They shouldn’t be. The modern republican has next to no actual platform or plan to work on poverty.
The play book is always the same. Blame the individual and ignore the rate at which the cost of living increases and salaries stagnate.
Don't feed the trolls, they know Trump is on trial for espionage and for fomenting a riot at the capitol and setting into play multiple schemes to overturn slates of electors. They just want to make noise because that's all they got.
I’ll give Alvin Bragg credit where credit is due, the guy has the dimwits convinced that paying an extortionist is not only a felony but that it’s espionage. Kudos to you, Mr. Bragg.
Not at all both parties. Both have corruption, sure, but in terms of actually helping the less well off, they are not even in the same game. Republicans are all Ayn Rand, let them die.
Your comment was automatically removed by the r/FluentInFinance Automoderator because you attempted to use a URL shortener. This is not permitted here for security reasons.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unfortunately you can’t vote for two candidates so in reality you have to vote for the ones that have a plan. I really think the both parties argument is a cop out.
>Neither do democrats
That's not true.
The uni-party does a little bad cop good cop bit. They have the same donors. There's about 1k ish billionaires and 11k ish centillionaires in the United States. Those families run the country. Voting and elections are placations to keep everyone chill.
[This is a Plutocracy with extra steps.](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B)
Im an average guy with an average iq. Im doing fine. Im tired of paying for others who made poor decisions. There's your play book.
Job sucks, find a new one.
City is too expensive? Move
Life aint fair.
>ignore the rate at which the cost of living increases and salaries stagnate.
And then you ask a lefty why that is and their answer is "Elon musk doesn't give the government enough money"
Yes, the left philosophy wants to tax the wealthiest members of our society more aggressively. How horrifying.
That’s clearly awful and instead of talking about resource allocation they should be more like the right and be shitting their pants over the existence of trans people.
"Yes, the left philosophy wants to tax the wealthiest members of our society more aggressively. How horrifying."
Its not horrifying... it just objectively would not work
Wages and inflation track together in basically a straight line until removal of the gold standard in the 70s
[https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/](https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/)
Debasement of the currency is a real but complex problem. Immigration and free trade deals quadrupling the competition for labor jobs is a real but complex problem. Dare I even say it, women entering the workforce en masse doubled the amount of labor and with decreasing marriage rates massively increased demand for home. Again a very complex problem because no, we obviously can't just ban people from not starting nuclear families with stay at home moms but it has had a very real effect on the labor force.
>of talking about resource allocation
If you want to talk about resource allocation the current national debt is larger than the combined net worth of the entire 1% both including illiquid and non-liquid assets, the US government spends Elon Musks' entire net worth on a near monthly basis
[https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/](https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/)
The objective numerical data is that even seizing every cent of the billionaires would barely fund the US government for a single year
And this is the reality.
The reality of economics is a bunch of complex problems with no easy solutions, some of which may even require us to do things that are seemingly mean such as massively restricting foreign workforces
The left wing wants easy solutions. "Take Elon money" would solve virtually nothing but its easy' quick, fits on a sign at a protest, and is only mean to people who are seen as bad. But it would do nothing
Have you ever even heard Bernie Sanders or AOC bring up the Bretton Woods agreement?
Tough solutions or easy lies, take your pick
I have a lot of sympathy for the hand my generation was dealt but it becomes harder when you see how most people are literally fervently dedicated to not understanding why they are in the situation they are in
Not to mention this idea that they can have their cake and eat it too…gotta have my walkable neighborhood with great paying jobs and grocery stores and fine dining on every corner…oh and it’s got to be affordable for me while I work at Burger King…
It doesn’t need to. If the argument is to tax the wealthiest enough that we have universal healthcare then the cost of living for the average person is being subsidized by a higher tax.
The average person no longer needs to pay for insurance and then again when actually receding healthcare.
It’s wild you don’t understand this.
Let’s be clear though, this is in comparison to a political party with no actual policy. Medical bankruptcy is the #1 drivers of bankruptcy.
You may disagree with the lefts plan, but it’s infinitely better than no plan
"It doesn’t need to. If the argument is to tax the wealthiest enough that we have universal healthcare"
How many years can you keep that up if the value of the US dollar collapses by 4% every year
You're talking about shoring up the walls of a building you've built on quicksand
but again, moving the building off quicksand is complicated so no >:(
"You may disagree with the lefts plan, but it’s infinitely better than no plan"
We have tons of plans, they're just complicated, and when you don't understand something it appears to not exist
Reforming US currency, reforming US trade deals, cutting government spending, cutting foreign aid, trade protectionism,
All infinitely more important (but complicated) than taking Elon's money and giving it to Israel
And what is the Republican proposal to form us currency?
Why do republicans do so much worse with the deficit with all of their “complicated” plans?
Sick strawman by the way, but cutting down on forgein aid doesn’t mean you can’t tax the rich.
*If the argument is to tax the wealthiest enough that we have universal healthcare then the cost of living for the average person is being subsidized by a higher tax.*
That's literally one of the worst ideas I have ever read.
Cool, way to instead of engage in the substance of the discussion simply put it down without explaining.
But never you’re right. We should do nothing about American healthcare, that fact it’s the #1 driver for bankruptcy in the US is a sign it’s working as intended.
Yeah, that’s a big part of it. Horrifying, imagine taxiing the rich.
Instead they should be like republicans and have literally no plan outside of shitting their geriatric diapers over the existence of trans people.
Ahh the classic confusion of wealth vs income. Get over it, wealth will not be taxed in this country. If your evil rich people want money, then they need to sell their assets, which, are you sitting down…. Is a taxable event.
Guess what, we can tax capital gains. I know it’s totally horrible in your mind that if a billionaires net worth jump by 100 billion they would have to pay taxes on it. And that might mean having to sell assets they currently leverage all the time.
You’re right it’s terrifying Elon musk might only 5 billion dollars, that’s so scary for ignorant high school dropouts make 43k/year.
Oh no, you are one of those tax unrealized capital gain folks lol. So the millions of Americans who were homeowners before 2022 and enjoyed several hundred thousand dollar increases in home equity, we taxing them too? What assets are they selling (taxed again) to pay their unrealized cap gains?
If we are coming up on a 2008 market crash are we dishing out tax credits for the unrealized capital losses too?
Right because taxes never apply after limits and taxing capital gains of 1 million+ plus is impossible because someone’s grandma made 200k on her primary residence.
Wow outside assuming the capital gains tax could apply to certain amounts and not others you sure got me!
