The Gubment shi**ing on the Constitution....again - Page 2 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-18-2010, 04:31 PM   #21
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (7)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,656
Total Cats: 447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by y8s View Post
there are minimum standards laws for housing already. both state and federal.
Then why are there homeless people? Why doesn't government legislate that everyone gets a house...just let the rich and the megacorps pay for it.*





*Actually, forget I suggested that -- I'm afraid of adding anything to Obama's "To do" list.
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 05:00 PM   #22
y8s
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
 
y8s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,038
Total Cats: 406
Default

I'm sure it's just Obama's "to do" list... there's no other liberals who'd want to enact any social programs.

You're hung up on "house", but some localities criminalize homeless behavior (loitering, open container, etc) and some mandate shelters and whatnot.

But the real reason people are homeless? It's ******* gorgeous outside right now!
y8s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 05:04 PM   #23
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by y8s View Post
and in the constitution there is also this:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
That's welfare OF THE STATES, NOT "of the people". Read the Federalist papers. It does NOT mean "the federal gov't will provide welfare to to welfare recipients".
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 05:11 PM   #24
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (7)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,656
Total Cats: 447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by y8s View Post
I'm sure it's just Obama's "to do" list... there's no other liberals who'd want to enact any social programs.
Eh, I paused and made a coin flip decision between Obama and Pelosi when I wrote that line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by y8s View Post
You're hung up on "house", but some localities criminalize homeless behavior (loitering, open container, etc) and some mandate shelters and whatnot.
That's what's cool about local laws...it's not terribly difficult to move somewhere else if you don't like it. Or pick up your cardboard and walk on, I guess.

Anyway, emergency rooms are already required by law to provide service regardless of ability to pay, so a minimum level of healthcare does exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by y8s View Post
But the real reason people are homeless? It's ******* gorgeous outside right now!
And the real crime is that I'm stuck inside for another 2 hours.
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 05:12 PM   #25
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,830
Total Cats: 1,786
Default

Quote:
...our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
created punish the able in order to give more unfair advantages and opportunities to those unable.

Every example of socialized "robin hood" "ends > means" anything is a failure: The war on poverty was the most expensive war we've ever waged. MD taxes the rich, then they collect less revenue the following fiscal year. CA taxes business to operate in the state, Nevada has a boom in growth; which does not tax business. MA needs gov't funding in order to pay for it's debt ridden socialized healthcare. Need I mention the EntitlementStimulus Bill...


**** the Looters.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 05:14 PM   #26
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by y8s View Post
and many Americans believe health(care) is an inalienable human right--ie not up for debate or legislation.
Hey shouldn't food also be an "inalienable" human right? We should have GOVERNMENT FOOD then, right?
If health care were as cheap as food, nobody would be talking about making it controlled by gov't, right?
MAYBE THE REAL ISSUE IS THE COST. The "reform" proposals WILL NOT TAKE CARE OF THE COSTS IF THE REAL CAUSES OF THE HIGH COSTS ARE NOT ANALYZED.

Answer these. Why is the free market brilliant at giving us better clothes, soy products, and turbos, despite profits, but supposedly fails at health care?

Why is pet health care and insurance so inexpensive and high quality, even though it's all private and for-profit?

Why was US Health Care so good and inexpensive in the 1960s, even though it was private? What made costs spiral out of control??


If governemnt took over health care, it would have the same SHITTY quality as public education, right?

Many answers here, by a guy who is FOR Universal Health Care:

How American Health Care Killed My Father - Magazine - The Atlantic


Quote:
on top of all this, we have this weird relationsihp between employment and healthcare. why should someone have to have a certain kind of job to have reasonable healthcare? why not any job? why not no job? kids and old people tend not to have jobs but they deserve healthcare, don't they?
The solution here is to move the tax break from the company that buys health care, TO THE INDIVIDUAL.

