I Agree With The Founders About Healthcare

[Robo]

The general welfare clause has been used by the Supremes many times to justify helping the people. Too bad Robo is such a hateful person who takes pleasure in the pain and suffering of the weakest among us. The founders actually cared about the weakest and set it up so they could survive. The politicains, not most republicans though, have tried to make the poor and sick people's lives better.

And of course you're an unwavering believer and supporter of every single decision of the courts being righteous and constitutional, right?

Fact is the federal government has been violating the Constitution before the ink was dry and the bias judges on the courts have aided and abetted them in that quest.

 

[Robo]

And while the US had one of the highest corporate tax rates on record, the EFFECTIVE tax rate was far lower then many others.

Actually the “effective” tax rate was only effective for “THE FEW.” It was based in special carve-outs that some corporations could use to pay a lower tax. They only used it to maintain some appearance of maintaining some degree of business in America. Otherwise they simply based the vast majority of their corporate business offshore, to not only avoid the tax rate, but mostly to avoid the overburden of the American regulatory system, which by the way was created by over zealous unelected bureaucrats. Trump’s tax cuts removed those carve-outs while lowering the tax, but the deregulation is actually the greatest thing Trump has done. That’s why the American economy is booming beyond prediction or belief.

I didn’t vote for Trump! I probably will next time if he keeps up most of what he’s doing. I quibble with some of what he’s doing. I oppose the outrageous Military budget and his signing of an outrageous deficit laden budget agreement.

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

Then you can explain how their opinions on the general welfare clause is flawed, right? I'll wait.

Well, OK, I'll throw my two cents out there, and thank you very much for asking.

There are several clauses made in the Constitution and preamble concerning the Welfare of the people clauses, and several well-known political dignitaries have voiced their interpretations of these in bills that made appropriations necessary to improve the welfare state of Americans along the way.

So, to answer your question, I believe that it is a "What comes first, the chicken or the egg" sort of thing. We cannot as a nation, say we are going to guarantee our citizens something, and then not be willing to make the appropriations necessary to guarantee that to our citizens.

Do we have the right to collect taxes federally, based on an essential life-sustaining welfare need for it's citizens? I say yes, so long as it is approved by the legislative branch, and can be appropriated by the legislative branch.

And I believe that this is all the welfare clauses in our constitution says- if you want to provide welfare to your citizens that need it- you have to appropriate for it.

Now what all welfare needs are we trying to fulfill? Those are certainly debatable!

But there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents our legislative branch to have these debates, decide on them, and make appropriations for them.

Trust me, it is not unconstitutional in the United States to have a concern for our poor, or help them out if that is what you are asking! In fact it would be unconstitutional to not help out our poor.

It is not always the question- can we afford to do something- sometimes we have to ask ourselves- can we afford not to do something?

 

[Robo]

As to the welfare clause spoken of, I do not know where I brought up "flaws" in the disagreement of Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton (Let us not forget Hamilton), and do not believe I did.

Excuse me if I’ve misunderstood you. I was of the opinion that you insist, even in the face of the Madison & Jefferson quotes, that the feds DO have the “constitutional” authority to invent and control healthcare systems by way of the general welfare clause?

My response concerning the debate was based on the reality of the matter which you will choose to ignore. To that extent you should have taken the time to read the article I posted in my sig where Jefferson actually supported the taxation of the wealthy to provide for the less fortunate. Madison had a view based on Christianity that allowed for government support of the poor. Hamilton believed in an unlimited (unrestricted) government function to fight poverty.

Actually, Madison & Jefferson had several ideas that can be wrongly argued they supported federal government programs, “WITHOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT” Jefferson even later toiled over his failure to get a constitutional Amendment for the Louisiana Purchase. He admitted it was not constitutional but argued the offer was too good to pass up and he feared Napoleon might withdraw it.

In any event, until you can actually present an argument that is unbiased, and shows some intellectual quality, I am not going to get any further involved in this discussion. Right wingers will always try to disparage the poor, and the working poor, in an attempt to keep them on the "reservation", and "enslaved" to the knees of the wealthy.

Insulting my intellect is not a valid argument friend.

