Fairness Paycheck Act sponsored by.....

[Dr Grump]

Sorry, but no. Capitalism is what built this country....not a bunch of angry socialists begging for handouts.

Capitalism is what built ALL western democracies. Your point?

(edit) It is the American version that sux...

 

[LordBrownTrout]

My point was in reference to your remark about "when are conservatives ever going to realize that capitalism doesn't work" or something to that effect. We've pretty much perfected capitalism here. There's no place for socialism which is a stagnant form and doesn't employ any type independent thought.

 

[Dr Grump]

My point was in reference to your remark about "when are conservatives ever going to realize that capitalism doesn't work" or something to that effect. We've pretty much perfected capitalism here. There's no place for socialism which is a stagnant form and doesn't employ any type independent thought.

I know re capitalism being almost perfected in the US. That's the point. It doesn't work that well does it.

Of course there is a place for socialism. We have socialism down here as well as capitalism. The problem is, you Yanks have grown up thinking socialism = communism = the sky is falling. Limited forms of socialism - well planned- are OK. As for indepedent thought - there are people out there who are incapable of such and need looking after. You can either take the high road (which IMO, most conservative Yanks do), which is "I can look after myself, therefore everybody else should/must do the same". This is an unrealistic aspect of society. Or you can be a realist and try and help/fix the problem of those that cannot take care of themselves. If you did it the conservative way you get an underclass that causes a lot of society's ills. Or you can try and put programmes in place that'll alleviate those problems.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Couple of good points there, Grump. However, iirc, the us currently is paying out approx 40 to 45 percent of spending in the form of entitlements. I'd say that's pretty generous. The problem is that we have politicians that want to grow that. I've never been against helping someone out in a time of need, especially when they're looking to better themselves. However, I'm adamantly against the perpetual leeching off of the govt and not trying.

 

[pegwinn]

Did I read that right? Are you advocating the .gov going into a consumer oriented business for itself? Bit of conflict of interest eh? Of course given how far we have diverged from the Constitution and how corrupted our political process is, it wouldn't surprise me. It'd piss me off, but surprise me? Nah.

Can you quote the Constitution where it says that the US must have a free market capitolist economy? Nope. But then again, I don't have to. It is up to the congress, or in this case you, to prove they have the constitutional authority per article 1, section 8.

Where is the conflict of interest when the GOVERNMENT exists for the sake of it's people instead of it's corporations? Pretty simple really. If you are the regulator it becomes a conflict of interest to become the competitor. Kinda like a female judge also being a contestant in the Miss Hooters contest. The term "self evident" is what applies.

Would you like to suggest that the economy of colonial America at all reflects our modern economy? Now where did I ever say that? Heck I started off asking for clarification of your position and you went a bit off eh?
If that is the case, then where are you making the assumption that the government CAN'T mingle in markets in order to normalize wages for the benefit of the NATION rather than the profit margin? Please scroll up and see article 1, section 8 and section 9. You are describing a socialist or communist society wherein the .gov is in full control of virtually everything. The USA is a republic, and guarantees each state a republican form of government. The Constitution exists solely to limit the power of the government over the people.

After all, I didn't say you COULDNT compete in the private market... just that you will find yourself having to bend to the market forces that you otherwise use to rationalize the aspects of capitolism that the masses find less than satisfactory. You know, like price gouging oil. If the Gov started pumping at ANWR at half the price per gallon of gas then, by all means, keep selling your gas at 3 dollars if you can stay in business. Likely you are correct. However, once the business is forced to be regulated by and compete with the .gov; How long before it goes offshore as well?


But, again, DIVERGED FROM THE CONSTITUTION? Show me where the Constitution indicates our economic standard at all. As I have repeatedly explained, it isn't for me to prove that they (the .gov) can't. It's up to you to prove they can.

My original comment (quoted above) was merely an observation of our political system. Apparently you took it as a challenge. Ah well. So be it.

 

[Shogun]

Nope. But then again, I don't have to. It is up to the congress, or in this case you, to prove they have the constitutional authority per article 1, section 8.

Clause 3.

Specifically, the last opinion on interstate commerce as decided by the Rehnquist court:

Chief Justice Rehnquist, delivering the opinion of the court, wrote that Congress had the power to regulate only:

~ the channels of commerce,
~ the instrumentalities of commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even if the threat comes from intrastate activities, and
~ action that substantially affects interstate commerce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez



Pretty simple really. If you are the regulator it becomes a conflict of interest to become the competitor. Kinda like a female judge also being a contestant in the Miss Hooters contest. The term "self evident" is what applies.

Oh, you mean kinda like how the Internal Affairs office in any law enforcement agency undermines the competitive market of Public Safety? Maybe you meant like Postal Inspectors in the parcel service field. Federal education standards that upset the competitiveness of private schools, perhaps?

The flaw of your analogy is that you assume the the judge (congress) is acting on behalf of its own profitability in winning the beauty contest (comeptition) rather than maintaining a standard (wages) reason for the audience (consumers and employees) to watch the contest in the first place (participate in a government that was created for the PEOPLE and not a corporate entity). Congress, specifically, being the voice of the people has a responsibility to assure that commerce benefits the people for which the CONSTITUTION was created. If congress has the authority to break up Bell telephone monopolies then, I would argue, the same applies to creating market stabilizers such as this.


Now where did I ever say that? Heck I started off asking for clarification of your position and you went a bit off eh?

I don't think it's too far off to illustrate the nature of commerce when the Constitution was created as opposed to where we are at today.


Please scroll up and see article 1, section 8 and section 9. You are describing a socialist or communist society wherein the .gov is in full control of virtually everything. The USA is a republic, and guarantees each state a republican form of government. The Constitution exists solely to limit the power of the government over the people.


AND, were this action against THE PEOPLE then you might have a point. As it is, this would be action against corporate entities much in the same way Bell Labs and Microsoft come under antitrust legislation. And no, the Constitution does not exist solely to limit the power of the fed. Being a republic didn't hinder past Congressional interaction in regulating commerce that negatively impacts the PEOPLE and wouldn't threaten the PEOPLE anymore than banning child labor options for companies did.

Likely you are correct. However, once the business is forced to be regulated by and compete with the .gov; How long before it goes offshore as well?

If it goes offshore then we tariff the hell out of it while an AMERICAN alternative steps up to replace any vacancies created from such an exodus. Not only does this foster COMPETITION, a usual platform of capitolists any other time, but would prompt better service to customers who have an option outside of swallowing the excuses of windfall oil barron profits that harm the very citizens which make up the consumer base.

Would you rather the fed just TAX the shit out of a company instead? That's legal too. With my way, no one it forcing anyone to adjust their market strategy... Like I said, leave the price of gas at 3 bucks while the ANWR station down the block is selling gas at 1 dollar a gallon. Indeed, will the lecture of market forces apply then as well?


My original comment (quoted above) was merely an observation of our political system. Apparently you took it as a challenge. Ah well. So be it.

A political system that was not created for the benefit for business so much as it was created for the benefit of the People. See my rebuttal above.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I know re capitalism being almost perfected in the US. That's the point. It doesn't work that well does it.

Of course there is a place for socialism. We have socialism down here as well as capitalism. The problem is, you Yanks have grown up thinking socialism = communism = the sky is falling. Limited forms of socialism - well planned- are OK. As for indepedent thought - there are people out there who are incapable of such and need looking after. You can either take the high road (which IMO, most conservative Yanks do), which is "I can look after myself, therefore everybody else should/must do the same". This is an unrealistic aspect of society. Or you can be a realist and try and help/fix the problem of those that cannot take care of themselves. If you did it the conservative way you get an underclass that causes a lot of society's ills. Or you can try and put programmes in place that'll alleviate those problems.

http://www.fundamentalfinance.com/blogs/socialism-vs-capitalism.php

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v1n3/thompson.html

Socialism robs individuals of freedom by imposing government enforced standards of living on all.

there is a huge difference between those who can't fend for themselves and those who won't fend for themselves. capitalist coutries know this and strive to take care of those truly in need. (is it perfect, hell no but show me something that is.)
socialism does not make this distinction between can't and won't because everyone is in need and those who excel will be penalized to support those who choose not to excel. so the question is, why would anyone strive for excellence in a socialist system ?? after all there is no upside for all the work and sacrifice because everything you gain from your effort will be taken from you in the interests of "fairness"

socialism.....no thanks

 

[Dr Grump]

[URL="http://www.government enforced standards of living on all.

there is a huge difference between those who can't fend for themselves and those who won't fend for themselves. capitalist coutries know this and strive to take care of those truly in need. (is it perfect, hell no but show me something that is.)
socialism does not make this distinction between can't and won't because everyone is in need and those who excel will be penalized to support those who choose not to excel. so the question is, why would anyone strive for excellence in a socialist system ?? after all there is no upside for all the work and sacrifice because everything you gain from your effort will be taken from you in the interests of "fairness"

socialism.....no thanks

I don't know any person in countries that have some form of socialism who like people leeching off the system.

 

[jillian]

I think you hit the nail on the head when you observed that they equate "socialism" with the "red threat" of communism. They don't understand how some "socialism" mixed with capitalism and democracy raises the standard of living in a country and creates a safety net.

It doesn't have to be overly invasive and can be well run.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think you hit the nail on the head when you observed that they equate "socialism" with the "red threat" of communism. They don't understand how some "socialism" mixed with capitalism and democracy raises the standard of living in a country and creates a safety net.

It doesn't have to be overly invasive and can be well run.

Telling a private Business who it WILL hire and how MUCH they will pay them is NOT a power of the Government. At least not the Federal Government. You want it to be? Create and pass an amendment to the Constitution.

Just like every other "socialist" good for us program you think we should have. It is REAL simple. Create the power for the Government to do those things, actually GET the peoples approval, you know, USE democracy and our form of Government to actually create the power to do the things you want done. IF they are so GOOD for everyone, you should have NO PROBLEM getting them passed into the Constitution.

 

[Shogun]

hehehe

 

[pegwinn]

Nope. But then again, I don't have to. It is up to the congress, or in this case you, to prove they have the constitutional authority per article 1, section 8.

Clause 3.

Specifically, the last opinion on interstate commerce as decided by the Rehnquist court:

Chief Justice Rehnquist, delivering the opinion of the court, wrote that Congress had the power to regulate only:

~ the channels of commerce,
~ the instrumentalities of commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even if the threat comes from intrastate activities, and
~ action that substantially affects interstate commerce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

You are going to have to do better than quoting precedent. Since neither of us to my knowledge is a judge, our opinion won't be asked. IMO the courts are full of very bad precedents where they simply got it wrong Constitutionally speaking. A well known educator who states that 2+2=5 may get his or her colleagues to agree. That agreement may span generations. It is no less wrong.

Besides, if I want court opinions I can google em. Why don't you take the text of the Constitution and make your own case. Isn't that why we post? For discussion that is?



Pretty simple really. If you are the regulator it becomes a conflict of interest to become the competitor. Kinda like a female judge also being a contestant in the Miss Hooters contest. The term "self evident" is what applies.

Oh, you mean kinda like how the Internal Affairs office in any law enforcement agency undermines the competitive market of Public Safety? Maybe you meant like Postal Inspectors in the parcel service field. Federal education standards that upset the competitiveness of private schools, perhaps? Heh. Nice try. Internal Affairs is local. And the postal system is specifically authorized. The Dept of Education is unconstitutional since it isn't enumerated as a congressional function.

The flaw of your analogy is that you assume the the judge (congress) is acting on behalf of its own profitability in winning the beauty contest (comeptition) rather than maintaining a standard (wages) reason for the audience (consumers and employees) to watch the contest in the first place (participate in a government that was created for the PEOPLE and not a corporate entity). What makes a business? People natch. You are advocating removing thier right to conduct business as they see fit. Now, if your regulation is intended to stop a clear and present danger, or to redress harm...... then I would be on board. But, instead you are attempting to use the power of the .gov for coercive purposes.

Congress, specifically, being the voice of the people has a responsibility to assure that commerce benefits the people for which the CONSTITUTION was created. If congress has the authority to break up Bell telephone monopolies then, I would argue, the same applies to creating market stabilizers such as this. I would disagree. The market determines things such as price control and competitive value. The people have the ability to negotiate individually or in groups or even to walk. There is no need for government intervention in this area even were it authorized. Oh, and busting monopolies is wrong as well. You break a monopoly by competition. And, before going there, gov sanctioned monopolies are wrong as well. I can understand the need for the commerce clause believe it or not. I simply believe that it has been way too broadly interpreted and over the long haul has corrupted the concept of a small, efficient, and responsive .gov.


Now where did I ever say that? Heck I started off asking for clarification of your position and you went a bit off eh?

I don't think it's too far off to illustrate the nature of commerce when the Constitution was created as opposed to where we are at today. Feel free to elaborate. IF there is a point in there, I missed it.

Please scroll up and see article 1, section 8 and section 9. You are describing a socialist or communist society wherein the .gov is in full control of virtually everything. The USA is a republic, and guarantees each state a republican form of government. The Constitution exists solely to limit the power of the government over the people.


AND, were this action against THE PEOPLE then you might have a point. As it is, this would be action against corporate entities much in the same way Bell Labs and Microsoft come under antitrust legislation. Again, who makes up a business?

And no, the Constitution does not exist solely to limit the power of the fed. Being a republic didn't hinder past Congressional interaction in regulating commerce that negatively impacts the PEOPLE and wouldn't threaten the PEOPLE anymore than banning child labor options for companies did. We will eventually agree to disagree. IF the constitution did not exist solely to limit the power of the fed, I would argue that the specific enumerations would not have been written in.



Likely you are correct. However, once the business is forced to be regulated by and compete with the .gov; How long before it goes offshore as well?

If it goes offshore then we tariff the hell out of it while an AMERICAN alternative steps up to replace any vacancies created from such an exodus. Not only does this foster COMPETITION, a usual platform of capitolists any other time, but would prompt better service to customers who have an option outside of swallowing the excuses of windfall oil barron profits that harm the very citizens which make up the consumer base. Heh. I am all for competition. I am even for civilized rules of engagement. I am not for creating yet another taxpayer funded .gov bureaucracy so that I can then pay for a product I subsidise with my tax money. Likely will pay the same price when it is all factored in. Additionally, how many government agencies have opened up, done as promised, and then closed down. None to my knowledge. Instead we will have an agency, multiplied many times for different products that will stay and grow fat. BTW, the big oil argument is really weak. I understand the tendency to demonize them and have even leaned that way myself a time or two. But, once one calms down and checks it out, the available info contradicts the rhetoric. But, it makes a great populist argument for Sen Clinton to advance an essentially socialist agenda.

Would you rather the fed just TAX the shit out of a company instead? That's legal too. With my way, no one it forcing anyone to adjust their market strategy... Like I said, leave the price of gas at 3 bucks while the ANWR station down the block is selling gas at 1 dollar a gallon. Indeed, will the lecture of market forces apply then as well? Actually, I would rather the fed stayed out of it. Wages, Prices, etc are based on supply and demand. Anything else is artificial. If you really want economic stimulus, let's pass the fairtax and open anwar to development while building refineries and nuke plants. Virtually all of that can be done via private enterprise and all it will take is the .gov getting out of the way and simply collecting thier cut.


My original comment (quoted above) was merely an observation of our political system. Apparently you took it as a challenge. Ah well. So be it.

A political system that was not created for the benefit for business so much as it was created for the benefit of the People. See my rebuttal above.

So far not a single insult. Good Job.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Or you can be a realist and try and help/fix the problem of those that cannot take care of themselves. If you did it the conservative way you get an underclass that causes a lot of society's ills. Or you can try and put programmes in place that'll alleviate those problems.

We tried doing that, starting in the 1960's. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society created the modern welfare state. The result: an immediate and dramatic increase in social ills. Murder, rape, drug use, gang activity, suicides, illiteracy, and fatherless families have all gone up. That's what happens when fathers and community support groups are made obsolete by a welfare check.

We certainly need to help people in need, but believe it or not, charities existed before the government muscled in to buy votes.

As far as these proposed laws go, I hope the Wall Street Journal is just hyping something that has no chance, or exaggerating the proposals. If actually passed, I suspect they would have unintended consequences, like most of the government's grandiose warfare/welfare plans do. Most likely, employers would find a non-cash way to compensate the employees who are worth more, in order to skirt the law. (That's why we have the nonsensical tradition of employers buying health insurance. During WWII, the government put price controls on wages, so employers who wanted to attract good workers offered health insurance. The practice continues thanks to tax loopholes which exist for employers, but not for employees buying their own. Thus, we're saddled with a one size fits all, corporatized health care system.)

The bottom line is, no one gets paid for working hard. Labor is a commodity, an ingredient that goes into production, not unlike steel, rubber, or petroleum. The price of labor, like the price of anything, is determined by supply and demand. That's it. And when you go dicking around with price controls, you're sure to get either shortages (price ceilings) or surpluses (price floors). A suplus in the labor market of course is what we call unemployment.

Finally, don't forget the paperwork effect of piling more and more legislation. It too has unintended consequences. Wal-Mart can easily hire one person to handle all the compliance paperwork for all the stores in one city. A private businessman who's looking to expand cannot do so as easily. This is why we see the CEO of Wal-Mart chiming in and saying we should raise the minimum wage for example, even though they pay above it already.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Those of *us* who paid people also don't get to pay them differently for discriminatory reasons.

Same as firing someone. You can fire someone for no reason or any reason at all. It just can't be for an ILLEGAL reason. By the same token, you can pay people what you want but you can't do it for DISCRIMINATORY purposes.

I think that's fair.

The problem is, PROVING and illegal reason. I can fire a black person but that doesn't make that an illegal action, unless I have a proven track record of firing a disproportionate number of black people.

And companies never just fire people for no reason. Companies lay off but that is not firing, as they intend that to be temporary, hoping to bring them back on when business improves. Firing is as painful for the employer as it is on the fired. The most irritating thing I do is hiring. It is a time consuming, meticulous, arduous task. Usually when you fire someone you have to hire to replace them, and that is a royal pain the butt. And if you make a series of bad or marginal hires, then you, yourself may be out looking for work. Ugh!!!

 

[jillian]

The problem is, PROVING and illegal reason. I can fire a black person but that doesn't make that an illegal action, unless I have a proven track record of firing a disproportionate number of black people.

And companies never just fire people for no reason. Companies lay off but that is not firing, as they intend that to be temporary, hoping to bring them back on when business improves. Firing is as painful for the employer as it is on the fired. The most irritating thing I do is hiring. It is a time consuming, meticulous, arduous task. Usually when you fire someone you have to hire to replace them, and that is a royal pain the butt. And if you make a series of bad or marginal hires, then you, yourself may be out looking for work. Ugh!!!

Discrimination cases are almost impossible to prove. Most lawyers won't touch them unless they have a small truckload of evidence. And there generally have to be specific statements or actions coupled with the firing to prove a racist intent.

But we were talking about *this* proposed legislation, I believe. And the same rules would probably apply in terms of violating it.

 

[bennylava]

I think in an ideal world this would be a good thing. I think it sucks that jobs such as taking care of children, the elderly, the disabled, are so low paying in this culture, while other jobs that are more "manly" that require the same level of education are paid so much higher.
I think that a better solution would be to create unions for people who are adminstrative assistant and caretakers. That makes more sense to me.

 

[Shogun]

You are going to have to do better than quoting precedent. Since neither of us to my knowledge is a judge, our opinion won't be asked. IMO the courts are full of very bad precedents where they simply got it wrong Constitutionally speaking. A well known educator who states that 2+2=5 may get his or her colleagues to agree. That agreement may span generations. It is no less wrong.

Besides, if I want court opinions I can google em. Why don't you take the text of the Constitution and make your own case. Isn't that why we post? For discussion that is?


You do realize that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, right? Sure, I don't agree with kelo v new london but that doesn't mean that it is less viable in court than, say, RvW. I've taken the text and made my own case, you asked me to prove it's application. By posting standing precedence I'm doing just that. The power of congress to manipulate commerce for the benefit of the people has been proven time and again. Bill Labs, Microsoft, antitrust laws etc. According to the vested powers of Congress according to the Constitution and interpreted by SCOTUS precedence they would be within their rights to do this.

as far as why we post, spare me the circular argument and tell me how the findings of the Renquist court is invalid. Maybe you can show me where the Constitution demands a free market structure since you seem to be interested in literal passages....

Heh. Nice try. Internal Affairs is local. And the postal system is specifically authorized. The Dept of Education is unconstitutional since it isn't enumerated as a congressional function.

Didn't you JUST say something about OPINIONS? Indeed, the post office is specifically authorized and should illustrate the duty that the founding fathers meant when making policy that benefits the people rather than business. After all, their inclusion is a little too socialistic for your tastes, right? Many Departments could be construed as unconstitutional since they are never specifically mentioned. Yet, here we are with a department of Education that works better than Ben franklin's education. And FBI Internal Affairs is local? oh rly?


What makes a business? People natch. You are advocating removing thier right to conduct business as they see fit. Now, if your regulation is intended to stop a clear and present danger, or to redress harm...... then I would be on board. But, instead you are attempting to use the power of the .gov for coercive purposes.

no, COMMERCE makes a business. And I am not advocating removing anyones rights. Like i keep repeating, keep your gas at 3 dollars a gallon if thats your strategy. See what happens when the market forces you would otherwise be bragging about causes the competition that is missing these days. Let me say this one more time: BY ALL MEANS, CONDUCT BUSINESS AS YOU SEE FIT WHILE YOUR CUSTOMERS ARE GOING DOWN THE STREET DUE TO, UH, MARKET FORCES.

And, to the shrinking middle class, there is a present economic danger. For 7 years weve been hearing about how we are living in a great economy... despite a constant exodus of opportunity and wealth out of the US. I'd be using the Fed for the same corrective purpose that is protecting the people as when we outlawed child labor. If, by coercive you mean normalizing the conomy to benefit the population instead of a robber barron segment, then fine... After all, Congress represent more people than an oil ceo.


I would disagree. The market determines things such as price control and competitive value. The people have the ability to negotiate individually or in groups or even to walk. There is no need for government intervention in this area even were it authorized. Oh, and busting monopolies is wrong as well. You break a monopoly by competition. And, before going there, gov sanctioned monopolies are wrong as well. I can understand the need for the commerce clause believe it or not. I simply believe that it has been way too broadly interpreted and over the long haul has corrupted the concept of a small, efficient, and responsive .gov.


Clearly, as with Bell labs, the market does NOT determine these things. I tellya, nothing says price control like 8 gas stations selling gas at the same price! Competitive value? ooook. The rest of America might disagree with you regarding the NEED for government intervention. However, your initial input questioned the LEGALITY of such a plan rather than any opinion of its application. I've addressed the legality. WE all have opinions. I'll stack my caucus against yours.

Busting up monopolies is not wrong at all since it undermines the very excuse of "free market competition" as it is baited and switched into the greedy behemoth that capitolism is. Who the hell was competition for Bell labs? How do multi-organizational conglomerates compete with one of it's subsidiaries?

Again, the Constitution exists for the sake of the PEOPLE, not commerce, not non-entity corps, not llc's, not business. WE THE PEOPLE does not indicate a free market. Again, show me where such is a requirement of the Constitution since I've proven the legality of my argument as you requested. Of course congress should have power over commerce. interstate or otherwise.


Feel free to elaborate. IF there is a point in there, I missed it.

Clearly, you've not read Johhny Tremain or the Autobio of Ben Franklin. The point is that what you fathom as modern free market capitolism was nevr an aspect of the culture that gave us our founding documents. Insisting on a free market economy by pointing at the Constitution is like insisting on worshiping the devil by pointing at the bible. The document doesn't agree with your criteria of a standard. Unless, of course, you can prove it.


Again, who makes up a business?


The answer is Commerce for a thousand, alex! They don't call em Chambers of People, you know!

And, again, who is forcing anyone to conform to anything? Not I. Sell your products at a higher rate, dude.... Why fear actual competition, dude? After all, a state sponsored company sill has overhead. It STILL has to produce and this STILL costs money. If it decides to markup the end user price a mere .05% above cost instead of using refinery excuses to jack up the price then so be it. Why are you afraid of competition?



We will eventually agree to disagree. IF the constitution did not exist solely to limit the power of the fed, I would argue that the specific enumerations would not have been written in.

Again, you are glossing over the entire pre-constitutional debate regarding the liberties granted and powers vested by the document. Just as an enumerated first amendment doesn't indicate the finite limits to granted liberty, as suggested by the ninth, so too are you using your opinion to interpret the limits of congressional authority despite the constitution and Scotus precedence. I"VE posted my evidence validating the legal prerogative of such an ideal. Have you?


Heh. I am all for competition. I am even for civilized rules of engagement. I am not for creating yet another taxpayer funded .gov bureaucracy so that I can then pay for a product I subsidise with my tax money. Likely will pay the same price when it is all factored in. Additionally, how many government agencies have opened up, done as promised, and then closed down. None to my knowledge. Instead we will have an agency, multiplied many times for different products that will stay and grow fat. BTW, the big oil argument is really weak. I understand the tendency to demonize them and have even leaned that way myself a time or two. But, once one calms down and checks it out, the available info contradicts the rhetoric. But, it makes a great populist argument for Sen Clinton to advance an essentially socialist agenda.

Who says this would be funded by tax payers? If I cut out the middleman and mainline the product from ANWR to the consumer that .05% above cost will pay for itself. And spare me the same ole beaurocracy line. Private business is not some panacea of goodness in every economic circumstance.

