Welfare is Unconstitutional

[Foxfyre]

[

Is that what I said? Please show me those very words.

I go by what the Constitution says. You go by what you twist it to say. That's the difference.

You said it when you said the SCOTUS has no constitutional power of judicial review.

You have been asked to please cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that assigns powers of judicial review to the Supreme Court.

 

[Conservative65]

If someone offers such low skills they can't make it, tough shit.

So there you go again, substituting your subjective judgment for what is "low skill". You think low pay corresponds with low skill, and that ain't the fucking case at all. The true cost of labor is obfuscated by welfare. Companies use welfare to increase their profit margins by paying their employees less. That's because they have the expectation that the social safety net is there. So what would happen to wages if you removed that expectation? Would they go up or down or stay the same in your estimation?

It's that simple. Unless YOU'RE personally willing to offset it, it's not a good investment for me. I like a return on my money and I'm not getting it by handing it to someone unwilling to do for him/herself.

Fucking bullshit, of course, since the true cost of labor is obfuscated by business' dependence on the social safety net in order to increase their profit margins.

If the only thing someone can do is what most 5 year olds can do, that's low skilled.

Sorry, the using welfare as a business model is bullshit. As an employer, I don't give a shit about your personal situation nor does what I pay take into consideration that personal situation. Nothing would happen to wages with me. I don't base them on anything but what you do and what you offer. If a single mother chose to have 3 kids with 3 baby daddies she doesn't know or aren't around, her pay doesn't change as a result nor is it more than the single person with no kids. It's based on WHAT she does.

 

[jc456]

[

Is that what I said? Please show me those very words.

I go by what the Constitution says. You go by what you twist it to say. That's the difference.

You said it when you said the SCOTUS has no constitutional power of judicial review.

You have been asked to please cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that assigns powers of judicial review to the Supreme Court.

he ain't ever going to post that. he can't.

 

[dblack]

It sounds like what most of you mean by "general welfare" is the welfare of the majority, right? Even if it diminishes the welfare of the minority?

That's pretty fucked up when you think about it, and can used to justify any number of blatantly immoral laws. The founders were clearly opposed to that kind of unlimited democracy, and it's hard to imagine that would have written such a loophole into the Constitution deliberately.

No, general means it must cover every contingency; only the major welfare or the common welfare my be specific.

Have another toke and try that again.

 

[Conservative65]

[

Is that what I said? Please show me those very words.

I go by what the Constitution says. You go by what you twist it to say. That's the difference.

You said it when you said the SCOTUS has no constitutional power of judicial review.

You have been asked to please cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that assigns powers of judicial review to the Supreme Court.

He can't quote the statement he claimed I made either.

I've tried to explain to him that if in Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court gave itself judicial review power, the Constitution which was written prior to that, couldn't have done it or the Court wouldn't have had to make it up.

 

[The Derp]

cutting spending is what cuts deficits.

Maybe...but cutting spending cuts revenues and demand. So then you end up taking in less revenue because consumers have to spend more in other parts of the economy that don't necessarily translate to overall consumer economic growth (which is 70% of the economy and from where most of the jobs come). If you cut revenue and then you also cut spending (which also results in revenue cuts), then what are you solving for? Nothing. You're just making the deficit worse because you're reducing demand. That's why Conservatives have never been able to balance a budget, ever. That's why Kansas' budget was a shitshow during Brownback's trickle-down tax cuts. The state of Kansas cut revenues and cut spending and their deficits only grew.

and it's a fact that lower taxes brings in more money. just a fact.

No. Completely wrong. We have the real-life, current example of Kansas that proves otherwise. They just repealed trickle-down there, and look what happened to the budget. SB30 is the repeal of trickle-down. Notice how after the repeal, suddenly the budget sees surpluses? Why do you think that is?

you can argue until you die, but that is a fact of economics bubba.everyday

No it isn't at all. It's wishful thinking on your part. We've had trickle-down for 40 years, yet household debt for individuals has gone in excess of 130% of GDP. Prior to trickle-down household debt was about 60% of GDP. So what did the tax cuts actually accomplish? Nothing good.

