No Drug Tests For Food Stamp Recipients, Feds Tell Georgia

Sure feels that way. But taxation isn't theft. That constitution that you mentioned, it identifies the authority for interpreting whether a law is constitutional or not. And that authority has ruled that taxes which exist are legal and constitutional. Therefore they're not theft.

But I sympathize. It sure feels like theft.



​

 

Didn't say it was unreasonable. Said the courts found it unconstitutional. And I further said I haven't yet read through their findings to understand why they found it so.



​

 

it's not unusal for a friend to pick up the tab on a night out for someone that just lost their job, saying that person doesn't need assistance because they were so bummed and their friend tried to lift their spirits is crazy

 

A choice made under duress is not a voluntary choice.



​

 

so your against faith based initiatives?

 

That's like saying opening your hand is a choice, but it's necessary that a released ball falls. Therefore you had no choice but to drop the ball.




​

 

No, it isn't. Corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses. We have been paying for a War on Poverty for around a generation. Providing for the general welfare is a delegated (social) Power.

 

The Constitution guaranties against UNREASONABLE, so what is unreasonable about it it your opinion? I bet nothing.

 

A dam is built for the general welfare, and the constitution only allows us to build that dam -- not promises every dam that could be built will be.

As for to the specific welfare of someone who is choosing not to work, I question whether we should give a dollar ... or a damn.




​

 

The Tax and Spend clause of the Constitution refers to the general welfare of the GOVERNMENT and it's assets and holdings and obligations, paying to maintain it's proper functions, not the People.

 

Do you understand that is not the only criteria for something to be unconstitutional?

And I've already told you my opinion is not much different than yours. Further I've told you my opinion hasn't considered all the constitutional issues that the supreme court has.

Which is why I'm deferring my opinion to the court -- who has done that work -- until such time as I have to examine that work.




​

 

Why do you believe that? Our federal Congress is delegated the Power to legislate, "in all cases whatsoever" in the federal districts. That refutes your appeal to ignorance.

- - - Updated - - -

How did you reach your conclusion?

Public policies may promote the general welfare.

 

Do you realize that when it comes to searches and seizures that is a key one? And I am asking your opinion, is it unreasonable to require a drug test when someone VOLUNTARILY applies for government welfare while they are supposed to be looking for employment?​

 

Which is why we have tax laws that give rebates to folks who buy Humvee's. Although you could (and probably would) argue buying everyone a Humvee promotes the general welfare.

That we can pass a bad law, doesn't mean we should tolerate them.




​

 

So? Because it's an important criteria, it's the only one we should consider?

That's like saying because a law doesn't involve cruel and unusual punishment it must be constitutional.

And I don't understand why you keep asking my opinion, when this whole thing started with your taking exception my stated opinion that I don't see an issue with testing them.(*)







​

 

Solving for poverty promotes the general welfare.

 

Poverty means lacking something. You can't solve poverty.




​

 

Yes, it would be solving for a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets; we have an official Mint at our disposal.

 

Money has no value. It's just a way of keeping track of favors exchanged -- it's a reusable IOU. If you solve for a poverty of money, you won't change anything except screw up the system by which we keep track of who's actually doing work.



​

 

It is a very KEY one when it comes to search and seizure, you are protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

If the law has to do with capital punishment................then that is a KEY criteria. In this case it is about searches and your 4th amendment protection specifically and clearly states UNREASONABLE search and seizures not every search. And that has nothing to do with other laws.

Because that is what we do here, discussion our opinions about things and that includes when our opinions about the law are in disagreement with the SCOTUS or any other part of government.


If you don't want to discuss it fine................I have no further interest.







​

[/QUOTE]

 

It is a medium of exchange for all debts, public and private. Our Institutions of money based markets thrive on it.

 

Until you "solve for poverty of money" by giving it away for free. At which point it is no longer an effective means of tracking debts.


​

 

"Giving" it away for "free" could solve simple poverty and generate a positive multiplier effect on our economy, and create demand for products in the private sector.

Public sector policies do more than private sector charity.

 

No it doesn't. The demand for goods is there now.

What you're doing it cheating some of the people in the economy by letting others take those goods out of the economy without putting an equal amount of goods and service back into it.

Handing out free money doesn't grow the economy. Putting value into the economy grows it. People who do nothing, who contribute no enterprise, labor, or wealth, add nothing to the economy. By definition.



​

 

There is not enough demand to achieve full employment; we are discussing actually solving a dilemma instead of just manufacturing more government programs.

How can full employment of resources be a bad thing in the market for labor?