We really need Jack Bauer.

[evilbau]

As a Puertorican, i can personaly tell you, from knowledge of the history here: Fuck private bussiness.

(And the constitution doesn't say the fed can provide education.)

The constitution doesn't say alot of things.

And the things it doesn't say, the federal government shouldn't be doing.

well, i never said the preamble was constitutional. if i did, i would have said something stronger, but what I'm getting at is that the framers obviously thought it was the job of the federal govt to 'promote the general welfare' but at the same time not give too much power to the fed and leave a lot for the states.

National Healthcare would reap huge benefits for economy of scale (look up private healthcare administrative costs versus medicare/medicaid) and imo, would definitely fall under what the authors of the constitution meant. If you didn't notice, it is now the republicans who are advocating radical healthcare changes so that the individual and not employers are the beneficiaries of the tax savings associated with paying for healthcare. They have hijacked the democrats issue from under them and more power to them: this is a good solution that allows them to maintain their small government philosophy. There would still be tons of people who wouldn't get healthcare with this change so personally i would prefer healthcare for everyone.

Playing the game of 'oh its not in the constitution so federal govt can't do it' is naive, there are tons of issues that are national problems that require programs and legislation which come with progress.

[Kuya]

Playing the game of 'oh its not in the constitution so federal govt can't do it' is naive, there are tons of issues that are national problems that require programs and legislation which come with progress.

Exactly, just because the constitution does not say it can, doesn't mean it can't, to my dismay.

[pohibaba]

As a Puertorican, i can personaly tell you, from knowledge of the history here: Fuck private bussiness.

(And the constitution doesn't say the fed can provide education.)

The constitution doesn't say alot of things.

And the things it doesn't say, the federal government shouldn't be doing.

well, i never said the preamble was constitutional. if i did, i would have said something stronger, but what I'm getting at is that the framers obviously thought it was the job of the federal govt to 'promote the general welfare' but at the same time not give too much power to the fed and leave a lot for the states.

National Healthcare would reap huge benefits for economy of scale (look up private healthcare administrative costs versus medicare/medicaid) and imo, would definitely fall under what the authors of the constitution meant. If you didn't notice, it is now the republicans who are advocating radical healthcare changes so that the individual and not employers are the beneficiaries of the tax savings associated with paying for healthcare. They have hijacked the democrats issue from under them and more power to them: this is a good solution that allows them to maintain their small government philosophy. There would still be tons of people who wouldn't get healthcare with this change so personally i would prefer healthcare for everyone.

Playing the game of 'oh its not in the constitution so federal govt can't do it' is naive, there are tons of issues that are national problems that require programs and legislation which come with progress.

You can't circumvent the constitution simply to meet whatever is popular at the time, our country simply doesn't work like that nor should it. If you want to change the constitution, be my guest, but you simply cannot pass a law that the constitution doesn't give you the power to.

[Kuya]

but you simply cannot pass a law that the constitution doesn't give you the power to.

Good thing it doesn't say that you can't.

[Maxxthepenguin]

didn't want to wade in too deep into this argument, ppl seem to be saying plenty haha

BUT i wanted to point out that ensuring a baseline level of health for your residents certainly sounds like 'promoting the general welfare' of this country (preamble of the u.s. constitution).

poor people who don't want to pay for helping fellow americans who can't afford it themselves.

The supreme court has stated that the preamble does not assign powers to the federal government.

So are you saying that the government should not promote the general welfare?

No, in the preamble the founders are saying that in order to X, X, X, X, X, promote the general welfare, X, X, X, "we do ordain and establish
this constitution for the United States of America."

I'm not arguing what they said. I'm wondering: Do you think the government should promote the general welfare of its citizens?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

As a Puertorican, i can personaly tell you, from knowledge of the history here: Fuck private bussiness.

(And the constitution doesn't say the fed can provide education.)

The constitution doesn't say alot of things.

And the things it doesn't say, the federal government shouldn't be doing.

well, i never said the preamble was constitutional. if i did, i would have said something stronger, but what I'm getting at is that the framers obviously thought it was the job of the federal govt to 'promote the general welfare' but at the same time not give too much power to the fed and leave a lot for the states.