 

[Conservative65]

[

Is that what I said? Please show me those very words.

I go by what the Constitution says. You go by what you twist it to say. That's the difference.

You said it when you said the SCOTUS has no constitutional power of judicial review.

You have been asked to please cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that assigns powers of judicial review to the Supreme Court.

he ain't ever going to post that. he can't.

Just like he can't post the quote he claims I made.

 

[dblack]

Here's what the con says about the military. Not all that much . How do you get an air force or foreign bases out of this..;

You don't! Unless you employ Hamilton's exploit. Interesting, eh?

I believe Hamilton would agree that public policies must, pay the debts, promote and provide for the general welfare and also provide for the common defense.

Special pleading? official POverty?

 

[jc456]

cutting spending is what cuts deficits.

Maybe...but cutting spending cuts revenues and demand. So then you end up taking in less revenue because consumers have to spend more in other parts of the economy that don't necessarily translate to overall consumer economic growth (which is 70% of the economy and from where most of the jobs come). If you cut revenue and then you also cut spending (which also results in revenue cuts), then what are you solving for? Nothing. You're just making the deficit worse because you're reducing demand. That's why Conservatives have never been able to balance a budget, ever. That's why Kansas' budget was a shitshow during Brownback's trickle-down tax cuts. The state of Kansas cut revenues and cut spending and their deficits only grew.

and it's a fact that lower taxes brings in more money. just a fact.

No. Completely wrong. We have the real-life, current example of Kansas that proves otherwise. They just repealed trickle-down there, and look what happened to the budget. SB30 is the repeal of trickle-down. Notice how after the repeal, suddenly the budget sees surpluses? Why do you think that is?

you can argue until you die, but that is a fact of economics bubba.everyday

No it isn't at all. It's wishful thinking on your part. We've had trickle-down for 40 years, yet household debt for individuals has gone in excess of 130% of GDP. Prior to trickle-down household debt was about 60% of GDP. So what did the tax cuts actually accomplish? Nothing good.

dude, excuse me, but I'm not going to debate your stupid. cutting spending does not cut revenues. you are truly stupid. and again, cutting taxes will increase revenues, been proven over and over and over. John F. Kennedy knew this and so did Clinton.

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

"The real question today is: "How do changes in income tax rates affect federal receipts?" Clearly there are deductions and credits which also influence the result. But in the final analysis, the percentage that taxpayers pay is the key statistic.


The following graph clearly reveals the answer. The red line represents the top marginal tax bracket while the blue line shows the total amount of Federal government revenue each year. There are two salient points here. First, as the graph illustrates, as tax rates declined, government revenue increased. Second, there is a strong negative correlation between the two. To review, correlation measures the relationship between two sets of data. The scale ranges from negative one to positive one. A correlation of positive one indicates that the two data sets move in concert with each other. A correlation of negative one indicates that as one set of data moves up, or down, the other moves in the opposite direction. Using the data from 1913 through the end of 2011, the correlation between the maximum marginal income tax bracket and total Federal receipts is a negative 0.50. In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall."

 

[The Derp]

Explain to me why you hate the Constitution. I posted what the Constitution says and you say that isn't good.

This has nothing to do with the Constitution, and because American workers have to compete in the global marketplace with foreign workers, how exactly does teaching one thing in Texas vs. something different in California give us an advantage when competing in the global economy where nations teach the same things to all their students, regardless of their geography?

It's the same argument about health care; do people in MA get a different kind of cancer than people in OK? No. So since we have a centralized economy, why shouldn't education and health care also be centralized? What advantage does it give a student in TX to learn something different than a student in NY?

 

[The Derp]

suuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrr

So, what we have here is an instance of a Conservative refusing to accept facts, thereby living in denial.

From Gallup:

 

[jc456]

suuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrr

So, what we have here is an instance of a Conservative refusing to accept facts, thereby living in denial.

From Gallup:

so you think a D is a good grade? figures.

