Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,497 Year: 6,754/9,624 Month: 94/238 Week: 11/83 Day: 2/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 191 of 440 (611104)
04-05-2011 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by marc9000
04-04-2011 8:04 PM


Because a lot of people in the U.S. don’t agree that all the details involved in those things works out for the better in the long run. If middle class living in other countries looks attractive to those on the left in the U.S., we should be seeing a mass exodus in emigration to those countries. It’s not happening.
Back in reality, the rest of the world does not find Americans quite so awesome wonderful that they will let any American who pleases emigrate into their countries; immediately confer on them all the privileges of citizenship such as access to national healthcare; and ensure that they automatically walk straight into a middle-class job equivalent to the one that they left behind.
I know that taking reality into account is not in your modus operandi, but to the rest of us this might partly explain why those Americans who find foreign systems admirable try to import those systems over here rather than themselves going over there.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by marc9000, posted 04-04-2011 8:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 192 of 440 (611105)
04-05-2011 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Rahvin
04-05-2011 11:47 AM


A person making 50,000,000 will not spend or invest 90% of his income. Sure, he'll buy some expensive houses, some cars, a yacht, and so on, and he'll invest a lot of his money so that he can increase his wealth without doing any work. But a large percentage of his money will not be recirculated - it will go into bank accounts and so on.
But that is investment. The days when banks just put your money in a large box are long gone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Rahvin, posted 04-05-2011 11:47 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-05-2011 6:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 233 of 440 (611288)
04-06-2011 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by marc9000
04-06-2011 7:14 PM


What doesn’t make sense to me, (and about 150 million other Americans) is how replacing competing insurance companies with one more massive government bureaucracy is going to make health care less costly.
Because obviously this reduces bureaucracy, making health care cheaper. As you'd know if you'd ever bothered to find out the first damn thing about the subject under discussion. By, for example, reading this thread.
Yet they’ve proven over the first 200 years of U.S. existence that health care IS something that free people can and should be able to provide for themselves.
When the US was founded, life expectancy was under 40 and there was nothing the government could do about it since pretty much all "health care" in those days was in fact best avoided.
Once the government starts providing people with what they can provide for themselves, where does it stop? Should we have food insurance? A single payer food system? If we have single payer health insurance, why not single payer automobiles? Single payer housing?
Ah yes, the slippery slope fallacy. While we're at it, we'd better abolish the Army in case it starts giving people ideas.
Either that or we could seriously examine any such particular question on its own merits instead of by the jerk of an ideological knee. This would, of course, require actual thought, which some may find fatiguing.
Have you ever checked into the details of the decision making process of who gets what care, how long waiting periods are etc., of government health care in foreign countries?
Yes, and in every case the figures are obviously better for me than a system in which I don't get any government health care at all however long I wait for it.
That was the dumbest argument in the whole health care debate. The conservatives cried (I paraphrase): "Oh, but since the government doesn't have an infinite amount of money, government health care will be rationed! We will avert this iniquity by making sure that you don't get any. We will save you from having half a loaf by ensuring that you have no bread."
Please don't do me any more favors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by marc9000, posted 04-06-2011 7:14 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by marc9000, posted 04-07-2011 8:10 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 234 of 440 (611289)
04-07-2011 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by marc9000
04-06-2011 7:14 PM


One thing we always hear from environmentalists; We have accomplished much! But much remains to be done! Considering any new discoveries or problems, what else do you expect them to ever say? Would they say; Hmm, the problem is way worse than we thought, practically no progress has been made since the EPA was founded in 1970, we have a LOT to do!! The question would then be what have you done with the billions of dollars that you’ve soaked the middle class for, for 4 decades? Or if they say; Our existence is justified, we now have everything all cleaned up! The question to that would be; then why don’t you now unfasten your lips from the sweet flowing breast of the taxpayer and go get a job in the private sector?
One thing we always hear from the police; We have accomplished much! But much remains to be done! Considering any new discoveries or problems, what else do you expect them to ever say? Would they say; Hmm, the problem is way worse than we thought, practically no progress has been made since the first police force was established over two hundred years ago, we have a LOT to do!! The question would then be what have you done with the billions of dollars that you’ve soaked the middle class for, for 2 centuries? Or if they say; Our existence is justified, no-one will commit a crime ever again! The question to that would be; then why don’t you now unfasten your lips from the sweet flowing breast of the taxpayer and go get a job in the private sector?
So you see, the police have either failed or been successful, and either way they should be abolished. That's logic ... or something.
So anyone who expects reality to change the political activity of the EPA has a far bigger trust in the rich, than anyone who trusts free markets to control the rich in the private sector.
Back in the real world, someone who works for a well-funded agency is not necessarily rich. You see, that money is not all paid to the same person. If it was, he would be rich.
I have noticed that economics is not your strong point. I wonder what is.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by marc9000, posted 04-06-2011 7:14 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 235 of 440 (611292)
04-07-2011 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by marc9000
04-06-2011 7:01 PM


