New spin on the welfare debate.

[Bunnykid68]

Your desire to travel should not trump my peaceful enjoyment of meye property.

Which means public roads should be for all of the public.

Where is that damn popcorn eatin rabbit when I need it

 

[SkullDaddy.45]

Still your right, just like you still have a right to bear arms, it is just being infringed.

If you don't pay the small fee, you don't have the right to bear arms anymore! When Officer Snuffles comes to arrest someone it won't be the people who infringed your rights, it will be the person who didn't pay the "small fee" !

 

[Bunnykid68]

If you don't pay the small fee, you don't have the right to bear arms anymore! When Officer Snuffles comes to arrest someone it won't be the people who infringed your rights, it will be the person who didn't pay the "small fee" !

 

[SkullDaddy.45]

Which means public roads should be for all of the public.

Where is that damn popcorn eatin rabbit when I need it

Don't bring the popcorn eating rabbit! He's way to cute to argue with! Not fair!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Which means public roads should be for all of the public.

Where is that damn popcorn eatin rabbit when I need it

No. It means public roads are created by taking property from their rightful owners under duress. Just like with taxes, if you would not go rob somebody of their money to give to another person(s), neither should the government you hire be able to do that job for you when it comes to the taking of land.

 

[CZB1962]

So now the right to travel is not so much a right then.

I guess carrying a handgun in Indiana is not a right either then is it.

The act of traveling and the act of driving a car are not the same. You can walk, run, jog, catch a bus, call a cab, buy a plane ticket, call a friend to drive you, ride a horse, goat, camel, emu or ostridge at will, but to drive yourself you need a drivers license. Show me the "right to drive a car" in the constitution, any of its amendments or the bill of rights.

Carring a handgun is protected under the 2nd amendment and whether we should be required to have a license is another thread that we probably agree on.

 

[Fester]

The Government will never work to upend the Welfare System, but rather make it more attractive. It seems the more dependent on the government you are, the more power and authority it has.

As far as minimum wage, I am mixed. I can see the reasons for people needing to make more money, but last week I went to the Dairy Queen, where 4 employees are BSing around the register. I ask for a chili cheese dog. Well someone has the foresight to write "cheese" on the container but forget to actually "put" cheese on the hotdog. Why pay you $12 per hour to be sloppy and neglectful?

 

[SkullDaddy.45]

Carring a handgun is protected under the 2nd amendment and whether we should be required to have a license is another thread that we probably agree on.

But the fact still is that you must pay a small fee to the government for your RIGHT to bear arms! Don't pay the fee, you don't have that right anymore!

 

[Bunnykid68]

The act of traveling and the act of driving a car are not the same. You can walk, run, jog, catch a bus, call a cab, buy a plane ticket, call a friend to drive you, ride a horse, goat, camel, emu or ostridge at will, but to drive yourself you need a drivers license. Show me the "right to drive a car" in the constitution, any of its amendments or the bill of rights.

Carring a handgun is protected under the 2nd amendment and whether we should be required to have a license is another thread that we probably agree on.

Just because it is not in the Constitution does not mean it is any less of a right.

 

[CZB1962]

But the fact still is that you must pay a small fee to the government for your RIGHT to bear arms! Don't pay the fee, you don't have that right anymore!

If you are just making a point in general, OK. If you are implying that I somehow am for 2nd amendment restrictions as a matter of course then you misunderstood my comment.

I feel pretty confident in saying that BunnyKid68 is against any form of license or fee to exercise the right to carry a firearm. So in me stating that "we probably agree" was my way of saying that I don't agree with the fees.

 

[SkullDaddy.45]

Just because it is not in the Constitution does not mean it is any less of a right.

The right to eat popcorn! Shall not be infringed!

 

[CZB1962]

Not sure why, but this post went through twice.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Both Martin Luther King and Richard Nixon described some of the reasons why welfare payments to the poor are necessary and why people need to be able to find jobs that paying a living wage. In the end, it's all about the stability of capitalism since if there's too much poverty, poor people can always vote to restrict capitalism in exchange for more communism and/or socialism.

There is a problem here. This would be true of a DEMOCRACY, but not true of a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, which, by virtue of the Constitution, the United States is.

Alms or Almsgiving is a virtuous act based on pity and mercy that goes back to ancient times.
Welfare is like giving charity to the poor and is not anything like theft at all.
Blame the politicians for not collecting enough taxes, but don't blame the poor people who are the victims of poverty for receiving the charity.

Again, a major flaw in reasoning is presented here. Welfare is absolutely nothing like alms/charity. Alms and/or charity are VOLUNTARY. Welfare represents the money of one person taken INVOLUNTARILY to be given to another. Your argument is like saying that consensual sex and rape are the same thing.

 

[sun]

There is a problem here. This would be true of a DEMOCRACY, but not true of a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, which, by virtue of the Constitution, the United States is.

