Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well Rott the way that happens is everyone, not just the rich, pays taxes.
Well Rott the way that happens is everyone, not just the rich, pays taxes.
Folks, do you need any further evidence that liberals in general - and [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION] specifically - are extremely uneducated and uninformed?
CC, it's a known fact that 48% of the entire population pays no federal taxes at all.
You continue to embarrass yourself further with each post...
I am wondering what the founding fathers would think of the fact that the private sector is unwilling or unable to offer enough work opportunities so that poor people on welfare could find work and get off welfare.
Would the founding fathers simply let them die in the street if they tried and couldn't find work? Or would they help them with government aid? And if the job situation didn't improve for years and years, what would the Founding Fathers do with that General Welfare clause then? Ignore it?
Yawn, Poodle, we've been waiting for the wealth to "Trickle down" for 30 years now...
It hasn't happened yet.
But here's the thing... I think that leeching off your friends, family, church is just as bad as leeching off the government. It might even be a little worse.
Well Rott the way that happens is everyone, not just the rich, pays taxes.
Folks, do you need any further evidence that liberals in general - and [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION] specifically - are extremely uneducated and uninformed?
CC, it's a known fact that 48% of the entire population pays no federal taxes at all.
You continue to embarrass yourself further with each post...
I am wondering what the founding fathers would think of the fact that the private sector is unwilling or unable to offer enough work opportunities so that poor people on welfare could find work and get off welfare.
Would the founding fathers simply let them die in the street if they tried and couldn't find work? Or would they help them with government aid? And if the job situation didn't improve for years and years, what would the Founding Fathers do with that General Welfare clause then? Ignore it?
Yawn, Poodle, we've been waiting for the wealth to "Trickle down" for 30 years now...
It hasn't happened yet.
But here's the thing... I think that leeching off your friends, family, church is just as bad as leeching off the government. It might even be a little worse.
Actually I've made a few trips into PA, and found the Amish there do very well. The families all have a very strong work ethic, they support each other as well as their surrounding community, and they don't receive government assistance. In fact I seriously doubt anyone has even SEEN an Amish person waiting in line to start collecting for his or her government check. Oh, and government doesn't get in their way with all their regulation compliances, telling them what to do ..... how about that? You want to complain about "the so-called poor" in need of their welfare check or they may starve, yet the Amish man isn't walking away with free government "gifts" like a cell phone. For all the complaining that goes on by progressives with regard to entitlements or the fault of "bad .. mean .. rich people", the Amish would certainly put most of these entitlement liberals or welfare recipients to shame.
I am wondering what the founding fathers would think of the fact that the private sector is unwilling or unable to offer enough work opportunities so that poor people on welfare could find work and get off welfare.
Would the founding fathers simply let them die in the street if they tried and couldn't find work? Or would they help them with government aid? And if the job situation didn't improve for years and years, what would the Founding Fathers do with that General Welfare clause then? Ignore it?
I am sure one of you right wing founding father experts know the answer. Don't you all communicate via Wiji Board with the Founders?
First of all [MENTION=35352]zeke[/MENTION] - the private sector has the capacity to take about 75 - 100 million off of welfare and put them to work. But that would require Dumbocrats to do two things: stop punishing effort & success and adhere to the Constitution.
Second, we do know how our founding fathers would handle the remaining citizens of who work would not be available. And it's not because we "communicate" with them "via Wiji Board" as your snarky post stated, but rather, because we actually read & learn from history. Gasp! What a "radical" concept
Shak already posted that well known quote from Benjamin Franklin. But to clarify this for all of you anti-constitutional Dumbocrats - you make the utterly absurd case that there are two choices and two choices only: communism or nihilism. In your very distorted perception it is either government controls all and provides for the people or people die in the streets. There is a third (and much better option). It's called freedom. It's called family. It's called charity. It's called churches. It's called communities. Of his own free will, Bill Gates has spent $60 billion of his own money to date ensuring that people are not "dying in the streets". Think about that. $60 billion. The federal government did not have to put a gun to his head and it has not jeopardized this nation with debt (because unlike the federal government - Bill understands finance).
