• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

j-mac said:
Why don't you answer my direct question?
Click to expand...

Ok. Let's cut to the chase. Solving simple poverty is a function of government that should be solved by promoting and providing for the general welfare in such a manner that supply side economics supplies us with better governance at lower cost.
 
danielpalos said:
Ok. Let's cut to the chase. Solving simple poverty is a function of government that should be solved by promoting and providing for the general welfare in such a manner that supply side economics supplies us with better governance at lower cost.
Click to expand...

Show me in Article 1 Section 8 where that specific power is....And don't give me the general welfare crap, that is simply dodging the question...In Article 1 Section 8 there are 17 specific powers that start out with the word "To"...Show me where is says "To solve simple poverty"....
 
j-mac said:
Show me in Article 1 Section 8 where that specific power is....And don't give me the general welfare crap, that is simply dodging the question...In Article 1 Section 8 there are 17 specific powers that start out with the word "To"...Show me where is says "To solve simple poverty"....
Click to expand...

Promoting the general welfare implies it; supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.

In any Case, since the General social Power to provide for the general welfare is in Article 1, Section 8, you have to advance and support a position that claims solving simple poverty would not promote the general welfare.
 
Last edited:
danielpalos said:
Promoting the general welfare implies it; supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.
Click to expand...

OMG you are exhausting....Just answer the question....
 
danielpalos said:
Solving simple poverty promotes the general welfare.
Click to expand...

You may believe that, but that is not in the constitution simply because you want it to be...Also, it was not the intent of the founders of this country in constructing the constitution either...

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”
 
j-mac said:
You may believe that, but that is not in the constitution simply because you want it to be...Also, it was not the intent of the founders of this country in constructing the constitution either...

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”
Click to expand...

You have to prove that solving simple poverty does not promote the general welfare. I merely claim we can simplify our public policies so that supply side economics may supply us with better governance at lower cost.

Solving simple poverty with existing infrastructure in our republic can accomplish that End, in any at-will employment jurisdiction.

What excuse could any Person have for staying poor on an at-will basis, if they can no longer claim to be in official poverty?
 
danielpalos said:
You have to prove that solving simple poverty does not promote the general welfare. I merely claim we can simplify our public policies so that supply side economics may supply us with better governance at lower cost.

Solving simple poverty with existing infrastructure in our republic can accomplish that End, in any at-will employment jurisdiction.

What excuse could any Person have for staying poor on an at-will basis, if they can no longer claim to be in official poverty?
Click to expand...

No sir, the claim that it does is your claim. Prove it.
 
j-mac said:
No sir, the claim that it does is your claim. Prove it.
Click to expand...

We could end our exorbitantly expensive, War on Poverty with a welfare-State but not a warfare-State, by merely having enough Faith in executing our own laws, and, not Only that, but the Infrastructure is already in place in our republic as well.

We could be lowering our Tax burden merely by cost shifting from a warfare-State to a welfare-State, like our Founding Fathers said so, in Article 6.
 
danielpalos said:
Ok. Let's cut to the chase. Solving simple poverty is a function of government that should be solved by promoting and providing for the general welfare in such a manner that supply side economics supplies us with better governance at lower cost.
Click to expand...
The federal gov hasn't been able to do that thus far, and frankly given the vast amounts of waste and corruption involved I doubt they ever will be able to.

They might tell us they have though.
 
The Mark said:
The federal gov hasn't been able to do that thus far, and frankly given the vast amounts of waste and corruption involved I doubt they ever will be able to.

They might tell us they have though.
Click to expand...

I believe supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost. We could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.
 
danielpalos said:
I believe supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost. We could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.
Click to expand...
But what does that mean?

And how do you suggest it be implemented?
 
danielpalos said:
Through existing infrastructure and the concept of employment at will, and unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines.
Click to expand...
What the heck does that even mean?
 
The Mark said:
What the heck does that even mean?
Click to expand...

Dont ask.

He just shows up here and repeats himself.

You wont get anything specific out of him .
 
danielpalos said:
It means solving simple poverty through unemployment compensation on an at-will basis.
Click to expand...
Your solution for solving poverty is giving anyone who wants it unemployment compensation?

What?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Amazing, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Hey, why not? I'm just surprised it hasn't already been implemented! We certainly have the money to give away! What's another trillion or so on the debt? :mrgreen:

Greetings, AP. :2wave:
 
polgara said:
Hey, why not? I'm just surprised it hasn't already been implemented! We certainly have the money to give away! What's another trillion or so on the debt? :mrgreen:

Greetings, AP. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Good evening pg. I'm not as concerned with the overall debt. I'm more concerned with how it's being accumulated in that it's being done mostly to support non-productive activities...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Good evening pg. I'm not as concerned with the overall debt. I'm more concerned with how it's being accumulated in that it's being done mostly to support non-productive activities...
Click to expand...

:agree: I read on another site a while back that it was logical to start every worker on a new job at $50,000 a year, because it would cause minimum wage to rise automatically to $50 per hour. Longtime employee's wages would also be adjusted upward. They acknowledged that a loaf of bread would probably cost $15, but that wouldn't matter, because everyone would have the money to pay for it! I recall thinking that sounded a lot like hyperinflation to me, but maybe I wasn't totally grasping the concept? :screwy:
 
danielpalos said:
You don't like the concept of employment at will?
Click to expand...
What the heck are you talking about?

You said UNemployment compensation at will.

Not a thing about at will employment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom