Page 78 of 143 FirstFirst ... 2868737475767778798081828388128 ... LastLast
Results 1,541 to 1,560 of 2855
  1. #1541  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Kind of pointless since you have determined what you consider to be culturally and politically positive behaviors, but sure, I'll play. Then I'll add a question of my own.

    1. Yes
    2. Depends on whether or not we have a universal health plan. If we don't, then no, I don't pay enough taxes.
    3. United Way, local homeless shelter, vet med shelter program, Humane Society, many others.
    4. Wife and two grown children
    5. Yes
    6. Yes
    7. None
    8. Over many years, two that I can recall
    9. Probably none, although I've given cash to people in our clinic on numerous occasions. I can't guantee that I've paid for their entire cart. Absurdly worded question, though.
    10. None that I can recall
    11. We did not.
    12. Depends on what you mean "to help others". If you mean to liberate a country that shouldn't have been invaded, not much. If you mean to provide health care to people that don't have it, probably between 35 and 50%. Again, absurdly worded question.
    13. Probably not, because I would see the child myself, or arrange for the child to be seen.
    14. Depends on whether it's an attempt to buy influence, such as from a pharmaceutical company.
    15. Depends. Ridiculous question.
    16. Yes.
    17. As my spouse is a CPA, it's more like she consults me.
    18. No. More likely consider myself stupid if it has to do with taxes.
    19. Plus/minus.
    20. Last time I looked, four and a thumb.

    Now just one question for you:

    How much time per month do you spend working with or for needy people in your community?
    Dr. David, thanks very much for taking the time to answer my questions. Since Toby was kind enough to do so as well, I am going to compare his answers to yours.

    1. Do you pay taxes?
    Toby Yes
    David Yes
    I'd have been surprised if either of you had answered differently
    2. Do you think you pay enough taxes?
    Toby: I think I pay too much in taxes in total, but I think that some of the things I pay for in taxes I would pay more were they utilized more intelligently.
    David: Depends on whether or not we have a universal health plan. If we don't, then no, I don't pay enough taxes.
    Toby your answer makes good sense to me.
    David I wonder why only universal healthcare would make you want to pay more taxes? I realize the nature of the thread, but have you always felt more of your money should go to a universal health system?
    3. Do you give to charity? (not dropping clothes at Good Will, writing checks to a charity)
    Toby: I give in the ways that I can. I probably gave more in my last job since my employer had a structure where they facilitated giving a certain portion of one's salary per day (x number of minutes). They would then direct it to the charit(y/ies) of one's choosing.
    David: United Way, local homeless shelter, vet med shelter program, Humane Society, many others.
    Seems being charitable is within everyone.
    4. Do you have a family?
    Toby: Yes.
    David: Wife and two grown children
    David it sounds like you maybe older than some here, with grown children. As a result you may have more discretionary income and more time to devote to charitable endeavors than those here with younger families.
    5. Are you satisfied with your income?
    Toby: Yes and no. I make a good living, but would obviously be able to do more for my family and community if I made more.
    David: Yes
    Toby I think many here would answer the same.
    David, I think this answer supports my response to the previous question.
    6. Are you satisfied with your standard of living?
    Toby: Yes
    David: Yes
    It's nice you have both reached this point
    7. How many children have you adopted?
    Toby: None. I'm still paying off the natural one.
    David: None
    That's a big step for anyone I would think.
    8. How many homeless people have you given residence to?
    Toby: Not counting family and friends, none.
    David: Over many years, two that I can recall
    Toby, that seems reasonable.
    David, could you be more specific? Was the situation similar to Toby's or were these homeless that one would normally envision when the term homeless is used?
    9. How many times have you paid for someone else's groceries? The whole cart not just the change they were short.
    Toby: Not exactly the same, but just paid for my neighbor's supper.
    David: Probably none, although I've given cash to people in our clinic on numerous occasions. I can't guantee that I've paid for their entire cart. Absurdly worded question, though.
    David nice of you to hand out cash in your clinic. Why do you attack the question?
    10. How many times have you paid for someone else's rent?
    Toby: Directly, none.
    David: None that I can recall
    Not surprising. I don't think many would sign up to pay someone else's rent.
    11. If you have children, do you or your spouse clean their rooms?
    Toby: Not any more. A child should be able to clean their own room at least by 7 or 8 (and should be able to participate well before then).
    David: We did not.
    Toby, logical answer.
    David, cmon you did at one point. Who taught them to do it themselves if not you?
    12. How much of your income would you sacrifice to help others?
    a. 10%
    b. 25%
    c. 50%
    Toby: It would depend on the other, and how much of my income was already being 'sacrificed'.
    David: Depends on what you mean "to help others". If you mean to liberate a country that shouldn't have been invaded, not much. If you mean to provide health care to people that don't have it, probably between 35 and 50%. Again, absurdly worded question.
    Again attacking the question. Whats absurd. The question was worded so that it was general. No indication of how the money would be spent was given. Your answer was kind enough to point out that not everyone agrees with what is done with tax money. Since you only want your money used for healthcare can you not concede that others may feel differently than you? Can you not also concede that YOUR desire is not necessarily the CORRECT one just because thats your OPINION?
    13. If I showed up at your door on every payday and demanded any of the above percentages and told you I would use the money to take a homeless child to the doctor would you give it to me without question?
    Toby: No. After the first couple pay days, I'd greet you armed.
    David: Probably not, because I would see the child myself, or arrange for the child to be seen.
    Toby, same here.
    David, what if you weren't a doctor? Your answer seems a tad myopic. What if your were a grocery store clerk, would you answer differently?
    14. If someone offers you something for free do you accept it?
    Toby: Not usually.
    David: Depends on whether it's an attempt to buy influence, such as from a pharmaceutical company.
    David, again the narrow view. Do you relate everything to your medical practice? You do however bring up a great point. "Depends on whether it's an attempt to buy influence". Some of us feel that free healthcare is an attempt to buy influence.
    15. Do you question whether it really is free or do you just accept that it is?
    Toby: Neither. TANSTAAFL.
    David: Depends. Ridiculous question.
    Toby, I agree completely. There is nothing free.
    David, again attacking the question. And yet you made the point this question asks in your previous answer.
    16. Do you think you are responsible?
    Toby: I know I'm responsible.
    David: Yes.
    The follow up question i didnt ask was do you think you are responsible for others besides your self (beyond family responsibilities of course)?
    17. Do you consult your spouse (if you have one) when making money related decisions?
    Toby: Yes.
    David: As my spouse is a CPA, it's more like she consults me.
    Toby, as do I.
    David, It seems odd a CPA would consult a doctor but I get your point. You make monetary decisions together.
    18. If your spouse (if you have one) disagrees with you about money do you think them stupid?
    Toby: No. If I thought her stupid, I'd not have married her.
    David: No. More likely consider myself stupid if it has to do with taxes.
    Of course to both points.
    19. Do you like the color green?
    Toby: Yes, but it's not my favorite color.
    David: Plus/minus.
    I like green. But it your answers show we don't all see things the same.
    20. How many fingers do you have on your right hand?
    Toby: Five
    David: Last time I looked, four and a thumb.
    Me too on both. Point is there are at least two ways to see the same thing.

    So what have we learned from this exercise?
    Well I have learned writing a post like this takes a long time. Whew!!

    I have also learned that the two sides to this argument have:
    common ground
    respect for others
    A sense of responsibility
    their own perspective
    a different opinion about different things

    What I dont get is why some think they can decide what is best for others. David you feel that unicare is best because you see many without. Are you able to see beyond your world and see that not everyone shares your view? And that that doesnt make them wrong, just different?

    I think green is the best color ever,but I don't think less of you or Toby because you don't agree. And I certainly don't think everything should be green, just because I think it's best.

    Oh and don't think I forgot
    How much time per month do you spend working with or for needy people in your community?
    Please define "needy". Just kidding, although your definition might be different than others. Virtually none. I have a wife, two small children, a job that requires 60 hours a week and some travel. My free time and energy is devoted to my family. I donate to charity through my company's community efforts and occasionally volunteer in those activities.
    I anxiously await your judgment on my lack of care for the needy. Just be prepared for my vitriolic diatribe on your wishy washy position on the color green.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  2. #1542  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    But since you were crediting the Bush Administration when the news was good, can we now blame them for this new bad news?
    Well....I would hope the economic woes would end at some point during Obama's 4 years! LOL Does that mean it was his doing? My point is that from what I've read and experienced, the economy goes through these cycles and so unlikely Obama and his buddies can totally it up. However, if there is one thing I have learned from Obama and his administration, if there is a way for them to up something they certainly have the folks on hand to do it. The sad thing is I think they would like that as it would bring everyone more on par with each other.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  3. #1543  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    The US Inport-Export Bank doesn't use tax dollars. It's totally self-sustaining. Therefore it's not an issue of spending tax money here or there. This loan was designed as an interest-bearing loan (to make a profit for the gov't) as well as to promote American industry. That's the entire purpose of the Import-Export Bank, and in most circles, those goals would be considered a good thing.

    Letters to the Editor: Brazil Loan Helps U.S. Manufacturers - WSJ.com.
    I will shock you and give you a point for clarification on that and showing that it might not be tax dollars....I'm still suspicious. I will be watching it and see if this is truly how it goes down. My second point of this still stands, and that is if it is okay to drill off the Brazil coast, why can't we drill off our own coast????? Then, we keep everything here. Surely you can agree that it would be better for all of this to stay at home?....you know....right here in America?????

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Of course, we all know that this was never intended to be a long-term strategy, and that it is universally considered to have been a tremendous success, as it (a) stimulated spending, and (b) created jobs. It's okay to occassionally admit that the government did something right...we won't tell.
    Sorry....I won't admit this was a success. All it proved was that the government once again did a horrible job of planning a program. Oh sure....John Smith, who was likely going to buy a car in the next year decided to buy it now instead of 6 months from now....big whoop. Guess what, I'll bet a huge majority were people just moving up purchases to take advantage of our tax money. The analysts who study the car market have now lowered their car purchase predictions because of this exact thing. And, those of us who weren't in the market for a car were not able to participate in this short term stimulus.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  4. #1544  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I will shock you and give you a point for clarification on that and showing that it might not be tax dollars....I'm still suspicious.
    It's not that it "may not be tax dollars". It simply isn't tax dollars....it's easily verifiable, and therefore suspicion is unwarranted, unless you are looking for conspiracies that aren't there.

    My second point of this still stands, and that is if it is okay to drill off the Brazil coast, why can't we drill off our own coast????? Then, we keep everything here. Surely you can agree that it would be better for all of this to stay at home?....you know....right here in America?????
    But they're two totally different arguments. Brazil is a sovereign nation, and their decisions about drilling are entirely independent from ours. The US Import-Export Bank has absolutely nothing to do with deciding where / when anyone drills for oil, and thus don't have the ability to decide that the money is better spent at home...their entire purpose is to develop loans with other countries.

    Sorry....I won't admit this was a success.
    Many would argue that the metric that the program should be judged on was on the goals of stimulating spending and creating jobs. The fact that people were putting off purchasing was exactly the problem that it was targetting - hesitancy to spend.

    The Economist, which has a reputation for fiscal conservatism, supports the effectiveness of the program, and addresses the supposed issue of pulling forward demand from the future here:

    http://www.economist.com/businessfin...ry_id=14162193

    Personally, I find the argument that "the government can't plan a program because it was too successful" a bit silly. If it didn't stimulate the economy, the administration would be criticized, and if it's more successful than expected, they get criticized as well. That just smacks of sour grapes.
    Last edited by Bujin; 08/22/2009 at 06:42 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  5. #1545  
    Woof,while I love my Pre it doesn't lend itself to a lengthy response and I am in a cabin on the gulf coast, happy I even have data. I can say that although I consider myself a liberal and proud of it, I am a gun owner and have what I think many would consider moderate views. That is not true of health care. I am passionate about the position that every single person in this country should have access to high quality health care. That is., in fact, the most important issue for this country, I can't help that. It is based on what I see on a daily basis. Some have called that "God-like" attitudinally. It isn't. I think that most of you would feel the same way if you saw what I see. Call it egocentric if you want. In fact, it's simply based on many years of observations....and what I consider my responsibilities to be.
  6. #1546  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Well....I would hope the economic woes would end at some point during Obama's 4 years! LOL Does that mean it was his doing?
    In short, yes. It's easy now to say that recovery is inevitable, but nobody was saying at the end of 2008 that this was simply a cycle that we could reasonably expect to recover from in the forseeable future.

    If the economy is at the precipice of a depression when an administration arrives, and recovery occurs during the term of the administration, then the administration should be credited for that. If the economy doesn't improve, this administration will certainly get the blame.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  7. #1547  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    So what have we learned from this exercise?
    Well I have learned writing a post like this takes a long time. Whew!!
    LOL...Well, it certainly can be more effort, but doesn't it make it that much easier on the reader to see exactly what you're addressing?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #1548  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    In short, yes. It's easy now to say that recovery is inevitable, but nobody was saying at the end of 2008 that this was simply a cycle that we could reasonably expect to recover from in the forseeable future.

    If the economy is at the precipice of a depression when an administration arrives, and recovery occurs during the term of the administration, then the administration should be credited for that. If the economy doesn't improve, this administration will certainly get the blame.
    Hey Bujin....first....thanks for no longer blocking me! Do you remember when the first George Bush left office and the economy was in the dumps? It was likely the reason he lost. Anyway, slick Willy...ummm....I mean President Clinton stepped in and in something like 6 months the economy was busting wide open....remember? Do you think it was Clinton's doing, George Bush's policies starting to kick in, or just the cycle of recovery? Just curious.

    By the way, I realize what we were in recently was far worse than back then, I realize that. It's just funny that Clinton got the credit for the recovery when he had done nothing, or at least it hadn't been enough time for his policies to kick in. Anyway.....your premise is that in 4 years the economy could possibly not recover, correct, and that if it does we should praise Obama? I find that a bit absurd. If the economy doesn't recover in 4 years, well, another liberal should NEVER be voted back in, agreed? Of course, the liberals will still blame Bush after 4 years so of course they won't see it that way. If that was the case, I can just hear Obama now...."you remember what I inherited 4 years ago, right? We just had no idea how bad George Bush had been for the country. But if you give me 4 more years, I can promise you change....and....this time....I really promise not to increase the taxes of anyone making less than $250,000!" (yells and screams as women faint in the audience)

    Oh....always watching the government....whether liberal or conservative....gotta watch their every move and I won't put anything pass them. Any group whose main goal is to get re-elected, votes themselves raises, gives themselves a nice health plan and retirement plan (I don't need no stinking social security or medicare).....well....I don't trust 'em.
    Last edited by clemgrad85; 08/22/2009 at 08:13 PM.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  9. #1549  
    On a saturday night....rather than one of Woof's long questionnaires, after having a couple of margaritas out on the balcony with a nice breeze off the water.....name your favorite band of all time:

    EAGLES!

    Yo doc....hope you're enjoying your cabin time! Do me a favor, and get a message to Tebow to kick some Gamecock this year. Nothing does a Tiger better than watching the Gamecocks get knocked around.....football season loomes!
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  10. #1550  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Do you remember when the first George Bush left office and the economy was in the dumps? It was likely the reason he lost. Anyway, slick Willy...ummm....I mean President Clinton stepped in and in something like 6 months the economy was busting wide open....remember? Do you think it was Clinton's doing, George Bush's policies starting to kick in, or just the cycle of recovery? Just curious.
    It wasn't likely the reason, it was definitely the reason. If you recall, he had soaring approval ratings until the economy tanked.

    Clinton took major steps to address the large deficit that had developed during the Reagan / Bush years. His Budget Reconciliation Act, and expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, had a major impact on the economy...I don't think there's any evidence that any of Bush's policies impacted the Clinton-era economy. It's also important to stress that I'm not saying this as a Clinton supporter: on the contrary, I voted for Bush I both times he ran, and voted for Dole in 96.