National Healthcare would reap huge benefits for economy of scale (look up private healthcare administrative costs versus medicare/medicaid) and imo, would definitely fall under what the authors of the constitution meant. If you didn't notice, it is now the republicans who are advocating radical healthcare changes so that the individual and not employers are the beneficiaries of the tax savings associated with paying for healthcare. They have hijacked the democrats issue from under them and more power to them: this is a good solution that allows them to maintain their small government philosophy. There would still be tons of people who wouldn't get healthcare with this change so personally i would prefer healthcare for everyone.

Playing the game of 'oh its not in the constitution so federal govt can't do it' is naive, there are tons of issues that are national problems that require programs and legislation which come with progress.

I don't know what republicans are advocating specifically except for Romney. But if by that statement you mean that you pay for health care and you can then deduct that if your taxes, then my biggest problem with it is solved.

What are examples of some of the problems that come with progress that require federal intervention?

Edit^ Of course it should "PROMOTE" the general welfare, just not PROVIDE for one persons general welfare with another persons tax money.

[aurik]

FYI, the constitution and their amendments explicitly give the US government the ability to lay and collect taxes.

Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have power:
* to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

[evilbau]

You can't circumvent the constitution simply to meet whatever is popular at the time, our country simply doesn't work like that nor should it. If you want to change the constitution, be my guest, but you simply cannot pass a law that the constitution doesn't give you the power to.

actually you can make any law you want, and it'll be in effect until struck down by the courts... i.e. Patriot Act, etc.

And its not about being whats popular, its adapting to completely different ways of thinking and activities in the united states. Roe v. Wade upheld a woman's right to choose, obviously that particular topic is nowhere to be found in the text of the constitution. Make laws and let the judges interpret the constitutionality.

'Socialized' healthcare would be fine, there is a precedent for programs to be upheld due to a perceived moral obligation (like Disability in Social Security). So talking about whether it would stand a Supreme Court decision shouldn't be the argument, its very weak.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Of course it should "PROMOTE" the general welfare, just not PROVIDE for one persons general welfare with another persons tax money.

The best way for it to promote the general welfare is to do what it can to improve the welfare of the general populace. Health is the most fundamental form of human welfare.

We are in a democracy, a government of the people made to serve the people. If it is not serving us the best it can, it is not doing its job.

[sephir]

If you listed Public education in there I would have said that you were stating Adam Smith's exact principles. In his book, the wealth of nations he stated that government should not be involved in the economy and they should only provide these few necessities: a standing army for protection, public education, and infrastructure.

But the great depression showed the fundamental flaw in Smiths work, and most western governments have adopted the "Keynes" approach to regulating the economy.

Oh I agree the government should provide pubic education, just not the federal government. I don't see how the fed can know whats best for every state. It would seem to me that different states have different needs, and therefor it should be left to the state, not the feds. (And the constitution doesn't say the fed can provide education.)

There is a book I want on the great depression. It claims that the great depression was a failure of government, not capitalism. Its by Milton Friedman, nobel laurate. The guys seems to have unbelievable credentials so I look forward to reading it. I have never read anything on that belief so I can't comment on it at all. But it has me intrigued enough to read that book.

Edit: Building roads isn't convenient for me lol. I don't drive from state to state, but their needs to be interstates no?

I know Friedman very well. But the great depression was created by a lack of government intervention. The government failed to intervene when problems needed to be addressed in the economy, however the policy at the time of the government was laissez-faire economics. Friedman is a very smart person, and is definitly worth understanding.

[evilbau]

What are examples of some of the problems that come with progress that require federal intervention?

Edit^ Of course it should "PROMOTE" the general welfare, just not PROVIDE for one persons general welfare with another persons tax money.

Women's/Minority's Rights, the Internet, changes in interstate commerce, trade agreements w/nations and other entities (EU/NAFTA/UN/NATO), etc. There may be passages in the Constitution which pertain to those, but they don't take into account the paradigm shifts that have happened since. Laws surrounding such issues come up all the time, and survive the courts so they become national policy. You can 'pie in the sky' dream about stripping so much federal law, but this is the reality we live in.

edit: thought of a good one: Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This is not a state issue but a national one and certainly can't be just ignored. You need the nation to take a stance so some level of federal intervention is required.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

FYI, the constitution and their amendments explicitly give the US government the ability to lay and collect taxes.

Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have power:
* to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

Of course it should "PROMOTE" the general welfare, just not PROVIDE for one persons general welfare with another persons tax money.

The best way for it to promote the general welfare is to do what it can to improve the welfare of the general populace. Health is the most fundamental form of human welfare.

We are in a democracy, a government of the people made to serve the people. If it is not serving us the best it can, it is not doing its job.

I thought I was defeated there for a moment, but thankfully, no.

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were founders right? Here is what each had to say about "general welfare."

JM: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them . . .."

TJ: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Edit: I agree all of those things require government intervention Evil, but none of those things listed require that the government take one persons tax money and give it to another.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Didn't I say I don't care about the founders on this issue?

They may have been wrong... actually one of the most important things they were into is the fact they knew they might be wrong.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Didn't I say I don't care about the founders on this issue?

They may have been wrong... actually one of the most important things they were into is the fact they knew they might be wrong.

No. But why not, fuck what the people who wrote the founding document of our nation said.

And it wasn't that they thought they might be wrong, its they knew things might change so they had the foresight to be extremely broad. The whole point of the constitutional convention was to get it right because they got it wrong the first time.

Edit: And if they were wrong, then there would have to be a constitutional amendment to give congress the power to give one persons taxes to another since the powers are enumerated.

[Kuya]

government intervention Evil

You're sure hung up on this. Why are some of you Americans so ardently agaisnt communism?

[evilbau]

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were founders right? Here is what each had to say about "general welfare."

JM: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them . . .."

TJ: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Edit: I agree all of those things require government intervention Evil, but none of those things listed require that the government take one persons tax money and give it to another.

what about the unenumerated right to privacy. under a strict constructionist view very little privacy would be afforded u.s. citizens, except protection against unlawful search and seizure.

edit: didn't see that edit part haha, you have a point and its a valid one i suppose... I am just a liberal so I feel we have a moral imperative to grant these things to those less fortunate. Its not just about healthcare for people who can't afford it, but disability, unemployment, etc. The position almost by default condemns those who don't agree (the moral imperative part) although I'm able to distance myself and willing to accept differing points of view, but I'm happy paying taxes to help all americans.

[Beckwin]

remnants among nationalists of pinko hunting

[Maxxthepenguin]

I care what they said, but the idea that what they said was always right is pretty fucktarded. I treat their ideas like ideas worth considering more than your average schmuck's, but I'm free to say "damn they were wrong." See: Slavery. The fact that many of them supported slavery doesn't mean their ideas were all wrong, but it sure as hell shows that they weren't all right. Nobody is infallible, the founding fathers included. So stop invoking them as the final word on a subject. Who knows why they said everything they did, we probably will never know.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

government intervention Evil

You're sure hung up on this. Why are some of you Americans so ardently agaisnt communism?

LOL. Is that sarcasm or is that serious? 1984...? Why isn't the Soviet Union still here if its so great? Why is China changing? I'm sure I could go on and on.

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were founders right? Here is what each had to say about "general welfare."

JM: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them . . .."

TJ: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Edit: I agree all of those things require government intervention Evil, but none of those things listed require that the government take one persons tax money and give it to another.

what about the unenumerated right to privacy. under a strict constructionist view very little privacy would be afforded u.s. citizens, except for search and seizure.

No, I think they would, because the government has to get a warrant for anything. (Blah blah blah insert patriot act comment here, that isn't the issue here.)

Edit: And when the founders are wrong, we get a constitutional amendment. There is no constitutional amendment that gives congress the power to collect taxes for the purpose of giving them to someone else.

[Kuya]

LOL. Is that sarcasm or is that serious? 1984...? Why isn't the Soviet Union still here if its so great? Why is China changing? I'm sure I could go on and on.

So, when the United States falls, do i get to say that capitalism did it? As far as i've checked, the Russia was actually better off as a "communist" nation (some argue it was more stanilist). As for China, did you even recognize the fact that, because the US has safely globalized its capitalism, China is at a huge disadvantage, and therefore, may have to reform its outlook on communism? Is your entire enemistation of an ideology based on pure efficiency?