My bias is strictly a bias in favor of our Constitution. Rightist accuse me of being a leftist and leftist accuse me of being a rightist. Neither has any truth to it.

If my alleged bias was to keep the poor, poor and keep them on the “reservation,” why would I be touting and promoting “CONSTITUTIONAL” solutions for America’s healthcare debaco?

If I wanted to keep the poor “on the reservation,” I’d do what the Democrats so. I’d give them a pittance of taxpayer’s money to keep them addicted to government reliance and promote their disincentive to become self reliant and avoid any stimulation of their ambitions. If I really wanted to help them out of poverty, I’d create, if I had the position, economic conditions that allowed them to have work, self reliance and a pure sense of accomplishment and pride. For those that cannot help themselves because of mental or physical disabilities, I’d donate to private charities generously. You know, like Trump is doing.

 

[Robo]

Well, OK, I'll throw my two cents out there, and thank you very much for asking.

There are several clauses made in the Constitution and preamble concerning the Welfare of the people clauses, and several well-known political dignitaries have voiced their interpretations of these in bills that made appropriations necessary to improve the welfare state of Americans along the way.

So, to answer your question, I believe that it is a "What comes first, the chicken or the egg" sort of thing. We cannot as a nation, say we are going to guarantee our citizens something, and then not be willing to make the appropriations necessary to guarantee that to our citizens.

The constitutional “promises made” are enumerated in the Constitution and in effect are the “general welfare.” as noted by the founders that gave us the Constitution. Keeping promises of anything else requires an amendment to that Constitution, provided in “Article 5" of that Constitution.

Do we have the right to collect taxes federally, based on an essential life-sustaining welfare need for it's citizens? I say yes, so long as it is approved by the legislative branch, and can be appropriated by the legislative branch.

You left out the part about getting an amendment for anything NOT authorize by enumeration in the Constitution.

And I believe that this is all the welfare clauses in our constitution says- if you want to provide welfare to your citizens that need it- you have to appropriate for it.

Now what all welfare needs are we trying to fulfill? Those are certainly debatable!

But there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents our legislative branch to have these debates, decide on them, and make appropriations for them.

Debate them, nothing to stop thast, however the 10th amendment makes it perfectly clear to pass a law and appropriate for it, it must be awarded as a power to the federal government by the enumeration of it in the Constitution, or otherwise get n amendment to the Constitution to actually do it. To do otherwise in the name of some kind of imaginary “general welfare” being whatever the Congress believes is floating out there someplace simply “TRUMPS” the entire Constitution, (no pun intended), and reduces the Constitution to a single clause and therefore worthless as Madison & Jefferson noted.

Trust me, it is not unconstitutional in the United States to have a concern for our poor, or help them out if that is what you are asking! In fact it would be unconstitutional to not help out our poor.

It is not always the question- can we afford to do something- sometimes we have to ask ourselves- can we afford not to do something?

Wonderful compassionate speech. Now for the reality.

The Constitution provides for all of that, however it prohibits the feds from minding the state’s and people’s business guaranteed to them by amendment 10, without an amendment to the Constitution. I.e. the founders believed in the states and the people that they could and would solve the majority of their own problems and the federal state should be limited to simply conducting for the states and the people those things that they couldn’t take care of themselves It’s the “limited federal government principle.” Not what we have today. We have a smorgasbord of unconstitutionality, corruption, liars, thieves and a cesspool central government giving us 21 trillion $ in debt and a Roman Empire type of world meddling police force a corporate & social welfare bribery scheme and a compliant cheerleading national media.

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

The constitutional “promises made” are enumerated in the Constitution and in effect are the “general welfare.” as noted by the founders that gave us the Constitution. Keeping promises of anything else requires an amendment to that Constitution, provided in “Article 5" of that Constitution.



You left out the part about getting an amendment for anything NOT authorize by enumeration in the Constitution.



Debate them, nothing to stop thast, however the 10th amendment makes it perfectly clear to pass a law and appropriate for it, it must be awarded as a power to the federal government by the enumeration of it in the Constitution, or otherwise get n amendment to the Constitution to actually do it. To do otherwise in the name of some kind of imaginary “general welfare” being whatever the Congress believes is floating out there someplace simply “TRUMPS” the entire Constitution, (no pun intended), and reduces the Constitution to a single clause and therefore worthless as Madison & Jefferson noted.