    It's just funny that Clinton got the credit for the recovery when he had done nothing, or at least it hadn't been enough time for his policies to kick in.
    History shows that this is simply not true. Despite any other weaknesses Clinton may have had, at the end of his presidency, 76% of Americans approved of Clinton's handling of the economy, including 58 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of conservatives:

    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/polit...acy010117.html

    Anyway.....your premise is that in 4 years the economy could possibly not recover, correct, and that if it does we should praise Obama? I find that a bit absurd. If the economy doesn't recover in 4 years, well, another liberal should NEVER be voted back in, agreed?
    Only if you agree with the argument that, since the economy tanked under Bush II, we should never vote for another conservative.

    As absurd as you find it that the president should actually get credit if things improve under his watch, I find it absurd that he shouldn't.
    Last edited by Bujin; 08/22/2009 at 08:42 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  11. #1551  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    LOL...Well, it certainly can be more effort, but doesn't it make it that much easier on the reader to see exactly what you're addressing?
    Actually learned that from you several years ago when I first ran across your posts in the old atheism thread.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  12. #1552  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Woof,while I love my Pre it doesn't lend itself to a lengthy response and I am in a cabin on the gulf coast, happy I even have data. I can say that although I consider myself a liberal and proud of it, I am a gun owner and have what I think many would consider moderate views. That is not true of health care. I am passionate about the position that every single person in this country should have access to high quality health care. That is., in fact, the most important issue for this country, I can't help that. It is based on what I see on a daily basis. Some have called that "God-like" attitudinally. It isn't. I think that most of you would feel the same way if you saw what I see. Call it egocentric if you want. In fact, it's simply based on many years of observations....and what I consider my responsibilities to be.
    Well said, and a lot less condescending than many of your previous posts. Not attacking just commenting.
    While I agree that there are problems with our healthcare system, I don't agree that unicare is necessarily the answer nor, more importantly, do I think Obama's rush to enact a new system is it either. I am more the "tackle the pieces one at a time' type.
    Quick analogy. I see this healthcare bit much like a car. My 95 BMW has some issues. While I could just scrap it and buy a new care that will likely cost more and I may not like the new car as much. So instead I'll look into the cars specific issues and fix them one at a time, or two if it's affordable. I'd rather not go into debt for years to come.

    Not the perfect analogy I admit but I think you get the point. Enjoy the gulf.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  13. #1553  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    It wasn't likely the reason, it was definitely the reason. If you recall, he had soaring approval ratings until the economy tanked.

    Clinton took major steps to address the large deficit that had developed during the Reagan / Bush years. His Budget Reconciliation Act, and expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, had a major impact on the economy...I don't think there's any evidence that any of Bush's policies impacted the Clinton-era economy. It's also important to stress that I'm not saying this as a Clinton supporter: on the contrary, I voted for Bush I both times he ran, and voted for Dole in 96.



    History shows that this is simply not true. Despite any other weaknesses Clinton may have had, at the end of his presidency, 76% of Americans approved of Clinton's handling of the economy, including 58 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of conservatives:

    ABCNEWS.com : Poll: Clinton Legacy Mixed



    Only if you agree with the argument that, since the economy tanked under Bush II, we should never vote for another conservative.

    As absurd as you find it that the president should actually get credit if things improve under his watch, I find it absurd that he shouldn't.
    While the wealthy no doubt got wealthier under Clinton, it became quite clear that the stock market and many other investments were at levels that could not be explained. We had 5 straight years in the late 90s where the market did greater than 20% each of those years (this had never been done before). While no one complained (including myself) it was truly "irrational exuberance" as Greenspan noted. What occured after such high returns in the market was to be expected and, of course, hit George Bush. Kind of a weird time, the late 90s under Clinton. You gotta give him credit for how well the market performed, but, does he also therefore deserve some of the blame for taking things up too fast and high that it couldn't be sustained and forced a huge correction in 2001/2002? All that is above my pay grade. Something tells me you'll feel quite comfortable blaming it all on Bush. Just like you will likely not blame the likes of Barney Frank for any of the loan issues that occured during the Bush years. Can you at least admit the democrats had a hand in the lax lending rules? I certainly saw many videos of democrats arguing for the rights of everyone to qualify for a home loan. Do you now see that it is not feasible for everyone to be able to qualify for a loan? Some folks, unfortunately, simply should not own a home.

