Discussion: Healthcare [Archive] - Page 28

dnno1

09-22-2010, 02:56 PM

That entire link is based on conjecture. Who defines what underinsured means? How many of those are illegal aliens? How many of those are people that choose to be uninsured? How many of those chose the insurance plan that they are currently on because it would save them the most money but to others would make them seem underinsured?

Obama's reason behind HCR was a number he kept spouting out from the Census bureau data from 2007 in which it says 45.7 million are uninsured. If you care to delve further into the census data, you notice that 9.7 million of those people are illegal aliens. So we are down to 36 million. Then we move on to this as stated in the report: "health insurance coverage is likely to be underreported". What does that mean? Well it means that some people report that they don't have insurance when they actually have it because they are being asked in March what their activity was in the previous calendar year. Some may be in between jobs and report that they currently don't have it. However, that number is indeterminate so I will say that it is negligible. But, those people in between jobs are in a completely different situation than those who cannot truly afford insurance. However, in the same data, 17.6 million people of those 45.7 million made more than $50,000.00 a year and 9.1 million of those 17.6 made more than $75,000.00 a year. So that means that 17.6 million people can certainly afford to have insurance but they simply choose not to. So lets minus 17.6 from the 36 million that we figured above. We are now down to 18.4 million people from hard data and facts from the census. Also noted in the data, 18.3 million of the total uninsured were under the age of 34 and thusly figured they were healthy enough to not need insurance. So I would be generous and say that 18 million people cannot afford healthcare insurance in the US. So that is 6% of our population. I guess it was important to change everything for the 94% to accommodate the other 6%.

The fact that illegal aliens are uninsured does not change the fact that there are over 45 million people who are uninsured. Once again if a person is lying in the street injured, we do not question what his immigration status is, we go out and help that person. The same thing goes for people who choose not to have health insurance. Just because they choose not to have it doesn't change the fact that over 45 million people are uninsured in this country, nor does it stop them from showing up at the emergency room when the get sick or injured. Estimates show that an additional 25 million people are considered under-insured (and that could be an underestimate). That is nothing to shake a stick at and it contributes to the rising cost of health care. Just to show you how significant these numbers are, just 8 to 16 million people were enough to cause the housing market crash a couple of years ago. The is and issue that must be addressed, not carelessly written off, and that is what HCR is attempting to do.

chaseter

09-22-2010, 03:14 PM

dnno1

09-22-2010, 03:32 PM

I guess Emergency Rooms no longer exist in Obamacare world. An illegal alien will not be turned away from life saving help, no one does and no one will, but if they don't bother to become a citizen of this country then they don't deserve all the same rights that citizens have. I can't illegally cross the border into Britain if I have HIV and be given enough meds to last me the rest of my life and then I pack up and go back home after I get what I need.

If you want to inflate numbers to get your agenda passed, well then the vast majority of Americans want the bill repealed and isn't congress supposed to do what the majority wants? Isn't that Democracy?

Oh, emergency rooms will still be around. They just hopefully won't be visited as much. I am not inflating the numbers. They are what they are according to the Census bureau (at least for the uninsured) and they have been that high for a long time now. I am not gong to be one to ignore millions of people just because of their status or the choices they make in life. These are real issues here and they needed to be addressed as they were.

chaseter

09-22-2010, 03:49 PM

dnno1

09-22-2010, 04:38 PM

According to the census bureau, 10 million aren't even citizens of this country and 17.6 million have more than enough money to purchase insurance. So that is inflating the numbers. If someone making 50 grand spends all their disposable income on flat screen tvs, cars, and nice clothes instead of insurance then that is their fault. If an immigrant decides to come over illegally and not become a contributing member of this society to benefit everyone instead of just themselves then that is their fault. Those people don't deserve top notch healthcare. They don't deserve the best that money can buy because they made the wrong choices. Now they deserve basic life saving healthcare because letting someone die is wrong but they don't deserve to be given money to go get top notch care at everyone else's expense. We have become a nation of handouts and irresponsibility and it is sickening.

You don't have to ignore the millions that cannot afford insurance. Giving aid to them instead of tearing down the entire system and trying to rebuild it to suit 6% of our population is idiotic and reckless. How much easier is it to construct a bill to reduce costs and give aid to 18 million people instead of re-working the entire system in a 2500 page bill?

While I believe that life saving care is a human right, no nation should let someone hit by a car die in the street if they cannot pay, I do not believe that it is a human right for a person who makes bad choices to be rewarded and given the same access to everything that citizens who make the right choices have. That is socialism in a nutshell and all it fosters is laziness and dependency.

You are overlooking the issue by trying to reduce the number of uninsured. In spite of your excuses, there are over 45 million people in this country who are uninsured. That is the issue that needs to be addressed. Those are the people who are showing up at the emergency room and aiding in driving up health care costs. Requiring that people pay a fine if they do not have health insurance is one way of encouraging those people who choose not the have it to get it. It also increases the pool of insured persons serving to reduce the premiums (see group insurance plans as an example). Although the public consensus is that illegal immigrants should not receive federal assistance for health care, Federal law does insure that everyone gets enough medical care to stabilize their condition should the show up at the emergency room (this is outside of HCR).

Kelly

09-22-2010, 04:53 PM

Anita18

09-22-2010, 05:46 PM

I still think he has his basic argument though dnno, we are overhauling 16% of our budget for 45 out of 308 million people.....no matter how you look at it, IMO.....that is **** load of work, for things that could have been done on an individual basis that could have taken care of a good portion of that 45 million rather quickly, and certainly not as costly.
But all that still doesn't involve the underinsured.

We all know someone who's going through insurance paperwork hell to try and get affordable healthcare. Heck, I know someone in my 5-person workgroup who goes through it regularly. (She's vegan, she exercises regularly, but she got hit bad with the unlucky gene stick.) It's not that uncommon.

chaseter

09-22-2010, 10:33 PM

She is going to be hit harder with everyone's premiums increasing thanks to companies having to take on customers that will make them lose money.

Anita18

09-22-2010, 10:37 PM

She is going to be hit harder with everyone's premiums increasing thanks to companies having to take on customers that will make them lose money.
Eh, I'm pretty sure if she were to try to get new insurance after grad school, companies might reject her for having pre-existing conditions. :o

You can't always win. You just try to make it as easy as possible for the people who are having the most trouble. Is this reform perfect? No, but at least they're trying. You can't always predict how things will go especially with something as complicated as healthcare and insurance.

dnno1

09-22-2010, 10:56 PM

I still think he has his basic argument though dnno, we are overhauling 16% of our budget for 45 out of 308 million people.....no matter how you look at it, IMO.....that is **** load of work, for things that could have been done on an individual basis that could have taken care of a good portion of that 45 million rather quickly, and certainly not as costly.

That's just the way you are painting the picture. They are not overhauling the government health care solely for the sake of 45 millon or so, but rather they are doing it to controll government spending (mostly from medicare and medicaid) and to lower costs to the consumer.

BlackLantern

09-22-2010, 10:57 PM

yay for higher insurance premiums and more out of my paycheck

chaseter

09-22-2010, 11:04 PM

Eh, I'm pretty sure if she were to try to get new insurance after grad school, companies might reject her for having pre-existing conditions. :o

You can't always win. You just try to make it as easy as possible for the people who are having the most trouble. Is this reform perfect? No, but at least they're trying. You can't always predict how things will go especially with something as complicated as healthcare and insurance.
They needed to try harder then.:o

chaseter

09-22-2010, 11:08 PM

That's just the way you are painting the picture. They are not overhauling the government health care solely for the sake of 45 millon or so, but rather they are doing it to controll government spending (mostly from medicare and medicaid) and to lower costs to the consumer.
How are you painting the picture? By saying that 1/4 of our country are underinsured:dry:

They did overhaul healthcare. We now are forced to have health insurance. We all will incur price increases to offset costs for people who cause the companies to lose money. And now they are talking about putting the government option back in to lead to single payer. The cuts they made in other programs like medicare to help fund this bill will affect people on medicare. This absolutely affects all of us.

Kelly

09-23-2010, 03:30 AM

That's just the way you are painting the picture. They are not overhauling the government health care solely for the sake of 45 millon or so, but rather they are doing it to controll government spending (mostly from medicare and medicaid) and to lower costs to the consumer.

Well, by 2014, I guess we will see how that works out....

Ya know, ya gotta pass the bill to see whats in it?

I've said from the very beginning, I will be the first to applaud the bill if it does what you say......the only problem is, the government doesn't really have a history of that....so pardon my skepticism...

Anita18

09-23-2010, 04:08 AM

They did overhaul healthcare. We now are forced to have health insurance. We all will incur price increases to offset costs for people who cause the companies to lose money.
Isn't that kinda the POINT of health insurance? To help people pay their medical expenses? If they were only there to make money and not help people in times of need, they're in the wrong business.

Every time somebody goes to see a doctor, the insurance companies lose money. So none of us should see doctors. That sounds like a great plan. :o

You paint it like people who need the most help are to blame for all of our healthcare reform woes. Sure, some of them need to be healthier (stop drinking, smoking, overeating, etc) but some people like my coworker are doing the best they can and are just unlucky. How would you suggest she pay for her healthcare if she's one of those people who'll cause the insurance companies to lose money? It's not her fault she's got bad genes and not her fault she wasn't born a Hilton.

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 08:57 AM

if its genetic, maybe she just needs to make her peace with it ....the world existed before the concept of health insurance and most people managed just fine

chaseter

09-23-2010, 09:31 AM

Isn't that kinda the POINT of health insurance? To help people pay their medical expenses? If they were only there to make money and not help people in times of need, they're in the wrong business.

Every time somebody goes to see a doctor, the insurance companies lose money. So none of us should see doctors. That sounds like a great plan. :o

You paint it like people who need the most help are to blame for all of our healthcare reform woes. Sure, some of them need to be healthier (stop drinking, smoking, overeating, etc) but some people like my coworker are doing the best they can and are just unlucky. How would you suggest she pay for her healthcare if she's one of those people who'll cause the insurance companies to lose money? It's not her fault she's got bad genes and not her fault she wasn't born a Hilton.
Insurance companies are companies. They have to make a profit. So no, that isn't the point of insurance. All types of insurance are betting that you will pay them more than they will pay you over the life of your time with them.

You can go to the doctor all you want, but your co-pay and other costs will rise to prevent abuse.

It's not her fault and it sucks, life sucks. But, it also isn't my responsibility but I am fine with paying a certain amount in taxes to help out other people...to a point. The people that cannot afford healthcare are not to blame, I am putting all the blame on politicians. If she cannot afford healthcare, then that is what assistance is for. Do you know how much your taxes would rise to help pay for the 6% of people who cannot truly afford healthcare? Less than 1%! I don't mind doing that or you could cut waste in the government and keep taxes the same. Look at how much waste and exorbitance is in Washington and with a straight face tell me that politicians care about your friend.

chaseter

09-23-2010, 09:39 AM

if its genetic, maybe she just needs to make her peace with it ....the world existed before the concept of health insurance and most people managed just fine

Ben Stein spoke at my conference in Vegas on Friday and he was amazing. One thing he mentioned was how far we have come as a country in such a little amount of time. He said look at what it means to be in poverty today and compare it to 1920. In 2010 you can be poor and have running water, a roof over your head, a tv with cable, a car, and air conditioning. In 1920 you had a tent and a fire.

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 09:43 AM

we're soft....maybe some people need just a tent and a fire, toughen up some

I know if the collapse ever comes, I can be out of my house in 20 minutes and survive if I need to

Anita18

09-23-2010, 12:41 PM

if its genetic, maybe she just needs to make her peace with it ....the world existed before the concept of health insurance and most people managed just fine
So what you're saying is that only people with the means deserve healthcare?

And people thought Obamacare meant death panels. :dry:

She's perfectly willing to be a productive member of society (this is a girl who's come back to lab after inpatient surgery, and who's thrown up while scanning cells but continued), but without proper care, she'd be too sick to work and THEN she'd have to mooch off the rest of society in the form of disability payments.

I think you guys of all people would rather she get some healthcare and be able to work than sit around, do nothing, and be sick.

Ben Stein spoke at my conference in Vegas on Friday and he was amazing. One thing he mentioned was how far we have come as a country in such a little amount of time. He said look at what it means to be in poverty today and compare it to 1920. In 2010 you can be poor and have running water, a roof over your head, a tv with cable, a car, and air conditioning. In 1920 you had a tent and a fire.
Actually that isn't quite how it is anymore. Many homeless people are living in their cars. Sure that's better than being out on the street, but it isn't like the entitled poor that you speak of.

I do think we have it good here. At least nobody's in fear for their lives in an all-out drug war like Mexico or have random people blowing up cars like in the Middle East. Still, if we're so proud to be American, we should strive to have something more to show for it.

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 12:58 PM

And people thought Obamacare meant death panels. :dry:

who says there aren't??....I think once this bill takes full hold, it'll happen....it won't be out in the open but be sure if Gramma has a heart attack and needs a transplant to live, but she's retired and isn't a productive taxpayer, she won't be a high priority

Anita18

09-23-2010, 01:06 PM

who says there aren't??....I think once this bill takes full hold, it'll happen....it won't be out in the open but be sure if Gramma has a heart attack and needs a transplant to live, but she's retired and isn't a productive taxpayer, she won't be a high priority
And Gramma getting a transplant without going flat broke is only possible now because of Medicare.

My coworker is certainly a productive taxpayer, and has at least 40 more years of good work left in her if she stays healthy. But you're saying that because of her bad genetics, she should stay at home and be sick (and get disability) rather than get care and be healthy enough to work. I don't understand that.

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 01:13 PM

she can have care, just not at my expense and the expense of other taxpayers

Anita18

09-23-2010, 01:21 PM

she can have care, just not at my expense and the expense of other taxpayers
But then how should we calculate that? You can only have as much insurance as you paid in? What's the point?

Insurance is insurance - some people will need it, some people won't. Technically I could do without since I'm young and fairly healthy, but what if tomorrow I get hit by a bus? Or if I come down with a chronic illness? I can't pay for an extended hospital stay even though I'm very frugal and have quite a bit of savings for my age. (I bet most people even here are just one bad accident away from bankruptcy.) Tough luck then?

Franklin Richards

09-23-2010, 01:22 PM

So who does get your tax dollars?

:thing: :doom: :thing:

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 01:28 PM

Anita18

09-23-2010, 01:33 PM

I pay X amount of month for health insurance through my employer, which I like its decent and I get what I pay for

my taxes shouldn't be going up again to pay for someone elses healthcare or insurance....its like making two car payments and only having one car to drive
We're obviously just thinking about this in different ways. If higher taxes for me means that someone who's uninsured (or underinsured) can get proper care and be more productive, then that's worth it to me.

Besides, that very person whom you've helped could be the person who discovers a kickass cancer treatment that will help you later. :oldrazz:

I think everyone should at least get enough healthcare for them to get them through the day. For some, that means no healthcare. For others, that means daily prescriptions or chiropractor appointments. The other option - having them sit around and be absolutely unproductive - is not worth the tax savings to me. We're all losing out then.

chaseter

09-23-2010, 01:35 PM

But then how should we calculate that? You can only have as much insurance as you paid in? What's the point?

Insurance is insurance - some people will need it, some people won't. Technically I could do without since I'm young and fairly healthy, but what if tomorrow I get hit by a bus? Or if I come down with a chronic illness? I can't pay for an extended hospital stay even though I'm very frugal and have quite a bit of savings for my age. (I bet most people even here are just one bad accident away from bankruptcy.) Tough luck then?

What's the point of making the top 5% of tax payers pay for my healthcare? It is astonishing how many people willingly choose to not have insurance or not start saving for their future and when hard times fall on them, they don't know how they got there.:dry:

Yes it's tough luck. That is life. If it happens to me, I don't expect someone else to pay for it. If going into massive debt is going to save my life then that is the choice I make. All of our choices are being take away from us by the government. They passed a bill that said we had to have insurance or they would fine us. That is taking away our choice.

I am one bad accident away from bankruptcy no doubt...as you said most of us are. But once again that is life. Life is chance. We need to build our own safety net and not wait for other to do it for us. Responsibility won't be in the dictionary 20 years from now.

Now once again I don't want to sound cold and I don't mind part of my taxes going to help out the less fortunate, but there is a point in which too many taxes take too much of a toll on tax payers. Increasing my taxes 5% will just lower me closer to those that I am paying to help out. We can't tax the wealthy into oblivion. There is so much waste in the government today that they could easily pay for the 20 million that truly need healthcare instead of raising my taxes. The bigger the government becomes, the more waste there is going to be and our government is pretty big.

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 01:40 PM

We're obviously just thinking about this in different ways. If higher taxes for me means that someone who's uninsured (or underinsured) can get proper care and be more productive, then that's worth it to me.

Besides, that very person whom you've helped could be the person who discovers a kickass cancer treatment that will help you later. :oldrazz:

please...the people this is "helping" are the people you see in Wal-Mart riding aroud on scooters...hardly productive members of society

I think everyone should at least get enough healthcare for them to get them through the day.

at the expense of me and other Americans....who says you get to make that choice or the government?

chaseter

09-23-2010, 01:44 PM

There is massive government abuse no doubt.

Anita18

09-23-2010, 01:45 PM

please...the people this is "helping" are the people you see in Wal-Mart riding aroud on scooters...hardly productive members of society
Now you're just making stuff up. :whatever:

at the expense of me and other Americans....who says you get to make that choice or the government?
And no Americans should have free libraries or public schools either.

America, **** yeah!

dnno1

09-23-2010, 01:49 PM

chaseter

09-23-2010, 01:53 PM

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 01:55 PM

yes but we all make use of things like schools and libraries, but can I have someone else prescriptions?? no, I can't

Anita18

09-23-2010, 01:58 PM

Yes but we all have access to those things. I can go to the library. My kid can go to public school. If I make 50k a year, I don't have access to free healthcare and if I do then there is something terribly wrong with the system.
It's not going to be free healthcare, it's just going to be lower cost. "Free healthcare" is already happening now when an uninsured person goes to the ER for care. We're already paying for that out of our own pockets.

Not to mention some public schools are WAY better than others depending on the region you live, but...anyway. :funny:

chaseter

09-23-2010, 02:03 PM

Also, any government run healthcare system will have 'death panels'. Now that term was obviously coined to incite fear but the term is basically fact. If the public option had gone into affect, there would be an advisory board that approves or declines treatments based on cost. Every single payer system already has these. They have to weigh the cost and the benefit. For instance, there are cancer patients in the UK that are denied 4 cancer drugs that would extend their life because the types of cancer the drugs treat aren't as common. So they are basically allowing people to die.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7086281.ece

Anita18

09-23-2010, 02:26 PM

chaseter

09-23-2010, 02:31 PM

Yes they denied them. They said sorry, we aren't covering this medication so you are not receiving it even though it will extend your life. How can they afford expensive meds when they have been paying into a system that now isn't supporting them? They would go into bankruptcy.

This is the exact same point as with your friend. Insurance companies have screwed people over and the government does the same thing to other people in the single payer system every day. People just don't realize that. They think insurance companies are pure evil but government run healthcare is the answer to all of our prayers.

dnno1

09-23-2010, 02:33 PM

Yes but we all have access to those things. I can go to the library. My kid can go to public school. If I make 50k a year, I don't have access to free healthcare and if I do then there is something terribly wrong with the system.

That's because you are not poor (at least it is what I assume), and you should be grateful for that. I don't think you want to be poor and I am sure that a poor person would gladly trade places with you. Of course, if you work for an employer who is in an industry where it is customary to offer a health plan to their employees, you get free health care as well.

chaseter

09-23-2010, 02:40 PM

That's because you are not poor (at least it is what I assume), and you should be grateful for that. I don't think you want to be poor and I am sure that a poor person would gladly trade places with you. Of course, if you work for an employer who is in an industry where it is customary to offer a health plan to their employees, you get free health care as well.

What does me being poor or not have to do with anything I have been saying? You are not poor either, I assume, so you are preaching the choir.

I get my healthcare through my employer, in which I pay for out of my paycheck every 2 weeks. I think it is $50 and dental is $30.

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 02:42 PM

What does me being poor or not have to do with anything I have been saying? You are not poor either, I assume, so you are preaching the choir.

I get my healthcare through my employer, in which I pay for out of my paycheck each month. I think it is $50 and dental is $30.

same here....roughly the same amounts....about $42 for health insurance and $25 for dental

chaseter

09-23-2010, 02:46 PM

That is over 2 grand that I could pocket but I am not that idiotic. I go to the doctor about once a year but why chance it?

Read this:
http://www.sybervision.com/Discipline/marshmallow.htm

How crazy is that? I would venture a guess that the people without insurance and live in poverty would obviously chose the one marshmallow.

dnno1

09-23-2010, 02:49 PM

Yes but we all have access to those things. I can go to the library. My kid can go to public school. If I make 50k a year, I don't have access to free healthcare and if I do then there is something terribly wrong with the system.

Maybe, if you did make 50K a year you might get a subsidy for your health care. The Kaiser Family Foundation has an online Health Reform Subsidy Calculator (http://healthreform.kff.org/Subsidycalculator.aspx) that you could use to determine if you qualify.

dnno1

09-23-2010, 02:51 PM

yes but we all make use of things like schools and libraries, but can I have someone else prescriptions?? no, I can't

You said that you did not want to pay for someone else's health care and apparently that is unavoidable whether the government wanted you to or not. What does having someone else's perscription have to do with that?

dnno1

09-23-2010, 02:58 PM

What does me being poor or not have to do with anything I have been saying? You are not poor either, I assume, so you are preaching the choir.

I get my healthcare through my employer, in which I pay for out of my paycheck every 2 weeks. I think it is $50 and dental is $30.

If you are poor, you get free health care. That's the point. You are talking about not having access to free health care if you make $50K or more. That means you are not considered poor. I work for a company that pays for a group plan, so all I do is pay $10 per visit, and that's only if I see a doctor. My wife works too and is covered as well. My children are double covered so we don't pay anything for a doctors visit. I guess you could say I have access to free health care and make more that a poor person.

chaseter

09-23-2010, 02:59 PM

Maybe, if you did make 50K a year you might get a subsidy for your health care. The Kaiser Family Foundation has an online Health Reform Subsidy Calculator (http://healthreform.kff.org/Subsidycalculator.aspx) that you could use to determine if you qualify.