 

[Foxfyre]

Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

BTW - we wouldn't need as much, if any welfare if employers paid their workers more.

We wouldnt need any welfare if we didnt have so many unconstitutional programs.

Who has decided they are unconstitutional?

Only the fantastical right wing does that: Every Thing for the "general welfare" is Bad, and every Thing for the "common Offense or general Warfare" is Good.

No, not everything you leftists want is for the general welfare.

What is or isn't part of the general welfare is up to the federal government to decide.

No. The Founders wrote a Constitution of the people, by the people, and for the people. It was intended that the PEOPLE give government its authority and not the other way around. The Constitution was intended to limit what power the federal government would ever be allowed to have. What the federal government was not allowed would be the prerogative of the states, local communities, and/or private citizens.

And since the Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to provide welfare of any kind--the Founders saw a serious problem and danger should it do that--welfare is the sole providence of the states, local communities, and/or private citizens.

 

[The Derp]

dude, excuse me, but I'm not going to debate your stupid. cutting spending does not cut revenues

Yes it fucking does. It's exactly what just happened in Kansas and exactly why the State Legislature there overrode Brownback's trickle down. They cut taxes and cut spending and still couldn't balance a budget and produce growth. KS' GDP growth from 2013-2016 was below the national average. Its surplus was erased and turned into record deficits. Its credit rating was downgraded. All because of the trickle-down theory which ended up being repealed because it didn't deliver on a single promise made of it.

According to you, it should be faster growth, only that didn't happen because the ideology behind that thinking is based on bullshit and false arithmetic.

dyou are truly stupid. and again, cutting taxes will increase revenues, been proven over and over and over. John F. Kennedy knew this and so did Clinton.

First of all, Kennedy/LBJ increased spending by nearly 50%, which accounts for the growth in revenues. Secondly, Kennedy cut taxes on the rich to 70%. So if you want to set the rate for the wealthy at 70% based on Kennedy's experience, go for it. Thirdly, Clinton raised taxes in 1993, and Conservatives at the time said it would lead to the sky falling. They were wrong. So if they were wrong then, why would they be right now? The Capital Gains Tax Cut in 1997 may have led to a short-term increase in revenues, however it also created the dotcom bubble that wiped out all those gains previously (not to mention the jobs too). Additionally, Conservatives tried to pass a massive tax cut in 1998 that would have erased the nascent surpluses that Clinton vetoed. Those tax cuts would eventually get passed in 2001 and the result was the erasing of the surplus, four record deficits in 8 years (including the largest deficit of all time), and a near-doubling of the national debt. And how many jobs did they create? None. In fact, 460,000 private sector jobs were lost after 8 years of Bush. So the tax cuts didn't create more revenues (revenue levels from 2001-2004 were below what that level was in 2000), they cost jobs, they erased a surplus, doubled the debt, and helped precipitate the economic collapse.

Yet you think they increased revenues. What a fucking joke.

The following graph clearly reveals the answer. The red line represents the top marginal tax bracket while the blue line shows the total amount of Federal government revenue each year.

So this fucking chart of yours is bullshit and here's why; it's not in constant dollars.

 

[The Derp]

so you think a D is a good grade? figures.

You are the one that said the VA was terrible. Clearly, patient experiences compared to all other forms of insurance are better for veterans and those in the military.

 

[Conservative65]

Explain to me why you hate the Constitution. I posted what the Constitution says and you say that isn't good.

This has nothing to do with the Constitution, and because American workers have to compete in the global marketplace with foreign workers, how exactly does teaching one thing in Texas vs. something different in California give us an advantage when competing in the global economy where nations teach the same things to all their students, regardless of their geography?

It's the same argument about health care; do people in MA get a different kind of cancer than people in OK? No. So since we have a centralized economy, why shouldn't education and health care also be centralized? What advantage does it give a student in TX to learn something different than a student in NY?

So learning 2 + 2 = 4 is different in NY vs. TX? Does 2 + 2 = 5 in NY?