If I fell on hard times, I wouldn't need the federal government, my family would take me in. If my family magically disappeared, my friends would take me in. If my friends also all magically disappeared, my neighbors would take me in. If my neighbors all magically disappeared, my church would take me in (and I have literally seen them do this and I have personally assisted them when they have). And if my church magically disappeared, I would turn to the endless public charities that exist.
But obviously, there is no liberal fairytale rainbowed unicorn scenario where all of those people would disappear. Yet that is literally the case liberals attempt to make everyday for why we need communism in the U.S. Because somewhere there is some helpless, hapless, hopeless invalid with no family, no friends, no neighbors/community, no church, and no charities...
I am wondering what the founding fathers would think of the fact that the private sector is unwilling or unable to offer enough work opportunities so that poor people on welfare could find work and get off welfare.
Would the founding fathers simply let them die in the street if they tried and couldn't find work? Or would they help them with government aid? And if the job situation didn't improve for years and years, what would the Founding Fathers do with that General Welfare clause then? Ignore it?
Yawn, Poodle, we've been waiting for the wealth to "Trickle down" for 30 years now...
It hasn't happened yet.
But here's the thing... I think that leeching off your friends, family, church is just as bad as leeching off the government. It might even be a little worse.
Actually I've made a few trips into PA, and found the Amish there do very well. The families all have a very strong work ethic, they support each other as well as their surrounding community, and they don't receive government assistance. In fact I seriously doubt anyone has even SEEN an Amish person waiting in line to start collecting for his or her government check. Oh, and government doesn't get in their way with all their regulation compliances, telling them what to do ..... how about that? You want to complain about "the so-called poor" in need of their welfare check or they may starve, yet the Amish man isn't walking away with free government "gifts" like a cell phone. For all the complaining that goes on by progressives with regard to entitlements or the fault of "bad .. mean .. rich people", the Amish would certainly put most of these entitlement liberals or welfare recipients to shame.
Well that settles it then. Lets elect the Amish to all Senate and House of Rep. seats.
That way of life, after all, is the antithesis of what a Progressive believes. However those hard working ethics of the Amish, I bet is not too far from what used to be found in early America.
Well Rott the way that happens is everyone, not just the rich, pays taxes.
Folks, do you need any further evidence that liberals in general - and [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION] specifically - are extremely uneducated and uninformed?
CC, it's a known fact that 48% of the entire population pays no federal taxes at all.
You continue to embarrass yourself further with each post...
Well Rott the way that happens is everyone, not just the rich, pays taxes.
Folks, do you need any further evidence that liberals in general - and [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION] specifically - are extremely uneducated and uninformed?
CC, it's a known fact that 48% of the entire population pays no federal taxes at all.
You continue to embarrass yourself further with each post...
Some people don't pay INCOME taxes. Focus. Taxes are for the GENERAL WELFARE.
If you are confused at the words general and welfare and what that means I cannot help you.
Kudos tho, on picking out one statement dropping your previous point and shifting when your lost was predictable. Now, are we talking about General Welfare anymore or now about how the poorest don't pay income taxes?
Let me know when you finish spinning the wheel what it lands on next
I am wondering what the founding fathers would think of the fact that the private sector is unwilling or unable to offer enough work opportunities so that poor people on welfare could find work and get off welfare.
Would the founding fathers simply let them die in the street if they tried and couldn't find work? Or would they help them with government aid? And if the job situation didn't improve for years and years, what would the Founding Fathers do with that General Welfare clause then? Ignore it?
I am sure one of you right wing founding father experts know the answer. Don't you all communicate via Wiji Board with the Founders?
First of all [MENTION=35352]zeke[/MENTION] - the private sector has the capacity to take about 75 - 100 million off of welfare and put them to work. But that would require Dumbocrats to do two things: stop punishing effort & success and adhere to the Constitution.
Second, we do know how our founding fathers would handle the remaining citizens of who work would not be available. And it's not because we "communicate" with them "via Wiji Board" as your snarky post stated, but rather, because we actually read & learn from history. Gasp! What a "radical" concept
Shak already posted that well known quote from Benjamin Franklin. But to clarify this for all of you anti-constitutional Dumbocrats - you make the utterly absurd case that there are two choices and two choices only: communism or nihilism. In your very distorted perception it is either government controls all and provides for the people or people die in the streets. There is a third (and much better option). It's called freedom. It's called family. It's called charity. It's called churches. It's called communities. Of his own free will, Bill Gates has spent $60 billion of his own money to date ensuring that people are not "dying in the streets". Think about that. $60 billion. The federal government did not have to put a gun to his head and it has not jeopardized this nation with debt (because unlike the federal government - Bill understands finance).
