The Business of Government is to Promote Happiness or Business?

[emilynghiem]

If you worked out development plans as a community,
these decisions can be made together, not necessarily forced by law,
but out of effectiveness, good business and good design.

In my home district, it has been a disaster trying to get the city and
the developers to do anything with respect to national history,
regardless of the laws or not. If there isn't that respectful relationship,
no amount of laws is going to guarantee anything anyway.

So don't do business with developers or cities that don't respect
the consent of the community in the first place.

If you work with community friendly business leaders, then
you won't have these problems. Laws are not enough,
there has to be agreement to respect the consent of others
and to resolve conflicts and make decisions by consensus.

Getting the government involved is why these things are so fucked up.

Hi bripat9643 Did you see the thread I started, citing the principles of the Veterans Party ? Cool Veterans Party of America social legislation is unconstitutional US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Best description I ever read, that all "social legislation" is unconstitutional because the govt is not authorized to legislate.
Bingo.

Doomed to failure. The last thing we need is another right-wing political party.

bripat9643 Why not delegate reform projects to EACH party to form their own solutions around?
Why not have a Pres/VP form their teams and cabinets using the best leaders and solutions from each party
that PROVES their solutions/reforms work best?

instead of wasting millions or billions on candidates running against each other,
why not invest that into solutions they BELIEVE and WANT to prove works to SHOW their leadership.

So we have 10 candidates investing 10 million each to solve problems they have good solutions for,
And the public wins either way
a. either prove those things DIDN'T work without experimenting on taxpayers, but using donation funded by supporters only
b. prove those programs DO work, again using donor and support funds, not gambling at taxpayer expense
c. possibly KEEPING these solutions in the PRIVATE sector and NOT passing legislation to implement through govt
(so shifting from govt back to business or community programs run independently)
d. campaigning for future office holders using PROOF of what works and how well they lead/manage in which areas

Think of all the money and campaigning these parties do collectively and individually.
Why not invest that directly into solutions and make them pay to prove what works and who are the best leaders?

Liberals aren't interested in solving problems. They are only interested in expanding government and looting the productive for the benefit of parasites. Any plan that requires their active participation is doomed to failure.

bripat9643 I am one liberal who is interested in solving problems locally,
and taking the burden OFF govt wherever possible.

So let the liberals delegate the social issues the Democrats want to solve
DIRECTLY to party leaders, members, supporters to fund and manage independently.
the reward for doing this effectively is the leaders can use that to run for office
and the solutions that work can be adopted as govt reforms or alternatives by free choice.
The Democrats have statewide and nationwide networks.
The money raised for campaigns can go right into developing local solutions that are sustainable.
See also Earned Amnesty for an example

 

[danielpalos]

I believe our elected representatives to legislature should not be made to feel guilty about their cushy, part-time jobs.

How difficult can it be to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

[bripat9643]

Getting the government involved is why these things are so fucked up.

Hi bripat9643 Did you see the thread I started, citing the principles of the Veterans Party ? Cool Veterans Party of America social legislation is unconstitutional US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Best description I ever read, that all "social legislation" is unconstitutional because the govt is not authorized to legislate.
Bingo.

Doomed to failure. The last thing we need is another right-wing political party.

bripat9643 Why not delegate reform projects to EACH party to form their own solutions around?
Why not have a Pres/VP form their teams and cabinets using the best leaders and solutions from each party
that PROVES their solutions/reforms work best?

instead of wasting millions or billions on candidates running against each other,
why not invest that into solutions they BELIEVE and WANT to prove works to SHOW their leadership.

So we have 10 candidates investing 10 million each to solve problems they have good solutions for,
And the public wins either way
a. either prove those things DIDN'T work without experimenting on taxpayers, but using donation funded by supporters only
b. prove those programs DO work, again using donor and support funds, not gambling at taxpayer expense
c. possibly KEEPING these solutions in the PRIVATE sector and NOT passing legislation to implement through govt
(so shifting from govt back to business or community programs run independently)
d. campaigning for future office holders using PROOF of what works and how well they lead/manage in which areas

Think of all the money and campaigning these parties do collectively and individually.
Why not invest that directly into solutions and make them pay to prove what works and who are the best leaders?

