tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post5608094467374292651..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Preserving Freedom: Hard to Do in IgnoranceJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger126125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-23971274301050671952010-07-31T23:02:45.493-05:002010-07-31T23:02:45.493-05:00What do you mean by "works" for single p...What do you mean by "works" for single payer systems? Does it lead to more innovation and progress in the medical arts? Does it siphon off huge amounts of the economy to pay for it? Does it improve the overall quality of health care? What would be a symptom of it not working? <br /><br />Germany took over large parts of the economy under National Socialism. It "worked" in many ways. But not in terms of liberty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-64273127484237399992010-07-28T21:29:54.842-05:002010-07-28T21:29:54.842-05:00Dear Republican Anonymous, I'm just curious wh...Dear Republican Anonymous, I'm just curious what you meant then when you bristled about the term ObamaCare. You said, "That you call it that says more about you than your whole post." So what does it say exactly?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-69573853205082043012010-07-27T13:38:34.524-05:002010-07-27T13:38:34.524-05:00Sorry about the misdirected tone. And if I mistook...Sorry about the misdirected tone. And if I mistook a Republican Anonymous for a Democratic anonymous, I'm also sorry. I try to guess which comments are common to the same Anon and sometimes confuse the poorly considered jabs of one with the brilliant incisiveness of another. May I suggest identifying yourself in some way? That in no way excuses me for inappropriate responses, and if I misjudged your intent, I'm sorry.<br /><br />The "blind" statement was about the seemingly snooty (IMO) criticism for using the common term ObamaCare, which as I documented, can be used by both supporters and critics.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-14883893282798208632010-07-27T13:36:49.566-05:002010-07-27T13:36:49.566-05:00In country after country, single-payer works. It c...In country after country, single-payer works. It can work here, too. But it would hurt the health-insurance business, and the health-insurance lobby has run a very effective propaganda campaign in order to protect its own interest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-32335029917975232842010-07-27T04:44:18.043-05:002010-07-27T04:44:18.043-05:00From Wiki:
The current health care system in Taiwa...From Wiki:<br />The current health care system in Taiwan, known as National Health Insurance (NHI), was instituted in 1995. NHI is a single-payer compulsory social insurance plan which centralizes the disbursement of health care dollars. The system promises equal access to health care for all citizens, and the population coverage had reached 99% by the end of 2004.[53] NHI is mainly financed through premiums, which are based on the payroll tax, and is supplemented with out-of-pocket payments and direct government funding. In the initial stage, fee-for-service predominated for both public and private providers."<br /><br />That system was started in 1995. 5 years ago. The Japanese have a similar system. Both were not modeled after the US system. That sounds exactly like what was initially proposed in the US until the uneducated started screaming " SOCIALIZED MEDICINE"<br />Socialized Medicine?? Come on Jeff, Who said it was socialized Medicine? I think you better look up the term Socialized Medicine. From Wiki again:<br />Socialized medicine is a pejorative term used primarily in the United States to refer to certain kinds of publicly-funded health care. The term is used most frequently, and often pejoratively, in the U.S. political debate concerning health care."<br /><br />Me thinks you are not to honest if you meld your sentences with such loaded terms.<br />btw, what are you talking about with this "Are you so blind that you take any hint of criticism against your party to mean that the opponents are inherently evil, racist, bigoted, whatever?"<br />I'm a republican, and not once did I mentioned party. I mentioned the health care in Taiwan, and not once said anything about what you accuse me of. A little misdirection there Jeff?? Blind?? You are the one with the less than civil tone, and you don't even have your facts straight. Whatever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-61360834978806031542010-07-26T07:50:55.443-05:002010-07-26T07:50:55.443-05:00HI Jeff,
