WHY WORK ?

Because it is in writing as our supreme law of the land. The Judicature even uses it as a benchmark Standard upon which to base judicial opinions.

Our Founding Fathers were wiser than our (senior) elders. They merely enumerated sufficient socialism to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

1. Sure, some will bootstrap up, but a majority will not, and THOSE are the people you have to worry about. Remember, we ALL get a vote. What will you do when that majority start voting to simply TAKE what they want?

2. Not what I see the majority of people like you are saying. But even if so 70>30. You might want to compromise with them, and wean them off assistance slowly, while still providing a basic standard of living. Otherwise, well, the numbers speak volumes.

 

1. Okay, so you are simply a partisan hyprocrite. Well, if you are okay with that.
2. You say I'm totally left? Then I have to ask you what your qualifications are for left/right? Is this another black/white all or nothing issue with you?
3. You may not like them, but you still have to live in the same world and work with them, until you can get enough numbers to support a 'exterminate the poor and lazy' campaign. So, what will you do? Will you act first, or just wait until things get so bad that the poor start taking more direct measures?

 

Again the system would be much easier to maintain if there wasn't so much fraud and waste. Lot's of people have been taught to take advantage, and they do.

 

...and it is all left to the interpretation of a hand full of bought and paid for sock puppets (elected and appointed), that even when working against each other are setting the situation up and working for an ulterior motive, generally beneficial to their pocket book. IOW the system is so skewed and corrupt, they can do anything they wish and still get away with it.

 

Most people who are using government subsidies are children, the elderly, and the underpaid. It has become a tradition in some places and is completely accepted. You change it and wean the fraudulent off of it, and they will have no choice but comply. Go cold turkey and the whiplash will be huge, and destructive.

 

I am not sure what you mean; there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws as a privilege and immunity for the citizens in the several States in our republic.

Our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our supreme law of the land and federal Constitution.

We have a Commerce Clause, for example. There is no Prohibition clause since the repeal of that known historical mistake, last millennium.

We have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments and our republican form of Government.

One position and in that alternative, is that if it is not expressly enumerated as delegated, it doesn't exist if we have to quibble.

 

When does the weaning start ? I'm not blaming the children , it's the parent ! Why do we have a system that increases the amount the parent receives when they continue to have more kids , and most will NOT identify the dads ! Why doesn't the welfare system demand to know who BOTH parents are ? Why is there no accountable ? I would question someone's "NEED" if they see fit to purchase expensive shoes or sneakers . And if they have flashy gold and diamond stud ear rings . Choices , plain and simple . Make bad ones and learn from it . How long must we cuddle and make excuses ? Is it mandatory to regulate sound choices ? If I decide to spend hundreds on gold and diamonds and can not pay my gas or electric bill , they shut it off ! There is no-one for those that work and make unsound choices willing to pay my bills . How about you ?

 

Every man's got to know his limitations. That, and he has to know where the problem lies.

It really doesn't matter if 1% of the country is doing all the work as long as they are getting paid enough. The problem comes when 50% of the country is on welfare and the other 50% is getting paid LESS. That causes no end of friction. Give me $1,000,000/year and I'd be glad to give $500,000 of it to whoever wants it. Unless, of course, it turns out that I can't live without that Gulfstream IV any longer. Then I'd just be flat irked.

Ingraham is simply wrong with her "more takers and than makers" nonsense. The makers just have to look at how their standard of living continues to increase year to year.

 

I'm not waiting for someone to give me anything , never going to happen .

 

Calm down sparky.....
And quoting the good ol doctor doesn't strenghten your argument, whatever that is....?

I think you get my point here

 

The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew the way this government is run these days.

 

Nope. Been paying my own way since I left home after graduating high school.

 

You get four guesses . I'm sure you can figure it out .

 

Same here . Tried of looking out for the lazy . Tired of all the bull$hit excuses .

 

Too much welfare is being handed out. And I'm not including SS or medicare or medicaid.

Is that clear enough?

 

Well, in your example, if you can't pay the bill, they just take back the physical property, but parents having kids they can't afford is not really the same situation. Because, how do you force the parent to be responsible?

We have that system because we simply do not have the will, as a country, to force sterilizing women or otherwise forcing couples to not be ABLE to have children. And we do not want to punish children for the crimes of their parents.

So, what IYO, would be a way to fix a problem like this, one that does not penalize the unwanted child?

 

You may be missing the point about promoting the general welfare; it implies social safety nets that work. An investment in the general welfare must generate a positive multiplier effect to actually provide for the general welfare.

Since supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost, why not lower our tax burden by solving for market recognizable recognizable phenomena such as the inefficiency of a of a "natural rate of unemployment" by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

 

We have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

 

You may be missing the point about promoting the general welfare; it implies social safety nets that work. An investment in the general welfare must generate a positive multiplier effect to actually provide for the general welfare.

Since supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost, why not lower our tax burden by solving for market recognizable phenomena such as the inefficiency of a "natural rate of unemployment" by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual--it could promote the general welfare by solving for simple poverty at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines in a market friendly manner that is compatible with capitalism and on an at-will basis.

Unemployment compensation merely to compensate for being unemployed in our at-will employment States can be as simple as the concept of employment at will can make it.

 

It isn't social benefits that is the problem, but the "entitlement" spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror, especially under our form of capitalism.

Why not end those programs to lower our tax burden.

 

My good comrade, Capitalism is about voluntary social transactions that may result in mutually beneficial trade. Only truer forms of Socialism sacrifice Individual Liberty for a collective goal.

 

I'll get right on it .

- - - Updated - - -

At-will them to work .

 

comrade !! WTF

 

Why? Employers are not required to have an employment ethic and hire anyone who applies for a job, even in right to work States.