Good, so we can agree that government is force, correct?A state is an organisation with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a geographical area. (Max Weber) This is not a bad thing, of course. When you lack the state, you get a situation like Somalia.
And as an aside, the Nazis weren't socialist. Men like Gregor Strasser were, until 1934, the most Socialist part of the party, and even found some commonground with the Marxists in Germany. This view is known as Strasserism, and ended when Gregor Strasser was killed in the Night of the Long Knives. He was an ideological rival to Hitler, and a possible alternative leader.
Somalia has a government. Bad government isn't anarchy.
Do you reject the idea that self defense is a fundamental human right?
I'm curious. Are the European socialist democracies not socialist either?
<SNIP> Over the next 8 years, Bush and co. ran game, trampling the Constitution in an Orwellian orgy of power-lust, arrogance and greed, all the while claiming a moral high ground. </SNIP>
I Couldn't have said it better myself. Which is why all this fascism talk is especially amusing.
ZOMG Obama == Hitler. Run!
Fine, I'll play your silly game. I'm a cancer survivor, and I am basically uninsurable. I will probably die in screaming agony from a disease I can't control. That will make some of my political opponents giggle with glee. I still don't think that I have a right to health care paid for by others at gun point. Is that adequate evidence to refute your vacant thought? I doubt it, but have fun any way.I've noticed a curious lack of people with terminal illnesses or grievous injuries complaining about their "freedom" not to buy health insurance being "impinged upon."
Never mind; I'm sure they're lots of them out there. Really.
I'm sorry you had cancer. I'm glad you survived. I'm curious: Did you have insurance?
The prospect of getting sick again in the future and not having insurance is *not* the same thing as currently being sick extolling the virtues of a system that left you "free" not to buy insurance. Especially since you implied you'd like to buy insurance but can't.
Of course, soon, you'll be able to...
Insurance will continue to be entirely unaffordable, but soon I will be a criminal for not being able to afford it and not being on welfare. This bill is an epic failure for everyone but big pharma and the insurance industry.
For all of us who opposed the bill and loss, cheer up. We still have the court system that can stop it. We're not beat yet.
Great we've given half a trillion to the insurance industry, and we still have tens of millions of people uninsured.
Isn't government great?
In 2001/2 I and many of my friends protested the imminent illegal invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan). Over the next 8 years, Bush and co. ran game, trampling the Constitution in an Orwellian orgy of power-lust, arrogance and greed, all the while claiming a moral high ground. I felt the same frustration and political impotence you're feeling now. It'd be too easy to troll, so I'll just quote one of the few American statesman worthy of the title and say "I feel your pain".
BTW, the Democrats are so friggin' inept your political representatives will have their chance to gut healthcare in 6 years at most.
Zo
Yup Bush was a socialist crap weasel who betrayed his party and nation. He expanded the welfare state, and he hated the constitution.
Meet the new boss same as the old boss.
When has the US ever eliminated an entitlement? I don't see it happening.
Just because it's past doesn't mean this debate is over by any means. The republicans aren't going to let this particular golden snitch get away.
The people are goig to make there displeasure known come re-election time and if their is a single democrate that can get elected dog-catcher I'd be amazed.
Then it's a simple matter of denying funding to this silly little health care plan and it goes away forever more to be forgotten as a bad idea and failed social experiment.
<SNIP> Over the next 8 years, Bush and co. ran game, trampling the Constitution in an Orwellian orgy of power-lust, arrogance and greed, all the while claiming a moral high ground. </SNIP>I Couldn't have said it better myself. Which is why all this fascism talk is especially amusing.
ZOMG Obama == Hitler. Run!
I opposed Bush's socialism as well, but in your world it seems it's fine for Obama to suck because Bush sucked. I just don't understand how stupidity is a virtue just because the last guys were stupid too. It seems a silly model for government to me.
Just because it's past doesn't mean this debate is over by any means. The republicans aren't going to let this particular golden snitch get away.
The people are goig to make there displeasure known come re-election time and if their is a single democrate that can get elected dog-catcher I'd be amazed.Then it's a simple matter of denying funding to this silly little health care plan and it goes away forever more to be forgotten as a bad idea and failed social experiment.
I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but I'm not optimistic.
On a related sidebar, the points raised about Bush did this/Bush did that are really sad. I fail to remember the level of hue and cry raised against the procedures. I seem to recall many Dems were silent, taking the opportunity to walk away with clean hands. Note that this does NOT say all were silent. But my head is sometimes fuzzy as I sit at home recovering from my recent brain bleed. And yes, I work and paid for my insurance along with my company, and it worked fine so far.
|
David Frum, former speech writer for President Bush, on the HCR bill passing.
