Throwing down the gauntlet

[Shishkabob]

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.

So, you're admitting that in a flawed system, it's better to make sure the minority doesn't get trampled on as opposed to helping the majority?

Kind of the exact opposite of triage, is it not?

 

[thegreypilgrim]

So, you're admitting that in a flawed system it's better to make sure the minority doesn't get trampled on as opposed to helping the majority?

That's a false dichotomy. Ensuring minority rights does not necessarily run counter to the interests of the majority. But frankly when there is such gross disparity between the enfranchised (majority) and disenfranchised (minority), then yes. Ensuring minority rights is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of social stability.

Kind of the exact opposite of triage, is it not?

Medical decision making and public policy are rather different things!

 

[Veneficus]

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.

As was pointed out, the intents of constitution and its literal word is a matter of debate. There were specifically provisions for modifying the document, which has been done legally 27 times.

It took the 17th amendment in 1920 to give women the right to vote. Since the founding fathers didn't consider women as equal to men, which was not only the poplar iew of the time, but established by pseudoscience of the day as well, if we accept only the literal interpretation of what the founding fathers intentions, the 17th amendment would also be considered unconstitutional and would be repealed.

As a hint on interpreting constitutional law, you cannot accept the literal interpretation for only the issues you like. The very purpose of the bill of rights is to ensure the rights of the minority.

Much of the legislation you described was supported by the majority. It's constitutionality upheld. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it unconstitutional. I am sure we could find more than a few who actually voted against equal rights for women and minorities.

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.

There was no sneaking. Many of these initiatives were very public. You want me to repost instructions on how to make a tinfoil hat?

(I have to ask, were you educated in Texas whos account of history seems a bit different from everyone elses in the US?)

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"

Really? Perhaps I am an idiot, but I do understand something about the English language and living languages in general.

If you decide you know exactly what the founding fathers said and meant, I beg the indulgence of my fancy.

If I go to the UK and say I am pissed, does it mean I am angry, drunk, or having to do with urination?

If I tell you that you are cool, does it mean I socially accept you, that your temperature is low, or that you are calm?

Do I really need to point out the definitions of Gay where the primary meaning and connotation has evolved over time?

Can you really claim to be such an expert on the language used by the founding fathers that you can easily interpret their intentions?

Has it ever crossed your highly educated mind that some of the most respected legal, language, and social scholars in the history of our nation have spent their entire careers and lives trying to figure out what the framers of the constitution meant, and have been unable to come to consensus, but it is so simple that some guy who simply watches tv could figure it out?

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

This is almost as big of a question. Are the leaders of the US supposed to be just representatives carrying out the will of the majority or are they also supposed to choose what is best for their electorate?

Personally I do not support mob rule. But consider for a moment what the outcome of some very important decisions in our nation's history would have been in the leadership always chose what the mob wanted.

I have seen recent mobs call for "second amendment remedies." should the people who were elected to represent them also support the use of violence to overthrow people who were also elected by a majority of their constituants because the two parties do not agree?

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

I do not support the current government healthcare plan.

However, the people who passed that bill were elected by a majority and it was signed into law by a popularly elected president. No different than the invasion of Iraq was ordered and supported by the elected officials of that day. No different than the declaration of war in WWI or police actions in Korea, or Vietnam.

as of the moment there is not enough popular support to repeal the law, in the future there may be. Bt it doesn't make it unconstitutional, whether you or I agree with it.

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

And nobody since then has been able to repeal it. It has been found constitutional, and no efforts are made by past or modern conservatives to repeal it. I stipulate because it is so valued by such a majority of the population, that anyone attempting would quickly find themselves no longer elected to represent any part of the American people. No different than if somebody suggested repealing minoirty or women's rights.

A social safety net even with those abusing it, is an upheld value of the majority of people of the United States of America. Just as owning slaves was a value of a majority of Americans in 1780.

Time 2 go back to skule?

or will partisan media still suffice as "informative education?"