Is learning about the Revolutionary War teaching different material in TX vs. NY? Does NY teach that Independence Day is something other than July 4?

If the Constitution doesn't delegate to the federal government the authority to deal with either healthcare or education, in essence and according to the Constitution making it a reserved power of the States, your argument "if should" is irrelevant and invalid.

There's an easy way to solve the disagreement. If you want someone to have healthcare that currently doesn't have it because they SAY they can't afford it, write a check on their behalf. If someone's kid can't go to college because his/her parents refuse to fund it, write a check on their behalf. It's really that simple.

 

[The Derp]

If the only thing someone can do is what most 5 year olds can do, that's low skilled.

You wouldn't last one fucking shift at a fast-food place. I can guarantee that. Your problem is that you are wholly ignorant and insecure. You think working low-paying jobs is something children can do, and that obviously comes from a place of privilege and ignorance. A five year old can crash the global economy too, so then shouldn't banksters get paid the minimum since a 5-year-old can fuck up the economy?

Sorry, the using welfare as a business model is bullshit.

I agree it's bullshit, but that's what businesses do. They have the expectation that the social safety net is there to make up for the gaps that come from low wages. So if you remove that expectation, what do you think will happen to wages? Walmart made $14B in profit last year. Yet taxpayers shelled out $6B for welfare for Walmart's workers. If Walmart paid its workers enough that they didn't qualify for welfare, then Walmart would still walk away with $8B in profit.

As an employer, I don't give a shit about your personal situation nor does what I pay take into consideration that personal situation.

And that's why you would have no employee loyalty and low productivity with high turnover. You pretend to be a business-savvy person, is high turnover a good or bad thing for a company?

Nothing would happen to wages with me. I don't base them on anything but what you do and what you offer. If a single mother chose to have 3 kids with 3 baby daddies she doesn't know or aren't around, her pay doesn't change as a result nor is it more than the single person with no kids. It's based on WHAT she does.

No, it isn't. It's based on how much can the employer get away with. If they can get away with paying $8.25/hr because of the social safety net, then that's what they're going to pay because that's how they grow their margins. Take the social safety net away, and what do you think will happen to wages? Will they go up, go down, or stay the same?

 

[Foxfyre]

Kansas is not the USA and a single state is a poor barometer by which to evaluate national policy.

Many things in Kansas definitely did improve under the tax reform:

The Kansas economy is on a par with Nebraska in the middle of the pack and significantly better than other neighboring states, Missouri and Oklahoma. Colorado remains a few pegs above Kansas but Colorado attracts more of the wealthy as it has aesthetics that Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, and Oklahoma cannot provide. Nevertheless, Kansas has enjoyed job growth in the middle of the pack, and has the 14th lowest unemployment in the nation.

Those who have seriously analyzed the Kansas economy with an open mind and without an ax to grind, pro or con, say that the tax reform did a lot of good. BUT some poor judgment and ill advised provisions in the reform package created unintended negative consequences that caused the budget shortfalls. If they do not fix those problems, increasing taxes will only make the situation worse.

Welfare reform in the 1990's pretty well allowed the USA to essentially balance the budget and significantly slowed down the debt clock. If similar reforms are included in the proposed tax reform at the federal level, it is likely we will see similar results.

Get most welfare out of the federal jurisdiction altogether and I seriously doubt there will be any serious suffering imposed on anybody and we are likely to see policy that will greatly reduce the need for it as well as the abuse of it.

 

[Conservative65]

If the only thing someone can do is what most 5 year olds can do, that's low skilled.

You wouldn't last one fucking shift at a fast-food place. I can guarantee that. Your problem is that you are wholly ignorant and insecure. You think working low-paying jobs is something children can do, and that obviously comes from a place of privilege and ignorance. A five year old can crash the global economy too, so then shouldn't banksters get paid the minimum since a 5-year-old can fuck up the economy?

Sorry, the using welfare as a business model is bullshit.