Liberals aren't interested in solving problems. They are only interested in expanding government and looting the productive for the benefit of parasites. Any plan that requires their active participation is doomed to failure.

bripat9643 I am one liberal who is interested in solving problems locally,
and taking the burden OFF govt wherever possible.

So let the liberals delegate the social issues the Democrats want to solve
DIRECTLY to party leaders, members, supporters to fund and manage independently.
the reward for doing this effectively is the leaders can use that to run for office
and the solutions that work can be adopted as govt reforms or alternatives by free choice.
The Democrats have statewide and nationwide networks.
The money raised for campaigns can go right into developing local solutions that are sustainable.
See also Earned Amnesty for an example

The liberal definition of "solution" is a huge government program and massive amounts of spending. No thanks.

 

[dblack]

I suppose "free development" would include free education and health care for all citizens in exchange for a 50% federal tax rate on all forms of income.

That's what I was afraid of. Given that such a concept is more or less the opposite of what I'd call freedom, I'd say I couldn't support either characterization of Marx's view, even if they are logically consistent statements.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The business of a Democrat controlled government is to make it as hard as possible for a business in the private sector to succeed.
The purpose of a Democrat controlled government is to impose as many taxes as possible in order to force people to be dependent
on government thereby keeping Democrats in power.

Yet businesses do better under Democratic control

So ourthriving more today then when the Republican controlled Congress and Democrat President Bill Clinton had to find a way to compromise and work together? I think the facts speaks for themselves.

REALLY? REALLY? What happened in 2001-2007 when the GOP had FULL control of Congress AND the W/H again?


If Obama implements a growth policy on Tuesday and the nation is not back in the black on Thursday, this is a "failed policy."

If Bush in eight years brings us from surplus to crushing deficit, rampant unemployment, an economic black hole, a) his policies just "needed more time to work," and b) it was all Barney Franks' fault. If Obama in eight years, with no economic engine left to work with and a 100% obstructionist congress opposing him at every turn recovers the stock market, reverses the unemployment trend, restores growth and puts the nation back on sound economic footing, but after six years we're not as well off as at the end of the Clinton presidency, these are "failed policies."

You can't make this stuff up.

Unfortunately this is what you get when you choose someone with no leadership experience. President Clinton worked WITH the Republican Congress, instead of working to DIVIDE Congress and the nation as President Obama did. The end result is President Clinton got more done and created a much stronger economy. This is the difference between a leader like Bill, and Barrack who only knows how to rally a crowd while managing to lose both a Democrat Speaker and a Democrat Senate majority in the process.

Weird, I thought BJ Bill lost a Dem Speaker AND Dem Senate Maj leader when, thanks to his 1993 tax hike that gave US 3 new tax brackets and took the top rate to 39.6%, that had led to HIS 4 surpluses? And 'working with'? Oh yeah I forgot there wasn't anything else happening like BJ Bill shutting down Gov't BECAUSE the GOP had started getting extreme? Witnessed by the $40+ million BJ investigation, lol

Actually the clear facts are President Clinton and the Republicans both spoke of reducing the national debt. The president's plan wasn't as drastic in cutting spending and creating that surplus as the Republican plan. If you research the 1995 shut down, you would discover he shifted his position closer to that of Speaker Gingrich, and together they both created the surplus the left loves to talk about but came through a compromise with the Republican plan. If President Obama had any intelligence, he would see the benefits that came from working across the aisle and acting like a true leader .... for once in his presidency.

 

[danielpalos]

Hi bripat9643 Did you see the thread I started, citing the principles of the Veterans Party ? Cool Veterans Party of America social legislation is unconstitutional US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Best description I ever read, that all "social legislation" is unconstitutional because the govt is not authorized to legislate.
Bingo.

Doomed to failure. The last thing we need is another right-wing political party.

bripat9643 Why not delegate reform projects to EACH party to form their own solutions around?
Why not have a Pres/VP form their teams and cabinets using the best leaders and solutions from each party
that PROVES their solutions/reforms work best?

instead of wasting millions or billions on candidates running against each other,
why not invest that into solutions they BELIEVE and WANT to prove works to SHOW their leadership.