If I fell on hard times, I wouldn't need the federal government, my family would take me in. If my family magically disappeared, my friends would take me in. If my friends also all magically disappeared, my neighbors would take me in. If my neighbors all magically disappeared, my church would take me in (and I have literally seen them do this and I have personally assisted them when they have). And if my church magically disappeared, I would turn to the endless public charities that exist.
But obviously, there is no liberal fairytale rainbowed unicorn scenario where all of those people would disappear. Yet that is literally the case liberals attempt to make everyday for why we need communism in the U.S. Because somewhere there is some helpless, hapless, hopeless invalid with no family, no friends, no neighbors/community, no church, and no charities...
And you have a reputable link to back that assertion up. Or did you just pull that number out your ass?
And if all your family and all your friends fell on hard times along with you, would you just lay down and die?
And where is the link showing 100 million people on welfare?
This should be good.
Folks, do you need any further evidence that liberals in general - and [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION] specifically - are extremely uneducated and uninformed?
CC, it's a known fact that 48% of the entire population pays no federal taxes at all.
You continue to embarrass yourself further with each post...
Some people don't pay INCOME taxes. Focus. Taxes are for the GENERAL WELFARE.
If you are confused at the words general and welfare and what that means I cannot help you.
Kudos tho, on picking out one statement dropping your previous point and shifting when your lost was predictable. Now, are we talking about General Welfare anymore or now about how the poorest don't pay income taxes?
Let me know when you finish spinning the wheel what it lands on next
You're the one with the spin. You first tried to cherry-pick "general welfare" out of the Constitution. When I asked how taking from one specific group to promote another specific group, you wanted to cherry pick again and drop the "general" part of the small part YOU cherry-picked in the first place.
Why is it you can't explain to me how the GENERAL welfare is promoted under our current socialized government? Could it be [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION] it's because you're lying ass knows the GENERAL welfare is not being promoted - but instead a specific group is being targeted and another specific group is being "promoted"?
It's the only reason I can think of you keep running like a coward from a basic question...
I asked you what the common accepted use of the term welfare meant when the constitution was written.
If you don't want to answer the question just say so?
Or do you want me to answer it for you? You're the one posing as the language authority here not me.
If you want to know the views of how the Founders may have felt about welfare, here you go:
I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
― Benjamin Franklin
This is why they wrote in the preamble their belief government should "PROMOTE" the general welfare, or the Declaration of Independence states that the individual God given rights are for "Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness". They never once stated that it's the role of government to guarantee or even make provision FOR individual happiness. This is what Progressives have a hard time understanding. You won't find a Founding Father advocating that it's the role of government to provide whatever the individual is in need of, through entitlement or government welfare.
I am wondering what the founding fathers would think of the fact that the private sector is unwilling or unable to offer enough work opportunities so that poor people on welfare could find work and get off welfare.
Would the founding fathers simply let them die in the street if they tried and couldn't find work? Or would they help them with government aid? And if the job situation didn't improve for years and years, what would the Founding Fathers do with that General Welfare clause then? Ignore it?
I am sure one of you right wing founding father experts know the answer. Don't you all communicate via Wiji Board with the Founders?
Perhaps in your mind roads are 'good for the general welfare' but for purposes of the general welfare clause, your inclusion of roads does not apply.Some people don't pay INCOME taxes. Focus. Taxes are for the GENERAL WELFARE.
If you are confused at the words general and welfare and what that means I cannot help you.
Kudos tho, on picking out one statement dropping your previous point and shifting when your lost was predictable. Now, are we talking about General Welfare anymore or now about how the poorest don't pay income taxes?
Let me know when you finish spinning the wheel what it lands on next
You're the one with the spin. You first tried to cherry-pick "general welfare" out of the Constitution. When I asked how taking from one specific group to promote another specific group, you wanted to cherry pick again and drop the "general" part of the small part YOU cherry-picked in the first place.