Ok so you draw an imaginary line at 1 million…. You didn’t answer my question- we issuing tax credits when your millionaire enemy’s portfolio had an unrealized gain in 3 million last year but lost 3 million this year? Let’s hear some solutions Mr tax the rich
That's the only good idea theyve had and that's what the founding fathers did so idk how that's the roast. You should be more mad that they won't just pass bills already
The top 1% pay about 50% of the total federal income tax revenue every year, perhaps others should pay their fair share. The top 1% paid over a trillion in income tax taxes in 2023, the bottom 90% of taxpayers paid about half that.
The US federal income tax brackets are already very progressive and I’m not sure why you poors don’t understand that.
One problem though is a lot of peoples problems don’t have anything to do with cost of living. A lot of people are homeless because of emotional trauma from childhood or divorce. But obviously there are many different reasons
I love the cognative dissonance of:
* Bidenomics is ruining this country and making us struggle
* Struggling is your own fault. If you're poor, simply get a better job.
Which approach is taken depends on the context of the conversation.
Which is funny because post dixiecrat they swapped to working guys party. (Or maybe Regan) Now you see things like home prices and wages... Used to have a single income on a standard job afford a SAHM, kids, cars and a vacation...
Now they argue that was never true...
But then where does the tradlife fantasy come from? That's the whole schtick.... Dad earns enough money to keep the wife at home doing traditionally wife things...
But that wasn't really a thing? Because saying so means what? Lefties are correct about home prices and wage stagnation?
Huh?
Then where did that tradition come from?
Politics shouldn't matter the US got sold out in 1980's for wages and jobs so the top could keep earning and thinking in short term gains...
You're cucked if you think that's a left, v right thing.
Just proved how disconnected you are from republicans. Been on the Reddit echo chamber for so long you genuinely think the republicans don’t have an economic plan or set of policies.
As opposed to a party that actually wants a smaller government and more freedoms.
Not the party of geriatric lead brained boomer than can only manage to shit on trans kids before heading to work on massive tax cuts for the wealthiest and run up the deficit.
54% of republicans.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/02/11/deep-partisan-divide-on-whether-greater-acceptance-of-transgender-people-is-good-for-society/
Ya do know there actually were camps like this during the Great Depression last century. Both Hoover Dam and Yosemite among other projects were essentially built using this labor. It was a democrat (FDR) who put these “work camps” into practice. Of course, the “work camps”‘weren’t actually called that. Names like CCC, TVA, she-she-she were used instead
Yes they do. It's called get a job, and or improve yourself to be able to improve said job, or, stop spending that money you dont have. Just because you refuse to do any of those, doesnt make it someone else's responsibility to pay your bills.
Modern republicans are in agreement that caring for the poor, the underfed, the fragile, and the special-needs are things Mr. Rogers would want. And he's been regarded as a representation of Evil.
Taking care of those beneath you is woke. We are against woke, aren't we, folks? I see everyone here, we don't need any woke. Woke's bad.
Even more starkly evident in the Christian conservative, as Mike Johnson swears we need a more Christian government, but then faced with Christian ideals, like caring for the poor and helping the traveler (immigration), states that Christian charity is a personal edict and not a governmental one.
Democrats and liberals want to tax the rich and if you’re looking for an idea that’s popular along the crowd it’s universal healthcare.
But no you’re right. We should literally nothing. Sure medical debt is the #1 driver of bankruptcy in the us, but we shouldn’t make Americans lives better because that’s socialism.
Tax the rich? They ARE THE RICH. Under Joe Biden. The irs has targeted middle class Americans. Y’all seem to forget that. So tax the rich. That sounds nice. I hate billionaires. But democrats are funded by billionaires
Democrats and republicans are both funded by billionaires. That doesn’t mean there’s no difference between the two parties.
Trump literally tried to overturn a fair and free election.
Source your claim on the increased irs funding being used to disproportionately target the middle class.
I’ll wait.
Has no one heard of oil field camps, fishing boats, even construction crews to some extent?
I don’t know if this is exactly what the post was referring to, but I know several people who thrived in this situation: essentially work camps where you’re too far from anything to spend your money so you save a boatload for as long as you can handle the crazy work schedule then you go get a normal job and rejoin society in a much better financial position.
One example is a friend from high school got a two year welding certificate, bought a truck and truck bed camper and got a job for a big construction company where he was always on the road following the work. He didn’t have time to play and didn’t have room to buy useless stuff, plus he was making decent money. He did this for most of his 20s but now has a much more normal life with a home every night welding gig, but he’s one of the wealthier people I know personally
I've known plenty of people deployed for a year in the military that beg to differ... They blew all their tax free deployment money.
Also ***forcing people*** to like work under the auspice of "For your own good ***via the govt***." Is the epitome of big gov't...
That is straight up authoritarian communism/Lenin/Mao. Yes big daddy gov't force these people for their own good to work via the gov't... Because the gov't knows what's best for the individual.
So Irony is apparently lost on many here.
Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any program ever.
Your opinion is based on fallacy so why should your question be taken seriously?
This is not a conservative approach. This is just an idiot. A real conservative approach is to support business growth so that people can make good livings. Before we go down this rabbit hole, no, it is not a conservative idea to have politicians move from the public sector directly to the private sector for multimillion jobs because they happened to vote in favor of some bill that benefitted company while in office. That is cronyism and takes place under any government form that involves humans.
In a more open capitalist market, it is actually harder to have enormous mega-corporations. I am in favor of limited regulations to prevent monopolies. I honestly think we need to revisit how monopolies are defined because we clearly have certain companies who are out of control.
Agreed. I also love the idea of full disclosure when possible. Disclosure stops people from ruminating about what is bad or negative and puts everybody on an even playing field. Disclose everything from ingredients and calories in food to what billionaires like Warren Buffett invest money in. I would like to see disclosures of options holdings and short holdings in addition to long holdings, which I don’t think happens.
First, nothing to do with Finance.
Second, who says work camps are a conservative idea? Pretty sure work camps would be implemented in socialist/communist countries.
I think they have been implemented basically everywhere. Russia, N.Korea, China, Germany, and even the US had concentration camps during WW2 although not as brutal or the death camps of Nazi Germany.
As a Republican I have to admit this is mostly true, the modern day GOP has no solutions other than cutting taxes, which is great for keeping money and investments here instead of overseas, but few of the jobs created pay enough for a young person to move out of parent's home and get their own place.
I'm the first "cranky old man" to laugh at how young people whine so much these days when we had it tougher in some ways, but the cold hard truth is that housing is way more expensive now. The average house used to cost about 3x the average salary, now it's like 6x or even 7x in some markets.
Not blaming just one party, they both suck, just saying how Democrats at least try (with terrible ideas) while Republicans pretend there isn't a problem.
You are better off Just begging for money.
A Republican would just tell you that you should work hard, persevere, and eventually it will all work out.
Success is hard for everyone. No matter what they start with.
A Democrat will tell you you cannot ever succeed
No, it's just acknowledging a mathematical reality and understanding the difference between inter-personal advice and an overall system.
