tc556guy wrote:
The living wage is a ridiculous concept
If you want a higher salary, get a skillset that makes you more valuable to potential employers
Burger flippers are not worth $15/hr. Sorry to tell you that
Pretty damning there. So your position is that someone who works 60-80 hours a week should not be able to afford rent/food/etc? And then on top of it you want to remove any kind of safety net that prevents them from starving? Even those who are unable to get another job or are in that minimum wage job temporarily?
Tax breaks bring in business and are about the only way some projects even happen.
You either want jobs or you don't.
No tax breaks means no project gets off the ground, and NO jobs are created.
So companies get laws passed that benefit them. So what. Is that necessarily bad? No. I would do the same thing if I were in their shoes.
I would agree on part of this.
Some projects do definitely need federal assistance to get done, and are in the public interest. However, a bulk of the tax breaks in question here are not for large projects with public benefit.
Giving Walmart large tax subsidies to build a new store, which has proven time and time again to actually lower employment and wages in a given geographic area, is certainly not in the public interest. Nor is subsidizing someone like Exxon to build a new oil rig, or a host of other things. Do I blame the corporations? No. They are merely doing what they are designed to do which is maximize profit at all costs. Our government, both federal and local need to apply a much stricter scrutiny and look at historical data when crafting subsidies for actual projects.
Oh, and the fact that FDR basically browbeat SCOTUS into approving social security at a time when he was threatening to pack the court really shows that the whole thing should be revisited...although after 70 years of gov't teat I am sure the Court wouldn't change a word. That ship sailed a long time ago.
Yep, it did. Like it or not, the federal government is going to have an ongoing hand in a variety of social safety net programs. They came about as a direct result of the needs of the people- and not just a couple of them. Social Security has kept seniors fed and in a home, Medicare has helped to give them a decent quality of life, and Medicaid has helped to ensure that the most vulnerable could receive much needed care.
Why? Because it wasn't being done and people were starving and dying because of it. The states did not fulfill that role, and the federal government stepped in. The powers of taxation are clearly in the purview of the federal government, which is why it passed and stood up in court.
Bottom line, the Constitution clearly says what roles the Federal gov't fills and that all other things are left to the States. That includes social programs. Change the Constitution or shift the programs to the states and let citizens vote on those programs at the local level.
If this was the case, we wouldn't need the supreme court to weigh in on constitutional questions. They certainly don't get everything right, and yes, there is much decided by political bent as much as it is by a constitutional basis. But the laws are just written by people, and can be changed by people. If you really think social security, medicare, and medicaid are the biggest welfare issues facing this country, campaign on it. See how that one turns out for ya.
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou
