Discussion in 'Congress' started by Dante, Mar 5, 2014.
big right-wing Kochs terrify left-wing nutjobs
Here ya go!
-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees.
-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.
-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years.
-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
Propaganda like; 'The rich pay 40% of their income to taxes?'
publichealthwatch | Conservative Media?s Misleading Coverage Of The War On Poverty
You are still confused about individual and collective choices, the role of elected government in making laws. And this is nonsensical: "deprived of freedom by these mandates that violate their beliefs and interfere with their natural freedoms."
(1a): abortion: The 'choice' position is about individualism and opposition to government intrusion into the most personal of issues.
(2a): No it doesn't. We all have representation. You lack the most basic understanding here. Civics 101
(2b): Congress chose how to pay. An elected Congress that represents ALL the people.
For most rational people health care does NOT involve "religious and spiritual choices outside of govt jurisdiction." There are of course situations that arise where religious beliefs may butt up against science, technology, and medicine. When society and government has a compelling interest in specific cases the law gets involved.
Whatever you are ranting and raving about the President, it was the duly elected Congress who enacted the health care law, not the President.
READ the law and the ruling legal opinion. You have strayed off the reservation in your thinking and reasoning (if you want to call it that) and your arguments
No, propaganda that suggests a single republican in the House of Representatives would ruin the great "war against poverty" that LBJ created.
[MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION] I am going to stop in the middle of this and give you rep on one of these msgs
just for taking the time and effort for nitpicking these pieces apart. If more people had done this a long time ago, we would be too busy solving each problem to fight politically over Roe v Wade and abortion by throwing all these individual conflicts together in a stew.
Thank you, and please continue until you make me spell it all out and you correct each point until we AGREE what points can and cannot be resolved. My point is to make public policy based on what we CAN agree with, and QUIT fighting over the points we cannot. I want to show the problems CAN BE SOLVED WITHOUT having to force points in conflict.
I am going to split the "Abortion Roe v Wade" issue into a separate post from
the health care issue, so we can go into more detail and hash every point out
where you see there is conflict. All sides need to spell out their issues this way,
and maybe we'd actually get somewhere instead of politically deadlocking.
A = Abortion legality issues
(B will be the health care reform issues)
A. Two key conflicts regarding Abortion
1. the issue of abortion itself
2. the issue of HOW LAWS ARE WRITTEN AND ENFORCED and why illegality and penalties cannot be LEGISLATED because "even if abortion was murder" the legal process of penalizing the WOMAN would impose a burden to prove she was FORCED etc.
My point in SEPARATING 2 from 1, is that EVEN IF PEOPLE CAN NEVER AGREE ON 1
(which involved the religious differences and beliefs/perceptions etc.)
We can still address what is wrong with 2, and quit fighting over point 1.
[As for point #1, because right to life beliefs should be equally protected as right to choice,
the prolife could argue they are being "discriminated against politically by govt
UNLESS their beliefs in #1 ARE recognized EQUALLY" and public laws are based on #2 instead which does not diminish, exclude or discriminate against prolife views in #1.
OTHERWISE if laws are based on arguments "taking sides" on #1, this imposes a bias.]
So we could still acknowledge and defend the "equal right to believe in prolife views in #1"
and STILL have "prochoice views" DEFENDED based on #2. So there is no argument.
There is NO NEED either to defend, push or attack prolife/prochoice beliefs on point #1
if ALL arguments can still be made using point #2. And I believe conflicts can be resolved by focusing on #2, after we quit threatening to violate beliefs on either side on #1.
I have not found ONE PERSON WHO DISAGREED WITH THE FACT THAT
2. laws about abortion "after the fact" are going to affect women more than men
so this is NEVER going to be fair and equally protective/applied/enforced.
1. choosing to be prolife does NOT depend on making laws forcing this; so all measures to stop abortion can still be exercised freely as in #1 without requiring any legal mandates.
All Prolife activism, outreach, education is PROOF this can be done without laws forcing it.
Dante this is VERY important to make this distinction between point 1 and point 2.
I have actually convinced many conservative staunch prolife believers to respect the Constitutional standards preventing bans and punitive laws because of #2, where this does not affect or depend on their beliefs in #1. So there is NO NEED to force #1 on people,
because we really need to focus on #2.
RE: The 'choice' position is about individualism and opposition to government intrusion into the most personal of issues.
Dante this is true but there are THREE levels where a different choice can be made
and where "govt can intrude on personal choices":
0. the point at which the COUPLE decides to have sex if it is consensual, or rape/coercion occurs, or something in between where the responsibility between the two people is on a completely private level. So if abuse occurs this cannot be policed by govt, but has to be identified and resolved personally by the people. If no crime is determined, it's personal.
This is the LAST point where the man could possibly be held equally responsible as the woman, if not more if he commits coercion rape fraud or some other abuse against her.
Clearly the govt cannot make or enforce any laws on this level, but that is the last level where there is even a CHANCE of holding men and women equally responsible for the choice to have sex in the first place. so clearly the rest gets skewed from there, toward imposing on women more than men, made worse by threatening govt regulations or bans.
1. the point at which the woman goes through abortion.
again this should be a private medical decision, and given the research and information we have collected by now on abortion, it should be easier to reduce the incidence of abortion simply by education and free choice.
2. the process by which government would "enforce and execute laws by due process" IF regulations and penalties were imposed.
If this is after the abortion, that is different from trying to use govt to intervene during the pregnancy, or intervene before the sex and pregnancy occurs.
Dante it is a separate level of law
if people were going to write and enforce ordinances regarding "relationship abuse" "rape" "unwanted pregnancy" and "unwanted abortion" BEFORE pregnancy occurs
if people want to ban and restrict the abortion providers
if people are trying to impose fines/penalties AFTER abortion occurs
The last two levels affect WOMEN more than men.
So that is why the laws will never be fair.
HOW the LAWS are written, and what is involved with ENFORCEMENT and REGULATIONS is a SEPARATE issue from ABORTION itself.
[this is like arguing if the ACT of willful termination in executions or euthanasia IN ITSELF
is right wrong justifiable or allowable in some cases
versus the PROCESS the govt goes through to
DECIDE if a crime is committed or how it enforced regulations or imposes punishment.
Those two levels are SEPARATE. is that more clear?]
1. on liberty deprived by federal mandates in ACA
I will separate this into another post B for the health care and mandates issue.
Cont'd [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION]: I couldn't find where to rep you, did you turn this off? If you would like one little rep from me, when we are both online at the same time, can I coordinate with you, for you to turn it on, let me rep your msg, and you turn it off again. Woudl that work?
B. health care insurance mandates and individual liberties before ACA was passed
What I was trying to say here, and sorry if I bungled it up:
the federal govt imposing mandates requiring citizens to buy private insurance or else pay a fine to govt to go into govt health care
EXCLUDES, DISCRIMINATES and PENALIZES people who believe in paying for their own health care FREELY and fully by themselves WITHOUT dependence or financial regulations from govt forcing them to pay into a govt system THEY DO NOT BELIEVE federal govt has Constitutional authority to be involved in (WITHOUT a Constitutional Amendment where the States ratify and authorize federal govt to step in and oversee or manage this nationally).
Some people believe in STATES voting on and setting up health care NOT federal govt.
Some people believe in PEOPLE paying for health care through business charity or schools and NOT depending either on State or Federal govt.
NOTE: Even if people disagree on the concept, they can AGREE on the PROCESS of going through a Constitutional amendment to AUTHORIZE federal govt first, BEFORE enacting law
So that was disagreed on also. So there are SEVERAL LEVELS where either the law was not followed directly, or BELIEFS were violated and so the law was not followed indirectly.