Re: Can't resist
In reality, one of the many unfortunate characteristics of liberals, is that they tend to take for granted what they’re used to in their comfortable lives. Like what the U.S is, what it’s accomplished, and what it’s like to live here, like all that is somehow natural or automatic. In reality, there is nothing automatic about the current way of life achieved in the U.S. A lot of people, with a lot of (often uncomfortable) effort made it possible for you to take it all for granted, to be impressed with those in other countries that belittle it. Your casual acceptance of ideological experimentations aren’t guaranteed to add to add to what’s been achieved in the U.S., but they do have an excellent chance of adding to dismantling much of what’s been achieved. Many countries that have national health care are generally worse off than the U.S. History shows that nations and entire civilizations have fallen from success to complete disintegration. Ever hear of the Roman Empire, ancient Chinese dynasties, or the Ottoman Empire? It’s been estimated that it was 1000 years before Europeans again achieved as high a standard of living as they had in Roman times. In reality, many Romans took their society for granted 1700 years ago, just like you take the U.S. for granted today.
If that was intended to be an answer to my post, then your ambition has exceeded your ability.
If, on the other hand, it was intended to be a rambling incoherent series of bizarre non sequiturs, then you are to be congratulated on achieving your goal.
The most foolish and footling part, by a short head, is probably the first two sentences:
In reality, one of the many unfortunate characteristics of liberals, is that they tend to take for granted what they’re used to in their comfortable lives. Like what the U.S is, what it’s accomplished, and what it’s like to live here, like all that is somehow natural or automatic.
I was born in the UK, marc. What I am used to is a healthcare system that works. So far from thinking the American system "natural" I find it freakish and aberrant; and so far from thinking it "automatic" I know that there is nothing at all inevitable about the unique failure of America. It is not I, the liberal, but you, the conservative, who regards the status quo as "somehow natural".
It is not. There is no good reason why Americans should put up with this shit except that liars have duped fools into being frightened of aspiring to anything better.
Your casual acceptance of ideological experimentations ...
"Ideological experimentations"? My dear marc, if you crawl everywhere on your hands and knees, and if you observe that everyone else in the world gets about more easily and efficiently on their hind legs, in what sense would it be an "ideological experimentation" for you to get off your knees and stand up like a man?
Of course, if you never take your eyes out of the gutter in which you are crawling, you will make no such observation ...
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by marc9000, posted 04-06-2011 7:01 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 242 of 440 (611327)
04-07-2011 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Jon
04-06-2011 10:49 PM


Re: Republican Platform is brainwashing
I really don't need to; if you think it's a problem, then it's for you to show why such a thing is bad.
Surely if history has taught us one thing, it's that children named "Adolf Hitler" don't turn out all that well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Jon, posted 04-06-2011 10:49 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Jon, posted 04-07-2011 12:19 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 293 of 440 (611408)
04-07-2011 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by marc9000
04-07-2011 8:10 PM


Just because it's a three word liberal chant doesn't mean the slippery slope is a "fallacy" ...
Well of course not. The fact that it's a fallacy means that it's a fallacy.
And if you are implying that only liberals understand that this is so, you do a disservice to your fellow-conservatives, not all of whom are completely stupid.
You expected me to know that?
No, of course not. Indeed, I do not expect you to know things in general. I expect you to make stuff up and then act all piqued when it's pointed out that you're wrong.
Look, you're going to do it again:
So your opinions on why U.S. citizens would want to experiment with foreign systems rather than compare them to the entire history and structure of their own country (that you obviously know little about) isn’t really all that valid, is it?
See, you're making stuff up.
And, amusingly, you've swung from pretending that my opinion is invalid because I'm "used to" America and "take it for granted" to pretending that it's invalid because I'm not and I don't. Perhaps you could decide which dumb ad hominem argument you wish to use and then get back to me. Or maybe you could try to think up an argument that isn't stupid ...
... oh, wait. Maybe not.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by marc9000, posted 04-07-2011 8:10 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 295 of 440 (611413)
04-07-2011 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by marc9000
04-07-2011 8:34 PM