If you make 50k a year you make well enough to purchase health care for yourself.:o Now if you have a family, I think my friend has private care and pays $200 a month for he and his wife, that is still more than enough. If you have kids, then I would have really thought about not having kids on an income of 50k but that is your choice to make but it shouldn't be my responsibility to provide for your mistake.

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 02:59 PM

because I want them

thats pretty much how the American people are...they are fine with it if they are getting something out of it....our government has mismanaged two wars and driven the country into a recession, yet the people....the unwashed masses....put faith in government run or government subsidized healthcare and are fine with it because they want something for nothing

chaseter

09-23-2010, 03:01 PM

If you are poor, you get free health care. That's the point. You are talking about not having access to free health care if you make $50K or more. That means you are not considered poor. I work for a company that pays for a group plan, so all I do is pay $10 per visit, and that's only if I see a doctor. My wife works too and is covered as well. My children are double covered so we don't pay anything for a doctors visit. I guess you could say I have access to free health care and make more that a poor person.
You pay for it through your work. They give you less money on your paycheck to pay for your insurance. You don't get free healthcare.

Also, 50k was just an example. I would consider making 20k+ still reasonable for you to purchase your own insurance.

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 03:02 PM

<---I make about 33K a year and I get by, got the insurance and all that

dnno1

09-23-2010, 03:03 PM

same here....roughly the same amounts....about $42 for health insurance and $25 for dental

Then what are you complaining about? If you don't have to pay any extra tax for anyone else's health care (at least through the government) since you satisfy the requirement for adequate health insurance. I can't say the same for patronizing a retailer, though.

dnno1

09-23-2010, 03:05 PM

<---I make about 33K a year and I get by, got the insurance and all that

If that's the case, then if your employer dumped your coverage, you would definitely get subsidized for your heath insurance premiums. Go look at the online calculator (http://healthreform.kff.org/Subsidycalculator.aspx).

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 03:07 PM

Then what are you complaining about? If you don't have to pay any extra tax for anyone else's health care (at least through the government) since you satisfy the requirement for adequate health insurance. I can't say the same for patronizing a retailer, though.

Im complaining because I don't want my taxes going up even more for some BS healthcare bill....and taxes will go up because of it, maybe not now but in 2-3 years

just because someone makes more than you does not mean they have "disposable income", nor is it your right nor the governments to punish those that make more for the sake of the unwashed masses

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 03:08 PM

If that's the case, then if your employer dumped your coverage, you would definitely get subsidized for your heath insurance premiums. Go look at the online calculator (http://healthreform.kff.org/Subsidycalculator.aspx).

I DO NOT WANT ****** government subsidized healthcare....what level of care is that?? two steps above a free clinic is what

if I don't want health insurance, that should be it...I shouldn't be fined by the federal government for it

dnno1

09-23-2010, 03:19 PM

I DO NOT WANT ****** government subsidized healthcare....what level of care is that?? two steps above a free clinic is what

if I don't want health insurance, that should be it...I shouldn't be fined by the federal government for it

The subsidy is in the form of a tax break (i.e. it's your money). What's the difference between that and a tax cut? You use that money to get your own health insurance plan.

dnno1

09-23-2010, 03:21 PM

Im complaining because I don't want my taxes going up even more for some BS healthcare bill....and taxes will go up because of it, maybe not now but in 2-3 years

just because someone makes more than you does not mean they have "disposable income", nor is it your right nor the governments to punish those that make more for the sake of the unwashed masses

At your salary, I don't think your taxes are going to go up any more, unless you get some pay raises. You shouldn't worry yourself about that.

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 03:29 PM

At your salary, I don't think your taxes are going to go up any more, unless you get some pay raises. You shouldn't worry yourself about that.

********....you keep lying to yourself thinking this won't bite almost every tax payer right in the ass

The subsidy is in the form of a tax break (i.e. it's your money). What's the difference between that and a tax cut?

what part don't you understand

I. SHOULD. NOT. BE. FINED. FOR. NOT HAVING. INSURANCE.

dnno1

09-23-2010, 03:39 PM

********....you keep lying to yourself thinking this won't bite almost every tax payer right in the ass

I am not lying.

what part don't you understand

I. SHOULD. NOT. BE. FINED. FOR. NOT HAVING. INSURANCE.

But I though you said that you had health insurance. What are you talking about being fined if you are already covered?

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 03:40 PM

but if I choose to drop my insurance, which Im considering doing because I need the extra money, I should be able to without being subject to penalties

chaseter

09-23-2010, 03:55 PM

Then what are you complaining about? If you don't have to pay any extra tax for anyone else's health care (at least through the government) since you satisfy the requirement for adequate health insurance. I can't say the same for patronizing a retailer, though.

Because a)there is massive abuse b)there is massive waste in the government that could easily pay for this and reduce our taxes and c) the amount of people needing assistance in all areas is going up due to the recession so we will all pay for this spending down the line.

dnno1

09-23-2010, 04:43 PM

Because a)there is massive abuse b)there is massive waste in the government that could easily pay for this and reduce our taxes and c) the amount of people needing assistance in all areas is going up due to the recession so we will all pay for this spending down the line.

So because people are abusing the system, we should deny helping those who really need the assistance? What type of America do we live in when we have people that think like that?

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 04:46 PM

So because people are abusing the system, we should deny helping those who really need the assistance? What type of America do we live in when we have people that think like that?

that's how America has always been.....maybe you should wake up

dnno1

09-23-2010, 04:47 PM

but if I choose to drop my insurance, which Im considering doing because I need the extra money, I should be able to without being subject to penalties

If I were you I would keep the coverage and get the subsidy. It might turn out being the same amount of money in the end and you will at least have health care coverage for your child and spouse.

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 04:52 PM

I don't have either

dnno1

09-23-2010, 04:52 PM

that's how America has always been.....maybe you should wake up

Now you are lying. For more than 100 years of the United States existence, they have been charitable to it's people as well as foreign nations.

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 04:54 PM

there is a difference between charity and nanny state.....and we have been moving into the direction of nanny state, which is not a place we want to be in

dnno1

09-23-2010, 04:57 PM

I don't have either

You should consider getting a family. You've got 4 years to do it and you are not getting any younger.

chaseter

09-23-2010, 04:58 PM

So because people are abusing the system, we should deny helping those who really need the assistance? What type of America do we live in when we have people that think like that?

Or we could construct the Thunderdome and the people who win get free healthcare and people who lose are no longer a burden on the system.

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 04:59 PM

I'd watch that

chaseter

09-23-2010, 05:00 PM

There ya go...plus revenue from the events.

dnno1

09-23-2010, 05:02 PM

Or we could construct the Thunderdome and the people who win get free healthcare and people who lose are no longer a burden on the system.

Don't be ridiculous.

Anita18

09-23-2010, 05:16 PM

that's how America has always been.....maybe you should wake up
Uh huh.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

To me, America means giving opportunities to those who wouldn't necessarily have them anywhere else. If that means giving someone affordable healthcare so they can go on and make their own opportunities, then that's American.

Maybe some people (those scooter-riding Walmart shoppers) will game the system. But others like my coworker would make use of it wisely and create opportunities for themselves.

I get my healthcare through my employer, in which I pay for out of my paycheck every 2 weeks. I think it is $50 and dental is $30.
But what if you get laid off or fired? You can't rely on employer-funded health insurance all of your life. Something can happen to you or your company.

hippie_hunter

09-23-2010, 05:56 PM

You should consider getting a family. You've got 4 years to do it and you are not getting any younger.

What if he doesn't ever want to get married and have kids?

The Squirrel

09-23-2010, 06:03 PM

Top 10 Failures of ObamaCare:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39109

*I don't know if this has been posted or not.
*More like Top 9 reasons, the last one (while true) is kinda iffy.

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 06:13 PM

What if he doesn't ever want to get married and have kids?

but the system is rigged to push people into that because of tax breaks, but it really doesn't offset the cost of raising a family

if you are single in America, you are sooooo screwed on taxes...you get hit up for a lot more and you'll be lucky to get anything back come refund time

dnno1

09-23-2010, 06:22 PM

What if he doesn't ever want to get married and have kids?

Well, that is his choice isn't it? It's just like the car insurance analogy. You need car insurance if want to drive, but then again, you don't have to own a car (of course you will have to pay for public transportation or walk). Just as that is the case, you don't have to get health insurance or get married or have children (you just don't get a tax break).

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 06:28 PM

dnno1

09-23-2010, 06:31 PM

but the system is rigged to push people into that because of tax breaks, but it really doesn't offset the cost of raising a family

if you are single in America, you are sooooo screwed on taxes...you get hit up for a lot more and you'll be lucky to get anything back come refund time

Having health care is part of the cost of raising a family. I remember when I was in high school, you had to have health insurance if you wanted to participate in high school athletics. By someone like you not getting health care you are depriving your children something they might want to participate in. Sure, you don't have a family, but you yourself want to stay healthy so that you can continue to make money. Even when I was young and single I still got sick twice a year, had to get eye checkups every year, and needed to get my teeth cleaned every 6 months so I needed health insurance. Your idea of dropping it just to save money might wind up backfiring on you and I wouldn't advise it.

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 06:33 PM

advise this :argh: you might be cool with taking my paycheck and food off my table to pay for the wastrels of society but I am certainly not

dnno1

09-23-2010, 06:36 PM

which is crap....is my money less or more important....just because some skank gets knocked up by her idiot boyfriend, she gets a tax break while I bust my ass 45 hours a week and actually contribute to society its ok to take all my money??

what the ****

Sounds like you are putting a price on human life here. If that is the case, then my answer to your callous question is that the life of that so called skank's baby is more important than your little money (at least that should be the response from a right to life'r). Look guy, I bust my but too and probably pay more in taxes than you do and I am not complaining.

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 06:37 PM

let someone else pay for her mistake and life choices....not me

dnno1

09-23-2010, 06:41 PM

advise this :argh: you might be cool with taking my paycheck and food off my table to pay for the wastrels of society but I am certainly not

Yo, man. Paying taxes is a civic and patriotic duty. Paying taxes is an important part of being a citizen and ties people more closely to their government. You shouldn't be upset about that.

dnno1

09-23-2010, 06:42 PM

let someone else pay for her mistake and life choices....not me

Unfortunately you or I have no control over that.

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 06:55 PM

its still crap....again I have no problem with taxes, part of life, is what it is....but when you do things like introduce BS government healthcare it gives the lowest common denominator even more reason to not want to excel and be motivated to move above their station in life

hippie_hunter

09-23-2010, 06:57 PM

Yo, man. Paying taxes is a civic and patriotic duty. Paying taxes is an important part of being a citizen and ties people more closely to their government. You shouldn't be upset about that.

While you are certainly right that paying taxes is a civic duty, but you do realise that the sole reason why we fought against the United Kingdom was because we didn't want to pay our taxes. Opposition to taxes is ingrained in American culuture. I certainly wouldn't call it a patriotic duty....at least in American terms of patriotism.

Also being upset about being tied more closely to government, that is certainly a debatable viewpoint. A progressive such as yourself may not mind, but libertarians and conservatives such as myself, Norman, and many others would find that troubling. It all comes down to how one feels about the size and scope of government and it's rather arrogant to say that a person should feel okay about being closely tied to government.

Anita18

09-23-2010, 07:20 PM

but the system is rigged to push people into that because of tax breaks, but it really doesn't offset the cost of raising a family

if you are single in America, you are sooooo screwed on taxes...you get hit up for a lot more and you'll be lucky to get anything back come refund time
If you're earning $33K a year and not getting a refund even after filing as a single person, you're doing it wrong. :funny:

I earn more (slightly) and I got a refund last year. And no funny business either, just H&R Block's free online program.

While you are certainly right that paying taxes is a civic duty, but you do realise that the sole reason why we fought against the United Kingdom was because we didn't want to pay our taxes. Opposition to taxes is ingrained in American culuture. I certainly wouldn't call it a patriotic duty....at least in American terms of patriotism.
Nay, it was "taxation without representation." They were taxing us without any permission and having the money directly shipped off to England. At least when we pay taxes here, we know where it's going.

It'd be like if you were forced to pay taxes for some company's corporate jet without getting any say in it.

We vote for the people who will be raising/lowering our taxes, so it doesn't apply to us.

hippie_hunter

09-23-2010, 07:43 PM

Nay, it was "taxation without representation." They were taxing us without any permission and having the money directly shipped off to England. At least when we pay taxes here, we know where it's going.

It'd be like if you were forced to pay taxes for some company's corporate jet without getting any say in it.

We vote for the people who will be raising/lowering our taxes, so it doesn't apply to us.

Guess what? The people of the American colonies were British subjects and were thus subject to British laws and taxation. And they weren't a part of the United Kingdom proper and thus were not entitled to proper representation in Parliament. That would be like if Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Marina Islands got proper representation in Congress.

Not only that but the money collected from those taxes were meant to pay for the protection of the American colonies from Native Americans and European aggressors. It wasn't meant to fund British operations outside of North America.

Taxation of the American colonies was within Britain's right and if you believe in a functional military to protect you, was reasonable. The plain and simple fact is that we didn't want to pay perfectly legal taxes. Sentiments that continue onto today. Except this time we vote out politicians we blame for raising taxes as opposed to secession and fighting wars.

dnno1

09-23-2010, 07:49 PM

While you are certainly right that paying taxes is a civic duty, but you do realise that the sole reason why we fought against the United Kingdom was because we didn't want to pay our taxes. Opposition to taxes is ingrained in American culuture. I certainly wouldn't call it a patriotic duty....at least in American terms of patriotism.

Also being upset about being tied more closely to government, that is certainly a debatable viewpoint. A progressive such as yourself may not mind, but libertarians and conservatives such as myself, Norman, and many others would find that troubling. It all comes down to how one feels about the size and scope of government and it's rather arrogant to say that a person should feel okay about being closely tied to government.

It was because there was no representation behind them. That is not the case here. The money goes to benefit the people of this country. Even if it doesn't necessarily benefit you directly, it will still do so indirectly. Keeping that poor or disadvantaged person from getting sick may prevent you from getting sick as well and that's a good thing.

I think you libertarians and conservatives need to get over this fear of government. The government is comprised of us (society) and is us, so why should we be so troubled by ourselves? We sometimes if not all the time need the government involved someway in our lives to keep it peaceful and coherent (this is why we formed a government in the first place). If it there was no government we would be in feudalism or anarchy which in either case is not desirable by anyone I know.

Anita18

09-23-2010, 07:50 PM

Guess what? The people of the American colonies were British subjects and were thus subject to British laws and taxation. And they weren't a part of the United Kingdom proper and thus were not entitled to proper representation in Parliament. That would be like if Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Marina Islands got proper representation in Congress.

Not only that but the money collected from those taxes were meant to pay for the protection of the American colonies from Native Americans and European aggressors. It wasn't meant to fund British operations outside of North America.

Taxation of the American colonies was within Britain's right and if you believe in a functional military to protect you, was reasonable. The plain and simple fact is that we didn't want to pay perfectly legal taxes. Sentiments that continue onto today. Except this time we vote out politicians we blame for raising taxes as opposed to secession and fighting wars.
I think it was just a violent reaction in differing philosophies. :funny: Wikipedia (what? I'm no historian...) says that the colonists were more pissed at lack of representation than anything else, even though most of Britain wasn't represented the way we wanted either...

And do Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and N. Marina Islands have to pay the same taxes we do? I actually don't know.

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 07:51 PM

depends on who you talk to....those of us that can forage, survive, and defend ourselves would do fine

don't know about you

hippie_hunter

09-23-2010, 07:57 PM

It was because there was no representation behind them. That is not the case here. The money goes to benefit the people of this country. Even if it doesn't necessarily benefit you directly, it will still do so indirectly. Keeping that poor or disadvantaged person from getting sick may prevent you from getting sick as well and that's a good thing.
And you can argue that Obama and Congress failed to represent the nation due to how massively unpopular the health care reform bill was (and still is).

Not only that but the money collected from the British from the taxes on the American colonies were meant to benefit the people of the American colonies.

Also, my immune system is nearly invincible. :awesome:

I think you libertarians and conservatives need to get over this fear of government. The government is comprised of us (society) and is us, so why should we be so troubled by ourselves? We sometime if not all the time need the government involved someway in our lives to keep it peaceful and coherent. If it there was no government we would be in feudalism or anarchy which in either case is not desirable.
Libertarians and conservatives aren't calling for no government. We just want limited government. We see larger government as a threat to freedom and individuality. Limited government does not equate to anarchy or feudalism.

And in today's day and age, the government often doesn't represent what the people want or the interests of the people. The people want less government spending, they did not want Obamacare, etc. and yet we have Obama arrogantly declaring that we will eventually learn to love it and continues to spend us into oblivion. And I think that we can both agree that George W. Bush utterly failed to represnt the interests of the American people both at home and abroad.

Anita18

09-23-2010, 08:02 PM

Also, my immune system is nearly invincible. :awesome:
You'd better watch it. I used to crow about my iron stomach all the time until I got the stomach flu and even almost a year later, I have to watch what I eat. :oldrazz:

dnno1

09-23-2010, 08:07 PM

Guess what? The people of the American colonies were British subjects and were thus subject to British laws and taxation. And they weren't a part of the United Kingdom proper and thus were not entitled to proper representation in Parliament. That would be like if Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Marina Islands got proper representation in Congress.

Not only that but the money collected from those taxes were meant to pay for the protection of the American colonies from Native Americans and European aggressors. It wasn't meant to fund British operations outside of North America.

Taxation of the American colonies was within Britain's right and if you believe in a functional military to protect you, was reasonable. The plain and simple fact is that we didn't want to pay perfectly legal taxes. Sentiments that continue onto today. Except this time we vote out politicians we blame for raising taxes as opposed to secession and fighting wars.

No, the money went to England to pay for the war debts (remember the French and Indian war?). It was also used to allow the British East India Corporation cheap access to markets in the colonies and push out competitors like the Dutch and colonial privateers. I will not argue the right of the British to envoke taxes, but I will argue that the British military was there more to protect the interest of the crown in the colonies than the livelihood of the colonists.

BlackLantern

09-23-2010, 08:08 PM

and elected officials today are more concerned with keeping their seats and all the perks that come with it then looking out for the interests of the American people

hippie_hunter

09-23-2010, 08:14 PM

I think it was just a violent reaction in differing philosophies. :funny: Wikipedia (what? I'm no historian...) says that the colonists were more pissed at lack of representation than anything else, even though most of Britain wasn't represented the way we wanted either...
It all comes down to economics. We didn't want to pay perfectly legal taxes. Britain decided to enforce the tax laws, a little to harshly I might add. That led to more resentment. And all that led to more anger and whatnot to the point where the Revolution was fought.

And do Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and N. Marina Islands have to pay the same taxes we do? I actually don't know.

The people Puerto Rico, the Northern Marinana Islands, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands don't pay the exact same taxes we do, but they have to pay various other federal taxes. Federal law also applies to territories of the United States. And the people there don't have proper representation.

dnno1

09-23-2010, 08:15 PM

And you can argue that Obama and Congress failed to represent the nation due to how massively unpopular the health care reform bill was (and still is).

Not only that but the money collected from the British from the taxes on the American colonies were meant to benefit the people of the American colonies.

Also, my immune system is nearly invincible. :awesome:

That's not the meaning of taxation with representation. It is actually when you get something for your tax dollars. As far as popularity goes, one could easily argue that the public opinion on the health care issue was grotesquely compromised by the insurance industry and opponents of HCR.

Libertarians and conservatives aren't calling for no government. We just want limited government. We see larger government as a threat to freedom and individuality. Limited government does not equate to anarchy or feudalism.

Are you trying to say that Rand Paul is not a libertarian?

And in today's day and age, the government often doesn't represent what the people want or the interests of the people. The people want less government spending, they did not want Obamacare, etc. and yet we have Obama arrogantly declaring that we will eventually learn to love it and continues to spend us into oblivion. And I think that we can both agree that George W. Bush utterly failed to represnt the interests of the American people both at home and abroad.

I think what you are seeing is that not everybody is satisfied or agree with everything the government does, but you can not satisfy everybody. That just a proven fact. What the government does is follow the constitution the best it can and it attempts to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare of its people. Just because not everybody is happy with what government does in no way indicates that it is not doing its job.

hippie_hunter

09-23-2010, 08:19 PM

No, the money went to England to pay for the war debts (remember the French and Indian war?). It was also used to allow the British East India Corporation cheap access to markets in the colonies and push out competitors like the Dutch and colonial privateers. I will not argue the right of the British to envoke taxes, but I will argue that the British military was there more to protect the interest of the crown in the colonies than the livelihood of the colonists.

You mean the war that was fought on behalf of the American colonies?

Not only that but North America was still very volitile after the French and Indian War. The French were kicked out but there was still the Spanish to deal with. And the American colonists were antagonizing the indiginous populations there due to their expansions so no only did they have to protect the colonies from potential Spanish agression, they had to protect their subjects from rightfully angry Native Americans.

Yeah, the British did want to push out competition, but the primary purpose of those taxes were to pay off debts that the colonies incurred and pay to protect them.

hippie_hunter

09-23-2010, 08:25 PM

That's not the meaning of taxation with representation. It is actually when you get something for your tax dollars.
The American colonists got something from being taxed. The people of American territories outside of the United States get something from being taxed.

As far as popularity goes, one could easily argue that the public opinion on the health care issue was grotesquely compromised by the insurance industry and opponents of HCR.
:whatever:

Are you trying to say that Rand Paul is not a libertarian?
He holds libertarian beliefs, but he certainly isn't the libertarian that his father is.

I think what you are seeing is that not everybody is satisfied or agree with everything the government does, but you can not satisfy everybody. That just a proven fact. What the government does is follow the constitution the best it can and it attempts to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare of its people. Just because not everybody is happy with what government does in no way indicates that it is not doing its job.
LOL! The government is nowhere near at following the Constitution the best it can and it's filled with politicians who are more concerned with their own interests than those of the people they "represent"

chaseter

09-23-2010, 08:56 PM

We got British protection from taxes over here in the colonies until we rebelled.

chaseter

09-23-2010, 09:01 PM

Don't be ridiculous.