    By the way....if I indicated that a President shouldn't get the blame or the credit for a good or bad performance of the economy then I apologize for that poor communication. Certainly Presidents have a role in it, but I think equal credit or blame should also be put on the Congress. I will be the first to say that I was deeply disappointed in the Republicans under Bush. I think they abandoned the Conservative principles and behaved like money hungry democrats....I can't deny that and it will take them a little while to get my complete confidence back. Blocking, or at least attempting to block, crazy spending like federal funded health care is one way they will get my confidence back. If they bend over for Obama and the democrats on this, just not sure who I will be able to vote for in the future. After all, the democrats don't need a single Republican vote to put through their plan...and then....well....I think the 2010 elections could be interesting!
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  14. #1554  
    Sorry....long post....something my Dad just wrote for a local paper. My Dad also wrote a book on the Federalist Papers....go Dad!

    The Constitution – the Real Issue
    A few days ago I received an e-mail from an acquaintance that I also count as a friend, with the Subject “Wild Rumors Needing Correction”. My friend, a well-known member of this community and very active within the local Democratic Party surprised me with his e-mail. The information, which was contained therein, concerned the health care plan being supported by the Obama administration. This information was very similar to e-mails I received from the White House, by David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to the President. Frankly I was surprised that I received any communication from the White House, as I had no idea that I was in their address book.
    In my response to my friend I told him that my problem with ANY federal government run health care plan was that it was unconstitutional. The issue should NOT be if H.R. 676 (Rep. John Conyers Health Care Bill, which is one of several being considered) is good or bad for America, but whether or not the Congress has authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The same is true for the bailout and/or stimulus legislation passed by Congress in 2008 and 2009, with the take-over of the banking, insurance, financial and automotive industries. The answer is, of course, none of these bills are constitutional.
    This is what the American people should be asking their representatives – does Congress have the POWER to be in the business of providing health care, or for running GM or Chrysler or AIG, or the control of any corporation or business? All one has to do is get a copy of the Constitution and read what it says about POWERS delegated to the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches of the federal government. If you need further explanation on the intent of the signers of this document, I suggest that you get a copy of The Federalist Papers, or other material written by several of the Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, or James Madison (who is credited with actually writing the Constitution).
    I recently read an excerpt from Myron Magnet’s book The Dream and the Nightmare, the Sixties Legacy to the Underclass (1993), which talks about how most members of Congress (and politicians in general) view their “role” as “doing good deeds with other peoples money with the feeling that the boundaries of the Constitution is irrelevant.” Here is the excerpt:
    "Instead of ending poverty for the Have- Nots - despite the civil rights movement - despite the War on Poverty - the new culture order fostered, in the underclass and the homeless, a new intractable poverty that shocked and dismayed, that seemed to belong more to the era of ragged chimney sweeps than to modern America, that went beyond the economic realm into the realm of pathology. Poverty turned pathological . . . because the new culture that the Haves invented - their remade system of beliefs, norms and institutions - permitted, even celebrated, behavior that, when poor people practiced it, will imprison them inextricably in poverty . . . Worse, during the sixties and seventies, the new culture of the Haves, in its quest for personal liberation, withdrew respect from the behavior and attitudes that have traditionally boosted people up the economic ladder - deferral of gratification, sobriety, thrift, dogged industry, and so on through the whole catalogue of antique-sounding bourgeois virtues." (Mr. Magnet was the editor in chief of the City Journal, the Manhattan Institute.)
    What has this to do with the issues in our world of 2009? Everything! The “modern liberal progressive” politician has decided that our document of 221 years is no longer relevant in 21st Century America, and therefore the boundaries under the Constitution no longer need to be respected. This phenomenon did not just happen after the 2008 election. This trend began in earnest at the beginning of the 20th Century, and has escalated ever since. We have ceased to be a nation of “laws”, but rather of “men”.
    Compassion is NOT the government’s business. Compassion is the business of the Society of People. Before the advent of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all of the other government social experiments it was the churches, local charities, the Salvation Army, and other organizations that were aware of the needs of those less fortunate. This was true compassion, not the government programs designed to “fit the needs of all”, but to make our society dependent on government.
    James Madison in Federalist No. 57 gave the following concerning the House of Representatives:
    “If it be asked what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer, the genius of the whole system, the nature of just and constitutional laws, and above all the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, [is] a spirit which nourishes freedom and in return is nourished by it.”
    And a little further in No. 57: “The House of Representatives . . . can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interest, and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples, but without which every government degenerates into tyranny,”
    In closing I am reminded of the statement of our greatest Statesman, Thomas Jefferson, from his autobiography (1821) on the federal government: “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread”. He also stated in his first Inaugural Address the following: “A wise and frugal government shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  15. #1555  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Just like you will likely not blame the likes of Barney Frank for any of the loan issues that occured during the Bush years. Can you at least admit the democrats had a hand in the lax lending rules?
    I absolutely agree that deregulation was a bad thing. I'm surprised that you are taking the side that more rules by the government would have helped. I'm glad you've come around!

