it is not a problem created or exacerbated by Government. Furthermore, it is not a problem for which the Constitution gives Government (Congress) the mandate or even the power to resolve, particularly when the resolution would involve taking money from innocent citizens and distributing it to the unworthy.

If an American citizen is outraged about the phenomenon of "income inequality," then that citizen should do everything in her power to communicate to those at the bottom to (1) stop the self-destructive life choices (having illegitimate children, alcohol and drug abuse, welfare dependency, dropping out of school), (2) take advantage of free public education and other means of improving oneself, and (3) follow the example of many generations of immigrants who started with nothing and achieved success by hard work.

It won't improve the statistics on "income inequality." As long as the economy is growing that will increase, but it might address an acute problem for some individuals.

To the Libs reading this I ask: First, why is "income inequality" a problem? Second, What would you suggest as a solution? Third, What gives Government the power or the right to effect this solution? (Please refer to the United States Constitution)

The same old argument that continues to ignore one major fact; while the income of the wealthiest has grown by nearly 300%, everyone else's has remained stagnant, and this has happened at a time when productivity has increased substantially. Those who provide the labor to increase productivity should see some type of end reward for the work they do. Instead, what we have seen is all of that reward go to a very small percentage of the population. This did not happen because that small percentage of people worked harder or smarter. It happened because the rules of the game were rigged in favor of those very people.

The end result of all this is that it is leading us to a two class society, the haves and the have nots. This could eventually lead us to looking a lot like Mexico, but it won't. What those of you on the right don't understand is that if it gets too far out of control, those who are getting fucked the most will revolt at the polls. Eventually, we could end up with a situation where true socialism takes hold. You should check the history books. The thing that always precedes socialism or communism is a state where the very few become too wealthy and too powerful while the rest of society suffers. It just is not in the best interest of the very wealthy to allow this to happen. Unfortunately, greed can be a terrible thing and lead people to making terrible choices. Protecting the wealthy comes at a cost, and that cost is making certain that the majority of everyone else is reaping some of the benefits. That has nothing to do with making everything equal for everyone, it just means that the little guy is not getting completely fucked.

The only thing those revolting manage to accomplish is to replace one group of wealthy rulers with another group of elite, wealthy rulers. The lot of the majority of "poor" often changes little, if at all. And the changes are often for the worse.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

It's more difficult because employers, like the greater populace, has bought into the myth that having a high school degree is somehow better than a GED.

Employers generally only care about your most recent degree. If you have a college degree it hardly matters whether you have a GED or a diploma.

Depending on where you decide to go to college, acceptance with a GED may be more difficult than with a HS diploma.

That's a fact. But if you've got decent SAT/ACT scores you should have no trouble getting into a state school with just a GED.

Fortunately, the University of Alaska has programs that help Alaskan residents to start university studies without that all-important diploma.
One of my sisters quit school in her junior year, too. She went right to university in an advanced studies program. For bright youngsters, there has always been a challenge to remain in school when almost all your schoolmates are studying at their grade level, or below. It seems to be even more the case now. Like I mentioned, I sat in on several of my daughter's classes and was absolutely appalled at the level of teaching and the lack of challenge. The only kids getting attention were the ones who should have been put on the street long before. I really feel sorry for so many kids who want to study, learn, and make good grades. (I home schooled my daughter through 9th and 10th grades, she went back to regular classes on her request. When my daughter and her family return to Alaska, I will certainly encourage home-schooling my grandchildren.)

The problem with high schools (one of them) is that such a wide range of ability and interest is crammed into the same room, and there are too many students. Having tought some before, I can tell you, its very difficult to not teach to the lowest common denominator. One of the better public high schools around where I live actually has classes broken down into 5 different levels - remedial, practical, academic, honors, and AP. That way there's a smaller range of ability in one class and the best student isn't so far ahead of the least.

I had the fortune of going to a great high school with excellent AP and Honors classes and my interest was still very much kept into senior year. So instead - I was bored and slept through the first year or so of college! Had I dropped out a year early I wouldn't have known the first year of college yet and it would have been more interesting.

 

[hortysir]

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.



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.

To the oversized Sham-Man-type font:

What is the purpose of the semicolon, then?