I have to when you construct your reply by taking what I say to the absolute farthest fringe.

TimBisley

09-23-2010, 11:42 PM

Saying that taxes led to the Revolution is like saying slavery cause the Civil War. Sure, it was an aspect of the cause, but not the whole reason. Its an oversimplification. Junior High history.

dnno1

09-24-2010, 07:14 AM

The American colonists got something from being taxed. The people of American territories outside of the United States get something from being taxed.

And what was that? Why is it that the people rebelled and that they cried out "taxation without representation." ? Where did you learn your history from?

He holds libertarian beliefs, but he certainly isn't the libertarian that his father is.

He is still a libertarian and has admitted as much.

LOL! The government is nowhere near at following the Constitution the best it can and it's filled with politicians who are more concerned with their own interests than those of the people they "represent"

The are certainly following the Constitution else they would be overturned on everything they do by the SCOTUS and that's certainly not the case.

StorminNorman

09-24-2010, 10:41 AM

And what was that? Why is it that the people rebelled and that they cried out "taxation without representation." ? Where did you learn your history from?
The colonist got military protection from Great Britian in exchange for taxation. He is still a libertarian and has admitted as much.
You have to realize that being a libertarian and saying you are a libertarian are totally different things.The are certainly following the Constitution else they would be overturned on everything they do by the SCOTUS and that's certainly not the case.
Except the SCOTUS cannot be trusted to constrain the government to the Constitution, as they have repeatedly demonstrated. Again, the Constitution was meant to chain the Federal Government down so that it can only do specifically listed functions. However government has been able to use the "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution to essentially do whatever the hell it wants. Such an interpretation of the Welfare Clause is completely incompatible with an understanding of the Constitution.

dnno1

09-24-2010, 12:09 PM

The colonist got military protection from Great Britian in exchange for taxation. You have to realize that being a libertarian and saying you are a libertarian are totally different things.

But the colonists at the time, who considered themselves to be Englishmen, had no representation in the British Parliament and had no say so in the decision to be taxed. This was considered to be in violation of their rights per British law. It is one thing to get protection with your consent, but it is another thing if you are getting protection for the sake of preserving mainland interests.

Except the SCOTUS cannot be trusted to constrain the government to the Constitution, as they have repeatedly demonstrated. Again, the Constitution was meant to chain the Federal Government down so that it can only do specifically listed functions. However government has been able to use the "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution to essentially do whatever the hell it wants. Such an interpretation of the Welfare Clause is completely incompatible with an understanding of the Constitution.

Please tell me what the Congress has done in the way of proceedures that is unconstitutional? The general welfare is the "common good" and promoting the common good of this country can be broad in scope and meaning. As long as it can be shown that an act can promote the common good of this country (and that could even be giving aid to a foreign nation), it meets the constitutional requirement of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. I think you will find it difficult to argue that it is being interpreted wrongly.

hippie_hunter

09-24-2010, 02:18 PM

hippie_hunter

09-24-2010, 02:22 PM

Saying that taxes led to the Revolution is like saying slavery cause the Civil War. Sure, it was an aspect of the cause, but not the whole reason. Its an oversimplification. Junior High history.

Sure there were other factors but just like slavery is with the Civil War, taxes are the main root of what caused the war. Britain taxed the colonies, the colonists didn't want to pay them, Britain enforced them overzealously, the colonists reacted overzealously.

dnno1

09-24-2010, 03:01 PM

But they didn't live in the United Kingdom proper. Proper representation in Parliament belonged to Scotland, Wales, and England. And the United Kingdom had the right to tax the American colonies without the colonies having proper representation.

So? They were born in a territory that was under the dominion of the British Crown, and hence, prior to 1949, were considered British subjects, who are entitled to the right to petition the king and be represented in the British Parliament under the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This was their argument and was part of the reason why we had the revolution.

hippie_hunter

09-24-2010, 03:43 PM

So? They were born in a territory that was under the dominion of the British Crown, and hence, prior to 1949, were considered British subjects, who are entitled to the right to petition the king and be represented in the British Parliament under the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This was their argument and was part of the reason why we had the revolution.

They were British subjects but they didn't live in the United Kingdom proper. Just like how the people of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands are citizens of the United States and the people of American Samoa are nationals of the United States, yet they don't have proper representation.

And therer were many areas that were under British dominion at that time that didn't have proper representation in Parliament and they didn't go off rebelling.

dnno1

09-24-2010, 04:43 PM

They were British subjects but they didn't live in the United Kingdom proper. Just like how the people of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands are citizens of the United States and the people of American Samoa are nationals of the United States, yet they don't have proper representation.

And [there] were many areas that were under British dominion at that time that didn't have proper representation in Parliament and they didn't go off rebelling.

It didn't matter. The English Bill of Rights included British subjects and did not specify if they had to be on the main land or not (at least prior to 1949). Those U.S. territories that you mentioned do have representation in Congress. Note that after the American Revolution there were several other territories that sought their independence from other imperialist nations.

hippie_hunter

09-24-2010, 05:43 PM

It didn't matter. The English Bill of Rights included British subjects and did not specify if they had to be on the main land or not (at least prior to 1949). Those U.S. territories that you mentioned do have representation in Congress. Note that after the American Revolution there were several other territories that sought their independence from other imperialist nations.

Yes it does matter, especially since a lot of areas back then in the United Kingdom proper didn't even have proper representation. The fact is that legislatures like Parliament and Congress are meant for the nations themselves, not outlying territories. They way to get proper representation is by properly joining the motherland like Alaska and Hawaii have for the United States. The colonists didn't want they, just simply moaned how they weren't being properly represented. It all comes down to the colonists simply not wanting to pay more taxes.

Simply sending a person who doesn't have a vote and will never get any political power is not representation. And a lot of those revolutions you mention, had racial factors such as the mistreatment of black slaves in Haiti and the mistreatment of mixed and indigenous populations in Latin America. It took a lot longer for colonies that had dominant white populations to gain partial forms of independence, Canada for example became a Dominion within the British Empire in 1867 and was considered equal to the United Kingdom in 1931.

dnno1

09-24-2010, 06:04 PM

Yes it does matter, especially since a lot of areas back then in the United Kingdom proper didn't even have proper representation. The fact is that legislatures like Parliament and Congress are meant for the nations themselves, not outlying territories. They way to get proper representation is by properly joining the motherland like Alaska and Hawaii have for the United States. The colonists didn't want they, just simply moaned how they weren't being properly represented. It all comes down to the colonists simply not wanting to pay more taxes.

And that is why we had the American Revolution. We didn't feel that that policy was right.

Simply sending a person who doesn't have a vote and will never get any political power is not representation. And a lot of those revolutions you mention, had racial factors such as the mistreatment of black slaves in Haiti and the mistreatment of mixed and indigenous populations in Latin America.

They do have a voice and they do vote (maybe not on the final bills, though). If you would check at house.gov you can see the voting records of the representatives of each of the territories that you mentioned and you will see that some of them voted yes on certain procedural votes (Rep. Pedro Pierluisi of Puerto Rico voted yea on agreeing to an amendment to H.R. 4785 just last week for example).

I don't care about wether or not there was a racial factor involved. These people now have their independence and it happened in the aftermath of the American Revolution.

The Squirrel

09-24-2010, 06:15 PM

I love watching dnno1 getting proved wrong by everyone. :yay:

BlackLantern

09-24-2010, 06:16 PM

well I and many other Americans don't like this policy....does this mean I can go start knocking off Congressmen and call it a revolution?

Kelly

09-24-2010, 06:19 PM

I love watching dnno1 getting proved wrong by everyone. :yay:

He is having an intelligent debate, and giving his side quite well....I see no proving of anything, I see good discourse happening.

Truth be told, both he and H_H are both correct in their opinions...they are simply looking at history with a different look, which is what debate is all about, as well as doing it with respect.

Do you have an opinion on the "subject" being discussed?

dnno1

09-24-2010, 06:51 PM

well I and many other Americans don't like this policy....does this mean I can go start knocking off Congressmen and call it a revolution?

That would be altogether different. You do have representation in Congress. The colonist didn't.

dnno1

09-24-2010, 06:52 PM

I love watching dnno1 getting proved wrong by everyone. :yay:

You must be confused with someone else.

BlackLantern

09-24-2010, 06:52 PM

and my representation ****ed me over....which is why CT is going to see a new governor and a new Senator this year

dnno1

09-24-2010, 06:53 PM

He is having an intelligent debate, and giving his side quite well....I see no proving of anything, I see good discourse happening.

Truth be told, both he and H_H are both correct in their opinions...they are simply looking at history with a different look, which is what debate is all about, as well as doing it with respect.

Do you have an opinion on the "subject" being discussed?

Thank you, Kel. I really appreciate that coming from a school teacher.

Kelly

09-24-2010, 07:01 PM

You are very welcome...

The Squirrel

09-25-2010, 01:19 AM

UK Bans Avastin Cancer Drug:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1305582/Avastin-cancer-drug-banned-NHS.html

FDA Considering Same:
http://www.fox16.com/content/news/health/story/FDA-urges-ban-of-Avastin-with-breast-cancer/uSOuURZu9EOlvDtarvezJA.cspx

Let the rationing begin!

StorminNorman

09-25-2010, 10:08 AM

But the colonists at the time, who considered themselves to be Englishmen, had no representation in the British Parliament and had no say so in the decision to be taxed. This was considered to be in violation of their rights per British law. It is one thing to get protection with your consent, but it is another thing if you are getting protection for the sake of preserving mainland interests.

The view of the British Government, though, was that many Colonial representitives wished to have British military in the colonies for their protection against French and Indians (now obviously these representitives had no voting power and were not official members of British government, but it would be falacious to say that there was no interest in the colonies of having the Royal Military in the country).

But hey, I certainly am not one to defend the lobster backs.

Please tell me what the Congress has done in the way of proceedures that is unconstitutional? The general welfare is the "common good" and promoting the common good of this country can be broad in scope and meaning. As long as it can be shown that an act can promote the common good of this country (and that could even be giving aid to a foreign nation), it meets the constitutional requirement of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. I think you will find it difficult to argue that it is being interpreted wrongly.

The easiest example (though certainly the most destructive) is the construction of inner state roads and the spending of money on innerstate roads. Jefferson and Madison and probably Monroe all voiced frequently their wish to use Federal Funds to build and improve roads and waterways. They also said that they could not do as such until the Constitution was amended.

We got no amendment, but we did get roads.

Another obvious example would be restrictions on drugs. It took a Constitutional Amendment to Federally control alcohol, but no such procedure necessary for other narcotics.

Now this is certainly all of them (these are merely the to easiest examples. Want me to get in to how most of the not major policy "achievements" of the 20th century should essentially be made illegal?)

Again, your understanding of the Constitution is severly flawed. The Constitution was not meant to be a device to allow the Federal Government to justify any action it takes, but a document meant to bind down the government to only a few objects. The State Governments were meant to do the rest.

The only thing in the Constitution that today allows for such grotesquely unConstitutional action is the aforementioned Welfare Clause. However the Welfare Clause is not an independent instrument in the Constitution denoting more power to the Federal Government but a clause of the American government's ability to TAX. Therefore the clause was meant to allow the Federal Government to collect taxes for essentially all programs it passed. Those programs, however, were meant to be confined to the areas of:

"To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads (http://forums.superherohype.com/glossary.html#POSTROAD);

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque (http://forums.superherohype.com/glossary.html#MARQUE) and Reprisal (http://forums.superherohype.com/glossary.html#REPRISAL), and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Those were the limits of the Federal Government as made painfully obvious by the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Let's get my favorite Founding Father's opinion on this subject:

“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose." - Thomas Jefferson

StorminNorman

09-25-2010, 10:49 AM

I don't care about wether or not there was a racial factor involved. These people now have their independence and it happened in the aftermath of the American Revolution.

Your ideology would have the decendents of those who fought for indepedence from England become depedent upon Washington.

Kelly

09-25-2010, 10:52 AM

I can see how dnno would go that direction Stormin, and you wouldn't.

I mean look at your political ideologies....that is a predictable outcome.

Not total dependence on Washington, but certainly larger government.

StorminNorman

09-25-2010, 10:55 AM

I understand why dnno has the interpretation of the Constitution that he has. That doesn't make it valid. Such a viewrequires a 20th Century revisionist interpration of American History and America Political Philosophy coupled with an ignorance of the Founding Fathers.

A&W

09-25-2010, 02:04 PM

AP Poll: Repeal? Many wish health law went further

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's health care overhaul has divided the nation, and Republicans believe their call for repeal will help them win elections in November. But the picture's not that clear cut.
A new AP poll finds that Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1.
"I was disappointed that it didn't provide universal coverage," said Bronwyn Bleakley, 35, a biology professor from Easton, Mass.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/news.earthlink.dart/news_300x250_top;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;ptile=5;ord=04 594347? (http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/news.earthlink.dart/news_300x250_top;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;ptile=5;ord=04 594347?)
More than 30 million people would gain coverage in 2019 when the law is fully phased in, but another 20 million or so would remain uninsured. Bleakley, who was uninsured early in her career, views the overhaul as a work in progress.
The poll found that about four in 10 adults think the new law did not go far enough to change the health care system, regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral. On the other side, about one in five say they oppose the law because they think the federal government should not be involved in health care at all.
The AP poll was conducted by Stanford University with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Overall, 30 percent favored the legislation, while 40 percent opposed it, and another 30 percent remained neutral.
Those numbers are no endorsement for Obama's plan, but the survey also found a deep-seated desire for change that could pose a problem for Republicans. Only 25 percent in the poll said minimal tinkering would suffice for the health care system.
Brian Braley, 49, a tech industry worker from Mesa, Ariz., wants Washington to keep its hands off. "I think it's a Trojan horse," Braley said of the health care law. "It's a communist, socialist scheme. All the other countries that have tried this, they're billions in debt, and they admit this doesn't work."
It may well satisfy people who share Braley's outlook if Republicans succeed in tearing out what they dismiss as "Obamacare" by the roots. But GOP leaders would still find themselves in a quandary.
Republicans "are going to have to contend with the 75 percent who want substantial changes in the system," said Stanford political science professor Jon Krosnick, who directed the university's participation.
"Republican legislators' passion to repeal the legislation is understandable if they are paying attention to members of their own party," Krosnick added. "But if they want to be responsive to all Americans, there are more Democrats and independents than there are Republicans."
Health care proposals released by House Republican leaders last week would create new insurance options for people with medical problems and for small businesses, but they're likely to only cover a fraction of those who would be reached by Obama's law.
The poll did find some agreement among people who think the law should do more and those who think government should get out.
Broad majorities of both the "get-outs" and "do-mores" said medical care, health insurance and prescription drugs cost too much. And most said the system should aim to increase the number of people with insurance and enable Americans to get the care they need, while improving quality.
The differences emerge when it comes to the means:
—Only 25 percent of the "get-outs" favor requiring health insurance companies to sell coverage to people regardless of pre-existing medical conditions, while 54 percent of the "do-mores" support it. The law requires insurers to cover children regardless of health problems starting this year, and that protection is extended to people of all ages in 2014.
—Among those who want a law that does more, 68 percent favor requiring medium to large companies to provide insurance to their workers or pay a fine; that stands at 28 percent among those who want the government out. The law does not require employers to offer coverage, but it hits companies that have 50 or more workers with a penalty if any full-time employee gets a government subsidy for health insurance.
—The "get-outs" overwhelmingly reject the health care law's requirement that most Americans carry health insurance starting in 2014. But the "do-mores" are split, with 34 percent favoring the mandate, 33 percent opposing it, and 32 percent neutral.
Tom Gergel, 45, of West Chester, Pa., said he supports the health care law because it moves toward coverage for all and does away with denial of coverage to people in poor health. But he doesn't think it's perfect.
"Is this program going to make it more expensive?" asked Gergel, who sells computer software for engineers. "The jury's still out versus where we are now. We have the best health care in the world for those who can afford to pay for it, but it doesn't work for everyone."
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/news.earthlink.dart/news_300x250_bottom;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;ptile=5;ord =04594347? (http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/news.earthlink.dart/news_300x250_bottom;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;ptile=5;ord =04594347?)
The survey was conducted Aug. 31 to Sept. 7, and involved interviews with 1,251 randomly chosen adults nationwide. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.
The survey was conducted by Knowledge Networks, which first chose people for the study using randomly generated telephone numbers and home addresses. Once people were selected to participate, they were interviewed online. Participants without Internet access were provided it for free.
Stanford University's participation in the project was made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/pol?guid=20100925/8d93b4fc-f93c-435f-b729-84929c0bb69b

Kelly

09-25-2010, 02:40 PM

Waits for AP police....lol

hippie_hunter

09-25-2010, 05:18 PM

I don't care about wether or not there was a racial factor involved. These people now have their independence and it happened in the aftermath of the American Revolution.

The fact is that while they were inspired by the American Revolution, the circumstances were vastly different. The roots of the American Revolution are taxes and idealism. The root of the Latin American wars of independence was the fact that the Spanish legitimately treated their colonies like crap.

Midnyte_Sun

09-26-2010, 02:47 PM

the Spanish legitimately treated their colonies like crap.

Sometimes their own people with hilarious consequences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkY#t=1m2s

dnno1

09-28-2010, 03:32 AM

The view of the British Government, though, was that many Colonial representitives wished to have British military in the colonies for their protection against French and Indians (now obviously these representitives had no voting power and were not official members of British government, but it would be falacious to say that there was no interest in the colonies of having the Royal Military in the country).

But hey, I certainly am not one to defend the lobster backs.

The truth of the matter was that very few British troops were there in the colonies and armed militias were used to help fight in the French and Indian war. That meant that the colonist didn't need the British to protect them (else we wouldn't have won the revolution) and their presence was more to protect their own interest rather than the colonists.

The easiest example (though certainly the most destructive) is the construction of inner state roads and the spending of money on innerstate roads. Jefferson and Madison and probably Monroe all voiced frequently their wish to use Federal Funds to build and improve roads and waterways. They also said that they could not do as such until the Constitution was amended.

We got no amendment, but we did get roads.

The famous road you write of is the Cumberland Road. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution covered the construction of the inter state (not inner state) road. The major debate on that project was its financing although the general agreement was that the U.S. would benefit from a national road connecting the Ohio Valley to the Eastern Seaboard. As it turned out, federal land in the States affected were sold to finance its construction.

Another obvious example would be restrictions on drugs. It took a Constitutional Amendment to Federally control alcohol, but no such procedure necessary for other narcotics.

The prohibition of alcohol was a result of the pressures of the Temperance Movement and ultimately proved to be unpopular and an utter failure (hence its repeal a little over 10 years later. Drugs and narcotics are controlled via the perscription system in this country since the majority of them are used for medical purposes. This is why they are not prohibited.

Now this is certainly [not] all of them (these are merely the to easiest examples. Want me to get in to how most of the not major policy "achievements" of the 20th century should essentially be made illegal?)

Your examples have not proven anything. Try again.

Again, your understanding of the Constitution is [severely] flawed. The Constitution was not meant to be a device to allow the Federal Government to justify any action it takes, but a document meant to bind down the government to only a few objects. The State Governments were meant to do the rest.

Um... The Constitution is a device that justifies the actions that the Government takes. This is why it was written. How else can they defend them selves when challenged on their actions?

The only thing in the Constitution that today allows for such grotesquely unConstitutional action is the aforementioned Welfare Clause. However the Welfare Clause is not an independent instrument in the Constitution denoting more power to the Federal Government but a clause of the American government's ability to TAX. Therefore the clause was meant to allow the Federal Government to collect taxes for essentially all programs it passed. Those programs, however, were meant to be confined to the areas of:

"To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads (http://forums.superherohype.com/glossary.html#POSTROAD);

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque (http://forums.superherohype.com/glossary.html#MARQUE) and Reprisal (http://forums.superherohype.com/glossary.html#REPRISAL), and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Those were the limits of the Federal Government as made painfully obvious by the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

One more thing you forgot to mention:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

- U.S. Contitution, Article VISo the way I interpret what you've posted is that the Federal Government has these powers (one in particular being to make laws to help them execute those powers) and anything not mentioned in the Constitution, and by inference the federal laws created, are the powers of the States or the people. Any conflict between the States and the federal law (as well as any treaty with a foreign nation/nations) though would be trumped by the supremacy of the federal law/treaty.

Let's get my favorite Founding Father's opinion on this subject:

“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose." - Thomas Jefferson

Although he was entitled to his opinion, Thomas Jefferson never wrote or signed the Constitution. So bringing this back to Health Care Reform (which is the topic of this thread) nothing being enacted right now by this law is unconstitutional. No one is actually being mandated to have health insurance. They are just being given a tax break if they show proof that they have it. Only those that do not are being penalized (i.e. taxed). This is no different than those who purchase a home and write off their mortgage interest and it is all in the interest of promoting the common good (i.e. general welfare) of the nation (making sure people have adequate health care or can purchase a home).

dnno1

09-28-2010, 03:50 AM

The fact is that while they were inspired by the American Revolution, the circumstances were vastly different. The roots of the American Revolution are taxes and idealism. The root of the Latin American wars of independence was the fact that the Spanish legitimately treated their colonies like crap.

Just for the record, Latin America declared it's independance from Spain when King Ferdinand was diposed by the French during the Peninsula War.

hippie_hunter

09-28-2010, 10:25 AM

Just for the record, Latin America declared it's independance from Spain when King Ferdinand was diposed by the French during the Peninsula War.

It was the perfect opportunity. The people in the Spanish colonies hated how they were being treated brutally by the Spanish and they took advantage of the political chaos going on.

BlackLantern

09-28-2010, 10:34 AM

I say we storm the Hill and burn Pelosi at the stake

Franklin Richards

09-28-2010, 10:37 AM

We tried with Boehner. It only made him darker and stronger.

:doom: :doom: :doom:

chaseter

09-28-2010, 10:43 AM

I say we storm the Hill and burn Pelosi at the stake

She can't be stopped this way. We are going to need a young priest and an old priest.

Kelly

09-28-2010, 11:07 AM

She can't be stopped this way. We are going to need a young priest and an old priest.

