The structure of politics: Type 1 vs. Type 2 laws
 

Once a nation is civilized enough to establish the rule of LAW -- something specific and written down -- the structure of politics is as follows:

Liberty is a poetic term for property rights.

Therefore there are only two kind of laws:

Type 1) those that protect property rights,

Type 2) and those that attack property rights. <--- where Femo-Fascism lives.

.

...

.


https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...lation-247854/



.

...

...

...

I understand Type 2 legislation.

its like that Obamacare thing where you must pass legislation before you understand what's in it.

but really what they mean is let's slip this through because it builds on our real target In this case the target was single payer insurance
hence they once again executed a move that restricted your rights in this case your right of choice

its ironic that the let strongly believes in choice when it comes to abortion but not when it comes to health care.

Personal Best Regards:

You don't say that with much moral conviction, standards, or principle, nor show much comprehension for the enormity of Type 2 degradation.


.

...

...

What I said essentially is that government is amoral and their only goal is power and control. government has stripped away so many freedoms done so without them from people and accomplished it without notice

I used this example because people are not getting or ignoring what you are saying.

Abortion to them is a means of population control. Why resort to genocide when you can get people to volunteer to murder their own under the cover of PRO-CHOICE

Personal Best Regards:

Ok, now how about some solutions, like:

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...idiots-247586/


.

White people...white people are committing genocide...through aborting their babies...AND encouraging the minorities to HAVE babies.

We're PAYING the minorities to breed us out.

Great job white women! I bet you can't wait for the 80% minority majority...all that delicious dark meat to abuse you.

Abortion and drugs are the Type 2 Achilles heels of conservatism.

...

WHITE TRASH WEBER
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...aa4a7e8d0b.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

...

And in a black neighborhood...they just sit with their hand out.

...

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...d110efafb3.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

...

It's actually VERY clever...only you're not bright enough to realize it.

It's ceramic, it's fireproof. Having the ice in the tank will create water as it melts. When you're done cooking...you flush and the spent ash is washed away...clean and ready for the next cookout.

What did blacks invent?

https://thewondrous.com/wp-content/u...ack-people.png

Are you there with them PUFFer?

https://thewondrous.com/wp-content/u...can-people.jpg

That's "cultural appropriation"!

Billiards was invented by white people.

Clothes too...take them off.

Stay how you were when we found you...naked and scratching in the dirt for roots and grubs.

Why do so many white trash girls have mulatto kids ? Doesn’t that make them part of the same tribe, by injection ?

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...e9d740aa02.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because a black guy...will f@ck anything. Those "disgusting fat" genes would have died out as NO white guy would touch them.

It's white genocide...by injection.

Then by that same logic the remaining white gene pool will become stronger as the white trash girls and their mulatto kids further integrate into the African gene pool. Since the remaining white minority will be devoid of white trash they will have no problem keeping the brown (muddied) race in check.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would IF white people were having kids.

You see...if you're white and successful, a kid costs a fortune. Upwards of a couple of hundred thousand $s for 18 years. If you're a minority with nothing and no future...you get PAID to have kids...a couple of hundred thousand $s for 18 years. Welfare can pay $60,000 a year in benefits.

I've been looking and haven't been able to find this anywhere. Could you provide a link so I can check it out?

If you add up housing, medical, dental, food stamps, payments etc. , it could very well add up to 60K for a family of 5. No link is necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At $19,588, the average annual fiscal deficit for low-skill immigrant households was nearly twice the amount of taxes paid. ...


Executive Summary: The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer | The Heritage Foundation

.

This report is 10 years old. Interesting but not current.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

.


Yes, kind of like you -- engaging, but willfully ignorant and unprincipled, i.e. a typical Femo-Fascist.

.

Not very good at research "Calguy"? It's ALL OVER Google.

"New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. ... To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year.Oct 26, 2012"

https://www.google.com/search?q=welf...utf-8&oe=utf-8

It's worse now...more expensive and more people are collecting.

Damn "One Trick", you're level of reading comprehension is on the same level as dirtbanker's.

"Finally, Sessions adds up many means-tested programs, which are aimed at people with low incomes, but then divides the figure by the number of people under the poverty level — even though millions of people above the poverty level receive these benefits. That also significantly gooses up the figure for spending per household."

A misleading chart on ‘welfare’ spending - The Washington Post

Hey douche...you thought "I got him!"? Well you didn't...for if YOU had read to the bottom you'd see the response this article received from the Sessions office:

" UPDATE: Stephen Miller, spokesman for Sessions, asked to post a response to this column:

Who watches the Post's watchman? Your piece is disappointingly anti-intellectual, appealing to sentiment over reason. No reasonable analysis can exclude the cost of providing low-income families with subsidized health care when calculating the total financial aid that they receive.

You claim our chart is inaccurate and yet you fail to provide your readers with the math. So here it is: according to CRS’ report (which you do not contest), spending on 80-plus federal poverty programs equals $746 billion per year. Include state contributions to those programs and it grows to over $1 trillion. (That number would be even larger if one added spending on state- and local-run programs, which we did not.) By comparison, we spend $480 billion on Medicare, $540 billion on defense, and $725 billion on Social Security.

Although you did not acknowledge it, the Committee released the charts with a detailed and extensive explanation of the underlying methodology. As our release stated, “almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011.” We then went on to explain that if “the $1 trillion spent on federal welfare programs [were] converted into cash and divided exclusively among the 16.8 million households who lived beneath the federal poverty line last year, the government would be able to mail each of those households an annual check for $60,000.” The release concluding by saying that “this figure underscores the fragmented, inefficient nature of welfare in this country.”

