Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Dad2three]

Question for all: Can their be a budget surplus in any fiscal year in which the total national debt goes up? Does everyone understand the difference between debt and deficit?

A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.


The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

 

[Dad2three]

What lie are you talking about? And why did you stop at Feb 1984? Afraid the truth would prove you wrong? It did. Your BLS link told us the real truth and by the time Reagan's term was up unemployment was down to 5.4%. Explain that away left wing extremist.

BTW, who is Craig Steiner? Whoever he is, an annual budget CANNOT BE IN SURPLUS IF THE NATIONAL DEBT GOES UP. And I don't need back up from RW or LW stooges to understand that simple truism.

So Ronie took US to 5.4% and Clinton increased taxes (revenues to pay for Ronnie's spending) and took unemployment to 4% when Dubya took over

Got it, you DON'T know what a yearly budget is. $1,000,000 REVENUE AND $900,000 SPENDING IS SURPLUS, regardless OF DEBT

That sure is a graph.

Weird how GOP Prez's increase the deficits right?

 

[dnsmith35]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

Still harping on that?

You do realize that the strategic oil reserve is part of those subsidies so are the reduced cost heating oil programs that so many take advantage of

Oil & Gas Tax Provisions Are Not Subsidies For "Big Oil" - Forbes

The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them - Forbes

" part of those subsidies"

How much money does the U.S. government provide to support the oil, gas and coal industries?

In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually yet these don’t even include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.



How much money do governments provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries internationally?

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to perhaps $1 trillion annually in subsidies. This figure varies each year, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions. Greater transparency would allow for more precise figures.


Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Overview | Oil Change InternationalOil Change International

America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
In a world where $100-a-barrel oil is here to stay, there's no need to pad the industry's bottom line.


Yet, some of the breaks are anachronisms that date back almost to the days of John D. Rockefeller. And in a world of permanently high crude prices, there's very little rationale for subsidizing the bottom lines of companies like ExxonMobil and BP.


The Worst of the Worst


Some of the biggest subsidies are, well, a bit goofy. In its FY 2013 budget request, Obama administration singled out eight oil and gas tax breaks for the ax, worth about $38.5 billion over the next decade. Those are laid out in the table below from a Congressional Research Service report earlier this month. Let's take the three big ones highlighted in the table below.

America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic


Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs ($13.9 billion): Since 1913, this tax break has let oil companies write off some costs of exploring for oil

Good! All costs of doing business should be deductible.

and creating new wells. When it was created, drilling meant taking a gamble on what was below the earth without high-tech geological tools. But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.


Deducting percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells ($11.5 billion): Since 1926, this has given oil companies a tax breaks based on the amount of oil extracted from its wells. The logic is, if manufacturers get a break for the cost of aging machinery, drillers can deduct the cost of their aging resources. (You decide for yourself whether that makes any sense.)

Depreciation of the value of equipment and resources are a good thing. They have a right to that allowance. It is a reduction in taxes, not a subsidy.

Since 1975, it's only available to "independent oil producers," not the big oil companies, like Exxon and BP. But many of these smaller companies aren't actually small. According to Oil Change International, independents made up 86 of the top 100 oil companies by reserves. Those 86 had a median market cap of more than $2 billion. So essentially, this is a tax break that subsidizes the Very Big oil companies at the expense of the Very Biggest.

Have you any idea how many "very big" oil companies have gone bust in the last100 years because their resource has run out or their cost of discovery and drilling have destroyed them?

The domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and natural gas companies ($11.6 billion): In 2004, as American manufacturing was being ravaged by China's entrance on the global scene, Congress passed legislation designed to encourage companies to keep factories operating in the U.S. Thanks to some intensive lobbying, the oil industry ended up as one of the beneficiaries.

They should be. In addition our economy has not been ravaged by China. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/12/study-offshoring-creates-as-many-u-s-jobs-as-it-kills/This study proves that for every job sent overseas (to include China) we get 1.72 new jobs in the US. But while the refining process does involve high-tech manufacturing, there was never any danger that either drilling or refining was going to migrate overseas. [/QUOTE]The oil industry works on a lower % of profit than the left wing propaganda site gets for publishing their BS. Why would you want to make the oil industry even less profitable? Do you honestly believe they would be as willing to risk so much money searching and drilling without profit? Only the stupids (IOW you) believe that the oil industry should be a non-profit business. The facts are, oil companies pay too much tax now, and paying less tax is not subsidizing a low profit % industry.

Your puppet master's propaganda is not even close to reality. Have you ever tried to think for yourself? Does your "boss" tell you when to pee?

 

[dnsmith35]

Daddy boy, I can't believe how truly ignorant you are.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

what a drag to scroll through

too bad a few supposedly smaht individuals couldn't take it into the bull ring where points could be made in a structured order?

