Welfare Parasites

[NotNow]

It was your own stupid point.

You rambled on about how roosevelt 'seized' power to create the welfare state in responding to Finehoe pointing out to you that providing for the general welfare is literally written into the first paragraphs of the constitution, along with providing for defense.

I "rambled" that the "general welfare" phrase in the first paragraph (its called the preamble) is descriptive of the document itself, and had nothing to do with the point she was making.  I correctly pointed out what she was actually referring to.  I have explained this ad nauseum.  For a guy who at one time claimed a legal background you seem awfully ignorant of how statutory authority is derived.

I pointed out to you that the amount of time taken to deploy the intentions of the founding fathers doesn't really matter, and gave the example of the 87 years that passed before slavery was outlawed.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.  Have I argued for some kind of time limit?

You then made statements about the flawed thinking of slavery and I pointed out that this would be in direct contradiction to your contention that the original framing of the constitution is infallible.

Ah, the gist of your argument...you think that you are pointing out that the founding fathers and/or the Constitution was "flawed" in some way.  I have never claimed that the founding fathers were "infallible", that is YOUR word.  I do claim that you don't hold a shadow to any of them intellectually.  I did point out that they were wise enough to recognize that America would change and that unforseen circumstances would arise and they spelled out the amendment process.  I pointed out that this was the process used by your own example Mr. Lincoln with the slavery issue.

You then tried to distance yourself from any statement that portrayed the constitution as flawed and a living document by claiming that you weren't saying that the clear constitutional language on the subject of slavery was 'flawed'.

Huh?  I said the institution of slavery was obviously flawed.  While it existed at the time in this country, the processes set forth in our Constitution by our founding fathers were used to do away with the three fifths language that you mention.  That is not "distancing", that is accurate representation of fact.

So, notnow.  Was the constitution flawed on its treatment of slavery, or was lincoln a traitorous usurper like your insinuations about the roosevelt era of government?

The Constitution was not flawed.  As originally written, it statutorily directed the authority of the Federal government and described those enumerated authorities.  When slavery was rightfully outlawed, the amendment process remedied that language as it was intended to do.  Mr. Lincoln followed the process.  "Traitorous usurper" is, once again, your words.  It is an unchallenged fact that the FDR court greatly expanded the power and size of government.  You yourself have stated that there is no limit to what the Federal government can do as have other Democrat politicians.  This is clearly not what the founding fathers intended as written plainly in the Constitution as well as their public and private communications during their lifetimes.


My points are correct and logical.  You, on the other hand, don't appear to know the difference between enumerated powers and derived powers. You have again pointed out that you do not understand how the Federal government derives its statutory authority.   Your desire to paint the men who founded this country as anything less than brilliant falls far short.  While I certainly don't claim any authority in Constitutional law or claim any superior intellect, I am perfectly able to recognize a brilliantly constructed document and recognize the abilities of those who contributed to it.  I am also quite capable of recognizing a bullshitter, and I have extensive experience with such persons.

(I'm not inferringit, I am  calling you a bullshitter.  Not liar, but bullshitter. There is a difference)[/b][/b]

[finehoe]

We Are the 96 Percent
By SUZANNE METTLER and JOHN SIDES

WHEN Mitt Romney told the guests at a fund-raiser in Florida in May that America is divided between people who pay no income taxes and depend on government and pretty much everyone else, he missed the deeper truth. It is not just that most of the 47 percent Mr. Romney talked about do pay payroll taxes and that many of them have paid income taxes in the past. The reality he glossed over is that nearly all Americans have used government social policies at some point in their lives. The beneficiaries include the rich and the poor, Democrats and Republicans. Almost everyone is both a maker and a taker.

We have unique data from a 2008 national survey by the Cornell Survey Research Institute that asked Americans whether they had ever taken advantage of any of 21 social policies provided by the federal government, from student loans to Medicare. These policies do not include government activity that benefits everyone â€" national defense, the interstate highway system, food safety regulations â€" but only tangible benefits that accrue to specific households.

The survey asked about people’s policy usage throughout their lives, not just at a moment in time, and it included questions about social policies embedded in the tax code, which are usually overlooked.

What the data reveal is striking: nearly all Americans â€" 96 percent â€" have relied on the federal government to assist them. Young adults, who are not yet eligible for many policies, account for most of the remaining 4 percent.

On average, people reported that they had used five social policies at some point in their lives. An individual typically had received two direct social benefits in the form of checks, goods or services paid for by government, like Social Security or unemployment insurance. Most had also benefited from three policies in which government’s role was “submerged,” meaning that it was channeled through the tax code or private organizations, like the home mortgage-interest deduction and the tax-free status of the employer contribution to employees’ health insurance. The design of these policies camouflages the fact that they are social benefits, too, just like the direct benefits that help Americans pay for housing, health care, retirement and college.

The use of government social policies cuts across partisan divides. Some policies were used more often by members of one party or the other. Republicans were more likely to have used the G.I. Bill and Social Security retirement and survivors’ benefits, while more Democrats had taken advantage of Medicaid and unemployment insurance. Overall, 82 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans acknowledged receipt of at least one direct social benefit. More Republicans (92 percent) than Democrats (86 percent) had taken advantage of submerged policies. Once we take both types of policies into account, the seeming distinction between makers and takers vanishes: 97 percent of Republicans and 98 percent of Democrats report that they have used at least one government social policy.

The majority of individuals from households at every income level have used at least one direct social policy. Low-income people have used more of the direct policies than have the affluent: the average household with income under $10,000 per year used four of them, compared to only one by the households at $150,000 and above. But the proportions were reversed in the case of the submerged policies: wealthy families had typically used three of them, and the poor just one.

There were also few partisan differences in how long individuals had benefited. Among policies used by similar percentages of Democrats and Republicans, like the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit and tax credits for college tuition, members of both parties received the benefits for the same average amount of time. The same was true for policies that benefited one group of partisans more than the other. For example, although the mortgage-interest deduction was claimed by more Republicans and the earned-income tax credit by more Democrats, both claimed the benefits for two to five years on average. Similarly, Republicans who relied on the G.I. Bill did so for about as long as did Democrats who claimed unemployment insurance benefits.

Where Americans actually differ is in how they think about government’s role in their lives. A major driving factor here is ideology: conservatives were less likely than liberals to respond affirmatively when asked if they had ever used a “government social program,” even when both subsequently acknowledged using the same number of specific policies.

These ideological differences were on display at the party conventions. When Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey noted that his father, who “grew up in poverty,” had used the G.I. Bill to become the first in his family to graduate from college, it was in the context of a speech criticizing our “need to be coddled by big government.” By contrast, Michelle Obama credited student loans with making her and her husband’s college educations possible and then argued that “when you’ve worked hard, and done well, and walked through that doorway of opportunity, you do not slam it shut behind you.”

Throughout our lives, almost all of us help sustain government social policies through our tax dollars and, at some point, almost all of us directly benefit from these policies. Because ideology influences how we view our own and others’ use of government, Mr. Romney’s remarks may resonate with those who think of themselves as “producers” rather than “moochers” â€" to use Ayn Rand’s distinction. But this distinction fails to capture the way Americans really experience government. Instead of dividing us, our experiences as both makers and takers ought to bind us in a community of shared sacrifice and mutual support.

Suzanne Mettler is a professor of government at Cornell and John Sides is an associate professor of political science at George Washington University.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/we-are-the-96-percent/

[I-10east]

IMO Obama should have left the 'welfare to work' like it was; That is honestly my only knit pick with the president. Now, if you want a laundry list of problems to deal with, get Romney is office; Wall street deregulation, the rich paying less taxes than the poor, a retroactive healthcare system, jobs going overseas, I can go on and on.

[fsquid]

Actually, I think Obama just sent the power of welfare back to the states, which I'm fine with.

[bill]

IMO Obama should have left the 'welfare to work' like it was; That is honestly my only knit pick with the president. Now, if you want a laundry list of problems to deal with, get Romney is office; Wall street deregulation, the rich paying less taxes than the poor, a retroactive healthcare system, jobs going overseas, I can go on and on.

I guess tormoil in the middle east, embassies being attacked, lower employment now than 10 years ago, net incomes declining, inflation increasing, huge increases in food stamps and 5 trillion in debt is knitpicking

[I-10east]

I guess tormoil in the middle east, embassies being attacked, lower employment now than 10 years ago, net incomes declining, inflation increasing, huge increases in food stamps and 5 trillion in debt is knitpicking

So I guess that Romney would have went against the Constitution's freedom of speech, because of a bunch of thugs reacting to a movie, right? C'mon, you now better than that. Yeah, with Bush we certainly had a surplus, right? Get real. Like I said, the welfare under Obama is 'knit picking' compared to anything that Romney would do.

[bill]

I guess tormoil in the middle east, embassies being attacked, lower employment now than 10 years ago, net incomes declining, inflation increasing, huge increases in food stamps and 5 trillion in debt is knitpicking

So I guess that Romney would have went against the Constitution's freedom of speech, because of a bunch of thugs reacting to a movie, right?

That you even half believe this means you are a lost cause. Even the White House stopped telling that lie. 

[I-10east]

^^^Tell me what your hero Romney would have did in that situation?

[bill]

What he or any standing president would have DONE is acknowledge it for what it was, an obvious, planned act of terror. When you deal in reality it makes it easier to deal with problems.   

[I-10east]

^^^He said that the murderers of the diplomats will be brought to justice, we shall see; Remember this is the guy who killed Osama Bin Laden, and many other terrorists, so that can't be taken lightly. I'm not trying to say that Obama is perfect, no president was, but what's most important, Obama will not be for the rich getting richer, and he will not screw that '47 percent' unlike your boy Mitt.

[finehoe]

^^^Tell me what your hero Romney would have did in that situation?

Why, he would've given tax cuts to rich people, of course.  That's the Republican solution to EVERY problem.

[I-10east]

^^^+100

[fsquid]

^^^Tell me what your hero Romney would have did in that situation?

Why, he would've given tax cuts to rich people, of course.  That's the Republican solution to EVERY problem.

He should give free phones!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/screaming-obama-supporter-explain-why-we-need-to-re-elect-obama-he-gave-us-a-phone-he-gonna-do-more/

[finehoe]

^^^Yes, stupid people abound all along the political spectrum:

[fsquid]

^^^He said that the murderers of the diplomats will be brought to justice, we shall see; Remember this is the guy who killed Osama Bin Laden, and many other terrorists, so that can't be taken lightly. I'm not trying to say that Obama is perfect, no president was, but what's most important, Obama will not be for the rich getting richer, and he will not screw that '47 percent' unlike your boy Mitt.

bullshit, both sides are there to screw us over until someone gets a credible third party going.