Wonderful compassionate speech. Now for the reality.

The Constitution provides for all of that, however it prohibits the feds from minding the state’s and people’s business guaranteed to them by amendment 10, without an amendment to the Constitution. I.e. the founders believed in the states and the people that they could and would solve the majority of their own problems and the federal state should be limited to simply conducting for the states and the people those things that they couldn’t take care of themselves It’s the “limited federal government principle.” Not what we have today. We have a smorgasbord of unconstitutionality, corruption, liars, thieves and a cesspool central government giving us 21 trillion $ in debt and a Roman Empire type of world meddling police force a corporate & social welfare bribery scheme and a compliant cheerleading national media.

I don't think we are arguing are we? I think we are basically agreeing!

The Constitution is not the Bible. The Constitution is basically a charter and a stake in the ground for a newly developed government.

Our forefathers, built in processes so that it can be improved, updated, and amended as needed or required by WE THE PEOPLE!

For WE THE PEOPLE decide where amendments are needed and required.

 

[Nordberg]

Actually, the corporate tax rate is assessed with consideration of worldwide rates to allow America's corporations a more lever playing field and allow them to actually headquarter and produce in America. Actually, the Trump corporate tax rate cut seems to have had that desired outcome. America's corporate tax rate was the highest in the world. Corporations don't actually pay taxes, they actually collect taxes from their customers. Producing anything in America was prohibitive because of it's cost of regulations and taxes that had to be passed on to the consumer. The Trump deregulation and tax cuts changed that situation, and no matter what the left tells us American corporations are coming back to America and producing here and creating JOBS here.











c

Damn you get everything wrong. Typical Trumplestilskin. Corporations are at all time high profit levels and have been at it for several years. The fact is moving more money to the top does not create jobs. Jobs are created by inability to keep up with demand. That is achieved by putting more money in the hands of consumers, the masses, A big kick in the min wage would accomplish that.

The Trump economy is on the same trajectory that Obama left him. He has not accomplished anything except moving more tax money to the top.

 

[Truth Detector]

Our forefathers, built in processes so that it can be improved, updated, and amended as needed or required by WE THE PEOPLE!

For WE THE PEOPLE decide where amendments are needed and required.

Our founders instituted a process that made it very difficult to change the basic concepts of liberty and designed a system that was intended to make legislation slow and deliberative. They didn't want Congress to" get things done."

When you hear dullards whining about Congress inability to get things done, shake your head and be saddened by the failure of our educational institutions.

 

[Truth Detector]

Damn you get everything wrong. Typical Trumplestilskin. Corporations are at all time high profit levels and have been at it for several years. The fact is moving more money to the top does not create jobs. Jobs are created by inability to keep up with demand. That is achieved by putting more money in the hands of consumers, the masses, A big kick in the min wage would accomplish that.

The Trump economy is on the same trajectory that Obama left him. He has not accomplished anything except moving more tax money to the top.

An economics moron on steroids.

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

Our founders instituted a process that made it very difficult to change the basic concepts of liberty and designed a system that was intended to make legislation slow and deliberative. They didn't want Congress to" get things done."

When you hear dullards whining about Congress inability to get things done, shake your head and be saddened by the failure of our educational institutions.

We just have to appreciate the concept of referendum.

You'll notice that the squeakiest noises always get the grease first. And perhaps that is the way it should be.

The last election was all about immigration, trade disputes, gifting the elites with tax reform that helped only them, and the total undoing of Obama's legacy as president! The people voted, with the help of Russia, the media, and lots of deception, and we got Donald J. (for Jackass) Trump!

But the next election will be a referendum on the over-reach of this Republican led Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of our government!

That is just how it is done in American politics! It's about referendum!

 

[Truth Detector]

We just have to appreciate the concept of referendum.

You'll notice that the squeakiest noises always get the grease first. And perhaps that is the way it should be.

The last election was all about immigration, trade disputes, gifting the elites with tax reform that helped only them, and the total undoing of Obama's legacy as president! The people voted, with the help of Russia, the media, and lots of deception, and we got Donald J. (for Jackass) Trump!

