No taxing is not illegal its the 16th amendment, that said redistributing it to ppl is. The tenth means if the constitution don't say the Feds cant do it....but unfortunately they do anywayQuote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Valdez
Printable View
No taxing is not illegal its the 16th amendment, that said redistributing it to ppl is. The tenth means if the constitution don't say the Feds cant do it....but unfortunately they do anywayQuote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Valdez
read it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cody Kietzman
and as far as the 16th amendment, it doesn't say that. That is an argument using the direct tax versus indirect tax. First of all its apples and oranges but still fruit, and second, income has been deemed legally taxable. Your stating an argument not a fact, you had me confused for a moment. you should clarify your position.
I think every person getting any kind of check from the government should be drug tested, even the president.
We have many people in high places doing drugs at our expense.
My wife works for the federal government and yes she should be tested.
i'm with you buddy. canada, an almost rational system :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler Timmermans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS08N...eature=relatedQuote:
Originally Posted by Christopher Piper
Am I miss something? When were you able to swap out food stamps for drugs?
You buy the groceries with the food stamps. Sell the groceries at a cheaper price to your friends with a job. Then use the money to buy drugs. Either that or the bodega that sells the drugs charges you for food and gives you drugs. Seen it happen a million times.
Redistribution of wealth is
1) Not a power granted to the fed and should therefore be left to the states, so that each state's constituents can decide upon the issue for themselves. Instead of everyone being forced.
2) A defining feature of many if not all socialist governments
On the issue of income tax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PvaNWrkFeQ
http://www.quatloos.com/bannisterreport.pdf
Well, in TX - crackheads would exchange foodstamps for money or straight up drugs. But the state changed to using a card, which muffled this.Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ Camacho
They are restricted to only buying food @ specific stores and only offbrand items. No more Hamburger Helper, it's time for some Panburger Partner!!!!
2nd hand stores can work out deals with the state so they may accept the foodstamp card as a currency to buy clothes.
Im sure you were trying to make a point here... but I think I missed it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Rodriguez-Swift
Its alright. I often miss my own points. I guess i dont have one of my own, but the video and that report make it for me. As far as the rest of it goes I was just stating my 1/2 cent on redistribution of wealth.
Right, but how people manage their resources is their own agenda. The point here is that tax payer money is literally not going to drug sales. Poor people also trade sexual favors for drugs and the food that you pay for, feeds them allowing them to perform said sexual favors. Should we force poor people to become infertile if they fail a drug test? On the up side, now with this new law, poor people can skip the middle man and just use sexual favors to get food.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Edlund
The general sentiment is that if somebody is so poor that they need food stamps, then they shouldn't be buying drugs. But what else are they supposed to use their money for? They aren't going to buy food with it, they already have food stamps. Housing is paid for or subsidized and they're usually just working under the table to cover everything else not covered by the government. All I see this doing is boosting liquor sales.
^yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ Camacho
Federal Welfare is unequivocally unconstitutional.
The Constitution is a relatively short yet clearly written document that is not open to interpretation. Its purpose is to constrict the power of federal government by clearly defining specific enumerated powers of governance. All powers assumed by the federal government which are not explicitly articulated within the document are consequently rendered unconstitutional by default.
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798
Even though it is understood, James Madison introduced the 10th Amendment, in an exercise of great redundancy, to cement the fact that only states and individuals have the right to implement powers not limited by the Constitution. It reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Unlike most countries, ours is not a sovereign state. It is a Constitutional Republic comprised of fifty individual, sovereign states as well as numerous international territories. Even though this country consisted of merely thirteen states at its conception, our Founders knew that a geographical area of such magnitude could not be successfully governed under one, single order of law. That is why they branded us The United States of America and designed a Constitution that confines the threat of dictatorial or oligarchical rule and encourages individual freedom. The system, as it was intended, was a beautiful and revolutionary attempt to form a country into a loosely bound collection of political petri dishes. The key to all knowledge is trial & error. States with bad laws and policies would be forced to compete with states who enact good laws and policies. The bad states would ultimately fail under such scrutinous conditions, and states with positive legislative practices would lead through the example of success.
