What do you want from government?

[MaggieMae]

I want a government that abides by our Constitution and nothing else. Everything else is states issues.

I want a SCOTUS who applied the law in accordance with the Constitution and does not lean left or right.

I'd like our politicians to write bills in plain English, read them before they sign them, and attach nothing to any bill to slide crap through that should not go through.

I'd like to expand treason to cover desception of 'we, the people'.
I presume you mean to cover only YOU people, who happen to have a different viewpoint on the Constitutional rights of ALL people, no? Otherwise, I don't get what you're saying.

I'd like all our politicians to be honest and work for the common good of 'we, the people'.

I'd like the only special interest group to be 'we, the people'.

If we were still a country of 72 million, not 325 million, still drove around in buggies and used pony express for communication, then yes, we could abide only by the Constitution. But the framers were not stupid, and they specifically designed the Constitution to be a living document, subject to modernization. That's why where are so many ambiguous clauses therein.

You are wrong, our Constitution is not a living document, but a written legal document, which means the same today as it did when written.

Our founders were intelligent enough to realize that there would be times the Constitution needed to change, and that ability was built into the document, called the Amendment process, which is the only way the Constitution can change.

The Constitution basically turns over to the Supreme Court any controversies in its wording.

 

[MaggieMae]

Does the Constitution mention something about health coverage?

No, but it doesn't say anything about missile defense shields, either. Your point is moot.

Though it is in the constitution about military and defense

And don't give the normal debunked 'general welfare' crapola, which has been shown over and over and over again not to mean individual personal welfare and especially not at the expense of the personal rights and freedoms of another

It is not in the constitution anywhere supporting wealth redistribution, the spreading of personal responsibilities over the populous, nor making the free individual a ward of the state to gain governmental financial windfall for merely existing

You're still arguing moot points, because the Constitution is full of specific clauses regarding the rights and responsibilities of individuals. Also, the Preamble continues to be the solid introduction to what the framers had in mind, and to delegitimize the fact that the welfare of the people was not intended as a HUGE part of its tenets is just stupid. The whole damned thing concerns the welfare of the people, not just how many guns and weapons the people as a whole needs to defend itself.

 

[DiamondDave]

No, but it doesn't say anything about missile defense shields, either. Your point is moot.

Though it is in the constitution about military and defense

And don't give the normal debunked 'general welfare' crapola, which has been shown over and over and over again not to mean individual personal welfare and especially not at the expense of the personal rights and freedoms of another

It is not in the constitution anywhere supporting wealth redistribution, the spreading of personal responsibilities over the populous, nor making the free individual a ward of the state to gain governmental financial windfall for merely existing

You're still arguing moot points, because the Constitution is full of specific clauses regarding the rights and responsibilities of individuals. Also, the Preamble continues to be the solid introduction to what the framers had in mind, and to delegitimize the fact that the welfare of the people was not intended as a HUGE part of its tenets is just stupid. The whole damned thing concerns the welfare of the people, not just how many guns and weapons the people as a whole needs to defend itself.

Again.. try and understand what was meant by the term welfare in the constitution.. the welfare of the populous as a whole (I.E. the General Welfare) is not the same as welfare to the individual or for the individual at the expense of the state or the populace

But nice try and thank you for playing

The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[MaggieMae]

It is not in the constitution anywhere supporting wealth redistribution, the spreading of personal responsibilities over the populous, nor making the free individual a ward of the state to gain governmental financial windfall for merely existing.

The Sixteenth Amendment regarding income taxes set the stage for wealth redistribution, and it has been going on since then depending upon the economic health of the nation as a whole. Most recently, wealth redistribution went to the top 1% of wage earners. I don't even know what you're getting at with your last sentence. Sounds like more uninformed projecting to me based on fearmongering.

