 |
Glad you're amused because I see you hiding in the weeds with a rock behind your back! Doesn't change the fact you have no clue what you're talking about and just spew the right wing hate points. You don't want a discussion you just want a platform to tear down everything you disagree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That's cool, I got rocks too!
Thank you for that very high level, content-free response.Quote:
Glad you're amused because I see you hiding in the weeds with a rock behind your back! Doesn't change the fact you have no clue what you're talking about and just spew the right wing hate points. You don't want a discussion you just want a platform to tear down everything you disagree with.
Written at the start of the pandemic.
Column: Everyone’s a socialist in a pandemic. Companies and lawmakers are suddenly realizing the value of a strong social safety net. - Chicago Tribune
I'm not a socialist and never will be. It is in difficult times that a commitment to personal liberty gets tested and tried.
I read this first paragraph and gave up on it. "All it took was a global epidemic of potentially unprecedented scale and severity and suddenly it’s like we’re turning into Denmark over here." That's as dumb as anything I've read in a long time. You only have to go back a hundred years to the Spanish flu to see how silly that is. It was just fear-mongering.
I understand that in a time of national crisis like this, we will have to employ some measures that are not what we usually do. The key is to limit that as much as possible, always remembering that practically everyone in government wants to expand government power because it expands THEIR power. That, to me, is the great danger.
Yeah, I guess it's too much to ask or expect our elected officials to use those citizen given powers for citizens. Kind of fascinating to think how broke we are for people stuff but the politicians are rolling in dough for election campaigns, especially during a crisis. No hypocrisy there is it, but we the people allow it so they do it.
I disagree that these difficult times tests our freedoms though. It's our humanity and values being tested for sure as the article link attests.
Be a shame to keep squandering the opportunity to be better than sickness and death over a subjective definition of a label. I guess we aren't as great as we think we are and need to quit tripping over our own egos.Quote:
The virus has laid bare our greatest vulnerability: We’ve got the world’s biggest economy and the world’s strongest military, but it turns out we might have built the entire edifice upon layers and layers of unaccounted-for risk, because we forgot to assign a value to the true measure of a nation’s success — the well-being of its population...Because the virus is coldly indiscriminate and nearly inescapable, it leaves us all, rich and poor, in the same boat: The only way any of us is truly protected is if the least among us is protected...So what if we used this illness as an excuse to really, permanently protect the least among us?...I would like to imagine this bright future. But I’ll confess I’m not optimistic. More than a decade ago, America stumbled through the Great Recession without imposing many significant fixes for the excesses of our financial system. The titans of Wall Street were protected and working people were left with scraps. The coronavirus might teach us all to value a robust safety net — but there’s a good chance we’ll forget the lesson, because this is America, and forgetting working people is just what we do.
You don't have to be a socialist to do that...you can be a Christian if you prefer the label...or just an American citizen, which should be label enough don't you think? How about just be a good human and practice what you preach and not settle for the bones, and scraps those elected officials feed you. That's the road to mediocracy you seem intent on traveling because that's what you seem to have been fed by this dufus.
The rest of us demand more so we booted his a$$. We learned from our mistake of letting him in the door by our own inaction in the first place.
I'll boot Joe too if demands are not met...if you guys hav presented a better plan!
That's a valid point other than pols don't use tax funds for that purpose. Elections are funded privately and voluntarily.Quote:
the politicians are rolling in dough for election campaigns, especially during a crisis. No hypocrisy there is it, but we the people allow it so they do it.
Being a good socialist is far removed from being a good Christian.Quote:
You don't have to be a socialist to do that...you can be a Christian if you prefer the label...or just an American citizen, which should be label enough don't you think?
Being a good human doesn't mean I follow the idea that I care so much for poor people that I am willing to make someone else give them money. It means I pitch in help them myself, as my wife and I have done for several decades now. That's where your vision and my vision absolutely part ways. You seem to want someone else to do the helping so you can then take the credit.
You demand more? That's a scary thought.
yes when the jackboots of the government come down on you for trying to operate your business and keep your employees working then if you don't rent seek you go out of business or become a law breaker .Quote:
Written at the start of the pandemic.
Column: Everyone’s a socialist in a pandemic. Companies and lawmakers are suddenly realizing the value of a strong social safety net. - Chicago Tribune
He set himself up as an autonomous zone because he knows the libs like to do things like set up autonomous zones when protesting .Some autonomous zones ;or occupy zones stay in place for weeks . But only the woke protesters get that protection .
Mac's Public House that declared itself 'autonomous zone' shut down, general manager arrested - ABC7 New York (abc7ny.com)
So yeah ;when the government compels you to act like a socialist then what choice do you have ?
Do both. Pay taxes to help and donate to various charities to help.Quote:
Being a good human doesn't mean I follow the idea that I care so much for poor people that I am willing to make someone else give them money. It means I pitch in help them myself, as my wife and I have done for several decades now. That's where your vision and my vision absolutely part ways. You seem to want someone else to do the helping so you can then take the credit.
Donating to charities preserves liberty since it is voluntary. Paying taxes decreases liberty since it is compulsory and is often based on someone else's corrupt view of morality. Besides, the feds have no Constitutional authority to take money from one American to give to another.Quote:
Do both. Pay taxes to help and donate to various charities to help.
So you don't want road and bridges? We pay taxes to improve life in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Roads and bridges are not charitable causes. We are talking about welfare programs. There is Constitutional authority, incidentally, for roads and bridges. It is certainly not taking money from one American to give to another American.
"The general-welfare clause, which gives Congress 'power to … provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,' is an obvious place to ground principles of common-good constitutionalism, as is the Constitution's preamble, with its references to general welfare and domestic tranquility, to the perfection of the union, and to justice."
