Heard a great question yesterday, one reasonable people should ponder

The general welfare clause would normally be required to show actual good obtained, but we all know how the left will use that to push for any legislation, even though it only promotes bad. For example, federal student loans. Has that proven to be good for the country? The left says this isn't the case, and that they actually harm the country.

So if they were honest, they would say that the general welfare clause is a good argument against providing federally funded student college loans.

but we all know that intellectual honesty isn't exactly the hallmark of the left.

 

I don't know about what side of the ledger I'll end up on. But usually the raw unabridged truth lands one in banned camp. The left can not wait until they repeal the first amendment.

 

I don't think that they can erase all of this. I'm sure the fücking fascists would love to hogtie all of us. But as of now they are not legally able to do so.

 

So your question could be rephrased as "if Democrats want what Sean Hannity and the wingnut media bubble tell me they want, then...." well... the rest doesn't actually matter, because... just between you and me.... the right-wingnut media bubble is designed to dupe you into one big strawman.

Bottom line: you are being lied to... And you are believing the lies. No.... that's nonsense.....

 

Have you not seen the village idiots on CNN and MSNBC? Even if Hannity were a special needs child, those clowns make him look like a Rhodes Scholar.

 

The Founding Fathers excelled by putting their own lives on the line in order to do what was BEST for WE THE PEOPLE which would be called socialism today by the greed obsessed.

 

[QUOTE="jay runner, post: 1070493269, member: 76075"]If they had taken me out of the draft and given me free money I would have joined the permanent underclass.

Millions upon millions of people do it. It's the thing to do.[/QUOTE]

Just like your BLOTUS did?

Delusional Donald got out of the draft and was given MILLIONS of dollars in free money and he defines what it means to be UNDERCLASS!

 

Actually you DID say liberals.

 

No, they didnt care about garbage.

I worked really hard this week, and have worked really hard for 26 years now. Every time I go to work, I am wishing I didn't have to go to work. I am close to retiring now, and have absolutely no compassion for people who didn't feel the need to do what I have.

I could retire now, but I want my full pension. I worked hard for that. People who didn't work that hard can die for all I care. Everything I will get was worked hard for.

So if your socialists want something, let them work for it like I did.

or they can die... no loss.

 

That girl sounds just like a Republican.

Just look at all of the wealthy Republicans who are getting FREE MONEY from Uncle Sam in the form of massive tax cuts and no longer working to "create jobs".

 

That sounds EXACTLY like wealthy Republicans who want even LARGER TAX CUTS from the government!

 

Thank you for being honest enough to openly declare your complete and utter absence of empathy and compassion for those less fortunate than yourself.

However do not fallaciously assume that the Founding Fathers had similar shortcomings when it came to those less fortunate than themselves.

 

None of them wanted a welfare state, so you're woofing nonsense.

It's not a lack of compassion, but rather being too old and wise and intelligent to put up with scumbags. I am willing to give everybody a chance, but that chance has to be worked for. Over the course of my many years, I have tried to help many.

Sorry, but most of my pitiful attempts have resulted in utter failure.

Go away, you worthless socialist scumbags! Earn a living or die! That's my credo now.

As for being less fortunate? WTF? I wasnt born with a silver spoon! I earned where I am today through hard work. That's not being fortunate. It's called hard work.

 

Wouldn’t that raise the question why people go to college and develop a career now? You can get enough to basically live on form a simple entry level job so people would need other reasons to go to the time and effort of higher education and formal training for a more technical or professional career. How would the existence of a stronger safety net at the bottom change any of that?

 

All of it!

 

That is not how I read it - at all. But if that is your spin, you then believe that Democrats think that Americans are, by nature, lazy? That they do not want to learn, grow or succeed? That they are happiest when sitting at home in their pajamas, watching day time television? Do you honestly believe that that is how Democrats see the people of this country, and the reason they want universal income and healthcare is simply to appease the lazy masses?

I am not a Republican, clearly, but I don't think that right leaning politicians are *******s that think very little of the American people. I recognize that they see the path to a better country differently than I do. I certainly see some right leaning politicians as *******s, but then, I see some left leaning ones the same way. Its a shame that you cannot separate the two in your mind...

 

It probably would shock me to the core. But I don't think that your assessment holds water, as countries that provide the kinds of programs suggested by Dem programs do not have a population of laziness and lacking in ambition.

 

If that's what you heard/read into that message, that's on you.

 

And you somehow believe that a 'universal income' would be equal to and replace the salary of necessary workers?

 

I'm saddened by your opinion of 'human nature'.

 

This is useful on two levels...

First, we get to refer to how work disincentive effects actually operate. In countries with less generous social expenditures, it reflects the combination of tax and benefit systems. This produces effective marginal rates of tax that can actually exceed 100%. Universal systems can actually reduce these problems.

Second, we get to refer to behavioural insights. We have intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to work. Indeed, it is important to refer to a failure in modern economics. That typically assumes work is neutral (i.e. just a mechanism to exchange leisure for consumption). In reality, work is often critical to our lives. I know that my work is everything to me. It's not just about the money (although they do say each kid costs about the same as a Ferarri).

 

Yup...and they should just sit home and watch tv if that is what they want.

Forcing people like that to work ends up with less product than keeping them out of the way.

 

That is your position?

Do as I do...or die?

Think about that. Think about the number of people who work every bit as hard as you do...but who do not have that multi-million dollar house you have. Think of the people who work every bit as hard as you do...but who barely make ends meet and who are one sickness away from destitution.

Since you are such a hard-working guy...perhaps you can put a bit of work into developing some humanity.