 

[MaggieMae]

Though it is in the constitution about military and defense

And don't give the normal debunked 'general welfare' crapola, which has been shown over and over and over again not to mean individual personal welfare and especially not at the expense of the personal rights and freedoms of another

It is not in the constitution anywhere supporting wealth redistribution, the spreading of personal responsibilities over the populous, nor making the free individual a ward of the state to gain governmental financial windfall for merely existing

You're still arguing moot points, because the Constitution is full of specific clauses regarding the rights and responsibilities of individuals. Also, the Preamble continues to be the solid introduction to what the framers had in mind, and to delegitimize the fact that the welfare of the people was not intended as a HUGE part of its tenets is just stupid. The whole damned thing concerns the welfare of the people, not just how many guns and weapons the people as a whole needs to defend itself.

Again.. try and understand what was meant by the term welfare in the constitution.. the welfare of the populous as a whole (I.E. the General Welfare) is not the same as welfare to the individual or for the individual at the expense of the state or the populace

But nice try and thank you for playing

The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

And I didn't use the term meaning "social welfare" like food stamps, either. I knew exactly what I was saying. The term in the Constitution is vague, which is why it continues to be arguable.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It is not in the constitution anywhere supporting wealth redistribution, the spreading of personal responsibilities over the populous, nor making the free individual a ward of the state to gain governmental financial windfall for merely existing.

The Sixteenth Amendment regarding income taxes set the stage for wealth redistribution, and it has been going on since then depending upon the economic health of the nation as a whole. Most recently, wealth redistribution went to the top 1% of wage earners. I don't even know what you're getting at with your last sentence. Sounds like more uninformed projecting to me based on fearmongering.

Ah but the 16th ammendment states all taxes must be uniform!!!! So if you charge a millionaire 50% income tax then under the 16th ammendment you are SUPPOSED to charge someone making 5,000/year 50% also.

But we've been ignoring the constitution since the great depression.

 

[DiamondDave]

You're still arguing moot points, because the Constitution is full of specific clauses regarding the rights and responsibilities of individuals. Also, the Preamble continues to be the solid introduction to what the framers had in mind, and to delegitimize the fact that the welfare of the people was not intended as a HUGE part of its tenets is just stupid. The whole damned thing concerns the welfare of the people, not just how many guns and weapons the people as a whole needs to defend itself.

Again.. try and understand what was meant by the term welfare in the constitution.. the welfare of the populous as a whole (I.E. the General Welfare) is not the same as welfare to the individual or for the individual at the expense of the state or the populace

But nice try and thank you for playing

The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

And I didn't use the term meaning "social welfare" like food stamps, either. I knew exactly what I was saying. The term in the Constitution is vague, which is why it continues to be arguable.

No.. it is not vague.. it is quite evident.. as shown directly in the constitutional dictionary... nice try though, hon... but that dodo won't fly

The only reason there is argument is because entitlement mantra junkies want it to be....

 

[DiamondDave]

It is not in the constitution anywhere supporting wealth redistribution, the spreading of personal responsibilities over the populous, nor making the free individual a ward of the state to gain governmental financial windfall for merely existing.

The Sixteenth Amendment regarding income taxes set the stage for wealth redistribution, and it has been going on since then depending upon the economic health of the nation as a whole. Most recently, wealth redistribution went to the top 1% of wage earners. I don't even know what you're getting at with your last sentence. Sounds like more uninformed projecting to me based on fearmongering.

WRONG... utter and complete bullshit

your 'most recent' comment seems to forget the inequality in the taxation that exists currently... leaving out the little things set forth in there about equality

You do not get windfall at the expense of government or others within the populace as forced by government, simply because you exist or your want it or you subjectively state that you 'need' it.... the constitution was not set up to have benefit to one individual at the expense of the rights of another.. which is exactly what a proposal like this healthcare welfare is

 

[MaggieMae]

It is not in the constitution anywhere supporting wealth redistribution, the spreading of personal responsibilities over the populous, nor making the free individual a ward of the state to gain governmental financial windfall for merely existing.