A huge part of the blame for today's disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama's Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton's in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton's 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
I've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government...
...So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours.
Hmmm, yeah. One party trying to turn the entire country into Detroit, another trying to turn it into Swinepump, Alabama.
Great.
Hey, don't badmouth Swinepump, Alabama! Best damn baconburgers anywhere.
I opposed Bush's socialism as well, but in your world it seems it's fine for Obama to suck because Bush sucked. I just don't understand how stupidity is a virtue just because the last guys were stupid too. It seems a silly model for government to me.<SNIP> Over the next 8 years, Bush and co. ran game, trampling the Constitution in an Orwellian orgy of power-lust, arrogance and greed, all the while claiming a moral high ground. </SNIP>I Couldn't have said it better myself. Which is why all this fascism talk is especially amusing.
ZOMG Obama == Hitler. Run!
+1
I really disliked Bush. Especially what passed for the 2nd term. But I disliked the choices too. Ahh, the suck that is our political world.
Okay, fine, how's this for an argument against mandatory seat belt wearing:
If you make it illegal not to wear a seat belt, you're going to have to administer the legal handling of that crime, which will amount to what is probably a quite measurable sum for each and every one of you americans.
The courts will have to devote time and energy to the slew of seat belt cases, which will in turn cost you in various different ways.
The cops will have to devote time and energy to these cases. If they see someone without a belt, by the time they will have stopped that car, the guy will probably have put the belt on. Which means they will have to take photos as evidence, adding more strain to the various other parts of the legal framework.
When seat belt wearing becomes a prioritized way of dealing with traffic deaths, the politicians responsible will start measuring how many arrests due to no seat belt each police district makes. This will ensure that the cops get quotas each month. Thousands will die due to other types of crimes being ignored in favour of seat belts.
To speed up the clunky court process, various states will decide to let cops fine people without a court process. If I recall, compare to speeding in Texas. This will invariably lead to cops harassing people about seat belts (which is a safe accusation to make, since the harassee won't be able to prove he was wearing the seat belt).
Once this happens, more and more of the budget of the police districts will be directly related to how well they meet their seat belt quotas, taking further energy from crimes that do not provide for such lucrative direct fines as not wearing a seat belt.
Most who get harassed about it, realizing the futility of fighting the accusation, will pay the direct fine. Hey, it's only a few thousand dollars, right, and it won't happen to me all THAT often...
So, in short, comparing with how other crimes get handled, I'd say there are IMPRESSIVELY good reasons not to criminalize not wearing seat belts.
Well said. Isn't it funny how public safety becomes just another revenue stream. Do you feel safer?
Hey, don't badmouth Swinepump, Alabama! Best damn baconburgers anywhere.Hmmm, yeah. One party trying to turn the entire country into Detroit, another trying to turn it into Swinepump, Alabama.
Great.
Ahh, Detroit. Err, go ahead. I weep when I remember the city as it was. As it could have been. As it should be. *sigh*
Also, it seems that Americans have no idea what a Fascist, Communist or even a Socialist state is like, and your continued cries of 'This is Fascist/Communist/Socialist' are as wrong as they are amusing.
[snarky reply about blanket stmts deleted]
*sigh*
Democrats, Republicans, Anarchists, Libertarians ... you must all come with me and embrace nihil. It is the only way to resolve everything.
;P
Back to your regularly scheduled gripefest.
Obesity and diabetes are an increasingly onerous drain on health care for all Americans, even now costing taxpayers 10 to 100 times as much as all illegals. Fat peoples' right to eat troughs of non-nutrative crap and drink gallons of sugar isn't more important than my right to property. Therefore, to protect my property, we should enact taxes on fat and sugar sufficient to cover their health care costs. I'd like that better than ObamaCare(TM), but I doubt most of the anti-health-care people would stand for it. Which means that they're stealing my property in the form of their obesity. Am I justified in shooting them?
Also, it seems that Americans have no idea what a Fascist, Communist or even a Socialist state is like, and your continued cries of 'This is Fascist/Communist/Socialist' are as wrong as they are amusing.
Perhaps you would be wise to quit stereotyping Americans.
David Frum, former speech writer for President Bush, on the HCR bill passing.
A huge part of the blame for today's disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama's Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton's in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton's 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
...No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and
It baffles me that a scumbag like this gets an AEI job. What a sad waste of skin and oxygen.
For once, I find myself with not enough time in the day to point out the various references in this thread since yesterday.
From the looks of it, Ross doesn't have enough time either.
Shoot first, ask questions later.
You silly Americans never get that right. Wait, yes you do. And that's wrong too. So, no. Give me some time and I'll find something on the net that supports my position.
But whatever the answer, no, you cannot loot the bodies for treasure for that would give D&D another bad rap.
I think this sums it up. Carry on.
Obesity and diabetes are an increasingly onerous drain on health care for all Americans, even now costing taxpayers 10 to 100 times as much as all illegals. Fat peoples' right to eat troughs of non-nutrative crap and drink gallons of sugar isn't more important than my right to property. Therefore, to protect my property, we should enact taxes on fat and sugar sufficient to cover their health care costs. I'd like that better than ObamaCare(TM), but I doubt most of the anti-health-care people would stand for it. Which means that they're stealing my property in the form of their obesity. Am I justified in shooting them?
Fair warning some of us fat guys shoot back. ;)
Obesity and diabetes are an increasingly onerous drain on health care for all Americans, even now costing taxpayers 10 to 100 times as much as all illegals. Fat peoples' right to eat troughs of non-nutrative crap and drink gallons of sugar isn't more important than my right to property. Therefore, to protect my property, we should enact taxes on fat and sugar sufficient to cover their health care costs. I'd like that better than ObamaCare(TM), but I doubt most of the anti-health-care people would stand for it. Which means that they're stealing my property in the form of their obesity. Am I justified in shooting them?
While you're at it, can you pass me the gravy? Can't skimp on the gravy! nomnomnomnom...
:P
|
Oh please. The absurdity of some people on these forums is a wonder to behold. One of these days I'll actually understand why a piece of paper written before the invention of the freaking Steamboat is held to be utterly perfect and relevant for 2010.. and why people think a health care bill actually violates it.
It wasn't your fight and it isn't your Constitution so please refrain from opening your yammerhole trying to discuss something you do not and cannot understand.
As far as understanding fascism or communism again your ignorance and banality shows through. Both my parents were born and lived in Communist Russia, and with my father living under Nazi control and for some time in Germany before they both got the hell out of that sht-hole Europa. I had one uncle who was sent off to a gulag to never be seen again and another who was force conscripted into the Red Army. While I don't have first hand knowledge of living under European (and apparently UK) political systems, I have seen the effects it had had on all my surviving older relatives so spare me the "Americans have no idea what a Fascist, Communist or even a Socialist state is like", your gas is getting old.
Oh please. The absurdity of some people on these forums is a wonder to behold. One of these days I'll actually understand why a piece of paper written before the invention of the freaking Steamboat is held to be utterly perfect and relevant for 2010.. and why people think a health care bill actually violates it.It wasn't your fight and it isn't your Constitution so please refrain from opening your yammerhole trying to discuss something you do not and cannot understand.
As far as understanding fascism or communism again your ignorance and banality shows through. Both my parents were born and lived in Communist Russia, and with my father living under Nazi control and for some time in Germany before they both got the hell out of that sht-hole Europa. I had one uncle who was sent off to a gulag to never be seen again and another who was force conscripted into the Red Army. While I don't have first hand knowledge of living under European (and apparently UK) political systems, I have seen the effects it had had on all my surviving older relatives so spare me the "Americans have no idea what a Fascist, Communist or even a Socialist state is like", your gas is getting old.
+1. Thank you.
It baffles me that a scumbag like this gets an AEI job. What a sad waste of skin and oxygen.It baffles me that you are wasting your time calling names at someone's opinion.
It's not just his opinion. He helped drive policy in the Bush administration. He's welcome to his insipid opinions, but it's not OK that he helped the Bush administration wipe its ass with the Constitution. I'm not very concerned with his neocon opinions, but I have no use for his neocon policies. I think it's a difference that matters.
|
|
Perhaps you would be wise to quit stereotyping Americans.Also, it seems that Americans have no idea what a Fascist, Communist or even a Socialist state is like, and your continued cries of 'This is Fascist/Communist/Socialist' are as wrong as they are amusing.
