You mean how it will make it more socialist?

Giving away taxpayers money to anyone one that wants it for life, ie Wealth Redistribution, is a rather socialist and in fact almost communist principle. At least welfare now can end or be denied.

Your argument about socialism or communism is specious at best, since we would not have a more developed economy without it.

Wealth distribution is part of our form of Government; and, is specifically enumerated by the provision that Provides for the general Welfare of the United States.

Ending the war on poverty can be as simple at-will unemployment can make it. You still haven't solved for a natural unemployment rate. Anyone claiming unemployment compensation, at-will, could simply claim they are naturally unemployed.

Oh really? How?

your copy of the constitution must be different from mine. Did we get a new one when i wasn't looking?
Giving money away is not talked about ANYWHERE in the Constitution.

It takes socialism to have anything above a third world economy.

Providing for the common Defense and general Welfare implies income transfers.

No it doesn't, but I would like to see you try to explain why.

Only a truer form of AnCap would not require socialism.

There are 2 reasons for that.

1. Social and economic issues are for the states to deal with, and not the federal government.

2. Back then you could always homestead on empty land somewhere, and live off the land. There were also other charities and you could count on neighbors much more than now. Things have changed, and we don't have those freedoms to rely on anymore. It is a cold, artificial, and impersonal world we live in now, in comparison.

Because without socialism, everything would be profit based, very inefficient, and very restrictive.

For example, if all schools were private, then there would be much less productivity and much more crime.
If roads were private, there would be far less transportation and commerce, so everything would cost much more.
If fire deparments were still private, then you would have more large destruction like the Chicago fire.
Without socialism, unfair practices like monopolies would be the norm.
Unions would be impossible, or at least a lot more violent.

Less money would go to the government and local communities would have to ban together to create these things, however, you don't need to send money to the government and have them send it back to achieve these things.

It's definitely inaccurate to claim without socialism you cannot achieve anything better than a third world economy.

it implies taxes. taxes in no way shape or form translate to income transfers from the government to private citizens. In fact theyre quite the opposite.

so change the constitution. if you can it'll be you (those who want this program) whos in the right and me who's just bitching. Until you change the Constitution its me (those who don't) who's in the right and you who's just bitching.

Yeah, but I like the conveniences modern technology can provide for our general welfare.

As a form of Post Infrastructure, that type of public policy could create local jobs and increase local tax receipts, anywhere it is implemented; and could done as a form of economic stimulus that provides for our general welfare.

I think we can use Post Research-Hospitals in every state of the Union since we already have a Public Health Service.

Confiscatory forms of taxation are income transfers from the consumers of statism to the State, for purposes of statism.