Posted on 02/04/2021 7:27:34 PM PST by buckalfa
Do I have to prove I’m the parent, or can I just go down to the ICE kennel and adopt some?
‘Conservative’. Yeah right.
LS kick Friedman’s butt once in an unofficial debate over the FED.
With that said this sounds full blown Rockefeller socialist lite
Romney is going to want to have the Lincoln Project in charge of distributing the funds.
Under Romney’s proposal, expecting parents would be eligible to receive payments beginning four months before their child is born. Benefits would be limited to $1,250 per month and couples with combined incomes above $400,000 would get less. An estimated 90 percent of households with children would qualify. (This is an excerpt of Mittens’ plan).
Whadda you wanna bet there would be a lot of “false” starts or “non-births”, but in the meanwhile these freeloaders have collected boatloads of “assistance”. If you can’t feed ‘em, don’t breed ‘em.
They can’t seem to come up with enough ideas to give away
other people’s money.
They would run the national debt up to $100 trillion if they
could, and in just four years. Look out for the second
term.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Post-17th Amendment ratification Sen. Romney ties with Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (constitutionally indefensible federal gun laws imo) today to lose their jobs as lawmakers under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for proposing things that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific powers to do.
"14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same [emphasis added], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
In Romney's case, he is wrongly ignoring that 19th century Supreme Court justices had clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to care for the poor, uniquely a state power issue.
"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 power to regulate manufactures, not having been confided to congress, they have no more right to act upon it, than they have to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws, of the states [emphases added]. Congress is empowered to lay taxes for revenue, it is true; but there is no power to encourage, protect, or meddle with manufactures." —Joseph Story, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 2
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the states had left the care of the people uniquely to the states, not the feds.
”[…] the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
If Utah were to lead the states to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that corrupt Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, then the states would find new revenues to take care of needy people, Utah without Romney's "help."
The bottom line is that Romney should have gotten himself elected to state government if he wanted to improve the conditions of the poor, not the constitutionally limited power federal government.
That would never happen. Reagan gave up tax deductions in exchange for lower tax rates, and guess what happened? Democrats (and spineless Republicans) raised the rates back up, but the deductions did not come back.
And how is giving money for each child going to encourage marriage? It encourages illegitimacy. Like most of the Republicans, Romney is really a Democrat. They buy votes with taxpayer money. It’s like the head Republican in the Iowa House making more money for child care his number one priority. Government has no business taking from one person to give to another. It’s legalized theft.
When I first read your comment I thought you said "At Nationals Park".
I Keep Hearing...
Having Fewer Children Is The Best Way to Fight Climate Change
Why would Dems want to encourage more children?
Romney’s aides told the Huffington Post
Who is surprised by Romneys idea of bipartisanship ?
[[[In contrast, Romney’s proposal would distribute benefits from the Social Security Administration ]]]
Back door SSI.
[[[With that said this sounds full blown Rockefeller socialist lite]]]
That’s where he comes from. His old man was a big Rockefeller Republican.
It might be cheaper to give every US citizen a million dollar yearly stipend.
Who knew MiTT was so ahead of the times?
What a real blessing he has turned out to be .. For China and DemocRats.
stingy scumbag! Why not $250,000 a month? A week? A day? an hour?
the music has already stopped for a lot of us. Then all you hear are more lies.
Depends.
Would allowing me to drop by regularly and demand $50 in "protection money" from you in exchange for my not shooting your house pets be a tenable position?
Regards,
“Socialsits want chaos, it allows them to do horrible things and rationalize them away due to extreme circumstances. And also paint their enemies as the reasons for the extreme circumstances so they can rationalize executing them.”
Thank you. That’s a fuller explanation than I usually give my wife - “the Left wants us dead.”
They’re advertising “free stuff”, “free stuff”, “free stuff”... to get them to come for “free stuff”. Of course, there is and never has been any such thing as “free stuff”. So they’ll just take what you/we have, shove almost all of it in their pocket, hand the “free stuff” seekers a pittance and then look themselves in the mirror and admire how “smart” they are, how “good” they are... how much better they are from all the rest of us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.