It is not the duty of the federal government to create law. In fact, the only federal crimes supported by the Constitution are treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. All other federal crimes (here is a list: http://www.rasmussenlaw.com/info/content/view/12/29/ ) are in effect, unconstitutional. Similarly, all federal statutes which directly contradict the Constitution are unconstitutional as well and should be considered void. This fact is supported by the following statement:
"No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78
Sadly, our present government disregards the Constitution completely, and the losing party is our freedom. States have been stripped of any true sovereignty or power. Political corruption is fiercely protected. New bills and regulations are constantly rushed into place to increase the size of government and decrease the value of people.
Why? Because the only authority the government has is the people. A government will not regulate itself. It will only become ever more powerful if not contained by a well-informed and active citizenry. Our specific duties as American citizens are laid bare in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
We have been brainwashed into believing that we only exist because our government allows us to. I encourage anyone still reading to clear your mind of everything you think you know. Most of it is lie, myth, and propaganda. Only through recognizing that you know nothing do you begin to walk the path of true wisdom.
One way you can fight back: JURY NULLIFICATION
Please do your own research on this (as well as everything I've said), for it is one of the most important powers you have to protect yourself and others. They don't want you to know about it for a reason.
Now, beyond the unconstitutionality of federal welfare...
Why it is wrong!
1. If you support it, you support stealing.
Redistribution of wealth is thievery, pure and simple. The government, like the Mafia, steals money from one person under threat of violence, death, and imprisonment, and redistributes it to another. It is not charity. You cannot force kindness.
2. Welfare comes from the collection of taxes.
Federal income taxes are unconstitutional. They were created in 1913 (the same year the Federal Reserve Act was passed, assuring our economic doom) with the introduction of the 16th Amendment which states:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Basically, what it says in essence is this: "Your Constitution is meaningless. Accept your new masters." As I pointed out in my last post, any act or law that contradicts the Constitution is to be considered null and void by virtue of the Constitution's rules itself.
When government claims the fruits of your labor it is called Socialism. When you claim the fruits of your labor, it is called America, because we were the first to try it out.
3. Welfare creates dependency.
America was founded under the concept of individual liberty. Everyone is responsible for themselves and their families. No one else. When you rely on the government for your subsistence, you become dependent on it. When survival is your own responsibility, your prerogatives are greatly adjusted. Many people think that government welfare allows people to "get back on their feet", but for most it only serves as an excuse to stay sitting down. Children raised on welfare grow up in an environment that tells them they are owed something rather than what they receive must be earned. It is a system that kills ambition and work ethic while promoting the acceptance of poverty.
The worst part about dependency is that it opens the doors to manipulation and domination. Once you are dependent on an entity, you must accept its dogma or perish. This fiasco in Florida serves as a great example. "We don't want you to do drugs. If you do, you'll lose your welfare." How far off is "We don't want you to have more than one child. If you do, you'll lose your welfare."? Or "We want to place a security camera in your home. If you don't let us, you'll lose your welfare."?
4. Welfare harms true charity.
A lot of people think that if federal entitlement programs were abolished, people would be dying in the streets. Even if this happened, it would be due to my previous point: dependency. However, the idea is ludicrous. People are more giving than you think. Thousands upon thousands of private charities exist, and destroying government welfare would only cause them to flourish. Charities, while non-profit, are still competitive. When a government tries to take over the role of a charity, it undercuts the true charities because they cannot compete with something that acquires its funds through robbery. Non-profits whose goal is to help people to improve their own lives rather than just handing out cash are stifled. Government run health insurance has put numerous charity hospitals out of business.
Charity should not be mandatory. The wise mind knows that it should be private and voluntary. If the government wasn't jacking half of our salaries, Americans would have a lot more to give, and they would. Keeping welfare entirely private would strengthen communities and cause people to reassess their bonds with the rest of humanity. The federal system only distances us from the suffering of others. It is truly evil.
