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.
The Congress has broad powers to tax. It has broad powers to spend. These are separate and distinct powers regardless of the ahistorical notions of any bunch of misfits and whiners.
The problem with quoting Davy Crockett is that he doesn't determine what is constitutional and what is not. Neither do you, Jim (as has been pointed out to your before). Our Supreme Court determines constitutionality and they have said federal spending for food stamps, TANF, medicaid, and a hundred other programs is a constitutional exercise of Congress's power under the tax and spending clause of the constitution.
You don't like it? Elect a president who will make appointments to the Supreme Court who shares your horse and buggy view of the Constitution. Than elect a Senate that will confirm those appointments. Its all you have to do. Nothing more.
Until that happens, you are nothing, but a voice crying in the wilderness trying to tell everyone you know what the Constitution means and the powers-that-be are wrong. That's not an envious place to be in.
Voice crying in the wilderness, eh?
Jurisprudential philosophies on the SCOTUS today, five of nine:
Scalia - Originalist
Thomas - Originalist
Alito - Strict Constructionist
Roberts - Conservative & Judicial Restraint
Kennedy - Anti Stare Decisis, State Sovereignty, Conservative leaning
The wilderness is quite nice, I might say. Makes for a nice ride in a horse and buggy.
Jurisprudential philosophies on the SCOTUS today, five of nine:
Scalia - Originalist
Thomas - Originalist
Alito - Strict Constructionist
Roberts - Conservative & Judicial Restraint
Kennedy - Anti Stare Decisis, State Sovereignty, Conservative leaning
The wilderness is quite nice, I might say. Makes for a nice ride in a horse and buggy.
Unfortunately Supreme Court Justices can be bought just like Senators and Presidents; the only branch of government that is directly accountable to their constituents is the Congress. Which is why you see such a convergence between them.
You all are missing the point.
People who use food stamps in this country, most of them work. Walmart, almost ALL of their employees collect food stamps.
And they qualify for Medicaid health benefits.
How mice of YOU and I to pay for those benefits for the
Walmart family. You know, the BILLIONAIRS that own the
Walmart company?
And it goes on and on......Its the big corporations who are paying
employees poverty wages who are benefiting from all of us who pay
taxes paying for them to pay people next to nothing.
Corporate welfare. Get it?
What happens when the government cuts food stamps?
Walmart will hurt, so will mom and pop grocery stores.
But, what happens when people are hungry?
Have any of you watched the TV to see what happened in Europe
in particular Greece, when people get hungry?
When you are hungry you will get food. Period.
Think about that.
Or raise the minimum wage so that people can buy their own food.
That is NOT true. Yes, there are few who get food stamps...mostly single moms but the vast majority do NOT. I don't know where these stories come from but I wish they'd stop.
id imagine they would benefit more by removing many people from the program than from a benefit cut. a benefit cut will just force people to shop a little smarter or eat less. removing people will give incentive for them to earn the money themselves. so just cutting 1-3% may help the budget a bit and hurt the economy a tiny bit.
I can't believe the ignorance of statements like this. Force people to shop a little smarter? Like people need food stamps because they spend so much. Someone else said that people should just budget better. There is no budgeting better or shopping smarter when you make $8 and have two kids. There are basic costs of living and you just can't cut down on those and get by. My family got welfare for a while when I was growing up and without it we wouldn't have eaten. Even with it we had oatmeal for dinner a lot. My mother worked full time and worked as much overtime as she could but we still needed help. She worked very hard taking care of other people's elderly parents and her back is completely shot now as a result. On top of that she raised three kids and kept a house spotless by herself. There was no laziness or luxury as some people seem to think. I don't see how she could have budgeted better or shopped any smarter than she did. We never spent a dime on things other than the basics. That's how it is for most families who get some kind of welfare.
If people really want to get rid of or cut down on welfare they should support an increase in minimum wage to a living wage. Most families wouldn't need help if their jobs paid wages you could actually live on.
Unfortunately Supreme Court Justices can be bought just like Senators and Presidents; the only branch of government that is directly accountable to their constituents is the Congress. Which is why you see such a convergence between them.
So do you use Reynolds or a generic brand to make your tinfoil hats?
Troll? And yet you're the one who did the drive-by with baseless conspiracy theories.
If you honestly believe that the Supreme Court which decided it is OK for corporations to openly bribe public office holders contrary to the interest of the American people, is not bought and paid for by those same corporations, then you are as niave as they come.
I can't believe the ignorance of statements like this. Force people to shop a little smarter? Like people need food stamps because they spend so much. Someone else said that people should just budget better. There is no budgeting better or shopping smarter when you make $8 and have two kids. There are basic costs of living and you just can't cut down on those and get by. My family got welfare for a while when I was growing up and without it we wouldn't have eaten. Even with it we had oatmeal for dinner a lot. My mother worked full time and worked as much overtime as she could but we still needed help. She worked very hard taking care of other people's elderly parents and her back is completely shot now as a result. On top of that she raised three kids and kept a house spotless by herself. There was no laziness or luxury as some people seem to think. I don't see how she could have budgeted better or shopped any smarter than she did. We never spent a dime on things other than the basics. That's how it is for most families who get some kind of welfare.
If people really want to get rid of or cut down on welfare they should support an increase in minimum wage to a living wage. Most families wouldn't need help if their jobs paid wages you could actually live on.
But why would a couple decide to start a family if they are living on one income of $8 an hour?
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.