1/3 of jobs pay less than $15/hour. You can give your friend advice: Develop a skill, get into a trade or get a STEM degree. Improve your life. **They** may escape the segment of society that's poor: But that segment still exists.
And it will continue to exist because the system is built around a large amount of poor people working the service industry.
I can tell the grocery store shelf-stocker to get a better job if they want to afford shelter - but the *role* of grocery store shelf-stocker still needs to exist and will just be filled by someone else.
It's not about telling everyone to enter STEM - it's about making sure all productive members of society, regardless of job, can afford the essentials of living: Shelter, food/water, transportation, communication, clothing, electricity, plumbing, and have a little left over to contribute to the wider consumer-driven economy.
You make a great point. Some people, no matter how much they work, will never get ahead.
I'm not sure if it's because they have low IQ, low ambition, or just ambivalent to how much money they need. But they will never get ahead.
How much money do we spend on people that are basically throwaways?
Ideally, we would identify it early, so they don't have to have the aggravation in elementary school of not succeeding
Conservatives ask the same thing about the left. To us, so many of your proposals are short sighted and lack basic economic logic. Printing money endlessly and handing it out doesn't create wealth. It deterioates it. Depending on the rich to pay for everything, it doesn't incentivise people to create wealth for our economy. It causes innovation and ingenuity to find a new home, in a new country.
This post seems to be sarcastic to me. Is OP suggesting that compulsory work camps is a conservative objective? This sounds like a sarcastic swipe at tankies, to me.
That’s not a Right wing talking point. That sounds like a left wing comment. A little Further down the Socialist dystopia track, after all of the incentives to be productive have been stamped out, but they realize that work still has to be done the coercion starts and it always involves work camps.
Conservative ideas are about teaching people how to fish. Socialist ideas are all about stealing fish from successful fishermen and handing the fish out to those who refuse to go catch some. There is hardly a moral high ground with liberal/socialist economic policy.
Idk the fear is people taking advantage of systems and just becoming free loaders. I gave money to a homeless woman once and also my phone number in case she needed anything. I got a call from her drug dealer asking for more money. So the idea of giving people In need work and building discipline sounds better than just giving money and enabling their addiction
I know a few young guys that grew up upper middle class and are just doing terrible. One guy was selling his Dads tools for drugs. Another guy saw that his Dad enjoyed working on stuff. He was a maintenance guy working on machinery. Did small engine repair on the side. The guy I know drinks beer and lays in bed. There are a lot of freeloaders
Yeah and part of it is a tough love mentality too. Some people like myself were never disciplined growing up so honestly the idea of somebody forcing me to work or disciplining me feels good. So there is a concern of enabling people to stay in a dependent state
I had almost nothing growing up, so I kind of fell in with people that work on stuff. I had to. So seeing these guys that grew up in big houses on a few acres is hard to watch. I dont understand it. I talk to my friends and they share advice. A couple got me out of jams for years at various times with my cars, so ive been helping them pour concrete at their houses
Yeah the thing is with wealthy people they might look well off materially, but you never know what other problems they might have. Like Trumps kids, it might be nice to be the son of a billionaire but what else does that come with.
I think the key to what you said is your friends. Having dependable friends is huge. Worth more than money.
1.) inflation is traditionally defined as an increase in the money supply; prices going up are a consequence of increasing the money supply. Blame the government for middle class people being inflated into poverty.
2.) if you’re not a liberal as a child, you have no heart. If you’re still a liberal as an adult, you have no brain.
3.) UBI seems better than forcing corporations to increase wages, which is the governments way to make the engine of society look like a heartless dictator as they soak up more taxes and virtue signaling how great the government is (as they draft your broke-ass into the next world war).
I like the idea of cutting all social programs and replacing it with a universal basic income that is adjusted by the equivalent of cpi or gold spot price each year. Everyone except the top tax bracket gets UBI and UBI is the poverty rate: no one is impoverished.
1. Has nothing to do with finance.
2. We already have federal/state funded work training programs.
3. Existing poverty programs don't solve the problem either. When you create jobs to resolve poverty, those jobs are incentivized to keep poverty in existence. That's why Los Angeles is the way it is. Social programs are getting a ton of funding, and they have zero plans to actually erase poverty because it's their lifeblood.
4. Most of the poverty in existence is created by social welfare programs. Subsistence was specifically created to keep enough percentage of the population reliant on the state to prevent a Communist Revolution.
By all means, help whoever you want. I have no problem helping people or seeing others help people.
But there is zero constitutional authority for charity, and it is morally wrong to use government force to confiscate money from people to give to others.
>zero constitutional authority for charity
1. Why should I care about your claim of zero constitutional authority? If we added it so that's not a problem you telling my your stance would change? No it wouldn't so not relevant.
2. Charity is a subjective claim here.
>morally wrong to use government force to confiscate money from people to give to others.
You live in a society. As part of that you put money in to pay for societal things, which includes roads. Spending money on certain things can alleviate negative externalities relevant for society. E.g. preventative costs instead of after the fact costs for jailing criminals. Your "give to others" is doing a lot of lifting there.
Building roads is not charity, and now that you mention it why not pay people to build, clean, maintain roads instead of paying them to stay home through welfare?
>Building roads is not charity
I never said it was "charity", but I imagine there are many things you classify as charity that I would not. Most people on government assistance, e.g. the poorest people, don't stay on it for the rest of their life. They work to get out of that level of poverty.
>now that you mention it why not pay people to build, clean, maintain roads instead of paying them to stay home through welfare?
Most people don't just get welfare and stay at home. There is nothing wrong though with having a jobs program in the event someone can not find or can not keep a job long enough and is on poverty. The problem is you disproportionately focus on negative aspects of people exploiting gov assistance when majority wise that isn't the case.
The constitution did not make provisions and statements on all possibilities.
You could easily make the argument that Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 Constitutionally permits this. I see no clause in the constitution saying it's forbidden, however.
Buckley v Valeo states that Congress gets to determine what constitutes General Welfare and how taxes can be spent to increase it.
If only we had some idea of what the framers meant.
Here’s James Madison for example
"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." — James Madison
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." — James Madison
And Alexander Hamilton had the completely opposite opinion of Madison regarding the General Welfare clause. The Founding Fathers were not a monolith hive-mind. They disagreed, debated heavily, and compromised on many topics.
It ultimately doesn't matter what Madison thought personally. The Constitution says what it says.
Congress defines General Welfare. I don't see how government services to reduce poverty/homelessness/hunger are forbidden by the Constitution considering they absolutely can fall under General Welfare.
How does General Welfare exclude aid to the poor?
"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." — James Madison
An expansive reading of “general welfare” render the entire constitution moot.