So we have 10 candidates investing 10 million each to solve problems they have good solutions for,
And the public wins either way
a. either prove those things DIDN'T work without experimenting on taxpayers, but using donation funded by supporters only
b. prove those programs DO work, again using donor and support funds, not gambling at taxpayer expense
c. possibly KEEPING these solutions in the PRIVATE sector and NOT passing legislation to implement through govt
(so shifting from govt back to business or community programs run independently)
d. campaigning for future office holders using PROOF of what works and how well they lead/manage in which areas

Think of all the money and campaigning these parties do collectively and individually.
Why not invest that directly into solutions and make them pay to prove what works and who are the best leaders?

Liberals aren't interested in solving problems. They are only interested in expanding government and looting the productive for the benefit of parasites. Any plan that requires their active participation is doomed to failure.

bripat9643 I am one liberal who is interested in solving problems locally,
and taking the burden OFF govt wherever possible.

So let the liberals delegate the social issues the Democrats want to solve
DIRECTLY to party leaders, members, supporters to fund and manage independently.
the reward for doing this effectively is the leaders can use that to run for office
and the solutions that work can be adopted as govt reforms or alternatives by free choice.
The Democrats have statewide and nationwide networks.
The money raised for campaigns can go right into developing local solutions that are sustainable.
See also Earned Amnesty for an example

The liberal definition of "solution" is a huge government program and massive amounts of spending. No thanks.

Not at all; a welfare-State simply requires less "government" than does a warfare-State. It is the "social" spending on our Warfare-State that is the problem, not social spending on a welfare-State that has a Commerce Clause at its disposal.

 

[emilynghiem]

Not at all; a welfare-State simply requires less "government" than does a warfare-State. It is the "social" spending on our Warfare-State that is the problem, not social spending on a welfare-State that has a Commerce Clause at its disposal.

Dear danielpalos I like your term for this as a "warfare" state.
What do you think of the idea of turning the tables on people who don't mind blowing the budget on war,
and would rather pay for that, than pay insurance companies for health care.

What do you think of petitioning the party leaders to go through accounting of the contested war contracts
and spending, research the complaints on large corporations with conflicts of interest,
and demand credits refunded back to taxpayers for us to use to invest in health care facilities,
medical schools, teaching hospitals and paid internships serving the Veterans and public through
reforming the public housing and schools, the VA, the prisons and any other state facilities.

So if conservatives don't like funding health care through ACA, can they refund tax money misspent on war
contracts contested by party leaders who have researched the corruption, and use THOSE funds for health care.
And until the money is paid back by whoever profited at public expense,
have the Federal Reserve set up accounts for this, let the credits be used for VA and health care reforms and development including job and educational positions, and either have the govt leaders responsible work out plans to pay this back OR start holding land as collateral, where citizens can start investing in buying out shares
and owning their own community campuses, medical centers, schools and business districts. So whoever
pays off the notes, gets to own these developments.

 

[bripat9643]

Doomed to failure. The last thing we need is another right-wing political party.

bripat9643 Why not delegate reform projects to EACH party to form their own solutions around?
Why not have a Pres/VP form their teams and cabinets using the best leaders and solutions from each party
that PROVES their solutions/reforms work best?

instead of wasting millions or billions on candidates running against each other,
why not invest that into solutions they BELIEVE and WANT to prove works to SHOW their leadership.

So we have 10 candidates investing 10 million each to solve problems they have good solutions for,
And the public wins either way
a. either prove those things DIDN'T work without experimenting on taxpayers, but using donation funded by supporters only
b. prove those programs DO work, again using donor and support funds, not gambling at taxpayer expense
c. possibly KEEPING these solutions in the PRIVATE sector and NOT passing legislation to implement through govt
(so shifting from govt back to business or community programs run independently)
d. campaigning for future office holders using PROOF of what works and how well they lead/manage in which areas

Think of all the money and campaigning these parties do collectively and individually.
Why not invest that directly into solutions and make them pay to prove what works and who are the best leaders?

Liberals aren't interested in solving problems. They are only interested in expanding government and looting the productive for the benefit of parasites. Any plan that requires their active participation is doomed to failure.

bripat9643 I am one liberal who is interested in solving problems locally,
and taking the burden OFF govt wherever possible.

So let the liberals delegate the social issues the Democrats want to solve
DIRECTLY to party leaders, members, supporters to fund and manage independently.
the reward for doing this effectively is the leaders can use that to run for office
and the solutions that work can be adopted as govt reforms or alternatives by free choice.
The Democrats have statewide and nationwide networks.
The money raised for campaigns can go right into developing local solutions that are sustainable.
See also Earned Amnesty for an example

The liberal definition of "solution" is a huge government program and massive amounts of spending. No thanks.