The Sixteenth Amendment regarding income taxes set the stage for wealth redistribution, and it has been going on since then depending upon the economic health of the nation as a whole. Most recently, wealth redistribution went to the top 1% of wage earners. I don't even know what you're getting at with your last sentence. Sounds like more uninformed projecting to me based on fearmongering.

Ah but the 16th ammendment states all taxes must be uniform!!!! So if you charge a millionaire 50% income tax then under the 16th ammendment you are SUPPOSED to charge someone making 5,000/year 50% also.

But we've been ignoring the constitution since the great depression.

Nope. Read this, wherein there's enough historical material so that this "wealth redistribution" debate should be forever closed. A couple of excerpts:

Under the Constitution, Congress could impose direct taxes only if they were levied in proportion to each State's population. Thus, when a flat rate Federal income tax was enacted in 1894 [the 16th Amendment], it was quickly challenged and in 1895 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional because it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state.

By 1913, 36 States had ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. In October, Congress passed a new income tax law with rates beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time.

U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of the U.S. Tax System

 

[ThePickledPunk]

It is not in the constitution anywhere supporting wealth redistribution, the spreading of personal responsibilities over the populous, nor making the free individual a ward of the state to gain governmental financial windfall for merely existing.

The Sixteenth Amendment regarding income taxes set the stage for wealth redistribution, and it has been going on since then depending upon the economic health of the nation as a whole. Most recently, wealth redistribution went to the top 1% of wage earners. I don't even know what you're getting at with your last sentence. Sounds like more uninformed projecting to me based on fearmongering.

WRONG... utter and complete bullshit

your 'most recent' comment seems to forget the inequality in the taxation that exists currently... leaving out the little things set forth in there about equality

You do not get windfall at the expense of government or others within the populace as forced by government, simply because you exist or your want it or you subjectively state that you 'need' it.... the constitution was not set up to have benefit to one individual at the expense of the rights of another.. which is exactly what a proposal like this healthcare welfare is

Its a losin fight with the lefties, DAVE. They would not bat an eye if you were taxed at 100%.

 

[MaggieMae]

Again.. try and understand what was meant by the term welfare in the constitution.. the welfare of the populous as a whole (I.E. the General Welfare) is not the same as welfare to the individual or for the individual at the expense of the state or the populace

But nice try and thank you for playing

The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

And I didn't use the term meaning "social welfare" like food stamps, either. I knew exactly what I was saying. The term in the Constitution is vague, which is why it continues to be arguable.

No.. it is not vague.. it is quite evident.. as shown directly in the constitutional dictionary... nice try though, hon... but that dodo won't fly

The only reason there is argument is because entitlement mantra junkies want it to be....

Why don't you tell us what you *think* they meant, then? I'm very curious. If the framers didn't have in mind the welfare of the people, why would they include the phrase in the Preamble in the first place? Why would they even begin "We The People..."?? If their intent was purely security and defense, the Constitution would have resembled the Patriot Act.

 

[MaggieMae]

It is not in the constitution anywhere supporting wealth redistribution, the spreading of personal responsibilities over the populous, nor making the free individual a ward of the state to gain governmental financial windfall for merely existing.

The Sixteenth Amendment regarding income taxes set the stage for wealth redistribution, and it has been going on since then depending upon the economic health of the nation as a whole. Most recently, wealth redistribution went to the top 1% of wage earners. I don't even know what you're getting at with your last sentence. Sounds like more uninformed projecting to me based on fearmongering.

WRONG... utter and complete bullshit

your 'most recent' comment seems to forget the inequality in the taxation that exists currently... leaving out the little things set forth in there about equality

You do not get windfall at the expense of government or others within the populace as forced by government, simply because you exist or your want it or you subjectively state that you 'need' it.... the constitution was not set up to have benefit to one individual at the expense of the rights of another.. which is exactly what a proposal like this healthcare welfare is

"Windfall"?? Wow, now there's a unique way to put it.

 

[xsited1]

What do you want from government?

 

[MaggieMae]

What do you want from government?

Better than a conservative idea like Soylent Green.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

What do you want from government?

