Progressive/Left government paid for with unbacked, printed currency, massive debt and manipulated interest rates - in sum, a centrally-planned money supply.
Progressive/Left government would be absolutely impossible with a hard currency. Conservatives will lose as long as the Left has the WMD of printed fiat money in its arsenal.
Dang!! 1/3 of everybody is on taxpayer funded benefits!
It’s like that oriental fella, Sum Ting Wong....
“Safety Web” seems more accurate. Once caught, escape is extremely difficult.
I am getting to hate this term “living in poverty”
More like “living in an easy chair, suckling the public teat”
Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams (both brilliant) once told a story:
If God said to you that you are destined to be poor your whole life, but I will let you choose which country to be poor in... which would you choose?
Those ‘living in poverty’ would be considered living luxury to someone from Africa.
The “War on Poverty” has done nothing but produce more and more “poor people” willing to accept handouts all their life
Amazing when you consider that Obamacare was the ONLY new program that Obama was able to pass.
All the rest of it comes from playing fast and loose with the rules on existing programs (SNAP, Obamaphones, SSI, etc.)
Good lesson in there for the Right.
We need jobs. The social safety net is going to keep costing us more an more if we keep letting our jobs go overseas.
Trump has the solution. The others don’t get it. The others want more free trade agreements with low wage high unemployment countries.
Socialism Is Legal Plunder
The Results of Legal Plunder -
It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.
/Bastiat
/socialist schemes
DEFUND socialist collectives, foreign and domestic. Pick 1 or 10 or 100 or 1000. DEPOPULATE socialists from the body politic. Pick 1 or 10 or 100 or 535.
It’s easy to…
live - free - republic
Does not include Social Security and Medicare, and I don't think it includes the state portion of Medicaid, which pushes the cost of poverty programs to well over a trillion per years.
This HAS to be brought under control and somehow reduced. Otherwise, it will go bankrupt and pull the rest down with it.
Not that the liberal-progressives care.
“Safety” net. LOL. I guess they mean that you can safely sit on your ass and watch TV all day and have the government pay for your apartment, food, medical care and give you a couple bucks for booze and drugs too.
My wife works at a local ministry, and she sees it all. There’s an 18-year-old high school senior who already gets disability because he’s from a broken family and is considered a little “slow” (even though he’s not in special classes in school and does well in regular classes). There’s the single mom who brags about all of the “freebies” she gets - welfare, food stamps, Pell Grant for college, Section 8 housing, utility assistance, Medicaid, Obamaphone, etc. She used to work a part-time job at a convenience store, but as she put it, “Why work when you get all of this stuff for free?”
$742 billion in fiscal 2013, the latest data available. An estimated 106 million people living in the U.S
If my math is correct, that comes to $7,000 per person.
That’s *IF* every dime collected was given, with ZERO overhead.
Totally ridiculous.
”… the federal social safety net [emphasis added] has evolved in recent years into an extraordinarily costly and wide-ranging assortment of spending and tax measures."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Constitutionally speaking, there is no such thing as a federal social safety net imo. Social Security, one of socialist FDR’s biggest constitutional frauds, was based on the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause (GWC), Clause 1 of Section 8 of Article I.
Helvering v. Davis
The problem with using the GWC to justify Social Security is the following. The three branches of the federal government wrongly ignored that James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had officially clarified that the GWC was not a specific delegation of power to Congress, but basically an introductory clause for the delegatory clauses that follow it in Section 8.
"To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. …” — President James Madison, Veto of federal public works bill of 1817.
Note that Madison had clarified that the GWC was not a specific delegation of power in the constitutionally required veto letter to the 14th Congress which had tried to justify the public works bill of 1817 with the GWC. So the 74th Congress which drafted the Social Security bill made the same mistake in interpreting the GWC that the 14th Congress did. (You would think that they’d be teaching Madison’s veto letter in the law schools, but evidently not.)
Also, if FDR was so popular, why didn’t he establish his New Deal spending programs within the framework of the Constitution by encouraging Congress to propose appropriate amendments to the Constitution to the states? (The law schools aren’t just overlooking Madison’s veto letter but evidently also the Constitution’s Article V.)
The main reason that the feds aren’t respecting their constitutionally limited powers is the following imo. The post-17th Amendment ratification Senate is not doing its job to protect the states, as the Founding States had intended for the Senate to do, by not killing House appropriations bills which steal not only 10th Amendment-protected state powers to tax and spend for social spending programs, but which also steal state revenues associated with those powers.
In fact, note that the Supreme Court had clarified limits on Congress's power to appropriate taxes, Congress able to appropriate taxes basically only for things it can justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and a tsunami of unconstitutional federal taxes along with it.