True. And once we see that, there is really no need to argue further with them.
I just like to knock their argument down in their own terms when I can, because maybe they could benefit. If he really believed what he said, now he has had an opportunity to see one way in which that belief was wrong.
In my experience, though, people who make arguments like that don't really believe what they are saying. In southack's case, he might really believe that "welfare" is good, but he doesn't really believe that the "general welfare phrase"(as he puts it) actually justfies it. He just thinks that he might be shake some people's reasons for being against it by making a false argument.
An info-warrior type. I wonder if there's any money in that line of work?