That’s a good question. The list is probably vanishingly small. Do you consider Defense a “benefit program”?
I’m open to suggestions authorized by the Constitution.
You haven’t demonstrated that you understand what it is that you’re eliminating.
Which item that I’ve identified do you feel was insufficiently explained?
In a way, yes. But if some states give it only to whites, that is a constitutional issue. And it is very easy to do so, by using zip codes and various criteria.
If that were to happen, my understanding is that there’s a mechanism in place to handle that.
You seem very focused on Southern states and how they treat blacks. Earlier, you said this:
What did you mean by that?
Yes, the HUD.
*But even today, the efforts to erect barriers — neutral in name and description, but likely discriminatory in practice and effect — are still with us.
The latest?
A stunning rebuke of the North Carolina Legislature by the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., absolutely unmasked the ruse of Voter ID laws, pushed by conservatives in recent years as a way to prevent “voter fraud,” a mythical issue ginned up to raise the specter of mass-scale vote stealing…Not only did the 4th Circuit say the North Carolina law would disproportionately affect African Americans — it demonstrated, through pages of explication, disenfranchisement of blacks was the very goal of the legislation.
The legislature, in drawing up the law, researched data that showed how frequently African Americans used certain voting practices. Then lawmakers wrote the law in a way that trashed the practices that were used more by blacks than anyone else. Importantly, North Carolina had adopted laws in recent years to boost dismal rates of black balloting — permitting people to vote at places closer to home if precincts were too far away, expanding early voting and enabling same-day voter registration. All led to increased voting among African Americans.
The more recent law clamped down on those procedures.
The changes, the appeals court said, “target African Americans with almost surgical precision,” and “impose cures for problems that don’t exist.”*
*In the 2016 presidential election, data shows that significant numbers of previous voters were disenfranchised in the face of strict ID requirements. It’s likely this disenfranchisement had a real impact on state totals.
In Wisconsin – where the Democratic presidential candidate has won in every general election since 1998 – voter ID laws may have been the biggest factor in the surprise upset in favor of Donald Trump, who won by a very small margin, around 27,000 votes. In 2014, as ID laws were being implemented, a Wisconsin court ruling estimated nearly 300,000 eligible voters in the state didn’t have the means to obtain the appropriate ID. By 2016, voter turnout in the state was at its lowest in 20 years. In Milwaukee, where 70% of Wisconsin’s African American population lives, turnout decreased by a staggering 13%.
Roughly 25% of all African-Americans don’t have photo ID – and if we apply that number to Wisconsin, we can estimate that nearly 76,000 black people in the state were prevented from voting under the new law. Since 80% of blacks have voted Democratic in every general election since JFK, it’s entirely plausible that if even half of these 76,000 people had been able to cast a ballot, the state would have gone to Hillary Clinton.
Regardless of how minority citizens choose to vote, their voices deserve to be heard in all elections. But modern voter ID laws inherently benefit the conservative political agenda. The elderly, disabled, and people of color face the most deterrents to obtaining ID, and these populations largely vote Democratic; not so coincidentally, Republican lawmakers are generally the authors of voter ID legislation.
Some Republicans have publicly admitted that ID regulations benefit their party. “We battled to get voter ID on the ballot for the November ’16 election,” Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel told a conservative talk show host. “How many of your listeners really honestly are sure Sen. [Ron] Johnson was going to win reelection or President Trump was going to win Wisconsin if we didn’t have voter ID to keep Wisconsin’s elections clean and honest and have integrity?”*
Would you say you oppose Social Security because of your personal views of the Consitution?
If courts found that Social Security was a constitutional exercise of legislative power, would that alter your view of its legality?
I wouldn’t support enacting such a program today if none existed. Winding it down is messy now because people have already paid into it and are planning on receiving the benefits. On a personal level, I’d like an opt-out option. They could even keep all my money they’ve already taken.
As for the courts, it would depend somewhat on the decision, but no, probably not. Just because some judge(s) invent a right to abortions or gay marriage or whatever else doesn’t really sway me (for something your side can probably relate to, many Dems are not convinced, even now, after the Supreme Court has ruled it such, that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms).
Primarily. I also think it’s a terrible investment and would prefer something that offers more risk and higher returns.
Would you say you oppose abortions and gay marriage for…what? Constitutional reasons? Religious reasons?
Religious reasons, but my political opposition is to the federal government imposing their will on the nation as a whole in an area that had traditionally been (and I believe would still be best) governed by the states individually. I’d have far fewer objections to New York deciding they wanted to legalize gay marriage / fund abortions, or whatever, than I do the federal government doing it.
Cut the entire military by 90% but in response make all rifles, handguns, and machine guns legal to all citizens without limit. That way the United States can still defend itself on the beaches.
That would work until China or Russia dropped a few nukes.
Would it be Ok if a state decided that blacks couldn’t vote?
Or that slavery was still legal?
Or that you could be tortured to get a confession?
That is a very interesting proposal. I suspect it was made in jest, but I think it deserves some serious consideration.
We should remember that we’ve already had the conservative paradise of low taxation/no regulation/no unions. It produced such miracles as the Matewan massacre and the Triangle Shirtwaist fire.
The distasteful thing about conservative and libertarian economic policies is the mendacity. It’s abundantly clear that the point is to make the rich richer, and this is what history shows. Without all the fancy bullshit handwaving it is simply feudalism on performance enhancing drugs.
In conclusion, I would rather the government entangle everyone in red tape than that corporations enslave us in what they claim is red ink.
Nope, those are areas where the Constitution DOES ensure rights.
The point is to make everyone richer. I believe laissez-faire capitalism is the economic system most likely to bring the most propsperity to the most people.
I don’t think it’s right to think of Social Security as an “investment” but instead as something akin to a defined benefit retirement account, where your income is assured regardless of how the stock market and your individual choices do.
This is absolutely correct. It is not an investment, but an income insurance program. It’s an important difference.