New low for the Tea Party

reply to post by Kali74

but when it's one of the only jobs around, 15/hr isn't extreme and McDonalds can certainly afford to pay that and still make a more than healthy profit

So why do people today get to be paid more than their parents or their grand parents doing the same damn job ?

Especially when technology has made jobs easier to do ?

Call that a 'fair wage ' ?

NEWAYS

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by seabag

 

(notice I didn’t say trickle-down economics)

You mean "supply-side" economics?

I believe in Supply Side. I don’t believe corporations should skirt taxes all together the way many have been allowed to do but I do believe that lowering rates is good for business. Trickle down is tax breaks for large corporation and the wealthiest among us.

To quote Obama (damn, am I really doing this!!! ) – “Everyone needs to pay their fair share!” Trickle-down is a supercharged version of Supply Side that is ripe for abuse.

At least that’s my take…..I'm no economist. I like accountability much more than crony capitalism.

Again, I repost Jefferson on the issue:

And the said Aldermen shall meet together, at the court-house of their county, at some time between the second Tuesday in July and the first day of August in every year, and by taxation of the persons and property, in their county, according to the mode of assessment prescribed by the law which shall be then in force, for raising money for the public exigencies, shall raise competent sums of money for the necessary relief of such poor, lame, impotent, blind, and other inhabitants of the county as are not able to maintain themselves. And also for the putting out the poor children apprentices, as well as for defraying the expences of putting so much of this act in execution as relates to setting the poor to work and keeping them so employed; they shall collect appropriate taxes.

Source

While there are some differences today from what Jefferson suggested ( County taxes rather than Federal taxes to be used for this and the able bodied poor being put to work in forced work camps ), he definitely did not consider the idea of taxing for the benefit of the disabled to be Unconstitutional or "theft". The Framers were not social Darwinists.

Sadly we suffer through this argument now because the Framers felt these to be local (City, county, and state ) issues and not something the Federal government should deal with.

reply to post by Kali74


Same difference in my eyes.

I truly hope that people start coming to the light and realize that we are not serfs, peasants or subjects.

I was born a free person, as guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I can't help it that the Govt has been whored out to provide free crap to the masses, while first stealing from other citizens.
Or that they have bastardized the laws governing this land.

That is why more people, once they realize they are guaranteed freedom, will with any scientific and logical dedication, be brought into the Libertarian mindset.


As it stands now, we a less free then we were last year, and the year before that and so on for some time now.


You suggesting that he needs no cheerleaders is right along side telling me not to cheer him on.

There are 2 paths. More Govt control, or less. Time to choose.

Originally posted by macman


There are 2 paths. More Govt control, or less. Time to choose.

And there you go.

Wonder which team many on ATS would side on?

reply to post by Hefficide

The Framers were not social Darwinists.

No people today are social engineers trying to change the environment to suit the individual that has the opposite effect of creating the worlds largest zoo that if anything ever happened to that benevolent government, and the care takes of the wildlife they would perish.

So hello to the devolution of mankind.

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com...

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” -Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” -Thomas Jefferson

reply to post by Hefficide

While there are some differences today from what Jefferson suggested ( County taxes rather than Federal taxes to be used for this and the able bodied poor being put to work in forced work camps ), he definitely did not consider the idea of taxing for the benefit of the disabled to be Unconstitutional or "theft". The Framers were not social Darwinists.

Sadly we suffer through this argument now because the Framers felt these to be local (City, county, and state ) issues and not something the Federal government should deal with.

I don’t think Jefferson got it wrong at all. I think the problem lies in the inability to adequately define who is “poor, lame, impotent, blind, and other inhabitants of the county as are not able to maintain themselves”.

I have no problem with his original intent….I have a problem with the lack adherence to the original intent.

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:147

www.dailypaul.com...

Read that?

That says the power of taxation was given to the government to fund the welfare of the union as in it's ability to function properly ?

RIGHT ?

That get's twisted to rob from the rich and give fiat currency and corporate products to those who have been deemed to be 'needy'.

reply to post by neo96

That says the power of taxation was given to the government to fund the welfare of the union as in it's ability to function properly ?

RIGHT ?

That get's twisted to rob from the rich and give fiat currency and corporate products to those who have been deemed to be 'needy'.

You’re exactly right!

The intent was honorable….the abuse of the taxation (in the form of BIG government crony capitalism and wealth redistribution) is the problem. I don't think those are conservative principles....do you? Big government??