Seeing as how the debate has shifted to ...HI Jeff,<br /><br />Seeing as how the debate has shifted to healthcare, I thought I'd weigh in. I empathize with the concerns that the conservatives have regarding what has been coined "Obamacare." There are some aspects of the new healthcare legislation that are concerning. For one, I don't think any law that's over 2400 pages long can be anything but too complex. Secondly, I am concerned about people being penalized for not buying healthcare...that aspect of the law concerns me because even with the new law, we didn't address the problem of health insurance being too expensive for most people to purchase. <br /><br />That said, I also agreed with Mr. Obama in that we had to do something because the system is very broken. We reached a point with healthcare that we needed to make some drastic change, and the conservatives were not getting that done. It goes back to my concern that the right wing groups are very much in bed with big business, who only has the bottomline in mind and no one else. Had we continued to rely on the conservatives to change healthcare, all we would've done is continue with the status quo, which is the rich get the best medical care, the poor get medicaid, and the rest of us get screwed unless we are fortunate enough to get heath insurance from our employers, which is becoming a declining luxury. So something had to be done.<br /><br />I'm not convinced Obamacare is the best plan; I'm not willing to keep things as they were either. I'd like to give the new healthcare a chance to work, but be ready and have legislators willing to work out the kinks in it when they arise. <br /><br />In my opinion, a better way to have addressed all the issues would have been to mandate insurance providers to cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, mandate that you could not drop coverage because someone got sick, open up the state borders so people could buy thier insurance from whatever state they chose and have real competition, and open up the federal employee benefit program to every US citizen as a single payer option if people or corporations and municipalities wanted to choose that route. I could've accomplished it all with less than 100 pages. But, I didn't get to make that call. <br /><br />All this does go back to your original point though, that its important for us all to keep informed about what's going on in DC. Keep up the work<br /><br />Sincerely<br /><br />Catholic Defendercatholic defenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18161360870245850585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-53964647972852882032010-07-24T22:36:27.630-05:002010-07-24T22:36:27.630-05:00Some Anon also asked about Taiwan: "Jeff, doe...Some Anon also asked about Taiwan: "<i>Jeff, doesn't your son live in Taiwan? Don't they have A single payer system there? I imagine he buys into that system for his health care. That is a good example of a govt run single payer system that works. And as far as I know, you chose any doctor you want. You ever actaully ask him about it? Seems like it is exactly the kind of system you are arguing against. I also think it is a good example of a system that covers EveryOne.</i>"<br /><br />They have a adopted a single payer system based partly on the US Medicare system. This program just got started in 2008. But does that mean they actually have socialized medicine, or a system like the one of limited choice and massive bureaucracy that Americans face?<br /><br />I'll let <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/themes/socialized.html" rel="nofollow">Prof. William Hsiao of the Harvard School of Public Health answer this question (as he did for PBS)</a>:<br /><br /><i>Q. Would you say that Taiwan has socialized medicine?<br /><br />A. No, sir. Taiwan does not have socialized medicine in any sense of the word. First of all, the doctors are private practices. Most of hospitals are privately owned. They compete with each other. People have a choice of their doctors, hospitals. They have more choice than Americans. In no sense is it a socialized system.</i><br /><br />I'm not sure how well it is working - it might be too early to really know. They have a much different culture and social system than we do - maybe it can succeed. But it took us decades of Medicare and government intervention to reach the messed up state we have now. Let's see how they fare.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59705524941722061882010-07-24T22:15:38.075-05:002010-07-24T22:15:38.075-05:00Some Anon said, "Obama Care?? Come on Jeff, T...Some Anon said, <i>"Obama Care?? Come on Jeff, That you call it that says more about you than your whole post."</i><br /><br />Really? Haven't you noticed that this time is widely used in media media outlets, and that even some supporters of Obamacare have called it that without shame? Yes, it was coined by opponents of that socialistic legislation, but the name has stuck. When <a href="http://edit.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64863?method=method.fetch.album&title=Recovery&artist=Eminem&page=1&pagesize=1" rel="nofollow">Matt Taibi of the left-wing <i>Rolling Stone</i></a> wrote about the need for it, he used the term "Obamacare." Do you think he's a closet racist? When <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/03/22/obamacare/" rel="nofollow">Sean at Discover Magazine's blog</a> told us the "good news" of the health care bill, his post was simply titled "Obamacare." When <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/23/obamacare-is-victory-i-welcome" rel="nofollow">Roger Ebert wrote for the Guardian</a> about his joy in seeing the bill pass in the US, he had no difficulty in using the term "Obamacare" and suggested that it will be known by this term. Those who use the term while expressing opposition are not lunatic UFO chasers living in caves, but writers with at least enough credibility to be published by the likes of <i>Time</i> (see <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1914973,00.html" rel="nofollow">"The Fatal Flaw of Obamacare" at Time.com</a>. Ditto for <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/obama-doctor-knocks-obamacare-business-healthcare-obamas-doctor.html" rel="nofollow">Forbes</a>, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704133804575198322718759844.html" rel="nofollow">Wall Street Journal</a>, and many others. It's a mainstream term. <br /><br />Yes, most of those who use it are opposed to it - but you need to understand that's partly because most people who discuss it are opposed to it. Most Americans don't want government telling them what kind of health care they can have. Most Americans don't think that bureaucrats can manage health care any better than they've managed all the other messes they have made worse. <br /><br />So why is it that you think you know something insidious about me because I would use that mainstream term? Are you so blind that you take any hint of criticism against your party to mean that the opponents are inherently evil, racist, bigoted, whatever?Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59869239876311674842010-07-22T11:05:10.052-05:002010-07-22T11:05:10.052-05:00Anonymous
You make a good point about freedom and ...Anonymous<br />You make a good point about freedom and I am not sure where to draw the line between what restrictions the government should be allowed to make in order to bring more comfort and peace for its citizens. Your illustration of the requirements an insurance company imposes is however is very different from when the government imposes something. You purchased your insurance by choice, it wasn’t forced upon you by law. The freedom Jeff talks about could lead to misery and chaos, or it could lead to prosperity and a better way of life. It all depends on what each individual decides to do with their freedom. <br />I guess the real question is, how much can we trust individuals. Do we need to enforce everything by law or will people play fair and behave wisely in a society with less laws. To me it seems like there has to be a balance somewhere. I personally like the idea of having a small national government that lets the states have as much power as their local citizens want them to have. It just doesn’t seem to make sense to have huge national one size fits every region programs and forcing every state to participate. I don’t want to fly to DC to petition the government, the Oregon State capitol is just 30 minutes from where I live and the state reps and senators are fairly easy to make contact with. It just makes sense to me to keep decision making as local as possible.mkprrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13409950642803422998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-27617259304647670492010-07-22T10:40:58.116-05:002010-07-22T10:40:58.116-05:00Anonymous above, Jeff has a pretty narrow vision o...Anonymous above, Jeff has a pretty narrow vision of "freedom." Sometimes a limitation on freedom in one area of your life produces more freedom in some other area. When I buy home insurance, the insurance company demands that I get adequate smoke detectors, knock down the brush growing alongside the house, etc. To a certain extent, I'm no longer free to do certain things the way I might want to do them. On the other hand, with that insurance, I'm free to plan my financial future without the burden of possibly being wiped out by a fire.<br /><br />This in miniscule gets to the paradox of why, even as government regulation increases, we are nonetheless more free than we have ever been. Jeff just doesn't understand freedom holistically enough. His notion of freedom is basically that of the state of nature, in which everyone is free to live a terrible life that is nasty, brutish, and short.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-8853560945281945722010-07-22T01:05:01.138-05:002010-07-22T01:05:01.138-05:00"Do you think that centralized control over h..."Do you think that centralized control over health care might limit our freedom of choice regarding the kind of health care we get, or even our choice as to whether or not we buy insurance? Of course it does."<br /><br />Jeff, doesn't your son live in Taiwan? Don't they have A single payer system there? I imagine he buys into that system for his health care. That is a good example of a govt run single payer system that works. And as far as I know, you chose any doctor you want. You ever actaully ask him about it? Seems like it is exactly the kind of system you are arguing against. I also think it is a good example of a system that covers EveryOne.<br />BTW, Obama Care?? Come on Jeff, That you call it that says more about you than your whole post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-83816042898431030232010-07-22T00:24:58.567-05:002010-07-22T00:24:58.567-05:00Jeff: " Do you think it matters what the Foun...Jeff: " Do you think it matters what the Founders intended when they wrote the welfare clause and other language? Did they intend a Congress able to tax, spend, regulate, and intervene in all affairs our life, all without constraint, as long as they could pass it off as for the general welfare?"