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.
In Goldberg v. Kelly,
The Court held that due process rights attach to welfare benefits, the Court stated, From its founding the Nation’s basic commitment has been to foster the dignity and wellbeing of all persons within its borders.... Welfare, by meeting the basic demands of subsistence, can help bring within the reach of the poor the same opportunities that are available to others to participate meaningfully in the life of the community.... Public
assistance, then is not mere charity, but a means to “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
They got Dred Scott wrong, too. Perhaps it's time to re-litigate the Constitutionality of federal social welfare programs. Have Trump place one or two more Constitutionalist Justices on SCOTUS and things will start to get much better in this country. Frankly, I'm not sure why Justices who've deliberately refused to abide by the Oath they've taken to defend and support the Constitution haven't been removed from the Bench for violating their Oath. It is, in fact, directly unConstitutional for them to just "make up whatever they want" as they go along.
That said... Due process is not the same thing as the specifically limited enumerated list of items for which US Congress can appropriate taxpayer funding. Find some other way to pay for it.
Due to the 10th Amendment, however, each State has the right to implement and collect tax revenue to fund social welfare programs. That's how it should be done. And, in fact, several states have expressed an interest in implementing State Health Care for All systems.
"What would the Ownership Society do with the losers?"
As I stated above, there will always be the true underclass as well as those, who are truly in need-i.e. the truly disabled, however that percentage of people is very small and we do need very basic programs to help those people. I do believe those sorts of programs should be privately run however.
Most of the people today who are so called 'poor' are in reality living beyond their means or are too lazy to be able to get ahead.
I advocate:
A) restructuring our education system away from the current liberal propaganda and leftist theory and focusing on real life. Teaching young people how to manage money, real job skills, the basics of investing and even things like buying a house as well as basic understanding of economics is key.
B) Eliminating and/or reducing most of the current government programs, which do not alleviate poverty, but in fact sustain it. These types of programs introduce a dependence mentality and encourage people to waste and squander without ever being able to accumulate wealth.
As I stated above, there will always be the true underclass as well as those, who are truly in need-i.e. the truly disabled, however that percentage of people is very small and we do need very basic programs to help those people. I do believe those sorts of programs should be privately run however.
Most of the people today who are so called 'poor' are in reality living beyond their means or are too lazy to be able to get ahead.
Exactly. The US poverty rate, according to the US Census, is 13.5%. There's no way 23% of the population should be on Medicaid.
Quote:
I advocate:
A) restructuring our education system away from the current liberal propaganda and leftist theory and focusing on real life. Teaching young people how to manage money, real job skills, the basics of investing and even things like buying a house as well as basic understanding of economics is key.
B) Eliminating and/or reducing most of the current government programs, which do not alleviate poverty, but in fact sustain it. These types of programs introduce a dependence mentality and encourage people to waste and squander without ever being able to accumulate wealth.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,755 posts, read 7,558,709 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastwardBound
As I stated above, there will always be the true underclass as well as those, who are truly in need-i.e. the truly disabled, however that percentage of people is very small and we do need very basic programs to help those people. I do believe those sorts of programs should be privately run however.
Most of the people today who are so called 'poor' are in reality living beyond their means or are too lazy to be able to get ahead.
I advocate:
A) restructuring our education system away from the current liberal propaganda and leftist theory and focusing on real life. Teaching young people how to manage money, real job skills, the basics of investing and even things like buying a house as well as basic understanding of economics is key.
B) Eliminating and/or reducing most of the current government programs, which do not alleviate poverty, but in fact sustain it. These types of programs introduce a dependence mentality and encourage people to waste and squander without ever being able to accumulate wealth.
Quote:
'poor' are in reality living beyond their means or are too lazy to be able to get ahead.
In that we will never agree, because I have first hand experience with that.
Take a walk back to the 30's and see how those people fared, then come back. I know it isn't the same, viewing history channel videos and the like, so sympathy would be tough to feel, but yet some understanding just might get through?
Advocate for the federal government to stop taking wages in the form of taxes or any other form and we will both walk away, with this issue being null and void, but other issues, that I'm sure will be equally tantalizing ...
btw: there is something else you fail to see, those programs are dumping government money back (our tax dollars) into the economy. care to take a guess on what would happen to businesses, if that money was no longer a part of their revenue stream?
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 10-25-2017 at 12:27 PM..
btw: there is something else you fail to see, those programs are dumping government money back (our tax dollars) into the economy. care to take a guess on what would happen to businesses, if that money was no longer a part of their revenue stream?
It's NOT government money. It's other people's money. Money that they can't then spend or invest in the economy. So in that regard, it's a wash. BUT... having a huge population on public assistance programs (about 1/3 of the US population is on one or more public assistance programs) without contributing at least as much as they're taking is a HUGE drain on resources and infrastructure, and it's completely unsustainable.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,755 posts, read 7,558,709 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
It's NOT government money. It's other people's money. Money that they can't then spend or invest in the economy. So in that regard, it's a wash. BUT... having a huge population on public assistance programs (about 1/3 of the US population is on one or more public assistance programs) without contributing at least as much as they're taking is a HUGE drain on resources and infrastructure, and it's completely unsustainable.
Quote:
It's NOT government money.
FICA is not the wage earner's money. It is money the wage earner (by way of gov mandate) contributes to the government for them to spend and budget any way they see fit to do. It is (law) tax money cycling back into the economy that pays for health care and other business and services, but that money does not cycle back in until the wage earn reaches their retirement age. (the gov is manipulating the economy through those funds)
In the 30's idk what the federal government spend FICA collections on, do you? It wasn't S.S. Insurance or Medicare as those programs did not exist, until 1935. Nor did employment benefits. If a person lost their job, all they had were their savings, if they had any to fall back on, as there was nothing else. There was no employee/employer contribution as employment insurance did not exist.