Why is it you can't explain to me how the GENERAL welfare is promoted under our current socialized government? Could it be [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION] it's because you're lying ass knows the GENERAL welfare is not being promoted - but instead a specific group is being targeted and another specific group is being "promoted"?
It's the only reason I can think of you keep running like a coward from a basic question...
Last time and example:
Taxes pay for roads. Roads are good for the GENERAL WELFARE of everyone even people who will never drive on it.
You dont get it, go read a book and stop trolling
Yawn, Poodle, we've been waiting for the wealth to "Trickle down" for 30 years now...
It hasn't happened yet.
But here's the thing... I think that leeching off your friends, family, church is just as bad as leeching off the government. It might even be a little worse.
now here's the one problem that we do have to deal with. We are reaching a point where there might not be a need for any physical labor. It's not just outsourcing that's the problem, it's automation. Both lead to an obscene transfer of wealth from the working class to the wealthy class.
It figures. You cannot rebut the OP's comment so you play the all or nothing straw man card.I am wondering what the founding fathers would think of the fact that the private sector is unwilling or unable to offer enough work opportunities so that poor people on welfare could find work and get off welfare.
Would the founding fathers simply let them die in the street if they tried and couldn't find work? Or would they help them with government aid? And if the job situation didn't improve for years and years, what would the Founding Fathers do with that General Welfare clause then? Ignore it?
Yawn, Poodle, we've been waiting for the wealth to "Trickle down" for 30 years now...
It hasn't happened yet.
But here's the thing... I think that leeching off your friends, family, church is just as bad as leeching off the government. It might even be a little worse.
Actually I've made a few trips into PA, and found the Amish there do very well. The families all have a very strong work ethic, they support each other as well as their surrounding community, and they don't receive government assistance. In fact I seriously doubt anyone has even SEEN an Amish person waiting in line to start collecting for his or her government check. Oh, and government doesn't get in their way with all their regulation compliances, telling them what to do ..... how about that? You want to complain about "the so-called poor" in need of their welfare check or they may starve, yet the Amish man isn't walking away with free government "gifts" like a cell phone. For all the complaining that goes on by progressives with regard to entitlements or the fault of "bad .. mean .. rich people", the Amish would certainly put most of these entitlement liberals or welfare recipients to shame.
Well that settles it then. Lets elect the Amish to all Senate and House of Rep. seats.
Some people don't pay INCOME taxes. Focus. Taxes are for the GENERAL WELFARE.
If you are confused at the words general and welfare and what that means I cannot help you.
Kudos tho, on picking out one statement dropping your previous point and shifting when your lost was predictable. Now, are we talking about General Welfare anymore or now about how the poorest don't pay income taxes?
Let me know when you finish spinning the wheel what it lands on next
You're the one with the spin. You first tried to cherry-pick "general welfare" out of the Constitution. When I asked how taking from one specific group to promote another specific group, you wanted to cherry pick again and drop the "general" part of the small part YOU cherry-picked in the first place.
Why is it you can't explain to me how the GENERAL welfare is promoted under our current socialized government? Could it be [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION] it's because you're lying ass knows the GENERAL welfare is not being promoted - but instead a specific group is being targeted and another specific group is being "promoted"?
It's the only reason I can think of you keep running like a coward from a basic question...
Last time and example:
Taxes pay for roads. Roads are good for the GENERAL WELFARE of everyone even people who will never drive on it.
You dont get it, go read a book and stop trolling
You're the one with the spin. You first tried to cherry-pick "general welfare" out of the Constitution. When I asked how taking from one specific group to promote another specific group, you wanted to cherry pick again and drop the "general" part of the small part YOU cherry-picked in the first place.
Why is it you can't explain to me how the GENERAL welfare is promoted under our current socialized government? Could it be [MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION] it's because you're lying ass knows the GENERAL welfare is not being promoted - but instead a specific group is being targeted and another specific group is being "promoted"?
It's the only reason I can think of you keep running like a coward from a basic question...
Last time and example:
Taxes pay for roads. Roads are good for the GENERAL WELFARE of everyone even people who will never drive on it.
You dont get it, go read a book and stop trolling
Taxes also pay for welfare. How is that good for the GENERAL WELFARE?