<br /><br />Seriously?? That's the straw man you are building today? You speak of the uneducated but that question/statement sounds Very Uneducated. You sound more and more like that VERY uneducated Glenn Beck every day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-33354731755697261402010-07-10T20:01:04.147-05:002010-07-10T20:01:04.147-05:00there is no such thing as an actual libertarian. T...there is no such thing as an actual libertarian. Those individuals only exist in the abstract. When faced with reality, they always run back home to their conservative mama and have no problem using the government to attain their goals.Danhttp://thegooddemocrat.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-81510335128835099272010-07-10T10:02:06.385-05:002010-07-10T10:02:06.385-05:00What do I think of the concept of original intent?...What do I think of the concept of original intent? Not much.<br /><br />First we can ask, <i>whose</i> original intent? The people who wrote the Constitution, or those who approved it? Jeff, why does your side downplay what the various state actors thought the Constitution meant when they <i>approved</i> it? The Framers merely wrote the thing; the agents who gave it force, the people who actually turned it into the American Constitution, were the various state actors who ratified it. They are the more important figures here! And as anyone who's ever been involved in contract negotiations will remember, different parties can read the same text and think it means different things.<br /><br />I don't know for sure, but sometimes I suspect that you fetishize the Framers and downplay the Ratifiers because you see all goodness as flowing from the Mighty Wisdom of the God-like prophets who bestride the earth (a religious sensibility that just happens to buttress ecclesiastical authority, which might have something to do with why you were taught such ideas in the first place).<br /><br />Also, if we want to take the notion of "original intent" seriously we cannot limit ourselves to the intent of the Framers of 1787; we must also consider the intent of the Framers who came later, in 1865 etc. They were "framers," too. The Founders of 1787 are not the only people whose intent matters.<br /><br />So. Do I think the Framers intended "a Congress able to tax, spend, regulate, and intervene in all affairs of our life, all without constraint, as long as they could pass it off as for the general welfare?"<br /><br />Of course not. The Constitution of 1787 explicitly imposes plenty of constraints. The Bill of Rights adds many more. The post-Civil-War amendments add even more (e.g., equal protection of the laws). So you have posed what is rather obviously a straw-man here.<br /><br />But if we set aside the Constitution's explicit constraints on government power, we can ask your question again, like this:<br /><br />Do I think the Framers intended "a Congress able to tax, spend, regulate, and intervene in all affairs of our life, within the Constitution's various constraints but <i>otherwise</i> without constraint, as long as they could pass it off as for the general welfare?"<br /><br />Yes!<br /><br />I find this whole "limited government" schtick rather silly anyway. With the exception of a few genuinely principled libertarians, <i>everyone</i> wants a government capable of intervening "in all affairs of our life." (The LDS Church is certainly not libertarian, else it would object to government interference in people's sex lives and marriage choices. The Church wants a government empowered to intervene in <i>this</i> aspect of our lives but not in <i>that</i> aspect, with "this" and "that" determined not by Constitutional principle but by its own religious doctrine.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-7170879967948382232010-07-10T05:45:31.081-05:002010-07-10T05:45:31.081-05:00What do you think of the concept of original inten...What do you think of the concept of original intent? Do you think it matters what the Founders intended when they wrote the welfare clause and other language? Did they intend a Congress able to tax, spend, regulate, and intervene in all affairs our life, all without constraint, as long as they could pass it off as for the general welfare?Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-33080651942002440682010-07-09T23:01:38.274-05:002010-07-09T23:01:38.274-05:00The General Welfare clause was not mean to overrid...The General Welfare clause was not mean to override the limitations imposed on Congress in the rest of the Constitution. Congress has enumerated powers, and if they are not enumerated and not assigned to a difference branch of the fed. govt., they reside with the states or the people. <br /><br />The powers enumerated for Congress are limited to the power to (summary borrowed from <a href="http://kevincraig.us/general-welfare.htm" rel="nofollow">Kevin Craig</a>):<br /><br /> • Levy taxes.<br /> • Borrow money on the credit of the United States.<br /> • Spend.<br /> • Pay the federal debts.<br /> • Conduct tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.<br /> • Declare war.<br /> • Raise armies, a navy, and provide for the common defense.<br /> • Introduce constitutional amendments and choose the mode of ratification.<br /> • Call a convention on the application of two-thirds of the states.<br /> • Regulate interstate and foreign commerce.<br /> • Coin money.<br /> • Regulate (standardize) the value of currency.<br /> • Regulate patents and copyrights.<br /> • Establish federal courts lower than the Supreme Court.<br /> • Limit the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.<br /> • Standardize weights and measures.