An agency opening and closing is neither here nor there in this debate. I'm glad that our department of education does more for young Americans than the sum total of the first 75% of our early history. Call me crazy but our federalized military functions a lot better than doling out no bid contracts to Halliburton and Merc groups. Sorry to send that cold splash of water atcha. Weather or not you expect a smaller government has nothing at all to do with the legality of my idea.

Again, you go ahead and wave your "oil companies are looking out for america" picket sign. At the end of the day, Im betting there are more Americans in my corner than yours. Call it socialism if you want to; such accusations really only work with other conservatives...


Actually, I would rather the fed stayed out of it. Wages, Prices, etc are based on supply and demand. Anything else is artificial. If you really want economic stimulus, let's pass the fairtax and open anwar to development while building refineries and nuke plants. Virtually all of that can be done via private enterprise and all it will take is the .gov getting out of the way and simply collecting thier cut.


Thankfully, there are many things that the fed DOESN'T stay out of even if a few people wish they would... Warren Jeffs and marriage... Ken Lay and finances.... indeed, clearly the Fed has a reason to turn a blind eye to anything that can be labeled commerce! Supply and demand may be a wonderful talking point but such does not happen in a vacuum. Supply and demand is no more the final factors in determining wage and prices than two wings being all it takes to achieve flight.

And no, spare me the laughable fair tax schtick. I listen to boortz too and no amount of unapologetic lardasses using their own ego to surf on a wave of cash is going to make that giant clusterfuck become anything more than a pipedream.

I'll remind you, this nation, and her resources, are not the lunch stand of the wealthy and private enterprise has no reason to expect profits from ANWR. none. If the US chooses to use it's resource to benefit the PEOPLE rather than the ghost of reaganomic piss-down economic theories then so be it. Hey, I doubt the nation will self-destruct because some ruch dude can't get richer while having to actually compete.


So far not a single insult. Good Job


snarky comments will probably keep that going.

 

[pegwinn]

You are going to have to do better than quoting precedent. Since neither of us to my knowledge is a judge, our opinion won't be asked. IMO the courts are full of very bad precedents where they simply got it wrong Constitutionally speaking. A well known educator who states that 2+2=5 may get his or her colleagues to agree. That agreement may span generations. It is no less wrong.

Besides, if I want court opinions I can google em. Why don't you take the text of the Constitution and make your own case. Isn't that why we post? For discussion that is?


You do realize that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, right? Of course. You do realize that the Supreme Court interprets it wrong, right? Kelo was wrong, RvW was wrong, and which one concerning civil rights was so wrong they finally reversed it? Sure, I don't agree with kelo v new london but that doesn't mean that it is less viable in court than, say, RvW. I've taken the text and made my own case, you asked me to prove it's application. By posting standing precedence I'm doing just that. The power of congress to manipulate commerce for the benefit of the people has been proven time and again. Bill Labs, Microsoft, antitrust laws etc. According to the vested powers of Congress according to the Constitution and interpreted by SCOTUS precedence they would be within their rights to do this.

as far as why we post, spare me the circular argument and tell me how the findings of the Renquist court is invalid. Maybe you can show me where the Constitution demands a free market structure since you seem to be interested in literal passages.... That is the point. It doesn't say that. Never said that it did. The point is to prove that Congressional authority exists. You have merely posted your opinion, and backed it up with SCOTUS. I fully understand that SCOTUS is law. But that doesn't make em right all the time. 2+2 is not 5 no matter how badly you want it to be. Congress has the authority to regulate commerce, not engage in it.

Heh. Nice try. Internal Affairs is local. And the postal system is specifically authorized. The Dept of Education is unconstitutional since it isn't enumerated as a congressional function.

Didn't you JUST say something about OPINIONS? Indeed, the post office is specifically authorized and should illustrate the duty that the founding fathers meant when making policy that benefits the people rather than business. HUH? After all, their inclusion is a little too socialistic for your tastes, right? Where did I say that? I said they are constitutional. Many Departments could be construed as unconstitutional since they are never specifically mentioned. Exactly. Yet, here we are with a department of Education that works better than Ben franklin's education. Are you making that judgement based on the plumeting test scores and lowering of Americas rating when compared to other industrialized nations? And FBI Internal Affairs is local? oh rly?


What makes a business? People natch. You are advocating removing thier right to conduct business as they see fit. Now, if your regulation is intended to stop a clear and present danger, or to redress harm...... then I would be on board. But, instead you are attempting to use the power of the .gov for coercive purposes.

no, COMMERCE makes a business. And I am not advocating removing anyones rights. Like i keep repeating, keep your gas at 3 dollars a gallon if thats your strategy. See what happens when the market forces you would otherwise be bragging about causes the competition that is missing these days. Let me say this one more time: BY ALL MEANS, CONDUCT BUSINESS AS YOU SEE FIT WHILE YOUR CUSTOMERS ARE GOING DOWN THE STREET DUE TO, UH, MARKET FORCES. Don't shout dude. It means you are losing an argument. Besides it's unmanly. Let me say this one more time: It is not the role of the government of the United States to engage in commerce.

And, to the shrinking middle class, there is a present economic danger. For 7 years weve been hearing about how we are living in a great economy... despite a constant exodus of opportunity and wealth out of the US. Interesting, my income has gone up every year. Oh wait. I am not waiting on anyone to bail me out or coddle me. I actually go to work and create my own opportunities. Hmmm, me and the wife work full time and have additional small-time income streams. Initiative works better than welfare or other .gov interferance. I'd be using the Fed for the same corrective purpose that is protecting the people as when we outlawed child labor. If, by coercive you mean normalizing the conomy to benefit the population instead of a robber barron segment, then fine... After all, Congress represent more people than an oil ceo. Heh. Talk about talking points.