So YES the mandates and the federal authority to write, reform and enforce health care legislation that regulates insurance by FORCING people to BUY and PARTICIPATE
under FEDERAL TERMS and regulations -- this DOES take away rights we formally had to make these decisions ourselves WITHOUT fine or penalty much less regulations on our choices.
People used to be able to choose minimal plans, similar to buying just liability insurance or the minimum, and not being required to pay for full coverage.
This health care system depends on people having to pay for insurance BEFORE they need it; we used to have the choice to wait until we NEEDED to be covered to buy it. This is like choosing to buy a car and only buying insurance AFTER you buy the car.
NOT being forced to buy car insurance before you need it.
Dante can you compare the choices people had BEFORE the ACA was passed,
and the choices people have now, and see that people are facing fines or added costs
they didn't have to pay before?
2. RE Representation and beliefs
2a. NO Dante, I think you underestimate my views by assuming I have representation.
I have not found anyone who could represent and defend my views but myself.
I believe in CONSENSUS on laws and CONSENT of the governed by full and equal
inclusion and resolving all conflicts. I am at odds with 99% of govt/legal system that does not make decisions by consensus or consent.
So no, I am not represented by people in govt who believe in less than consent.
I believe in AGREEING to go by a different threshold -- such as 2/3 or 51% majority -- IF PEOPLE AGREE TO THIS BY LAW.
But cases where religious or religiously held political beliefs are involved, that is NOT up to majority rule to decide someone's BELIEFS.
To protect people's BELIEFS from infringement, I believe in conflict resolution on a local/individual level and consensus
on the last level where this is possible, and then separating jurisdiction after that.
2b. As for Congress, the split on this ACA vote was decidedly by PARTY.
So that is like if a bill passed with 51% of the Christians voting for it, and 49% of the Atheists against it, where the Atheists complained the bill, language or procedures in it DISCRIMINATED against them because they did not believe in the same things as the people voting for it.
If half the nation sided with the Christians and half with the Atheists, I would agree with the Atheists arguing they are "not represented" by this bill and their religious beliefs or differences were "DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AND EXCLUDED" by majority vote of Christians.
Especially if the bill involves a TAX that the Atheists are protesting, I would look and see WHY there is a bias in that law that is making half the nation protest.
Even if a majority passed it, that doesn't mean there isn't some flaw or bias
that makes that law UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Note: It happens to be MORE visible if the split is divided clearly by groups.
a Religious belief or religiously held political belief does not require the holder to be a member of the majority in order to defend their belief from government discrimination.
So even if 1 person or 1% protested that a bill was discriminatory,
I would look into that bias and see if the law could be corrected to eliminate the flaw. that is just Constitutional duty and principle and respect for equal protection and representation.
Otherwise, even if a law has majority support, it can still be unconstitutional by the First or Fourteenth Amendments and in violation of the Code of Ethics if it is partisan.
Clearly this ACA is partisan. That should be a big clue there is a bias going on.
It is disturbing that instead of ADDRESSING and RESOLVING the bias or conflicts,
the emphasis has been on fighting opponents back and forth POLITICALLY.
I believe all Congress members who touched this bill should be responsible for addressing all conflicts and correcting it; and put the bill on a moratorium until it is resolved; the separate parties can implement and participate/fund it voluntarily, but cannot regulate "other people's choices and standards of paying for health care" as long as they don't impose costs on other people or parties who disagree; and let each respect their choices.
Dante, that is what would represent me.
Anything less is imposing some political standard or "lack of faith that consensus is not possible" which is violating my constitutional belief and right to pursue and defend consensus on law. Since no lawyer will represent my view, I just have to argue for myself.
The whole legal system is based on adversarial competition, with one side beating out the other instead of equal protection of both sides, so that is why there is a conflict of interest with lawyers and the legal system. Most people agree with fighting because they don't believe you can win by asking nicely and resolving conflicts to reach a consensus.