+1 Good post!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso
durham and kelso... spoken like true indoctrinated americans. understandable though.. it seems logical given everything we are brought up to believe.
heres an enlightened perspective on welfare : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7JXfwUtz0w
Um, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso
I recommend starting with the definition for the word "enumerate". It's a highly debatable topic with valid points on either side. Your condescending tone and dismissive nature of the counter argument does nothing to functionally dismantle the logistical reasons for welfare. What if the founding fathers didn't want welfare? Who cares... they could be wrong. Calling people thieves for potentially holding a counter position is a silly rhetorical device that carries no logical merit.
I don't even support welfare but I can see how logically flawed your argument is.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ Camacho
I don't support it or am against it either. I just know it's there and if people are going to be using it for what it's intended then they should be drug tested. That's the point of this thread I think...
Definitely. It's the people's money and I respect that they get what they vote for. I totally back that decision. I just question whether or not it will create the desired result. Poverty is an endemic problem that is caused by how people view money, saving, and the world in general. You can't just force people to spend their money in a wiser manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank R.
Americans aren't taught anything other than techniques for the avoidance of thought.Quote:
durham and kelso... spoken like true indoctrinated americans. understandable though.. it seems logical given everything we are brought up to believe.
heres an enlightened perspective on welfare : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7JXfwUtz0w
I'm a little confused about why you posted a video of Chomsky discoursing on corporate welfare. We are discussing social welfare, a different issue entirely.
To AJ,
e·nu·mer·ate Verb/iˈn(y)o͞oməˌrāt/Quote:
Um, no.
I recommend starting with the definition for the word "enumerate". It's a highly debatable topic with valid points on either side.
1. Mention (a number of things) one by one.
2. Establish the number of.
--I'm a little confused by the connection you're trying to make. Please elaborate.
The reason for welfare is to secure and protect the power of the government by handing out paltry, hollow bribes to encourage obedience among the ranks of those victimized by corrupt political agendas.Quote:
Your condescending tone and dismissive nature of the counter argument does nothing to functionally dismantle the logistical reasons for welfare.
However, there is no societally beneficent or constitutionally legal reason for welfare. Arguments to the contrary can only be attributed to ideological obfuscation or moral and political ineptitude.
It doesn't matter if someone believes they were wrong. They created a document that every man and woman who takes public office in this country must swear to uphold. It goes beyond personal belief. It is the supreme law of this land.Quote:
What if the founding fathers didn't want welfare? Who cares... they could be wrong.
I didn't call anyone a thief for disagreeing with me. I said that to support welfare is to support stealing. When you take something from an individual against their will, it is stealing. I'm not playing word games. The concept is quite concrete. Even if stealing is considered legal as with today's tax code, the truth cannot be proven false without ceasing to be itself.Quote:
Calling people thieves for potentially holding a counter position is a silly rhetorical device that carries no logical merit.
And yet you've failed to explain or refute my supposed fallacies.Quote:
I don't even support welfare but I can see how logically flawed your argument is.
I guess it's logical.
kelso:
you cant talk about welfare without addressing the largest recipients of it: corporations. the video highlights this and the ridiculousness of attacking the smallest percentage of recipients: the poor.
I'm with durham and kelso on this one.
Our government has gotten way out of control.
"People might not get all they work for in this world, but they must certainly work for all they get."- Fredrick Douglas
If you dont know who Fredrick Douglas is, look him up, he was a slave.
welfare itself is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that money from a citizen can be, against said persons will, forcibly allocated to another citizen or entity.
so to try to invoke the constitution in any way to protect those who are on welfare, is backward thinking at best.
Back to the original quote, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso
Then go to
Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [Altered by Amendment XVI "Income tax".]
Then it goes on to list specific enumerations. The interpretation of the general welfare clause is a highly debatable topic that is not clear cut or dry. I did not attack your points because I don't completely disagree with you, but you are attempting to frame this debate in a simple black and white manner rather than trying to understand why the laws are the way they are or the history behind them.
