How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class?

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 EightFor those unfamiliar with the question, let's start by looking at Article One Section Eight of the Constitution.In the preamble, it says: 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: ... 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 HamiltoniansThere 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. 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 HistoryIn 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 WalksNow 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.

Fresh for here, at EvC. Sure. One thing about "conservatism/tradition", though, is that its bound to lose eventually. Things inevitably change.I see the far left as being reckless with it, and the opposition on the far right as simply slowing them down and keeping it in check. I think that can be a good thing. Whatever. Well, they are what this thread's about...I've noticed that there is somewhat of a dichotomy in the population, where individuals do tend to think like one of the sides, and not so much like its been dictated to them how they think, but that they do think differently. I wonder is there's something with the whole urban/rural thing. My problem with that approach is that there's a lot here today that they couldn't possibly have imagined. Not that that makes them worthless, or anything, but they are certainly not all encompasing. All we have to do is keep addressing the topic.So how do you think the Republicans are helping the middle class?From your posts is seems that you think they help by easing the burden of paying for social programs. Too, maybe keeping the federal government out of our lives?So what else? Anything about fiscal policy or foreign affairs or anything?

The budget cuts are also affecting a lot of the programs at the JobCenter. The Dislocated Workers program is one such program. It helps the unemployed get schooling. I went in and the guy told me not to even bother enrolling because, due to the budget cuts, they would have to start cutting people on the already year long waiting list.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Great thanks to you, Dr A. I knew that I was negligent in just mentioning Hamilton without making it clear that I was explicitly refering to the Madison/Hamilton debate over enumerated powers (which started in The Federalist Papers, I believe, before the Constitution was even drafted.) I assumed that anyone so obsessed with the "foundings" - whoever or whatever they are - would certainly understand the reference and would also have to know that, as you point out, the Madisonians lost this debate. Ha ha, right. Anyway, you have now done so more far elequently and in greater depth than I could have done. I, and the rest of the forum, thank you.Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.Edited by ZenMonkey, : Grammar. And clarity.

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John LydonReality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven ColbertI never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

Somehow it never gets pointed out that every time you cut sometihng in a state or federal budget, what that generally means is that, either directly or indirectly, someone is losing a job, and it's sure not Donald Trump. How this is supposed to help the middle class, I'm not quite sure.

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John LydonReality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven ColbertI never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

Some and such? If Republicans are helping prevent the EPA/Democrats from labeling much of the middle classes transportation tin cans and prohibiting them from using them, then we have an example of Republicans doing something for the middle class! You’re the one demanding perfection from free markets, not me. I only want the best that free markets can provide. NOOOOO!! Suzy has the Verizon phone, Johnny doesn’t have a chance!! Because the EPA sets them higher than what is reasonable, to justify its own existence.

The freedom to poison people — the founders entrusted future generations to know that everything has costs, that issues like this are seldom black and white. Air can’t be divided into two catagories, clean and dirty. There are variable amounts of impurities in air, varying amounts of which can be removed at varying costs. Science is becoming capable of detecting ever more minute traces of impurities with ever more insignificant consequences. The 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.

True. And so many people who want to change things for the better end up changing them for the worse, and find out too late that they can’t change them back. Ever seen this little paragraph? It's attributable to one Alexander Fraser Tylter (from hundreds of years ago) though that's debatable. What's not debatable is the thought that it can inspire.

quote:

---

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world’s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to Complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.

---

I wonder which of those stages majority of posters in this thread thinks the U.S. is in right now? From apathy to dependency would probably be my choice. I would agree, except I'm afraid the time is gone when they're able to keep it in check well enough. I don’t think it’s urban/rural, the political mix between those two is far too evenly split/unpredictable. I think it’s more religious/non religious. I’ve seen a few genuinely conservative atheists, and liberal Christians. But they’re both clearly the exception rather than the rule. The clear major split in U.S. politics is between traditional Judeo-Christian values vs evolution/atheism. Wouldn't that explain the heavy Democrat leaning we're seeing at this scientific forum? The U.S. Constitution is very brief, and very basic. I’ve never seen anyone make a convincing case that a government has to be more involved in individual’s lives just because they have more technology and modern conveniences. Keep addressing? A narrow focus on health care has only been marginally on topic. But parents rights in raising children that was discussed a good bit back in pages 15, 16, several others, had nothing at all to do with it. I’ve been wondering if the coffee house is exempted from on-topic rules. But I don’t really care. (and now I may be in trouble) It’s nice that there have been no more terrorist attacks on anywhere near the scale of 9/11/01, and I think Republican policies on foreign affairs has had a lot more to do with that than Democrat ones, but I can’t enthusiastically come up with anything else right now - the middle class being helped just isn’t something that’s a big focus of my type of worldview. I like to think of a middle class being able to live their lives without help. 60 years ago, a Democrat said ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. I don’t think there are many Democrat voters alive today who have given that profound statement much thought.

Dr A is a European, it’s not surprising that Democrats sometimes need Europeans to help them make U.S. foundings compatible with today’s Democrat policies. Didn’t Jon really do it more simply for you, with far fewer words? Dr Adequate made no objection, do you suppose he agrees with that?

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. Quite so. This, for example, is a shade of gray. 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. 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.

Translated from Obfuscation into Reality, it's no surprise that you, being a conservative, need a European to school you in American history.It is perfectly plain from ZenMonkey's posts that he didn't need me to explain to him the significance of his own reference to Hamilton.It was you, marc, who seemed not to understand his point --- and, indeed, who Hamilton was. No. I do not; my admiration for the Founding Fathers stops short of necrophilia.But in this particular case, as I have shown, there's no point in appealing to the intent of the Founders and Framers because they did not have a single collective intent.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No; I'm not. Precisely the problem: The best that the free markets can provide is crap compared to what is necessary, which is why no other first world nation relies on the 'free markets' to provide its citizens with life essentials. No, we have an example of Republicans doing nothing, because that's what allowing any car to spew any poison is: doing nothing. Excellent point; I await your supporting evidence.JonABE:You never bothered answering my question to you in Message 369. Here it is again in case you missed it:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 369:

​

Okay, let's assume that's true (it's not, by the way; Thuglicans are against welfare programs of any kind no matter what level of government they work at). Would you support a measure by the Federal government that required all states to implement a state-run health care system? For example, the Federal government could give all the states an amount of money determined to be necessary for funding such health care. The states would then have to provide health care of a minimum standard to all of their citizens using the extra money along with some state-raised money. Depending on how efficient of a system the states could implement, they would be able to keep any extra Federal money left over after providing the minimum care for all of their citizens.

​

Would you support a 'competitive' state-run program like this?

---

Edited by Jon, : clarityEdited by Jon, : ABE

---

Love your enemies!

Well, that's simply not true. The EPA can only go as far as it is legally empowered to do so. Its capacity to levy fines and take other actions were established by Federal law. No, completely wrong. Whatever powers a "new government agency" might or might not have would be determined by the law passed by Congress that creates it and the executive branch that administrates it. With all due respect Marc you didn't answer it at all; you answered a different question about uninsured people.But I didn't ask you about uninsured people, I asked you about insured people, and whether or not, in your mind, people with insurance were generally more reckless than those who lacked it.That's the question I want you to answer. Don't tell me about uninsured people - you've answered that other question twice, now, I don't need you to repeat it. Don't tell me about "comparable-in-every-way" people, that's not at all what I asked. Tell me about insured people and whether or not you think they're more reckless in general than those without insurance. Your answer should contain no statements about uninsured people being somehow more prudent. I didn't ask you who it should be "up to." I asked you if, generally, being insured is prudent. Is it? I never said that it was, or asked you if it was. Is there some reason you're having such extreme difficulty answering direct questions? I feel like you're here just to work some relentless-contrarian kick, not to actually discuss issues. Why are conservatives always afraid of discussion? So, you believe "free markets" should get a government-run do-over? Spoken like a true renter, I guess. That's just plain stupid. The lesson from human history is that, far from people putting health expenditures to a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, people will spend nearly any amount of money for even the impression of medical effectiveness. The free market in medicine doesn't lower costs, it drives them up. The proof of this is that if you put a glass of plain water into the medical market, it suddenly costs hundreds of dollars and is called "homeopathy." Have you never heard the term "snake oil"? "Medicine show"? These are examples of how market logic is singularly perverted when it comes to health care. The free market drives up costs and inefficiencies. Only someone deeply ignorant of the history of medical fraud could assert the contrary. But ignorance of history seems to be your deal, around here.To control costs in health care, you need the opposite of a free market - you need monopsony power. That's why the individual market for health care services is so expensive compared to the collective market - that's why paying out of pocket means paying up to 50% more for the same services from the same providers. When health care buyers buy collectively, through health insurers or through Medicare, costs are driven down. That's always true. The larger the monopsony, the lower the prices it can command, which is why single-payer is the best solution to controlling health care costs.Free markets drive health care costs up, not down. That's always been true. Monopsony is what lowers health care prices, and has always done so. People are always willing to pay any price for health care services, even ones that don't work. Homeopathy is the proof of that. Free markets, by definition, cannot lower health care prices, they can only, and have only, ever raised them.

And if the Republicans are helping prevent the middle class from being attacked by venomous wombats, then that would also be an example of Republicans doing something for the middle class.But I don't think you can credit Republicans for actively preventing all the imaginary things that don't happen.

What does this even mean? I can't speak for the good Dr, so I can't say what he would or wouldn't agree with. What I can say is that he knows more about the US Constitution and its history than you do. I can also point out that he has made a powerful and articulate rebuttal to your faulty "foundings" argument. Do you have anything of substance to say about that?Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John LydonReality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven ColbertI never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill