Create Dependence, Make Demands. The common strategy of all government

apple0154 said:
The sad thing is before pensions (Social Security) that's exactly what people did. They invested, be it in businesses or in their farm or simply put their money in the bank. They had all the freedom they ever wanted and we saw what the depression did. That's precisely why Obama told the Repubs not to come to the table with old, tired, worn-out ideas.

When I hear people say give the private sector a chance and get rid of government programs a legitimate question to ask is, "What planet are you from?” because their Bible must read, “In the beginning God created Heaven and earth and government programs.” They think government programs have always been in effect but the truth is for over 3,000 years of recorded history these “programs” were privately controlled for 2,900 years. It’s less than 100 years most government programs have been in effect; social security, welfare, medicaid/medicare, etc. The private sector had 2,900 years to get it right. Or if they want to talk about the US only the private sector had over 150 years to perfect their “programs” (1776 – 1935) only to end up with the depression.

Where some folks get their ideas from I'll never know. It's like they just dropped in from outer space without any idea of earth's history.
Click to expand...

Very well said.
 
apple0154 said:
In msg #18 you wrote,

But that isn't how government health care works.
Click to expand...

if you keep harping on this, you don't understand my position. I am speaking much more broader than I think you realize.

The following though, you seem to get it a little more:

Why should the American taxpayer subsidize someone who is fatter? The same reason the fat person is subsidizing the alcoholic who gets liver disease. The same reason men subsidize birth costs. The same reason women subsidize prostate cancer treatments. The same reason fat, lazy people have to subsidize the skiers who break legs and all those other athletic types who injure themselves playing with various sized balls. The bicyclist and the jogger who can't grasp the idea roads and streets are made for cars.
Click to expand...

your mistake here is assuming I agree with all of the above. I don't.

When programs such as health care is under one umbrella everyone is more free to pursue their interests.
Click to expand...

Disagree entirely. Maybe the proles are better off, but not everyone is.

As for Bloomberg and the soft drink caper there's always one whacko in the crowd but if it bugs people too much they'll vote him out.
Click to expand...

give an inch, they will take a mile, they always do.
 
G R I N D said:
if you keep harping on this, you don't understand my position. I am speaking much more broader than I think you realize.

The following though, you seem to get it a little more:

(Apple) Why should the American taxpayer subsidize someone who is fatter? The same reason the fat person is subsidizing the alcoholic who gets liver disease. The same reason men subsidize birth costs. The same reason women subsidize prostate cancer treatments. The same reason fat, lazy people have to subsidize the skiers who break legs and all those other athletic types who injure themselves playing with various sized balls. The bicyclist and the jogger who can't grasp the idea roads and streets are made for cars.
Click to expand...

your mistake here is assuming I agree with all of the above. I don't.


When programs such as health care is under one umbrella everyone is more free to pursue their interests.
Click to expand...

Disagree entirely. Maybe the proles are better off, but not everyone is.
Click to expand...

Then you disagree with the idea of democracy. If I may paraphrase one of America’s greatest Presidents, “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation……and that government of the proles, by the proles, for the proles, shall not perish from the earth.”

It would seem logical that the majority of people voting would vote for what would benefit the most as they would most likely be included in said benefits.
 
oh jesus christ . . . you'll twist anything to fit your agenda, wont you? Pretty sure abraham lincoln never said anything about national healthcare.
 
G R I N D said:
oh jesus christ . . . you'll twist anything to fit your agenda, wont you? Pretty sure abraham lincoln never said anything about national healthcare.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not but the Preamble makes it clear. "It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Promote. Secure. They are active verbs as opposed to, say, read or look or yawn. Promote. Secure. Those verbs imply the government doing something. So the question is, "Is health considered a blessing? When we talk about welfare is not health at the top of the list? If one asks about the "general welfare" of a country would we say it was fine knowing citizens were unnecessarily dying when treatment was available but people couldn't afford it? Citizens dying to the tune of 45,000/yr!