 

[Shishkabob]

That's a false dichotomy. Ensuring minority rights does not necessarily run counter to the interests of the majority. But frankly when there is such gross disparity between the enfranchised (majority) and disenfranchised (minority), then yes. Ensuring minority rights is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of social stability.

Not at all. In your very examples, helping the minority directly puts the majority at risks. That's no acceptable.

Medical decision making and public policy are rather different things!

Not at all. Do the most good you can with the resources at hand, unlucky be damned.

 

[thegreypilgrim]

Not at all. In your very examples, helping the minority directly puts the majority at risks. That's no acceptable.

What risk is someone who makes over $375k/year placed in if they're income is taxed at 39% as opposed to 35%? Or taxing income above $1 million? I doubt they'll be at any real financial hazard. Again acceptable risk vs. unacceptable. It's more acceptable for someone who makes more than 98% of the country to shell out a paltry 4% extra in taxes to make sure some kid gets to eat for a day or someone gets the healthcare they need.

Not at all. Do the most good you can with the resources at hand, unlucky be damned.

That's the principle, but the analogy doesn't hold. Resources in public policymaking are not as constrained nor are they as time-compressed.

 

[Shishkabob]

Has it ever crossed your highly educated mind that some of the most respected legal, language, and social scholars in the history of our nation have spent their entire careers and lives trying to figure out what the framers of the constitution meant, and have been unable to come to consensus, but it is so simple that some guy who simply watches tv could figure it out?

I've always prided myself on looking at most things in purely black and white to make logical decisions.


Most people don't agree with that way of thinking, as there are always gray areas. However, you can never get anything done if you never have a definitive line.


Plus-- scholar =/= smart

(I have to ask, were you educated in Texas whos account of history seems a bit different from everyone elses in the US?)

Nope, actually educated in an affluent part of very liberal suburban Michigan, surrounded by poor cities, not far from Detroit.

I do not support the current government healthcare plan.

However, the people who passed that bill were elected by a majority and it was signed into law by a popularly elected president. No different than the invasion of Iraq was ordered and supported by the elected officials of that day.

The thing about that whole process is they rushed it through. They rushed it through knowing the vast majority of the US, including the people that voted them in, were against it. They rushed it through knowing that just 9 months later they'd lose the election and any chance of getting it passed. They rushed it through knowing that almost NONE of them ran on the platform of 'healthcare overhaul' the election prior.

They rushed it through against every bit of logic and brain power in existence, and knew it.

And nobody since then has been able to repeal it. It has been found constitutional, and no efforts are made by past or modern conservatives to repeal it.

Because due to the checks and balances in the US, things don't move as fast as they should. More judges have ordered it unconstitutional than constitutional. However, nothing will be able to be definitive till the Supreme Court review it, years down the road, and issues a decision, years later as well. It's a slow system.

The House is currently trying to repeal it in their area as well.

I stipulate because it is so valued by such a majority of the population, that anyone attempting would quickly find themselves no longer elected to represent any part of the American people.

The majority of voting Americans are against it. The majority that ARE for it tend to be the poorer and/or more liberally aligned.


Infact, the percentage of those against it compared to those for it have always held a double digit lead in all of the reports I've seen.

 

[Shishkabob]

What risk is someone who makes over $375k/year placed in if they're income is taxed at 39% as opposed to 35%? Or taxing income above $1 million? I doubt they'll be at any real financial hazard. Again acceptable risk vs. unacceptable. It's more acceptable for someone who makes more than 98% of the country to shell out a paltry 4% extra in taxes to make sure some kid gets to eat for a day or someone gets the healthcare they need.

Everyone should pay a flat tax, regardless of income, regardless of Billy making $1000, or Samantha making $100,000.

 

[Veneficus]

I've always prided myself on looking at most things in purely black and white to make logical decisions.


Most people don't agree with that way of thinking, as there are always gray areas. However, you can never get anything done if you never have a definitive line.

I seem to get along just fine.

Nope, actually educated in an affluent part of very liberal suburban Michigan, surrounded by poor cities, not far from Detroit.

I am sorry. still though, probably better than Texas.

The thing about that whole process is they rushed it through. They rushed it through knowing the vast majority of the US, including the people that voted them in, were against it. They rushed it through knowing that just 9 months later they'd lose the election and any chance of getting it passed. They rushed it through knowing that almost NONE of them ran on the platform of 'healthcare overhaul' the election prior..

But that is not true, it is still supported by organized labor who is a majority of the constituency that votes democrat. As I posted they even celebrate it as an achievement. Organized labor will continue to support those that support them. These same laboers also make up a majority of an artifically inflated middle class. The poor stand to gain the most, so when you add, poor + middle class + a handful of elite + a handful of independants, you get a majority, not the fringe.

They rushed it through against every bit of logic and brain power in existence, and knew it...

It seems to me they just seized the moment to get what they could. Sort of like a war in Iraq payed for with debt isn't it?

Because due to the checks and balances in the US, things don't move as fast as they should. More judges have ordered it unconstitutional than constitutional. However, nothing will be able to be definitive till the Supreme Court review it, years down the road, and issues a decision, years later as well. It's a slow system.

There is a definitive purpose behind this. So that things can be decided by cooler heads, not the passions of the moment. It will be decided by the supreme court as it should be. Before or after the collapse of the modern US, to be determined.

The House is currently trying to repeal it in their area as well.

Like I said, I don't support the law, but I think this is just a political ploy so doomed to fail it is a waste of the peoples time and money. If it were a legitimate attempt to do what is best, then negotiations for ammending it into something beneficial would be in full swing. as it stands going back to the way it was, is jst hastening the collapse of the US healthcare system. That benefits absolutely no one. But it wouldn't stop some interested parties to milk it for all they could prior to collapse and having to accept a settlement.

The majority of voting Americans are against it. The majority that ARE for it tend to be the poorer and/or more liberally aligned.

Given the average education and intellignce of the average voting American, I am not sure their majority lends credit to their position. The support of any majority doesn't automatically make an idea smart.

Infact, the percentage of those against it compared to those for it have always held a double digit lead in all of the reports I've seen.

You should change the channel occasionally. You might see something different.

 

[thegreypilgrim]

Everyone should pay a flat tax, regardless of income, regardless of Billy making $1000, or Samantha making $100,000.

Why? How will that resort in an equitable level of resource distribution? Have you considered how this will affect the lives of real, actual people and the social structure of the country? Do you not see how this will contribute to the rising disparity between the wealthy and the poor? Are you aware of the historical precedent of such inequality on the social stability of a given society? Ever heard of the French Revolution?

 

[JPINFV]

Flat tax? Really? Because, assuming it's $100, Billy paying 10% and Samantha paying 0.01% is somehow fair or sustainable?

 

[Shishkabob]

Given the average education and intellignce of the average voting American, I am not sure their majority lends credit to their position. The support of any majority doesn't automatically make an idea smart.

You think it's bad NOW? Wait till people raised by the idiots of today get power... my generation is going to ruin America.

You should change the channel occasionally. You might see something different.

If that's a dig at Fox News 1) I don't watch them, and 2) CNN and MSNBC are just as biased. And Al Jazeera just annoys the hell out of me.

 

[Veneficus]

Why? How will that resort in an equitable level of resource distribution? Have you considered how this will affect the lives of real, actual people and the social structure of the country? Do you not see how this will contribute to the rising disparity between the wealthy and the poor? Are you aware of the historical precedent of such inequality on the social stability of a given society? Ever heard of the French Revolution?

Let them eat cake.

What will really be interesting to watch from afar is when all these sheep end up the big losers in this grand scheme.

Of course when it happens they will blame everyone except themselves and no mention will be made they were duped.