I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress to impose a mandatory income confiscation system for a government run retirement system.
I cannot lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which specifically granted a right to Congress to confiscate income for a government run Air Force.
Perhaps there doesn't need to be one.
There's also no evidence that FDR consulted the people about it, which the 10th amendment requires.
Actually, what the Tenth Amendment says is: "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."
You don't seem to have much luck with constitutional law, do you?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by marc9000, posted 04-07-2011 8:34 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 296 of 440 (611414)
04-07-2011 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by ZenMonkey
04-07-2011 9:16 PM


Want to know what one if not the major cause of the empire's collapse in the west? Not "loose morals" as you seem to believe- the empire had been thoroughly Christianised for more than a century.
Since when did Christianity make people moral?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-07-2011 9:16 PM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-07-2011 10:25 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
(1)
Message 337 of 440 (611720)
04-10-2011 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by marc9000
04-06-2011 7:14 PM


Oh yes, I missed that one.
The detail is out there, but it’s not going to be found at NPR, or ABC. Here is a link you won't find in the mainstream U.S. media.
So, here's a story showing how conservative cuts in socialized medicine have caused pain and suffering to patients because they have to wait a long time for the government to supply them with necessary operations.
The conclusion our friendly neighborhood conservative wishes to draw from this? That there should be no socialized medicine at all, so that people would have to wait for ever for the government to supply them with necessary operations.
When British conservatives cause hunger by taking away half the loaf, American conservative logic decrees that the situation could be remedied by ensuring that we have no bread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by marc9000, posted 04-06-2011 7:14 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 341 of 440 (611776)
04-10-2011 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by marc9000
04-10-2011 7:42 PM


Everyone who requires — with so many medical procedures, it’s not that simple. What is required is often subjective — what is required for some people may not be required for others. When to go to a doctor, what medical issues/symptoms can be lived with - in the U.S. these are all individual decisions as they should be. I find myself wondering if, in a government run health care system, are there requirements for physical exams? If a small medical issue is found during one of these exams, and the patient doesn’t want it treated, is he forced to have it treated?
No.
Since currently in the U.S. not everyone who needs a hip or knee operation will get one, it provides incentive (especially for those who are uninsured, or poorly insured) to live a healthier lifestyle that helps them avoid that problem. Like eating better, and/or getting some exercise.
How's that been working out so far?
Under universal health care, why would they worry? The government will take care of them.
Wouldn't the same degree of moral hazard apply to having private health insurance?
But in either case there are other incentives not to be a tub of lard. And even from a medical point of view, there's not much the government or private insurance can do for someone who's really determined to "dig his grave with his teeth".
What happens to that money? It’s company’s money, it’s earned by them, and it should be theirs to do with as they see fit. Does everyone expect them to hand it all out in raises to employees? Is the government going to find it justifiable to tax it away from them?
You could ask that of anything that saved a company money, but it's not something one usually worries about. I've not seen you fretting about what would happen if oil prices came down.
Also, insurance companies suddenly lose a major source of income.
And expenditure.
They still insure automobiles, and houses, and much of this coverage is mandated by law (in the case of automobiles) and mortgage holders (in the case of homes) Will those rates skyrocket, as insurance companies attempt to counter their loss of medical insurance business?
Only if they've been subsidizing an otherwise uneconomic car-insurance business with profits from health insurance, and presumably they're not stark raving mad and they haven't.
In some cases in the U.S., medical coverage is an incentive to be involved in organized work.
People in other nations manage to drag themselves to work with the incentive of actual money.
The U.S. health care system has problems, to be sure. But I don’t think the only solution is to turn it all over to our government ...
I don't know of any country (perhaps North Korea?) where the government has a monopoly on health care.
... which could very well do a far lousier job of administering it that your country’s government does.
Is there any reason to suppose that America is uniquely likely to make a mess of what other nations seem to do quite well?
You could use this sort of vague anxiety as an argument against doing anything, but it's not a very good argument unless you can justify it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by marc9000, posted 04-10-2011 7:42 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by marc9000, posted 04-17-2011 4:27 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 361 of 440 (612811)
04-19-2011 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by marc9000
04-17-2011 4:27 PM