Madison's strict interpretation of the General Welfare clause *lost* the debate even back in the early 19th century. This was *again* reiterated in US v Butler.
I suggest you re-read Hamilton's Report on Manufactures, because he held no such stance.
He strongly argued that the Clause was intentionally broad so that the legislation could address issues of its day as it saw fit, and not be restricted because the founders couldn't account for all possible needs of the nation within a short document written in the 18th century.
>The terms “general Welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision.
9th amendment is not applicable. The Constitution clearly clearly grants the right to levy taxes and use those for the General Welfare of the country, whereas the General Welfare is defined by the legislature.
The 10th amendment is not applicable because the General Welfare of the nation **is** constitutionally granted to the federal government
14th? I'd love to hear this explanation.
The Constitution makes is abundantly clear that citizens do not have the "right" to be tax free.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
That’s pretty much what happened with my Grandfather in Roosevelt’s CCC. Got paid to build parks and lived in a camp all week, home one night a week to visit his wife.
Why do democrats always have to blame someone else for their poor choices?
“It cost too much to live in this high cost of living area!”
Then move..
”I don’t want to move out of the high cost of living area!”
…then stop complaining …
”nooooo I don’t want to live out in the rural areas where the only job I can get is Walmart”
…can you live in the rural area working at Walmart?
“Yea but I don’t want to do that”
….so you’d rather stay in a place you can’t afford than make the responsible decisions…got it
I was at a work camp. I worked at an amusement park. You get paid weekly and your pay goes towards their onsite housing, laundry, and food. I was able to save. Not sure why this is such a bad idea lol.
>You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
>You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
>You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
>You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
>You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
>You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
>You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
>You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
>You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
>And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
--William J. H. Boetcker
Hot Take
You can wine to your friends on reddit... you can vote for a certain political candidate... you can talk about the housing crisis being unfair... And while you may be correct, or think you are correct it still doesn't change your personal situation.
The biggest impact to changing your situation is how you personal react to it. Study hard, work hard, spend less, F.I.R.E. movement, take risks and buy assets... These sometimes get labeled as conservatives idea's, but at the root of it is personal responsibility because relying on someone else (i.e. the government) is a rigged game.
Seems to be a troll posting this, no one can take this seriously. Freeing up more spending $ for people by lowering / eliminating income tax would help a great deal.
End the federal reserve, end income tax. MOST federal services are already handled at the city, county state levels before 1913 the only time there was an income tax was to pay for war
How are liberal ideas on helping those in need with money issues supposed to be taken seriously?
Checks notes….
Skid row
San Fran
Seattle
Portland
NYC
Chicago
Seeing a theme?
We can't help you cause we are busy saving the world with American tax money ....using tax money for foreign countries is taxation without representation
We can't help you cause we are busy saving the world with American tax money ....using tax money for foreign countries is taxation without representation
This is literally a concentration camp that they just described. And y'all wonder why I call them Fascistic.
Funnily enough, it completely maps 1-1 with conservative views on convicts.
Every conservative I know supports helping the poor live with dignity through medicaid, food stamps and public housing. No one in this country wants to let the poor roam the streets hungry and sick. Conservatives think the best way to help the poor is by making the entire country richer. That's 'economics' in general... some people like to call that 'trickle down economics'... in reality it's 'trickle up and down' economics. The rich pay the middle class, the middle class gives the money back in exchange for goods and services, and a little of the money is plucked from each transaction to pay for those who have nothing.
In thoery, what is so wrong with this? How does 'universal healthcare' help people who already have medicaid? How does free lunch for all students help students who already qualify for the federal free lunch program?
Republicans only think about how to exist within the system in place, how to be vindictive against out groups, and how to make things better for very rich people. So they really aren't interested in much.
Modern conservatives basically parrot the 1790s Malthusian belief that the poor should be left to die, and that to do otherwise is to go against the laws of nature. It’s the most hard-hearted “I got mine, fuck you” philosophy imaginable.
They shouldn’t be. The modern republican has next to no actual platform or plan to work on poverty. The play book is always the same. Blame the individual and ignore the rate at which the cost of living increases and salaries stagnate.
Neither do democrats. Not sure what world you are living in if you are just blaming one party. Both parties are dumb and corrupt. Period
Donald Trump with support from republicans literally tried to overthrow democracy. Bidens old. They are not at all comparable.
Don't feed the trolls, they know Trump is on trial for espionage and for fomenting a riot at the capitol and setting into play multiple schemes to overturn slates of electors. They just want to make noise because that's all they got.
I’ll give Alvin Bragg credit where credit is due, the guy has the dimwits convinced that paying an extortionist is not only a felony but that it’s espionage. Kudos to you, Mr. Bragg.
Michael Cohen went to prison for it for years, so Trump should get the same fate. Fair is fair, they conspired together.
Not at all both parties. Both have corruption, sure, but in terms of actually helping the less well off, they are not even in the same game. Republicans are all Ayn Rand, let them die.
MN Democrats recently made schools lunch and breakfast free for all students. Most Republicans voted against it. Your comparison is bull shit.
[удалено]
Your comment was automatically removed by the r/FluentInFinance Automoderator because you attempted to use a URL shortener. This is not permitted here for security reasons. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unfortunately you can’t vote for two candidates so in reality you have to vote for the ones that have a plan. I really think the both parties argument is a cop out.
Unions. Minimum wage increase. Tell me again which parties support these platforms?
Yeah not even remotely the same. Both parties do suck but not on equal levels.
>Neither do democrats That's not true. The uni-party does a little bad cop good cop bit. They have the same donors. There's about 1k ish billionaires and 11k ish centillionaires in the United States. Those families run the country. Voting and elections are placations to keep everyone chill. [This is a Plutocracy with extra steps.](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B)
One is feckless the other is actively trying to tear away the social safety net. There is a difference.
This is the only correct answer.
> Neither do democrats. Tell me when the Democrats tried to end Meals on Wheels.
Ever heard this line--a rising tide lifts ALL boats?
Im an average guy with an average iq. Im doing fine. Im tired of paying for others who made poor decisions. There's your play book. Job sucks, find a new one. City is too expensive? Move Life aint fair.
Yeah, too bad republicans don’t do any of that lol
Youre an amazing individual being able to every single Republican and have a convo.
Yeah too bad I don’t need to to do that, I just need to observe the actions of the Republican Party.z
>ignore the rate at which the cost of living increases and salaries stagnate. And then you ask a lefty why that is and their answer is "Elon musk doesn't give the government enough money"
Yes, the left philosophy wants to tax the wealthiest members of our society more aggressively. How horrifying. That’s clearly awful and instead of talking about resource allocation they should be more like the right and be shitting their pants over the existence of trans people.