Better than a conservative idea like Soylent Green.

Actually- the conservative idea is toencourage prosperity by allowing people to keep what they earn, which is better than the liberal idea of encouraging mediocrity and sloth by punishing the successful to provide for the wants of the less successful.

 

[Annie]

We got off track on Ravi's thread objecting to Obama being compared to Hitler, but there seemed to be some interest in the new topic, so I'm moving it here.

One of the comparisons was in tactics used by government to accomplish whatever goals the leadership might want to achieve. But whether such tactics are proper, appropriate, or inappropriate is often in our perspectives of what we think government should be, and what we do and do not want government to do for us or to us.

The question under discussion was this but does not necessarily have to be limited to this:

From your perspective, what IS the appropriate role of government in taking over and running private commerce and industry at any level or in any circumstances? What limits would you place on government's ability to tell you where you can and cannot work, what you are or are not allowed to earn, what kind of healthcare you are required to have, what sort of union you must belong to?

And add to that, from your perspective, what is the appropriate role of government in telling you how much you must or cannot save, how much interest you can or cannot earn, what you can and cannot invest or speculate in, what risks you are or are not allowed to take?

It would be helpful if Federal and State government distinctions would be made if you in fact think there are distinctions between Federal and State government.

Protection from invasion. Regulation of interstate and global trade. Safety of the skies, seas and rails. Enough regulations on business to keep capitalism from oppressing the masses, but light enough to further wealth.

What I don't want is what the inspiration of this op-ed does. (I think I posted the original article the day it was published):

John Cassidy on ObamaCare - WSJ.com

Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer
A liberal explains the political calculus.
The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."

Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."

No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.

Moral of the person being written about: Lying is fine, if it's for a cause I believe in. Screw the people! Spread the wealth around, regardless of effort or ability. All Dems forever!

 

[MaggieMae]

Better than a conservative idea like Soylent Green.

Actually- the conservative idea is toencourage prosperity by allowing people to keep what they earn, which is better than the liberal idea of encouraging mediocrity and sloth by punishing the successful to provide for the wants of the less successful.

Then why haven't they practiced their own ideology? Why from 1999 through 2006 did wages either remain stagnant or decline? Benefits either reduced or stripped entirely? People laid off and replaced by two part-timers so that benefits and overtime didn't need to be paid? The wealthy CEOs used their windfall from tax cuts and pocketed it or invested overseas, not in their own employees. And yes, said CEOs are mostly Republicans because the GOP has historically been the party of corporate elitists, catering to their needs first.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Better than a conservative idea like Soylent Green.

Actually- the conservative idea is toencourage prosperity by allowing people to keep what they earn, which is better than the liberal idea of encouraging mediocrity and sloth by punishing the successful to provide for the wants of the less successful.

Then why haven't they practiced their own ideology? Why from 1999 through 2006 did wages either remain stagnant or decline? Benefits either reduced or stripped entirely? People laid off and replaced by two part-timers so that benefits and overtime didn't need to be paid? The wealthy CEOs used their windfall from tax cuts and pocketed it or invested overseas, not in their own employees. And yes, said CEOs are mostly Republicans because the GOP has historically been the party of corporate elitists, catering to their needs first.

christ your a FUCKING WHINER.....

I would expect most CEO's, and most successful, or even mature, people to be conservatives. We know you cant get somethin for nothin, that the station one occupies in life is a choice, and that freedom is far more important than equality.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.


Thomas Jefferson

Yeah what he said

 

[Darkwind]

I want government to:

Let Me have My life.

Protect My liberty.

And to pursue My happiness.

There is a hell of a lot more. But as one poster said, what is good for one is bad for another.

The answer to that is less. Less government.

Our Federal Government exists to represent We the People to the rest of the world. End of responsibility.

Our state governments exist to give our society structure. This is where 99% of all governance should be done.

Our municipalities and counties exist to meet the immediate needs of our citizens. Streets, schools and places to do business.

Return to this model and America will once again achieve the greatness that is her destiny.