 

[Shishkabob]

Flat tax? Really? Because, assuming it's $100, Billy paying 10% and Samantha paying 0.01% is somehow fair or sustainable?

Not flat tax as in "$10 from Billy, $10 from Samantha", but "35% from everyone"

 

[Veneficus]

If that's a dig at Fox News 1) I don't watch them, and 2) CNN and MSNBC are just as biased. And Al Jazeera just annoys the hell out of me.

Actually it was a dig that rather than spending time researching and weighing evidence, most American's get their information from sound bytes.

Most humans tend to gravitate towards positions that make themselves feel better. It does not lend to objectivity.

If you take opposing views the truth is usually found somewhere in the middle.

 

[thegreypilgrim]

I've always prided myself on looking at most things in purely black and white to make logical decisions.

You've prided yourself on this?

Plus-- scholar =/= smart

Yes it does. It may not equate to prudential wisdom, but generally people with advanced degrees are pretty sharp.

The thing about that whole process is they rushed it through. They rushed it through knowing the vast majority of the US, including the people that voted them in, were against it. They rushed it through knowing that just 9 months later they'd lose the election and any chance of getting it passed. They rushed it through knowing that almost NONE of them ran on the platform of 'healthcare overhaul' the election prior.

They rushed it through against every bit of logic and brain power in existence, and knew it.

Like Vene said they capitalized on their mandate. You simply don't agree with their platform. It's no different in principle than rushing into the Iraq war...except it wasn't based on faulty intelligence, lies, and manipulation of post-9/11 paranoia.

Because due to the checks and balances in the US, things don't move as fast as they should. More judges have ordered it unconstitutional than constitutional. However, nothing will be able to be definitive till the Supreme Court review it, years down the road, and issues a decision, years later as well. It's a slow system.

The House is currently trying to repeal it in their area as well.

You do realize that the health insurance mandate was originally a Republican idea? It was the alternative to the failed Clinton-era attempts at health reform in the 90s and is basically the same program that Mitt Romney implemented as governor of Massachusetts. Suddenly now it's unconstitutional? Why wasn't it unconstitutional in the 90s or in 2006?

 

[ffemt8978]

How about we get back on topic and not turn this into a Constitutional debate?

 

[firecoins]

people wouldn't need healthcare if people stopped throwing gauntlets. Those things hurt!

 

[thegreypilgrim]

How about we get back on topic and not turn this into a Constitutional debate?

How about we just allow threads to take on a life of their own?

 

[46Young]

What risk is someone who makes over $375k/year placed in if they're income is taxed at 39% as opposed to 35%? Or taxing income above $1 million? I doubt they'll be at any real financial hazard. Again acceptable risk vs. unacceptable. It's more acceptable for someone who makes more than 98% of the country to shell out a paltry 4% extra in taxes to make sure some kid gets to eat for a day or someone gets the healthcare they need.


That's the principle, but the analogy doesn't hold. Resources in public policymaking are not as constrained nor are they as time-compressed.

What's the risk? The wealthiest people in the U.S. are international people. If you tax them too much, they'll just leave. Our corporate tax rate is also the second highest behind only Japan, the last time I checked.

This reminds me of a simple explanation to understanding our tax structure:

http://blueridgeskyline.com/humor/taxlaw.htm

 

[Shishkabob]

You do realize that the health insurance mandate was originally a Republican idea? It was the alternative to the failed Clinton-era attempts at health reform in the 90s and is basically the same program that Mitt Romney implemented as governor of Massachusetts. Suddenly now it's unconstitutional? Why wasn't it unconstitutional in the 90s or in 2006?

Why do people constantly bring this up as if it would change my views on the matter? I'm against the mandate, regardless of Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green Party, whoever.

Difference? It passed under the Democrats, so they'll get the blame.


And, also again-- If a state wants to pass a law just like this, that's their decision. It, however, is NOT the federal governments position.