What are you talking about? A threesome? What?

Franklin Richards

09-28-2010, 11:16 AM

Been awhile since you've seen The Exorcist, Kel? :D

:doom: :doom: :doom:

Kelly

09-28-2010, 11:18 AM

My mommy didn't let me watch those kinds of movies...

chaseter

09-28-2010, 11:43 AM

What are you talking about? A threesome? What?

Well hello nurse:fhm::awesome:

Marx

09-29-2010, 05:42 PM

I just heard that the 9/11 First Responders Health Bill passed the House by a vote of 268-160.

StorminNorman

09-29-2010, 06:23 PM

The truth of the matter was that very few British troops were there in the colonies and armed militias were used to help fight in the French and Indian war. That meant that the colonist didn't need the British to protect them (else we wouldn't have won the revolution) and their presence was more to protect their own interest rather than the colonists.

The reality is less important that the perception and I was simply presenting the British view of things.

The famous road you write of is the Cumberland Road. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution covered the construction of the inter state (not inner state) road. The major debate on that project was its financing although the general agreement was that the U.S. would benefit from a national road connecting the Ohio Valley to the Eastern Seaboard. As it turned out, federal land in the States affected were sold to finance its construction.

Yes, but don't you see that giving the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT the ability to decide what IS and what IS NOT in the "GREATER GOOD" essentially gives them the ability to do anything they wish. After all, if it is only the opinion of the Federal Government that matters - they will always give themselves the benefit of the doubt and charge themselves with as much power as possible.

That quite clearly destroys Federalism.

The Federal Government does not the authority to build and improve inner-state roads with taxpayer dollars. Period. Every such project has been blatantly Unconstitutional. The problem is that no one's passions are engulfed by the building of a local road - you don't start a revolution over a paved road. People fail to see the larger dangers to such a blase attitude towards such small issues. It establishes precedents and slowly withers away the reality.

Again, the government we have now is actively unquestionably unconstitutional.

The prohibition of alcohol was a result of the pressures of the Temperance Movement and ultimately proved to be unpopular and an utter failure (hence its repeal a little over 10 years later. Drugs and narcotics are controlled via the perscription system in this country since the majority of them are used for medical purposes. This is why they are not prohibited.

Who gave the authority for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to name any substance, be it alcohol, drug or narcotic, to be illegal? The Federal Government was given the authority to ban alcohol due to Constitutional Amendment. No such Constitutional Amendment was given to form the DEA, or to establish any such policy of criminalization.

Show me where in the Constitution the States give up the ability to write drug law. Why can't California legalize weed without fear of Federal reaction?

Um... The Constitution is a device that justifies the actions that the Government takes. This is why it was written. How else can they defend them selves when challenged on their actions?

And it justifies the action Government takes by limiting the actions Government takes. Today there is no need for the Government to justify their actions.

So the way I interpret what you've posted is that the Federal Government has these powers (one in particular being to make laws to help them execute those powers) and anything not mentioned in the Constitution, and by inference the federal laws created, are the powers of the States or the people. Any conflict between the States and the federal law (as well as any treaty with a foreign nation/nations) though would be trumped by the supremacy of the federal law/treaty.

That would be the proper interpretation.

I then ask you how you would defend, for example, Obamacare as a Constitutional Proper use of government power. Does it help the Federal Government:

Borrow money on the credit of the United States?

Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes?

Establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States?

Coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures?

Provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States?

Establish Post Offices and Post Roads (http://forums.superherohype.com/glossary.html#POSTROAD)?

Secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries?

Constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court?

Define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations?

Declare War, grant Letters of Marque (http://forums.superherohype.com/glossary.html#MARQUE) and Reprisal (http://forums.superherohype.com/glossary.html#REPRISAL), and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water?

Raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years?

Provide and maintain a Navy?

Make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces?

Provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions?

Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress?

AH! It must be this. By providing healthcare to it's citizens, the Federal Government is providing for the organization, arming and disciplining of the Militia. I got! :wow:

Although he was entitled to his opinion, Thomas Jefferson never wrote or signed the Constitution. So bringing this back to Health Care Reform (which is the topic of this thread) nothing being enacted right now by this law is unconstitutional. No one is actually being mandated to have health insurance. They are just being given a tax break if they show proof that they have it. Only those that do not are being penalized (i.e. taxed). This is no different than those who purchase a home and write off their mortgage interest and it is all in the interest of promoting the common good (i.e. general welfare) of the nation (making sure people have adequate health care or can purchase a home).

Anyone want to guess my opinion of such a government policy?

dnno1

09-30-2010, 08:13 AM

The reality is less important that the perception and I was simply presenting the British view of things.

The British view was to protect their intrests in the colonies. It wasn't necessarily to protect the colonists per se. If they cared that much about them they would have given them representation in Parliment.

Yes, but don't you see that giving the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT the ability to decide what IS and what IS NOT in the "GREATER GOOD" essentially gives them the ability to do anything they wish. After all, if it is only the opinion of the Federal Government that matters - they will always give themselves the benefit of the doubt and charge themselves with as much power as possible.

That quite clearly destroys Federalism.

Don't you see that the Federal government is comprised of representatives from each of the States, who debate on whether or not their decisions serve the greater good? Don't you see that the Federal government has three branches which serve as a check and balace to its decision making? This is why it is called a Federal government in the first place.

The Federal Government does not [have] the authority to build and improve inner-state roads with taxpayer dollars. Period. Every such project has been blatantly Unconstitutional. The problem is that no one's passions are engulfed by the building of a local road - you don't start a revolution over a paved road. People fail to see the larger dangers to such a blase attitude towards such small issues. It establishes precedents and slowly withers away the reality.

If they own the land I don't see why they couldn't. As it turned out. the Federal government gave over portions of the National Road to the States to maintain on their own. A good number of them turned them into turnpikes (or toll roads). This in no way means that the decision to build a national road did not serve the purpose of promoting the general welfare/common good of the nation, though. Certainly they do and more than a century later, the Federal government under Dwight D. Eisenhower championed a interstate or national highway system that to this day is funded by taxpayer money. It promotes the common good in that it allows commerce to travel freely between the states and allows for a transit system for national defense and this is want gave the Federal goverment the authority to do it.

Again, the government we have now is actively unquestionably unconstitutional.

...NOT!

Who gave the authority for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to name any substance, be it alcohol, drug or narcotic, to be illegal? The Federal Government was given the authority to ban alcohol due to Constitutional Amendment. No such Constitutional Amendment was given to form the DEA, or to establish any such policy of criminalization.

Umm... the Constitution. It also gives them the ability to create laws that can establish entities such as the DEA, the FDA, and others to execute the powers they have.

Show me where in the Constitution the States give up the ability to write drug law. Why can't California legalize weed without fear of Federal reaction?

The commerce clause and the supremacy clause. I have mentioned this before. We can't have each state doing its own thing when it comes to products which partake in interstate commerce.

And it justifies the action Government takes by limiting the actions Government takes. Today there is no need for the Government to justify their actions.

Certainly they do because they are challenged by people like you on a daily basis. The framers knew that and as a result drafted the Constitution.

That would be the proper interpretation.

I then ask you how you would defend, for example, Obamacare as a Constitutional Proper use of government power. Does it help the Federal Government:

Borrow money on the credit of the United States?

Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes?

Establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States?

Coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures?

Provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States?

Establish Post Offices and Post Roads (http://forums.superherohype.com/glossary.html#POSTROAD)?

Secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries?

Constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court?

Define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations?

Declare War, grant Letters of Marque (http://forums.superherohype.com/glossary.html#MARQUE) and Reprisal (http://forums.superherohype.com/glossary.html#REPRISAL), and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water?

Raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years?

Provide and maintain a Navy?

Make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces?

Provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions?

Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress?

AH! It must be this. By providing healthcare to it's citizens, the Federal Government is providing for the organization, arming and disciplining of the Militia. I got! :wow:

Like I said before, the General Welfare Clause (which you didn't mention above) and the Commerce Clause justifies HCR as Constitutional.

Anyone want to guess my opinion of such a government policy?

Hey, I and many others (over 37 million) are enjoying the mortgage intrest deduction (in fact I just bought another house last night). I don't think we could care less about your opinion on it.

Kelly

09-30-2010, 11:17 AM

BlackLantern

09-30-2010, 11:33 AM

the government, today, is actually elected officials looking out for their own best interests and doing just enough to not lose their seats and all the perks that come with it

StorminNorman

09-30-2010, 11:58 AM

Don't you see that the Federal government is comprised of representatives from each of the States, who debate on whether or not their decisions serve the greater good? Don't you see that the Federal government has three branches which serve as a check and balace to its decision making? This is why it is called a Federal government in the first place.

The Federal Government being composed of Federal representatives from each of the States does not put any check and balance on the power of the Federal Government.

I believe your last sentence implies that the Federalism the Constitution is built on is not a division of Federal/State authority but a Federalism build on the three branches of Federal Government. While that is certainly true today, that was not remotely the intent of the Constitution.

When Senators moved from election by State Legislature to direct elect by citizen, the voice of the State Government in Federal Affairs went away. It destroyed the Federalism our government was built on.

If they own the land I don't see why they couldn't. As it turned out. the Federal government gave over portions of the National Road to the States to maintain on their own. A good number of them turned them into turnpikes (or toll roads). This in no way means that the decision to build a national road did not serve the purpose of promoting the general welfare/common good of the nation, though. Certainly they do and more than a century later, the Federal government under Dwight D. Eisenhower championed a interstate or national highway system that to this day is funded by taxpayer money. It promotes the common good in that it allows commerce to travel freely between the states and allows for a transit system for national defense and this is want gave the Federal goverment the authority to do it.

The Federal government was not meant to decide what authority the Federal Government has.

Again, if the Building of a National Road was such a great project of General Interest - THEN PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ALLOWING SUCH CONSTRUCTION.

I am not necessarily arguing that it is bad for the Federal Government to do this, that and the other - what I am saying is that it is bad for the Federal Government to exceed the limited powers listed in the Constitution without following the rules the States and Citizens agreed upon.

Umm... the Contitution. It also give them the ability to create laws that can establish entities such as the DEA, the FDA, and others to execute the powers they have.

If the power to regulate commerce was as broad as you are implying here, there would have been no need to ban alcohol by way of Constitutional Amendment.

Here is an article that can improve your understanding of the clause:

http://federalistblog.us/2006/08/busting_congress_interstate_commerce_myth.html

The commerce clause and the supremacy clause. I have mentioned this before. We can't have each state doing its own thing when it comes to products which partake in interstate commerce.

But California legalizing marijuana doesn't mean that it is legal in Colorado. When California legalizes marijuana, it is affecting laws regarding inner state commerce.

Certainly they do because they are challenged by people like you on a daily basis. The framers knew that and as a result drafted the Constitution.

How much reading have you actually done about the Constitution and it's creation?

Like I said before, the General Welfare Clause (which you didn't mention above) and the Commerce Clause justifies HCR as Constitutional.

I didn't mention the General Welfare Clause because the General Welfare Clause had nothing with the powers invested in Congress regarding policy. The General Welfare Clause simply allowed the government to collect taxes for any government program the Federal Government enacted (with the assumption being that any policy that was able to make it through Congress composed of Federal Representatives and State-Appointed Senators) would have to be for the "General Welfare".

The General Welfare Clause was not meant for the government to be able to pass any program it deems in the General Welfare simply because the Federal Government deems it so.

Hey, I and many others (over 37 million) are enjoying the mortgage intrest deduction (in fact I just bought another house last night). I don't think we could care less about your opinion on it.

Nor should you. However simply because it is a good policy for you does not mean that it is a sound policy or a Constitutional policy.

chaseter

09-30-2010, 12:49 PM

the government, today, is actually elected officials looking out for their own best interests and doing just enough to not lose their seats and all the perks that come with it

Which is why I think all elected officials in any seat should only get 2 terms of 2 years, other than the President who will remain at 2 terms of 4 years. I am tired of fat cats in congress using their power to keep them in office for 40 years.

That will do away with abuse and being an elected official was never meant to be a career.

StorminNorman

09-30-2010, 12:52 PM

Term limits are necessary.

BlackLantern

09-30-2010, 12:59 PM

I am all for term limits....3 or 4 for house reps, 2 or 3 for Senators

StorminNorman

09-30-2010, 01:24 PM

That's about was I was thinking though it may be better to have even smaller term limits for Congressmen. If the position is meant to be more citizen than politician, a 4 year limit for Representatives makes sense. The Senate would be the one full of politicians with a 12-18 year limit.

dnno1

09-30-2010, 06:49 PM

The Federal Government being composed of Federal representatives from each of the States does not put any check and balance on the power of the Federal Government.

Go back and read my post. I said that there are three branches of government that provide a check and balance on the decision making of the Federal government. What you just posted is not what I said. The representatives from each State comprise the Federal government. They debate in congress to determine Federal law, and the business of government.

I believe your last sentence implies that the Federalism the Constitution is built on is not a division of Federal/State authority but a Federalism build on the three branches of Federal Government. While that is certainly true today, that was not remotely the intent of the Constitution.

When Senators moved from election by State Legislature to direct elect by citizen, the voice of the State Government in Federal Affairs went away. It destroyed the Federalism our government was built on.

My meaning of Federalism is the fact that our government and it's legislature is made up of representatives and people from each of the States. That by definition is what federalism is and even though Senators have been elected by the citizens of their respective states, they still represent the people of that State and it does not change the meaning nor the concept of federalism.

The Federal government was not meant to decide what authority the Federal Government has.

Again, if the Building of a National Road was such a great project of General Interest - THEN PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ALLOWING SUCH CONSTRUCTION.

I am not necessarily arguing that it is bad for the Federal Government to do this, that and the other - what I am saying is that it is bad for the Federal Government to exceed the limited powers listed in the Constitution without following the rules the States and Citizens agreed upon.

Once again you are misconstruing my words. I said certainly the Federal government has the authority to build and improve interstate roads since the Constitution gives them that authority (this was my implication). So long as they can justify its purpose to provide for the common defense and/or promote the general welfare (common good) then they have the authority to use taxpayer dollars to persue a project (such as an interstate highway system that was championed by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower). This authority is officially granted once debated and finalized by legislation in Congress. It is not necessary to amend the Constitution to do so since that same document allows them to make laws to "Execute their foregoing powers" (see the last paragraph of Article I, Section 8 - in this case, the foregoing powers would be to regulate/govern interstate commerce as well as provide a strategic highway system for the military to defend the nation ). Thus the Federal government has not exceeded it's powers, else the laws that were made to pursue the project would have been struck down by the SCOTUS.

If the power to regulate commerce was as broad as you are implying here, there would have been no need to ban alcohol by way of Constitutional Amendment.

Here is an article that can improve your understanding of the clause:

http://federalistblog.us/2006/08/busting_congress_interstate_commerce_myth.html

That's just it. They didn't need to ban the sale of alcohol. The Constitutional amendment to ban sales of the substance was brought on by pressures from the Temperance Movement. As it turns out alcohol is regulated as interstate commerce just as any other products is. Now of course there are States and counties that do ban the sale of alcohol, but that is their prerogative.

But California legalizing marijuana doesn't mean that it is legal in Colorado. When California legalizes marijuana, it is affecting laws regarding inner state commerce.

In this case there already is a Federal law governing marijuana (see the Controlled Substance Act). Although California has legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, the Federal government does not recognize this law and has prosecuted persons for its possession and cultivation.

How much reading have you actually done about the Constitution and it's creation?

Enough to know that you have misinterpreted it for your own convenience.

I didn't mention the General Welfare Clause because the General Welfare Clause had nothing with the powers invested in Congress regarding policy. The General Welfare Clause simply allowed the government to collect taxes for any government program the Federal Government enacted (with the assumption being that any policy that was able to make it through Congress composed of Federal Representatives and State-Appointed Senators) would have to be for the "General Welfare".

The General Welfare Clause was not meant for the government to be able to pass any program it deems in the General Welfare simply because the Federal Government deems it so.

You asked how I could justify HCR being a Constitutionally proper use of power and I said it was according to the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses that this law is valid. Those clauses have nothing to do with policy, but rather about the powers that the Federal government has.

Nor should you. However simply because it is a good policy for you does not mean that it is a sound policy or a Constitutional policy.

But in this case it is and has been since 1913.

Kelly

09-30-2010, 08:44 PM

the government, today, is actually elected officials looking out for their own best interests and doing just enough to not lose their seats and all the perks that come with it

And the checks and balance of the 3 branches is a farce.

chaseter

09-30-2010, 11:17 PM

There is no checks and balances when one side controls 2/3 of the branches.

Kelly

10-01-2010, 11:09 AM

This is true....but I was thinking more of the 2000 election and the take over by the Supreme Court...

dnno1

10-01-2010, 03:50 PM

And the checks and balance of the 3 branches is a farce.

There is no checks and balances when one side controls 2/3 of the branches.

This is true....but I was thinking more of the 2000 election and the take over by the Supreme Court...

Truth be it known is that that election could have been overturned in Congress if there is an objection to the electoral college ballots by a member of the House and Senate that has been accepted after debate in Congress.

StorminNorman

10-02-2010, 12:55 PM

Go back and read my post. I said that there are three branches of government that provide a check and balance on the decision making of the Federal government. What you just posted is not what I said. The representatives from each State comprise the Federal government. They debate in congress to determine Federal law, and the business of government.

But that's not how the Constitution was meant to work. The issue of Federalism was not separation of power amongst various Federal Branches but separation of power between Federal and State governments.

Representatives elected by district for Federal Office are not the same as representatives from State Governments.

My meaning of Federalism is the fact that our government and it's legislature is made up of representatives and people from each of the States. That by definition is what federalism is and even though Senators have been elected by the citizens of their respective states, they still represent the people of that State and it does not change the meaning nor the concept of federalism.

Except that the concerns when the Constitution was written was about the protection of the sovereignty of the states. Try reading the Anti-Federalist Papers sometimes. The Constitution as ratified was the creation of battle between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Groups and as such it is important to understand the arguments of both.

Once again you are misconstruing my words. I said certainly the Federal government has the authority to build and improve interstate roads since the Constitution gives them that authority (this was my implication). So long as they can justify its purpose to provide for the common defense and/or promote the general welfare (common good) then they have the authority to use taxpayer dollars to persue a project (such as an interstate highway system that was championed by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower). This authority is officially granted once debated and finalized by legislation in Congress. It is not necessary to amend the Constitution to do so since that same document allows them to make laws to "Execute their foregoing powers" (see the last paragraph of Article I, Section 8 - in this case, the foregoing powers would be to regulate/govern interstate commerce as well as provide a strategic highway system for the military to defend the nation ). Thus the Federal government has not exceeded it's powers, else the laws that were made to pursue the project would have been struck down by the SCOTUS.

Again, when all the Federal Government needs to justify their actions is acting in the "General Welfare" or "Common Good", and it is the Federal Government that gets to decide what is in the "General Welfare" or "Common Good" you have a government that poses a grave threat to individual liberties and which history shows typically ends in tyranny.

Politicians and government should always be looked at with the eyes of a skeptic, to give such broad brush ability to any government body is naive, foolish and demonstrates an ignorance of human nature, human history and political science.

That's just it. They didn't need to ban the sale of alcohol. The Constitutional amendment to ban sales of the substance was brought on by pressures from the Temperance Movement. As it turns out alcohol is regulated as interstate commerce just as any other products is. Now of course there are States and counties that do ban the sale of alcohol, but that is their prerogative.

But they did when the Temperance Movement came to be. The obnoxious growth of the Federal Government by FDR is what allowed the Federal government to regulate alcohol.

It is fundamentally immoral for the government to ban the sale of alcohol, as it is immoral for the government to ban marijuana and any other drugs. Of course it's much harder to use a rights argument in a political discussion due simply to how little influence the Enlightenment has on contemporary political scientists (and wannabe political scientists).

In this case there already is a Federal law governing marijuana (see the Controlled Substance Act). Although California has legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes, the Federal government does not recognize this law and has prosecuted persons for its possession and cultivation.

And the Federal Government, Constitutionally, has no right for such a law. The Constitution does not anywhere state where the Federal Government can decide what may or may not be sold WITHIN STATE BORDERS.

Enough to know that you have misinterpreted it for your own convenience.

LOLz:awesome:

You asked how I could justify HCR being a Constitutionally proper use of power and I said it was according to the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses that this law is valid. Those clauses have nothing to do with policy, but rather about the powers that the Federal government has.

Again, you don't want to go around boasting about the General Welfare clause because it demonstrates your lack of knowledge in the area. The General Welfare clause does not allow the Federal Government to create policy based off of it but justifies the Federal Government's ability to tax citizens (which is why the General Welfare Clause is a Clause to the Powers of Tax) the Interstate Commerce Clause is not valid either because you are not allowed to buy Health Insurance across State lines in this plan.

If HCR is Constitutionally proper due to the Interstate Commerce clause, then any policy the Federal Government would ever enact is proper.

But in this case it is and has been since 1913.

Of course we'll ignore the fact that the 1910's was a decade of Constitutional tragedy due to the outright fascist Wilsonian policy.

chaseter

10-02-2010, 03:09 PM

Truth be it known is that that election could have been overturned in Congress if there is an objection to the electoral college ballots by a member of the House and Senate that has been accepted after debate in Congress.

Why would a Democratic congress overturn the election of a Democratic president:huh:

dnno1

10-02-2010, 03:19 PM

Why would a Democratic congress overturn the election of a Democratic president:huh:

It doesn't sound likely, but all it takes is for 1 person in the house to object and a single senator to concur to bring the objecton to debate in both houses. This was done in 2004 over the Ohio electoral votes, although the outcome did not prove. That being said, there was a time in our history when the Congress did pick the president.

dnno1

10-03-2010, 02:38 AM

But that's not how the Constitution was meant to work. The issue of Federalism was not separation of power amongst various Federal Branches but separation of power between Federal and State governments.

Representatives elected by district for Federal Office are not the same as representatives from State Governments.

I did not say that, I said that the three branches of goverment allow for the checks and balances and the three braches are comprised of a ferderation of representatives from various (if not each of the) states. This is allowed for by the Constituion so you really can't say that this is not the way it was meant to work either.