This reads like a massive pile of fabricated bile. But that is a typical leftist perspective.

But the next election will be a referendum on the over-reach of this Republican led Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of our government!

That is just how it is done in American politics! It's about referendum!

Saved. I'm comforted by the fact that liberals are seldom right about anything.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Our founders instituted a process that made it very difficult to change the basic concepts of liberty and designed a system that was intended to make legislation slow and deliberative. They didn't want Congress to" get things done."

When you hear dullards whining about Congress inability to get things done, shake your head and be saddened by the failure of our educational institutions.

Concentrated wealth and power is what it takes to "get things done". We all know that. And that was always the point, not representation for all.

 

[Truth Detector]

Concentrated wealth and power is what it takes to "get things done". We all know that. And that was always the point, not representation for all.

Meaningless drivel; you're quite full of it.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Meaningless drivel; you're quite full of it.

That's why they only allowed white males of the aristocracy to vote shoog, welcome to the corporate state.

“[A social division exists] between the rich and the poor, the laborious and the idle, the learned and the ignorant. … Nothing, but force, and power and strength can restrain [the latter].” —John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson (1787)

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

This reads like a massive pile of fabricated bile. But that is a typical leftist perspective.



Saved. I'm comforted by the fact that liberals are seldom right about anything.

Look! It is a noble task to be a real truth detector, and I appreciate you for challenging yourself to do exactly that.

But, you can't be biased in either direction to be an effective Truth-Detector. That is going to be a real challenge for you and any of us other millions of Truth-Detectors!

 

[Robo]

I don't think we are arguing are we? I think we are basically agreeing!

The Constitution is not the Bible. The Constitution is basically a charter and a stake in the ground for a newly developed government.

The Constitution is our primary rule of law, it's our warranty, our guarantee of life, liberty, private property and our pursuit of happiness.

Our forefathers, built in processes so that it can be improved, updated, and amended as needed or required by WE THE PEOPLE!

For WE THE PEOPLE decide where amendments are needed and required.

That's not how it's worked! amendments for the most part are being purposely avoided by law makers and an apathetic "we the people" are ignorant of it or simply don't give a rat's ass. Law makers just do what they want and depend on biased judges in biased courts to back them up.

 

[Robo]

Damn you get everything wrong. Typical Trumplestilskin. Corporations are at all time high profit levels and have been at it for several years. The fact is moving more money to the top does not create jobs. Jobs are created by inability to keep up with demand. That is achieved by putting more money in the hands of consumers, the masses, A big kick in the min wage would accomplish that..

Apparently you're ignorant of the fact that more money in the business community equates to the fact that more jobs become available, thereby putting more money in the pockets of more people that equates to more demand that equates to more supply that equates to even more jobs, that equates to even more folks with money that equates to more demand and so on and so on and so on.

Government butting in and raising a minimum wage simply kills off entry level jobs and stimulates automation. Higher wages are stimulated by competition for the better/best labor. That's brought about by more jobs than people seeking them, thast's beginning to happen now. Stand by for higher wages, to hell with a socialist minimum wage!

 

[Nordberg]

Apparently you're ignorant of the fact that more money in the business community equates to the fact that more jobs become available, thereby putting more money in the pockets of more people that equates to more demand that equates to more supply that equates to even more jobs, that equates to even more folks with money that equates to more demand and so on and so on and so on.

Government butting in and raising a minimum wage simply kills off entry level jobs and stimulates automation. Higher wages are stimulated by competition for the better/best labor. That's brought about by more jobs than people seeking them, thast's beginning to happen now. Stand by for higher wages, to hell with a socialist minimum wage!

Apparently you know nothing about economics, or much of anything else as as your posting history shows. Thre is a lot of data on the impact of elevating the min wage. It has been done many times in many countries. And, it is being done in some states right now. It does not have the results you claim. Just a fact for you to ponder. However as usual you accept sophmoric ,
We have a wealth gap that equals the Gilded Age. It is dangerous and unfair.

Companies have work to do. It requires a certain amount of manhours to function. You don't just quit doing the work when it costs a little more.And robotics have been coming tomorrow for 50 years.

the end result of raising the min.. is all wages go up. The workers start to get a fairer share on the weath that they produce. And when workers have more money, they spend it. That stimulates the economy and creates more jobs. Demand that a company cannot keep up with, is what causes companies to expand and hire. The businesses having piles of money does not translate into jobs. That hes been proven over and over . They give bonuses to the execs or buy back stock, which also enriches the execs.
We have been at all time higest corporate proifits for many years and wages have been flat. That should be something that even you should be able to understand.

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

The Constitution is our primary rule of law, it's our warranty, our guarantee of life, liberty, private property and our pursuit of happiness.





That's not how it's worked! amendments for the most part are being purposely avoided by law makers and an apathetic "we the people" are ignorant of it or simply don't give a rat's ass. Law makers just do what they want and depend on biased judges in biased courts to back them up.

ROBO, thanks for having this civil debate. I am trying to agree with you everywhere we can find some common ground.

You know I said, the Constitution is not the Bible. But, I did "not" say, that we should "not" have faith in our Constitution, nor should we "not" have faith in our forefathers who penned it. I think we all agree that our Constitution was an honest attempt to try and look into the future as best they could, and build ways to amend it inherently from within it, as needed or desired by a Majority, and a check and balance of certain powers between the 3 branches of our government, and a certain amount of respect for what a "Majority Rule" is in America, and how we use the "Majority Rule" to make and pass bills, decide our elections, and make decisions for our country overall.

Where we loose faith 250 something years later, is in the leaders we have selected to represent our 3 branches of government, and how, certain politicians in powerful roles, can exploit the Constitution, abuse the power of their office or seat, cheat, and lie their way through elections, get elected only to shit on the "Majority Rule" and make decisions based on "Special Interests" or even "SeIf-interests" that have nothing to do with what a "Majority" wants for our country.

When our Constitution allows for this kind of corruption in our government, it becomes time to look at new ways to prevent this kind of corruption to exist, just because our forefathers could not imagine loopholes in the Constitution that allowed it to slip through the cracks and come into being.

Yes sir, even our forefathers did not see that kind of corruption coming, and they certainly did not write the Constitution to allow for corruption to take control of our country, or an Authoritarian to become our president, nor a checks and balance system that fails because of the corruption itself from inside the branches of our government that are working together in a conspiracy fashion to hijack our government and totally take it out of the hands of We The People!

So it appears to me that not enough checks and balances were written into the Constitution, or the powers given to the executive branch that have been abused, skirted around, exploited, and now corrupted may need to be changed, now that they have been defined.

We may have to look at how the "Majority Rule" has been replaced with "Big Money Rules" or "Special Interest Rules" and how our politicians are now allowed to select the voters they want instead of the taxpayers selecting the candidates they want.

When that is allowed to happen, we better take a closer look at our Constitution, and start looking for the loopholes, and amend it to put those back in check!

 

[Robo]

Apparently you know nothing about economics, or much of anything else as your posting history shows.

Well friend in that case you’re wasting your time conversing with idiots. Maybe you should find another thread where you can orgasm with your superior elite intellect.

Thre is a lot of data on the impact of elevating the min wage. It has been done many times in many countries. And, it is being done in some states right now. It does not have the results you claim.

There’s a lot of data everywhere on just about everything. That doesn’t mean it’s all worthy of it’s ink and paper. I’m positive that every leftist site on the web has data proving shit is really sugar. However common sense tells me that minimum wages are simply in most every case “entry level” employment and the folks that remain in it are almost always under educated and or under talented for higher paying jobs. Common sense also tells me that the reason Mickey Dee’s and alike are automating their counter service with order it yourself electronic tablets and grocery stores and alike are installing more and more “self pay” machinery is because business cannot afford or won’t be badgered by government to pay under educated and or undertrained workers 15 bucks an hour. The proof is physically and visually available that the government mandated minimum wage is simply a “JOB KILLER” for entry level workers. The free market solution is to simply get your ass educated and or trained or both and move on from entry level employment. That’s what a REAL free country demands and expects of its snow flakes. BIG brother government will only eventually bankrupt your ass by FORCE. Because he’s force by definition and corrupt by nature.