    Factcheck.org clarifies Barney Frank's role by stating "saying that Democrats killed the [Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005] oversimplifies things considerably. The bill made it out of committee in the Senate but was never brought up for consideration. At that time, Republicans had a majority in the Senate and controlled the agenda. Democrats never got the chance to vote against it or to mount a filibuster to block it." So, while there's plenty of blame on both sides of the aisle, as well as on the American people as a whole for not realizing the bubble wouldn't last forever, putting all the blame on Frank is simply not accurate.


    I will be the first to say that I was deeply disappointed in the Republicans under Bush. I think they abandoned the Conservative principles and behaved like money hungry democrats....
    I don't actually disagree with you here. I've said many times that the path back to some semblance of power is for the Republicans to return to fiscal conservatism - the problem is that they can't seem to separate from the evangelical social issues. If they stick to that one issue, and stay out of people's bedrooms, they'd get a great deal more support.

    Blocking, or at least attempting to block, crazy spending like federal funded health care is one way they will get my confidence back.
    Until the point where, because health care costs continue to rise at the incredible rate that they are, folks like you and I join the uninsured and under-insured.
    Last edited by Bujin; 08/22/2009 at 11:16 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  16. #1556  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    In my response to my friend I told him that my problem with ANY federal government run health care plan was that it was unconstitutional. The issue should NOT be if H.R. 676 (Rep. John Conyers Health Care Bill, which is one of several being considered) is good or bad for America, but whether or not the Congress has authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The same is true for the bailout and/or stimulus legislation passed by Congress in 2008 and 2009, with the take-over of the banking, insurance, financial and automotive industries. The answer is, of course, none of these bills are constitutional.
    While some read the Constitution as strictly as this quote, it fails to recognize the Impled Powers within Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution, which includes the right "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."

    That's the main justification of such often-quoted examples of a US Air Force and US Department of Education, which are not specifically addressed in the Constitution, but the government consider "necessary and proper" in order to "promote the general welfare". And, trust me, there are days when I wish the Department of Education were unconstitutional (it would make my work life easier), but that's not the common interpretation.

    More info can be found here: http://www.answers.com/topic/implied-powers
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  17. #1557  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I absolutely agree that deregulation was a bad thing. I'm surprised that you are taking the side that more rules by the government would have helped. I'm glad you've come around!
    Not so fast....in my opinion, the government intervention is what caused much of the loan problems. I have a funny cartoon, that has 2 pictures, one on the left side of the page and one on the right side of the page. Each picture is an identical picture of a cowboy on a horse, with a sheriff badge that says "Congress". The "sheriff" on each horse is holding a picture of a mortgage banker that says "Wanted". On the left side picture, it says "That was Then" and the sheriff is saying "He's wanted for not giving enough loans to poor, minority home buyers." The picture on the right is labeled "This is Now" and the sheriff is saying "He's wanted for giving too many loans to poor, minority home buyers." I think that pretty much sums it up. The Congress put pressure on Freddie and Fannie to get slack with loan qualifications and what happened was people started qualifying for loans they had no business getting involved with. Yes, some folks weren't properly explained how the loan worked, but at the same time there was pressure on them to make these loans, and, people were quite interested in taking loans with no down payments and let's face it, many people were greedy.

