Rant - Obamas Healthcare

Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX

34 months ago: Plain and simple, they may want to rake in the profits from Health insurance, but government does not make profit. No profit = no wealth = no jobs = more dependency = less liberty = Soviet style socialism

FLAG THIS COMMENT

HeyNoniNoni

34 months ago: Can you guys come up with even one service you *do* want the government to provide, or is our "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" inherently evil and incompetent?

And if I may ask, why bother voting if both you and the people you vote for don't believe government is or can be good for anything? Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy...

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX

34 months ago: I will quote a Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote January 26, 1799 to Elbridge Gerry to answer your question:

"I am for preserving TO THE STATES [emphasis added] not yielded by them to the Union [federal goveernmnet] its constitutional share in the division of powers; and I am not for transferring all of the powers of the states to the general government, and all of those of that government to the executive branch.

I am for a government RIGOROUSLY FRUGAL AND SIMPLE APPLYING ALL POSSIBLE SAVINGS OF THE PUBLIC REVENUE TO THE DISCHARGE OF THE NATIONAL DEBT [emphasis added]; and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans, and for increasing by every device the public debt on the principle of it's being a public blessing..." (Andrew M. Allison "The Real Thomas Jefferson" pg. 202-203)

That is the service I want government to provide. I want them to provide for a National Defense, which includes enforcing our borders and immigration laws.

A government can do a whole lot, by doing a whole lot of nothing. That is what our Founder's Believed, that is why we Seceded from England way back in 1776.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

HeyNoniNoni

34 months ago: I love Jefferson quotes, because they're always so easy to take out of context and use to support very narrow positions. I'm guessing the book you referenced didn't provide the whole quote and context, and I'm guessing you've never sought out the letter it's from.

He wrote it to Elbridge Gerry in 1799, expressing that he was for, yes, "frugal" federal government, the better to avoid a return to *monarchy*. By the same token, he was, believe it or not, against a standing army or navy, preferring to rely on militia only unless actual invasion occurred.

Note that he was for the Constitution, as it was written. He didn't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution he was for, which means he was for this part: "Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: 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."

So Jefferson wasn't for abrogating states' rights, but he was for the Federal government providing for the "general welfare" of the people. What a commie.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

HeyNoniNoni

34 months ago: Now, if you'd read the whole letter, you'd be thrilled to find out that he was for free commerce between nations and against establishing permanent diplomatic ties.

But then, you might not have been so thrilled to find out he was "for freedom of religion and against all manoeuvres to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another" which kind of ends speculation on whether Jefferson felt our nation is a "Christian" nation.

I would hope you'd find inspiring and interesting how strongly he favored science over superstition, too. He says as much, and does so very eloquently. This needs no embellishment: "And I am for encouraging the progress of science in all its branches; and not for raising a hue and cry against the sacred name of philosophy for awing the human mind by stories of raw head and bloody bones to a distrust of its own vision and to rely implicitly on that of others; to go backward instead of forward to look for improvement; to believe that government, religion, morality, and every other science were in the highest perfection in ages of the darkest ignorance and that nothing can ever be devised more perfect than what was established by our forefathers."

So now we're back again at my question: Can you think of even one service -- for the "general welfare" -- that you want provided by a government? A government that you have an ownership stake in?

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX

34 months ago: I know the whole letter, and a bunch more for that matter. I was just quoting a segment. Also he disagreed with your interpretation of "general welfare." Which is what created the schism between himself and Alexander Hamilton, hence our 2 party system. It was Hamilton whom he feared, with his all encompassing interpretation of "gen. welfare" that would form a monarchy. It was Hamilton's National Debt, created by a central bank, that he realized would create a form of merchantilism, with its overflowing treasury, to be plundered. John Taylor, later in 1821, writing Tyranny Unmasked, expanded upon this idea.

Well, I really don't want to go back and forth with this. The General welfare, is interpreted way too loosely, just like it seems like everything, and action, seems to be "interstate commerce".

He also was against a standing army because he feared that a class of aristocrats (equivalent to Engands Lords) would use it against the States and the people, as Hamilton did in trying to enforce the Distilled Spirits Tax of 1791. That is why he was a strong proponent of State Militias.

So I revert back to my last answer on services of the Federal Government. If it protects our liberty in the free exchange of goods and services, of which health care is, myself and all others will be able to receive it at a fair price. When the government coerces, as this Obama care does, the transfer (not to be confused with exchange), of wealth, goods, and services, is where unafordability becomes reality. One way of protecting the free exchange is creating a loser pays legal system to lower malpractice insurance, and keep frivolous lawsuits out of our courts.

It was a good discusion, thanks for replies, and I will and always do think about other's points of view as a form of learning, whether I agree or not.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Rantman

34 months ago: Content Removed by RantRave Admin

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Out Of The Box

Moderator

34 months ago: Hats off to Billyberoo.

Noni, you know what they say when you assume something.

Rantman......................(sigh).................................................never mind.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

redstateguy

34 months ago: Noni:
Government is only useful where large amounts of cash need to be accumulated. Such as our general defense and maybe the space race. Other than that, government is of no good use. Period.