Not at all; a welfare-State simply requires less "government" than does a warfare-State. It is the "social" spending on our Warfare-State that is the problem, not social spending on a welfare-State that has a Commerce Clause at its disposal.

What utter horseshit. Defence spending only accounts for 18% of the federal budget, so obviously you are wrong.

The sky is always the limit when it comes to liberal demands for social spending. Welfare states always collapse from all the promises politicians make to parasites.

 

[danielpalos]

Not at all; a welfare-State simply requires less "government" than does a warfare-State. It is the "social" spending on our Warfare-State that is the problem, not social spending on a welfare-State that has a Commerce Clause at its disposal.

Dear danielpalos I like your term for this as a "warfare" state.
What do you think of the idea of turning the tables on people who don't mind blowing the budget on war,
and would rather pay for that, than pay insurance companies for health care.

What do you think of petitioning the party leaders to go through accounting of the contested war contracts
and spending, research the complaints on large corporations with conflicts of interest,
and demand credits refunded back to taxpayers for us to use to invest in health care facilities,
medical schools, teaching hospitals and paid internships serving the Veterans and public through
reforming the public housing and schools, the VA, the prisons and any other state facilities.

So if conservatives don't like funding health care through ACA, can they refund tax money misspent on war
contracts contested by party leaders who have researched the corruption, and use THOSE funds for health care.
And until the money is paid back by whoever profited at public expense,
have the Federal Reserve set up accounts for this, let the credits be used for VA and health care reforms and development including job and educational positions, and either have the govt leaders responsible work out plans to pay this back OR start holding land as collateral, where citizens can start investing in buying out shares
and owning their own community campuses, medical centers, schools and business districts. So whoever
pays off the notes, gets to own these developments.

This is a "running battle" or "skirmish" with some on the left, with most of the right. Some on the left believe there is no justification for any delegation of wartime powers, if our federal Congress cannot prove their allegations that such an exigency exists under our form of Capitalism, without the corresponding market based metric, of wartime tax rates, meet for such an alleged exigency.

 

[emilynghiem]

This is a "running battle" or "skirmish" with some on the left, with most of the right. Some on the left believe there is no justification for any delegation of wartime powers, if our federal Congress cannot prove their allegations that such an exigency exists under our form of Capitalism, without the corresponding market based metric, of wartime tax rates, meet for such an alleged exigency.

danielpalos Impenitent
Hmmmm the issue on the Left of exceeding federal authority on wartime powers
sounds CURIOUSLY like the issue on the Right of exceeding federal authority with health care.

Could it be that both sides need to take the opposition of the other SERIOUSLY
if they want THEIR objections to be heard? Why take turns IGNORING the protests of the other side?

What would HAPPEN if they actually INCLUDED each other's protests and objections
when making policy. Do you think we might make BALANCED decisions instead of lopsided?

Two wrongs don't make a right. They double the problems by excluding both sides, just taking turns doing it.
So we end up with two failed policies by leaving out half the nation every time Congress votes on biased legislation.

I brought this up with Impenitent who didn't see how I could connect these two situations.

But when I look at the EXCLUSION and demonization in the MEDIA,
I see a parallel pattern of bullying -- taking turns pushing one agenda to the point of dismissing any objections as invalid.

So both accuse the other of being a dictatorship, abusing the Presidency to push agenda.
Both making enemies of the other half of the US population. Is this really any way to run a country? If not RUIN it?

 

[emilynghiem]

bripat9643 Why not delegate reform projects to EACH party to form their own solutions around?
Why not have a Pres/VP form their teams and cabinets using the best leaders and solutions from each party
that PROVES their solutions/reforms work best?

instead of wasting millions or billions on candidates running against each other,
why not invest that into solutions they BELIEVE and WANT to prove works to SHOW their leadership.

So we have 10 candidates investing 10 million each to solve problems they have good solutions for,
And the public wins either way
a. either prove those things DIDN'T work without experimenting on taxpayers, but using donation funded by supporters only
b. prove those programs DO work, again using donor and support funds, not gambling at taxpayer expense
c. possibly KEEPING these solutions in the PRIVATE sector and NOT passing legislation to implement through govt
(so shifting from govt back to business or community programs run independently)
d. campaigning for future office holders using PROOF of what works and how well they lead/manage in which areas

Think of all the money and campaigning these parties do collectively and individually.
Why not invest that directly into solutions and make them pay to prove what works and who are the best leaders?

