Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I do not, and neither does anyone else. Fortunately, that's exactly WHY the Constitution explicitly enumerates the limited powers of Congress in Article I Section 8.
You clearly didn't read or understand my comment too well, because you're still wanting to play constitutional scholar with me despite all the reasons I explained that's a waste of time. With all due respect to all you THINK you know about this, I must again defer to what the courts have decided over a long history of these challenges being heard and accept the decisions and these laws as they stand. As we all must, even you.
All arguments are public record for you to review if you want to continue playing the "I know better" game, and do be sure to let me know if/when you actually take your challenge(s) to court, and let all of us know how that goes!
Welfare-dependence is multi-generational in the US. It's not a temporary hand up when one needs help. It's a way of life for FAR too many.
It's not that simple either...
One quarter of all poverty spells begin after divorce, separation or other major change in family structure. More than a quarter of children’s transitions into poverty coincide with a change in the head of household. For both women and children, these transitions usually involve the departure of a male head of household.
Yes, it was wrong. According to your own link, for 2019 fiscal year (which is now):
688.6+197.9 (just under "National defense" and VA, so not all) = 886.5 billion
Then account for the share of interest on debt (yes, you have to): 123.5 billion
Nope. You're reaching, now. There would be no "share of interest on debt" if the unConstitutional Fed Gov means-tested public assistance programs didn't exist and never existed.
Read Article 1 Section 8. US Congress has no authority whatsoever to legislate means-tested public assistance programs. Now the individual states? That's a separate matter. They may do so, but the Fed Gov may not.
One quarter of all poverty spells begin after divorce, separation or other major change in family structure. More than a quarter of children’s transitions into poverty coincide with a change in the head of household. For both women and children, these transitions usually involve the departure of a male head of household.
Your solution of throwing money at the problem has never worked in history, isn't working now, and never will work, no matter how much money you throw at the problem.
Insanity is continually doing the same thing and expecting different results.
The Great Society legislation was intended to end poverty, but it only succeeded in trapping a large segment of the population into perpetual poverty.
It is a failure, always will be, and expanding it will only trap more people into perpetual poverty.
After 50 years of spectacular failures, it's time to try something new.
Except all the people with delinquent student loans have gone to school in the last 25 years.
If it works? Well simply go back to the dark ages and see how it worked, or any time and place where there was no government effort to provide something of a social safety net for those at the bottom of the economic ladder AKA poverty...
Please find the comment that supports your assertion my solution is simply "throwing money at the problem," and while you're at it, please back up your equally incorrect assertion that much in the way of these programs and efforts isn't working now, let alone never will work.
Again, I'm not thinking in terms of a strategy that will "end poverty." Read my first comment that starts this thread again. I don't think in those terms any more than a football coach thinks he'll end all losses for his team. The goal is to perform at an optimal level that is forever a work-in-progress, toward improvement.
Your argument reminds me a lot like those who argue a vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning office. If/when we either have a significant candidate or legislation that might lead to a significant change to our tax code, I'll be more inclined to consider the change. Until then, everyone's dream of how they would change things if they were king is just not where I am inclined to devote my focus. Instead, I devote my attention to our present choices in terms of candidates and policy that might actually "move the needle" in the direction of better rather than worse. Nothing more any of us can really do pragmatically speaking.
All I'm saying is that if people want Euro-style social programs, why are they so averse to taxing regressively like European countries do? You can't have both a progressive tax system and generous social program benefits. Progressive tax systems simply generate inadequate tax revenue to do so. The European countries prove that fact, and I've already posted the name of the book by the UC system economist that explains why that is so: Growing Public: Social Spending and Economic Growth since the Eighteenth Century.
Again, look at the chart. There IS a distinct pattern:
It's plain as day that the more regressive the tax system, the more progressive the social spending programs redistribution of wealth. And, conversely, the more progressive the tax system, the less progressive the social programs spending wealth redistribution. And that should be common sense. The fewer that pay a disproportionate amount of the tax revenue, the less tax revenue there is to spend on such programs.
Size does matter. Take an economics course to learn how and why.
Population matters, too.
You cannot compare homogeneous populations with heterogeneous populations.
Because you've never been to a homogeneous nation-State, you'll never understand.
I've spent quite a bit of time in Norway and Denmark, and was in Denmark about 9 years ago.
One thing you'll see is unattended fruit and vegetable stands. The prices are marked and there's a coin-box. Take what you want, put your money in the coin-box, take money out of the coin-box if you need to make change, and go about your business.
See anything like that in the US?
Hell, no.
Why not?
I just told you why.
Which part of "homogeneity" do you not understand?
So it all boils down to homogeneity far as you are concerned, mostly?
Care to expand as to which folks do better in these regards over others?
Might be we're getting to the heart of your beliefs about what makes for a better society anyway, and if my hunch is correct, this would explain our defeatist attitude about addressing poverty altogether...
Don't let hordes of poor people in from other countries. You may not know this but one of the reason for immigration laws and not letting a lot of poor people in is so there isn't a burden on American citizen taxpayers. Imagine how much money there would be for poor Americans if we didn't have to subsidize every one who comes here illegally. And yes, some do pay taxes but they don't pay enough to cover their cost.
If you rank people by income there will always be people at the bottom. My suggestions are:
Don't have children you can't afford.
Quit with the single mother sainthood talk.
If you are a woman, get a job so when your husband dumps you or dies, you have some kind of work experience. Housewife isn't a job unless your husband is writing you a check every week for your wages/salary.
Federal, State and Local government needs to stop incentivizing people to have more kids than they can afford by doling out money through social programs and the tax credits based on how many kids they have.
Work for welfare.
Graduate from high school.
Don't do drugs.
Stay away from lowlifes in high school that will drag you down with them.
Irrelevant regarding progressive vs regressive, but still interesting as it shows the character of greedy people, as posted earlier many CEO's are psychopaths, and in this case even one with fascist traits.
How can anyone not consider wealthy Europeans greedy as NONE of them have done anything whatsoever to eliminate Europe's overly generous tax havens and their tax laws which allow the wealthy to evade taxes, at will? PLUS, they have no problem whatsoever continuing to allow their countrymen to be taxed regressively, meaning that the wealthy pay a lower share of taxes than their share of the income, while the middle class and poor pay a greater share of taxes than their share of the income.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There would be no "share of interest on debt" if the unConstitutional Fed Gov means-tested public assistance programs didn't exist and never existed. 