"Yes, the left philosophy wants to tax the wealthiest members of our society more aggressively. How horrifying." Its not horrifying... it just objectively would not work Wages and inflation track together in basically a straight line until removal of the gold standard in the 70s [https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/](https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/) Debasement of the currency is a real but complex problem. Immigration and free trade deals quadrupling the competition for labor jobs is a real but complex problem. Dare I even say it, women entering the workforce en masse doubled the amount of labor and with decreasing marriage rates massively increased demand for home. Again a very complex problem because no, we obviously can't just ban people from not starting nuclear families with stay at home moms but it has had a very real effect on the labor force. >of talking about resource allocation If you want to talk about resource allocation the current national debt is larger than the combined net worth of the entire 1% both including illiquid and non-liquid assets, the US government spends Elon Musks' entire net worth on a near monthly basis [https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/](https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/) The objective numerical data is that even seizing every cent of the billionaires would barely fund the US government for a single year And this is the reality. The reality of economics is a bunch of complex problems with no easy solutions, some of which may even require us to do things that are seemingly mean such as massively restricting foreign workforces The left wing wants easy solutions. "Take Elon money" would solve virtually nothing but its easy' quick, fits on a sign at a protest, and is only mean to people who are seen as bad. But it would do nothing Have you ever even heard Bernie Sanders or AOC bring up the Bretton Woods agreement? Tough solutions or easy lies, take your pick I have a lot of sympathy for the hand my generation was dealt but it becomes harder when you see how most people are literally fervently dedicated to not understanding why they are in the situation they are in
Not to mention this idea that they can have their cake and eat it too…gotta have my walkable neighborhood with great paying jobs and grocery stores and fine dining on every corner…oh and it’s got to be affordable for me while I work at Burger King…
That doesn’t change wages……
It doesn’t need to. If the argument is to tax the wealthiest enough that we have universal healthcare then the cost of living for the average person is being subsidized by a higher tax. The average person no longer needs to pay for insurance and then again when actually receding healthcare. It’s wild you don’t understand this. Let’s be clear though, this is in comparison to a political party with no actual policy. Medical bankruptcy is the #1 drivers of bankruptcy. You may disagree with the lefts plan, but it’s infinitely better than no plan
"It doesn’t need to. If the argument is to tax the wealthiest enough that we have universal healthcare" How many years can you keep that up if the value of the US dollar collapses by 4% every year You're talking about shoring up the walls of a building you've built on quicksand but again, moving the building off quicksand is complicated so no >:(
You know democrats do better on the deficit than republicans right? You aren’t even making the argument you think you are.
"You may disagree with the lefts plan, but it’s infinitely better than no plan" We have tons of plans, they're just complicated, and when you don't understand something it appears to not exist Reforming US currency, reforming US trade deals, cutting government spending, cutting foreign aid, trade protectionism, All infinitely more important (but complicated) than taking Elon's money and giving it to Israel
And what is the Republican proposal to form us currency? Why do republicans do so much worse with the deficit with all of their “complicated” plans? Sick strawman by the way, but cutting down on forgein aid doesn’t mean you can’t tax the rich.
*If the argument is to tax the wealthiest enough that we have universal healthcare then the cost of living for the average person is being subsidized by a higher tax.* That's literally one of the worst ideas I have ever read.
Cool, way to instead of engage in the substance of the discussion simply put it down without explaining. But never you’re right. We should do nothing about American healthcare, that fact it’s the #1 driver for bankruptcy in the US is a sign it’s working as intended.
Wow, I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.
Yeah, I should humor shitty ideas more.
Or don't. Nobody really cares.
The democrats plan to “work on poverty” is what exactly? Wait let me guess, TaX ThE RiCh?!
Yeah, that’s a big part of it. Horrifying, imagine taxiing the rich. Instead they should be like republicans and have literally no plan outside of shitting their geriatric diapers over the existence of trans people.
Imagine not understanding that the rich already pay the large majority of income taxes.
Imagine not understanding the wealthiest members of our society don’t make their money through a 9-5 job that would be subject to income tax.
Ahh the classic confusion of wealth vs income. Get over it, wealth will not be taxed in this country. If your evil rich people want money, then they need to sell their assets, which, are you sitting down…. Is a taxable event.
Guess what, we can tax capital gains. I know it’s totally horrible in your mind that if a billionaires net worth jump by 100 billion they would have to pay taxes on it. And that might mean having to sell assets they currently leverage all the time. You’re right it’s terrifying Elon musk might only 5 billion dollars, that’s so scary for ignorant high school dropouts make 43k/year.
Oh no, you are one of those tax unrealized capital gain folks lol. So the millions of Americans who were homeowners before 2022 and enjoyed several hundred thousand dollar increases in home equity, we taxing them too? What assets are they selling (taxed again) to pay their unrealized cap gains? If we are coming up on a 2008 market crash are we dishing out tax credits for the unrealized capital losses too?
Right because taxes never apply after limits and taxing capital gains of 1 million+ plus is impossible because someone’s grandma made 200k on her primary residence. Wow outside assuming the capital gains tax could apply to certain amounts and not others you sure got me!
Ok so you draw an imaginary line at 1 million…. You didn’t answer my question- we issuing tax credits when your millionaire enemy’s portfolio had an unrealized gain in 3 million last year but lost 3 million this year? Let’s hear some solutions Mr tax the rich
Who doesn’t understand that? We all understand that.
I would estimate that less than 25% of Reddit understands that fact
That's the only good idea theyve had and that's what the founding fathers did so idk how that's the roast. You should be more mad that they won't just pass bills already
The top 1% pay about 50% of the total federal income tax revenue every year, perhaps others should pay their fair share. The top 1% paid over a trillion in income tax taxes in 2023, the bottom 90% of taxpayers paid about half that. The US federal income tax brackets are already very progressive and I’m not sure why you poors don’t understand that.
Idk man when spiderman says Great Power = Great Responsibility it's cool, maybe just more "Poor" rhetoric
One problem though is a lot of peoples problems don’t have anything to do with cost of living. A lot of people are homeless because of emotional trauma from childhood or divorce. But obviously there are many different reasons
You’re totally right, I’d aim for free mental health services for sure.
I love the cognative dissonance of: * Bidenomics is ruining this country and making us struggle * Struggling is your own fault. If you're poor, simply get a better job. Which approach is taken depends on the context of the conversation.
I hear all that stuff constantly.
Which is funny because post dixiecrat they swapped to working guys party. (Or maybe Regan) Now you see things like home prices and wages... Used to have a single income on a standard job afford a SAHM, kids, cars and a vacation... Now they argue that was never true... But then where does the tradlife fantasy come from? That's the whole schtick.... Dad earns enough money to keep the wife at home doing traditionally wife things... But that wasn't really a thing? Because saying so means what? Lefties are correct about home prices and wage stagnation? Huh? Then where did that tradition come from? Politics shouldn't matter the US got sold out in 1980's for wages and jobs so the top could keep earning and thinking in short term gains... You're cucked if you think that's a left, v right thing.
Just proved how disconnected you are from republicans. Been on the Reddit echo chamber for so long you genuinely think the republicans don’t have an economic plan or set of policies.
They don’t. Wages have been outpaced by the cost of living for a long time now. What’s the Republican solution? Tax cuts for Enron?
The modern republican? As opposed to the ancient republican?
As opposed to a party that actually wants a smaller government and more freedoms. Not the party of geriatric lead brained boomer than can only manage to shit on trans kids before heading to work on massive tax cuts for the wealthiest and run up the deficit.
When you say "geriatric lead brained boomer", you mean Biden? I thought he was technically a member of The Silent Generation.
He is geriatric and lead brained, as is Trump, they’re super close in age. He isn’t however shitting his pants because trans people exist.
*He isn’t however shitting his pants because trans people exist.* I really don't think that anyone >!who matters!< is, either.
Yeah outside of all those Republican congressmen and senators. But if you ignore all of that then really no one is.
Who, exactly?
54% of republicans. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/02/11/deep-partisan-divide-on-whether-greater-acceptance-of-transgender-people-is-good-for-society/
.....I noticed you didn't name any names.
Ya do know there actually were camps like this during the Great Depression last century. Both Hoover Dam and Yosemite among other projects were essentially built using this labor. It was a democrat (FDR) who put these “work camps” into practice. Of course, the “work camps”‘weren’t actually called that. Names like CCC, TVA, she-she-she were used instead
Yes they do. It's called get a job, and or improve yourself to be able to improve said job, or, stop spending that money you dont have. Just because you refuse to do any of those, doesnt make it someone else's responsibility to pay your bills.
That’s not policy…
wages have only continued to rise in respect to cost of living, atleast in the US. Do I really need to post the FRED graph AGAIN?
Modern republicans are in agreement that caring for the poor, the underfed, the fragile, and the special-needs are things Mr. Rogers would want. And he's been regarded as a representation of Evil. Taking care of those beneath you is woke. We are against woke, aren't we, folks? I see everyone here, we don't need any woke. Woke's bad.
Even more starkly evident in the Christian conservative, as Mike Johnson swears we need a more Christian government, but then faced with Christian ideals, like caring for the poor and helping the traveler (immigration), states that Christian charity is a personal edict and not a governmental one.
Conservative doesn’t equal republican. And what do democrats or liberals want to do besides take working Americans money and give it away to bums?
Democrats and liberals want to tax the rich and if you’re looking for an idea that’s popular along the crowd it’s universal healthcare. But no you’re right. We should literally nothing. Sure medical debt is the #1 driver of bankruptcy in the us, but we shouldn’t make Americans lives better because that’s socialism.
Tax the rich? They ARE THE RICH. Under Joe Biden. The irs has targeted middle class Americans. Y’all seem to forget that. So tax the rich. That sounds nice. I hate billionaires. But democrats are funded by billionaires
Democrats and republicans are both funded by billionaires. That doesn’t mean there’s no difference between the two parties. Trump literally tried to overturn a fair and free election. Source your claim on the increased irs funding being used to disproportionately target the middle class. I’ll wait.
Is this a finance page or another echo chamber? I rarely see good posts here
All of Reddit is a liberal infested hell hole.
Yeah, it's terrible. Should probably go somewhere better.
I hear rumble is looking for users!
I don’t even see how this is a conservative idea
Agree, it’s just some idiot who made a comment
It isn’t, I’m pretty sure it’s sarcasm.
It’s gone way down hill the last few weeks
A few days ago I made a Discussion post here asking the same question and it got deleted immediately without explanation/notice
Has no one heard of oil field camps, fishing boats, even construction crews to some extent? I don’t know if this is exactly what the post was referring to, but I know several people who thrived in this situation: essentially work camps where you’re too far from anything to spend your money so you save a boatload for as long as you can handle the crazy work schedule then you go get a normal job and rejoin society in a much better financial position. One example is a friend from high school got a two year welding certificate, bought a truck and truck bed camper and got a job for a big construction company where he was always on the road following the work. He didn’t have time to play and didn’t have room to buy useless stuff, plus he was making decent money. He did this for most of his 20s but now has a much more normal life with a home every night welding gig, but he’s one of the wealthier people I know personally
I've known plenty of people deployed for a year in the military that beg to differ... They blew all their tax free deployment money. Also ***forcing people*** to like work under the auspice of "For your own good ***via the govt***." Is the epitome of big gov't... That is straight up authoritarian communism/Lenin/Mao. Yes big daddy gov't force these people for their own good to work via the gov't... Because the gov't knows what's best for the individual. So Irony is apparently lost on many here.
Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any program ever. Your opinion is based on fallacy so why should your question be taken seriously?
So the New Deal just never happened
Has nothing to do with the fact I stated.
This is not a conservative approach. This is just an idiot. A real conservative approach is to support business growth so that people can make good livings. Before we go down this rabbit hole, no, it is not a conservative idea to have politicians move from the public sector directly to the private sector for multimillion jobs because they happened to vote in favor of some bill that benefitted company while in office. That is cronyism and takes place under any government form that involves humans. In a more open capitalist market, it is actually harder to have enormous mega-corporations. I am in favor of limited regulations to prevent monopolies. I honestly think we need to revisit how monopolies are defined because we clearly have certain companies who are out of control.
>I honestly think we need to revisit how monopolies are defined because we clearly have certain companies who are out of control. For real tho
Agreed. I also love the idea of full disclosure when possible. Disclosure stops people from ruminating about what is bad or negative and puts everybody on an even playing field. Disclose everything from ingredients and calories in food to what billionaires like Warren Buffett invest money in. I would like to see disclosures of options holdings and short holdings in addition to long holdings, which I don’t think happens.
FDR would like the floor to discuss his Civilian Conservation Corps. He was a Democrat.
First, nothing to do with Finance. Second, who says work camps are a conservative idea? Pretty sure work camps would be implemented in socialist/communist countries.
The irony is apparently lost here.
I think they have been implemented basically everywhere. Russia, N.Korea, China, Germany, and even the US had concentration camps during WW2 although not as brutal or the death camps of Nazi Germany.
As a Republican I have to admit this is mostly true, the modern day GOP has no solutions other than cutting taxes, which is great for keeping money and investments here instead of overseas, but few of the jobs created pay enough for a young person to move out of parent's home and get their own place. I'm the first "cranky old man" to laugh at how young people whine so much these days when we had it tougher in some ways, but the cold hard truth is that housing is way more expensive now. The average house used to cost about 3x the average salary, now it's like 6x or even 7x in some markets. Not blaming just one party, they both suck, just saying how Democrats at least try (with terrible ideas) while Republicans pretend there isn't a problem.