With social security, medicare, Medicaid, often free emergency room service, not so well these days. It worked out better in past generations, before these programs existed.
But of course other countries have gone even further in this direction and aren't so fat. So I would be skeptical about any suggestion of a causal relationship.
Yes, because the U.S. is currently saddled with governmental burdens that other nations don’t even think about. Its multi-billion dollar legal system is one, and its obsession with a worship of the environment is another.
Other counties have legal systems and are more environmentally conscious than the US (and I don't see how environmentalism cn screw up healthcare, nor do you suggest it).
onald Trump (one of the few political wannabe’s who knows something about building) has been recently pointing out the differences in U.S. vs China’s abilities to build. China makes decisions overnight, the U.S. often has to wait years, or decades, for self-serving environmentalists to do their work.
Ah, so you've found something you like about communist dictatorships. Sure, they have a tyrannical despotic government, but at least that government can screw up the environment and screw the people who live in it.
Me, I think that that's one of the many downsides of communist dictatorships, but then I'm not a conservative and find less to admire in such regimes than you do.
Behold the image of your utopia:
And the people who try to stop that from happening here you describe as self-serving? Well, I suppose since they like water that isn't red and air that isn't opaque they might be actuated entirely by selfish motives --- but given that you and I share those same preferences, it must at least be admitted that, even if inadvertently, they've done the rest of us a few favors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by marc9000, posted 04-17-2011 4:27 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by marc9000, posted 04-19-2011 8:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 375 of 440 (612908)
04-19-2011 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by marc9000
04-19-2011 8:58 PM


If a communist government does something (does not do something) that the U.S. did/did not do 50 years ago, I'm not going to condemn them for it. It's almost like they learned something from the U.S, back when the U.S. was more of a free country.
Ah, so this is what freedom looks like.
Yeah, that's what the huddled masses were yearning to breathe.
The Chinese government, not noted for its trenchant self criticism, admits that Chinese air pollution kills, annually, 50,000 newborn babies alone.
Now, call me old-fashioned, but as far as I'm concerned my freedom to swing my fist ends just in front of your nose.
You seem to have a broader interpretation of freedom, which encompasses the freedom to poison people so long as you're making a profit from it. Perhaps you could find some quotation from the Founding Fathers to that effect; or perhaps not.
Until the blessed day comes when polluters have the freedom to put whatever they like into the air you breathe and the water you drink, the option is still open to you to take individual action in the cause of liberty by contacting your nearest polluter and volunteering to drink their toxic waste for them. Let us know how you get on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by marc9000, posted 04-19-2011 8:58 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by marc9000, posted 04-20-2011 8:09 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 376 of 440 (612921)
04-20-2011 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by marc9000
04-19-2011 8:46 PM