Except that the concerns when the Constitution was written was about the protection of the sovereignty of the states. Try reading the Anti-Federalist Papers sometimes. The Constitution as ratified was the creation of battle between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Groups and as such it is important to understand the arguments of both.

What does that matter when the state is being represented by someone elected by the people of that state? Furthermore, the Constitution allows for it self to be ammended (see Article V), so it must mean that irrespective of what the framers feelings were about the Constitution or it's intent, they themselves were open to allowing the document and its meaning to change.

Again, when all the Federal Government needs to justify their actions is acting in the "General Welfare" or "Common Good", and it is the Federal Government that gets to decide what is in the "General Welfare" or "Common Good" you have a government that poses a grave threat to individual liberties and which history shows typically ends in tyranny.

Politicians and government should always be looked at with the eyes of a skeptic, to give such broad brush ability to any government body is naive, foolish and demonstrates an ignorance of human nature, human history and political science.

A lot of the decisions made by the Federal government is reactive. They respond to a problem that is already out there in society. They respond to recomendations and requests from normal citizens of this country. To act tyrannically as you say would mean that they would be acting oppressively and that is doubtful if the actions were for the common good. It is not like the goverment speaks in one voice, since it is comprised of many who are supposed to speak in favor of their constituents. I still don't see how that is tyranny and I think you are quite mistaken and misinformed.

But they did when the Temperance Movement came to be. The obnoxious growth of the Federal Government by FDR is what allowed the Federal government to regulate alcohol.

:huh:
The Temperance Movement had been in existence more almost 150 years before the 18th Amendement was adopted.

It is fundamentally immoral for the government to ban the sale of alcohol, as it is immoral for the government to ban marijuana and any other drugs. Of course it's much harder to use a rights argument in a political discussion due simply to how little influence the Enlightenment has on contemporary political scientists (and wannabe political scientists).

That is a matter of opinion. Those who were in the Temperance Movement felt that alcohol was injurious to your physical and phycological health. To tell you the truth if there were scientific evidence linking alcohol to major health problems in humans, they would certainly prohibit its use not ulike the way they have been treating tobacco over the last 40 years.

And the Federal Government, Constitutionally, has no right for such a law. The Constitution does not anywhere state where the Federal Government can decide what may or may not be sold WITHIN STATE BORDERS.

LOLz:awesome:

This just prooves how much you don't know about the Constitution. The law you claim to be unconstitutional is the Controled Substances Act of 1970. This law was found to be Constitutional by the SCOTUS in 2005 (see Gonzales v. Raich). The CSA is in direct compliance with international treaties through the World Healt Organization (see the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances). Per Article VI of the Constitution, this would make the CSA supreme.

Again, you don't want to go around boasting about the General Welfare clause because it demonstrates your lack of knowledge in the area. The General Welfare clause does not allow the Federal Government to create policy based off of it but justifies the Federal Government's ability to tax citizens (which is why the General Welfare Clause is a Clause to the Powers of Tax) the Interstate Commerce Clause is not valid either because you are not allowed to buy Health Insurance across State lines in this plan.

Under HCR, citizens will have to pay a fine (i.e. a tax) if they fail to proove that they have adequate health care. That is justified under the General Welafare clause (I am pretty sure I said that before). Furthermore, HCR under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a law not policy. I don't know where you get off trying to call it that. The Interstate Commerce Clause is in effect because many of the health insurers and health care providers operate and do business accross state lines (leaving them subject to federal regulation).

If HCR is Constitutionally proper due to the Interstate Commerce clause, then any policy the Federal Government would ever enact is proper.

If a State can regulate it's own domestic commerce in a manner that does not interfere with interstate commerce, then they are within their right to do so. In any case, if the type of commerce is national in character (like health care and health insurance is) then the power of Congress to regulate it is absolute or even exclusive (see this link (http://law.jrank.org/pages/5387/Commerce-Clause-Power-Regulate.html)).

Of course we'll ignore the fact that the 1910's was a decade of Constitutional tragedy due to the outright fascist Wilsonian policy.

I don't know what that had to do with giving people an incentive (through legislation not policy) to buy a home, but, like I was trying to say before, the mortgage intrest deduction has been in place since 1913.

BlackLantern

10-03-2010, 08:43 AM

dnno1

10-03-2010, 09:57 AM

all this disect a quote is really killing the vibe here....all this comes down to is dnno is getting something HE personally wants from the government and that's all that matters to him

he can throw out Constitution this and common good that, but it all comes down to getting what HE wants and screw the rest of us

Actually, the way I look at it is that there are a lot of services that the governemtn offers everyone. I just try to take advanatage of them as applicable to me (Social Security, Medicare, the motagage intrest deduction, Library of Congres, access to free statistics and data, you get the idea). You certainly could do the same, but you refuse (which I find kind of foolish).

BlackLantern

10-03-2010, 10:00 AM

pardon me if I don't want to participate in a healthcare program that is going to provide a substandard level of care and insufficiently trained medical care

my doctors office is considering going to direct billing because they know once this new plan kicks in, they aren't going to get paid

a few offices here in CT have already done so

The Interpreter

10-03-2010, 10:45 AM

Of course we'll ignore the fact that the 1910's was a decade of Constitutional tragedy due to the outright fascist Wilsonian policy.

Did you really just make the statement that women having the right to vote is a tragedy? :dry: I'm pretty sure this was also the decade which pushed state senators to be voted in by the population vote rather than the legislation vote, as well as giving them term limits and setting the number of senators per state at two. (This might have been actually made earlier, or later than the 1910's, I'm not 100% sure) And this one WAS a good one, because it prevented problems like NOT having any senators, which sometimes happened in the 1800's.

Though, I'm sort of with you on the whole 16th amendment.

But what I'm saying is, if any decade deserved to be called a "constitutional tragedy", it was the 20's with Prohibition.

pardon me if I don't want to participate in a healthcare program that is going to provide a substandard level of care and insufficiently trained medical care

my doctors office is considering going to direct billing because they know once this new plan kicks in, they aren't going to get paid

a few offices here in CT have already done so

The "substandard level of care" in several countries with such proposed health care sort of beats seven shades of doodoo out of the American health care system currently. No clue about you guys, but I'm into living for a long time.

Seriously, Costa Rica and Chile have better health care systems than the US according to WHO last time they got around to making a list.

BlackLantern

10-03-2010, 10:48 AM

I (and most Americans) would much prefer a privately run doctors office...properly trained doctors and a high quality level of care

The Interpreter

10-03-2010, 11:19 AM

Most Americans also don't really understand HOW public health care really works. No offense to my fellow Americans. They sort of just hear, "It's a communist plot to give you health care like they get in Uruguay," and they go on about thinking that other countries with public health care systems are the same. This is generally backed by some story about how people have to wait hours in line behind immigrants from another country, are on some form of lottery program, and/or are constantly refused for treatment due to how bad they're sick/injured. And, in some countries, I'm absolutely sure that is how it works. In most developed countries with a public health option, such is not the case. Generally this is a horrible blanket statement, and really just throws out the much more complex systems other countries use to treat many different cases so people don't go broke. For instance, in some countries, the sicker you become, the less you pay. If you have bronchitis, the government sort of expects you to buck up and pay your way for meds, like they do here somewhat (with the impact reduced by insurance you pay by paycheck or month). If you have a cancer of the brain though, and you require prolonged dragged out treatments and surgeries that will be more expensive than you can afford, the government then steps in to make sure you're not 2 million dollars in debt when all is said and done.

The wait thing is sort of true for Canada and England though. For special type care, they do end up waiting a bit longer based on the type of care needed. However, this wait isn't really all that significant.

Uruguay was an example. Their health care system is actually sort of like ours in the idea they have both public and private hospitals, and ways to get health insurance. Which is either through the private hospitals or through private insurance companies, both of which charge you far out the rearside. But their country is much more poor than ours, so it is not really comparable.

BlackLantern

10-03-2010, 11:21 AM

your point being?

Kelly

10-03-2010, 11:25 AM

Did you really just make the statement that women having the right to vote is a tragedy? :dry: I'm pretty sure this was also the decade which pushed state senators to be voted in by the population vote rather than the legislation vote, as well as giving them term limits and setting the number of senators per state at two. (This might have been actually made earlier, or later than the 1910's, I'm not 100% sure) And this one WAS a good one, because it prevented problems like NOT having any senators, which sometimes happened in the 1800's.

Though, I'm sort of with you on the whole 16th amendment.

But what I'm saying is, if any decade deserved to be called a "constitutional tragedy", it was the 20's with Prohibition.

The "substandard level of care" in several countries with such proposed health care sort of beats seven shades of doodoo out of the American health care system currently. No clue about you guys, but I'm into living for a long time.

Seriously, Costa Rica and Chile have better health care systems than the US according to WHO last time they got around to making a list.

The WHO rankings are a farce....

YES, we have problems with our healthcare system, there is nothing to dispute there....that is a fact. But most of the information in the WHO ranking is imputed...which makes the rankings unreliable.

Example.....one of the major statistics used in this ranking is "Life Expectancy"...well there are many things that go into this statistic other than Health Care System. Just the fact that we have about 10x the homicide rate than say...the UK, of which has nothing to do with our Health Care system, makes a difference, yet that is not taken into consideration.

When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.

These types of things are not in that ranking, and that is just "one" example.

BlackLantern

10-03-2010, 11:27 AM

yea...Im with Kel, the WHO, much like the UN, looks down their nose at the US in any regard

The Interpreter

10-03-2010, 11:27 AM

BlackLantern

10-03-2010, 11:30 AM

Kelly

10-03-2010, 11:39 AM

My point being most Americans aren't really qualified to be entering into the health care debate in terms of public health care is substandard or not.

Though, to be perfectly fair, I don't really find them at fault. Far as we know and have always been told, we've been getting the most excellent health care for years, even if it's not true.

Well, hell you could probably say that about many of the debates here. Also, I don't think ANYONE here thinks we have the "most excellent health care" system. I think many are like myself. We know there are many problems, but we do not think that a total overhaul was needed. As for myself, I have no problems AT THIS MOMENT with the changes because honestly I have no idea how these changes will impact me as of yet. BUT, I do believe that strong tort reform should have been a part of this....my 2 biggies for this reform were...

1. Tort reform (solid, strong tort reform, not lip service)
2. Able to cross state lines for competition within insurance companies.

I think another problem people have is......IF WE ARE NOT "qualified" as you say to debate the issue, what makes you think our legislature is?

The Interpreter

10-03-2010, 11:40 AM

The WHO rankings are a farce....

YES, we have problems with our healthcare system, there is nothing to dispute there....that is a fact. But most of the information in the WHO ranking is imputed...which makes the rankings unreliable.
The WHO does no longer make a list due to the large level of difficulty in making one. They generally seemed to have based it mostly on preventable deaths, and actual deaths. And then tried to scale it by income of an entire country and overall population. It's a pretty daunting task, and I'm more than positive some of their numbers aren't exactly on the ball. But I wouldn't go as far as saying they're a total hack job farce.
yea...Im with Kel, the WHO, much like the UN, looks down their nose at the US in any regard

Bro, seriously? The UN and the WHO harbor a deep seated conspiracy to make the US look bad? I'm sure the UN is no friend of ours the past decade, but I doubt they go out of their way to support us in one thing like talks with other countries about nuclear programs, and then as a collective, give a petty attempt at saying our healthcare is lesser than other countries just to spite us. I doubt that many countries will even work together for that. I also doubt they have secret hall meetings where they make lists like these, and say, "Wait a minute, America is on top. Well... wee can't have that. Bust 'em down about 30 spots." This whole healthcare statistic was believed well before America just stopped doing things the UN's way when it wanted to.

While I'm positively sure many countries aren't jumping in line to be our friend, I also doubt they're so petty to just blatantly falsify results to such an extreme degree, and then submit them for peer review. I'm comfortable with saying the UN isn't our friends. I'm comfortable with saying the WHO probably disagrees with our methods as well. I'm generally not comfortable with saying that they group up on the weekends, and enact dastardly plans to discredit us at things like this.

BlackLantern

10-03-2010, 11:45 AM

Kelly

10-03-2010, 11:46 AM

The WHO does no longer make a list due to the large level of difficulty in making one. They generally seemed to have based it mostly on preventable deaths, and actual deaths. And then tried to scale it by income of an entire country and overall population. It's a pretty daunting task, and I'm more than positive some of their numbers aren't exactly on the ball. But I wouldn't go as far as saying they're a total hack job farce. We will have to agree to disagree, because I do think that it is a "hack job farce" with motives that have nothing to do with the betterment of our world, as I think with many of the UN initiatives. I will legitimately say that I am not a big proponent of ANYTHING that the UN does. I think that there are many within the organization that have clean, simple motives of helping people....but I do not believe that of those that make the decisions, and put the "facts" out there.

Bro, seriously? The UN and the WHO harbor a deep seated conspiracy to make the US look bad? I'm sure the UN is no friend of ours the past decade, but I doubt they go out of their way to support us in one thing like talks with other countries about nuclear programs, and then as a collective, give a petty attempt at saying our healthcare is lesser than other countries just to spite us. I doubt that many countries will even work together for that. I also doubt they have secret hall meetings where they make lists like these, and say, "Wait a minute, America is on top. Well... wee can't have that. Bust 'em down about 30 spots." This whole healthcare statistic was believed well before America just stopped doing things the UN's way when it wanted to.

While I'm positively sure many countries aren't jumping in line to be our friend, I also doubt they're so petty to just blatantly falsify results to such an extreme degree, and then submit them for peer review. I'm comfortable with saying the UN isn't our friends. I'm comfortable with saying the WHO probably disagrees with our methods as well. I'm generally not comfortable with saying that they group up on the weekends, and enact dastardly plans to discredit us at things like this.

I don't know that the UN has this "stick it to the US" mentality as a whole, but I have friends that work/have worked in the UN, and YES, to your face as a UN/US worker they are all smiles, but they will stab you in the back in seconds.....and that is a well known thought process among US workers within the UN. They know that is the framework that they have to work in.

The Interpreter

10-03-2010, 11:49 AM

but public health care is substandard, as proven by many doctors offices who don't accept medicare or medicaid because the government doesn't pay out for those patients....so it trickles down to a lesser quality of physician because all the good ones only deal with private insurance
That doesn't prove the public option is substandard at all. That really just proves it is really more of a medicare and medicaid issue. Not so much a public option overhaul issue. And that is driven quite a bit by private company lobbying. I'll agree that our Medicare/Medicaid system definitely requires an overhaul.
Well, hell you could probably say that about many of the debates here. Also, I don't think ANYONE here thinks we have the "most excellent health care" system. I think many are like myself. We know there are many problems, but we do not think that a total overhaul was needed. As for myself, I have no problems AT THIS MOMENT with the changes because honestly I have no idea how these changes will impact me as of yet. BUT, I do believe that strong tort reform should have been a part of this....my 2 biggies for this reform were...

1. Tort reform (solid, strong tort reform, not lip service)
2. Able to cross state lines for competition within insurance companies.

I think another problem people have is......IF WE ARE NOT "qualified" as you say to debate the issue, what makes you think our legislature is?

I would agree with a strong tort reform. That would definitely be a very good step in the right direction. It's proven effective in a few states including Texas (even if Texas still pays quite a bit for health care anyway than many other states) in reducing the costs by an amount people can actually see.

And I will definitely agree, high five, crack a beer, and paint my face to the legislature part. I mean, it's obvious the actual legislature body doesn't directly give health care, but they do decide on it. And for the most part, I don't think they're really all that educated in the matter as well. I honestly think most politicians out there are more or less content with simply repeating a hard line to gather votes for themselves to maintain their jobs. They don't completely read bills, do not completely subjugate themselves to the matter of the information, and almost NEVER seem to take the advice of professionals within the field. I wouldn't assign this blame strictly towards liberals or conservatives, because one is literally just as bad as the other at this.

My grandfather used to say, "Never trust people who wave their arms too much, or politicians. They're just looking for attention." Whether it's true or not, I kind of agree with it.

The Interpreter

10-03-2010, 12:00 PM

it certainly does.....off topic, but look at the Olympics, theyve eliminated sports and events that the US has dominated at simply due to anti US sentiment

the international community feels its their place to show the US its "place" on the world stage
Most of the sports eliminated were due to lack of funding by bigger corporations, or the belief they weren't really as enduring sports like swimming or running. Pistol duels on scarecrows with targets wasn't considered as relevant as some of the other sports. Nor was bowling, cricket, jumping in place, ballooning, golf, baseball, and many others which are more or less deemed a financial pit and not as athletic as some of the ones that remain. The Olympics have to make sure by their sponsors to actually generate buzz. Those sports aren't really well watched on the Olympic program, and only have so much time to do all the games. Also, some of them were just dangerous like holding your breath for a long time, and one armed weight lifting.
We will have to agree to disagree, because I do think that it is a "hack job farce" with motives that have nothing to do with the betterment of our world, as I think with many of the UN initiatives. I will legitimately say that I am not a big proponent of ANYTHING that the UN does. I think that there are many within the organization that have clean, simple motives of helping people....but I do not believe that of those that make the decisions, and put the "facts" out there.

I don't know that the UN has this "stick it to the US" mentality as a whole, but I have friends that work/have worked in the UN, and YES, to your face as a UN/US worker they are all smiles, but they will stab you in the back in seconds.....and that is a well known thought process among US workers within the UN. They know that is the framework that they have to work in.

I definitely agree that people within the UN are just as likely to smile at you as they are to stab you in the back. But I'm sure that applies to pretty much ALL countries within the UN. The US might have a slightly bigger target on their back, I would agree. But I still do not think that they, or the WHO, even if they secretly hated Americans with every fiber of their being, would actually pump out a report with the data for the entire world to see and upon review say, "Wait a minute..." I'd actually think they'd be more prone to simply NOT reporting on something as part of a bias. Like, say, the tort reform. If America underwent a nationwide comprehensive tort reform, and saved 50 billion dollars and improved the health of the nation, while insuring more people, I'd just see the WHO simply not reporting on it as a method of slant against America, if such was their aim.

BlackLantern

10-03-2010, 12:07 PM

Most of the sports eliminated were due to lack of funding by bigger corporations, or the belief they weren't really as enduring sports like swimming or running. Pistol duels on scarecrows with targets wasn't considered as relevant as some of the other sports. Nor was bowling, cricket, jumping in place, ballooning, golf, baseball, and many others which are more or less deemed a financial pit and not as athletic as some of the ones that remain. The Olympics have to make sure by their sponsors to actually generate buzz. Those sports aren't really well watched on the Olympic program, and only have so much time to do all the games. Also, some of them were just dangerous like holding your breath for a long time, and one armed weight lifting.

do you even pay attention to sports?? both baseball and womens softball were eliminated due to anti US sentiment on the Olympic committee....people who supported these sports (not just US officials) weren't even allowed to make their case, even after being told they would be heard

so it was nothing as dangerous as "holding your breath" or "one armed weight lifting"

The Interpreter

10-03-2010, 12:20 PM

do you even pay attention to sports?? both baseball and womens softball were eliminated due to anti US sentiment on the Olympic committee....people who supported these sports (not just US officials) weren't even allowed to make their case, even after being told they would be heard

so it was nothing as dangerous as "holding your breath" or "one armed weight lifting"

I do, and it really wasn't nearly as black and white and extreme as you put it. Both sports lost out barely, with softball needing only one vote to make it to the second vote. A large part of that was belief that baseball professionals would not put their season on hold for the Olympics, which is sort of almost absolutely necessary. Neither sport is as big, or as well watched as Basketball or Soccer.

You could look at it from the time side. The Olympics last for only two weeks, and is packed with sports. Sometimes sports don't make it in for several reasons. And it generally isn't because, "Those pigs in America like it." And for the record, baseball and softball are recognized sports by the Olympics, they were simply not put into the games formal.

Or, you can look at it from the financial side. The Olympics is a brand name that sells things. They spend no money on the actual hosting, but rake in all the profits.

The fact of the matter is, and I've said it before, I'm sure many countries aren't the biggest fans of America, but I doubt they really go out of their way collectively and in secret to spite America in games they also want to play.

BlackLantern

10-03-2010, 12:31 PM

I do, and it really wasn't nearly as black and white and extreme as you put it. Both sports lost out barely, with softball needing only one vote to make it to the second vote. A large part of that was belief that baseball professionals would not put their season on hold for the Olympics, which is sort of almost absolutely necessary. Neither sport is as big, or as well watched as Basketball or Soccer.

You could look at it from the time side. The Olympics last for only two weeks, and is packed with sports. Sometimes sports don't make it in for several reasons. And it generally isn't because, "Those pigs in America like it." And for the record, baseball and softball are recognized sports by the Olympics, they were simply not put into the games formal.

Or, you can look at it from the financial side. The Olympics is a brand name that sells things. They spend no money on the actual hosting, but rake in all the profits.

The fact of the matter is, and I've said it before, I'm sure many countries aren't the biggest fans of America, but I doubt they really go out of their way collectively and in secret to spite America in games they also want to play.

it is exactly like that....and when the opportunity presents itself, yes they do

dnno1

10-03-2010, 02:01 PM

BlackLantern

10-03-2010, 02:04 PM

any government run or government subsidized healthcare will eventually have an abysmal level of care due to abuse and overload

dnno1

10-03-2010, 02:56 PM

any government run or government subsidized healthcare will eventually have an abysmal level of care due to abuse and overload

Got any proof of that?

BlackLantern

10-03-2010, 02:59 PM

hippie_hunter

10-03-2010, 03:40 PM

I do, and it really wasn't nearly as black and white and extreme as you put it. Both sports lost out barely, with softball needing only one vote to make it to the second vote. A large part of that was belief that baseball professionals would not put their season on hold for the Olympics, which is sort of almost absolutely necessary. Neither sport is as big, or as well watched as Basketball or Soccer.

You could look at it from the time side. The Olympics last for only two weeks, and is packed with sports. Sometimes sports don't make it in for several reasons. And it generally isn't because, "Those pigs in America like it." And for the record, baseball and softball are recognized sports by the Olympics, they were simply not put into the games formal.