I would disagree. The market determines things such as price control and competitive value. The people have the ability to negotiate individually or in groups or even to walk. There is no need for government intervention in this area even were it authorized. Oh, and busting monopolies is wrong as well. You break a monopoly by competition. And, before going there, gov sanctioned monopolies are wrong as well. I can understand the need for the commerce clause believe it or not. I simply believe that it has been way too broadly interpreted and over the long haul has corrupted the concept of a small, efficient, and responsive .gov.


Clearly, as with Bell labs, the market does NOT determine these things. I tellya, nothing says price control like 8 gas stations selling gas at the same price! Competitive value? ooook. The rest of America might disagree with you regarding the NEED for government intervention. However, your initial input questioned the LEGALITY of such a plan rather than any opinion of its application. I've addressed the legality. WE all have opinions. I'll stack my caucus against yours. The sad part is that your caucus would likely win. Another benefit of the Dept of Education no doubt.

Busting up monopolies is not wrong at all since it undermines the very excuse of "free market competition" as it is baited and switched into the greedy behemoth that capitolism is. Who the hell was competition for Bell labs? How do multi-organizational conglomerates compete with one of it's subsidiaries? So far you are operating on the assumption that monopoly is bad. Innovation, investment, expertise, expansion, reinvestment, more innovation, more expansion etc. Bell had no competition because they outperformed em. Same with MS. You may not like Bill Gates. But what was done to MS was morally wrong. He, and his corp, outperformed the competition on all fronts. But of course that is bad right.

Again, the Constitution exists for the sake of the PEOPLE, not commerce, not non-entity corps, not llc's, not business. WE THE PEOPLE does not indicate a free market. Again, show me where such is a requirement of the Constitution since I've proven the legality of my argument as you requested. Of course congress should have power over commerce. interstate or otherwise. I'm afraid you haven't. Interstate or otherwise? What is the otherwise?


Feel free to elaborate. IF there is a point in there, I missed it.

Clearly, you've not read Johhny Tremain or the Autobio of Ben Franklin. The point is that what you fathom as modern free market capitolism was nevr an aspect of the culture that gave us our founding documents. Insisting on a free market economy by pointing at the Constitution is like insisting on worshiping the devil by pointing at the bible. The document doesn't agree with your criteria of a standard. Unless, of course, you can prove it. I better scroll up and see where I asserted that we were guaranteed a free market. Nope, didn't do it. The standard is really simple. Is Congress authorised? No. They are not since the document does not enumerate that as a power enjoyed by them.


Again, who makes up a business?


The answer is Commerce for a thousand, alex! They don't call em Chambers of People, you know!

And, again, who is forcing anyone to conform to anything? Not I. Sell your products at a higher rate, dude.... Why fear actual competition, dude? After all, a state sponsored company sill has overhead. It STILL has to produce and this STILL costs money. If it decides to markup the end user price a mere .05% above cost instead of using refinery excuses to jack up the price then so be it. Why are you afraid of competition?



We will eventually agree to disagree. IF the constitution did not exist solely to limit the power of the fed, I would argue that the specific enumerations would not have been written in.

Again, you are glossing over the entire pre-constitutional debate regarding the liberties granted and powers vested by the document. Just as an enumerated first amendment doesn't indicate the finite limits to granted liberty, as suggested by the ninth, so too are you using your opinion to interpret the limits of congressional authority despite the constitution and Scotus precedence. I"VE posted my evidence validating the legal prerogative of such an ideal. Have you? The preConstitutional debate is not relevent. Since you are worried about the law, those documents have no authority in law. The intentions are not relevent. The only thing that matters is the written word within the Constitution. The rest is extranious verbage. A speed limit sign says 70. The reasoning behind it, and the debates for and against it, and the thoughts of the guy who wrote the statute simply are not part of that law and are thus irrelivent.


Heh. I am all for competition. I am even for civilized rules of engagement. I am not for creating yet another taxpayer funded .gov bureaucracy so that I can then pay for a product I subsidise with my tax money. Likely will pay the same price when it is all factored in. Additionally, how many government agencies have opened up, done as promised, and then closed down. None to my knowledge. Instead we will have an agency, multiplied many times for different products that will stay and grow fat. BTW, the big oil argument is really weak. I understand the tendency to demonize them and have even leaned that way myself a time or two. But, once one calms down and checks it out, the available info contradicts the rhetoric. But, it makes a great populist argument for Sen Clinton to advance an essentially socialist agenda.

Who says this would be funded by tax payers? If I cut out the middleman and mainline the product from ANWR to the consumer that .05% above cost will pay for itself. And spare me the same ole beaurocracy line. Private business is not some panacea of goodness in every economic circumstance. Spare me the attempt at misdirection. Anything done by the .gov is at taxpayer expense. And, if you know of a government agency that didn't grow fat and morph feel free to clue us all in. Think rural electrification agency.

