quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
FR how is ANY charity going to cover ANYthing for 89,000 people, in ONE state.
the GENERAL welfare is for ALL citizens isnt it, not just those who are middle class?
Allowing the working/lower classes to starve isnt covering or serving the general welfare of ALL citizens

And here we completely agree. You are correct. It isn't service or covering the general welfare of ALL citizens.

But, here's one itsy bitsy problem. The US Constitution uses the phrase, "general Welfare of the United States." Therein lies the key. The Federal Government is looking out for the country as one unit, not every individual unit that comprises the nation. Securing our borders isn't about protecting you or me from "bad guys." It's about protecting the United States of America from "bad guys."

Did you ever notice that the Federal Government concerns itself with the national economy and not your personal economy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Great job of taking a proposition and moving it to a point of absurdity.
No one is claiming that the United States of America has ,as it's charter, the responsibility of ensuring "the general welfare" of all the worlds citizens.
What is being asserted is a responsibility to it's own citizens ,now you are free to dispute that ,and I'm sure you will...but please do a better job than the one you just did.
You do your side of the argument a great disservice when you stoop to such ridiculous lengths in trying to make your point.
You are relatively new here so I have no real idea of your capabilities,but a grade school child could put forth a better defense of your pov than you just did.
Raise your game a bit,or just read for awhile,I really don't care...but please don't proffer any more of that bullshit...no one here is going to buy that garbage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Shall we look for the same inefficiencies in the Defense budget

quote:


subsidies to big Oil,Corp. and Agriculture ?
Methinks we would find a chunk of change there.

quote:


Than we could look at some "temporary" tax cuts...and wonder when "temporary" became somehow permanent ?
Another healthy chunk of change,now we are on our way to closing that pesky budget deficit
Of course since all of that sort of violates "conservative" orthodoxy ...we can not do those things,even when they are propsed in conjunction with slashing the so called entitlement programs.
Why is that ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds
Interesting question for you...
If we let people starve, if we leave homeless people on the streets, if we ignore the mentally handicapped, children who are being abused in the home, etc. If we focus the federal government only on defense and interstate highways, would the United States (not any persons, the nation as a whole) be better off?
Or would this indicate a lack of basic humanity? A proof that we as a society had failed completely. A scathing rebuke against the capitalist system itself?
And in this world where only charities try to help the poor (and fail miserably judging by history), what do the poor do? For that matter, what do the rich do?
In the 1700's, the poor were able to take over France, and kill the rich. This was with mobs and primitive weapons. What happens when poor people can get modern firearms, but not food?
It doesn't take much imagination to see the future of a state that abandons it's people...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Great job of taking a proposition and moving it to a point of absurdity.
No one is claiming that the United States of America has ,as it's charter, the responsibility of ensuring "the general welfare" of all the worlds citizens.
What is being asserted is a responsibility to it's own citizens ,now you are free to dispute that ,and I'm sure you will...but please do a better job than the one you just did.
You do your side of the argument a great disservice when you stoop to such ridiculous lengths in trying to make your point.
You are relatively new here so I have no real idea of your capabilities,but a grade school child could put forth a better defense of your pov than you just did.
Raise your game a bit,or just read for awhile,I really don't care...but please don't proffer any more of that bullshit...no one here is going to buy that garbage.

I see, so fuck them. They should have been born here. Shitty as luck they have, huh?

What makes us so fucking high and mighty that we don't have to look out for others? Selfish bastards, the lot of us.

You can't see how ridiculous it is for someone in Washington DC to decide what is best for someone in Washington state? Or Hawaii? Or Alaska? Yes, I made an extreme example. It still fits. You don't like it? Well, that's too fucking bad. No one is forcing you to read my posts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds
Interesting question for you...
If we let people starve, if we leave homeless people on the streets, if we ignore the mentally handicapped, children who are being abused in the home, etc. If we focus the federal government only on defense and interstate highways, would the United States (not any persons, the nation as a whole) be better off?
Or would this indicate a lack of basic humanity? A proof that we as a society had failed completely. A scathing rebuke against the capitalist system itself?
And in this world where only charities try to help the poor (and fail miserably judging by history), what do the poor do? For that matter, what do the rich do?
In the 1700's, the poor were able to take over France, and kill the rich. This was with mobs and primitive weapons. What happens when poor people can get modern firearms, but not food?
It doesn't take much imagination to see the future of a state that abandons it's people...

Not a very interesting question at all, SoftBonds. The Federal Government, according to James Madison in Federalist Paper #45, explicitly states that the State Governments are to take care of the "internal" affairs. So, perhaps, the State Governments would pick up the slack?

And, charitable contributions are set to eclipse 2007 levels this year, btw. I wonder who is doing all that donating?

Do you remember Obama stating that he had hundred's of thousands of dollars more than he needed? I wonder what he did with those "extra" piles o' cash. He probably donated them either to the IRS (which anyone that wants to pay more in taxes is absolutely allowed to do), or to private charities. He did do that, right?

You don't have to answer this on the board, SoftBonds unless you really want to (and that goes for anyone reading this): Did you take all the deductions/credits you were legally allowed to take last time you filed your tax returns? Why or why not?

quote:

True....but I just can't resist,the comedic value is,at present unmatched around these parts.
So..till someone funnier than you comes along,I will continue to read your posts.
Thanks for playing

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

True....but I just can't resist,the comedic value is,at present unmatched around these parts.
So..till someone funnier than you comes along,I will continue to read your posts.
Thanks for playing

Can I join you in thanking DesideriScuri for his consistently hilarious contributions to the boards.

I have to admit that, initially, he had me fooled completely. I was so taken in I responded to his posts seriously, using facts, evidence, data, rational arguments and boring stuff like that. Silly me! (lol)

It took me a while but now that I have figured it out, I am wondering whether we have a minor comedic genius amongst us. Whatever the case, please keep the laughs flowing DS, you lighten up the boards. And we all need a good laugh!

quote:

The Iraq War cost us less than $802B. Total. Afghanistan has cost us less than $507B. We are barely over $1.308T in war costs since 2011

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds
State governments should pick up the slack huh?
So, you mean, like the program we are discussing. You are saying the Republican Governor was wrong???

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

The Iraq War cost us less than $802B. Total. Afghanistan has cost us less than $507B. We are barely over $1.308T in war costs since 2011

Try again.
"Altogether, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost the U.S. between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, more than half of which would be due to the fighting in Iraq...the U.S. has already spent $2 trillion on the wars after including debt interest and the higher cost of veterans’ disabilities."
Wall St. Journal 12/15/11