Or, you can look at it from the financial side. The Olympics is a brand name that sells things. They spend no money on the actual hosting, but rake in all the profits.

The fact of the matter is, and I've said it before, I'm sure many countries aren't the biggest fans of America, but I doubt they really go out of their way collectively and in secret to spite America in games they also want to play.

Actually the IOC tends to stick it to the United States as much as possible due to the IOC believes that it should get more money from the USOC and doesn't approve of things the USOC does such as partnering with Comcast/NBC Universal to create an Olympics Channel on cable.

Kelly

10-03-2010, 06:37 PM

Yeah, the IOC doesn't like anything that will take money out of their pockets...

BlackLantern

10-03-2010, 06:38 PM

but they loooooove USA Basketball

The Interpreter

10-03-2010, 09:02 PM

actually there is a hospital right in the town where I live that is a prime example....Griffin Hospital in Derby, CT.....horrid reputation, horrid standard of care, and then was taken private back in the 90's......it is now one of the premiere cancer treatment hospitals in the northeast
The Puget Sound hospital was shut shut down for substandard care and security a few years back. A for profit hospital. One hospital, even three hospitals don't make the general curve.
Actually the IOC tends to stick it to the United States as much as possible due to the IOC believes that it should get more money from the USOC and doesn't approve of things the USOC does such as partnering with Comcast/NBC Universal to create an Olympics Channel on cable.
I don't think they "stick it" to the United States as much as possible due to funding. That sort of "sticking it" tends to come in the form of, "You can't host the Olympics," for the most part. Most of the countries participating have spent MILLIONS of dollars on teams participating in a wide variety of events before they're even brought to vote for eligible competition within the Olympic cycle. I doubt all of them get up there, and somehow secretly altogether vote against Americans on that without any form of pre-meeting after blowing that sort of money. And I double doubt they DO have meetings for it. However, they do definitely have animosity for revenue issues. I won't say the US is really paid any favors, but a lot of the IOC DO look to their own countries in effort and balancing of potential victories. They're not immediate to the, "America wants soccer, ban it," mentality. If anything, they're more than likely to try to balance out events so no one country has a ton of advantage.
Yeah, the IOC doesn't like anything that will take money out of their pockets...
Does anybody? :cwink: The IOC doesn't even have to really pay for anything, and they rake in pretty much all the profits as well. Greedy jerks. :cmad:
but they loooooove USA Basketball
Yeppers. A lot of the professionals work with them very well. Unlike the baseball guys, who are like, "We're not halting our season for you."

StorminNorman

10-04-2010, 10:18 AM

I did not say that, I said that the three branches of goverment allow for the checks and balances and the three braches are comprised of a ferderation of representatives from various (if not each of the) states. This is allowed for by the Constituion so you really can't say that this is not the way it was meant to work either.

When the Founders were debating the Constitution they considered a structure of government that would have both the Senate and the House be offices "of the people" rather than the Senate being the voice of State government. They decided for the latter. You can't claim that an outright contradiction was the way it was meant to work.

What does that matter when the state is being represented by someone elected by the people of that state? Furthermore, the Constitution allows for it self to be ammended (see Article V), so it must mean that irrespective of what the framers feelings were about the Constitution or it's intent, they themselves were open to allowing the document and its meaning to change.

It certainly allows for the Constitution to be changed, which is why I do now cry foul at the direct election of Senators (just mourn the unfortunate consequences of it). My bigger problem with Progressive policy regarding the Constitution is when they alter the abilities of the Federal Government without amendment.

A lot of the decisions made by the Federal government is reactive. They respond to a problem that is already out there in society. They respond to recomendations and requests from normal citizens of this country. To act tyrannically as you say would mean that they would be acting oppressively and that is doubtful if the actions were for the common good. It is not like the goverment speaks in one voice, since it is comprised of many who are supposed to speak in favor of their constituents. I still don't see how that is tyranny and I think you are quite mistaken and misinformed.

History is full of well intended democracies led by well intentioned people that destroyed themselves due to faulty philosophy and poor conceptions of history.

:huh:
The Temperance Movement had been in existence more almost 150 years before the 18th Amendement was adopted.

Yes, and the Temperance Movement was not relevant on the Federal level until they went to the Amendment Process.

While, in principal, I am opposed to any Temperance Movement, as a Constitutionalist I have less of a problem when local communities enact idiotic laws like banning alcohol than when the Federal government does it.

That is a matter of opinion. Those who were in the Temperance Movement felt that alcohol was injurious to your physical and phycological health. To tell you the truth if there were scientific evidence linking alcohol to major health problems in humans, they would certainly prohibit its use not ulike the way they have been treating tobacco over the last 40 years.

The government has no right to tell you that you cannot ingest a dangerous substance. Period.

This just prooves how much you don't know about the Constitution. The law you claim to be unconstitutional is the Controled Substances Act of 1970. This law was found to be Constitutional by the SCOTUS in 2005 (see Gonzales v. Raich). The CSA is in direct compliance with international treaties through the World Healt Organization (see the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances). Per Article VI of the Constitution, this would make the CSA supreme.

lolz:awesome:

While the aspect of an International Treaty makes the topic more interesting than most cases, the fact the SCOTUS found it Constitutional has little sway with me because the Court's history is not that good.

The CSA may be in compliance with international treaties, but it is not in compliance with the Constitution nor the intent of it's creators. The Federal Government has a right to regulate interstate commerce, not innerstate commerce.

I, and many Constitutional scholars hold, that treaties have no more the right to contradict the Constitution than any other act of Congress. Therefore a treaty that expands the power of the Federal Government at the expense of the State (or the Individual) is no more valid than a rogue piece of legislature.

Under HCR, citizens will have to pay a fine (i.e. a tax) if they fail to proove that they have adequate health care. That is justified under the General Welafare clause (I am pretty sure I said that before). Furthermore, HCR under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a law not policy. I don't know where you get off trying to call it that. The Interstate Commerce Clause is in effect because many of the health insurers and health care providers operate and do business accross state lines (leaving them subject to federal regulation).

You have said that before, you are simply wrong (as before). It's amusing to watch you defend the indefensible.

If a State can regulate it's own domestic commerce in a manner that does not interfere with interstate commerce, then they are within their right to do so. In any case, if the type of commerce is national in character (like health care and health insurance is) then the power of Congress to regulate it is absolute or even exclusive (see this link (http://law.jrank.org/pages/5387/Commerce-Clause-Power-Regulate.html)).

What makes Healthcare and Health Insurance national in character?

BlackLantern

10-04-2010, 10:20 AM

because dnno wants something for nothing and he can wrap in in the "general welfare" argument

StorminNorman

10-04-2010, 10:22 AM

hippie_hunter

10-04-2010, 11:05 AM

Yeppers. A lot of the professionals work with them very well. Unlike the baseball guys, who are like, "We're not halting our season for you."

Take a look at it this way. Why should one of the largest sports organizations in the world halt their season for the Olympics when at the time Olympics ratings were in the decline and brought little benefit to MLB?

The Interpreter

10-04-2010, 08:34 PM

Do you really think I made the statement that women having the right to vote is a tragedy? :dry:

Read about Wilson's Presidency (and if you want to get even darker, his ideology). Wilson's Progressivism was a dark plague on the American Presidency. He brought back the Sedition Acts, we had American citizens being spied on by their government for opposing the President, a director was jailed for 10 years because he made a REVOLUTIONARY WAR movie that painted (our allies) the British in a bad light.

The direct election of Senators that you mentioned was one of the unfortunate products of the movement.
You did state the 1910's was a decade of constitutional hell. Women Suffrage was a huge part of the 1910's, especially with the three actions over the course of the decade to get it. It was definitely constitutional hell for women, as they'd barely get the right to vote.

If we're talking about the actual presidency of President Wilson, he had a lot more going for him. Such as relief of tariffs to encourage trade and money flow. In 1914-1915, he pushed the Clayton Antitrust Act, which banned certain selling behaviors such as discrimination. (And I'm fairly sure discrimination against the black population is universally considered bad around here. I hope. To be fair, Wilson was willing to sacrifice rights of the black population to quell problems with the southern states who might have still felt blacks should be slaves.) Child labor was signed unlawful by him, but was unfortunately overturned a couple years later against his wishes. He forced companies to put lifeboats on their ships after the sinking of the Titanic to make sure people might more readily survive such disasters. Instilled the 8-hour workday with overtime for any time worked over 8 hours, because the workers were tired of being forced to work 12 hour days over and over and over at the abuse of the management. And I'm absolutely sure I'm missing other parts of what he did.

I will say the powers he took during, and just before, the first great war were beyond tyrannical. But to paint his entire presidency as something god awful, when a lot of the worse (but not the worst) parts were more or less a president faced with managers, racists, and immigrants who wouldn't budge, he had to basically meet a lot of people in the middle. Especially the managers and racists. He obviously had not as much reason to always please immigrants, as he still marched America into war despite a lot of the new Americans being from those countries, or hating the countries America allied with.

But to say that direct voting of a senator over legislation choice being a bad thing? I hate to say it, but I doubt you've ever been in a state or country which lacked a senator because the legislation simply wouldn't come to an agreement. The law put the power into the voter's hands to allow them to choose their own representation, rather than simply allow what becomes ideological petty fights and corruption rule them outright. Thank the powers that be I've never had to live in a situation where I didn't have a say in how my government is going to work by representative. The real problem that comes from this is when they end up NOT having a senator, or a standard of senators, because then states are either regulated unfairly, or just don't have a say in regulation, and the government can make demands on a state which simply cannot stand up for itself because the state's own legislative body is much more concerned with smaller problems that they simply won't vote senators. You may say, "Well, they can just vote in senators at any time then." And yeah, you would probably have a point. But it's not like this never happened. In the mid to late 1800's, several states simply just went months without a senator, and thus were not present for country deciding problems. In this point in time, the people who were subject to state and federal laws, simply either suffered from not having senators to defend them from the federal government, or were subject to whatever the senator put in charge above them felt the state wanted at the time. (The feelings of what the state "wanted" tended to actually be the feelings of the senator himself.)

At any rate, Woodrow did feel it was in fact the governments job to make sure the people of the United States were both guaranteed protection from enemies and the government itself, as well as more equal footing (though this did fall through as he ended up making compromises for the white, powerful majority of the time.) If he really didn't, and just went off on some crazy "it's all about me and my racist, backwards views" he'd probably have enforced segregation rather than allowed it to make compromise, making segregation far worse, blacks wouldn't be allowed to buy anything, companies would be able to make crazy freaking rules, the corrupt or absent senators (which I'm just going to assume you enjoy due to the lack of love for the 17th) would probably be totally cool with raising tariffs on the farms you can barely pay for because low rate, long term loans wouldn't be available to you, forcing you into poverty, and possibly your wife into prostitution due to some minor bad weather, and other things I'm positively sure I'm missing out on remembering.

Take a look at it this way. Why should one of the largest sports organizations in the world halt their season for the Olympics when at the time Olympics ratings were in the decline and brought little benefit to MLB?
I can easily agree with that. The answer is, the IOC just don't know how baseball players would enjoy being interrupted in their major league games to fly to other countries back and forth continuously over a two week period just to make sure they make ALL their games for both the American team, and whatever team they're contracted to. I doubt the IOC felt this was a very positive trait to put forward by the professionals. And given the fact every other sport was very lenient with the idea, baseball was the only one to say it was more interested in making money, than playing a game for their home country. The IOC is meant to allegedly foster the spirit of competition and peace between nations, not make money for the teams that play under their flags.

I actually didn't think about this reason until today: A lot of the world has a large lack of strict following for the sport to reach Olympic level. It's not that it isn't played all over the world, there's just not really a ton of countries with professional national teams to compete with it.

dnno1

10-05-2010, 01:24 PM

When the Founders were debating the Constitution they considered a structure of government that would have both the Senate and the House be offices "of the people" rather than the Senate being the voice of State government. They decided for the latter. You can't claim that an outright contradiction was the way it was meant to work.

I don't know exactly what was debated (nor am I that concerned about it). What we do know is that the first sentence in the Constitution starts with "We the People of the United States..." and in Federalist No. 46, Alexander Hamilton stated of the State and Federal governments that they "must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other." Based on this, I would have to assume that the framers would have been alright with the 17th Amendment.

It certainly allows for the Constitution to be changed, which is why I do now cry foul at the direct election of Senators (just mourn the unfortunate consequences of it). My bigger problem with Progressive policy regarding the Constitution is when they alter the abilities of the Federal Government without amendment.

Well, that is you. By the way, I have to applaud The Interpreter on his post on this issue (great post guy). As far as I am concerned, the Constitution can be changed through the Amendment process and the Federal government can also write laws through the Congress that gives them the ability to execute their Constitutional powers.

History is full of well intended democracies led by well intentioned people that destroyed themselves due to faulty philosophy and poor conceptions of history.

Most of those are African or Asian Nations who have corrupt governments or none at all (i.e. Somalia, which is the number 1 failed state according to The Fund for Peace (http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=452&Itemid=900)), and you are kidding about the well intentioned thing aren't you? There are 37 of those vs 140 who haven't failed. Are you trying to say that the U.S. is a failed state? They are not even close.

Yes, and the Temperance Movement was not relevant on the Federal level until they went to the Amendment Process.

That doesn't mean that the Temperance Movement just came around at the time of the 18th Amendment as you are implying.

While, in principal, I am opposed to any Temperance Movement, as a Constitutionalist I have less of a problem when local communities enact idiotic laws like banning alcohol than when the Federal government does it.

Yet you later say this:

The government has no right to tell you that you cannot ingest a dangerous substance. Period.

I would have to join you in saying this:

lolz:awesome:

'cause you've got to be joking.

While the aspect of an International Treaty makes the topic more interesting than most cases, the fact the SCOTUS found it Constitutional has little sway with me because the Court's history is not that good.

The CSA may be in compliance with international treaties, but it is not in compliance with the Constitution nor the intent of it's creators. The Federal Government has a right to regulate interstate commerce, not innerstate commerce.

I, and many Constitutional scholars hold, that treaties have no more the right to contradict the Constitution than any other act of Congress. Therefore a treaty that expands the power of the Federal Government at the expense of the State (or the Individual) is no more valid than a rogue piece of legislature.

I really don't know who you are even though you claim to be a Constitutionalists and associate yourself with Constitutional scholars. I have found errors in things you have said, so I have very little credibility in you at all. The CSA is in Compliance with the Constitution since it has stood up in the highest court. Even though it is in compliance with an international treaty, the law in no way establishes any rule, concept or governmental power that is outside the Constitution. If it did, then it would be unconstitutional.

You have said that before, you are simply wrong (as before). It's amusing to watch you defend the indefensible.

So are you trying to tell me that people won't pay a fine if they do not show that they have adequate health care? Are you trying to tell me that law and policy are the same thing even though a law is binding and policy is not? Or are you trying that the Federal government can not tax its citizens to promote the general welfare (in this case ensuring that almost everyone has access to affordable health care) of the United State? I am sorry guy, but none of those things are wrong.

What makes Healthcare and Health Insurance national in character?

The fact that it is driven by a framework for health public policy starting at the top with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and flowing down to State and local heath departments. They truly are national in character since the health of the people is a major concern of the Federal government, who's responsibility is to protect its people. You trying to slip me up with that question?

BlackLantern

10-05-2010, 01:30 PM

so its ok to fine people if they choose NOT to have health coverage?

chaseter

10-05-2010, 01:32 PM

The government should also fine people that do not have retirement funds or savings accounts.

dnno1

10-05-2010, 01:33 PM

so its ok to fine people if they choose NOT to have health coverage?

They do it to folks who choose not to finance a home, so why not?

BlackLantern

10-05-2010, 01:34 PM

They do it to folks who choose not to finance a home, so why not?

because most likely these are people who have to choose between groceries and paying bills vs. health coverage they barely use or isn't worth it

how is any logical person ok with that?

dnno1

10-05-2010, 01:36 PM

The government should also fine people that do not have retirement funds or savings accounts.

They actually do.

BlackLantern

10-05-2010, 01:38 PM

they just get you in taxes....if you own a home you get a tax credit, if you get married you get a tax credit

being single in America is expensive because apparently your money isn't as important

chaseter

10-05-2010, 01:41 PM

They actually do.

And they should fine us for not getting our daily recommended amount of exercise.

Oh and fine us for not being 100% environmentally friendly.

dnno1

10-05-2010, 01:57 PM

And they should fine us for not getting our daily recommended amount of exercise.

Oh and fine us for not being 100% environmentally friendly.

Maybe not 100%, but you do get a tax credit for installing energy efficient windows.

chaseter

10-05-2010, 04:09 PM

No credits, we need fines. That will show people how to properly live.

Marx

10-05-2010, 04:20 PM

POLL: VOTERS MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT CANDIDATES WHO SUPPORTED HEALTH CARE REFORM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/05/poll-health-care-reform-back-candidates_n_750802.html

It looks like the GOP might want to rethink their campaigning on 'Obamacare' repeal.

chaseter

10-05-2010, 04:40 PM

51% of independents I guess is a majority but from that article I thought it was going to be astounding:huh:

Of course Democrats favor it and of course Republicans don't.

Marx

10-05-2010, 04:46 PM

51% of independents I guess is a majority but from that article I thought it was going to be astounding:huh:

Of course Democrats favor it and of course Republicans don't.

I think the point of the article is to prove that people do not oppose HRC as much as the GOP would like to think.

Kelly

10-05-2010, 07:41 PM

"We've been shouting this from the rooftops all year, and this data backs it up. Most people are tired of being ripped off by big insurance companies and were hungry for reform. That's why President Obama ran on health care as an issue, and that's why Democrats should stand by it now. If anything, people are upset that reform wasn't stronger."What I have in bold above is true....BUT, is what we got what the people wanted....I think most polls say NO.....nor, can we say exactly WHAT IS in the reform, how it is going to lower the cost, etc. But, what they are not saying is WHERE should it have been stronger? THAT IS THE QUESTION that these polls should be asking.

Ask people to explain what they mean by a "public option" what do you want the "public option" to do....
Do you want insurance companies to compete across state lines....
Do you want strong tort reform....

IMO, if you asked Americans "Does there need to be changes to our Health Care System in the US"? I think a huge majority would say yes. but that is nothing for the Dems to jump up and down about and clap their hands.....that is pretty much a DUH.

dnno1

10-06-2010, 08:33 AM

What I have in bold above is true....BUT, is what we got what the people wanted....I think most polls say NO.....nor, can we say exactly WHAT IS in the reform, how it is going to lower the cost, etc. But, what they are not saying is WHERE should it have been stronger? THAT IS THE QUESTION that these polls should be asking.

Ask people to explain what they mean by a "public option" what do you want the "public option" to do....
Do you want insurance companies to compete across state lines....
Do you want strong tort reform....

IMO, if you asked Americans "Does there need to be changes to our Health Care System in the US"? I think a huge majority would say yes. but that is nothing for the Dems to jump up and down about and clap their hands.....that is pretty much a DUH.

In truth, it is still to early to draw a conclustion about Heath Care Reform since it is just starting to implement itself right now and we won't know the end result for a few years from now. Although it is true that everyone agrees that health care costs continue to rise, that there are so many people who are uninsured in this country, and that a lot of people are fed up with insurance companies, it was disingenuous to poll the masses on their opinion on reform since their ability to make a rational decision had been confused by opponents who were against any reform at all and pumped huge sums of money into scare campaigns to alter the public opinion. As of March of this year there was a strong majority that was not in favor of the current law, but recently polls show different numbers. a CBS/New York Times poll asked people if they thought that Congrees should repeal HCR and a wopping 82% said yes, but when asked what if repealing the law meant that people with existing medical conditions or poor health would no longer be covered, the numbers changed (52% either did not want repeal or were unsure). This just indicates that people really don't know what is right and are influenced by talkng point and people they see and perceive as someone they can trust, who is not actually looking for their best intrest.

Kelly

10-06-2010, 11:26 AM

I agree, I totally agree that it is too early to really know the consequences and outcomes of this reform.

I am certainly one to hold my final judgment on it....

As far as people not knowing what is right....?

They may very well know what is right, and smart enough to not take the Dems talking points that was emailed out to the respresentatives for their Town Hall Meetings.....of which, many of those talking points were proven to be wrong.

So, as you just said, it is too early to know what is right OR wrong with this legislation....and those that you say "don't know".....may be smarter than you think. I would wait to pass judgment on them as well...

dnno1

10-07-2010, 05:35 PM

Michigan Federal Judge Rejects Challenge To Health Care Overhaul (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/healthcare-challenge-michigan_n_754882.html)

hippie_hunter

10-07-2010, 05:55 PM

Michigan Federal Judge Rejects Challenge To Health Care Overhaul (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/healthcare-challenge-michigan_n_754882.html)

Doesn't change the fact that federal courts in Virginia have already said that Virginia can challenge the mandated insurance clause and there's still the one in Florida.

dnno1

10-07-2010, 06:07 PM

Doesn't change the fact that federal courts in Virginia have already said that Virginia can challenge the mandated insurance clause and there's still the one in Florida.

I will be posting the article saying the same thing for those cases when that happens.

StorminNorman

10-08-2010, 11:48 PM

I don't know exactly what was debated (nor am I that concerned about it). What we do know is that the first sentence in the Constitution starts with "We the People of the United States..." and in Federalist No. 46, Alexander Hamilton stated of the State and Federal governments that they "must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other." Based on this, I would have to assume that the framers would have been alright with the 17th Amendment.

:doh:

Do you really want to start throwing around quotes on the subject?

Federalist 39 in explaining why the Senate's power is derived from the State and not the People:
"The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features."

Federalist 45 in regards to the danger the Federal Government places to the sovereignty of the State.

"The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures...Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them."

Federalist 59:

"As an objection to this position, it may be remarked that the constitution of the national Senate would involve, in its full extent, the danger which it is suggested might flow from an exclusive power in the State legislatures to regulate the federal elections. It may be alleged, that by declining the appointment of Senators, they might at any time give a fatal blow to the Union; and from this it may be inferred, that as its existence would be thus rendered dependent upon them in so essential a point, there can be no objection to entrusting them with it in the particular case under consideration. The interest of each State, it may be added, to maintain its representation in the national councils, would be a complete security against an abuse of the trust.

