Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

I'm going to check on that union business. I refuse to believe it. But if it turns out to be true---somebody/ies is/are stupid motherfuckers.

 

There sure are a lot of working class wealth cheerleaders around here.

It's the merican way I guess.

Wealth spends good money to keep it that way.

I look at it as a bunch of drones mindlessly doing their masters business.

 

Or some bored CEO's.

Flushing the world's middle class and poor down the drain and embezzling their money doesn't take much continued effort, they can just be some self-made retired lower middle class champion of wealth in their free time, or when important meetings about other people's money get boring.

 

I have friends and acquaintances working for co-ops in both Alabama and Georgia that confirm it.

Kinda sad really -- that we've come to that.

 

Not so fast, RooR:

The Constitution says “..promote the general welfare…” -- there’s a BIG difference.

Even so, that phrase appears in the Preamble, which is, according to the opinions of most constitutional scholars and the courts, NOT considered law since it neither grants power nor restricts it.

The framers of the Constitution understood the concept of ‘prohibition by exclusion’ – anyone reading and wishing to truly understand the Constitution should familiarize themselves with that concept.

Several million readers must have somehow missed that portion -- can you point to the appropriate Article/Section/Amendment.

 

Well those must be the slower several million, given how many hundreds of millions have, or should have, read it.

Preamble="this is how you should understand this whole document, and how you should use it". It doesn't need to be "law" to be pretty important, which is why it was written.

Anyway, the preamble says that they need to "promote the general welfare".... that sounds pretty broad to me, I don't think it would be promoting the general welfare of the people to let them starve if they don't have enough money, or to allow unregulated corporate thievery to send them to the poorhouse.

And the amendments clear up ANY doubt about taxes.

 

False?

Do you even have an idea of what you are responding to?
Yes, all government programs are funded by taxation. Taxes are paid only by those who initially earned the money collected as tax.

If you were to give me $5 to purchase a hamburger and a cup of coffee, you would then be paying for not only my hamburger and cup of coffee, but also for the tax charged as a part of that purchase.

I would have received the hamburger and cup of coffee and paid the tax with no cost at all to myself.

Are you claiming that by spending your money I'm entitled to receive more of it?

 

Yet you demonstrated that you either did not read, or did not understand my post at all.

"And I'm not thinking of social security, medicare, veterans services, or short term (26 week) unemployment benefits, which are programs in which the recipients have contributed to, as the means of entitlement."

 

Wrong

But I noticed you can’t actually prove I’ve misrepresented you for the simple reason that I haven’t.

I have asked you to address criticisms or explain your thinking and I’ve also noticed you are doing little of that also.

What we get is a rant against Keynes, more ant-government rhetoric and a complete failure to address the questions I posed about your ideas.

I mean come on I’m still waiting for you to address the stuff that was raised during our discussion on the parable of the window.

 

Wrong

You seem to be saying that markets have always had interventions, so are you agreeing with me that there never has been and never could be a ‘free market’?

Exactly the ‘crash and burn’ that has been mentioned.

So you want a system where what, banks often collapse, and no type of governance (no regulation) is allowed to interfere? First as I’ve said I think interference would always take place and second I don’t think such a system would be good for society as a whole.

Can you please explain your thinking?

This is incredibly simplistic and naive. Again you show a tendency toward absolutist thinking (either/or). In reality things are a bit more haphazard, sometimes this is how it goes sometimes it doesn’t. What I’ve talked about is buying into viable businesses that have got themselves into short-term trouble due to an economic crash or downturn. What is the good of having it going bankrupt or being sold off in a fire sale?

As I’ve said you seem to have this either/or view on a business in that it is either completely and utterly viable, or completely and utterly a failure that deserves to die.

Why would you present this as an example? The very first article I read on it said and I quote – “The snack maker's demise was years in the making”.

 

Actually the preamble of the Constitution reads, "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.

 

Indie

Why do you continue to restate stuff you know perfectly well that you have been unable to defend from criticism in the past?

You already know because we have been through it in detail and at length that -

It is not charity but social provision

Charity was unable to perform social provision that’s why people fought for public provision.

That charitable provision was often corrupt and ineffective.

Your argument seems based on the assumption that anyone seeking provision is a lazy scrounger.

You are perpetuating the old con game of the 'deserving and undeserving' poor.

To repeat - The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.

So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

The problem was that these people were often the same individuals and families but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

And as I pointed many times this is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are personally responsible and make “better decisions” they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make “poor decisions” they don’t deserve assistance.

*

How much do you get paid to repeat from the list of slogans and rhetoric you’ve been given to sprout?

 

Bal,

Post your address and I'll send you the bill.

 

Indie


LOL oh I think we all pay enough here already for your dishonesty - but how does it work do you get a wage, a stipend or is it per repetition?

 

Dishonesty? Please Bal, can't you come up with something more rational than that? How would you like to pay me? Or do you feel your words have some value other than passing on debt from one person or generation to another?

While you obviously argue for how you would like the U.S. government to operate, you, as well as may mis-educated Americans, have no understanding at all of how is is meant to operate under the Constitution, which is the primary reason we have so many problems needing to be solved today.

Perhaps you should try reading our Constitution, without trying to reinterpret it to mean what you would like it to mean.

 

Indie

Yes dishonest, what would you call someone who consistently evades answering criticisms then repeats the criticised ideas elsewhere knowing full well that they have outstanding criticisms outstanding against them, criticisms that seem to show the ideas to be deeply if not fatally flawed.

It is one of the reasons for thinking you are paid to spread these ideas.

And remember I’ve called you out as a complete and utter liar more than once and asked you to prove me wrong, something you seem unable to do.

As to the US Constitution we have been through your view in that area many, many, many. many times and you know perfectly well that you still have not addressed the outstanding criticisms of your view.

 

My bullshit meter was pegged with that one. Wealth most certianly does correctly view those programs as welfare (because they are).

As Balbus has clearly shown, your integrity is lacking.

 

Bal,

Even a complete and utter liar is preferable to being a complete and utter idiot.

 

out:

Is your purpose only to function as Bals' afterbirth?

"Wealth most certianly [sic] does correctly view those programs as welfare (because they are)."

Would you then also include a 'work wage' to fall into the category of being a welfare program?

 

What is your definition of 'wealth'? 'Welfare'?

Maybe if you explain, your statement would make some sort of sense.