    So....no, I believe in many instances the government needs to let financial institutions run in ways that is good financial business. As my Dad said in his column that I posted, the government was trying to be "compassionate", and that is not the business of the governement, to be compassionate. Many folks weren't qualifying for loans, not because they were black, but because they felt it was a bad business decision to loan to these people because of their finances. But in the infinite wisdom of Congress who felt it was racially motivated, this had to change....and look what that got us.

    Oh....and not putting all the blame on Frank, would just like to hear him say he had a little part in that whole debacle.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  18. #1558  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    While some read the Constitution as strictly as this quote, it fails to recognize the Impled Powers within Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution, which includes the right "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."

    That's the main justification of such often-quoted examples of a US Air Force and US Department of Education, which are not specifically addressed in the Constitution, but the government consider "necessary and proper" in order to "promote the general welfare". And, trust me, there are days when I wish the Department of Education were unconstitutional (it would make my work life easier), but that's not the common interpretation.

    More info can be found here: Implied Powers: Definition from Answers.com
    I simply disagree with you. I'll match your Wikipedia with: Originalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I follow the belief that if something isn't provided in the Constitution it can be amended to reflect the changing times (such as the abolishment of slavery and the voting rights of everyone). We will just have to agree to disagree, but it does explain why folks like my father and myself believe the whole concept of federally supported healthcare is unconstitutional. Note, I did not say the states could not address this issue. In fact, even though some opposed to any government intervention would disagree with me, I am not opposed to state coverage for those that can not attain coverage through private means. I would even be in favor of some type of gas or sales tax to help fund this, but, it needs to be done by the states and not the federal government. I would only suggest this if it can not be done by private insurance.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  19. #1559  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    The Congress put pressure on Freddie and Fannie to get slack with loan qualifications and what happened was people started qualifying for loans they had no business getting involved with. Yes, some folks weren't properly explained how the loan worked, but at the same time there was pressure on them to make these loans, and, people were quite interested in taking loans with no down payments and let's face it, many people were greedy.
    What act did Congress enact that involved slackening rules regarding qualifications? To my knowledge (and I'll admit that economics isn't my strength), Congress didn't force Freddie and Fannie to lower their lending standards - they simply didn't strongly enforce any real regulation to prevent it.

    When control moved from Republicans to Democrats in 2007, Frank's work led to the Federal Housing Reform Act and the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act. A summary of some of the legislation Frank supported to provide more regulatory control of Fannie / Freddie can be seen here: http://mediamatters.org/research/200901080014

    If you know of any act Barney Frank enacted that exerted pressure on Fannie / Freddie to make bad loans (other than just saying "Congress did it"), I'd certainly like to know. As I posted above, the main excuse to blame Frank simply wasn't valid, according to factcheck.org.
    Last edited by Bujin; 08/23/2009 at 09:51 AM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  20. #1560  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I simply disagree with you. I'll match your Wikipedia with: Originalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I follow the belief that if something isn't provided in the Constitution it can be amended to reflect the changing times (such as the abolishment of slavery and the voting rights of everyone). We will just have to agree to disagree, but it does explain why folks like my father and myself believe the whole concept of federally supported healthcare is unconstitutional.
    I understand that this is your belief. But that doesn't make it legal reality. Your strict interpretation of the Constitution is not shared by everyone, and that the general consensus is that there are some rights not expressly stated in the Constitution that are covered under "implied powers".

    People can disagree about exactly what issues (health care, education, the US Air Force) fall under "implied powers". But it's hard to ignore the fact that case law doesn't support an absolute Originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Examples include
    - Roe v. Wade (of course),
    - Griswold v. CT (which challenged a silly CT law outlawing contraception, and in which the main argument was about whether the right to privacy was in the Constitution).
    - Lawrence v. Texas (striking down sodomy laws, even though sexual privacy isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution).
    Last edited by Bujin; 08/23/2009 at 10:12 AM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G

Posting Permissions