I agree it's bullshit, but that's what businesses do. They have the expectation that the social safety net is there to make up for the gaps that come from low wages. So if you remove that expectation, what do you think will happen to wages? Walmart made $14B in profit last year. Yet taxpayers shelled out $6B for welfare for Walmart's workers. If Walmart paid its workers enough that they didn't qualify for welfare, then Walmart would still walk away with $8B in profit.

As an employer, I don't give a shit about your personal situation nor does what I pay take into consideration that personal situation.

And that's why you would have no employee loyalty and low productivity with high turnover. You pretend to be a business-savvy person, is high turnover a good or bad thing for a company?

Nothing would happen to wages with me. I don't base them on anything but what you do and what you offer. If a single mother chose to have 3 kids with 3 baby daddies she doesn't know or aren't around, her pay doesn't change as a result nor is it more than the single person with no kids. It's based on WHAT she does.

No, it isn't. It's based on how much can the employer get away with. If they can get away with paying $8.25/hr because of the social safety net, then that's what they're going to pay because that's how they grow their margins. Take the social safety net away, and what do you think will happen to wages? Will they go up, go down, or stay the same?

Guarantees come with proof to back them up. A 5 year old can use a broom but you want an adult who has the ability to do only that to be paid more than that 5 year old gets in an allowance. Don't work like that.

In my situation for those low skilled jobs, turnover isn't an issue either way. When it comes to sweeping, picking up trash, and cleaning, I don't have to have someone fill out an application. All I need to know is are they willing to work. I can teach them that, if they don't already know how, it 2 minutes. If they leave, I'll find someone else willing to do it. For those that actually provide skills in other areas, they don't leave because they get paid what those skills are worth and it's very good.

Wages won't change. Workers will especially those that now know if they want that LW they'll have to earn it. Most will figure out they have to finally do something and those that don't, well, the laws of nature will fix that.

 

[The Derp]

So learning 2 + 2 = 4 is different in NY vs. TX? Does 2 + 2 = 5 in NY?

No, but learning about Climate Change in NY vs. not learning about it in TX gives advantage to the TX student in the global economy, how?

Is learning about the Revolutionary War teaching different material in TX vs. NY? Does NY teach that Independence Day is something other than July 4?

No, but learning different reasons as to why there was a revolution does result in different outcomes. Your experience with education only seems to be skin-deep. You forego the details for the broad strokes. So yes, both students in NY and TX learn that the US declared its independence on July 4th, yet students in NY learn that we declared our independence on the principle of no taxation without representation, whereas students in TX learn that we declared our independence because Jesus. So who is disadvantaged in that scenario?

If the Constitution doesn't delegate to the federal government the authority to deal with either healthcare or education, in essence and according to the Constitution making it a reserved power of the States, your argument "if should" is irrelevant and invalid.

See, that's where we disagree because it certainly does delegate federal authority thusly. The 10th Amendment argument is wholly stupid because it was written at a time when commerce didn't routinely happen across state borders, people rarely traveled outside of their geographic location, the best way to get in touch with someone was to send a carrier pigeon. Obviously, all of that is different today. When you can sit at your computer in Seattle, order a product from Miami, pay for it with a credit card based in Delaware, and have it shipped by a company based in Texas, you're already acknowledging that state borders don't matter when it comes to commerce. So why the fuck should they matter when it comes to education and health care? Do you think teaching kids different things in all 50 states gives those students the advantages to compete in the global economy?

There's an easy way to solve the disagreement. If you want someone to have healthcare that currently doesn't have it because they SAY they can't afford it, write a check on their behalf. If someone's kid can't go to college because his/her parents refuse to fund it, write a check on their behalf. It's really that simple.

So you think health care and education are privileges, OK. So what if a student is a high achiever, yet comes from a poor home...you're saying that child shouldn't get education and health care and instead have to rely on the benevolence of others??? WTF??? You realize the totality of all charitble giving doesn't even come close to Medicaid's budget, right? And that's with the massive charitable tax break people already get and includes all forms of charity including the NYC Ballet and tithing to the Mormon Church...which isn't a charity.