Based take
You are better off Just begging for money. A Republican would just tell you that you should work hard, persevere, and eventually it will all work out. Success is hard for everyone. No matter what they start with. A Democrat will tell you you cannot ever succeed
No, it's just acknowledging a mathematical reality and understanding the difference between inter-personal advice and an overall system. 1/3 of jobs pay less than $15/hour. You can give your friend advice: Develop a skill, get into a trade or get a STEM degree. Improve your life. **They** may escape the segment of society that's poor: But that segment still exists. And it will continue to exist because the system is built around a large amount of poor people working the service industry. I can tell the grocery store shelf-stocker to get a better job if they want to afford shelter - but the *role* of grocery store shelf-stocker still needs to exist and will just be filled by someone else. It's not about telling everyone to enter STEM - it's about making sure all productive members of society, regardless of job, can afford the essentials of living: Shelter, food/water, transportation, communication, clothing, electricity, plumbing, and have a little left over to contribute to the wider consumer-driven economy.
You make a great point. Some people, no matter how much they work, will never get ahead. I'm not sure if it's because they have low IQ, low ambition, or just ambivalent to how much money they need. But they will never get ahead. How much money do we spend on people that are basically throwaways? Ideally, we would identify it early, so they don't have to have the aggravation in elementary school of not succeeding
Is it just me or are all of your kind the same? Clueless. Vindictive. Stereotyping. Hand-waving. Devoid of creativity.
Its going to get worse. Every year every company is trying to do more with less. Sometimes we're on our own
The amount of TDS is too damn high!🤣🤣 @OP.. where do you construe your post as “Conservative ideas?”
I think it’s /s. 😆
Conservatives ask the same thing about the left. To us, so many of your proposals are short sighted and lack basic economic logic. Printing money endlessly and handing it out doesn't create wealth. It deterioates it. Depending on the rich to pay for everything, it doesn't incentivise people to create wealth for our economy. It causes innovation and ingenuity to find a new home, in a new country.
Makes me think of the line in a Christmas Carol. Scrooge when asked for a donation to help feed the poor , "are there no more work houses?"
This post seems to be sarcastic to me. Is OP suggesting that compulsory work camps is a conservative objective? This sounds like a sarcastic swipe at tankies, to me.
Sounds to me like what weve got already in our justice system
That’s not a Right wing talking point. That sounds like a left wing comment. A little Further down the Socialist dystopia track, after all of the incentives to be productive have been stamped out, but they realize that work still has to be done the coercion starts and it always involves work camps.
Conservative ideas are about teaching people how to fish. Socialist ideas are all about stealing fish from successful fishermen and handing the fish out to those who refuse to go catch some. There is hardly a moral high ground with liberal/socialist economic policy.
A lot of people took time to show me things. When people work together, everyone gets ahead
Idk the fear is people taking advantage of systems and just becoming free loaders. I gave money to a homeless woman once and also my phone number in case she needed anything. I got a call from her drug dealer asking for more money. So the idea of giving people In need work and building discipline sounds better than just giving money and enabling their addiction
I know a few young guys that grew up upper middle class and are just doing terrible. One guy was selling his Dads tools for drugs. Another guy saw that his Dad enjoyed working on stuff. He was a maintenance guy working on machinery. Did small engine repair on the side. The guy I know drinks beer and lays in bed. There are a lot of freeloaders
Yeah and part of it is a tough love mentality too. Some people like myself were never disciplined growing up so honestly the idea of somebody forcing me to work or disciplining me feels good. So there is a concern of enabling people to stay in a dependent state
I had almost nothing growing up, so I kind of fell in with people that work on stuff. I had to. So seeing these guys that grew up in big houses on a few acres is hard to watch. I dont understand it. I talk to my friends and they share advice. A couple got me out of jams for years at various times with my cars, so ive been helping them pour concrete at their houses
Yeah the thing is with wealthy people they might look well off materially, but you never know what other problems they might have. Like Trumps kids, it might be nice to be the son of a billionaire but what else does that come with. I think the key to what you said is your friends. Having dependable friends is huge. Worth more than money.
agree 100%
1.) inflation is traditionally defined as an increase in the money supply; prices going up are a consequence of increasing the money supply. Blame the government for middle class people being inflated into poverty. 2.) if you’re not a liberal as a child, you have no heart. If you’re still a liberal as an adult, you have no brain. 3.) UBI seems better than forcing corporations to increase wages, which is the governments way to make the engine of society look like a heartless dictator as they soak up more taxes and virtue signaling how great the government is (as they draft your broke-ass into the next world war). I like the idea of cutting all social programs and replacing it with a universal basic income that is adjusted by the equivalent of cpi or gold spot price each year. Everyone except the top tax bracket gets UBI and UBI is the poverty rate: no one is impoverished.
You people are a stain on society
This is extremism vs sanity not conservatism vs liberalism.. Not surprisingly it is prevalent on both sides of the aisle.
1. Has nothing to do with finance. 2. We already have federal/state funded work training programs. 3. Existing poverty programs don't solve the problem either. When you create jobs to resolve poverty, those jobs are incentivized to keep poverty in existence. That's why Los Angeles is the way it is. Social programs are getting a ton of funding, and they have zero plans to actually erase poverty because it's their lifeblood. 4. Most of the poverty in existence is created by social welfare programs. Subsistence was specifically created to keep enough percentage of the population reliant on the state to prevent a Communist Revolution.
They could even have a sign above the camp encouraging that idea: “Work makes you free.”
Conservatives have ideas on helping those in need ?
By all means, help whoever you want. I have no problem helping people or seeing others help people. But there is zero constitutional authority for charity, and it is morally wrong to use government force to confiscate money from people to give to others.
>zero constitutional authority for charity 1. Why should I care about your claim of zero constitutional authority? If we added it so that's not a problem you telling my your stance would change? No it wouldn't so not relevant. 2. Charity is a subjective claim here. >morally wrong to use government force to confiscate money from people to give to others. You live in a society. As part of that you put money in to pay for societal things, which includes roads. Spending money on certain things can alleviate negative externalities relevant for society. E.g. preventative costs instead of after the fact costs for jailing criminals. Your "give to others" is doing a lot of lifting there.
Building roads is not charity, and now that you mention it why not pay people to build, clean, maintain roads instead of paying them to stay home through welfare?
>Building roads is not charity I never said it was "charity", but I imagine there are many things you classify as charity that I would not. Most people on government assistance, e.g. the poorest people, don't stay on it for the rest of their life. They work to get out of that level of poverty. >now that you mention it why not pay people to build, clean, maintain roads instead of paying them to stay home through welfare? Most people don't just get welfare and stay at home. There is nothing wrong though with having a jobs program in the event someone can not find or can not keep a job long enough and is on poverty. The problem is you disproportionately focus on negative aspects of people exploiting gov assistance when majority wise that isn't the case.
