- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
- Messages
- 44,814
- Reaction score
- 20,221
- Location
- A very blue state
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Why do liberals think tax cuts are welfare? How in the hell is keeping more of what you earn welfare?
Is it a government program that benefits them? Are we not supposed to talk about people voting in their interest, or is that only bad if it's not for Republicans?
Really, insults?
The thread IS about denying people the vote. You post said NOT ONE WORD you did not support it
and you insult me as taking your position out of context.
What makes you think that the states no longer have a voice in government? That is absurd in the extreme and a denial of simple reality.
What are you talking about? A tax cut is the government allowing someone to keep more of their money, while welfare is the government using the tax system to provide people with assistance. I wish liberals like yourself would learn that a tax cut is NOT welfare.
simple...... because before the 17th, the senator was the representative of the state legislature, he submitted any legislation he received to vote on to his state legislature, who read the bill and directed him how to vote on it.
all powers per federalism which was established by the constitution, laid powers in the federal government, while all others powers remained with the states, when the federal government creates any legislation which is not part of the delegated powers of congress, then it automatically is steeping into states powers, the states since they controlled the senate had the power to kill any bill which would violate the separation of powers.....keeping a check on federal power, maintaining the states powers, and preventing democracy from taking hold in america.
you complain that our government has turned into an oligarchy , yet you are not for anything to stop it from happening.
the very thing you are complaining about was stated would happen it democracy ever took over america in federalist 10.......why do you complain, and then refuse to want to correct the problem?
So tax cuts isn't using the tax system to help certain groups?
I suppose that can be the intent behind certain tax cuts. It is however still not welfare since the money was merely not taken.
No, some where concerned the majority of people would take over the government. That is not at all the issue. The wealthy have hijacked the political system. That is the issue.
Isn't that the expected outcome though? If you allow people to pit their interests against each other and pension the government for favors sooner or later the party with the most to offer will win.
The idea ofmobdemocracy deserves to be insulted.
I'm not sure exactly what that second sentence was intended to mean, however, I voted "other", and stated I can see some merit in the idea.
only because you did. :shrug:
Isn't that the expected outcome though? If you allow people to pit their interests against each other and pension the government for favors sooner or later the party with the most to offer will win.
We are done here.
There was no need for insults, I made none toward you.
I did not kow you were so arrogant
So only certain people of a certain income level should be allowed to manipulate the tax system to their benefit?
What a horrible misunderstanding of what happened!
Where in the pre 17th Amendment Constitution were Senators required to send all bills to state legislatures? Where were they required to vote a certain way?
....and that is when we had Robber Barons. A much cheaper way for them to control the system.senators received their appointment to the senate by the state legislature.......just like you vote for your congressman he is supposed to be someone who represents you.
the senator was picked by the state legislature, and represents them....
he votes on how his state directs him to vote, if not he would be asked to resign, and will not be reappointed to that position....i know of no senator appointed more then twice in the 18 century.
the senator was picked from among his own legislature, who knows the people of that legislature and the problems of the state....that is what under "mixed government" why the senate is referred to as aristocracy.
the duty of the states is to preserve their state powers , place a check on federal power expansion by knowing and understanding the bills coming before the senate.....and to block the collective captivity of the people in the house.
Now you're just arguing against voting altogether.
I am sure if welfare recipients voted for right wingers you would have no problem with them.
That is a irrelevant question. No one would give their pin number to anyone regardless of how trust worthy that person is or isn't.
Using that logic those who support outsourcing shouldn't be allowed to vote seeing how outsourcing takes jobs away from Americans and has a negative impact on their pocket book. Those who support Israel shouldn't be allowed to vote seeing how we give some our tax dollars to that country.Those who think we should help those in the middle east against ISIS should not be allowed to vote seeing how that will cost us money.Those who want border security should not be allowed to vote seeing how that costs us money.Those who want amnesty should not be allowed to vote seeing how they will effect the wages of Americans who work those jobs. People who want police, fire departments and other infrastructure shouldn't be allowed to vote seeing how those things cost us money.People who want public roads should not be allowed to vote seeing how those things cost us money to build and maintain. I could go on and on about things that cost tax payers money.
The author? He was opposed to that.
Oh, and this quote by him describes minarchism. I don't know if that is what he supported, but that is what it describes none the less.
So true.It's sad, but states only ever get more powerful and more oppressive as they age.
Most of the forefathers didn't like the idea of political parties.
Nope. You are simply taking the supremely mentally lazy approach of painting your opponents with a broad brush.
No, some where concerned the majority of people would take over the government. That is not at all the issue. The wealthy have hijacked the political system. That is the issue.
People with little aren't the only ones voting their pocketbook. The wealthy do too. Look what the Chamber of Commerce has spent to lobby to legalize undocumented workers? They spend a lot of money for influence so business folks can get cheap labor. They sure don't have the best interest of the country only their profit margin.
How is it a consequence of political parties when both parties are doing the same thing?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?