What if expanding the safety net is LESS expensive than cutting it?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : What if expanding the safety net is LESS expensive than cutting it?

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next
Author Message
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 25
United States
Message 1320940 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 20:14:00 UTC

Luddite/technogeek ha!
____________

Janice


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 40,347,133
RAC: 103,825
Message 1320963 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 21:27:39 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 19:04:10 UTC

--

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9253
Credit: 1,437,755
RAC: 1,823
United States
Message 1320968 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 21:53:03 UTC - in response to Message 1320918.

Article I
Section. 8 of the US COnstitution

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Sixty-first Congress of the United States of America, At the First Session,

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the fifteenth day of March, one thousand nine hundred and nine.

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by the legislature of three-fourths of the several States, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution:

"ARTICLE XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12485
Credit: 6,795,308
RAC: 6,477
United States
Message 1321006 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 22:45:53 UTC - in response to Message 1320963.

In a democracy all the government has to do is fool most of the people most of the time, and if the controlled media and the government are working together it's easy.

Rupert Murdoch and Faux News comes to mind ...

____________

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321171 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 6:53:04 UTC - in response to Message 1320963.

Remember, the Constitution of the United States requires Congress "to promote the general welfare." With that in mind, in whatever cases that overall, it is demonstrably more cost-effective to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, (or) provide for the common defence" with public services of some sort, does not simple logic dictate that Congress must apportion spending in the most efficient way available to it?
____________

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321172 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 6:53:48 UTC - in response to Message 1321006.

In a democracy all the government has to do is fool most of the people most of the time, and if the controlled media and the government are working together it's easy.

Rupert Murdoch and Faux News comes to mind ...

I'll drink to that, Gary.


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 40,347,133
RAC: 103,825
Message 1321233 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 10:56:24 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 19:03:45 UTC

--

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12485
Credit: 6,795,308
RAC: 6,477
United States
Message 1321341 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 16:18:16 UTC - in response to Message 1321233.

My, someone keeps saying Constitution and then quotes another document.

____________

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321342 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 16:24:13 UTC - in response to Message 1321171.

Remember, the Constitution of the United States requires Congress "to promote the general welfare." With that in mind, in whatever cases that overall, it is demonstrably more cost-effective to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, (or) provide for the common defence" with public services of some sort, does not simple logic dictate that Congress must apportion spending in the most efficient way available to it?

The general welfare clause was not meant for the use you imply. Before you go and use someones thinking on that clause you should go to the founders and find the intent of it. Just sayin...

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12485
Credit: 6,795,308
RAC: 6,477
United States
Message 1321347 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 16:27:53 UTC - in response to Message 1321172.

In a democracy all the government has to do is fool most of the people most of the time, and if the controlled media and the government are working together it's easy.

Rupert Murdoch and Faux News comes to mind ...

I'll drink to that, Gary.

Toast Stephen B. Burke and MSNBC/CNBC as well.

____________

Terror Australis
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1711
Credit: 204,711,890
RAC: 23,742
Australia
Message 1321353 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 16:40:35 UTC - in response to Message 1321342.
Last modified: 29 Dec 2012, 16:42:52 UTC

The general welfare clause was not meant for the use you imply. Before you go and use someones thinking on that clause you should go to the founders and find the intent of it. Just sayin...

Out of curiosity, As you are a constitutional "literalist" can you please explain your interpretation of this ? The phrase "Promote the general welfare" draws a pretty wide bow.

I'm not being smart when I ask this question. I ask it from the position of an observer located many thousands of miles away who is unfamiliar with all the quirks, interpretations and court rulings that have taken place over the last 230 odd years.

T.A.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12485
Credit: 6,795,308
RAC: 6,477
United States
Message 1321369 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 17:05:54 UTC - in response to Message 1321353.

The general welfare clause was not meant for the use you imply. Before you go and use someones thinking on that clause you should go to the founders and find the intent of it. Just sayin...

Out of curiosity, As you are a constitutional "literalist" can you please explain your interpretation of this ? The phrase "Promote the general welfare" draws a pretty wide bow.

I'm not being smart when I ask this question. I ask it from the position of an observer located many thousands of miles away who is unfamiliar with all the quirks, interpretations and court rulings that have taken place over the last 230 odd years.

T.A.

