30 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeyYes it's a serious question in response to your post which did not limit your assertion to any one area.
Is this really a serious question? You are suggesting that if states run their own health care programs. like MA did under Romneycare, then we should not have a United States? 🙄
The Framers recognized that in many areas it was insufficient to leave all power to the States; you seem to think it would be just peachy if we did. Perhaps you could explain why the Framers were wrong and you are right.
Health care spending was up to more than 17% of GNP and rising while more people were going without health insurance. Leaving the problem to the States wasn't working.
30 Jan 16
6 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderTo think that you can remove corruption by taking the wealth of private citizens is a common theme in your ideology. I don't believe removing wealth from people, or preventing them from obtaining it, removes corruption or makes society any more or less righteous, but you do.
I figured you'd want to keep the possibility/probability of rich folks buying elections intact despite your many posts screeching about it.
Why have term limits then? Isn't the whole idea that entrenched people in Washington are more susceptible to "corruption"?
As usual, your positions are those of a partisan shill.
On the other hand, we do know that money and power does corrupt some. To sit in judgment over people though is a bit out of my intellectual capacity even though it does not seem to be out of yours.
The idea is that power should be decentralized so that those who do wish to subvert the system with corruption will have a more difficult time of it. For example, if I wished to "buy votes" would it be harder to buy a few hundred in the Federal government or multiply that times 50 in the law makers state wide?
I have no illusions, corruption will always exist no matter how rich or poor we are, because that is the state of our nature. What can be done about it, however, is to decentralize power so that such corruption has limited effects.
If we had term limits for lawmakers it would do two things. It would create a better representation of the population because more would be required to participate in it. It would also force those making the laws realize that they must create a society that they will soon have to participate in once they are done with their short term in office rather than just planning a lavish retirement for themselves.
Originally posted by whodeyThis post is completely non-responsive to the post it supposedly replies to. And it is filled with lies and misrepresentations (it is a whodey post after all).
To think that you can remove corruption by taking the wealth of private citizens is a common theme in your ideology. I don't believe removing wealth from people, or preventing them from obtaining it, removes corruption or makes society any more or less righteous, but you do.
On the other hand, we do know that money and power does corrupt some. To sit in ...[text shortened]... be done about it, however, is to decentralize power so that such corruption has limited effects.
Economic elites prefer decentralized government power but pursue multinational concentrated economic power. Why do you think that is? 50 State and thousands of local governments invariably have insufficient means to combat the effects of such concentrated power which is why apologists for public policies that favor such elites pretend they want to increase democratization by decentralizing government (but not private) power. But as regards economic policies this is a transparent fraud.
30 Jan 16
Originally posted by no1marauderAs you well know, the Founding Fathers were wary of the Federal government becoming to large and oppressive. This is why they included Article V in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with limiting personal freedom and everything to do with limiting the power of the federal government.
Yes it's a serious question in response to your post which did not limit your assertion to any one area.
The Framers recognized that in many areas it was insufficient to leave all power to the States; you seem to think it would be just peachy if we did. Perhaps you could explain why the Framers were wrong and you are right.
Health care spending wa ...[text shortened]... re people were going without health insurance. Leaving the problem to the States wasn't working.
I believe that the closer representatives are, the more they represent the populace. Why would I want President Obama making decisions on what doctor I see or how children are educated? What does he know about either and what business is it of his and what does he care about me? My vote does not even carry any weight when voting for President compared to my local law makers, so why should he fear me? All the President has to do is carefully weigh which segments of the population he can ostracize and which he needs approval numbers from so long as he has about 51% support or greater from the rest of the country.
30 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeywhodey: If we had term limits for lawmakers it would do two things. It would create a better representation of the population because more would be required to participate in it. It would also force those making the laws realize that they must create a society that they will soon have to participate in once they are done with their short term in office rather than just planning a lavish retirement for themselves.
To think that you can remove corruption by taking the wealth of private citizens is a common theme in your ideology. I don't believe removing wealth from people, or preventing them from obtaining it, removes corruption or makes society any more or less righteous, but you do.
On the other hand, we do know that money and power does corrupt some. To sit in ...[text shortened]... ne with their short term in office rather than just planning a lavish retirement for themselves.
This is an edit which I did not deal with in my prior post. These two reasons are clearly a pretty flimsy basis for amending the Constitution. Moreover absent reforms in lobbying and other types of legalized bribery, it is highly likely that most termed out Congressmen and Senators would simply go to work at high salaries to use their influence + vast corporate and other monies to get legislators to do what the elite want anyway. Thus, term limits in and of themselves would accomplish little absent reforms in limiting political money (which is why I linked them as a compromise).
30 Jan 16
Originally posted by no1marauderEconomic elites prefer decentralized government power? Why then are such men as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, and until a few years ago, Donald Trump such avid democrats?
This post is completely non-responsive to the post it supposedly replies to. And it is filled with lies and misrepresentations (it is a whodey post after all).