Last edited by JasonC SBB; 03-18-2010 at 05:27 PM.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 05:17 PM   #27
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (7)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,656
Total Cats: 447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
Hey shouldn't food also be an "inalienable" human right? We should have GOVERNMENT FOOD then, right?
I agree with you in general, but, on that point, food stamps, dude. If that's not a government-mandated level of minimum food, I don't know what is.
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 05:24 PM   #28
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,830
Total Cats: 1,786
Default

I'd be for this health care bill if i happened to be one of those few that get to sit behind closed doors with Obama and make deals that benefit my person greatly.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 05:26 PM   #29
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: VA, Germany, Afghanistan
Posts: 2,967
Total Cats: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
I agree with you in general, but, on that point, food stamps, dude. If that's not a government-mandated level of minimum food, I don't know what is.
Difference is...Government doesn't give everyone food stamps and essentially drive anyone that doesn't accept them out of business there-by reducing the quality of food I can get.
KPLAFIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 05:35 PM   #30
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,830
Total Cats: 1,786
Default

i think it's unfair that I don't get tax credits and food stamps.


where's my slice? how is that fair and/or equal?
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 05:36 PM   #31
Elite Member
iTrader: (13)
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tigard, Oregon
Posts: 3,908
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
I wish we could take away their checkbook and make government balance.
Corrected.

If the Gov't wants to run health care do it. Run it. Don't bandaid a system they claim is broken. Most of the countries with socialized medicine didn't do a little here, do a little there and eventually it became the system it is now. They took a stand and made wholesale changes. That's what needs to happen if they actually want to accomplish something.

Since they don't have the ***** to do that, stop and look how the current system can be made better. What they are proposing does nothing to correct what they think is wrong. It does nothing to contain costs. Why do health insurance costs increase at 3-4 times inflation? There are areas of the country where surgeons pay upward of 250K anually for malpractice insurance.

To use a car analogy, the car is in rough shape. Either buy a new one or fix the one you've got. Don't dump radiator stopleak in the crankcase!

Last edited by cueball1; 03-18-2010 at 06:06 PM.
cueball1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 05:39 PM   #32
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,830
Total Cats: 1,786
Default

but what about all the programs to study the sexual habits of college girls? Syracuse University needs that gov't funding. WAYYYYYYYYY more than you need to pay your mortgage or save for your future.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 05:41 PM   #33
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
I agree with you in general, but, on that point, food stamps, dude. If that's not a government-mandated level of minimum food, I don't know what is.
My point was that some cry for govmnt health care for everyone, so why not gov't food for everyone??!
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 05:45 PM   #34
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: VA, Germany, Afghanistan
Posts: 2,967
Total Cats: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
My point was that some cry for govmnt health care for everyone, so why not gov't food for everyone??!
I think I'm gonna have to pass on the Soylent Green.
KPLAFIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 05:49 PM   #35
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

What's happening is that the gov't and the media are presenting false assumptions which lead many to believe that gov't health care is the answer. The real objective is MORE CORPORATISM. This bill will ENTRENCH those that profiteer from the current system. It will NOT drive down costs, which is the real issue. It will only add more bureaucracy and waste to an already broken system.

These false assumptions include:
- the free market is the cause of the high prices and poor service
- the insurance cos make the lion's share of the profits in the system
- you can't have a high quality, low cost, for-profit system
- the system will not provide charity for those who cannot afford the low-cost insurance that a properly functioning system would have

Unless the assumptions are studied in detail, we are just gonna get screwed.

The Dems say "we mush have socialized health care"
The Reps say "the current system is fine".

These are FALSE CHOICES. Scylla and Charybdis. Damn if we do, damn if we don't. Both choices will continue the high costs and profiteering.

If you are to believe the Republicans, they are also trying to tell you you can beat something with nothing.

Last edited by JasonC SBB; 03-18-2010 at 06:00 PM.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 06:04 PM   #36
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Floriduh
Posts: 882
Total Cats: 0
Default

Dunno if it's been mentioned here, probably, but couple points: Under HIS tax plan, couples are taxed in a higher bracket if making over 250k, but singles can make up to 200k. Sounds like the liberal plan of disassembling the nuclear family is in place. They've been trying to do it for decades. Clinton tried it. Divide and conquer. The other point, once the Gplan for health care is in place, mass quantities of people currently paying for health insurance, whether expensive or not, are going to abandon their plans and hop on the dole, driving up taxes even further. Welcome to 1984.

I just want the taxpayers out there, esp if they've got progressive tendancies, is to think about how THEIR taxes are going to go UP UP UP under these plans the G is devising. Libs and Progressives are all about socializing until they realize it is going to bleed them out financially, and push this great nation into a third world have and have not society.

If you care at all, you should be faxing letters to your congresspeople until they run out of paper.
soflarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 06:10 PM   #37
Elite Member
iTrader: (13)
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tigard, Oregon
Posts: 3,908
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soflarick View Post
Dunno if it's been mentioned here, probably, but couple points: Under HIS tax plan, couples are taxed in a higher bracket if making over 250k, but singles can make up to 200k. Sounds like the liberal plan of disassembling the nuclear family is in place. They've been trying to do it for decades. Clinton tried it. Divide and conquer.