Will do, once Americans on this board stop calling things Fascist, Communist or Socialist, when they clearly aren't. It's emotive language designed to provide an emotional response, and shut down discussion.
|
|
It wasn't your fight and it isn't your Constitution so please refrain from opening your yammerhole trying to discuss something you do not and cannot understand.As far as understanding fascism or communism again your ignorance and banality shows through. Both my parents were born and lived in Communist Russia, and with my father living under Nazi control and for some time in Germany before they both got the hell out of that sht-hole Europa. I had one uncle who was sent off to a gulag to never be seen again and another who was force conscripted into the Red Army. While I don't have first hand knowledge of living under European (and apparently UK) political systems, I have seen the effects it had had on all my surviving older relatives so spare me the "Americans have no idea what a Fascist, Communist or even a Socialist state is like", your gas is getting old.
Oooh, personal attacks. And apparently Europe is a 'Shit-Hole'. Cute.
Man, there's a bunch of pots and kettles and nationalists from both sides. Where's my Enola Gay when I need her? Blammo!
Will do, once Americans on this board stop calling things Fascist, Communist or Socialist, when they clearly aren't. It's emotive language designed to provide an emotional response, and shut down discussion.Perhaps you would be wise to quit stereotyping Americans.Also, it seems that Americans have no idea what a Fascist, Communist or even a Socialist state is like, and your continued cries of 'This is Fascist/Communist/Socialist' are as wrong as they are amusing.
It's ok for them to have opinions about something, even if they are wrong. However, displaying your bigotry by stereotyping a group of people(Americans) isn't.
Will do, once Americans on this board stop calling things Fascist, Communist or Socialist, when they clearly aren't. It's emotive language designed to provide an emotional response, and shut down discussion.Perhaps you would be wise to quit stereotyping Americans.Also, it seems that Americans have no idea what a Fascist, Communist or even a Socialist state is like, and your continued cries of 'This is Fascist/Communist/Socialist' are as wrong as they are amusing.
Someday, I must compare a European Poly Sci/Sociology/History textbook to an American one. There seems to be a real disconnect from my college days. The reaction to the terms themselves seems to strike nerves, moreso than their application. Interesting. Must include analysis of generational trends/outlooks, Euro versus American.
Even so, on some fundamental level, I can agree with you that people should be free to make bad choices, even self-destructive ones. But in real life, in the real world, why should a society bear the cost of cleaning up the mess from every idiot that self destructs? That would be moronic. We can and should do better.Ok, if I'm going to get stuck paying for everyone's bad decisions, I want the following prohibited under pain of death: smoking, Big Macs, having sex if you cannot afford a baby/abortion, drinking, chocolate, cell phones (either because people are idiots when talking and driving or because they cause brain tumors or something), trans fats, any drug that can be abused, cars, planes, motorcycles, boats, meat, guns, religion, walking, stairs, coffee, any buildings over one story, sports, etc.
Well, I'm with you on religion....
But more seriously, just as Doug's Workshop doesn't want his tax dollars going towards someone else's health care, I don't want mine to pay for the police to scrape a dead moron off the highway. I would much rather have fined the moron two weeks prior, to have hopefully reminded him to buckle up. Consider the fine a consumption tax (I think Doug's Workshop was advocating those earlier?) to help pay for the morons who don't get the message.
And, like it or not, you're already paying for all of those bad decisions (in health care costs, infrastructure costs, etc.). We have to decide what we want to tolerate, what value is provided that outweighs the costs, in each case.
What value is provided by not wearing a seatbelt that outweighs the cost of requiring its use and the cost of not wearing them?
To me, the cost to require them is negligible, and not much different at all than even requiring a driver's license in the first place. The cost of not wearing them is high. The value of not wearing them is so low as to be irrelevant.
I guess I just don't get it after all.
I respectfully submit the idea that this kind of thinking is what led us to the war on drugs.
Back during the Nixon administration who would have thought the US would be in the catastrophic hole we are in today except for some libertarians? The anti drug war folks were written off as loons who didn't support law and order.
Will do, once Americans on this board stop calling things Fascist, Communist or Socialist, when they clearly aren't. It's emotive language designed to provide an emotional response, and shut down discussion.Perhaps you would be wise to quit stereotyping Americans.Also, it seems that Americans have no idea what a Fascist, Communist or even a Socialist state is like, and your continued cries of 'This is Fascist/Communist/Socialist' are as wrong as they are amusing.
Cute. Why don't you educate us?
Cute. Why don't you educate us?Will do, once Americans on this board stop calling things Fascist, Communist or Socialist, when they clearly aren't. It's emotive language designed to provide an emotional response, and shut down discussion.Perhaps you would be wise to quit stereotyping Americans.Also, it seems that Americans have no idea what a Fascist, Communist or even a Socialist state is like, and your continued cries of 'This is Fascist/Communist/Socialist' are as wrong as they are amusing.