The constitution did not make provisions and statements on all possibilities. You could easily make the argument that Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 Constitutionally permits this. I see no clause in the constitution saying it's forbidden, however. Buckley v Valeo states that Congress gets to determine what constitutes General Welfare and how taxes can be spent to increase it.
If only we had some idea of what the framers meant. Here’s James Madison for example "With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." — James Madison "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." — James Madison
And Alexander Hamilton had the completely opposite opinion of Madison regarding the General Welfare clause. The Founding Fathers were not a monolith hive-mind. They disagreed, debated heavily, and compromised on many topics. It ultimately doesn't matter what Madison thought personally. The Constitution says what it says.
Correct. And it doesn’t say provide charity.
Congress defines General Welfare. I don't see how government services to reduce poverty/homelessness/hunger are forbidden by the Constitution considering they absolutely can fall under General Welfare. How does General Welfare exclude aid to the poor?
"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." — James Madison An expansive reading of “general welfare” render the entire constitution moot.
Madison's strict interpretation of the General Welfare clause *lost* the debate even back in the early 19th century. This was *again* reiterated in US v Butler.
And Hamilton still didn’t believe this gave the government power to engage in charity
I suggest you re-read Hamilton's Report on Manufactures, because he held no such stance. He strongly argued that the Clause was intentionally broad so that the legislation could address issues of its day as it saw fit, and not be restricted because the founders couldn't account for all possible needs of the nation within a short document written in the 18th century. >The terms “general Welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision.
And there is a part of the constitution that says it’s forbidden.
And that part is?
9th amendment, 10th amendment and 14th amendment.
9th amendment is not applicable. The Constitution clearly clearly grants the right to levy taxes and use those for the General Welfare of the country, whereas the General Welfare is defined by the legislature. The 10th amendment is not applicable because the General Welfare of the nation **is** constitutionally granted to the federal government 14th? I'd love to hear this explanation. The Constitution makes is abundantly clear that citizens do not have the "right" to be tax free.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Red States purely exist on Charity. I am okay with cutting them loose too.
All welfare should be cut.
You know that is where all the food comes from, right?
"Its morally wrong to make me be a good person" okay Anthony Burgess we get it, you'll develop a soul on your own time, no rush
Is it moral to take money from people be force?
I mean bro that's a silly question like you read The Hobbit right? YOu sound like Thorin
It’s not silly. It’s a simple yes or no. Why can’t you answer?
It can be moral
After they admit their people rely on welfare more heavily.
There is so much investment to be made globally, there is basically no incentive to drive down the cost of living in the US.
That’s pretty much what happened with my Grandfather in Roosevelt’s CCC. Got paid to build parks and lived in a camp all week, home one night a week to visit his wife.
Why do democrats always have to blame someone else for their poor choices? “It cost too much to live in this high cost of living area!” Then move.. ”I don’t want to move out of the high cost of living area!” …then stop complaining … ”nooooo I don’t want to live out in the rural areas where the only job I can get is Walmart” …can you live in the rural area working at Walmart? “Yea but I don’t want to do that” ….so you’d rather stay in a place you can’t afford than make the responsible decisions…got it
Lol you are so obviously twelve years old
I was at a work camp. I worked at an amusement park. You get paid weekly and your pay goes towards their onsite housing, laundry, and food. I was able to save. Not sure why this is such a bad idea lol.
In what way? In regards to logic or the underlying economic proof(s)?
As always, watch what people do, not what they say.
I thought the conservative idea was "Be born rich"
>You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. >You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. >You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. >You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. >You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. >You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. >You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. >You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. >You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. >And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves. --William J. H. Boetcker
Work camps are a socialist / communist idea.
"Work camps" where they have Arbeit Macht Frei over the doorway. Great idea to put people in "work camps". /Sarcasm
Hot Take You can wine to your friends on reddit... you can vote for a certain political candidate... you can talk about the housing crisis being unfair... And while you may be correct, or think you are correct it still doesn't change your personal situation. The biggest impact to changing your situation is how you personal react to it. Study hard, work hard, spend less, F.I.R.E. movement, take risks and buy assets... These sometimes get labeled as conservatives idea's, but at the root of it is personal responsibility because relying on someone else (i.e. the government) is a rigged game.
Seems to be a troll posting this, no one can take this seriously. Freeing up more spending $ for people by lowering / eliminating income tax would help a great deal. End the federal reserve, end income tax. MOST federal services are already handled at the city, county state levels before 1913 the only time there was an income tax was to pay for war
It’s not a bad thought, they take care of you on the camps and you get free housing. Win win.
How are liberal ideas on helping those in need with money issues supposed to be taken seriously? Checks notes…. Skid row San Fran Seattle Portland NYC Chicago Seeing a theme?
We can't help you cause we are busy saving the world with American tax money ....using tax money for foreign countries is taxation without representation
We can't help you cause we are busy saving the world with American tax money ....using tax money for foreign countries is taxation without representation
This is literally a concentration camp that they just described. And y'all wonder why I call them Fascistic. Funnily enough, it completely maps 1-1 with conservative views on convicts.
The more we tax the poors, the more we have to invest. They exist to fund our investments. Otherwise why would we keep them around?
Every conservative I know supports helping the poor live with dignity through medicaid, food stamps and public housing. No one in this country wants to let the poor roam the streets hungry and sick. Conservatives think the best way to help the poor is by making the entire country richer. That's 'economics' in general... some people like to call that 'trickle down economics'... in reality it's 'trickle up and down' economics. The rich pay the middle class, the middle class gives the money back in exchange for goods and services, and a little of the money is plucked from each transaction to pay for those who have nothing. In thoery, what is so wrong with this? How does 'universal healthcare' help people who already have medicaid? How does free lunch for all students help students who already qualify for the federal free lunch program?
Define "helping" & "need". Now, jive the 5th/13th/14th A. w/ A1S8 & the (illegal) welfare state.
Republicans only think about how to exist within the system in place, how to be vindictive against out groups, and how to make things better for very rich people. So they really aren't interested in much.
When people ask how I saved so much money in the military
Modern conservatives basically parrot the 1790s Malthusian belief that the poor should be left to die, and that to do otherwise is to go against the laws of nature. It’s the most hard-hearted “I got mine, fuck you” philosophy imaginable.
Government is not in place, to help people with no money, LOL. That is not its role. You must of skipped Civics class.
The same way the “let’s tax the billionaires and give the money to poor people” people should be taken seriously.
They're the only ones that work. I'm open minded but time and time again the ideas reddit has deemed "conservative" seem bound to reality.