Lets roll back the clock to the 30's and before. Lets take away the social programs and their huge drain on resources. Keep in mind that is tax money that is not going to be spent in the open markets. I'm fine with that as I'm sure you would be too, until the reality of it sets in ... but while we are at all this 'other people's money not being spent ... I want all of my money that I earn and the gov take $0.00 out of it in payroll deductions. SNAP, we're on our own. Now, what did we just create?
But the first thing that has to be done, is the government has to stop collection on other people's money. Get that done and all of this bickering about other people's money goes away ...
In that we will never agree, because I have first hand experience with that.
Take a walk back to the 30's and see how those people fared, then come back. I know it isn't the same, viewing history channel videos and the like, so sympathy would be tough to feel, but yet some understanding just might get through?
Advocate for the federal government to stop taking wages in the form of taxes or any other form and we will both walk away, with this issue being null and void, but other issues, that I'm sure will be equally tantalizing ...
btw: there is something else you fail to see, those programs are dumping government money back (our tax dollars) into the economy. care to take a guess on what would happen to businesses, if that money was no longer a part of their revenue stream?
Your rationale fails because you assume that money is being created. That money already exists and needs not pass through the government first to be spent.
FICA is not the wage earner's money. It is money the wage earner (by way of gov mandate) contributes to the government for them to spend and budget any way they see fit to do. It is (law) tax money cycling back into the economy that pays for health care and other business and services, but that money does not cycle back in until the wage earn reaches their retirement age. (the gov is manipulating the economy through those funds)
In the 30's idk what the federal government spend FICA collections on, do you? It wasn't S.S. Insurance or Medicare as those programs did not exist, until 1935. Nor did employment benefits. If a person lost their job, all they had were their savings, if they had any to fall back on, as there was nothing else. There was no employee/employer contribution as employment insurance did not exist.
Lets roll back the clock to the 30's and before. Lets take away the social programs and their huge drain on resources. Keep in mind that is tax money that is not going to be spent in the open markets. I'm fine with that as I'm sure you would be too, until the reality of it sets in ... but while we are at all this 'other people's money not being spent ... I want all of my money that I earn and the gov take $0.00 out of it in payroll deductions. SNAP, we're on our own. Now, what did we just create?
But the first thing that has to be done, is the government has to stop collection on other people's money. Get that done and all of this bickering about other people's money goes away ...
FICA was not collected before the creation programs such as Social Security in the 30s and Medicare in the 60s, therefore it couldn't have been spent on anything else.
That said, yes, we will be retaining those two programs because it is not politically possible to eliminate them, but we do need to make sure they are able to survive into the future, which will require some restructuring.
FICA is not the wage earner's money. It is money the wage earner (by way of gov mandate) contributes to the government for them to spend and budget any way they see fit to do. It is tax money cycling back into the economy that pays for health care and other business and services, but that money does not cycle back in until the wage earn reaches their retirement age. (the gov is manipulating the economy through those funds)
So, you have to CONTRIBUTE to get the benefits. The SAME should be true for ANYONE receiving public assistance benefits, as well. No contribution = no benefits.
Quote:
Lets roll back the clock to the 30's and before. Lets take away the social programs and their huge drain on resources. Keep in mind that is tax money that is not going to be spent in the open markets.
Why not? If we don't spend $1+ trillion/year on those programs, taxes can be drastically reduced and people can keep more of the income they earned.
Quote:
But the first thing that has to be done, is the government has to stop collection on other people's money. Get that done and all of this bickering about other people's money goes away ...
I agree. And it will put an end to a great deal of the tax slavery that's going on. THAT'S why people are angry. Some of them have to work for free for more than 6 months/year because everything they earn is confiscated in taxes. That's slavery, especially because NOT everyone is being forced to do the same. Some are freeloading and TAKING on top of it.
So, you have to CONTRIBUTE to get the benefits. The SAME should be true for ANYONE receiving public assistance benefits, as well. No contribution = no benefits.
Why not? If we don't spend $1+ trillion/year on those programs, taxes can be drastically reduced and people can keep more of the income they earned.
I agree. And it will put an end to a great deal of the tax slavery that's going on. THAT'S why people are angry. Some of them have to work for free for more than 6 months/year because everything they earn is confiscated in taxes. That's slavery, especially because NOT everyone is being forced to do the same. Some are freeloading and TAKING on top of it.
Agree with all you've posted. Some on here seem not to understand the difference between programs such as SS and Medicare, which all workers contribute to via FICA taxes (I understand it wholeheartedly, considering I'm self employed and pay 15.3% rate FICA taxes on top of income tax), and entitlement welfare programs like Medicaid, food stamps and welfare payments.
Paying a tax on my wages for my future SS check and Medicare benefits is something I don't mind as much, knowing it is MY money. However, those programs need restructuring to survive, it seems.
However, the main question in this thread being about poor people's healthcare, the question is how much should we be paying to support people who don't work? The current system of welfare handouts does nothing to help the so called 'poor', but only sustains underclass poverty, destroying entire communities and groups of people in the process. Government handouts are perhaps the most hateful thing one can wish on poor people.
We need to encourage economic growth and job creation, so people can help themselves, not forever depend on a sustaining check. Liberals love to point out that the so called poverty rate in the US is higher than say European countries. Well, no it isn't, because there being there being three types of lies - lies, damn lies and statistics - the lower poverty rates in Europe on paper mean simply that they are giving more poor people more money to sustain them. Those people are still in real poverty and in poverty of spirit, with no possible way to advance and no social mobility.
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.
