I didnâ(TM)t say it was a good fuel. But hydrogen isnâ(TM)t a fuel at all. Thatâ(TM)s my point

Hydrogen isnâ(TM)t a fuel. Wood, coal, oil, those are fuels. Hydrogen is at best a chemical battery.

Sure, if you commit a crime while on welfare, out you go.

Of course I was being facetious. The easiest solution is to end welfare programs like snap. Get a job, or take a shot at some charity helping you out, and hope they do or you starve.

If the amendment is passed properly, they can't cite a now repealed amendment to throw out the new one. What you suggest would clearly not be allowed since that logic could be used to throw out any law passed. They can't rule on anything without a case before them, and the case required would only be possible after the new amendment passed.

Nice try, but thanks for playing.

They can try to rob me, but a bullet to the head should stop that. It 's not like i'm not allowed to defend myself.

I have thought it through; I want the government to pay zero. People that want to live on charity can do so and go to an actual charity, and we can eliminate the government coercion and redistributions.

Ya, your post is nonsense. I've known and have seen plenty of people with new trucks, the latest iphone, complaining they should get more food stamps in February because how are they supposed to have enough food for the Superbowl party they are hosting.

And stop acting like its feed people or the crime rate goes up, there are lots of other ways to handle this. I'd be fine shipping people to Finland for example.

I think its immoral for one free person to demand that another free person take care of them. Being compelled to do so by force is considered slavery. The system today is pretty indirect; you can pick your job, and you could just stop working to go on the take yourself, but if you choose to work some of your effort is forcefully taken away and given to someone that just doesn't want to work. For me that's discouraging. Others mentioned the social contract as justification as to why we all pay for roads and police, but where is the part where we expect everyone who is able to actually contribute something back to society? Why do some simply get to take?

I don't mind helping people. I do mind being forced to with threat of violence. I'm not against paying taxes for roads and fire departments, I'm against paying for someone's six pack while they do nothing but watch judge judy all day.

Fortunately we'll get see the results of your line of thinking in Finland soon enough. Of course it never occurs to you Europe might be having a harder time recovering (still!) because all of their entitlement programs.

It depends on how common the skill is and how easy it is to acquire. In your scenario yes, that's exactly what happens. It doesn't though because the skills required to be a good programmer are not easy to learn or master. That's why there's a labor shortage in that field. I remember a bunch of people in my first year of my CS degree that flunked out because they thought it'd be easy money.

The more training and knowledge you need to perform a job, the smaller the labor pool. To a point, once wages get high enough, more people will enter driving the wages down, but the market will tend to even out the supply to be roughly the demand.

Or instead of welfare we could force out those that don't want to work and remove them from society. Perhaps send them to Finland, for example.

Where do you get this crap? The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land which the court must follow, so there is exactly zero legal way for them to invalidate an amendment. If an amendment went in making slavery legal again, and nullified the amendments used for equal protection and such, the CANNOT invalidate it.

You don't seem to get it. If the will of the people is strong enough, we could repeal the 13th Amendment and get slavery back.

So you're argument of just accepting it is nonsense. Majority rule is mob rule, and that's exactly why we have things like the electoral college.

It depends on what the taxes are used for. It doesn't benefit me at all to give my tax money to someone else so they can do nothing but watch TV.

Stop it. The OP doesn't have a problem with taxes in general (nor do i, i like roads and fire departments), he specify doesn't like working to provide from himself then being forced to give it to someone that could but chooses not to.

But why shouldn't the game console just be free too? i mean they're already getting food for free, aren't they entitled to more?