Throwing down the gauntlet

[emt seeking first job]

Hi tech foreign workers will do the job for less money.

They let them in to have a higher market supply of workers versus jobs. So the corpoartions can pay less.

Doctors live normal lives in other countries, come here to live like rock stars....

It also creates situations that rather than fic their own corrupt conutries, like Mexico, etc, they come here to enjoy greater rights standards of living etc.

If they could not come here they would be forced to rebel in their own lands.

The richest man in the world is in Mexico.....

 

[Shishkabob]

Actually, just like social security, the original concept was set up very well. The problem came when the trusts were raided or borrowed against to fund other endevors. If the money collected could only be used for health puropses it would work fine.

Don't get me wrong--- communism, in theory, is fantastic. However, it will NEVER work that way, EVER, and people need to quit pursuing the pipe dream. It's an illusion.

 

[Veneficus]

And they could find enough US workers for hi level jobs at this point, they really could......

ROTFL, not on the best day.

US education has long focused on test taking over understanding and the ability to manipulate knowledge.

Another major difference between US and other countries education is that the US education is also focused on "doing the job" over theory. Which works out fine for training highly skilled workers, but not for creating innovators.

Thenb there is the problem that every ignoramous in the country who can vote determines what is taught in primary education in the US. So we keep seeing things like Texas revisionest education and the court battles over intelligent design or whatever creationism is being called today.

And they let foreigner students in for the tuition money...

Perhaps in some cases, not most. The US education is so cost prohibitive that schools are springing up all over the world and even US students are traveling to in order to get an affordable education. Universities that need researchers are recruiting talent. Often at reduced tuition or actually paying.

 

[JPINFV]

governments act in the intrests of people

In theory at least...

 

[thegreypilgrim]

Medicare/Medicaid is proof that federally run health programs will not work in the US.

CMS actually has lower administrative and overhead costs than private insurance. Private insurance has to invest large amounts in underwriting, robust HR programs to facilitate increasingly complex plans, and a significant portion of premiums goes to executive and investor salaries. CMS does not have these problems.

(Aside from them being unconstitutional but too ingrained to be gotten rid of)

How exactly are they unconstitutional?

 

[Shishkabob]

How exactly are they unconstitutional?

In the strictest reading of the Constitution and its amendments, there is never a single expressed power given to the federal government for anything Medicare/Medicaid/ welfare related. Problem is, judges typically don't go by the strictest definition and instead, due to loose views, has changed the very idea of the Constitution. The makers of those programs are hiding behind the "It's tax money" defense, and although everyone can see through it, it continues to be allowed.


If states wanted to do state funded healthcare, that's their prerogative... but it should NEVER be federally funded. The federal government is here for trade, diplomacy, and protecting us from foreign enemies... the rest is technically supposed to be left to the individual states to decide. Everything else has just been piled on top over the years, and due to lawyer speak and liberal judges, has been held up. Add on top of the fact that all these were passed regardless of what the constituents wanted... and that's just wrong.


Anyone (but apparently lawyers and judges) can clearly see that if you follow the very words of the Constitution, welfare/Social Security/Medicare etc etc should not exist on the federal level without further amendments, but they're twisting the words to get their socialistic views through.

 

[Emma]

US education has long focused on test taking over understanding and the ability to manipulate knowledge.

Ain't that the truth. I've had to take 3 days off for being sick and I'm sitting here worrying that I can't prep my students properly for the standardized test we take May19. There's no science test in VA for 6th or 7th grade, which means me (the 8th grade science teacher) is responsible for making sure they know 3 years worth of material.

And by responsible, I mean, if my kid's test scores aren't up to par I will be removed from teaching. Thanks, NCLB.

(I also have stories of insane things local school boards have voted on as the curriculum I have been forced to teach, but that's a thread all on it's own.)

 

[abckidsmom]

Ain't that the truth. I've had to take 3 days off for being sick and I'm sitting here worrying that I can't prep my students properly for the standardized test we take May19. There's no science test in VA for 6th or 7th grade, which means me (the 8th grade science teacher) is responsible for making sure they know 3 years worth of material.

And by responsible, I mean, if my kid's test scores aren't up to par I will be removed from teaching. Thanks, NCLB.

(I also have stories of insane things local school boards have voted on as the curriculum I have been forced to teach, but that's a thread all on it's own.)

Dang! Middle school on Rt 1? That's a tough gig.

/hijack. Props needed where props were due, though.

 

[Emma]

Dang! Middle school on Rt 1? That's a tough gig.

/hijack. Props needed where props were due, though.

:blush: Thanks. For whatever reason, I'm better at teaching kids like the Rt 1 corridor kids. Not sure what the says about me, lol! I'm actually in the process of applying for a DCPS job. meep.

 

[thegreypilgrim]

In the strictest reading of the Constitution and its amendments, there is never a single expressed power given to the federal government for anything Medicare/Medicaid/ welfare related. Problem is, judges typically don't go by the strictest definition and instead, due to loose views, has changed the very idea of the Constitution. The makers of those programs are hiding behind the "It's tax money" defense, and although everyone can see through it, it continues to be allowed.

First of all, the Constitution was not intended to cover every single detail of what federal law could be authorized. A certain degree of ambiguity was intentionally built into it so that as history progressed, the document could be changed or interpreted in such ways so as not to become hopelessly dated and inapplicable as society changed (which, some might argue, has occurred to a certain extent). Furthermore, the Taxing and Spending clause contains the so-called "general welfare clause":

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States (US Const. Art I. §8, cl. 1).

If you've read The Federalist Papers you'll know that there was early debate on the interpretation of "general welfare" - articulated between Alexander Hamilton (who advocated for a broad interpretation - see Federalist 30 and 31) and James Madison (who advocated for a narrow on limited to commerce regulation, prohibitive taxes, and tarrifs - see Federalist 41).

Over the years the Hamiltonian view has predominated in US case law, and the decisive case was the SCOTUS decision in Helvering v. Davis (301 US 619 [1937]) which held that the Social Security Act of 1935 was constitutional.

The point is there is a complex history of legal precedent on such matters that extends beyond partisan politics and "judges taking loose interpretations of the Constitution". It seems to me, however, that if you're going to reject the constitutionality of SSA or CMS the same criticism could also apply to the existence of the FBI, DEA, ATF, USMS, etc.

 

[JPINFV]

It seems to me, however, that if you're going to reject the constitutionality of SSA or CMS the same criticism could also apply to the existence of the FBI, DEA, ATF, USMS, etc.

Law enforcement agencies = necessary and proper clause to enforce federal law. Now if the FBI decided to start handing out speeding tickets on city streets, you'd have an argument.

 

[thegreypilgrim]

Law enforcement agencies = necessary and proper clause to enforce federal law. Now if the FBI decided to start handing out speeding tickets on city streets, you'd have an argument.

Again, this goes back to the historic interpretations of what constitutes "common defense" and "general welfare". The Hamiltonian view has predominated and there precious few attempts to address why that legal precedent should be overturned when discussions like this arise.

 

[Veneficus]

In theory at least...

What people is not stipulated.

 

[Shishkabob]

First of all, the Constitution was not intended to cover every single detail of what federal law could be authorized. A certain degree of ambiguity was intentionally built into it so that as history progressed, the document could be changed or interpreted in such ways so as not to become hopelessly dated and inapplicable as society changed

Here's the thing: The ambiguity, which the writers knew would exist, was specifically stated to benefit the individual states and people, and not the federal government.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The commerce clause, social security act, etc etc were ALL passed during the same period by a liberal federal government, and 70 years later the same people are using it has a bypass of the original intent of the Constitution.

 

[Veneficus]

Here's the thing: The ambiguity, which the writers knew would exist, was specifically stated to benefit the individual states and people, and not the federal government..

I'm sorry, bt the federal government is not some independant villanous entity with a will, mind, and benefit of its own. That type of thinking is just ignorant.

It is an entity elected by the people, of the people, for the people, or some such.

Those people may not share your views or my views, they may be representing corperations or wealthy individuals, trade unions, or any other pressure group. But the people do retain the power and ability to elect such representatives. If they do so based on propaganda or oversimplified issues, they have chosen their own doom. The will of the majority is reflected and enacted.

That will may not be the best thing. It does not mean it is the will of all. It doesn't even represent the will of most when the voter turnout is <51%. But until the federal government self appoints its legislators and executives, and without oversight its justices, I am afraid the idea of this self serving entity is just BS that is continued by nothing more substantial than baseless propaganda which has its greatest effect on the ignorant masses.

The commerce clause, social security act, etc etc were ALL passed during the same period by a liberal federal government, and 70 years later the same people are using it has a bypass of the original intent of the Constitution.

Liberals like Regan? Bush? Nixon?

I think you need to diversify your sources of information.

 

[thegreypilgrim]

Here's the thing: The ambiguity, which the writers knew would exist, was specifically stated to benefit the individual states and people, and not the federal government.

The American people are benefited greatly by SSA & CMS. How is their existence a "benefit" for the federal government? What does that even mean?

The commerce clause, social security act, etc etc were ALL passed during the same period by a liberal federal government, and 70 years later the same people are using it has a bypass of the original intent of the Constitution.

(1) The Government is chosen by the people, and its composition is reflective of their values and desires of the time. The result of a democratic process. They may have held different views than you, but that is not evidence of some moral deficiency on their part. Conservatives are particularly afflicted with this notion that if some legislation is passed which they don't agree with then, well, some legal sleight-of-hand or collusion must be afoot. It's absurd. If they're so obviously unconstitutional why didn't Eisenhower, Nixon, Regan, or Bush I attempt to repeal them? The only one who made any such attempt was GW Bush which failed miserably, and the only reason he was able to get as far as he did with it was because of the radicalization of the GOP and its base. Eisenhower and Nixon would cringe at the policy eschewed by contemporary conservatives which during their presidencies were at the fringe of their parties. It's only since Regan, really, that such policy has become mainstream as a result of propaganda and conditioning.

(2) The "original intent" of the Constitution is highly controversial aspect of jurisprudence. For example, in all likelihood the "all men are created equal" phrase of the Declaration of Independence didn't apply to minorities and this was reflected in our Bill of Rights. I mean it took 15 amendments before universal voting rights were established and almost 100 years before additional legislation made it workable. Should the "original intent" be applied here as well? It's not a resolved issue, there is not agreement among legal authorities on what role authorial intent has in jurisprudence. Indeed, the whole concept of "authorial intent" is a contentious issue in all aspects of literary criticism.

 

[Shishkabob]

The commerce clause, social security act, etc etc

My bad, meant welfare, ss, medicare etc, not the commerce clause.

I'm sorry, bt the federal government is not some independant villanous entity with a will, mind, and benefit of its own. That type of thinking is just ignorant.

The very purpose of the Constitution was to prevent a strong centralized federal government. Any historian can tell you that. It was a huge fear of our founding fathers to make such a powerful government as that is the very thing they fought to get away from, which is why they made it quite clear what were and were not the powers they delegated to the federal government.

All the powers they have now were by people in the federal government (liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican) had snuck in using legalize and new laws. twisting idiots (yes, idiots) in to believing the founding fathers meant one thing by the words, when anyone with an IQ over 100 and critical thinking can quite easily understand that what the fathers wrote is what they meant, they didn't use code, didn't write stuff so people could go "Well, they wrote this, but they ACTUALLY meant this"

It is an entity elected by the people, of the people, for the people, or some such.

Right, because the elected officials ALWAYS do what the majority of the people who elected them want...

Oh wait.. Obamacare.... hmph, my bad.

Liberals like Regan? Bush? Nixon?

