Originally posted by uzlessWell I'm glad we have the welfare system then since life was so unbareable before hand.
The idea is that in a civilized modern society, no citizen of that society should suffer a life not worth living. It was founded on the principle that all life is important and that while some may prosper, some will flounder. As a society we can only hope that those who flounder will one day gain, or re-gain, their ability to contribute to society. Until t ...[text shortened]... ntain that level of support, it speaks more to our character than it does to those we support.
And FYI, I am the poor so I'm not picking on them. I live in a household of 4 that makes less than $25,000/year. Look up and see where that falls on the charts and yet we are not on welfare.
Originally posted by WulebgrShall be uniform througtout the US, huh? Now does that mean every citizen gets a check or does that only mean that everything is equal through the states?
section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
What do I win?
All you did was show that Congress has the right to tax the citizens. I knew that.
So by providing for the common defense and general welfare of the US, Congress is protecting them from outside invasions. It says nothing about protecting the general welfare of the citizens but rather the US as a whole.
So where does it say that the federal government has the right to take money from one person and GIVE it to someone else? The only thing you showed was, like I said, that Congress can tax people.
Originally posted by uzlessThe income tax was never to exceed 2%. What is it now? 25% for the poor and something like 90% for the rich. That's really fair. (I'm not sure the exact numbers but I'm going to check them and I only know what they take out of my measly check).
a Constitutional Amendment ,the Sixteenth Amendment, enacted in 1913 --- to get a tax on income in the US.
What you are asking really is for a justification of "the welfare state" as it has come to be known basically since WW2. That is a long explanation but it's founded on these basic principles:
-a guarantee of minimum standards.. including a mini ...[text shortened]... n prove you can contribute to society....unless you live in Texas; then we just fry your ass.
And I'm glad you said exactly what this country is becoming, a welfare state. We should change our name to the United Socialistic Welfare States of America and Mexico (USWSAM).
Originally posted by PhilodorI just really want to flag this post up.
Since you are clearly a bit of an oddity (one has only to read your posts and to look at your ID icon to see that) I am not suprised that enployers are wary of taking on persons like you.
The vast majority however of those on 'Invalidity' (as distint from the various provisions made for the genuinely severely disabled who cannot work) could find jobe if t ...[text shortened]... mmigrants, many of whom cennot even speak intelligible English, able to find work so readily?
Originally posted by Philodor
Since you are clearly a bit of an oddity (one has only to read your posts and to look at your ID icon to see that) I am not suprised that enployers are wary of taking on persons like you.
The vast majority however of those on 'Invalidity' (as distint from the various provisions made for the genuinely severely disabled who cannot work) could find jobe if they tried. How, otherwise, are immigrants, many of whom cennot even speak intelligible English, able to find work so readily?
Have I missed any misspellings or instances where the grammer is, uh, less than wonderful? And this guy complains that immigrants cannot communicate in English properly!
(For reference. The sentence beginning "The vast majority..." definately needs either a comma, or for improved readability, just remove the word "however".)
Originally posted by scottishinnzOh, here is our chess genius again demonstrating that he holds a Ph.D. in stupidity.
I just really want to flag this post up.
Originally posted by Philodor
Since you are clearly a bit of an oddity (one has only to read your posts and to look at your ID icon to see that) I am not [b]suprised that enployers are wary of taking on persons like you.
The vast majority however of those on 'Invalidity' (as dist ...[text shortened]... nately needs either a comma, or for improved readability, just remove the word "however".)
Lacking the ability to make any sort of sensible contribution to the forum he resorts to looking for obvious typng mistakes in those of others. What a fool!
Originally posted by scottishinnzi wonder if philly would pass the citizenship examšµšµšµšµšµšµšµ
I just really want to flag this post up.
Originally posted by Philodor
Since you are clearly a bit of an oddity (one has only to read your posts and to look at your ID icon to see that) I am not [b]suprised that enployers are wary of taking on persons like you.
The vast majority however of those on 'Invalidity' (as dist ...[text shortened]... nately needs either a comma, or for improved readability, just remove the word "however".)
Originally posted by PhilodorI'm just pointing out that you are quick to criticise others, and yet are not perfect yourself. In fact, to be truthful, it wasn't even that - it was just such an amusing comedy of errors.
Oh, here is our chess genius again demonstrating that he holds a Ph.D. in stupidity.
Lacking the ability to make any sort of sensible contribution to the forum he resorts to looking for obvious typng mistakes in those of others. What a fool!
I haven't contributed anything meaningful to this thread yet because I have not read all the posts. I am here to learn as much as post. Your sarcasm is duly noted, and from you, expected.
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou were just trying to score a cheap point by exploiting a failing from which many of us suffer; poor typing skills.
I'm just pointing out that you are quick to criticise others, and yet are not perfect yourself. In fact, to be truthful, it wasn't even that - it was just such an amusing comedy of errors.
I haven't contributed anything meaningful to this thread yet because I have not read all the posts. I am here to learn as much as post. Your sarcasm is duly noted, and from you, expected.
As to my reference to immigrants who can get a job in the UK despite being unable in some cases to speak intelligible English, far from criticising them I was asking 'shavixmir' why in that case he was saying no jobs were available.
Furthermore very many immigrants can speak better English than can Scotchmen from the lower end of the social spectrum, especially those emanating from Glasgow,
Originally posted by PhilodorIf he displays phdpidity by being a grammatical pedant, then your particular OCD must be the forum board equivalent of turette syndrome.
Oh, here is our chess genius again demonstrating that he holds a Ph.D. in stupidity.
Lacking the ability to make any sort of sensible contribution to the forum he resorts to looking for obvious typng mistakes in those of others. What a fool!
1 edit
I don't know why people are so quick to assume that welfare is a problem: the unemployed are actually helping the state fight inflation by lowering aggregate demand, and let's be honest, a lot of jobs out there aren't adding to total output in any meaningful way - most so-called productive jobs are actually harmful to society at worst, or at best involve meeting desires created by advertizing hoardings. If anything, operating an economy at full capacity is the problem - unless you favour a prices and incomes policy (I do, but I'm guessing most of the folk here complaining about the unemployed don't), opposing welfare is economically illiterate: a society without unemployed people or any alternative to tackle demand is generally a high-inflation society.