Economic elites prefer decentralized government power but pursue multinational concentrated economic power. Why do you think that is? 50 State and thousands of local governments invariably have ...[text shortened]... overnment (but not private) power. But as regards economic policies this is a transparent fraud.
Don't get me wrong, corporations are a problem. After all, they are a government creation. By themselves, they are a mini-government. This is part of what sparked the Boston Tea party. The British crown used the East Indies company as a means to divide and conquer foreign economies for the British crown and tried to corner the market on tea in American colonies.
Perhaps this could be looked at as well in the Article V debates.
30 Jan 16
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder
This post is completely non-responsive to the post it supposedly replies to. And it is filled with lies and misrepresentations (it is a whodey post after all).
Economic elites prefer decentralized government power but pursue multinational concentrated economic power. Why do you think that is? 50 State and thousands of local governments invariably have ...[text shortened]... overnment (but not private) power. But as regards economic policies this is a transparent fraud.
30 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeyArticle V is neutral as to Amendments that increase Federal power as opposed to those that would decrease it. The Constitution itself was a vast expansion of Federal power compared to what existed before it. This is a truth that right wingers like yourself absolutely refuse to admit.
As you well know, the Founding Fathers were wary of the Federal government becoming to large and oppressive. This is why they included Article V in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with limiting personal freedom and everything to do with limiting the power of the federal government.
I believe that the closer representatives are, the more they repre ...[text shortened]... proval numbers from so long as he has about 51% support or greater from the rest of the country.
The second paragraph is ridiculous screeching that really isn't worth responding to.
30 Jan 16
Originally posted by no1marauderAbout 80% of the US population favors term limits. Are they all stupid as I am?
whodey: If we had term limits for lawmakers it would do two things. It would create a better representation of the population because more would be required to participate in it. It would also force those making the laws realize that they must create a society that they will soon have to participate in once they are done with their short term in office ...[text shortened]... little absent reforms in limiting political money (which is why I linked them as a compromise).
Additionally, if they are all as stupid as I am, should they be disregarded in a democratically driven Constitutional convention?
30 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeyA typical partisan shill response. The Democratic Party shifted to strong support of economic elite interests starting, at the latest, with Bill Clinton. NAFTA, repeal of Glass-Stegall, etc. etc. etc. etc. The party has maintained a strong progressive core but the people you mention hardly were or are part of it.
Economic elites prefer decentralized government power? Why then are such men as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, and until a few years ago, Donald Trump such avid democrats?
Don't get me wrong, corporations are a problem. After all, they are a government creation. By themselves, they are a mini-government. This is part of what sparked the Bost ...[text shortened]... n tea in American colonies.
Perhaps this could be looked at as well in the Article V debates.
Corporations are a government creation, but right wingers now insist they have all the Natural Rights of actual human beings.
30 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyAnd similar percentages support limiting corporate and other unlimited political money. But you seem to want to disregard their wishes:
About 80% of the US population favors term limits. Are they all stupid as I am?
Additionally, if they are all as stupid as I am, should they be disregarded in a democratically driven Constitutional convention?
Currently, groups not affiliated with a candidate are able to spend unlimited amounts on advertisements during a political campaign. Do you think this kind of spending should be limited by law, or should it remain unlimited?
78% responded "should be limited".
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/02/us/politics/money-in-politics-poll.html
30 Jan 16
Originally posted by no1marauderAs you know, not everyone supported the Constitution because they said it would only lead to a despotic centralized system
Article V is neutral as to Amendments that increase Federal power as opposed to those that would decrease it. The Constitution itself was a vast expansion of Federal power compared to what existed before it. This is a truth that right wingers like yourself absolutely refuse to admit.
The second paragraph is ridiculous screeching that really isn't worth responding to.
Even men like Ben Franklin recognized this.
“I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well-administred; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”
― Benjamin Franklin
Ben recognized that freedom requires personal responsibility and as the moral fiber of a nation becomes unraveled, so will the freedom they possess to carry out immoral conduct. An immoral society is incapable of personal freedom, rather, they require despotism and a police state.
Is society so bad that we need over 80,.000 new laws and regulations every year? Perhaps, but I'm willing to at least give them the benefit of the doubt and give them a chance at freedom once again.
30 Jan 16
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderDid I not just get done saying that the government created corporate structure should be on the table?
And similar percentages support limiting corporate and other unlimited political money. But you seem to want to disregard their wishes.
I simply don't think that the process of a Constitutional convention should be targeting the freedom of personal citizens, only the power of the government.
30 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeyIt's amusing that you want even more power given to the States and then complain about the 80,000 laws and regulations when the vast majority are passed by State and local governments and agencies.
As you know, not everyone supported the Constitution because they said it would only lead to a despotic centralized system
Even men like Ben Franklin recognized this.
“I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to ...[text shortened]... ing to at least give them the benefit of the doubt and give them a chance at freedom once again.
Many of your positions contradict each other in this manner.