The Business of Government is to Promote Happiness or Business?

[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.

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.

No it can't. Government healthcare is an instance of providing welfare, not promoting it.

 

[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.

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.

Our social Contract and federal Constitution is No Myth. Paying the debts, and providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States is what our federal Congress is delegated the power and authority to do.

 

[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.

No it can't. Government healthcare is an instance of providing welfare, not promoting it.

The power to Provide for the general welfare is in Article 1, Section 8.

 

[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.

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?

You are truly clueless. Capitalism bails out socialism. In fact, socialism can't exist without capitalism.

 

[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.

Our social Contract and federal Constitution is No Myth. Paying the debts, and providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States is what our federal Congress is delegated the power and authority to do.

The Constitution is not a myth, but the social contract is. No one can post a copy of this agreement to the forum. Therefore it doesn't exist.

The Constitution authorizes the federal government to provide the common defence. It doesn't authorized the federal government to PROVIDE the general welfare. It only authorizes the government to promote it. The Constitution does not authorize food stamps.

 

[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.

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.

No it can't. Government healthcare is an instance of providing welfare, not promoting it.

The power to Provide for the general welfare is in Article 1, Section 8.

It says "PROMOTE the general welfare," not provide it.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Bripat: Why isn't the CONCEPT of laws as social contracts universal to explain
the relationship and AGREEMENT between people laws and govt.

What about "the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed"

Even if we CHOOSE to be under capitalism or communism, big govt or limited govt,
isn't CHOOSING that authority and relationship a form of "free exercise of religion"
or political belief and creed?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Dear Bripat: Why isn't the CONCEPT of laws as social contracts universal to explain
the relationship and AGREEMENT between people laws and govt.

What about "the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed"

Even if we CHOOSE to be under capitalism or communism, big govt or limited govt,
isn't CHOOSING that authority and relationship a form of "free exercise of religion"
or political belief and creed?

A contract requires my agreement. I never agreed to anything the federal government does. No one living has. That's why the concept of the Social Contract is a myth.

The "consent of the governed" is a joke. If 51% vote for a law and I vote against it, have I consented to it? No, I sure as hell haven't. I've explicitly done the opposite.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

But NOT at the expense of free choice and liberty
that half the nation didn't consent to restrict under govt.

And don't be like JakeStarkey insisting nobody is being punished or C_Clayton_Jones
that nobody is losing freedom or choices.

If as Jake says I am now REQUIRED to pay for lawyers or lobbies to "change this law
I never consented to support as a taxpayer affected"
in order to exercise the same freedoms I had before the bill without getting an ADDED TAX PENALTY,
then that is ADDING a burden on my rights and freedoms I never agreed to have "put up for vote."

The Constitution is supposed to CHECK against those kind of infringements
so I don't worry about losing my rights to a politically biased vote against my beliefs.

Nothing wrong with promoting health care by giving people equal tax breaks or deductions
for investing in medical programs and campus facilities that provide low cost or free care to the public.

Or for cost effective programs that reduce crime and prison costs, so that money that taxpayers
already pay per state can be invested in health care, service internships, and educational loans so this is sustainable.

This can be managed by the state and didn't need to be forced through federal govt.

 

[emilynghiem]

A contract requires my agreement. I never agreed to anything the federal government does. No one living has. That's why the concept of the Social Contract is a myth.

The "consent of the governed" is a joke. If 51% vote for a law and I vote against it, have I consented to it? No, I sure as hell haven't. I've explicitly done the opposite.

Well now we HAVE to have some means of consenting so this doesn't keep happening.

someone elsewhere suggested adding an Amendment or procedure that before
Congress passes any law or reform, there must be a vote on whether that is Constitutional.

I suggest having a constitutional conference on political beliefs and creeds
and take grievances from all citizens and parties, and work these policies out.
If people do not all agree (such as 85-95% consensus with some leeway, though I prefer 98-100%)
then agree to separate policies or programs by party and fund separtely

 

[bripat9643]

A contract requires my agreement. I never agreed to anything the federal government does. No one living has. That's why the concept of the Social Contract is a myth.

The "consent of the governed" is a joke. If 51% vote for a law and I vote against it, have I consented to it? No, I sure as hell haven't. I've explicitly done the opposite.

Well now we HAVE to have some means of consenting so this doesn't keep happening.

someone elsewhere suggested adding an Amendment or procedure that before
Congress passes any law or reform, there must be a vote on whether that is Constitutional.

I suggest having a constitutional conference on political beliefs and creeds
and take grievances from all citizens and parties, and work these policies out.
If people do not all agree (such as 85-95% consensus with some leeway, though I prefer 98-100%)
then agree to separate policies or programs by party and fund separtely

Here's the means of consenting: ask people for their consent.

 

[dblack]

the means of consent is the Constitution. It describes the limits of that consent.

 

[bripat9643]

the means of consent is the Constitution. It describes the limits of that consent.

When did I consent to the Constitution?