There are a huge number of senior citizens who abhor not being married but financially just can't do it. Old folks livin in sin due to tax rules. It's sad when your Government pits your morality against your wallet and financial security.
cueball1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 06:14 PM   #38
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,669
Total Cats: 36
Default

This is the basic flaw:

Inalienable rights are not things that the gov gives you. By definition, and explicitly stated in the very foundation of this country is the idea that these rights are inherent to every human being. The whole point was to PREVENT THE GOV FROM TAKING THEM AWAY.

So lets say good health care is an inalienable right. If the gov controls health care there exists the very real, very dangerous possibility that good health care can be denied.

But saying that must mean I am some sort of conspiracy nut, since we all know that the government is just out to help us. Things like that only happen in China or something. Except that government agenciues in this country selectively sterilized native americans in the early 1900s. Except that Reagan basically closed down a huge pile of mental health institutions in the 80s that put a pretty fair number of wackos on the street. Just imagine if the economy goes to **** (and someday it will again no matter what commitees and overbearing ineffective regulator get created in the new few years.) and its the case that the huge gov run healthcare system is just too expensive? It gets cut in various ways. And people who have no provisions to provide for themselfs are fucked.

As soon as the gov is in control of something, its more likely to be taken away. Not less. This idea that all of peoples needs should be met by the gov is beyond me. It doesnt work. "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of someone elses money." - Margaret Thatcher.

I am unemployed and uninsured. I dont want or need the gov proving me healthcare. This si not some rich CEO talking. I have never made more than 40K a year in my life.

Secondarily, I have learned to laugh at anybody who says that the situation cannot get any worse. I have yet to see or deal with the situation on any level that cannot be made worse with ill-conceived action. The entire argument that doing nothing will be worse is complete bullshit and frankly insulting to peoples intellegence.

You want to help people? Get the costs down by promoting real competition. They did do this to an extent by revoking the anit-trust exemption. But some of these lawsuits that just keep going and going and draining resources both in terms of tax dollars and company revenue need to stop.
Sparetire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 06:16 PM   #39
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Floriduh
Posts: 882
Total Cats: 0
Default

It's all about the few attempting to control the many. If you don't see it, you're lazy or not paying attention. This is NOT at time to sit back and think "oh, I'll let someone else sweat it, it'll work itself out". Yea, it'll work out...not in your benefit, though.

Geezus, I just heard Pelosi say in an interview that the bill should just be passed since no one is quite sure what's in it, and figure out the details later. WTF!!!!!!!
soflarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2010, 06:26 PM   #40
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,669
Total Cats: 36
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by y8s View Post
there are minimum standards laws for housing already. both state and federal.
Yeah, to prevent fires and collapses, not to buy everyone a house. Thats a case of the gov doing its proper job.

i guess it's a matter of perspective... should 41% of them hold the power or 59%?
YES!!!!!

And frankly preventing legislation is not "holding power over" ****. Its preventing changes to the law from being made. THE 59% SHOULD NOT HAVE POWER OVER THE 41% JUST BECAUSE OF THE WHIMS OF THE LAST ELECTION CYCLE.

There is a reason you need certain majorities to do things and its to prevent mob rule! **** for decades (centuries) black people and women were basically considered inferior to white males by the majority of the population. Lets say that the popular belief in the legislature next year is that nobody needs a vehicle capable of more than 100MPH and that such vehicles are dangerous and that they should be banned. I will be damned thankful for that 41% then. The founders knew well that often the majority is WRONG and so they put down these rules for the very best of reasons. To prevent us doing something stupid or giving the mob/gov too much power. Even as is there are some pretty ill-conceived actions passed all the time. Imagine if that barrier is weakened.

I hate both parties, but the Dems have really taken the lead on the old disgustometer for me lately. They were the great crusaders of justice and light when they were using fillibuster tactics years ago. Now all of a sudden the fillibuster is a dangerous tool of the special interest shackled politicians. The only difference is that it stands in their way now.

If it was not a gross violation of the 1st amendment I would say ban political parties. If you did not have these sheep towing whatever line all the time and actually ******* thinking for themselves this **** would not be going down like this. The big two parties are the single biggest threat to this country. Not Global ******* Climate Change (LOL, it used to be warming) and not Al Queda.
Sparetire is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New member here jsinnard Meet and Greet 8 03-17-2008 12:10 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:58 PM.