Liberals aren't interested in solving problems. They are only interested in expanding government and looting the productive for the benefit of parasites. Any plan that requires their active participation is doomed to failure.

bripat9643 I am one liberal who is interested in solving problems locally,
and taking the burden OFF govt wherever possible.

So let the liberals delegate the social issues the Democrats want to solve
DIRECTLY to party leaders, members, supporters to fund and manage independently.
the reward for doing this effectively is the leaders can use that to run for office
and the solutions that work can be adopted as govt reforms or alternatives by free choice.
The Democrats have statewide and nationwide networks.
The money raised for campaigns can go right into developing local solutions that are sustainable.
See also Earned Amnesty for an example

The liberal definition of "solution" is a huge government program and massive amounts of spending. No thanks.

Not at all; a welfare-State simply requires less "government" than does a warfare-State. It is the "social" spending on our Warfare-State that is the problem, not social spending on a welfare-State that has a Commerce Clause at its disposal.

What utter horseshit. Defence spending only accounts for 18% of the federal budget, so obviously you are wrong.

The sky is always the limit when it comes to liberal demands for social spending. Welfare states always collapse from all the promises politicians make to parasites.

Dear bripat9643 When I asked a friend of mine about these huge numbers in the trillions spent on military,
he clarified that (A) even without war the govt spends about the same amount of money on maintenance and security;
it is still very high just for the basic defense (B) he said that when liberals show the numbers, they "recategorize" things to make it look like military is a lot higher and the social programs are a lot lower.

Can you cite sources that show BOTH (or ALL three):
A. skewed numbers maximizing the military and minimalizing the social welfare
B. skewed numbers minimalizing the military and maximizing the social welfare
C. neutral numbers that show the different sectors but don't label them as above

And which areas are being "shuffled" under military or social welfare to skew the %
Thanks, I'd like to see sources on this, and the Worst case scenarios and Best case.

 

[danielpalos]

This is a "running battle" or "skirmish" with some on the left, with most of the right. Some on the left believe there is no justification for any delegation of wartime powers, if our federal Congress cannot prove their allegations that such an exigency exists under our form of Capitalism, without the corresponding market based metric, of wartime tax rates, meet for such an alleged exigency.

danielpalos Impenitent
Hmmmm the issue on the Left of exceeding federal authority on wartime powers
sounds CURIOUSLY like the issue on the Right of exceeding federal authority with health care.

Promoting the general welfare is in our social Contract; promoting the general warfare is not.

It really is that simple.

 

[Impenitent]

This is a "running battle" or "skirmish" with some on the left, with most of the right. Some on the left believe there is no justification for any delegation of wartime powers, if our federal Congress cannot prove their allegations that such an exigency exists under our form of Capitalism, without the corresponding market based metric, of wartime tax rates, meet for such an alleged exigency.

danielpalos Impenitent
Hmmmm the issue on the Left of exceeding federal authority on wartime powers
sounds CURIOUSLY like the issue on the Right of exceeding federal authority with health care.

Could it be that both sides need to take the opposition of the other SERIOUSLY
if they want THEIR objections to be heard? Why take turns IGNORING the protests of the other side?

What would HAPPEN if they actually INCLUDED each other's protests and objections
when making policy. Do you think we might make BALANCED decisions instead of lopsided?

Two wrongs don't make a right. They double the problems by excluding both sides, just taking turns doing it.
So we end up with two failed policies by leaving out half the nation every time Congress votes on biased legislation.

I brought this up with Impenitent who didn't see how I could connect these two situations.

But when I look at the EXCLUSION and demonization in the MEDIA,
I see a parallel pattern of bullying -- taking turns pushing one agenda to the point of dismissing any objections as invalid.

So both accuse the other of being a dictatorship, abusing the Presidency to push agenda.
Both making enemies of the other half of the US population. Is this really any way to run a country? If not RUIN it?

Obama (and Hillary) ran on the promise of delivering heath care. He was elected, and we have the ACA.