I'm all for drug testing welfare recipients.....as soon as we start drug testing our politicians.
amen to this one...Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Philips
Snoogens,
In rough, incomplete figures, the government spends $25 billion per year on Foreign aid, $30 billion per year on student aid, over $75 billion on corporate subsidies, over $700 billion on corporate tax breaks, over $490 billion on Social Security, $470 billion for Medicare and Medicaid, and over $500 billion per year on various social welfare programs (includes food stamps, housing assistance, unemployment, retirement and disability, etc.).Quote:
kelso:
you cant talk about welfare without addressing the largest recipients of it: corporations. the video highlights this and the ridiculousness of attacking the smallest percentage of recipients: the poor.
The rabbithole goes farther than any of us can possibly imagine, for the government refuses to tell us how they spend most of our money. I don't disagree that corporations benefit the most. We currently live in a state under Fascism, in which the government has merged with the corporations. The biggest corporate entities are kept in power through a system of government subsidies, bailouts, and tax breaks while corporation-paid lobbyists push the government to pass numerous regulations and tax laws that force small businesses to either become absorbed by the machine through mergers or go out of business.
However, you say that the poor are being attacked by those who focus on the elimination of social welfare. That simply isn't so. They are being attacked by the authoratative powers that be, as are all Americans outside of the exclusive richest percentage. Destroying social welfare would only free us from our modern system of serfdom and promote individual freedom, for all of us are forced into the system at some point. All forms of welfare should be abolished, for they can only be sustained through a system of bloated, unconstitutional bureacracies that rely on robbing us all blind.
AJ,
You're confusing the meaning of "general" welfare with "social" welfare. They are two completely different things. The word "welfare" in the term "general welfare" isn't synonymous with charity as with the latter term. It simply means "well-being". Also, the "general" in "general welfare" applies to the whole of the American citizenry, excluding or pertaining to no particular groups. The Constitution was focused on protecting equality. Social welfare specifies particular groups to benefit at the expense of others which directly conflicts with the concepts of general welfare and equality. The supporters of the "living document theory" only use semantic confusion to twist the words of the constitution to justify their authoritarian goals while masking them as humanitarian outreach. So you see, the Constitution is cut and dry. And it is in black and white. The Framers purposefully avoided ambiguous language, making the Constitution easily interpretable.Quote:
Back to the original quote, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798
Then go to
Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [Altered by Amendment XVI "Income tax".]
Then it goes on to list specific enumerations. The interpretation of the general welfare clause is a highly debatable topic that is not clear cut or dry.
Trust me.. I believe nothing until doing my own research. I think that is a trait that every rational mind should possess. And I'm glad to see you do the same, even if we do disagree on some issues, my friend. I can't resist a good debate.Quote:
I did not attack your points because I don't completely disagree with you, but you are attempting to frame this debate in a simple black and white manner rather than trying to understand why the laws are the way they are or the history behind them.
I'll finish with a few more quotes to ponder:
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H. L. Mencken
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely executed for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C. S. Lewis
Yeah, I respect your position and it definitely opened my eyes causing me to dredge up the history books to check my recollection. I do believe that most if not all of the founding father's viewed social welfare as unconstitutional, however there is an entire world of interpretive law and seasoned professionals who bounce back and forth over this specific debate. It can get complex, especially when you disregard the intentions of the founding fathers. Even this, is not cut and dry.
kelso: we are somewhat on the same page. except i dont believe in making a single cut to the poor without first dealing with the rich. I dont believe that cutting welfare for the poor will be empowering, and lead to potential reform directed towards the rich. i just think they will suffer as they already do at an unimagineable degree.
to all others: as far as drug testing goes... im all for it. as long as drug tests are made to detect things other than marijuana. marijuana is the only ( as far as commonly used drugs go) substance that will show up after a month. so all the meth, crack, speed, and oxy addicts are just fine.
how about we find the drug users... put them in rehab programs rather than punish them for being poor and addicted. not only is it the logical thing to do since addiction is indeed a disease, but it would actually be SAVING tax payers money since they have potential to overcome their addiction and relieve the burden to a degenerating healthcare system for their life long drug related poor health issues. no... you guys are right lets cut there source of sustenance till they end up in private prisons where we pay more to en-cage people than it would take to put them through college. thats obviously working and reasonable... WAKE UP
The Same People That Made this a law OWN the companies that Make the tests and Profit from the testing.