Well that's how we ended up with the quasi-socialist Affordable Care Act which like it or not, so far it's Constitutional. The taking of land by eminent domain is common, and it can then be used for private development by private corporations such as for industrial parks. So in theory the government can vote to also take land and voluntarily distribute it to the collective poor if they wanted to and give it away for homesteading for instance. Oh, they did do that already.

Again, a major flaw in reasoning is presented here. Welfare is absolutely nothing like alms/charity. Alms and/or charity are VOLUNTARY. Welfare represents the money of one person taken INVOLUNTARILY to be given to another. Your argument is like saying that consensual sex and rape are the same thing.

Once collected, the tax money is the property of the respective level of government, which like the church during the middle ages when it largely controlled the feudal states, distributed the alms to the poor, widowed, elderly and disabled. It's the government's money for the elected officials to voluntarily spend for the "public welfare" by giving it away as entitlements. That's just what they do for tax rebates for individuals and tax breaks for corporations. And that's also what voluntarily do when they give away free money in foreign aid.
Once a tax is paid, it no longer belongs to that person.
And some sovereign citizens have been declared by court trials to not need to pay any income taxes. Therefore, they believe that income taxes are voluntary and have won court cases against the IRS proving such.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well that's how we ended up with the socialist Affordable Care Act which like it or not, so far it's Constitutional. The taking of land by eminent domain is common, and it can then be used for private development by private corporations as for industrial parks. So in theory the government can vote to also take land and distribute it to the collective poor if they wanted to and give it away for homesteading for instance. Oh, they did one that already.

Please tell me that you are joking. You honestly cannot see the difference between what is clearly written and what 9 people have chosen to pervert it into 'meaning'? Damn, don't you understand the concept of limited government, the fact that 9/10 of the things the federal government do signally lack constitutional authority notwithstanding?



Once collected, the tax money is the property of the respective level of government, which like the church during the middle ages when it largely controlled the feudal states, distributed the alms to the poor, widowed, elderly and disabled. It's the government's money for the elected officials to voluntarily spend for the "public welfare" by giving it away as entitlements. That's just what they do for tax rebates and tax breaks for corporations.
Once a tax is paid, it no longer belongs to that person.
And some sovereign citizens have been declared by court trials to not need to pay any income taxes. Therefore, they believe that income taxes are voluntary and have won court cases against the IRS proving such.

I would like to see how the sovereigns pulled that off. Back to the point, your argument is akin to saying that once the armed robber takes my wallet out of my possession at gunpoint, it is no longer my wallet but rather his to properly do with as he will. No, damnit, that is NOT voluntary in any way, shape, or form.

Franklin was asked what had been created at the Constitutional Convention. He answered, "A republic, if you can keep it." I understand clearly what he meant, not only in regard to those who would use 'democracy' as a vehicle for unlimited government, but also in regard to reaching a point at which we would be surrounded by people who cannot understand the difference between a republic (constitutionally limited government) and a democracy (tyranny by 51% vote), limited and unlimited government, or even be able to wrap their heads around the idea that there is a problem with unlimited government including but not limited to democracy.

 

[sun]

I would like to see how the sovereigns pulled that off. Back to the point, your argument is akin to saying that once the armed robber takes my wallet out of my possession at gunpoint, it is no longer my wallet but rather his to properly do with as he will. No, damnit, that is NOT voluntary in any way, shape, or form.

Franklin was asked what had been created at the Constitutional Convention. He answered, "A republic, if you can keep it." I understand clearly what he meant, not only in regard to those who would use 'democracy' as a vehicle for unlimited government, but also in regard to reaching a point at which we would be surrounded by people who cannot understand the difference between a republic (constitutionally limited government) and a democracy (tyranny by 51% vote), limited and unlimited government, or even be able to wrap their heads around the idea that there is a problem with unlimited government including but not limited to democracy.

There was such a sovereign citizen on themuzzleloadingforum that won such a court case with the IRS. He has a well known business making custom, big bore muzzle loaders, owns land in the midwest that was granted to his family, and who has always declared himself to be a sovereign citizen and after many years he won his case. However, one must never pay any IRS income taxes because once they do, they can no longer claim to be a sovereign citizen, or so he said. He still never pays any income taxes and there haven't been any more attempts to prosecute him again. But he had a true court trial that was not in an IRS court which gave him somewhat of an advantage. But the point that he proved was that paying income taxes are voluntary, especially for those willing to fight in court to prove that they are truly sovereign citizens.

