Department of Housing and Urban Development Reduction Bill

[The Duke]

Here's one: If you like having angry homeless people living on your front lawn, abolish the DHUD.

[The Duke]

Here's one: If you like having angry homeless people living on your front lawn, abolish the DHUD.

You know, I really do respect your opinion, but that’s exactly what I was trying to avoid.  I’m asking if there’s anything we, as in the Government, need from this Department.  I will consider the other concerns later, but I’d like that question answered first.

I thought you had said that you were looking for reasons to keep HUD aside from helping others for the sake of helping others.  I provided one based on narrow self interest instead of general charitable feelings.  I suppose I didn't understand the question.

Here's one: If you like having angry homeless people living on your front lawn, abolish the DHUD.

They are fully entitled to rely on private charities.

Yes, they are.  And will these private charities be able to fulfill allfunctions currently filled by HUD?

[The Duke]

Yes, they are.  And will these private charities be able to fulfill allfunctions currently filled by HUD?

Obviously. Simply because the funds we get back from this can go into tax cuts which will so drastically affect our society and bring prices that all those without homes will suddenly be capable of affording one. Oh yeah, and every charity for the poor will find two tons of gold bars in their bank vaults.

Private charity is the new deus ex machine.  It resolves all worries without premonition, no matter what kind of bind we get into, I suppose.

[The Duke]

Here's one: If you like having angry homeless people living on your front lawn, abolish the DHUD.

That's why we have the right to keep and bear arms.

This is one of the greatest quotes ever.

[The Duke]

OK, I found the relevant section of Bono v. Atlasia II:

   Subchapter VIII - Native American Programs
Programs that provide benefits to people based solely on their
ethnicity are generally unconstitutional as they deny people equal treatment under the law.

   Subchapter X - Legal Services Corporation
Subchapter X of chapter 34 employs a means test based of income level in order to determine eligibility of persons to gain assistance under it.  In keeping with the precedent of the first Bono v. Atlasia case, a program employing such tests is inherently unconstutional.  This court does not rule at this time on the constitutionality of this program absent of such test.

If we are to bow to the every whim and demand of the Supreme Court, this essentially means that either all welfare programs are unconstitutional, or the rich can apply for welfare.  So go ahead and pursue your veto override, if you really want, but you may as well keep in mind that we already approved a cut/abolition of this Office when we passed the last Budget.

The Bono decision pertains only to the actual program in question and no justice has ever said that all social welfare is now unconstitutional.  There are also specific sections of the Constitution authorizing things like Social Secrity and Medicare.

And it is somewhat disturbing to hear the Acting President suggest we had ought not listen to the Supreme Court unless we agree with them.  You didn't say exactly that, but it is a logical inferrence from your comments.

[The Duke]

Social security and medicaid were exempted from both decisions, and that extrapolation of yours that an authorization for annuities and pensions for health, old age and unemployment, or whatever the constituion puts it as, are an authorization for all kinds of social spending, ahs been rebuked here many times before. Each time you manage to come back with it. Can it already.

I've never said that that section allows "all kinds of social spending".  I think it allows exactly what it says it allows.  It allows annuities to the elderly, which is exactly what social security is.  its as if the language was written with Social Security in mind.

And before you continue your insults at me, you do realize I essentially support the bill in question to cut Indian Housing?  I'm an ally of yours on this one, in case you hadn't noticed.

[The Duke]

Social security and medicaid were exempted from both decisions, and that extrapolation of yours that an authorization for annuities and pensions for health, old age and unemployment, or whatever the constituion puts it as, are an authorization for all kinds of social spending, ahs been rebuked here many times before. Each time you manage to come back with it. Can it already.

I've never said that that section allows "all kinds of social spending".  I think it allows exactly what it says it allows.  It allows annuities to the elderly, which is exactly what social security is.  its as if the language was written with Social Security in mind.

And before you continue your insults at me, you do realize I essentially support the bill in question to cut Indian Housing?  I'm an ally of yours on this one, in case you hadn't noticed.

You did say it,it's in one of the Bono vs Atlasia threads, but I can't be bothered to look up now, and when I come back in the morning you'll probably will have it deleted.

It's good to see you changed your mind though, but you did used that and social welafre on the same train of thought. I don't think I insulted you, but sorry, whatever.

I used that line of thought to advocate for the outcome I wanted.

At the Constitutional Convention, I asked the convention to grant much broader powers to the government than what ended up being granted largely because I knew that the Constitution does not grant a near-blank-check to the Senate on welfare spending.  But when the case came up, I pulled out the best argument I had left, which was that Clauses 17 and the other relevant clauses authorize broad spending powers.  Like any good advocate would.