If you needed financial help for an extended period of time, what would you do, JL?
You know you're a loony winger when you rather people go cold hungry and homeless especially in a crisis through no fault of their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Now that's a great question. I have four options.Quote:
If you needed financial help for an extended period of time, what would you do, JL?
1 I could go to your house and rob you, but that might land me in jail.
2. I could vote for liberal dems who would go to your house for me, take your money in taxes, and give it to me in return for my undying loyalty in voting for them. Same thing as #1, but rather strangely, no one goes to jail.
3. I could depend upon friends and family. Better than the first two, but not always reliable.
4. I could be a grown up, realize that such things happen, and prepare ahead of time for such hardships. It's far and away the best course and is referred to as self reliance. It's what our country was built upon.
As to your general welfare clause, look up the definition of "general" as opposed to "individual". Then find out how many years of our history we managed to make it through with no federal payouts to individuals at all. Learn.
And if your physical or mental health has always been a problem plus no vocational or college education, and, as a result, you've had low-paying jobs all your life so far, how can you "prepare ahead of time"?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Then you appeal to charity. It generally works quite well, but you still have no right to another American's money.
spirious argument, you have a right to government money because it is distributed by law, a law voted and approved.
We've had this discussion before. Rather than going to your house and robbing you, I instead vote for liberal dem pols who do the job for me in exchange for my undying voter support. There is really no difference. It's just done under the guise of "law".
Charity money is "another American's money." Yes, voluntary but usually charity donations from others who have been in or very possibly will be in the same boat in the future -- not so much from the wealthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You kind of ran right past that very vital distinction. It makes all the difference in the world to those who love liberty.Quote:
Yes, voluntary
How do you know that?Quote:
not so much from the wealthy.
you are being prescious againQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
If you want to use the word precious, then at least have enough sense to learn how to spell it.
Or perhaps "prescious" in Aussie land means "reasonable and correct"? That would certainly be appropriate. I think I can go with that one!!
I pay taxes and would do it voluntarily, knowing all the wonderful efforts my taxes support and pay for.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
For thirty years in Libraryland, I met and chatted with many wealthy library patrons who usually held their nose when they talked about poor people.Quote:
How do you know that?
what it means here is being a dlckheadQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The usual liberal claptrap. If you love paying taxes so much, have you ever paid MORE than was asked, or called for a tax increase for YOU, or voted for a pol that promised to raised taxes on YOU? I didn't think so.Quote:
I pay taxes and would do it voluntarily, knowing all the wonderful efforts my taxes support and pay for.
Rather than post such an absurdly empty reply, why not just admit you have no evidence whatsoever? Wouldn't that be better than looking so silly?Quote:
For thirty years in Libraryland, I met and chatted with many wealthy library patrons who usually held their nose when they talked about poor people.
Yep, just did on November 3rd.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
In what way? I'll tell you even before your answer that I kind of doubt it.
general welfare clause . What did the framers mean by it ? What it meant according to Madison(whose portrait is my avatar here ) was that Congress was authorized to spend money on the general welfare BUT ONLY in relationship to the other spending authorities enumerated in art 1 sec 8 . Hamilton thought it gave Congress a carte blanche .That dispute has raged on ever since .
What both framers agreed was that the legislative power for the general welfare resided in the 10th amendment powers of the states.
There has not been any law upheld by SCOTUS on the grounds of the General Welfare clause .
Here's the deal . IF the framers wanted an unlimited government then they would not have gone through the efforts of specifically defining what Congress may spend money on. If they had intended Congress should have the power to do virtually anything and everything to promote the general welfare, they wouldn’t have bothered to include specific powers.
Even Hamilton conceded in Federalist 83."This specification of particulars enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8 evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.".
Madison was more emphatic in Federalist 41
"For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? "
Madison also wrote ... If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.
As far as intent goes . Madison was the correct one .
The truth is that the clause was never meant to be dissected and bisected . The key words are General and Common .The clause means that any tax collected must be collected to the benefit of the United States as a whole, not for sectional or special interests. The federal government may promote the general welfare, or common good, but it must do so within the scope of the powers delegated and without favoritism. It certainly was never meant as green light to play Robin Hood .Quote:
provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,
He's luckier than most that encounter the jackboots of government. If they don't shoot 'em 41 times, they just choke 'em out.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Exactly correct.Quote:
The truth is that the clause was never meant to be dissected and bisected . The key words are General and Common .The clause means that any tax collected must be collected to the benefit of the United States as a whole, not for sectional or special interests. The federal government may promote the general welfare, or common good, but it must do so within the scope of the powers delegated and without favoritism. It certainly was never meant as green light to play Robin Hood .
You don't think I do any research, do you. You think I'm just another witless female, don't you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Your record is that you do very little.Quote:
You don't think I do any research, do you.
Another? No. But here's your chance to prove your "wit". Answer the question. In what way?Quote:
You think I'm just another witless female, don't you.
You refuse to accept ANY of my responses, no matter what. I think I'll change my AMHD user name to Wally or Jimmy.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Apparently you don't have a dictionary.Quote:
Another? No. But here's your chance to prove your "wit". Answer the question. In what way?
Excuses, excuses, excuses.
"Wit" was a play off of "witless". One way or the other, you passed on it as you usually do.
Why do wingers always beetch about po folks taking money while you give guy rolling in dough even mo' money? If you didn't rig the system you wouldn't have po' people to give money to in the first place.
great point tal, but jl revels in the rigged system because it advantages him over those poor people. he is, afterall, that legendary bird and very preciousQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Prescious!! Pay attention!
Jesus had a word for those who placed money over human life.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
as I said precious, and you are being very precious todayQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Actually, he seems to be prescient at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:23 PM. |