Donald Trump Officially Impeached!

[Rev. Rye]

That;s the funny part. Imagine whatever shitty thing you have to about the poor and government and the relationship between them. Anything. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. The fact of their poverty is still the problem to solve - unless we want to kill the poor. If they cant afford food because they're lazy assholes and the government doesn't exist to help lazy assholes, since their individual welfare is unassociated with the general welfare....then fine, are we executing lazy assholes?

Fun fact, I remember reading Fundies Say the Darnedest Things, and it quoted a Progressive article about a "Romney Extremist" who said, and I quote, "Look, there's always something you can do. You telling me people can't make a choice for a better life? We have to help all of them? No. I'll tell you what really need to do with these illegitimate families on welfare—give all the kids up for adoption and execute the parents."

The author asked him to repeat that (multiple times), and he stood by his idea, and he even got the time to respond to the article and defend his idea (and his response was roughly "Everybody knows illegitimate kids are bad, so can you think of a better idea?")

The author says: "This is a local Romney headquarters in swing-state Virginia, not some far-right Tea Party fringe group (or maybe that’s what the GOP has become). This is, at least in growing part, today's mainstream GOP." And given that the Republican Party has only become a bigger dumpster fire in the intervening years, it would be legitimately surprising if this wasn't more common now.

---

Here in the US the constitution provides for the GENERAL welfare - not the INDIVIDUAL welfare.

Remember: as of last year, 38.1 million Americans live below the poverty line. That's 12.8% of the population. And it would be a lot higher (66.9 million, specifically) if not for our social welfare programs (source, the chart on page 10 of this Census report, which includes a net total of 28.8 million saved from poverty due to government programs.)

When we're talking about poverty and have this in mind, the distinction between General and Individual welfare isn't really a very meaningful one. When almost a quarter of the population is either poor or are saved from poverty only because of government programs, it looks like an issue of general welfare to me. Unless, of course, you're a Shigalyovist.

[onlinebiker]

That;s the funny part.  Imagine whatever shitty thing you have to about the poor and government and the relationship between them.  Anything.  At the end of the day, it doesn't matter.  The fact of their poverty is still the problem to solve - unless we want to kill the poor.  If they cant afford food because they're lazy assholes and the government doesn't exist to help lazy assholes, since their individual welfare is unassociated with the general welfare....then fine, are we executing lazy assholes?

Fun fact, I remember reading Fundies Say the Darnedest Things, and it quoted a Progressive article about a "Romney Extremist" who said, and I quote, "Look, there's always something you can do. You telling me people can't make a choice for a better life? We have to help all of them? No. I'll tell you what really need to do with these illegitimate families on welfare—give all the kids up for adoption and execute the parents."

The author asked him to repeat that (multiple times), and he stood by his idea, and he even got the time to respond to the article and defend his idea (and his response was roughly "Everybody knows illegitimate kids are bad, so can you think of a better idea?")

The author says: "This is a local Romney headquarters in swing-state Virginia, not some far-right Tea Party fringe group (or maybe that’s what the GOP has become). This is, at least in growing part, today's mainstream GOP." And given that the Republican Party has only become a bigger dumpster fire in the intervening years, it would be legitimately surprising if this wasn't more common now.

---

Here in the US the constitution provides for the GENERAL welfare - not the INDIVIDUAL welfare.

Remember: as of last year, 38.1 million Americans live below the poverty line. That's 12.8% of the population. And it would be a lot higher (66.9 million, specifically) if not for our social welfare programs (source, the  chart on page 10 of this Census report, which includes a net total of 28.8 million saved from poverty due to government programs.)

When we're talking about poverty and have this in mind, the distinction between General and Individual welfare isn't really a very meaningful one. When almost a quarter of the population is either poor or are saved from poverty only because of government programs, it looks like an issue of general welfare to me. Unless, of course, you're a Shigalyovist.

Ok... Cut out the middleman.

Give me YOUR income.....


Oh
...


Not THAT interested in ending poverty, huh?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Ok... Cut out the middleman.

Give me YOUR income.....

You think simply giving you my income directly will stop poverty? Dumb

Not THAT interested in ending poverty, huh?

Yes i am interested in ending poverty . Just not in the stupid way you suggest we do it .

[Rev. Rye]

Seriously, do I seriously have to explain that the welfare state is more complicated than one guy just giving all his income to another guy? And that it’s more like a bunch of people giving a part of their income (preferably with rich people who have more money to hoard providing the bulk of it) to the government and hopefully some of it will reach the poor who need it.

[onlinebiker]

Seriously, do I seriously have to explain that the welfare state is more complicated than one guy just giving all his income to another guy? And that it’s more like a bunch of people giving a part of their income (preferably with rich people who have more money to hoard providing the bulk of it) to the government and hopefully some of it will reach the poor who need it

Do I have to explain it that you are only interested in "the welfare state" as long as you can coerce people who are diametrically opposed to it - into paying for it?


Dipping into someone elses wallet and forcing them to comply with your spending priorities is generally called armed robbery.

Except for welfare mongers.

Your program - you pay for it...

Fair?

[Rev. Rye]

And yet, when the issue is framed as “building up the military” you almost never object to it on principle the same way you do welfare.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Do I have to explain it that you are only interested in "the welfare state" as long as you can coerce people who are diametrically opposed to it - into paying for it?

Nope that's not his only interest  or did he say any such thing .And the fact we make it a pre condition  of a  society that people pay part of their income  to helping the poor (which ultimately helps everyone in the long run ) .Only for anti social goons like you to whine it's not voluntary enough for your liking .

Dipping into someone elses wallet and forcing them to comply with your spending priorities is generally called armed robbery.

Only brain dead fool like you would make a comparison like this  .But if you don' like the fact society doesn't conform to social darwinist mentally there's the door . We won't miss you .

Except for welfare mongers.

You mean people who aren't dumb and can tell things that aren't the same apart.And actually like having a compassionate society and that doesn't cower to he whims of anti social nutters whining falsely that they have been "robbed"

Your program - you pay for it...

How about no .How about everyone pays for it and we ignore you and the rest of the sociopathic whiners .

Fair?

Nope what we propose is fair .But your free to leave if you don't like it .

---

And yet, when the issue is framed as “building up the military” you almost never object to it on principle the same way you do welfare.

The Anti welfare crowd have this unfortunate delusion that any taxation or spending  they don't like is theft .Too bad those two things are nothing alike and not all spending needs their express approval to be right.

---

his is ultimately just a rehash of the tired libertarian claim that taxation is theft.No it's not and they need to stop saying this .

[The Grand Nudger]

I already do give you my income. We call them "taxes". Yes, ofc it's fair that we pay for our programs. It's a thing that good citizens do.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Bikers  type of antisocial uber individualist bullshit reminds of a sociopath 

"How dare society force me to be  civilized and give some of my income to the poor .They should all just fucking die for being inferior to me or better yet be forced to beg for my charity  like i'm some fucking feudal lord throwing bread to the filthy peasants .Poor oppressed me"

[Deesse23]

Dipping into someone elses wallet and forcing them to comply with your spending priorities is generally called armed robbery.

Here its called tax. Do you like tax?