Talk about twisting things. Do you honestly think the Founding Fathers' idea of a more perfect union included refusing to address 45,000 needless deaths per year?

Of course Lincoln never mentioned health care. Neither did the Founding Fathers because there was no health care to mention. Furthermore, considering the sanitary practices prevalent in those days an individual's chance of survival increased in direct proportion to the distance from a surgeon's knife. It's beyond absurd to suggest that while the Founding Fathers' goal was to form a more perfect union and make life better for all they couldn't have cared less if some people couldn't afford a medication that, today, costs 50 cents and extends a person's life by 20 or more years. (ACE inhibitors and Beta-blockers)
 
apple i am not listening to you anymore, you are wasting your time. you are assuming way more about our founding fathers than there is evidence for. I don't care about your soap box.
 
Threedee said:
Apple, the Preamble is not a legally binding part of the Constitution, so says the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

"It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It probably isn't considered legally binding as it's too general in scope. In any case it's logical to conclude the Founding Fathers' intentions were to form a country that benefitted the people, offered people a better way of life than what was available in the world at the time. If the Founding Fathers deserve respect for what reason do they deserve it? Again, it's logical to conclude the reason is they desired a better way of life for the majority of the people. The wealthy, the privileged...they didn't require a better way of life. They were already living it in every country in the world. They were making the rules others had to live by. What made the Constitution different is it gave power (rights) to the those who weren't wealthy and privileged. Not just the wealthy and privileged could make the rules. The majority could make the rules and the majority did not consist solely of the wealthy and privileged.

How else can the Constitution be interpreted? If it wasn't meant to benefit the majority who weren't wealthy and priviledged it would have been no different than any other country's rules and laws. Doesn't that make sense?
 
Apple, other documents outside of the Constitution are routinely used by the Court to determine the Founding Father's intent.

As to the second part of your post, the founding generation tended to interpret general welfare as the government letting people live out their lives without much government oversight. That was one of the primary themes of the revolutionary period, where post-French & Indian War, the British government became much more involved in American life than it had previously. Also, the leaders of the Revolution were extremely wealthy, and many of them had, in the Declaration, pledged their lives and fortunes to the cause. Those lucky enough to emerge from the conflict with both, certainly benefited, but then, the conflict was not necessary for them to maintain their station in American life to begin with - clearly they had other gripes which prompted them to behave as they did.

The American Revolution was NOT faught to improve people's living conditions. In 1776, the American Colonists had the highest standard of living on the face of the Earth. They also barely paid any taxes, which is part of the reason why they and the British managed to continually shock one another when new taxes and regulations were demanded, because the British thought they were being quite generous, and the Americans thought they were being too heavily scrutinized.
 
Threedee said:
Apple, other documents outside of the Constitution are routinely used by the Court to determine the Founding Father's intent.

As to the second part of your post, the founding generation tended to interpret general welfare as the government letting people live out their lives without much government oversight. That was one of the primary themes of the revolutionary period, where post-French & Indian War, the British government became much more involved in American life than it had previously. Also, the leaders of the Revolution were extremely wealthy, and many of them had, in the Declaration, pledged their lives and fortunes to the cause. Those lucky enough to emerge from the conflict with both, certainly benefited, but then, the conflict was not necessary for them to maintain their station in American life to begin with - clearly they had other gripes which prompted them to behave as they did.

The American Revolution was NOT faught to improve people's living conditions. In 1776, the American Colonists had the highest standard of living on the face of the Earth. They also barely paid any taxes, which is part of the reason why they and the British managed to continually shock one another when new taxes and regulations were demanded, because the British thought they were being quite generous, and the Americans thought they were being too heavily scrutinized.
Click to expand...

The Preamble is what it is.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

How can you read that and say the Founding Fathers didn't want to improve people's living conditions? "in order to form a more perfect union" More perfect. "promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty." Why promote anything if everything was fine?

They wanted the best country possible, for everyone. "Promote." "Secure." Those are active verbs. They show the intent of the government was to "DO" something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top