That would be nice. You know that a young college kid who has little to no life experience (and what little he does know comes from reading radical left wing books) knows so much more than us. You know, older men who have actually lived life. I welcome the education.
a piece of paper written before the invention of the freaking Steamboat is held to be utterly perfect and relevant for 2010..Says the guy whose country is based on the Magna Carta.
Also Uzzy, your comment seems to indicate you are not aware that the US constitution is able to be modified, if something is extremely out of date. This process is not easy, but it can be done.
:)
'Activist Ralph Nader told thousands who gathered in Lafayette Park across from the White House that Obama has essentially continued the policies of the Bush administration, and it was foolish to have thought otherwise.
"He's kept Guantanamo open, he's continued to use indefinite detention," Nader said. The only real difference, he said is that "Obama's speeches are better." '
|
|
You know, I feel it's time to vent, I'm putting my opinion out there, for all the world to see/berate/tear apart.
I consider myself a Libertarian. I am definitely a small government advocate, who doesn't believe our government is really capable of enacting and controlling large federal programs such as health care. I'm also a large believer in personal freedom and property rights, which include gay marraige, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to use drugs safely and responsibly in your own home.
Basically I've always described myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.
Now with the health care debate. Here is my problem. I don't like the bill as it is written, I would rather we had a public option then a healthcare mandate, and either way I consider both options a deal with the devil. However I believe that a president should have our support as citizens. If a president who is elected by the people puts forth policy, we should support said efforts. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to do do it in a responsible manner that includes our take on the way it should be done. But to outright oppose the president is, in my opinion, both the acts of a sore looser, and in poor taste. I believed that when we opposed Bush in reforming social security, and imigration reform. And I believe it now in Obama's health care bill.
For too long I've listened to nothing but blanket oposition to his plans/ideas, and I for one am glad that this bill got passed. I may not think it was the best form health care reform could take. But I shudder to think of the consequences if we render our president a lame duck when it comes to setting policy.
Basically this makes me think of the moon race. I see an alternate timeline where when JFK made it our goal to put a man on the moon in 10 years, we instead created an outroar bashing his wasteful spending and saying that it was a waste of money, so polarized that we instead abandoned the goal and never had a moon landing.
I don't want a political process where we hold elections that have no purpose because every election the opposition polarizes against anything the administration attempts to do, on either side of the aisle.
As for this bill, I am fine with it. I hope that instead of trying to rally against it, the right instead works to alter it so that the savings it is estimated to create actually happen, and to expand it in a way that is fiscally responsible.
Anywho, that's my 2 cents, feel free to tell me that I'm wrong and not really a libertarian or whatever.
I respect your opinion lastknightleft, but I feel some of the blame here has to be put squarely on how the House is being run. When the miniority party is basically shut out of the process, where they can't even introduce ammendments and legislation, not just that it gets voted down, they don't even get a chance to have it voted on in the first place. When that happens, then you get this type of seething anger, with people shouting out inappropriate comments and others claiming they will do their best to see the other side fail.
Frankly, the most scary thing I've seen in the past few years is Pelosi being 3rd in line for the Presidency. And the Dems will probably lose seats, but you know Pelosi isn't going to, the people in her district by and large support her, as crazy as that sounds. I just hope the Dems lose enough seats to have them lose the majority in the house. Will the Reps be better about letting the miniority party get their share of the spotlight, I hope, but I think they have been burned too bad and are likely going to be looking for vengence, sad as that is.
|
|
a piece of paper written before the invention of the freaking Steamboat is held to be utterly perfect and relevant for 2010..Says the guy whose country is based on the Magna Carta.
Basing your country on a founding document is quite fine. (Of course, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was founded by the Act of Union in 1800, not the 1215 Magna Carta). The problem arises when one goes back to those documents to argue problems that are coming up now, and when the founding document is treat with a disturbing level of reverence. Treating it as the be all and end all of debate is a problem, given that it belongs to a different time entirely, and was the product of fallible human beings.
I am well aware that the US Constitution can be changed, but as Pres Man also said, it is very hard to do so.
Are there any CBO estimates for how many people will go to prison for not having health care?
What is the fine under the senate bill for failing to go on welfare or purchase insurance?
a piece of paper written before the invention of the freaking Steamboat is held to be utterly perfect and relevant for 2010..Says the guy whose country is based on the Magna Carta.Basing your country on a founding document is quite fine. (Of course, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was founded by the Act of Union in 1800, not the 1215 Magna Carta). The problem arises when one goes back to those documents to argue problems that are coming up now, and when the founding document is treat with a disturbing level of reverence. Treating it as the be all and end all of debate is a problem, given that it belongs to a different time entirely, and was the product of fallible human beings.
I am well aware that the US Constitution can be changed, but as Pres Man also said, it is very hard to do so.
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Some Americans think that we should be a nation of laws and that the political ruling class should have to obey those laws.
|
|
I respect your opinion lastknightleft, but I feel some of the blame here has to be put squarely on how the House is being run. When the miniority party is basically shut out of the process, where they can't even introduce ammendments and legislation, not just that it gets voted down, they don't even get a chance to have it voted on in the first place. When that happens, then you get this type of seething anger, with people shouting out inappropriate comments and others claiming they will do their best to see the other side fail.
Frankly, the most scary thing I've seen in the past few years is Pelosi being 3rd in line for the Presidency. And the Dems will probably lose seats, but you know Pelosi isn't going to, the people in her district by and large support her, as crazy as that sounds. I just hope the Dems lose enough seats to have them lose the majority in the house. Will the Reps be better about letting the miniority party get their share of the spotlight, I hope, but I think they have been burned too bad and are likely going to be looking for vengence, sad as that is.
Well respectfully, I disagree that they are being left out. I've been following the entire process, and from what I see, we weren't given a public option, several of the republican ideas from their televised summit were included, and once again, compare this bill to the original house proposal and tell me that republicans haven't successfully paired it down. You claim that they were shut out, I disagree, I feel that they were included and listened to, I feel they were listened too, but that they weren't given their desire to scrap the democratic bill and instead create a republican one. Could the process have been more partisan from the beginning, I think it could have, that does not however mean they were completely ignored.
On the subject of Pelosi however, she is a nutjob and I wish she were my representative so that I could get her the #$%^ out of office.
And I actually believe that the government works best when the legislative branch has a different party running it than the executive branch. I hope republicans gain a majority. What I also hope against is a super majority. I never want to see another party gain so much control of the legislative branch. We've seen what happens when that happens and I don't think there's been a single time where the results were favorable to the american people. But then again, maybe time will bear out and we'll see that be untrue and that this or a future time things will have turned out for the best.
|
|
Are there any CBO estimates for how many people will go to prison for not having health care?
What is the fine under the senate bill for failing to go on welfare or purchase insurance?
Yeah 0 people will go to prison for not having health care. People will go to prison for tax evasion because they were levied with tax penalties for not having health care, but not having health care will never be what they are charged with. :D
A public option would have been better, IMO. I have a 22 yo son that refuses to purchase health insurance, despite my efforts to convince himn otherwise. Oh, he's fine with me paying for it, just not him. So, as a father, I'm kinda glad he will be forced to do so. Not surprisingly, his support of universal healthcare evaporated as soon as he found out that he has to buy it or be fined. There is a HUGE generational gap btwn what he believes about responsibility versus what I believed at that age. A scary gap.
Also, a salient point to our global RPG'ers. As self-centered as this may sound, it is we Americans that have to foot the bill on whatever this turns out to be. Having an altruistic ideal of a better world is all fine and good, but the practical matter of how is it funded falls squarely on our shoulders, and the older of us have seen our gov't (sadly) live up to its promises of improvements. Hence our cynicism. Of course, if the US cut off funding for a lot of overseas programs I'm sure the final bill to the US taxpayer would be lessened. But that too is just a dream, I'm afraid.
I offer these insights in the hopes of better understanding of the POV of this middle-aged voter.
Yeah 0 people will go to prison for not having health care. People will go to prison for tax evasion because they were levied with tax penalties for not having health care, but not having health care will never be what they are charged with. :DAre there any CBO estimates for how many people will go to prison for not having health care?
What is the fine under the senate bill for failing to go on welfare or purchase insurance?
Smart aleck. I think the Libertarian party can make great strides in future elections, now that the cesspool of the current system has been made so 'noticeable'. ;)
|
|
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Some Americans think that we should be a nation of laws and that the political ruling class should have to obey those laws.
Another problem arises when the Constitution, which was written at a time when the US population was 3,929,326 and Barack Obama would have counted as 3/5's of a person, is still the supreme law today, when the US has a population of 308,918,000 and is a very, very different country. The Constitution is also very hard (but not impossible) to change.
What I'm saying is that it's not reactive to changes in what the United States is.