This argument, though specious, will not, upon examination, be found solid. It is certainly true that the State legislatures, by forbearing the appointment of senators, may destroy the national government. But it will not follow that, because they have a power to do this in one instance, they ought to have it in every other. There are cases in which the pernicious tendency of such a power may be far more decisive, without any motive equally cogent with that which must have regulated the conduct of the convention in respect to the formation of the Senate, to recommend their admission into the system. So far as that construction may expose the Union to the possibility of injury from the State legislatures, it is an evil; but it is an evil which could not have been avoided without excluding the States, in their political capacities, wholly from a place in the organization of the national government. If this had been done, it would doubtless have been interpreted into an entire dereliction of the federal principle; and would certainly have deprived the State governments of that absolute safeguard which they will enjoy under this provision. But however wise it may have been to have submitted in this instance to an inconvenience, for the attainment of a necessary advantage or a greater good, no inference can be drawn from thence to favor an accumulation of the evil, where no necessity urges, nor any greater good invites"

Federalist 62: "The appointment of senators by state legislatures gives to state governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government, as must secure the authority of the former." Madison later went on to state that such Federalism would act as "parchment barriers"to tyranny.

Well, that is you. By the way, I have to applaud The Interpreter on his post on this issue (great post guy). As far as I am concerned, the Constitution can be changed through the Amendment process and the Federal government can also write laws through the Congress that gives them the ability to execute their Constitutional powers.

I disagree with neither of those.

Most of those are African or Asian Nations who have corrupt governments or none at all (i.e. Somalia, which is the number 1 failed state according to The Fund for Peace (http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=452&Itemid=900)), and you are kidding about the well intentioned thing aren't you? There are 37 of those vs 140 who haven't failed. Are you trying to say that the U.S. is a failed state? They are not even close.The US is currently failing. That is what I am saying. Also, I cant' believe you are so defensive of the notion that a government can, while acting with good intentions, make a mistake. It shouldn't surprise me though, you have been consistent in your vision of government as a benign and competent being.

That doesn't mean that the Temperance Movement just came around at the time of the 18th Amendment as you are implying

When did I imply that? And how is that remotely relevant to the original point I was making in that it took a Constitutional Amendment to ban substances on a National level and yet now it can be done with a Federal order by an agency whose members are not elected.

Yet you later say this:

There is no contradiction. As a Constitutionalist I believe that the role of the government should be determined by local governments with Federal and State governments only taking certain, defined roles. As a Libertarian I believe the best political philosophy is one that the government has no ability to dictate what we can or cannot consume. As an Objectivist I believe that I have the right as an individual, a right inherent in my being, to make such choices for myself based on reason.

I'm a complicated guy.

I really don't know who you are even though you claim to be a Constitutionalists and associate yourself with Constitutional scholars. I have found errors in things you have said, so I have very little credibility in you at all. The CSA is in Compliance with the Constitution since it has stood up in the highest court. Even though it is in compliance with an international treaty, the law in no way establishes any rule, concept or governmental power that is outside the Constitution. If it did, then it would be unconstitutional.

You haven't found any error, what you have found is an opinion (a well based opinion) that differs with your basic core beliefs. You seem to be a classical progressive with a determined belief in the good in government. That is why you believe that the Constitutionality of a government is determined exclusively by the opinion of politicians and judges, no matter how absurd their logic and reasoning.

You have argued that the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE in the Constitution allows the Federal Government to prevent innerstate commerce (marijuana). You have argued that the government should have the ability to determine what is for the "general welfare", giving them the ability to decide how much power they hold.

So are you trying to tell me that people won't pay a fine if they do not show that they have adequate health care? Are you trying to tell me that law and policy are the same thing even though a law is binding and policy is not? Or are you trying that the Federal government can not tax its citizens to promote the general welfare (in this case ensuring that almost everyone has access to affordable health care) of the United State? I am sorry guy, but none of those things are wrong.

I am saying that the Federal Government cannot tax its citizens with the goal of providing them a service. That is not within the ability of the Federal Government as defined in the Constitution. You want to change that? Get rid of the Constitution and start from scratch.

The fact that it is driven by a framework for health public policy starting at the top with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and flowing down to State and local heath departments. They truly are national in character since the health of the people is a major concern of the Federal government, who's responsibility is to protect its people. You trying to slip me up with that question?

When did the States or Citizens decide that the US Department of Health and Human Services have the right to take over our healthcare? Who determined that?

hippie_hunter

10-09-2010, 08:03 AM

I will be posting the article saying the same thing for those cases when that happens.

Except you can't in the case of Virginia because a federal judge has already refused the Obama Administrations request to dismiss the case and they still have to put up a defense in court over the mandated insurance clause, unlike the federal court in Michigan.

And of course federal courts haven't yet said anything about the lawsuits from Missouri and the group of states led by Florida.

The simple fact is that this is going to end up going to the Supreme Court simply due to Virginia being allowed to challenge it. If Virginia actually does win, do you think that the Obama Administration is going to allow that? Hell no! And the same can be said for Virginia if the Obama Administration prevails in court.

Matt

10-09-2010, 09:11 AM

The argument of the administration is that it is a "tax, not a fine for not having health insurance and a tax is not unconstitutional." I personally don't think that argument holds water as they are choosing who they levy a "tax," upon based on whether or not they choose to pay insurance. They are using taxes as a form of discriminating against people who don't have insurance in order to coerce them into purchasing it. SCOTUS is going to shoot the mandatory insurance down unless Obama can get another justice in there. And if that gets shot down the health bill is worth jack.

dnno1

10-10-2010, 06:03 AM

dnno1

10-10-2010, 07:29 AM

:doh:

Do you really want to start throwing around quotes on the subject?

Federalist 39 in explaining why the Senate's power is derived from the State and not the People:
"The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features."

Federalist 45 in regards to the danger the Federal Government places to the sovereignty of the State.

"The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures...Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them."

Federalist 59:

"As an objection to this position, it may be remarked that the constitution of the national Senate would involve, in its full extent, the danger which it is suggested might flow from an exclusive power in the State legislatures to regulate the federal elections. It may be alleged, that by declining the appointment of Senators, they might at any time give a fatal blow to the Union; and from this it may be inferred, that as its existence would be thus rendered dependent upon them in so essential a point, there can be no objection to entrusting them with it in the particular case under consideration. The interest of each State, it may be added, to maintain its representation in the national councils, would be a complete security against an abuse of the trust.

This argument, though specious, will not, upon examination, be found solid. It is certainly true that the State legislatures, by forbearing the appointment of senators, may destroy the national government. But it will not follow that, because they have a power to do this in one instance, they ought to have it in every other. There are cases in which the pernicious tendency of such a power may be far more decisive, without any motive equally cogent with that which must have regulated the conduct of the convention in respect to the formation of the Senate, to recommend their admission into the system. So far as that construction may expose the Union to the possibility of injury from the State legislatures, it is an evil; but it is an evil which could not have been avoided without excluding the States, in their political capacities, wholly from a place in the organization of the national government. If this had been done, it would doubtless have been interpreted into an entire dereliction of the federal principle; and would certainly have deprived the State governments of that absolute safeguard which they will enjoy under this provision. But however wise it may have been to have submitted in this instance to an inconvenience, for the attainment of a necessary advantage or a greater good, no inference can be drawn from thence to favor an accumulation of the evil, where no necessity urges, nor any greater good invites"

Federalist 62: "The appointment of senators by state legislatures gives to state governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government, as must secure the authority of the former." Madison later went on to state that such Federalism would act as "parchment barriers"to tyranny.

Their intent was to have a balace in goverment where it was represented by the people and by the States, but ultimately, the people determine who represents them in government. That is what the framer's ultimate intent was. As it turned out, history shows that partisanship, the lack of uniformity in the senate electoral process, and corruption lead to long delays in (sometimes years) the seating of senators (and you want to go back to that?). The process was flawed and needed reform. Because the ultimate authority was and is in the people, the 17th Amendment was passed and like I said before, the framers would not have had a problem with it.

I disagree with neither of those.
:doh:

Then you should have no argument with the 17th Amendment.

The US is currently failing. That is what I am saying. Also, I cant' believe you are so defensive of the notion that a government can, while acting with good intentions, make a mistake. It shouldn't surprise me though, you have been consistent in your vision of government as a benign and competent being.

The U.S. is nowhere near failing. The nations indicated as failing have no functional government whatsoever or are corrupt as hell. The U.S. still has a government and last I checked, we were coming out of a recession. You claim that the U.S. is failing is a gross distortion of reality.

When did I imply that? And how is that remotely relevant to the original point I was making in that it took a Constitutional Amendment to ban substances on a National level and yet now it can be done with a Federal order by an agency whose members are not elected.

I said originally in post #6898 that the U.S. didn't need to ban alcohol and you said in post #6903 that they did (ban alcohol) when the The Temperance Movement came to be. That's certainly not true since the Temperance Movement started in the late 1700's and the 18th Amendment was passed in 1919. My point is that the 18th Amendment was enacted as a result of political pressures from the Temperance Movement, whos influence had built to that level after (actually) 130 years. Of course, we didn't need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban or regulate drugs or alcohol, but doing so was more a symbolic stament (to the Temperance Movement) as rediculous as the conservative movement's notion to repeal and replace helath care reform.

There is no contradiction. As a Constitutionalist I believe that the role of the government should be determined by local governments with Federal and State governments only taking certain, defined roles. As a Libertarian I believe the best political philosophy is one that the government has no ability to dictate what we can or cannot consume. As an Objectivist I believe that I have the right as an individual, a right inherent in my being, to make such choices for myself based on reason.

I'm a complicated guy.

It has been proven that partisanship and corruption (i.e. bribery, intimidation, etc.) has made the process of State legislatures electing senators inefficient if not ineffective, and I don't see us going back to that. Furthermore, if you abuse a substance to the point where it could endanger or jepordise the livelyhood of others, society (and, hence goverment) has the power to dictate what or how much you can or can not consume. That is a fact of life and you need to get over it.

You haven't found any error, what you have found is an opinion (a well based opinion) that differs with your basic core beliefs. You seem to be a classical progressive with a determined belief in the good in government. That is why you believe that the Constitutionality of a government is determined exclusively by the opinion of politicians and judges, no matter how absurd their logic and reasoning.

You have argued that the INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE in the Constitution allows the Federal Government to prevent innerstate commerce (marijuana). You have argued that the government should have the ability to determine what is for the "general welfare", giving them the ability to decide how much power they hold.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to the facts. Once again, the fact remains that the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) is in Compliance with the Constitution since it has stood up in the highest court. The law, though established in compliance with an international treaty (with the World Health Organizatiion), in no way establishes any rule, concept, or governmental power that is outside the Constitution. This is not the only time you have stated or misinterpreted something and thus my dispostion on you has not changed.

I am saying that the Federal Government cannot tax its citizens with the goal of providing them a service. That is not within the ability of the Federal Government as defined in the Constitution. You want to change that? Get rid of the Constitution and start from scratch.

I am saying that they can and have for centuries and it has been proven in court that is it within their power to do so. I don't have to change that because it is what it is.

When did the States or Citizens decide that the US Department of Health and Human Services have the right to take over our healthcare? Who determined that?

Health and Human Services is part of the General Welfare (i.e. health, happiness, welbeing, and common good) and providing for that is part of the mission and power of the U.S. Government. This is a power that is specifically given to Congress in the Constitution. I am surprised that you being a self proclaimed Constitutionalist didn't know that.

Kelly

10-10-2010, 09:14 AM

Health and Human Services is part of the General Welfare (i.e. health, happiness, welbeing, and common good) and providing for that is part of the mission and power of the U.S. Government. This is a power that is specifically given to Congress in the Constitution. I am surprised that you being a self proclaimed Constitutionalist didn't know that.

General Welfare is stated two times in the Constitution....

The Preamble and Article 1, Section 8.

Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.” If it had it would have specifically given Congress that power as it did in other areas.

Quoting the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson wrote: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Jefferson wrote quite a bit about the "General Welfare" clause, as did James Madison and John Quincy Adams.....I have a feeling they saw a problem with the interpretation of this as time went on....

In 1791, Jefferson wrote, “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”

Just my opinion, but I believe our forefathers had a much better understanding of what they wrote, and why....much more so than we do now.

StorminNorman

10-10-2010, 09:24 AM

Their intent was to have a balace in goverment where it was represented by the people and by the States, but ultimately, the people determine who represents them in government. That is what the framer's ultimate intent was. As it turned out, history shows that partisanship, the lack of uniformity in the senate electoral process, and corruption lead to long delays in (sometimes years) the seating of senators (and you want to go back to that?). The process was flawed and needed reform. Because the ultimate authority was and is in the people, the 17th Amendment was passed and like I said before, the framers would not have had a problem with it.

We are spinning in circles now. You are wrong about the opinion of the Founders, but correct about the problems that came about with the original Senatorial process however that was as problem of the times (logistics) than it was a problem with the design of the Constitution.

:doh:

Then you should have no argument with the 17th Amendment.

I have no argument with the legality of the 17th Amendment. My argument is that it was a bad Amendment. I have said that in this thread already.

The U.S. is nowhere near failing. The nations indicated as failing have no functional government whatsoever or are corrupt as hell. The U.S. still has a government and last I checked, we were coming out of a recession. You claim that the U.S. is failing is a gross distortion of reality.

We are facing a double dip recession thanks to big government policies of Republicans and Democrats. We are facing Great Depression-like length of our economic problems due to us repeating the same mistakes we made then. The U.S. government IS corrupt as hell and continues to lose the trust of the people no matter who is in.

The things in the US government are worse than you think.

I said originally in post #6898 that the U.S. didn't need to ban alcohol and you said in post #6903 that they did (ban alcohol) when the The Temperance Movement came to be. That's certainly not true since the Temperance Movement started in the late 1700's and the 18th Amendment was passed in 1919. My point is that the 18th Amendment was enacted as a result of political pressures from the Temperance Movement, whos influence had built to that level after (actually) 130 years. Of course, we didn't need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban or regulate drugs or alcohol, but doing so was more a symbolic stament (to the Temperance Movement) as rediculous as the conservative movement's notion to repeal and replace helath care reform.

Why didn't we need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to regulate drugs or alcohol? Again, what in the Constitution allows the Federal Government to ban alcohol fermented in Kentucky to other Kentuckians? What allows the Federal Government to ban California grown weed to be sold to Californians? There is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows for such innerstate control.

It has been proven that partisanship and corruption (i.e. bribery, intimidation, etc.) has made the process of State legislatures electing senators inefficient if not ineffective, and I don't see us going back to that. Furthermore, if you abuse a substance to the point where it could endanger or jepordise the livelyhood of others, society (and, hence goverment) has the power to dictate what or how much you can or can not consume. That is a fact of life and you need to get over it.

It's not a fact of my life. The government has all the power in the world to penalize damages done to others that have actually occurred, but they have no right to punish you for crimes you have never committed.

Regarding the Senate, it has been proven that Partisanship and Corruption occurs in the process of Senatorial Elections as well. When the people, not the State, elect the Senators - then the Senators that do the most to get the people Federal Funds (whether deserving or not) are rewarded. That's not what the government was meant to be. Madison and Hamilton disagreed on much in their post-Federalist days but they always agreed on the dangers posed by politicians using the Federal budget as a public trough. They would be ashamed at the Ear Marks of today.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to the facts. Once again, the fact remains that the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) is in Compliance with the Constitution since it has stood up in the highest court. The law, though established in compliance with an international treaty (with the World Health Organizatiion), in no way establishes any rule, concept, or governmental power that is outside the Constitution. This is not the only time you have stated or misinterpreted something and thus my dispostion on you has not changed.

:lmao:

Health and Human Services is part of the General Welfare (i.e. health, happiness, welbeing, and common good) and providing for that is part of the mission and power of the U.S. Government. This is a power that is specifically given to Congress in the Constitution. I am surprised that you being a self proclaimed Constitutionalist didn't know that.

Let me get this straight, one more time, to make sure there is absolutely no misunderstanding.

You're argument is that the United States Government gets to create essentially limitless power as long as they can justify it as being for the "General Welfare"?

Look, at least you have a complete opinion. It's completely contrary to the view of the Founding Fathers, but at least it's complete.

I would SERIOUSLY recommend to actually pick up a book on the Revolutionary thinkers. It may change your views.

dnno1

10-11-2010, 09:40 PM

We are spinning in circles now. You are wrong about the opinion of the Founders, but correct about the problems that came about with the original Senatorial process however that was as problem of the times (logistics) than it was a problem with the design of the Constitution.

I have no argument with the legality of the 17th Amendment. My argument is that it was a bad Amendment. I have said that in this thread already.

I do not belive that the outcome would be any different today were there no 17th Amendment. The truth of the matter is that at the time of the ratification of the 17th amendment, the majority of the States (28 out of then 46) were electing their Senators by popular vote and not by state legislature. If we were to have it repealed today, there is no doubt in my mind that not very many states would change their election process. This is what the majority of the States wanted, the people still rule, and the Constitution was amended according to protocol. Once again, the Framers would have been ok with that.

We are facing a double dip recession thanks to big government policies of Republicans and Democrats. We are facing Great Depression-like length of our economic problems due to us repeating the same mistakes we made then. The U.S. government IS corrupt as hell and continues to lose the trust of the people no matter who is in.

The things in the US government are worse than you think.

That's kind of premature to say. There has been no official ruling on if we trully are in a second recession (there has only been speculation). Even though we saw a drop in GDP growth since the stimulus, the rate is still within the average range over the past 4 years. We are not a failing government because we have been in this situation before and we have gotten out of it. I see that happening again.

Why didn't we need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to regulate drugs or alcohol? Again, what in the Constitution allows the Federal Government to ban alcohol fermented in Kentucky to other Kentuckians? What allows the Federal Government to ban California grown weed to be sold to Californians? There is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows for such innerstate control.

Like I said before, the General Welfare, and Interstate Commerce clause. We haven't nececerally banned the use of Marijuana, but it's production, and distribution are prohibited.

It's not a fact of my life. The government has all the power in the world to penalize damages done to others that have actually occurred, but they have no right to punish you for crimes you have never committed.

I do not see where you have paid a fine or done any prison time for not smoking pot. I don't know what you are talking about.

Regarding the Senate, it has been proven that Partisanship and Corruption occurs in the process of Senatorial Elections as well. When the people, not the State, elect the Senators - then the Senators that do the most to get the people Federal Funds (whether deserving or not) are rewarded. That's not what the government was meant to be. Madison and Hamilton disagreed on much in their post-Federalist days but they always agreed on the dangers posed by politicians using the Federal budget as a public trough. They would be ashamed at the Ear Marks of today.

This is true, but at least with popular elections and gubernatorial appointments, you can seat a Senator a lot faster than with election by State legislation, wich was the major issue dirving the 17th Amendment.

:lmao:

Excuse me...

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b188/dnno1/Laughs/xkcdwrongoninternet.jpg

Ok, I'm back. Now where was I? Oh, yeah:

Let me get this straight, one more time, to make sure there is absolutely no misunderstanding.

You're argument is that the United States Government gets to create essentially limitless power as long as they can justify it as being for the "General Welfare"?

No, the U.S. Goverment doesn't create any powers for itself outside what is established in the Constitution.The General Welfare clause and the power to regulate interstate commerce give them a broad range of authority to fulfill the mission of governent. Even then it is limited by the fact that anything they do has to be legislated by Congress (this is excluding what is already established as a proceedure in the Constitution) and can not violate an individual's Constitutional rights. Case in point, HCR took 40 years to be enacted by law to what we know of it today, and even then it still needs some refining.

Look, at least you have a complete opinion. It's completely contrary to the view of the Founding Fathers, but at least it's complete.

I would SERIOUSLY recommend to actually pick up a book on the Revolutionary thinkers. It may change your views.

My opinions are based on the facts in defference to yours.

chaseter

10-12-2010, 08:58 AM

Kelly

10-12-2010, 11:16 AM

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b188/dnno1/Laughs/xkcdwrongoninternet.jpg

LMAO...

DAMN IT dnno........ I just spit my Coke Zero all over my screen....

*goes to get paper towel*

StorminNorman

10-12-2010, 06:36 PM

I do not belive that the outcome would be any different today were there no 17th Amendment. The truth of the matter is that at the time of the ratification of the 17th amendment, the majority of the States (28 out of then 46) were electing their Senators by popular vote and not by state legislature. If we were to have it repealed today, there is no doubt in my mind that not very many states would change their election process. This is what the majority of the States wanted, the people still rule, and the Constitution was amended according to protocol. Once again, the Framers would have been ok with that.
And the reason why States went changing the way they elected Senators is because of the devolution of intellectual and philosophical talent in government when comparing 1776 to 1876. Intectual degregation is a natural fear of a Republic, when politicians replace philosophical statements government becomes the beast we have today. Furthermore, the Civil War destroyed States Rights and Federalism.

That's kind of premature to say. There has been no official ruling on if we trully are in a second recession (there has only been speculation). Even though we saw a drop in GDP growth since the stimulus, the rate is still within the average range over the past 4 years. We are not a failing government because we have been in this situation before and we have gotten out of it. I see that happening again.
It's as premature to say as it is to predict incoming rain while resting in the eye of a hurricane. I don't need an official ruling to see where the economy is heading, all one needs is a basic understanding of history and economics. We are repeating the same failed path of Hoover and FDR (Bush is Hoover to Obama's FDR in a wonderfully adequete comparison - after all, liberals like to act that Bush was a free market guy the sam they do President Hoover :lmao: (the reason I specically say President Hoover is due to his change post-White House, perhaps he learned from experience?).

[/quote]Like I said before, the General Welfare, and Interstate Commerce clause. We haven't nececerally banned the use of Marijuana, but it's production, and distribution are prohibited.
[/quote]How can you use the Interestate Commerce clause to ban innerstate production and innerstate prohibition. That would be like using the 2nd Amendment to ban firearms or the 1st amendment to ban freedom of speech. Interstate is the opposite of innerstate.
Oh that's right, the General Welfare Clause that you imply allows the government to basically do anything. (Which, again, the Constitution as specifically written to prevent the Federal Government from justifying everything they could ever dream of doing). What we need is an amendment that removes the General Welfare Clause from the Constitution.