If he says intent, he will quote from The Federalist Papers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

____________

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9253
Credit: 1,437,755
RAC: 1,823
United States
Message 1321406 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 17:40:47 UTC - in response to Message 1321369.

The general welfare clause was not meant for the use you imply. Before you go and use someones thinking on that clause you should go to the founders and find the intent of it. Just sayin...

Out of curiosity, As you are a constitutional "literalist" can you please explain your interpretation of this ? The phrase "Promote the general welfare" draws a pretty wide bow.

I'm not being smart when I ask this question. I ask it from the position of an observer located many thousands of miles away who is unfamiliar with all the quirks, interpretations and court rulings that have taken place over the last 230 odd years.

T.A.

If he says intent, he will quote from The Federalist Papers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers


I'm sorry, I have trouble reading that late 17th century muddle. Those big Bs meant in place of double s's make my eyes hurt. Maybe I could get Glenn Beck to translate to modern day language for me? ;)

Hessian!

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321578 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 19:32:18 UTC - in response to Message 1321341.

My, someone keeps saying Constitution and then quotes another document.

The Preamble of the Constitution is not "another document" Gary.
____________

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321585 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 19:47:20 UTC - in response to Message 1321353.

The general welfare clause was not meant for the use you imply. Before you go and use someones thinking on that clause you should go to the founders and find the intent of it. Just sayin...

Out of curiosity, As you are a constitutional "literalist" can you please explain your interpretation of this ? The phrase "Promote the general welfare" draws a pretty wide bow.

I'm not being smart when I ask this question. I ask it from the position of an observer located many thousands of miles away who is unfamiliar with all the quirks, interpretations and court rulings that have taken place over the last 230 odd years.

T.A.

Indeed "The Federalist Papers" would be intent of law and the only thing needed while it's interpreted.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12485
Credit: 6,795,308
RAC: 6,477
United States
Message 1321586 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 19:48:16 UTC - in response to Message 1321578.

My, someone keeps saying Constitution and then quotes another document.

The Preamble of the Constitution is not "another document" Gary.

The quote was from the Declaration of Independence, not the preamble to the Constitution.

____________

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321589 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 19:53:14 UTC - in response to Message 1321586.

My, someone keeps saying Constitution and then quotes another document.

The Preamble of the Constitution is not "another document" Gary.

The quote was from the Declaration of Independence, not the preamble to the Constitution.

Which quote?
____________

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321594 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 20:02:52 UTC - in response to Message 1321233.
Last modified: 29 Dec 2012, 20:05:11 UTC

...Constitution...requires Congress "to promote the general welfare."


By force, if necessary?

Once enacted by a majority of the governed or our representatives, all laws are enforced by, duh, force. Why do libertarians and "small government" radicals only notice this when it applies to helping the poor?

...does not simple logic dictate...


WHOOPS! You accidentally let it slip out. There are still many Americans who will not stand for a dictator.

Seriously? Until and unless you become intelligent enough to understand the difference in usage between what logic dictates and political dictatorship, and honest enough to respect the difference, you are unworthy of my time.

I am one of them and will fight it to my dying breath.

What would Jesus kill for? Probably not to avoid helping the poor, after instructing his followers in no uncertain terms that the only way into heaven is to sell all you own and give it all to the poor. One need not fall for any of the Bronze Age, superstitious horse hockey to appreciate what Jesus of Nazareth said about decency toward our fellow humans.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12485
Credit: 6,795,308
RAC: 6,477
United States
Message 1321599 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 20:15:02 UTC - in response to Message 1321589.

My, someone keeps saying Constitution and then quotes another document.

The Preamble of the Constitution is not "another document" Gary.

The quote was from the Declaration of Independence, not the preamble to the Constitution.

Which quote?

guy wrote:
The constitution was written in a way in an attempt to keep power where it rightfully (by Laws of Nature and of Nature's God) belongs.

Let's see ...
Declaration of Independence wrote:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

preamble wrote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Care to go again?

____________

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321604 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 20:24:42 UTC - in response to Message 1321599.

Thanks, Gary. I couldn't tell who you meant by "someone" and Guy didn't put his excerpt from the Declaration of Independence in "quotes." Good catch.
____________

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : Politics : What if expanding the safety net is LESS expensive than cutting it?

Copyright © 2014 University of California