<br /> • Establish uniform times for elections.<br /> • Control the postal system.<br /> • Establish laws governing citizenship.<br /> • Make its own rules and discipline its own members.<br /> • Provide for the punishment of counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and other federal crimes.<br /> • Exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia.<br /> • Establish bankruptcy laws.<br /> • Override presidential vetoes.<br /> • Oversee all federal property and possessions.<br /> • Fill a vacancy in the Presidency in cases of death or inability.<br /> • Receive electoral votes for the Presidency.<br /> • Keep and publish a journal of its proceedings.<br /> • Conduct a census every ten years<br /> • Approve treaties, Cabinet-level appointments, and appointments to the Supreme Court (Senate only).<br /> • Impeach (House only) and try (Senate only) federal officers.<br /> • Initiate all bills for raising revenue (House only).<br /><br />As Kevin points out, the federal government was not given power over education, healthcare, charity, employment practices, or alcohol, tobacco and firearms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40738720452403628232010-07-09T17:28:42.770-05:002010-07-09T17:28:42.770-05:00Let Fiefdom Ring writes, "The power to tax in...Let Fiefdom Ring writes, "The power to tax income does not mean that all the enumerated, limited powers in the Articles themselves are now out the window. That money may only be spent as permitted in the Articles and other amendments."<br /><br />I agree! But let's actually read the Constitution to see what is "permitted." Here are a few excerpts from Article I, Section 8 (Powers of Congress):<br /><br /><i>The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes…and provide for the…general Welfare of the United States…. To borrow money on the credit of the United States…. To regulate Commerce…among the several States…. And to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers….</i><br /><br />Well, golly gee. The Constitution permits tax money to be spent to "provide for the general Welfare of the United States" and to "regulate Commerce among the several States." Like it or not, that's awfully expansive wording, certainly inclusive enough to shoot down any attempt to contest, say, health insurance reform in the courts.<br /><br />You guys seem to think that the Constitution is on your side, but it just ain't. Let me repeat for emphasis: the Constitution says Congress has power to make <i>all laws necessary</i> to provide for the <i>general welfare</i>. Sure doesn't sound much like "limited government" to me.<br /><br />Please note that I'm not saying limited government is a bad idea. I'm just saying that if you want limited government, you'll never get anywhere by arguing that the Constitution itself requires it. Instead, you'll have to convince Congress to voluntarily do less than the Constitution authorizes it to do. You'll just have to do the hard work of democratic electoral politics instead of claiming that the Constitution gives you some sort of Get Out of Big Government Free card.<br /><br />(I'm speaking here only about matters of taxing and spending, not about things like torture and the denial of habeus corpus, which I think are blatantly illegal and/or unconstitutional, and which I lay at the feet of Obama as much as Bush.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-87144548050569937552010-07-09T09:04:56.423-05:002010-07-09T09:04:56.423-05:00Hi All,
I'm going to try to come at this from...Hi All,<br /><br />I'm going to try to come at this from a different take, because I think some of you are missing the point of Jeff's concerns. Jeff correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me your concern is that the government is attempting to take on too much power. That seems to be the concern of many of the conservatives. Liberals tend to think the government should take on a more direct role, hence the debate here as well as in the real world. Consider this proposition...the Constitution of the United States has no real power, unless we give it that power. <br /><br />Think about that a moment. What makes the US Constitution so powerful, is not the words contained in it, but the willingness of all of us to be bound by those words. What the Constitution does, is gives all of us a set of rules to play by; it sets up limitations. Our willingness to honour those limitations and hold our government to those limitations, is what gives the Constitution its true power. <br /><br />The reason this country has survived for so long, with the freedoms that we have intact, is that each of the branches of government have had limitations imposed upon their power by the Constitution. The willingness to be bound by those limits is what has made each branch of government work for so long. You should not see judges writing law, when their authority is to interpret the law. We should not be seeing legislators interpreting the law, when their authority is to write the law. The executive branch should not be circumventing the other two branches to take on power not granted to him under the constitution. Why this system works, is because each branch recognizes the limits placed upon thier power by the Constitution. <br /><br />What happens when each branch stops recognizing those limits, is the whole system breaks down. What we are seeing, and its the root of Jeff's concern, is that each branch of government, is becoming less willing to recognize the limits placed on its power by the constitution. Each branch is usurping little bits of power not originally granted to it. When they eventually succeed, which they will if we don't hold them in check...the system will break down. Therein lies the danger of school systems failing our children.<br /><br />Sincerely<br /><br />Catholic Defendercatholic defenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18161360870245850585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-39941900327285731152010-07-09T07:28:36.965-05:002010-07-09T07:28:36.965-05:00Quoting Harris Kupperman:
What I strongly object ...Quoting Harris Kupperman:<br /><br />What I strongly object to is the government increasingly inserting itself into the economy. You cannot manage an economy based on the applause meter of 24-hour news programs. You cannot manage an economy. Period. It is not debatable. Unfortunately, our government continues to corral the various market forces and lead them towards whatever myopic utopia politicians think will be needed for reelection. This creates economic anarchy. If you could run an economy based on erratic rules and crony capitalism, Argentina would be a world power. If you could print your way to prosperity, Zimbabwe would be a world banking hub. If you could command the economy to heed you, the USSR would still exist. I’m scared that world leaders have taken all the worst lessons of the last generation of economic thought and bundled them together into some sort of economic doomsday machine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-27944477779052040032010-07-08T22:16:31.438-05:002010-07-08T22:16:31.438-05:00The fact that one amendment doesn't state how ...The fact that one amendment doesn't state how money may be spent doesn't override the limited powers given to government. The power to tax income does not mean that all the enumerated, limited powers in the Articles themselves are now out the window. That money may only be spent as permitted in the Articles and other amendments.<br /><br />Man, the stuff they don't teach in school these days.... Sigh.Let Fiefdom Ringnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-35086383270400997722010-07-08T22:08:45.558-05:002010-07-08T22:08:45.558-05:00Jeff, you should have mentioned that the governmen...Jeff, you should have mentioned that the government has also largely taken over the mortgage market, which is much of what created the financial mess we are in. The government-backed mortgages of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got us on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars of bad debt, coupled with the government's invasive requirements on bank lending that forced banks to give bad loans out --- all of this amounts to government having largely seized control of the home market and creating inefficiencies and maldistribution of capital and price information that created the bubble. Doing the same with health care, autos, and other markets will not make government any wiser, more trustworthy, or more efficient. <br /><br />Get government off our backs. The corruption and waste is monumental.Lef Fiefdom Ringnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-75692306029136837422010-07-08T19:10:24.439-05:002010-07-08T19:10:24.439-05:00You mean you didn't notice what happened to Ge...You mean you didn't notice what happened to General Motors? How about the incursions under Bush and Obama into the financial sector? Cap and trade? Student loans? And have you heard about Obama Care? <br /><br />Under National Socialism, there wasn't a 100% takeover of everything - just the power to control and orchestrate anything they wanted under the auspices of the Reich. Under other forms of totalitarian socialism, there are still businesses and companies with some degree of autonomy - some. <br /><br />The amendment to the Constitution do not come close to authorizing the expansion of the State and the consolidation of power, unchecked power, that we have today. Which amendment allows the courts to be bypassed for a $20 billion shakedown to put money in the hands of one branch, or even one man and his peers? How can you explain that as being compatible with any sane reading of the Constitution?Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15442181613439578842010-07-08T16:55:39.728-05:002010-07-08T16:55:39.728-05:00The Marxist agenda of overthrowing property rights...<i>The Marxist agenda of overthrowing property rights....</i><br /><br />What hyperbole, Jeff. There's a huge gap between America's mildly social-democratic reality (things like welfare, health insurance reform, and the recent bailouts of tottering financial firms) and the right-wing fantasy of a "Marxist agenda of overthrowing property rights." Such an agenda, were it truly worthy of the sobriquet <i>Marxist</i>, would call for the wholesale nationalization, not merely of troubled companies, but of the entire private sector.<br /><br />There simply is no such agenda. Honestly, Jeff. Do you really believe that Obama or any other prominent liberal politician wants the government to seize the means of production <i>tout court</i>? Can you name a single politician who wants to nationalize Wal-Mart or Tyson Foods or Hewlitt-Packard or ConAgra or whatever?