I tried to take it over to my posts, he refused. Sorry

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[Dad2three]

Still harping on that?

You do realize that the strategic oil reserve is part of those subsidies so are the reduced cost heating oil programs that so many take advantage of

Oil & Gas Tax Provisions Are Not Subsidies For "Big Oil" - Forbes

The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them - Forbes

" part of those subsidies"

How much money does the U.S. government provide to support the oil, gas and coal industries?

In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually yet these don’t even include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.



How much money do governments provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries internationally?

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to perhaps $1 trillion annually in subsidies. This figure varies each year, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions. Greater transparency would allow for more precise figures.


Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Overview | Oil Change InternationalOil Change International

America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
In a world where $100-a-barrel oil is here to stay, there's no need to pad the industry's bottom line.


Yet, some of the breaks are anachronisms that date back almost to the days of John D. Rockefeller. And in a world of permanently high crude prices, there's very little rationale for subsidizing the bottom lines of companies like ExxonMobil and BP.


The Worst of the Worst


Some of the biggest subsidies are, well, a bit goofy. In its FY 2013 budget request, Obama administration singled out eight oil and gas tax breaks for the ax, worth about $38.5 billion over the next decade. Those are laid out in the table below from a Congressional Research Service report earlier this month. Let's take the three big ones highlighted in the table below.

America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic


Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs ($13.9 billion): Since 1913, this tax break has let oil companies write off some costs of exploring for oil

Good! All costs of doing business should be deductible.Depreciation of the value of equipment and resources are a good thing. They have a right to that allowance. It is a reduction in taxes, not a subsidy.

Since 1975, it's only available to "independent oil producers," not the big oil companies, like Exxon and BP. But many of these smaller companies aren't actually small. According to Oil Change International, independents made up 86 of the top 100 oil companies by reserves. Those 86 had a median market cap of more than $2 billion. So essentially, this is a tax break that subsidizes the Very Big oil companies at the expense of the Very Biggest.

Have you any idea how many "very big" oil companies have gone bust in the last100 years because their resource has run out or their cost of discovery and drilling have destroyed them?

The domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and natural gas companies ($11.6 billion): In 2004, as American manufacturing was being ravaged by China's entrance on the global scene, Congress passed legislation designed to encourage companies to keep factories operating in the U.S. Thanks to some intensive lobbying, the oil industry ended up as one of the beneficiaries.

They should be. In addition our economy has not been ravaged by China. Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says - The Washington PostThis study proves that for every job sent overseas (to include China) we get 1.72 new jobs in the US. But while the refining process does involve high-tech manufacturing, there was never any danger that either drilling or refining was going to migrate overseas.

The oil industry works on a lower % of profit than the left wing propaganda site gets for publishing their BS. Why would you want to make the oil industry even less profitable? Do you honestly believe they would be as willing to risk so much money searching and drilling without profit? Only the stupids (IOW you) believe that the oil industry should be a non-profit business. The facts are, oil companies pay too much tax now, and paying less tax is not subsidizing a low profit % industry.

Your puppet master's propaganda is not even close to reality. Have you ever tried to think for yourself? Does your "boss" tell you when to pee?[/QUOTE]

Good! All costs of doing business should be deductible.


Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs ($13.9 billion): Since 1913, this tax break has let oil companies write off some costs of exploring for oil and creating new wells. When it was created, drilling meant taking a gamble on what was below the earth without high-tech geological tools. But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.

The success rate of striking oil (or gas) is about 85%, which means producers are spending less on exploring wells that won’t become profitable.

Under the Obama proposal, all IDCs would be capitalized and amortized as depreciable or depletable property, depending on the nature of the cost incurred, in accordance with generally applicable rules.




'Depreciation of the value of equipment and resources are a good thing. They have a right to that allowance. It is a reduction in taxes, not a subsidy. '


Under the cost depletion method, the basis recovery for a taxable year is computed on the unit of production method proportional to the exhaustion of the property during the year.

Because percentage depletion is computed without regard to the taxpayer’s tax basis in the depletable property, a taxpayer (OIL CORP) may continue to claim percentage depletion after all the expenditures incurred to acquire and develop the property have been recovered and the property’s adjusted basis has been reduced to zero.


The Administration’s proposal would repeal the percentage depletion deduction with respect to oil and gas wells for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013. Thereafter, all taxpayers would only be permitted to report a deduction for cost depletion to recover their adjusted basis, if any, in oil and gas wells.




http://www.bakerbotts.com/file_upload/Update201304Tax-ObamaAdminOilandGasTaxProposals2.htm


There is no need to subsidize (TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER BIZ'S) an industry that is already booming.