I do not see where you have paid a fine or done any prison time for not smoking pot. I don't know what you are talking about.
You implied that it's okay to criminalize marijuana do to what MAY happen to others if you inhale it. That's absurd.

This is true, but at least with popular elections and gubernatorial appointments, you can seat a Senator a lot faster than with election by State legislation, wich was the major issue dirving the 17th Amendment.
I see no benefit to a faster government.

No, the U.S. Goverment doesn't create any powers for itself outside what is established in the Constitution.The General Welfare clause and the power to regulate interstate commerce give them a broad range of authority to fulfill the mission of governent. Even then it is limited by the fact that anything they do has to be legislated by Congress (this is excluding what is already established as a proceedure in the Constitution) and can not violate an individual's Constitutional rights. Case in point, HCR took 40 years to be enacted by law to what we know of it today, and even then it still needs some refining.What is the mission of government in your eyes? I'm curious.

hippie_hunter

10-12-2010, 08:14 PM

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b188/dnno1/Laughs/xkcdwrongoninternet.jpg

Dnno wins this argument for his use of this incredibly hilarious picture :awesome:

Kelly

10-12-2010, 08:17 PM

It is a classic, that is for sure......

Thank goodness when I first read it, I was at lunch and no one was in my room.

dnno1

10-13-2010, 09:16 AM

And the reason why States went changing the way they elected Senators is because of the devolution of intellectual and philosophical talent in government when comparing 1776 to 1876. Intectual degregation is a natural fear of a Republic, when politicians replace philosophical statements government becomes the beast we have today. Furthermore, the Civil War destroyed States Rights and Federalism.

So most of the States decided that it was better to allow their residents elect their represetiatives rather than by State Legislature becase the people in State government were too dumb right? I don't think so. States went to popular elections because of the delays in the seating of U.S. Senators by State Legislators. This was mostly because of partisanship and differences in political philosopies. Don't listen to me, just read the history of the process (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm). I dont' even understand what you just wrote?

It's as premature to say as it is to predict incoming rain while resting in the eye of a hurricane. I don't need an official ruling to see where the economy is heading, all one needs is a basic understanding of history and economics. We are repeating the same failed path of Hoover and FDR (Bush is Hoover to Obama's FDR in a wonderfully adequete comparison - after all, liberals like to act that Bush was a free market guy the sam they do President Hoover :lmao: (the reason I specically say President Hoover is due to his change post-White House, perhaps he learned from experience?).

There have been a small minority of economist that are concerned that a double dip recession will happen, but no one has officially declared that it has. Unemployment, a lagging economic indicator by the way, has held steady at about 9.5 to 9.6% for months now and the rate of job losses are no where near as great as the 700,000 a month that occured back in January of last year. The stock market is doing great as of late and the automobile companies that were in such trouble a year ago are now able to stand on their own feet. Furthermore, I don't see where FDR failed. Can you name another President that was able to serve 3 and a half successive terms in office?

]How can you use the Interestate Commerce clause to ban innerstate production and innerstate prohibition[?] That would be like using the 2nd Amendment to ban firearms or the 1st amendment to ban freedom of speech. Interstate is the opposite of innerstate.
Oh that's right, the General Welfare Clause that you imply allows the government to basically do anything. (Which, again, the Constitution as specifically written to prevent the Federal Government from justifying everything they could ever dream of doing). What we need is an amendment that removes the General Welfare Clause from the Constitution.

I am not implying. I am telling you that the General Wellfare and Commerce Clauses give the Federal Government the power to do these things. See Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.

You implied that it's okay to criminalize marijuana do to what MAY happen to others if you inhale it. That's absurd.

Now you are trying to make me say things that I didn't. Marijuana is a controlled substance under Ferderal laws and banning its cultivation and production is the method of control. According to the Federal government, marijuana has a high potential for abuse, a lack of safety standards for its use, and no currently accepted medical use. That is the fact.

I see no benefit to a faster government.

A majority of folks do.

What is the mission of government in your eyes? I'm curious.

To provide for the common defense and general welfare of its people (as it is written in the Constitution).

BlackLantern

10-14-2010, 12:55 PM

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1014/Medicare-fraud-Dozens-charged-in-record-scam

chaseter

10-14-2010, 01:50 PM

Heard that on the radio last night. This is what happens when the government becomes bloated. Things like this fall through the crack so easily. It all adds up.

BlackLantern

10-14-2010, 01:58 PM

yup...but its all ok, if you listen to dnno

hippie_hunter

10-14-2010, 05:30 PM

Federal courts in Florida are allowing Florida and 19 other states to challenge mandated health insurance and the requirement for states to expand Medicaid. The rest of the charges have been thrown out.

The judge also ruled that those taxed or penalized by not purchasing insurance are being penalized, not taxed. The government cannot use Congress' taxing authority to defend the law but instead must use the Commerce Clause to defend their position. The judge then compared the government's argument that it was a tax and not a penalty to Alice in Wonderland.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43626.html

Looks like the other major case didn't get thrown out ;)

StorminNorman

10-14-2010, 06:00 PM

So most of the States decided that it was better to allow their residents elect their represetiatives rather than by State Legislature becase the people in State government were too dumb right?

Yea, pretty much. That's what happens when we are governed by politicians and not political philosophers.

There have been a small minority of economist that are concerned that a double dip recession will happen, but no one has officially declared that it has. Unemployment, a lagging economic indicator by the way, has held steady at about 9.5 to 9.6% for months now and the rate of job losses are no where near as great as the 700,000 a month that occured back in January of last year. The stock market is doing great as of late and the automobile companies that were in such trouble a year ago are now able to stand on their own feet. Furthermore, I don't see where FDR failed. Can you name another President that was able to serve 3 and a half successive terms in office?

The "small minority of economists" were also the ones that predicted the crisis while everyone else was encouraging the policies that created it.

I am not implying. I am telling you that the General Wellfare and Commerce Clauses give the Federal Government the power to do these things. See Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.

The General Welfare isn't relevant because we aren't talking about taxing marijuana but it's ability to be sold at all. The Commerce Clause is to regulate interstate commerce. I don't care if 9 idiots in robes want to pretend that innerstate = interstate but the reality remains that interstate = between the states and that innerstate = within a state.

Now you are trying to make me say things that I didn't. Marijuana is a controlled substance under Ferderal laws and banning its cultivation and production is the method of control. According to the Federal government, marijuana has a high potential for abuse, a lack of safety standards for its use, and no currently accepted medical use. That is the fact.

And the Federal Government has no right to make such judgments for Americans.

A majority of folks do.

Only a man desperate for a master wants an active government. I don't believe you can provide any poll that shows "a majority" wants such a being.

dnno1

10-14-2010, 06:45 PM

Yea, pretty much. That's what happens when we are governed by politicians and not political philosophers.

Get real, guy! Just because it didn't go down the way you wanted it to does not mean that all politicians are incompetent. In fact the majority of them are competent.

The "small minority of economists" were also the ones that predicted the crisis while everyone else was encouraging the policies that created it.

Yeah, but did they suggest any real solutions to the problem?

The General Welfare isn't relevant because we aren't talking about taxing marijuana but it's ability to be sold at all. The Commerce Clause is to regulate interstate commerce. I don't care if 9 idiots in robes want to pretend that innerstate = interstate but the reality remains that interstate = between the states and that innerstate = within a state.

If I can remember correctly, it was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 that criminalized marijuana, so yeah, the General Welfare clause is relevant.

And the Federal Government has no right to make such judgments for Americans.

I only like to use the word "rights" with people, not with governments. They have powers. That being said, the government has the power to say/suggest what is right and wrong for you since you are their liability/responsibility and they have the duty and power to provide for and protect your own good -- even if you think they shouldn't.

Only a man desperate for a master wants an active government. I don't believe you can provide any poll that shows "a majority" wants such a being.

So do people who wants real time solutions like jobs, unemployment benefits, financial reform, health care reform, help for small businesses and economic stimulus. So do wealthy billionaires who what a government that will subsidize their losses and privatize the profits. Like I said before, get real. It's not just people who are desperate for a master.

StorminNorman

10-14-2010, 06:59 PM

Get real, guy! Just because it didn't go down the way you wanted it to does not mean that all politicians are incompetent. In fact the majority of them are competent.

I rest my case.

Yeah, but did they suggest any real solutions to the problem?

Yes. A stable currency. A drastic cut in domestic spending. A reformation of the tax code.

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

If I can remember correctly, it was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 that criminalized marijuana, so yeah, the General Welfare clause is relevant.

Making it illegal to grow a plant is not a tax matter. Stop looking at government policy and just look at reality. You are trying to say that the ability to tax should be able to prevent me from planting (on land I pay tax on) a plant.

Stop wearing a damn progressive hat and tell me what you deep down as a human being believe. Do you believe that the Federal Government, using the power to tax as justification, has the right to tell you you cannot grow a plant in your land?

dnno1

10-14-2010, 07:36 PM

I rest my case.

:huh:

Ok, since you agree that most politicians are competent, I will rest mines on that point as well.

Yes. A stable currency. A drastic cut in domestic spending. A reformation of the tax code.

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

:huh:

How was that going to stop the job losses and the housing market crash? That, along with sub-prime lending, easy credit, predatory lending, and deregulation are what caused the economic crisis.

Making it illegal to grow a plant is not a tax matter. Stop looking at government policy and just look at reality. You are trying to say that the ability to tax should be able to prevent me from planting (on land I pay tax on) a plant.

Well, I am trying to say that if you want to sell or smoke weed without paying the tax, you go to jail, and people have gone to jail because of it.

Stop wearing a damn progressive hat and tell me what you deep down as a human being believe. Do you believe that the Federal Government, using the power to tax as justification, has the right to tell you you cannot grow a plant in your land?

That and the power to regulate interstate commerce, yes.

StorminNorman

10-14-2010, 07:47 PM

:huh:

Ok, since you agree that most politicians are competent, I will rest mines on that point as well.

Most politicians are not competent. Most politicians are well-intentioned, but not competent.

:huh:

How was that going to stop the job losses and the housing market crash? That, along with sub-prime lending, easy credit, predatory lending, and deregulation are what caused the economic crisis.

It would stop the housing market crash by allowing the market to right itself (if such policy would have been enacted earlier we would have had no housing market crash as the government wouldn't have created the artificial housing boom). Deregulation did nothing to cause the economic crisis, it was the regulation in the hopes of putting more people in houses they couldn't afford that caused the crisis.

Well, I am trying to say that if you want to sell or smoke weed without paying the tax, you go to jail, and people have gone to jail because of it.

That's not the question. I am not asking what this government says, I am saying you as a human being. Do you think the government should be able to tell someone they can't grow a plant?

That and the power to regulate interstate commerce, yes.

I hope you grow out of this.

moraldeficiency

10-14-2010, 08:17 PM

I agree with norman on this 100 + 10%. Hemp (I don't use the term MJ as it's just mexican slang that lobbyists decided that anything mexican and slanging would scare white people more back in the day) has been legal and used in the US far longer than illegal and used I should mention by several of our founding fathers and they seem to have done ok.

It has far more legitimate and far less detrimental effects than most prescription drugs currently available and also many over the counter ones as well. It is proven to be less dangerous (far less so) than alcohol and actually impairs violent or abusive impulses in its users.

Hemp is a plant that has many uses. Even outside of smoking it is more nutritious than almost anything that can be easily grown. As a fiber it's stronger than most everything else and lasts longer. There is no legitimate reason that it is illegal. Some laws are just stupid and need to be corrected. That's the great thing about the US, one of the main reasons I chose to immigrate here.

dnno1

10-15-2010, 02:16 PM

Most politicians are not competent. Most politicians are well-intentioned, but not competent.

I thought you rested your case on that. Anyway, you will have to show some data to support that claim.

It would stop the housing market crash by allowing the market to right itself (if such policy would have been enacted earlier we would have had no housing market crash as the government wouldn't have created the artificial housing boom). Deregulation did nothing to cause the economic crisis, it was the regulation in the hopes of putting more people in houses they couldn't afford that caused the crisis.

I don't see how that would fix a bad loan or the fact that a home owner lost his job to someone overseas. Deregulation caused the creation of Credit Default Swaps, which aided in virtually bringing down the entire world economy. Keep denying the fact that deregulation did nothing. Those who fail to heed the course of history are doomed to repeat it (-- George Santayana).

That's not the question. I am not asking what this government says, I am saying you as a human being. Do you think the government should be able to tell someone they can't grow a plant?

Yep, if there is a justifiable reason for it.

I hope you grow out of this.

I finished growing a long time ago.

moraldeficiency

10-15-2010, 04:19 PM

I finished growing a long time ago.

You should try viagra or something. Personally I couldn't live without sex.

dnno1

10-15-2010, 06:50 PM

You should try viagra or something. Personally I couldn't live without sex.

There are other thing better than Viagra that are more natural.

moraldeficiency

10-15-2010, 08:16 PM

Just trying to help you with your growth problem fella. Me, I grow on a regular basis and have no need of your voodoo herbs but I do support your freedom to grow them in your yard if you want.

chaseter

10-15-2010, 10:34 PM

I need a pill that quells these things.

dnno1

10-17-2010, 02:53 AM

Just trying to help you with your growth problem fella. Me, I grow on a regular basis and have no need of your voodoo herbs but I do support your freedom to grow them in your yard if you want.

I'm not talking about voodoo herbs or herbs at all. I am talking about something you body naturally productes.

davidwillson

10-17-2010, 04:14 AM

So, what you are saying Sparkie is that you want Universal Healthcare in the United States at the Taxpayers expense, and put control of the healthcare of 300,000,000 + people in the hands of the Government of the United States, AND you don't support larger Government. Run that by me one more time... How is my assumption wrong?
I'm sorry, but just so you know, Legal immigrants are NOT cheap labor, as their immigrant status affords them the luxury of demanding the same as citizens.
cheap labor comes from Illegal immigrants, so again, the borders should only scan for criminal and threatening elements, ICE should be disbanded under YOUR rationale.

___________________
watch movies online (http://moviesonlinefree.biz/)

moraldeficiency

10-17-2010, 09:33 AM

I'm not talking about voodoo herbs or herbs at all. I am talking about something you body naturally productes.

And I was just trying to help with your growth problem. If it's been so long you should probably take something.

StorminNorman

10-17-2010, 10:59 AM

I thought you rested your case on that. Anyway, you will have to show some data to support that claim.

What I rested my case on was the fact that you would defend politicians as competent when everything points to that not being true. Anyone satisfied with the quality of politician we have in America is someone whose fundamentals need to be questioned.

I don't see how that would fix a bad loan or the fact that a home owner lost his job to someone overseas. Deregulation caused the creation of Credit Default Swaps, which aided in virtually bringing down the entire world economy. Keep denying the fact that deregulation did nothing. Those who fail to heed the course of history are doomed to repeat it (-- George Santayana).

The irony is that you are supporting the same failed policies of the great depression with Bush and Obama.

I finished growing a long time ago.

That's unfortunate. I grow everyday. My opinion even more so.

dnno1

10-17-2010, 11:28 AM

What I rested my case on was the fact that you would defend politicians as competent when everything points to that not being true. Anyone satisfied with the quality of politician we have in America is someone whose fundamentals need to be questioned.

Look, you have no credible data showing that most politicians are incompetent. In fact that premise is subjective and debatable at best. Go ahead and rest your case on that, but you aren't right at all.

The irony is that you are supporting the same failed policies of the great depression with Bush and Obama.

I didn't vote for either of the Bush nor did I support all of their policies. What they did served to get us into recessions. At least with Obama, we got the automobile industry back on their feet, and stocks on the rise. Its only a matter of time before employment (a lagging indicator in the economy) is on the rise as well.

That's unfortunate. I grow everyday. My opinion even more so.

I meant physically.

dnno1

10-17-2010, 11:30 AM

And I was just trying to help with your growth problem. If it's been so long you should probably take something.

I never said I had a growth problem. I just said I grew up a long time ago (meaning I've already grown). Looking at your username btw, it looks like you might need some help.

moraldeficiency

10-17-2010, 01:08 PM

I never said I had a growth problem. I just said I grew up a long time ago (meaning I've already grown). Looking at your username btw, it looks like you might need some help.

Yes it's called a joke. You said you finished growing a long time ago so I made a penis joke.

What's wrong with moraldeficiency? Well the short answer would be a lot. But the username suits me. However if you wanted to help me in say the form of a large check, rare jewels or mass quantities of twinkies (gotta stock up for the upcoming zombie apocalypse) I wouldn't say no...

But I'm thinking as serious as you seem to take yourself, some of that stuff that people can't legally grow anymore that you're so anti based on what the gov. changed it's mind about to make way for the plastic industry might be exactly what you could use.

dnno1

10-18-2010, 11:51 AM

Yes it's called a joke. You said you finished growing a long time ago so I made a penis joke.

Yep, I'm all grown up now. No need to keep growing there. My wife is happy at least.

What's wrong with moraldeficiency? Well the short answer would be a lot. But the username suits me. However if you wanted to help me in say the form of a large check, rare jewels or mass quantities of twinkies (gotta stock up for the upcoming zombie apocalypse) I wouldn't say no...

This is about the best I could do for you under the circumstances:

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b188/dnno1/Laughs/twinkies.jpg

But I'm thinking as serious as you seem to take yourself, some of that stuff that people can't legally grow anymore that you're so anti based on what the gov. changed it's mind about to make way for the plastic industry might be exactly what you could use.

You mean hemp? It's more than just that. The Surgeon General posted these known or suspected effects of marijuana (see http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001143.htm):

short-term memory impairment and slowness of learning.
impaired lung function similar to that found in cigarette smokers. Indications are that more serious effects, such as cancer and other lung disease, follow extended use.
decreased sperm count and sperm motility.
interference with ovulation and pre-natal development.
impaired immune response.
possible adverse effects on heart function.
by-products of marijuana remaining in body fat for several weeks, with unknown consequences. The storage of these by-products increases the possibilities for chronic, as well as residual, effects on performance, even after the acute reaction to the drug has worn off. Of special concern are the long-term developmental effects in children and adolescents, who are particularly vulnerable to the drug's behavioral and psychological effects. The "amotivational syndrome," characterized by a pattern of energy loss, diminished school performance, harmed parental relationships, and other behavioral disruptions, has been associated with prolonged marijuana use by young persons. Although more research is required, recent national surveys report that 40% of heavy users experience some or all of those symptoms.

Legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana is going to be a lot more complex than just passing a state law through popular election. The Federal government is committed to classifying marijuana as a controlled substance through the Controlled Substance Act in compliance with an international treaty with the World Health Organization (reference Article 3 of the WHO Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Article 2 of the Convention on Phycotropic Substaces). Because this is an international treaty of which the United States has signed on to we are bound by it and it is (along with the CSA) supreme law of the land (in spite what any State may legislate within its domain). It is doubtful that you will see a SCOTUS overturn the CSA since this has been tried before (5 years ago) and was unsuccessful.

StorminNorman

10-18-2010, 11:53 AM

Why do you want the government deciding what you can and cannot consume? Don't you believe that you know your body better than they do?

Kelly

10-18-2010, 04:06 PM

StorminNorman

10-18-2010, 05:34 PM

I know that I know my body better than anyone....but I'm not sure my neighbor knows what is too much for himself, because he has dented a few cars around here while....under the influence so to speak.

That's why we have government, to make sure that those that infringe upon the property of others (be it out of ignorance or malice) have to make up their losses.

moraldeficiency

10-18-2010, 07:25 PM

Yep, I'm all grown up now. No need to keep growing there. My wife is happy at least.

This is about the best I could do for you under the circumstances:

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b188/dnno1/Laughs/twinkies.jpg

You mean hemp? It's more than just that. The Surgeon General posted these known or suspected effects of marijuana (see http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001143.htm):

short-term memory impairment and slowness of learning.
impaired lung function similar to that found in cigarette smokers. Indications are that more serious effects, such as cancer and other lung disease, follow extended use.
decreased sperm count and sperm motility.
interference with ovulation and pre-natal development.
impaired immune response.
possible adverse effects on heart function.
by-products of marijuana remaining in body fat for several weeks, with unknown consequences. The storage of these by-products increases the possibilities for chronic, as well as residual, effects on performance, even after the acute reaction to the drug has worn off. Of special concern are the long-term developmental effects in children and adolescents, who are particularly vulnerable to the drug's behavioral and psychological effects. The "amotivational syndrome," characterized by a pattern of energy loss, diminished school performance, harmed parental relationships, and other behavioral disruptions, has been associated with prolonged marijuana use by young persons. Although more research is required, recent national surveys report that 40% of heavy users experience some or all of those symptoms.

Legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana is going to be a lot more complex than just passing a state law through popular election. The Federal government is committed to classifying marijuana as a controlled substance through the Controlled Substance Act in compliance with an international treaty with the World Health Organization (reference Article 3 of the WHO Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Article 2 of the Convention on Phycotropic Substaces). Because this is an international treaty of which the United States has signed on to we are bound by it and it is (along with the CSA) supreme law of the land (in spite what any State may legislate within its domain). It is doubtful that you will see a SCOTUS overturn the CSA since this has been tried before (5 years ago) and was unsuccessful.

How can she be happy if you haven't grown in years?

I picture of a twinkie mountain, though a cool one does not help me. Give me money like you said.

Suspected? Don't give me that. People suspect UFO's screwed apes and made mankind. Let's go with facts. Fact, hemp has less detrimental effects than any prescription medication available. It is also less harmful than alcohol, cigs and has caused less deaths than coffee, sugar, meats or water. (that's right people can actually OD on water, but not hemp oddly enough).

It has never been proven that smoking causes any impaired driving, although cell phones, radios or people in the car have been proven. And they've done countless tests on this.

Fact. Hemp has been legal in this country for 5 times longer than it's been illegal and was used by our founding fathers. Fact, hemp oils can be used to save thousands from malnutrition. Fact, the gov. has issued hemp cigs to people in a test study for long term pain suffering and all of these people have been (they still do) living productive lives as professionals with no adverse effects and remarkable improvements in their lives. Fact, hemp smoke unlike alcohol or any stimulant curbs violent impulses and behavior.

And finally...fact, you seriously need to smoke a fatty.