The government is not the same as a robber. It is we the self-governing people who operate according to the rules of law as interpreted by the elected and appointed officials under the Federal and state Constitutions. The U.S. has a unique structure of fragmented government with multiple levels. Neither you nor I nor any other single elected official has an absolute monopoly over the decision making process. Therefore, neither you nor I can claim with any degree of certainty to be absolutely right or wrong. However I can and have described what is as what is. While what you are asserting is an argument that what is shoudn't be. Either we are both right, both wrong, or only one of us is right and the other is wrong. But what is still is what is.
What else can we do to discuss a draconian proposal that is pure folly and will never become law except to agree to disagree? Whether right makes might or might makes right, it still won't happen.
The church no longer controls the government and can't demand that individuals pay alms. However our current form of a welfare state government does enforce most people to pay income taxes, just as Richard Nixon and every other modern POTUS would have done as a charitable, virtuous, compassionate, pitiful and merciful elected leader of our nation, advocated and provided a budget including monies for the public welfare in order to save capitalism to the best of their ability, under the rules of the Constitution of our Republic, one nation under so help us God.

 

[JS1911]

Perhaps if we stopped rewarding bad behavior, we'd start to see some positive results. If that means temporarily sterilizing those on gov. aid, so be it. Starvation is a powerful motivator to get up off of one's duff and find some work. If that means working two or three part time jobs to make ends meet then that is what all of the able-bodied parasites need to do. There are plenty of jobs available, but nobody wants to work because they in far too many instances, can make more money through gov. handouts. Females especially take advantage of this crap, and I'm getting AWFULLY sick of working to support some worthless piece of weasel poop so they can live high on the hog.

 

[cobber]

Well that's how we ended up with the quasi-socialist Affordable Care Act which like it or not, so far it's Constitutional. The taking of land by eminent domain is common, and it can then be used for private development by private corporations such as for industrial parks. So in theory the government can vote to also take land and voluntarily distribute it to the collective poor if they wanted to and give it away for homesteading for instance. Oh, they did do that already.





Once collected, the tax money is the property of the respective level of government, which like the church during the middle ages when it largely controlled the feudal states, distributed the alms to the poor, widowed, elderly and disabled. It's the government's money for the elected officials to voluntarily spend for the "public welfare" by giving it away as entitlements. That's just what they do for tax rebates for individuals and tax breaks for corporations. And that's also what voluntarily do when they give away free money in foreign aid.
Once a tax is paid, it no longer belongs to that person.
And some sovereign citizens have been declared by court trials to not need to pay any income taxes. Therefore, they believe that income taxes are voluntary and have won court cases against the IRS proving such.

Takings under eminent domain must be compensated. If the government simply takes your land, without just compensation, that is NOT a taking. Taxes are decidedly NOT takings, in any event.


Tax money is the "property" of the government? Sorry. This is simply expropriation.

"Free money"?

Okay, I've read enough.

 

[CZB1962]

Just because it is not in the Constitution does not mean it is any less of a right.

Morally, maybe not, but legally, it does and we live in a society bound by laws.

We can vote to change what we don't like or protest to bring attention to our cause (those are both rights), but until the law changes it is not a right to drive a car.

 

[CZB1962]

Alms or Almsgiving is a virtuous act based on pity and mercy that goes back to ancient times.
Welfare is like giving charity to the poor and is not anything like theft at all.
Blame the politicians for not collecting enough taxes, but don't blame the poor people who are the victims of poverty for receiving the charity.

alms - definition of alms by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Alms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Any idea how many corporations are sheltering the profits of their overseas subsidiaries offshore so that the U.S. Government can't collect taxes on it and how much it amounts to in lost revenue?
Read about it and look at all of the American companies that are sheltering their overseas profits.
That's right, the numbers represent BILLION$ of Dollars in profits that each are sheltering while the U.S. Government is drowning in debt.
These are among the richest American corporations that we fight wars for and dole out foreign aid in order to protect their foreign interests. Meanwhile folks are blaming the poor victims of poverty as being thieves. It's a shame that everyone in the U.S. must make up for the lost revenue of these most profitable U.S. corporations that do business overseas. And this is just the tip of the iceberg since these aren't even the top 100 corporations.

From the article:

Fortune 50 Stashing $800 Billion in Offshore Profits

More:

Big U.S. Companies Park $1.2 Trillion in Profits Offshore, Study Finds - WSJ.com

Apple, Google Among Top U.S. Companies Parking Cash Offshore To Reduce Taxes, Study Says - Forbes

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/b...rofit-to-avoid-taxes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

There is a lot to cover in your statement, some of which I totally agree with.

Let's start with welfare vs charity. Charity is voluntary giving, welfare is the state taking money from one person and giving it to another without me having to agree with the cause. No way the same thing.

Corporate greed, or as I call it, corporate welfare is a big issue but not directly tied to public welfare. To say that any extra money we collect from a corporation could go to welfare and all would be hunky dory is flawed in my thinking. Just because we have more revenue does not mean that it should be spent on people who abuse the system. Keep in mind, I don't support eliminating welfare just cutting out the abuse.

It seems like most liberals I debate always want to go to the corporate tax issue and pretend that public welfare is not an issue as well. For me, they are both issues.