And Voting for Governor Palin is as greatly anticipated as voting for President Reagan. I hope you're still on rantrave when that happens. Yippee!

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Out Of The Box

Moderator

34 months ago: The Constitution of the United States uses the words
"promote the General Welfare", not, as some like to think
"provide for the general welfare".

That phrase was also meant to be taken in context with the rest of the opening statement, the Preamble, "establish Justice, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

The reason they crafted the wording as they did, was that one thing led to another, not reversible, not interchangeable. Tranquility, justice, and defense were to "promote" the general welfare, not "provide" welfare.

Certainly, it took some time to get the "justice" part hammered out, and the pendulum may continue to swing on that point forever, due to differences in opinion that may not go away until we are one big homogeneous gene pool, but justice will always mean justice, and promote and provide will always be different in meaning.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Jakarta99

34 months ago: Another interesting quote from Thomas Jefferson. "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny"

Just one among many instructions and warnings I have seen from our fore fathers to be vigilant in watching those we put in power as elected officials.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

HeyNoniNoni

34 months ago: OOTB, I think on many things we'll just have to agree to disagree, but you are astoundingly, disturbingly wrong about the text of the Constitution. I'll repeat it here, with EMPHASIS added: "Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: 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."

Now tell me, why should I trust anything said by someone who not only mistakes the PREAMBLE to the Constitution -- as stirring and motivating as it is -- for the text of the Constitution itself, but then uses that flagrant mistake to support further argument he has obviously thought about for a long time?

The Constitution is online. Here is a convenient link to one of hundreds of sites hosting it: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html. Please compare and contrast the wording used in the Preamble -- which is not part of the law -- with the wording used in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. There will be a test in the morning.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Out Of The Box

Moderator

34 months ago: Man, this is a tough test!

I confused nothing of the sort, I clearly identified the passage I used as the Preamble. Your snide, and I must say very characteristic and predictable attempt, however feeble, is appreciated. The Preamble was not meant to be just "stirring and motivating", and left at that. It was part of the whole message they were trying to pass on to you.

Now see, this is just typical of your type, to try to go back in time and rethink what the founding fathers fought and died for, which was freedom from an overbearing and oppressive government.

You can nit-pick tiny words and phrases to death, taking them out of context of the whole, and by whole I mean not just the constitution, but the ideal for which those men risked their lives.

What I fail to see or comprehend is how anyone cold deliberately give up his freedom, when there are so many other options available through charity, outreach, and voluntary community service. You have n ideal to take care of someone else. Do it!!! Don't sit back and trade your autonomy because you want everyone to be held to your ideals.

How is this any different from the evil religious oppression you so vehemently attack? They, according to you, want to subvert you to their ideals, and are ruining the world in the process.

Next!

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Out Of The Box

Moderator

34 months ago: Oh, wait, I get it now.

You are simply trading one freedom for another.

In exchange for your freedom to make certain choices on your own, without government interference, you get the Freedom of Not Having To Actually Do Anything About Your Fellow Man, because its all being taken care of by the government.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

HeyNoniNoni

34 months ago: Dude, revisionist history only works if you're trying to revise something that isn't right here on the page for everyone to read.

"I confused nothing of the sort, I clearly identified the passage I used as the Preamble. Your snide, and I must say very characteristic and predictable attempt, however feeble, is appreciated. The Preamble was not meant to be just 'stirring and motivating', and left at that. It was part of the whole message they were trying to pass on to you."

You did NOT clearly identify the passage you used as the Preamble. Here is what you said (feel free to look up a few posts and you'll be able to see if for yourself):

"The Constitution of the United States uses the words
'promote the General Welfare', not, as some like to think
'provide for the general welfare'."

Yes, you then went on to talk as if the Preamble is the only place where the general welfare appears, but it was quite obvious you didn't know that "provide" does in fact appear in the Constitution. And you were responding to my post where I quoted not the Preamble, but Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.

Let me place things on a timeline, just in case going back and looking at the posts above is asking too much of you:
1. I point out the part where it says "provide"
2. You respond with this: "The Constitution of the United States uses the words 'promote the General Welfare', not, as some like to think 'provide for the general welfare'."
3. I point out this is factually false.
4. You say you didn't say what you just said.
5. I am left scratching my head, and write this post.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

HeyNoniNoni

34 months ago: Oh, missed something else I wanted to respond to. I do give to charity and support various causes. Who said I didn't? And where, precisely, am I espousing giving up liberty?

FLAG THIS COMMENT

Out Of The Box

Moderator

33 months ago: Back on track here. I TOLD you I am obsessive compulsive.

10th Amendment- Powers of the States and People
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution clearly separates three entities, namely, the United States, the States, and the people.

Article 1 Section 8 clause 1: 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;

not, as you think, the welfare of the States, or the People.

FLAG THIS COMMENT

HeyNoniNoni

33 months ago: Wow, actually, you're nailing one of the most contentious Constitutional arguments aside from the 2nd Amendment. There's a lot of disagreement over the intent of the General Welfare Clause, even going as far back as the Federalist papers; Madison and Hamilton disagreed with each other on it. Personally, I side with Hamilton, as I'm sure you could guess.

FLAG THIS COMMENT