<br /><br />What you're calling "the real issue here" is a fantasy. Obama is no more a Marxist than Bush was a Nazi. You're raising the specter of Marx every bit as unfairly and inaccurately as some on the left raise the specter of Hitler. It's really, really bad for your credibility, but if you want to keep doing it, feel free. You're only helping my side.<br /><br /><i>Contrary to the principles this nation was founded on....expressly contrary to the intent of the Founders....</i><br /><br />Jeff, can't you see this as mere ancestor-worship? The "principles the nation was founded on" and "the intent of the Founders" <i>don't matter</i>.<br /><br />What matters is the <i>Constitution we live under today</i>. The Constitution we live under today includes amendments that the Founders might not have approved of at all. (Too bad for the Founders. The Constitution doesn't belong to them! It belongs, as Jefferson said it should, not to the dead but to the living.) And one of those amendments explicitly gives the government the power to tax <i>and does not specify what the government may or may not do with the money</i>. If the government wants to tax incomes and use the money to "spread the wealth around," well, that's perfectly Constitutional. You might not like it, but if so you should blame the states that approved that amendment. They didn't have to approve it. They could have demurred. They could have demanded a more restrictive amendment that would have prevented the sorts of expenditures you dislike.<br /><br />The people could have done all that. But they didn't.<br /><br />Welcome to America, Jeff. Long may she thrive!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-24278029327763232582010-07-08T16:55:16.509-05:002010-07-08T16:55:16.509-05:00The Marxist agenda of overthrowing property rights...<i>The Marxist agenda of overthrowing property rights....</i><br /><br />What hyperbole, Jeff. There's a huge gap between America's mildly social-democratic reality (things like welfare, health insurance reform, and the recent bailouts of tottering financial firms) and the right-wing fantasy of a "Marxist agenda of overthrowing property rights." Such an agenda, were it truly worthy of the sobriquet <i>Marxist</i>, would call for the wholesale nationalization, not merely of troubled companies, but of the entire private sector.<br /><br />There simply is no such agenda. Honestly, Jeff. Do you really believe that Obama or any other prominent liberal politician wants the government to seize the means of production <i>tout court</i>? Can you name a single politician who wants to nationalize Wal-Mart or Tyson Foods or Hewlitt-Packard or ConAgra or whatever?<br /><br />What you're calling "the real issue here" is a fantasy. Obama is no more a Marxist than Bush was a Nazi. You're raising the specter of Marx every bit as unfairly and inaccurately as some on the left raise the specter of Hitler. It's really, really bad for your credibility, but if you want to keep doing it, feel free. You're only helping my side.<br /><br /><i>Contrary to the principles this nation was founded on....expressly contrary to the intent of the Founders....</i><br /><br />Jeff, can't you see this as mere ancestor-worship? The "principles the nation was founded on" and "the intent of the Founders" <i>don't matter</i>.<br /><br />What matters is the <i>Constitution we live under today</i>. The Constitution we live under today includes amendments that the Founders might not have approved of at all. (Too bad for the Founders. The Constitution doesn't belong to them! It belongs, as Jefferson said it should, not to the dead but to the living.) And one of those amendments explicitly gives the government the power to tax <i>and does not specify what the government may or may not do with the money</i>. If the government wants to tax incomes and use the money to "spread the wealth around," well, that's perfectly Constitutional. You might not like it, but if so you should blame the states that approved that amendment. They didn't have to approve it. They could have demurred. They could have demanded a more restrictive amendment that would have prevented the sorts of expenditures you dislike.<br /><br />The people could have done all that. But they didn't.<br /><br />Welcome to America, Jeff. Long may she thrive!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43288716362840278142010-07-07T07:24:16.456-05:002010-07-07T07:24:16.456-05:00Regarding redistribution of wealth, yes, you can m...Regarding redistribution of wealth, yes, you can make the trivial point that all taxation is technically a redistribution, but the real issue here is the Marxist agenda of overthrowing property rights to take from one class and give to another class in the name of social justice but really in the quest for power of those who do the redistributing. When a politician talks about the need for "redistributive justice" or "spreading the wealth around" through taxation, as a certain leader of ours has done, these are code words for an agenda that is contrary to personal liberty and the principles this nation was founded on. The Constitution gives no such powers and such actions are expressly contrary to the intent of the Founders who warned that that would lead to the loss of liberty.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.com