Where is the excess of federal authority? It was the will of the people - a mandate in more ways than one.

Bush, on the other hand, ran a campaign of peace, yet entered the White House determined to invade Iraq. (My source is Paul O'neal, if you're gonna make me find it.)

He hoodwinked the people!

I could go on, but I think I killed it right there.

One exceeded his authority - one didn't.

 

[dblack]

This is a "running battle" or "skirmish" with some on the left, with most of the right. Some on the left believe there is no justification for any delegation of wartime powers, if our federal Congress cannot prove their allegations that such an exigency exists under our form of Capitalism, without the corresponding market based metric, of wartime tax rates, meet for such an alleged exigency.

danielpalos Impenitent
Hmmmm the issue on the Left of exceeding federal authority on wartime powers
sounds CURIOUSLY like the issue on the Right of exceeding federal authority with health care.

Could it be that both sides need to take the opposition of the other SERIOUSLY
if they want THEIR objections to be heard? Why take turns IGNORING the protests of the other side?

What would HAPPEN if they actually INCLUDED each other's protests and objections
when making policy. Do you think we might make BALANCED decisions instead of lopsided?

Two wrongs don't make a right. They double the problems by excluding both sides, just taking turns doing it.
So we end up with two failed policies by leaving out half the nation every time Congress votes on biased legislation.

I brought this up with Impenitent who didn't see how I could connect these two situations.

But when I look at the EXCLUSION and demonization in the MEDIA,
I see a parallel pattern of bullying -- taking turns pushing one agenda to the point of dismissing any objections as invalid.

So both accuse the other of being a dictatorship, abusing the Presidency to push agenda.
Both making enemies of the other half of the US population. Is this really any way to run a country? If not RUIN it?

Obama (and Hillary) ran on the promise of delivering heath care. He was elected, and we have the ACA.

Where is the excess of federal authority? It was the will of the people - a mandate in more ways than one.

Bush, on the other hand, ran a campaign of peace, yet entered the White House determined to invade Iraq. (My source is Paul O'neal, if you're gonna make me find it.)

He hoodwinked the people!

I could go on, but I think I killed it right there.

One exceeded his authority - one didn't.

It's different when we do it.

 

[emilynghiem]

This is a "running battle" or "skirmish" with some on the left, with most of the right. Some on the left believe there is no justification for any delegation of wartime powers, if our federal Congress cannot prove their allegations that such an exigency exists under our form of Capitalism, without the corresponding market based metric, of wartime tax rates, meet for such an alleged exigency.

danielpalos Impenitent
Hmmmm the issue on the Left of exceeding federal authority on wartime powers
sounds CURIOUSLY like the issue on the Right of exceeding federal authority with health care.

Promoting the general welfare is in our social Contract; promoting the general warfare is not.

It really is that simple.

A. I agree with the wording of "common DEFENSE" which is not the same as OFFENSE

I understand with terrorists who attacked on the OFFENSE without following due process, rules of
engagement, but abused "collective punishment of civilians" this colored OUTSIDE the bounds of civil laws.

So in that case, people disagreed if the President had authority to respond OUTSIDE the bounds of normal laws
and collectively punish in order to deter further attacks or did this make the situation worse by inciting more?

Half the people saw the response as proper DEFENSE to such attacks,
others saw the response as overreaching OFFENSE

I agree that the focus should be on DEFENSE.

B. as for promoting general welfare, some see the Court ruling on ACA
as a victory in that it struck down the interpretation of this as allowing expansion of federal govt into health care.

The problem with the so-called 'TAX' the ACA was passed as,
is it still discriminates on the basis of creed.

Half the nation believes in the right to health care as trumping the right to choose how to pay/provide for it.
Half the nation believes in the civil liberties OVER or EQUALLY including freedom to use govt to mandate insurance,
but with the understanding this freedom to choose mandates cannot be imposed on others of different beliefs.

That part was ignored, either by ignorance, willful or not, or disbelief and just not believing other alternatives are viable
and "not a choice".

C. At this point, I don't know if the denial of opposing views under A
affects the perceived validity of opposition in B.

If the parties do affect each other's ABILITY to respect and include the beliefs of the other party,
then either they need to AGREE to stop this mutually exclusive behavior
or they should be BANNED from democratic process if it can be shown to THEM they are MUTUALLY
obstructing free exercise of religion, right to petition and participate in democratic representation,
and equal protection of the laws for their own interests and each other's.