The General Welfare Clause
Rather than try to argue with Hamiltion, it makes much more sense to take note of what prominent founders actually had to say on the subject.
Today’s Democrat party obviously takes them in a literal and unlimited sense. Intent of the framers doesn’t concern today’s Democrat party, and the historically illiterate people who vote for them.
Hamilton was a prominent Founder.
It seems that once more you are in need of a history lesson. I shall address it to the forum in general, because experience teaches me that there is little hope that you will profit by it.
Article One Section Eight
For those unfamiliar with the question, let's start by looking at Article One Section Eight of the Constitution.
In the preamble, it says:
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;
The part in bold is known as the "general welfare clause".
The article then lists various specific things that Congress should do with the powers granted in the preamble, beginning with:
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
... and continuing in this vein. You can read the whole thing here.
These specific and listed functions of government are called the "enumerated powers".
Madisonians and Hamiltonians
There are, or were, two views as to what all this actually means.
The Madisonians (as represented by James Madison) held that Congress had only those powers which were enumerated. The preamble (they said) merely served to explain the purpose for which those powers were granted.
One point should be made clear. The Madisonians did not necessarily think that the enumerated powers listed all the things that a government should do, but that they listed all the things that it could do. That is, some of them thought that the government should have wider powers, but they thought that it would take a constitutional amendment to grant those powers. For example, Madison himself was in favor of a national university; he just thought that it would require a constitutional amendment to establish one.
We cannot, therefore, say with any confidence that Madison and the Madisonians would have been against such useful institutions as (for example) the EPA in themselves, as being an unwarranted extension of governmental power; only that they'd have thought that such agencies would need to be established, if at all, by a constitutional amendment.
By contrast, the Hamiltonians (as represented by Alexander Hamilton) maintained that the preamble granted Congress "plenary", "indefinite" and "comprehensive" powers to act for the general welfare and common defense, and that it could therefore do so in ways that were not enumerated.
Here's how Hamilton himself explained it. The italics are his, not mine.
The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. [...] The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.
It is interesting to note that both Madison and Hamilton were involved in drafting the Constitution, and both future Hamiltonians and future Madisonians voted to adopt the Constitution --- apparently with no common understanding of what it meant. One might even speculate that the language was deliberately ambiguous, so as to achieve a superficial and temporary consensus.
The Verdict of History
In this case it is therefore particularly useless to enquire as to the intentions of the Founders and Framers, because they did not in fact possess a common intent. We must turn instead to the verdict of history and of the courts.
So let's look at what actually happened. The Madisonian interpretation was a dead letter from the word "go". The first palpable breach of Madisonian principles was in 1791, when the 1st Congress voted in favor of Hamilton's proposal for the First Bank of the United States, over the protests of Madison, who complained that it was not within the enumerated powers of Congress. Nor was it. The verdict of Congress and ultimately of history was that this didn't matter a damn and that Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause should stand.
It is true that the first time the Hamiltonian interpretation was challenged (and upheld) in court was during FDR's New Deal, but this is not because up to that point the government had behaved in a scrupulously Madisonian manner. On the contrary, it had behaved with a full and free Hamiltonian laxity. By the time the issue got to court, Hamiltonianism was a fait accompli and Madisonianism a dead letter.
The Zombie Walks
Now let's bring this up to the present day. Modern conservatives, appalled by the prospect of "Obamacare", have attempted to revive the corpse of the Madisonian doctrine and have sent it to blunder in a zombie-like fashion through the passages of public discourse.
It is worth noting that these same conservatives only a few years ago when Republicans were in power did not (for example) demand the abolition of the Air Force on the grounds that only an Army and a Navy were enumerated. Nor did they then cavil at Republican innovations which were not enumerated. "No Child Left Behind"? Not enumerated, but no problem. "Faith-Based Initiatives"? Not enumerated, but still a splendidly conservative scheme. Where were our brave defenders of the Constitution then?
It is droll that marc should complain about the supposed "historical illiteracy" of the left when conservatives have apparently forgotten, not merely the words of Hamilton and the acts of the 1st Congress, but the views which they themselves held (at least tacitly) not four years ago.
And indeed, for the most part, they still do hold those views. Our gallant band of faux-neo-Madisonians are still not calling for the abolition of the Air Force. It seems that in their eyes the only things that are unconstitutional for want of being enumerated are the things that they dislike. "Obamacare" must perish for want of enumeration, thus spake James Madison --- but if Obama wants to keep the equally unenumerated Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, then here's a health to Hamilton, long may he prosper!
The only reason that I don't condemn this as the most bare-faced hypocrisy is that I think that most of them are too stupid to fully apprehend the ludicrous and untenable nature of the position they've adopted.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by marc9000, posted 04-19-2011 8:46 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-20-2011 12:15 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 385 of 440 (612991)
04-20-2011 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by marc9000
04-20-2011 8:09 PM


The freedom to poison people — the founders entrusted future generations to know that everything has costs ...
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see where the Founders said that I should be the judge of how much arsenic in your soup is too much. They did not merely entrust me to know that too much arsenic would cost you your health and your life and leave it up to me to decide whether that was a price I was willing to pay.
issues like this are seldom black and white ...
Quite so. This, for example, is a shade of gray.
There are variable amounts of impurities in air, varying amounts of which can be removed at varying costs.
Indeed. This is why back in the real world the EPA wouldn't prosecute someone for releasing a single atom of arsenic into a river or a single molecule of smoke into the air.
EPA shouldn’t have the freedom to declare any air they want as dirty, just so they can level fines and make a profit from it.
And you will be delighted to know that this is not what they do.
Indeed, the EPA, being a government agency, is not capable of making a profit.
Now if you have a quarrel with some particular standard they've set, then feel free to write to your Congressman. For example, the current acceptable level of arsenic in your drinking water is .01 ppm. If you think that this should be higher so that someone other than you can make more money, then by all means start a campaign. You could call it Concerned Citizens for Carcinogens, or CCC for short.
But complaining about the very existence of the EPA seems fatuous; as does envying the Chinese.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by marc9000, posted 04-20-2011 8:09 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024