Because I have this view, this belief in Restorative Justice, this proves that the systems and views that are NOT based on the same, ARE religiously spiritually and/or politically biased.
You can say that "most people do not see any of these choices as spiritual" and that just makes the matter worse of why people like me do not have "equal representation."
Once our views are recognized as VALID and EQUAL choices, then maybe these can be equally included and defended in laws instead of overruled next to other political beliefs.
3. Executive Involvement and Blockage of the process of reforming ACA
3a. The President did not seek to correct or reform the Bill to remove unconstitutional flaws as he did with the AZ Immigration bill. His duty is to enforce the Constitution, and he clearly kept pushing the bill "as is" for Partisan power and REFUSED to sign any changes AT ALL to ACA in the proposed Budget because he did not want to give in and compromise.
(Note: Obama agreed to oppose the Marriage bill as unconstitutional THAT WAS VOTED ON AND PASSED by LEGALLY ELECTED REPS and EVEN VOTES DIRECTLY
and still "not PERFECTLY Constitutional" because it left out people of other BELIEFS,
and after the immigration bill as unconstitutional THAT WAS ALSO PASSED IN AZ USING THE GIVEN REPRESENTATIONAL SYSTEM,
but would not sign on the Budget passed by Congress if it changed ACA which is full of contested points on Constitutional grounds)
Dante: are you going to say that the DOMA and the AZ bill should have remained because BOTH were passed by Representatives duly elected?
Or will you agree that is NOT ENOUGH to guarantee it is constitutional.
To their credit, the Republican leadership overcame much division threatening to block it completely and managed an AGREEMENT to revise just TWO POINTS (the tax on medical devices and a one year extension on the individual mandate since the employer mandate already got a one year extension)
Given the President's duty to enforce the Constitution, and to protect citizens EQUALLY as he sought to do with IMMIGRANTS and with GAYS,
he could and should equally defend the rights of citizens to Constitutional beliefs, as he did with these other cases that had unconstitutional flaws.
but he went out of his way to do the OPPOSITE.
He argued that the bill in Congress 'was not a tax' and so it had a chance to be stopped by the Supreme Court where the "commerce clause" interpretation was struck down.
but then he had lawyers argue before the Supreme Court that "it WAS a tax" in order to let it continue on since the "commerce clause argument" was eliminated.
Had Obama been seeking to CORRECT the objections and RESOLVE the conflicts, so that ALL people and ALL beliefs/views were EQUALLY represented as REQUIRED by the Fourteenth Amendment, he wouldn't have argued "both ways" to try to win for ONE side
OVER the other, to further EXCLUDE beliefs by which the mandates are unconstitutional.
He is clearly acting by PARTISAN interest, which is DISCRIMINATORY BY PARTY, over the Constitutional duty to represent the ALL the public equally. Thus in violation of Constitutional duty and Code of Ethics for Govt Service. ethics-commission.net
Obama is acting in collusion with the Democrats in Congress who refuse to address contested issues with this bill. Anyone who puts the Constitution first BEFORE party politics would seek RESOLUTION NOT IMPOSITION that excludes people's beliefs.
3b. As for the law and the ruling opinion.
Since both were split nearly 50/50, this shows that half the nation is represented
and half is not. In order to represent ALL the public EQUALLY, ALL views would have to be INCLUDED. otherwise the bill and the ruling are Unconstitutional by discriminating by creed and party. The numbers and the complaints/defenses by people clearly show a 50/50 split.
but beliefs are NOT dependent on "majority rule" to be protected from exclusion by govt.
Examples of beliefs:
the bill was originally passed as a REFORM to existing public health act and NOT as a tax.
because it mixed the two, half the people believe it requires a Constitutional amendment, half the people don't. half the people believe it is justified as general welfare or under the commerce clause, half the people don't. half the people believe federal govt has the authority to set up health care or move toward singlepayer, half the people don't. half the people agree the federal govt has the right to mix taxing and health care requirements with "private insurance" and "mandates" to make people buy it, half the people do not.