An agency opening and closing is neither here nor there in this debate. Of course it is. Especially when you are advocating creating entire industries out of whole cloth and claiming it's a good thing. I'm glad that our department of education does more for young Americans than the sum total of the first 75% of our early history. What does it do? More importantly, what does it do that is specifically authorised? Call me crazy but our federalized military functions a lot better than doling out no bid contracts to Halliburton and Merc groups. And since it is specifically enumerated, what is your point? Merc groups? There is a method of hiring them as well that is fully authorised by the constitution. Sorry to send that cold splash of water atcha. Weather or not you expect a smaller government has nothing at all to do with the legality of my idea. Water, water, everywhere..... and none of it cold. And, 2+2 will never equal 5 no matter how badly you want it to or how many generations of judges perpetuated the error.

Again, you go ahead and wave your "oil companies are looking out for america" picket sign. Where did I do that? I discussed objective fact v populist drivel. Cosmetic companies have a higher percentage of profit than oil. At the end of the day, Im betting there are more Americans in my corner than yours. So you will garner the uneducated, ill informed, or apathetic. Not great company to be in. Call it socialism if you want to; such accusations really only work with other conservatives... not an accusation at all. Merely a factual observation. You are advocating moving to a socialist type state. You could always cut out the middleman and move to cuba.


Actually, I would rather the fed stayed out of it. Wages, Prices, etc are based on supply and demand. Anything else is artificial. If you really want economic stimulus, let's pass the fairtax and open anwar to development while building refineries and nuke plants. Virtually all of that can be done via private enterprise and all it will take is the .gov getting out of the way and simply collecting thier cut.


Thankfully, there are many things that the fed DOESN'T stay out of even if a few people wish they would... Warren Jeffs and marriage... Ken Lay and finances.... indeed, clearly the Fed has a reason to turn a blind eye to anything that can be labeled commerce! Supply and demand may be a wonderful talking point but such does not happen in a vacuum. Supply and demand is no more the final factors in determining wage and prices than two wings being all it takes to achieve flight. Well now. Actually the fed ought to stay out of marriage and leave it to the churches. Ken Lay, fraud, criminal prosecution, sure. And supply and demand is the final arbiter. I know you don't like it. But, thems the breaks.

And no, spare me the laughable fair tax schtick. I listen to boortz too and no amount of unapologetic lardasses using their own ego to surf on a wave of cash is going to make that giant clusterfuck become anything more than a pipedream. Oh wow. That is the best mini rant so far. I'm betting that your lack of a coherant argument means you simply don't have one. No worries. Down the road I will entertain your thoughts on taxes.

I'll remind you, this nation, and her resources, are not the lunch stand of the wealthy and private enterprise has no reason to expect profits from ANWR. none. If the US chooses to use it's resource to benefit the PEOPLE rather than the ghost of reaganomic piss-down economic theories then so be it. Hey, I doubt the nation will self-destruct because some ruch dude can't get richer while having to actually compete. Nah, we won't self destruct. We are slowly crumbling from within. The idea of the US Government yet again usurping the Constitution to become both retailer and regulator is but a single of many symptoms.

So far not a single insult. Good Job


snarky comments will probably keep that going. Cool

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Shogun, if Marxism is such a good and wonderful thing, then why are all the countries who have intimate first-hand experience with it (aside from Cuba and North Korea) moving in the opposite direction?

Maybe you can show me where the Constitution demands a free market structure since you seem to be interested in literal passages....

The constitution doesn't demand much of anything. It was originally a pact between independent states, in order to form a common defense, a common currency, a free trade zone, and not a whole lot more. Sort of like a combination of NATO and the EU, except with a much narrower range of powers. States and communities are free to be socialist, or not; but the federal government was never intended to even consider questions like that.

Now if you want to say "The Supreme Court said in 1995...", well yes. If they say it's legal, it's legal; and ultimately government employees will stick a gun in your face to make it legal. It's also now legal to have wiretapping and undeclared wars and to lock people away without a trial. The point is, don't confuse "constitutional" with "legal"; and if you insist on doing so, then at least in the future spare us any talk about violations of constitutional liberties.

Yet, here we are with a department of Education that works better than Ben franklin's education.

Oh my. Where to begin.

First, try reading a 8th grade exam from 100+ years ago. Chances are, you can't answer half the questions, and certainly the average high school graduate today couldn't. Secondly, people were much more literate before the Department of Education was created, and test scores have continued a steady decline as that department has been given more funding. Finally, our educational system as it exists today was copied from statist and militarist Prussia, for the purpose of producing good docile worker drones who will act as cogs in a machine. Guess who funded and publicized this movement? If you guessed rich white industrialists, you're correct. It's a bit late, I'll post more on this later.

Honestly, you liberals would be a lot more tolerable if you dropped the knee-jerk tendency towards centralization in all things. Frankly, it's coming to an end, due to several factors, mainly energy shortages. Don't take my word for it, read some of James Kunstler's writings.

 

[jillian]

First of all, I went back and looked at Shogun's post. Where on earth does he say a word about communism?

I know the no government types love trying to analogize communism and socialism. (Or maybe it's that you don't comprehend the difference). But capitalism by itself left us with a rotting underclass of almost slave labor, incredible poverty and, ultimately, all of the conditions which led to the great depression.

Your love of unregulated business is really weird.

As for centralization, that debate's done and dusted.