(combining / condensing several messages)
marc9000 writes:
That's quite a stretch, that would have to mean that any country with those services is a socialist country. That would make it hard to distinguish between all the different forms of government around the world.
It's less an argument and more just food for thought. Where does one draw the line between the services government should provide and those that should remain in the private sector.
The 10th amendment answers that question. The federal government's services are limited and defined, the states are much more unlimited and undefined. Each state makes those decisions according its political processes, then the differing ways that each state does things can be compared to each other.
One major difference between conservatives and liberals is that the conservatives list of essential services is much shorter than the liberal.
Goes along with liberty and limited government, yes. And individual responsibility.
You recently mentioned the cost of healthcare, making it seem like you think it should be a service government is involved in providing in some way or to some degree.
quote:
President Harry S Truman called for the creation of a national health insurance fund in 1945.
President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare into law in 1965.
A brief history of Medicare in America | medicareresources.org
I don't know if an ISSUE VOTE was taken concerning those two acts, but if not, then I think the 10th amendment was violated. But since those two things were done so long ago, and the healthcare industry immediately modified how they did things because of them, it's clear that all government involvement with healthcare can't be reversed overnight. I'm just about always in favor of
stopping government involvement where it is
at present and let free markets better and better adjust to it.
Another of your favorite themes is an overintrusive government. In urban areas water and sewer is provided by the city, but in the country it's provided by each individual home owner. When the government inspects your well and shuts it down because of unsafe arsenic levels, is that an overbearing government or a lifesaving one?
An overbearing government. A homeowner's senses, in this case taste buds, should be the judge of unsafe levels of anything. Governments never ending appetite to invade private property and "shut things down" is a big reason liberals want more gun control. Armed government shut-down inspectors tend to lose some of their arrogance when the public is armed.
____________________
On vacation recently one of our Uber drivers was from Central America and was studying for his citizenship test. Can you name the original 13 colonies without using the Internet? He can.
So one unusual example makes something a general rule?
So for you the national debt is a reason for not providing assistance to refugees and those granted asylum. Is it also a reason for not building the wall? Or is it actually just an excuse for not spending money on anything you're against?
I see unsustainable debt as a far greater threat to U.S. security than microscopic, natural changes in weather.
You've run off the rails again. This is about wealth or lack thereof, not parent's sexual preferences. Let's say that your implication that children of gay parents were true (it isn't, of course). That has nothing to do with the influence of wealth on the future success of offspring.
We have different opinions on what effects redistribution of earnings have on a society, versus what effects of constantly eroding morals have on a society.
You're lost the plot again. The particular country isn't relevant to the point. You said that Roosevelt's rationale for not discriminating against citizens of foreign origin was that they should not have come here to escape problems in their home countries, and yet the major waves of immigration into the US from the late 1800's until the Depression were from Ireland, Italy and Eastern Europe, a period during which Roosevelt made the comment you quoted. These immigrants came to the US because of poor conditions in their home countries.
The particular country IS relevant to the point, because Mexico / central America is where we currently have the most problems with illegal immigration.
Explaining anything to you causes two additional things to be misunderstood or misconstrued. Progress is never possible.
Well take heart! this and one more will be my last messages in this thread. I'll be posting more in the climate change thread, you'll have more progress challenges there, if you care to take part.
Immigrants can't vote until they're citizens, which takes a minimum of five years. That being said, a 2012 Pew Research study found that 31% of Latino illegals identify as Democrat and only 4% as Republican. That breakdown has nothing to do with government benefits since illegals aren't eligible for any.
quote:
A FAIR study in 2017 found illegal immigrants are a net consumer of taxpayer benefits worth more than $100 billion a year, not including the cost of enforcing the border.
Most illegal immigrants in US receive government benefits, costing taxpayers billions: experts | Fox News
and;
quote:
The Green Light Bill, which passed the Senate 33-29 Monday and was signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, allows illegal immigrants to obtain standard state driver’s licenses that can be used for identification and to board domestic flights.
But it is also the sole document required to register to vote, according to officials.
Loophole in law granting illegal immigrants driver’s licenses could lead to voter fraud
You're just one big bundle of prejudices. If climate change is false then it will be shown false by science, not by your willingness to make up nasty things about anyone who holds opinions different from yours.
The scientific community is a FACTION, as described in Federalist #10. Factions don't have special political power in the U.S. A faction doesn't have the right to point to the opinions of scientists from foreign countries, and demand that those opinions influence U.S. political decisions.
You're making things up again. No one is proposing "a major government takeover of energy production" and use of that energy.
So there are no propositions for government to get involved in fossil fuel use to combat climate change? (I'll have more questions like this in the climate change thread)
Using reductio ad absurdum this time, we know that nothing is immune from corruption. If you're right that the possibility of corruption is a reason for not doing something then we should never do anything. But never doing anything isn't possible. Therefore your reasoning is wrong.
My reasoning is that we learn from history. And from U.S. foundings, that strongly suggest that government involvement in as little as possible is the best way to keep corruption at a minimum.
You are very confused. Only the first amendment is directed solely at Congress. The second and ninth apply to all three branches. The third applies to the executive branch, because that's where the Defense Department resides. The fourth and fifth also apply to the executive branch, because that's where law enforcement resides.
But they all apply to congress! Congress is the only one of the three branches that MAKES laws, and is therefore the biggest threat.
Trump's charity had nothing to do with the government. Are you even reading what you're responding to? And you've lost the plot again. We were talking about corruption, and my point, since it apparently has to be explained, is that even well meaning entities like charities whose purpose is to lessen human suffering can be corrupt. Fortunately there's some oversight for charities, they have some reporting requirements, which is how Trump got caught.
EVERY entity has more oversight concerning corruption than does government, especially at higher (federal) levels.
_________________________________
You're off in la-la land again. Neither nationalism nor ultranationalism has anything to do with climate change, and there are no serious proposals for the government "to take over most all decisions in how energy will be produced and used."
When I get going in the climate change thread again, I'd like to know how new proposals for the government to get involved in fighting climate change will happen without doing anything involving fossil fuels.
Was government in Pittsburgh in the 1940's alarmist when they instituted changes to clean the air after too many days like this? Was the government too authoritarian? This image was taken around noontime:
No it wasn't, because this is something people can see with their own eyes. There is a world of difference in problems people can experience with their own senses, versus charts and graphs shown to them by a faction. Especially a faction that is heavily influenced by foreign interests.
Climate change has already affected millions of lives personally, and the numbers will only go up, and they already include you. Here's what the EPA says about how Kentucky's climate has already changed at What Climate Change Means for Kentucky:
It has not affected me personally, I guess you and I have different definitions of the word "personally". I don't think "personally" includes being emotionally frightened by a faction. When I cast my eyes to the Kentucky sky, I see the same sky I saw 50 years ago.
No, Republcans don't seek anything as sensible and rational as gun control. They seek to control women's actual bodies. What's next, adultery and sodomy laws?
You're acting like being against abortion is a brand new thing. That debate's been raging for decades. Maybe Republicans are making some new headway - maybe the morality they promote makes logical sense sometimes.
Well I see you've learned your Trump lesson well, just keep repeating the same lie over and over again. No one on the left is seeking a government takeover of energy production and use.
Pot, meet kettle, you've said that three times now. You've never heard of "climate emergency!!!!!!", you've never heard all the other cries to "do something about fossil fuels!!!!" or if you have, you're saying the government has no plans to involve itself in fossil fuel use?
"Complete government control" is an exaggeration, but socialized medicine is widespread around the world providing people with what should be a basic human right, access to healthcare. You of all people should know that. What would have become of you had you had no insurance instead of 50/50?
I paid for that insurance all by myself. What the insurance paid this time still didn't amount to all the premiums I've paid since I've been working full time since age 18.
Once again your answer has nothing to do with the question. How does trading carbon credits cause money to flow into Democratic coffers?
It doesn't take a huge number of rich Democrats to influence Democrat coffers, just those few in the right business.
quote:
Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, An Inconvenient Truth.
Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype
You can get the straight story here, and it includes working video: Analysis | The repeated claim that Obama ‘vowed’ to bankrupt coal plants
Despite what you told me some time back, I can't get access to the Washington Post, unless I give them money, which I won't do of course.
What you say is very strange. If Democrats were truly jealous of Republicans they'd just become Republicans.
No, that would involve being personally responsible, and working hard. I've personally seen many Democrats who seem to have an allergy to those things.
Again, where are you getting your information from that Democrats seek to avoid work and live off government handouts?
If they wanted to work hard, they wouldn't support a political party that seeks to take more of their earnings from them to give to others who don't work.
(one more later tonight)
™ Version 4.2
