Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic

tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by OSU_Buckeye on 6/13/2012 9:55:00 AM (view original):
Quote post by tecwrg on 6/13/2012 8:57:00 AM:
Under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, poor people should have the right to food as do rich people.  Your argument is DENIED.

How can you deny an argument, just because you make $hit up?
The 14th amendment states no such thing, under the equal protection clause.
You simply say it "should", but it does not.
MikeT23's argument is valid, AND based on history, I might add.

You should actually READ the US Constitution, as well as books about the founding fathers.

Everyone has the right to food, clothing (etc.).....if you WORK FOR IT.  No one ever said it would be easy.  One of the greatest things about this Country is that, you can have anything you want, if you're willing to work hard, and give it your all.
No one "owes" you anything!  You have the right to work, but no one "owes" you a job.
It's a beautiful thing that we, as a people, have such sympathy & compassion for our fellow citizens.  We would like to see everyone happy and successful.  That's great!
Allowing those feelings to bleed into a sense of entitlement is NOT, what our Constitution, or this Country is about.
 
But that's the way we roll in this thread.  No?
6/13/2012 10:11 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Interesting piece in the news today.

Those who work have seen their income decrease by about 3k between 2007 and 2010.    Those who don't work have seen their income double(6k to 12k).   Not sure how that happens unless weekly unemployment benefits have increased quite a bit.
6/13/2012 10:23 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Socialism in action!
6/13/2012 10:29 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
President Robin Hood: takes from the rich to give to the poor!
6/13/2012 10:30 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Actually, now that I think about it, it's not impossible.

I believe unemployment benefits used to be capped at 6 months.    $250x26=6500
I believe unemployment benefits are capped at around 2 years now.   $250x52=13000



6/13/2012 10:34 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2012 10:30:00 AM (view original):
President Robin Hood: takes from the rich to give to the poor!
If that's his goal, he's doing a horrible job at achieving it.
6/13/2012 10:35 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Of course, throw some inflation in there and 13k isn't going to go far.
6/13/2012 10:35 AM
OSU_Buckeye
Posts: 439 (0)
Hall of Famer
65 20 1
Prospect
The "dumbing down of America" is apparent in may of these threads.
6/13/2012 10:35 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2012 10:34:00 AM (view original):
Actually, now that I think about it, it's not impossible.

I believe unemployment benefits used to be capped at 6 months.    $250x26=6500
I believe unemployment benefits are capped at around 2 years now.   $250x52=13000



Maths is hard, hayna?
6/13/2012 10:44 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
It's the internet.  You can look stuff up.

26 weeks.
Then a 13 week extension. 
Then a 20 week extension.

I'm not sure if it's 46 weeks or 59 weeks for unemployment.   Either way, 46 weeks would just about double non-workers income from previous years at 26 weeks.
6/13/2012 10:46 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
I'm referring to your multiplier: 6 months ( x26), 2 years (x52).
6/13/2012 10:51 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Well, there are only 52 weeks per year.    Doesn't really matter if it increased to 27 years.    One's yearly income can only be counted per year.

6/13/2012 10:59 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2012 8:57:00 AM (view original):
Under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, poor people should have the right to food as do rich people.  Your argument is DENIED.
Uh, poor people do have the right to food as do rich people.

But if a majority of voters passed a law saying people making less than $40,000 a year aren't allowed to buy apples at any price, that would be a problem.
6/13/2012 11:18 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by jrd_x on 6/13/2012 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2012 8:57:00 AM (view original):
Under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, poor people should have the right to food as do rich people.  Your argument is DENIED.
Uh, poor people do have the right to food as do rich people.

But if a majority of voters passed a law saying people making less than $40,000 a year aren't allowed to buy apples at any price, that would be a problem.
"Uh, poor people do have the right to food as do rich people."

I know.  That's what I said.

"But if a majority of voters passed a law saying people making less than $40,000 a year aren't allowed to buy apples at any price, that would be a problem."

Why are you bringing that up?  That's not what we were discussing.
6/13/2012 11:24 AM
jrd_x
Posts: 1481 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
You said "should have."
6/13/2012 11:39 AM
◂ Prev 1...106|107|108|109|110...462 Next ▸
Obama: Worst President Ever? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.