If the politically bullying by coercion or exclusion causes these problems, then such parties should be stopped.
If they don't care about each other's views, they should at least care that it is affecting their OWN from being heard!

 

[emilynghiem]

Obama (and Hillary) ran on the promise of delivering heath care. He was elected, and we have the ACA.

Where is the excess of federal authority? It was the will of the people - a mandate in more ways than one.

Bush, on the other hand, ran a campaign of peace, yet entered the White House determined to invade Iraq. (My source is Paul O'neal, if you're gonna make me find it.)

He hoodwinked the people!

I could go on, but I think I killed it right there.

One exceeded his authority - one didn't.

GREAT Impenitent the MORE you talk the MORE you show the parallels.
You can take your above statements (A. Obama and vote by will of people
B. Bush lying and subverting the will of the people) and almost
'superimpose' them on top of the opposing arguments:

A. what others say about Bush and the vote by Congress
THEY will argue the DEMOCRATS and World community supported, TOO regarding WMD
and say there WAS agreement going into it.

B. and how OBAMA "hoodwinked the people" by saying
1. if you want your doctor/insurance you can keep it
2. this bill wasn't a tax when it passed through Congress or it would be killed AT THE START
(but it was ARGUED as a tax in order to pass through Courts so it COULD be upheld)

Those are parallel

* You trust Obama and health care to be the will of the people by vote
* but Bush "lied" and the result was NOT the will of the people.

* They trust Bush and the war vote WAS the will of the people
* but Obama "lied" and the ACA was NOT the will of the people

Do you see the parallels?

And what's more

* people opposed to Bush were labeled as unamerican communists and any objections were JUST POLITICAL
* people opposed to Obama are labeled as racist teabag[gots] and any objections were JUST POLITICAL

 

[Impenitent]

Obama (and Hillary) ran on the promise of delivering heath care. He was elected, and we have the ACA.

Where is the excess of federal authority? It was the will of the people - a mandate in more ways than one.

Bush, on the other hand, ran a campaign of peace, yet entered the White House determined to invade Iraq. (My source is Paul O'neal, if you're gonna make me find it.)

He hoodwinked the people!

I could go on, but I think I killed it right there.

One exceeded his authority - one didn't.

GREAT Impenitent the MORE you talk the MORE you show the parallels.
You can take your above statements (A. Obama and vote by will of people
B. Bush lying and subverting the will of the people) and almost
'superimpose' them on top of the opposing arguments:

A. what others say about Bush and the vote by Congress
THEY will argue the DEMOCRATS and World community supported, TOO regarding WMD
and say there WAS agreement going into it.

B. and how OBAMA "hoodwinked the people" by saying
1. if you want your doctor/insurance you can keep it
2. this bill wasn't a tax when it passed through Congress or it would be killed AT THE START
(but it was ARGUED as a tax in order to pass through Courts so it COULD be upheld)

Those are parallel

* You trust Obama and health care to be the will of the people by vote
* but Bush "lied" and the result was NOT the will of the people.

* They trust Bush and the war vote WAS the will of the people
* but Obama "lied" and the ACA was NOT the will of the people

Do you see the parallels?

And what's more

* people opposed to Bush were labeled as unamerican communists and any objections were JUST POLITICAL
* people opposed to Obama are labeled as racist teabag[gots] and any objections were JUST POLITICAL

You can argue that good parallels bad, but you can't make them equivalents.

 

[bripat9643]

This is a "running battle" or "skirmish" with some on the left, with most of the right. Some on the left believe there is no justification for any delegation of wartime powers, if our federal Congress cannot prove their allegations that such an exigency exists under our form of Capitalism, without the corresponding market based metric, of wartime tax rates, meet for such an alleged exigency.

danielpalos Impenitent
Hmmmm the issue on the Left of exceeding federal authority on wartime powers
sounds CURIOUSLY like the issue on the Right of exceeding federal authority with health care.

Promoting the general welfare is in our social Contract; promoting the general warfare is not.

It really is that simple.

The social contract is a myth. However the Constitution specifically authorizes the government to provide a defence for this country. It doesn't say anything about putting anyone on the dole.