The Same People That Made this a law OWN the companies that Make the tests and Profit from the testing.
The Same People That Made this a law OWN the companies that Make the tests and Profit from the testing.
The Same People That Made this a law OWN the companies that Make the tests and Profit from the testing.
Your missing the big picture. We are all being used. Turned on each other.
You Judge a society by how it treats the lowest among them.
Who is we? Who are us? Who do we care about? Only People that think, look and act like you?
finally! that is good!
Right on Nathan.
I certainly enjoy your supremely intellectual writing on this subject. You no doubt have a good argument. I am also impressed with your obvious knowledge of the subject. Thanks for posting.
I don't however necessarily agree with your entire post, but I did agree with some of it. Either way great post and I enjoyed it. It also sparked me to do more research on the subject. Thanks.
Thanks, Daniel. I believe that the ultimate goal in life is self-understanding and that it comes in three stages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Valdez
1. Understand your body: It allows you to interact with the world. Keeping it healthy and strong protects all of your present and future actions. To do that, you must actively seek out the answers to how and why your body works. For example, don't go to a doctor when you get sick; find out what causes sickness and try to prevent it. Prevention is preservation.
2. Understand your mind: Mental illness is mostly myth. Few disorders actually affect the brain. All humans develop psychological problems that impact our interactions with the world. Some people are simply better at hiding them than others. By diagnosing and treating our own mental deficiencies, we further ourselves on the path to destroying ego and finding happiness. Also, by contemplating and questioning our own philosophies rather than just "going with the flow", we come to view the world indirectly. We focus on consequences rather than actions exclusively, and our decisions become refined and wise.
3. Understand how the world affects you: Once your body and mind are in harmony, you must research the limitations placed on you by the earth and society. Ask questions, get answers, and question those answers. The key is humility. Understand that you know nothing and you will know everything. It seems many people avoid this type of extrospection, for it is indeed frightening. They instead form beliefs without justifications and then force those ill-formed beliefs upon others. Their choices become hollow and can only lead to regret. If you cannot understand how the world is affecting you, the effect of your choices upon another person will remain outside of your mental grasp.
-- I believe that attempting to truly understand yourself physically, scientifically, philosophically, and spiritually is the noblest pursuit of man. Once one comes to understand that he is fallible and weak, he hopefully embarks on a journey of improvement. By constantly improving oneself, one becomes all the more useful to the improvement of society.
This all leads to one of my own revelations and beliefs: personal responsibility is the foundation of happiness. You are responsible only for yourself and your children. The lives of others are beyond your justifiable sphere of influence. Become the master of yourself and you will own the world. Defy everything that challenges your right to yourself.
This awakening leads to certain questions. "It's so obvious, yet society rejects it. Why?" Research uncovers that no thought is unique. The words of great thinkers of the past who knew what you know long before you existed have been preserved.
Among these thinkers were the founding fathers of the USA. Within themselves, they had expanded seeds of thought that respected personal liberty and responsibility. Not only that... They were given the opportunity to plant those seeds, water them, and watch them grow. In a world dominated by monarchy and imperialism, they laid aside their power and established for us a great Republic based upon the sanctity of individual freedom. Just as their historical guides, the great Romans, had overthrown the Roman Monarchy and established a Republic, they had resisted the monarchical British Empire and done the same.
Sadly, history is doomed to repeat itself. As the Roman Republic fell to the Roman Empire, so has the American Republic been dismantled by the rule of the oligarchical World Empire. Try as we might to ignore it, we are all affected.
That's why I research these things. Because it is important when so much in our lives is not.
"Read, watch, and listen to everything. Believe nothing until researching it for yourself."Quote:
I don't however necessarily agree with your entire post, but I did agree with some of it. Either way great post and I enjoyed it. It also sparked me to do more research on the subject. Thanks.
I'm glad that I interested you enough to do independent research. That's the whole reason I blabber so much. If it causes just one person to seek out answers, all this damned typing wasn't wasted.