The posts on this public forum do not necessarily represent the LGC
https://theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3/
wifesbane wrote:Isn't that always the case? I don't see any story here.
Wars are expensive and companies are in business to profit. The bigger stories are what Texan suggests. For example, why did the US recently spend 120 million on tanks the army didn't want? (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014 ... -want.html)dandad wrote:wifesbane wrote:Isn't that always the case? I don't see any story here.
What you said is probably more a story than the story is.. Its so normal, no one cares anymore..
I care, but, yeah: it's normal.dandad wrote:wifesbane wrote:Isn't that always the case? I don't see any story here.
What you said is probably more a story than the story is.. Its so normal, no one cares anymore..
National defense is constitutionally mandated, welfare programs are notTrueTexan wrote:We have to have a war footing for them to make a profit.
The GOP keeps calling for cuts to social service welfare programs. Well I suggest the start cutting with the largest welfare program the DoD MIC. Defunding some of these programs would leave plenty of funds to pay for programs that help our disadvantage citizens.
http://www.alternet.org/world/5-outrage ... are-paying
The living wage is a ridiculous conceptshinzen wrote:Your opinion is one thing. However, the fact is, welfare and other similar programs have also passed the supreme court's muster, without a specific constitutional amendment.
That said, there are welfare programs worth killing off. For all those that you are vehemently opposed to due to the "leaches" on society that are so frequently the target of this type of discussion, there are those that have sucked far more out of this country.
1) Due to an unwillingness to pay a living wage, Walmart, McDonald's, etc teach their employees how to get state/federal food stamps, Medicaid, and other benefits. Even someone working two jobs at minimum wage can qualify depending on the state in which they live.]
2) Thanks to extensive local tax breaks, Walmart, in many localities, pays nearly nothing in local taxes, while killing off small businesses
3) Direct subsidies to large mega-corporations due to them drafting laws for lawmakers
4) Tax loopholes designed specifically for the large mega corporations, resulting in an effective tax rate of 12.6%
So yeah. There are some welfare programs worth ending. These 4 are a good starting list.
Do you like starving? Less than 2 % of the nation is actively farming and doing a damn good job at itMason wrote:Lets not forget the farm subsidy.
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?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
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Then change the Constitution of you want the Feds to take on that role. The document either gets followed or its just a meaningless piece of paper.shinzen wrote:The people have become too sued over 80 years of sucking on the public teat for any candidate to get elected by saying they'll cut back on those programstc556guy wrote:
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.
That ship has sailed
the whole system will have to crash due to its unsustainable spending before any real changes can be madeshinzen wrote: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?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
If they can't live on what they make, whose fault is that? They failed to get a skillset that makes them a liveable wage
They either gain additional skills or take on secondary employment. That's what I did; most of my life I've strung together additional part time jobs in addition to my regular employment when I needed additional income. the parasites of society are already handed far too much for doing far too little.
Any business expending money on its operations gets to write off various expenses through various write-offs, deductions, etc. WalMart and Exxon are not alone in this practice. Their expenses are simply bigger than your corner mom and pop store and thus get to write off more. There's actually a lower profit margin in the energy producing businesses than there are on other areas of the economy.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.
tax-wise I would agree to a major revision of the tax codes if we could get a flat tax passed. All levels of gov't should take no more than 10% of your income in taxes. if gov't can't function on 10% of everyones income then things need to be cut
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.
Check your facts. Pretty much all of that farm subsidy goes to giant agribusiness to grow "food" that is making us sick and depleting our aquifers at an unsustainable rate.tc556guy wrote:Do you like starving? Less than 2 % of the nation is actively farming and doing a damn good job at itMason wrote:Lets not forget the farm subsidy.
I wouldn't be discouraging any of them from giving up farming.
Should subsidies be reviewed from time to time? Absolutely
You say the Federal Government should not provide for the General Welfare of the people because the Constitution does not give it the power. Sorry Charlie.tc556guy wrote:Then change the Constitution of you want the Feds to take on that role. The document either gets followed or its just a meaningless piece of paper.shinzen wrote:The people have become too sued over 80 years of sucking on the public teat for any candidate to get elected by saying they'll cut back on those programstc556guy wrote:
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.
That ship has sailed
the whole system will have to crash due to its unsustainable spending before any real changes can be madeshinzen wrote: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?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
If they can't live on what they make, whose fault is that? They failed to get a skillset that makes them a liveable wage
They either gain additional skills or take on secondary employment. That's what I did; most of my life I've strung together additional part time jobs in addition to my regular employment when I needed additional income. the parasites of society are already handed far too much for doing far too little.
Any business expending money on its operations gets to write off various expenses through various write-offs, deductions, etc. WalMart and Exxon are not alone in this practice. Their expenses are simply bigger than your corner mom and pop store and thus get to write off more. There's actually a lower profit margin in the energy producing businesses than there are on other areas of the economy.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.
tax-wise I would agree to a major revision of the tax codes if we could get a flat tax passed. All levels of gov't should take no more than 10% of your income in taxes. if gov't can't function on 10% of everyones income then things need to be cut
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.
Also in the preamble to the Constitution.general welfare" clause: Article I, Sec.8, clause 1, U.S. Constitution, says: 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…
As for the Constitution being a meaningless piece of paper, you must be a faithful follower of Brother George W. Bush and his party. That explains a lot.We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.