It isn't "just disagreeing with paying fines" it is NOT BELIEVING federal govt has that authority, which is even stronger.
to be EQUALLY INCLUSIVE and NOT discriminate against ALL these different BELIEFS people have, then ALL would have to be resolved and satisfied or else SEPARATE JURISDICTION by state, party or other affiliated group that DOES represent ALL PEOPLE.
Neither the bill nor the court ruling was passed with consensus, but was split almost 50/50
(with the majority of support from liberals/Democrats and majority
of objection from conservatives/Republicans --
So that TELLS me that (i) something was wrong and left unresolved.
(ii) the conflict and reason it cannot be resolved is PARTISAN due to differences in POLITICAL BELIEFS, and that's why they cannot be resolved the way the bill is written.
it already excludes or divides people by belief and would have to be completely changed to overcome this level of conflict involving deeply held BELIEFS that will not change.
Just ignoring the objections and assuming the beliefs don't matter as long as the vote overrules them DOESN'T SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS -- they still remain anyway!
So WHY NOT ADDRESS THEM. That is what I don't get.
Why not WRITE corrections instead of fighting any reform on this bill?
Why not WORK WITH the objections instead of excluding those beliefs as "invalid"?
On a bill as sensitive about personal choices as health care and how to pay for it,
any federal law should be so generic where the public can AGREE on it:
like requiring states to make sure their citizens health care is covered WITHOUT requiring costs or labor of people or government in ways that taxpayers do not agree to pay
or else any money states get from govt has to be paid back to deter abuse waste or losses.
P.S. Dante if you make it through the end of this discussion and we actually resolve 2 or 3 points,
if I can't find a way to give you rep, can I pay for your membership or something else to show appreciation?
I think you are really heroic to follow this through to the end. If we can't agree on other points, if we can at least agree that the beliefs for and against will not change and
should not be forced one way or another by govt, but both sets of beliefs should be equally included, respected and protected without discrimination or penalty, then I will consider that a victory.
If even one person gets this, like you, I believe the Democrat Party and the Greens can be worked with to organize support to set up Singlepayer without imposing on others.
If NOBODY gets this, and the whole liberal/Democrat support for ACA is all based on "imposing politically through force of federal govt" without equally including or even considering other beliefs as valid,
I believe the Democrat Party should be sued. If this is something that can be corrected and resolved VOLUNTARILY that means there is hope for the party.
I need to know if this can be addressed and resolved from within, or if the party is no more than a cult and its members refuse to make any corrections, then I agree it should be shut down.
I will try to write to my Congress rep and Senators one last time, and will include any points that you can clarify and help me resolve if this is even possible! Thank you Dante.
As long as there are no tax breaks for the affluent then make the cuts I guess. Somehow I can see big business and the uber wealthy getting tax breaks while the middle class is asked to pay more. If that's part of the deal, don't expect people to support it.
Dear [MENTION=43400]OnePercenter[/MENTION]: Have you ever tried training workers at 15.00 an hour, much less 20.00?
What makes you think paying people more will magically produce better work quality so that the company can afford to pay that much PER HOUR?
And if the managers are expected to supervise the same people currently paid 10-14.00 and try to get them to produce as much as TWO PEOPLE per hour,
what about the extra work the MANAGERS would have to do?
Have you ever worked at jobs that required whole floors of people working AT THE SAME TIME.
4 people working at the same time is about 100.00 an hour at the rate you propose.
So what about jobs that require teams of 20-40 people?
In order to get shipments packed and loaded SAFELY, for example.
To afford to pay the workers, they'd have to do the SAME WORK using HALF the team.
At manufacturing jobs, what you propose may not even be SAFE.
Reducing the staff to pay them more can cause other complications on the job.
Have you ever considered, much less physically TRIED OUT what you propose?
Separate names with a comma.