The sad part is 1) we’ve allowed them to spend our money this way, and 2) we now have generations that consider this a RIGHT!!!!!!


(And I don't care who is sick of my Dr. Sowell quotes! Learn something! )

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Hefficide

 

While there are some differences today from what Jefferson suggested ( County taxes rather than Federal taxes to be used for this and the able bodied poor being put to work in forced work camps ), he definitely did not consider the idea of taxing for the benefit of the disabled to be Unconstitutional or "theft". The Framers were not social Darwinists.

Sadly we suffer through this argument now because the Framers felt these to be local (City, county, and state ) issues and not something the Federal government should deal with.

I don’t think Jefferson got it wrong at all. I think the problem lies in the inability to adequately define who is “poor, lame, impotent, blind, and other inhabitants of the county as are not able to maintain themselves”.

I have no problem with his original intent….I have a problem with the lack adherence to the original intent.

Which is what iv been saying.

www.exposeobama.com...

This surfer dude can get food stamps but i on a veterans disability pension can not..

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Hefficide

 

While there are some differences today from what Jefferson suggested ( County taxes rather than Federal taxes to be used for this and the able bodied poor being put to work in forced work camps ), he definitely did not consider the idea of taxing for the benefit of the disabled to be Unconstitutional or "theft". The Framers were not social Darwinists.

Sadly we suffer through this argument now because the Framers felt these to be local (City, county, and state ) issues and not something the Federal government should deal with.

I don’t think Jefferson got it wrong at all. I think the problem lies in the inability to adequately define who is “poor, lame, impotent, blind, and other inhabitants of the county as are not able to maintain themselves”.

I have no problem with his original intent….I have a problem with the lack adherence to the original intent.

Which is what iv been saying.

Well, you weren't getting any disagreement from me!

I just questioned why you thought certain things...

It's quite obvious that the system is being gamed on MANY LEVELS! That's why we're all at eachother's throats!

reply to post by neo96


BS. You would be surprised how little people really care about helping others. Especially "family and friends". And my own experience with homelessness has shown that really, you don't get off the streets without help. And charity resources are limited. Yes, a big part of it is taking the first step and working towards getting out. But without help, well, good luck.

I don't post here very often.
And I know there are plenty around that truly are disabled, and God bless that they can get benefits.
I also know many who need help cannot get it, sometimes because they are not able to play the system to their advantage.

You'd "love" my neighbors.....he's on "disability" from the sheriff's, so a union job. And you're not going to tell me there's isn't a desk job he could do so *I* don't have to pay his lazy ass.

She's on "disability" too and has 3 kids, and I suspect *I* am paying her "rent" to him.
You're not going to tell me there isn't some job they could find her.
And, she's going to school....and drives a brand new SUV....and her kids and she all have new bikes..
Oh, wait, if she's disabled...how can she ride that bike

They just got back from vacation...and her two boys are in the Scouts.

So, yeah, that whole disability thing PISSES me off......

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by neo96

 

BS. You would be surprised how little people really care about helping others. Especially "family and friends". And my own experience with homelessness has shown that really, you don't get off the streets without help. And charity resources are limited. Yes, a big part of it is taking the first step and working towards getting out. But without help, well, good luck.

How did we get by for over 150 years without government assistance?

Obviously the decline in family, neighborhood and social values has contributed to the decline in charity, no?

Maybe if working people weren't taxed so much and forced to shoulder the burden of others they'd be more 'charitable'!

reply to post by seabag


I do not like this welfare plan
I do not like that corporate scam,
I do not like those dirty crooks,
I do not like how they cook their books,
I do not like how they steal,
I do not like how people scream it's a deal,
I do not like that Yes we Can
I do not like that crooked plan.
I do not like that endless spending spree,
I do know nothing's free.
I do not like their smug replies
I do not like how they think it flies.
I do not like that kind of hope
They must take me for a dope.

I do not like it nope,nope,nope.

Go green recycle the welfare industrial coimplex the green you save is the own green in your pockets.

This concludes this public service annnoucement.

I don't know if it has been mentioned but I know disabled people who work I have a niece with CP and is in a wheel chair she goes to work.

carry on

reply to post by neo96


If you know of a way to make $1.25 worth today what it was in 1964 by all means let's hear it. In the meantime $1.25 in 1964 = more than $26.00 now. Hourly wages haven't kept up, not even close. So you think it's fair that people were paid 1.25 an hour to work at McDonalds in 1964, it actually was... would it have been fair to have paid them $.36/hour?

delete