I think you need to diversify your sources of information.

No, liberals like FDR. You know... 50 years before Regan.

 

[JPINFV]

The commerce clause, social security act, etc etc were ALL passed during the same period by a liberal federal government, and 70 years later the same people are using it has a bypass of the original intent of the Constitution.

Err... quick point of clarification. The commerce clause has been there the entire time, it's just recently it's been used as an end run around constitutional limits.

 

[Shishkabob]

Err... quick point of clarification. The commerce clause has been there the entire time, it's just recently it's been used as an end run around constitutional limits.

Yeah, I fixed it in my response above this one

The American people are benefited greatly by SSA & CMS. How is there existence a "benefit" for the federal government? What does that even mean?

No. Deadbeats, lazy, and the abusers benefit the most from these programs. If someone had actually done their duty as a citizen, none of the programs would even be needed by them.


Exceptions? Sure. Someone quite possibly could fall on hard times and need help, but in my experience, this is not true the majority of the time.

(1) The Government is chosen by the people, and its composition is reflective of their values and desires of the time. The result of a democratic process.

Too bad we're not a democracy, eh?

They may have held different views than you, but that is not evidence of some moral deficiency on their part. Conservatives are particularly afflicted with this notion that if some legislation is passed which they don't agree with then, well, some legal sleight-of-hand or collusion must be afoot. It's absurd.

Just as absurd that you think it's ok that I work hard for my money and that you can take it and give it to someone that doesn't.

Where, at any point in the Constitution, is it even alluded to that the federal government is to help the poor achieve healthcare, let alone any of the other help they get? Where is it alluded to that the federal government has a responsibility to tax the middle class to help the lower class?

 

[thegreypilgrim]

No. Deadbeats, lazy, and the abusers benefit the most from these programs. If someone had actually done their duty as a citizen, none of the programs would even be needed by them.
Exceptions? Sure. Someone quite possibly could fall on hard times and need help, but in my experience, this is not true the majority of the time.

You're going to have to substantiate these claims. Are single mothers "dead beats"?

Too bad we're not a democracy, eh?

Don't get caught up in semantics. Sure the US is a constitutional republic, but its government structure is not so simplistically defined. It utilizes processes of a representative democracy.

Just as absurd that you think it's ok that I work hard for my money and that you can take it and give it to someone that doesn't.

This isn't the program. The major recipients of state aid are single mothers and senior citizens, so please spare the moral outrage. Sure, there are abusers and fraudulent cases, such a thing is called acceptable risk. It can never be completely mitigated, merely reduced; and, personally I'm willing to accept a level of abuse below a certain threshold rather than run the risk of not providing assistance to the needy. Just like I'd rather let 10 guilty men go free rather than convict 1 innocent man to use another tired cliche.

Consider the alternatives. There will just always be a fraction of the population that is, for whatever reason, unemployable. What are you going to do with those people? How long after you cut off all assistance to them do they resort to criminal activity? Why is the violent crime rate in the US so much higher than in other developed nations?

This is the basic difference in thinking between liberals and conservatives. From a policy standpoint you have to look at things from a "problem solving" perspective - how to make the best of an ambiguous situation so that the greatest number of people are benefited - rather than getting caught up in the moral fervor of the situation. Justice is fairness - equitability. Not some archaic notion of just deserts. No one is a self-made man.

Where, at any point in the Constitution, is it even alluded to that the federal government can tax the rich to help the poor? (Though, it's more the middle class be taxed to help the poor)

It doesn't need to specifically spell that out. The Congress is granted the authority to levy taxes and that's all the authority necessary. Furthermore the middle class is shrinking and buckling under the weight of its burdens precisely because it has been co-opted by the GOP whose primary constituents are the top 1% earners. Conflict of interest? We're heading back to the sort of society that existed in the so-called Gilded Age prior to the 1930s where there were MASSIVE class differences and essentially no middle class which is a direct result of 30 odd years of conservative policy.