We can have a political debate about what to call these poverty programs, how to most effectively allocate our resources, and what kind of reforms would best alleviate the chronic poverty created by the Left’s policies. What is not debatable is the math. Unlike your post, our analysis is honest, accurate and, most importantly, a constructive step towards helping those in need."

You liberals...you don't understand math.

How about ALL the OTHER links???

""According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011." "

Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty | The Weekly Standard

"Looking for a good paying job? Well, look no further.

No, really, stop looking. In 35 states, welfare benefits pay more than a minimum wage job, according to a new study by the libertarian Cato Institute, and in 13 states welfare pays more than $15 per hour.

“One of the single best ways to climb out of poverty is taking a job, but as long as welfare provides a better standard of living than an entry-level job, recipients will continue to choose it over work,” said Michael Tanner, senior policy analyst and co-author of the study.

The study is an updated version of one Tanner put out in 1995 that estimated the full value of welfare benefits packages across the states. The 1995 study found that such tax-free welfare benefits greatly exceeded the poverty level and “their dollar value was greater than the amount of take-home income a worker would receive from an entry-level job.”"

Study: welfare pays more than work in most st | The Daily Caller

"Suppose someone offered you the same amount of money that you currently make at your job on one condition — you don’t work. Might you be tempted? That is exactly the deal that our welfare system offers too many people today.

The federal government currently funds 126 separate anti-poverty programs at an annual cost of $688 billion. Of these, 72 provide cash or other benefits directly to poor families. State, county, and municipal governments often operate additional benefit programs. The combined benefits from those multiple overlapping programs can easily add up to the point where welfare simply pays better than work.

This week, the Cato Institute released a new study calculating the state-by-state value of this typical welfare package for a mother with two children participating in seven common welfare programs — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps (SNAP), Medicaid, housing assistance, WIC, energy assistance (LIHEAP), and free commodities. We found that, in 2013, the value of those benefits varied widely across states, from a low of $16,984 in Mississippi to an astonishing high of $49,175 in Hawaii.
In nine states — Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland — as well as Washington, D.C., annual benefits were worth more than $35,000 a year. The median value of the welfare package across the 50 states is $28,500."

Welfare: A Better Deal than Work | Cato Institute

"Michael Tanner, co-author of the Cato study, said that since welfare isn’t taxed, a person would have to earn $60,590 in Hawaii to take home the same $49,175 a person on welfare would."

It pays not to work: Hawaii residents receive highest welfare benefits in US - Hawaii Reporter

"

A congressional report from CRS recently revealed that the United States now spends more on means-tested welfare than any other item in the federal budget—including Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. Including state contributions to the roughly 80 federal poverty programs, the total amount spent in 2011 was approximately $1 trillion. Federal spending alone on these programs was up 32 percent since 2008.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011. These figures exclude entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to which people contribute, and they refer exclusively to low-income direct and indirect financial support—such as food stamps, public housing, child care, energy assistance, direct cash aid, etc. For instance, 47 million Americans currently receive food stamps, and USDA has engaged in an aggressive outreach campaign to boost enrollment even further, arguing that “every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy… It’s the most direct stimulus you can get.” (Economic growth, however, is weaker this year than the two years prior, even as food stamp “stimulus” has reached an all-time high.)

Were the $1 trillion spent on federal welfare programs converted into cash and divided exclusively among the 16.8 million households who lived beneath the federal poverty line last year, the government would be able to mail each of those households an annual check for $60,000. This figure underscores the fragmented, inefficient nature of welfare in this country, as well as the need for sound, compassionate reforms to better assist struggling Americans and help those living in poverty successfully rise out of it.

To better understand the welfare budget, it is useful to look at the four largest segments of federal welfare (excluding state contributions):

Low-Income Health Care Programs: Approximately $340 billion. The largest expense in this category is Medicaid.

Direct Cash Aid: Approximately $145 billion. The largest item here is Supplemental Security Income, which is direct cash support. This category also includes cash assistance from TANF.

Food Assistance: Approximately $100 billion. The largest item here is food stamps. Overall, there are 15 food assistance programs to supplement household income.

Housing & Social Services: Approximately $90 billion. The largest item here is federal housing vouchers. Other programs include home energy assistance, child care, non-cash TANF support, rental assistance, and grants to states for low-income housing. "

https://www.budget.senate.gov/newsro...old-in-poverty

Is that enough for ya? Is that what you've devolved to? Name calling? So who are you really? CNM? GG? mellin? rocky?

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...c8b034f855.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow....you called me "douche". I'm so wounded. How old ARE you anyway? 14 or so?

I understand math perfectly but apparently you do not. Did you not see where they took ALL welfare payments and divided by the number below the poverty line? Try that in your Jr High statistics class and you will be flunking. What they've done is something akin to:

(4 + 5 + 3 + 5 + 4 + 6 + 5 + 18 + 20) / 2 = 35. Note that 35 is not the true average nor is any of these numbers as high as 35.

Math is easy; you should try it sometime.

I agree
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...0e7b08194e.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Piece of cake.....LOL

Good research.

It's all Type 2 seizure of other people's wealth -- a Type 2 attack on their property. Not that that would make any difference to the ZERO OBJECTIVITY FEMO-FASCISTS on this board.