'This study proves that for every job sent overseas (to include China) we get 1.72 new jobs in the US'

FOR THE SECOND TIME, STOP LYING AND READ WHAT THE STUDY ACTUALLY SAYS, HINT IT'S A PRO IMMIGRATION STUDY


More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant.

Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says - The Washington Post




Big Oil's most profitable quarter ever: $51.5 billion



Big Oil's most profitable quarter ever: $51.5 billion - ABC News

 

[Rikurzhen]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Um, they earned it.

The largest category of subsidy that the Feds give to oil companies is to buy their oil and store it in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The next largest subsidy category is the farm fuel tax exemption. Fuel taxes are based on the rationale that the roads must be paid for, well farm vehicles consume almost all of their fuel on farm-land, so they get a tax break from government.

The third largest subsidy category is the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. When oil companies sell home heating oil to poor people they get a check from the Feds for the difference between market pricing and the price the oil was sold for to the poor people to heat their homes in winter.

The irony here is that I really doubt that you favor eliminating these subsidies once we get into the nitty-gritty details. Do you want poor people to freeze in their homes because they can't afford the heating oil to keep them warm during the winter?

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.[/QUOTE]

 

[HenryBHough]

Because so many people are getting pissed about redistribution the IRS has ordered a fleet of drones. See, no redistribution at mere gunpoint anymore.....

But how can forcibly separating anyone from that which is rightfully theirs be considered "moral" in ANY way?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Question for all: Can their be a budget surplus in any fiscal year in which the total national debt goes up? Does everyone understand the difference between debt and deficit?

A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.


The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Deficits occur when the government spends more than it takes in.

So then why does the government always spend more than it takes in?

It's not that it doesn't take enough from us it's that it spends too much.

And the occasional surplus has not reduced the debt at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.

Reagan cut taxes for everyone.


1981 Married Filing Jointly
Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
0.0% $0 $3,400
14.0% $3,400 $5,500
16.0% $5,500 $7,600
18.0% $7,600 $11,900
21.0% $11,900 $16,000
24.0% $16,000 $20,200
28.0% $20,200 $24,600
32.0% $24,600 $29,900
37.0% $29,900 $35,200
43.0% $35,200 $45,800
49.0% $45,800 $60,000
54.0% $60,000 $85,600
59.0% $85,600 $109,400
64.0% $109,400 $162,400
68.0% $162,400 $215,400
70.0% $215,400 -


1982 Married Filing Jointly
Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
0.0% $0 $3,400
12.0% $3,400 $5,500
14.0% $5,500 $7,600
16.0% $7,600 $11,900
19.0% $11,900 $16,000
22.0% $16,000 $20,200
25.0% $20,200 $24,600
29.0% $24,600 $29,900
33.0% $29,900 $35,200
39.0% $35,200 $45,800
44.0% $45,800 $60,000
49.0% $60,000 $85,600
50.0% $85,600 -

The Myths of Reaganomics

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.


The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all.

The listed brackets before and after show that taxes were cut.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

Still harping on that?

You do realize that the strategic oil reserve is part of those subsidies so are the reduced cost heating oil programs that so many take advantage of

Oil & Gas Tax Provisions Are Not Subsidies For "Big Oil" - Forbes

The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them - Forbes

" part of those subsidies"

How much money does the U.S. government provide to support the oil, gas and coal industries?

In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually yet these don’t even include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.



How much money do governments provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries internationally?

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to perhaps $1 trillion annually in subsidies. This figure varies each year, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions. Greater transparency would allow for more precise figures.


Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Overview | Oil Change InternationalOil Change International

America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
In a world where $100-a-barrel oil is here to stay, there's no need to pad the industry's bottom line.


Yet, some of the breaks are anachronisms that date back almost to the days of John D. Rockefeller. And in a world of permanently high crude prices, there's very little rationale for subsidizing the bottom lines of companies like ExxonMobil and BP.


The Worst of the Worst


Some of the biggest subsidies are, well, a bit goofy. In its FY 2013 budget request, Obama administration singled out eight oil and gas tax breaks for the ax, worth about $38.5 billion over the next decade. Those are laid out in the table below from a Congressional Research Service report earlier this month. Let's take the three big ones highlighted in the table below.

America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic


Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs ($13.9 billion): Since 1913, this tax break has let oil companies write off some costs of exploring for oil and creating new wells. When it was created, drilling meant taking a gamble on what was below the earth without high-tech geological tools. But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.


Deducting percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells ($11.5 billion): Since 1926, this has given oil companies a tax breaks based on the amount of oil extracted from its wells. The logic is, if manufacturers get a break for the cost of aging machinery, drillers can deduct the cost of their aging resources. (You decide for yourself whether that makes any sense.) Since 1975, it's only available to "independent oil producers," not the big oil companies, like Exxon and BP. But many of these smaller companies aren't actually small. According to Oil Change International, independents made up 86 of the top 100 oil companies by reserves. Those 86 had a median market cap of more than $2 billion. So essentially, this is a tax break that subsidizes the Very Big oil companies at the expense of the Very Biggest.


The domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and natural gas companies ($11.6 billion): In 2004, as American manufacturing was being ravaged by China's entrance on the global scene, Congress passed legislation designed to encourage companies to keep factories operating in the U.S. Thanks to some intensive lobbying, the oil industry ended up as one of the beneficiaries. But while the refining process does involve high-tech manufacturing, there was never any danger that either drilling or refining was going to migrate overseas.

But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.

There could be zero risk. So what? Drilling expense is still a business expense.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, the anti federalists (mainly conservatives) lost, the federalist (strong FEDERAL Gov't) won.

Oh? So the Bill or Rights was a victory for the Federalists? Have you even read the 9th and 10th amendments?

Those things that were part of the STRONG federal Gov't that has given US SS, Medicare, welfare, etc?

The Constitution didn't give us those programs. Democrats wiping their ass on the Constitution is how we got them.

 

[dblack]

Oh? So the Bill or Rights was a victory for the Federalists? Have you even read the 9th and 10th amendments?

Those things that were part of the STRONG federal Gov't that has given US SS, Medicare, welfare, etc?

The Constitution didn't give us those programs. Democrats wiping their ass on the Constitution is how we got them.

Plenty of Republicans supported, and still support, these programs.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, the anti federalists (mainly conservatives) lost, the federalist (strong FEDERAL Gov't) won.

Which is why we have no Bill of Rights.

Oh, wait....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your cute little chart has nothing to do with morals, and questions about morals was your previous point.
Moving the goalpost is what I see.

He doesn't even know the rules of the game, he is moving the goal posts for a baseball game...

Cut & Paste, what a waste...

 

[Uncensored2008]

DON''T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ON YEARLY BUDGETS VERSUS DEBT AND DEFICITS/SURPLUSES HUH?

Fuck your cut & paste, if you want to try and discuss, then YOUR words are all I will respond to.

Now listen up you fucking moron, federal law states that any and all surplus MUST SERVICE THE DEBT. Do you grasp that? Does that get through your shit encrusted skull. You get it dumbfuck? IF there is a surplus, it MUST be used to pay down the debt - Comprehend, stupid fuck? IF the budget has a surplus, that has to be used for the debt, understand, shitferbrains?

SINCE any surplus MUST BY LAW service the debt, then the debt must decline when there is a surplus.

SINCE it did not, this demonstrates that either Clinton violated federal law and embezzled the surplus, or there WAS NO SURPLUS - get it, stupid?

 

[dblack]

DON''T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ON YEARLY BUDGETS VERSUS DEBT AND DEFICITS/SURPLUSES HUH?

Fuck your cut & paste, if you want to try and discuss, then YOUR words are all I will respond to.

Now listen up you fucking moron, federal law states that any and all surplus MUST SERVICE THE DEBT. Do you grasp that? Does that get through your shit encrusted skull. You get it dumbfuck? IF there is a surplus, it MUST be used to pay down the debt - Comprehend, stupid fuck? IF the budget has a surplus, that has to be used for the debt, understand, shitferbrains?

SINCE any surplus MUST BY LAW service the debt, then the debt must decline when there is a surplus.

SINCE it did not, this demonstrates that either Clinton violated federal law and embezzled the surplus, or there WAS NO SURPLUS - get it, stupid?

I'm convinced Dad's only intent in this thread is to steer discussion away from the topic with partisan bickering. The last thing statists want is thoughtful examination of their morals.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So Ronie took US to 5.4% and Clinton increased taxes (revenues to pay for Ronnie's spending) and took unemployment to 4% when Dubya took over

Got it, you DON'T know what a yearly budget is. $1,000,000 REVENUE AND $900,000 SPENDING IS SURPLUS, regardless OF DEBT

That sure is a graph.

Weird how GOP Prez's increase the deficits right?

I'd hate to see the graph that shows that Dem Prez's increase. Makes Bush look like a piker.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Those things that were part of the STRONG federal Gov't that has given US SS, Medicare, welfare, etc?

THIS is why you only cut & paste.

When you attempt to defend your ideas on your own, you say the STUPIDEST things...

 

[Listening]

Oh? So the Bill or Rights was a victory for the Federalists? Have you even read the 9th and 10th amendments?

Those things that were part of the STRONG federal Gov't that has given US SS, Medicare, welfare, etc?

The Constitution didn't give us those programs. Democrats wiping their ass on the Constitution is how we got them.

Unfortunately, the GOP has been just as complicit in letting them happen.

A real disappointment.