 

[danielpalos]

This is a "running battle" or "skirmish" with some on the left, with most of the right. Some on the left believe there is no justification for any delegation of wartime powers, if our federal Congress cannot prove their allegations that such an exigency exists under our form of Capitalism, without the corresponding market based metric, of wartime tax rates, meet for such an alleged exigency.

danielpalos Impenitent
Hmmmm the issue on the Left of exceeding federal authority on wartime powers
sounds CURIOUSLY like the issue on the Right of exceeding federal authority with health care.

Could it be that both sides need to take the opposition of the other SERIOUSLY
if they want THEIR objections to be heard? Why take turns IGNORING the protests of the other side?

What would HAPPEN if they actually INCLUDED each other's protests and objections
when making policy. Do you think we might make BALANCED decisions instead of lopsided?

Two wrongs don't make a right. They double the problems by excluding both sides, just taking turns doing it.
So we end up with two failed policies by leaving out half the nation every time Congress votes on biased legislation.

I brought this up with Impenitent who didn't see how I could connect these two situations.

But when I look at the EXCLUSION and demonization in the MEDIA,
I see a parallel pattern of bullying -- taking turns pushing one agenda to the point of dismissing any objections as invalid.

So both accuse the other of being a dictatorship, abusing the Presidency to push agenda.
Both making enemies of the other half of the US population. Is this really any way to run a country? If not RUIN it?

Obama (and Hillary) ran on the promise of delivering heath care. He was elected, and we have the ACA.

Where is the excess of federal authority? It was the will of the people - a mandate in more ways than one.

Bush, on the other hand, ran a campaign of peace, yet entered the White House determined to invade Iraq. (My source is Paul O'neal, if you're gonna make me find it.)

He hoodwinked the people!

I could go on, but I think I killed it right there.

One exceeded his authority - one didn't.

Health care can be considered a promotion of the general welfare, not the general warfare.

 

[danielpalos]

This is a "running battle" or "skirmish" with some on the left, with most of the right. Some on the left believe there is no justification for any delegation of wartime powers, if our federal Congress cannot prove their allegations that such an exigency exists under our form of Capitalism, without the corresponding market based metric, of wartime tax rates, meet for such an alleged exigency.

danielpalos Impenitent
Hmmmm the issue on the Left of exceeding federal authority on wartime powers
sounds CURIOUSLY like the issue on the Right of exceeding federal authority with health care.

Promoting the general welfare is in our social Contract; promoting the general warfare is not.

It really is that simple.

A. I agree with the wording of "common DEFENSE" which is not the same as OFFENSE

I understand with terrorists who attacked on the OFFENSE without following due process, rules of
engagement, but abused "collective punishment of civilians" this colored OUTSIDE the bounds of civil laws.

So in that case, people disagreed if the President had authority to respond OUTSIDE the bounds of normal laws
and collectively punish in order to deter further attacks or did this make the situation worse by inciting more?

Half the people saw the response as proper DEFENSE to such attacks,
others saw the response as overreaching OFFENSE

I agree that the focus should be on DEFENSE.

B. as for promoting general welfare, some see the Court ruling on ACA
as a victory in that it struck down the interpretation of this as allowing expansion of federal govt into health care.

The problem with the so-called 'TAX' the ACA was passed as,
is it still discriminates on the basis of creed.

Half the nation believes in the right to health care as trumping the right to choose how to pay/provide for it.
Half the nation believes in the civil liberties OVER or EQUALLY including freedom to use govt to mandate insurance,
but with the understanding this freedom to choose mandates cannot be imposed on others of different beliefs.

That part was ignored, either by ignorance, willful or not, or disbelief and just not believing other alternatives are viable
and "not a choice".

C. At this point, I don't know if the denial of opposing views under A
affects the perceived validity of opposition in B.

If the parties do affect each other's ABILITY to respect and include the beliefs of the other party,
then either they need to AGREE to stop this mutually exclusive behavior
or they should be BANNED from democratic process if it can be shown to THEM they are MUTUALLY
obstructing free exercise of religion, right to petition and participate in democratic representation,
and equal protection of the laws for their own interests and each other's.

If the politically bullying by coercion or exclusion causes these problems, then such parties should be stopped.
If they don't care about each other's views, they should at least care that it is affecting their OWN from being heard!

Would this have been a problem if capitalism wasn't so lazy at full employment of resources without getting bailed out by socialism?