McCain/Obama Debate II: 10/07/08

[Tiribulus]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
jsbrook,

I realize that the Constitution is an inconvenience to those who would like to engage in “social engineering” towards (allegedly) “socially desirable” outcomes, but one thing that people like you never seem to understand is this: we either have the rule of law via written documents (such as the constitution) or rule by decree. Which do YOU prefer?

Gimme a break.

Article 1, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and GENERAL WELFARE (emphasis added) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;[/quote]

One need only peruse the writings of those who composed that document to learn what they meant by this. I promise you they did not envision anything even vaguely resembling where we are going today. They did not intend federal administration of medical care, housing and food. They just didn’t. I don’t know what to tell you.

[malonetd]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
INSURANCE. The existence of, which is another form of pooled resources being distributed to the many and which existence is for the enrichment of those perpetrating the scam, is the primary problem with our healthcare (deathcare) industry.
[/quote]

B-I-N-G-fucking-O! Fuck I hate insurance.

[jsbrook]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government is limited in what it decides it should spend on or tax to support.

The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states. But taxing and spending for the general welfare IS expressly granted to the federal government.

I understand that many think that taxing and spending was meant to only be in pursuit of specifically enumerated duties and rights in other section.

But that is as much of an interpreation and view of how government should function as anything else. Nowhere is this explicit.

[jsbrook]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Right.

Let’s the federal government run healthcare - that way we can kill two birds with one stone:

We can 1. tear up the Constitution (which is what we secretly want to do in our pursuit of a great and powerful leader to give meaning to our pathetic lives);

And 2. fuck up healthcare for everyone - because, as we can see, the Fed government is doing a really wonderful job running everything else. [/quote]

And when did I say I was in favor of nationalized healthcare? i NEVER said that.

[Mufasa]

[quote]Nich wrote:

“…and why does the US or the american people have to worry about affairs in the middle east…?”[/quote]

…Black Gold…

…Texas Tea.

Mufasa

[jsbrook]

Please don’t make me the bad guy because I reported one of two widely accepted views of Constitutional jurisdprudence on an ambiguous issue. I’m not telling you to agree with it.

[dhickey]

[quote]borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No fiscal conservative would even consider voting for a man who believes healthcare is a right.

It is true class warfare (with casualties beyond a bank account bottom line) to say that healthcare is not a right. Poor people are kept away from doctors because they can’t afford the incredibly inflated costs of our health care system.
[/quote] why not fix the problem rather than defering this cost to someone else? regulation and licensing is at the very heart of the healthcare problem. The gov’t needs to get out of the way. that’s it. problem solved.

Its funny, insurance companies complain they aren’t making money, hospitals claim they aren’t making money, yet tons of money is being spent so where is it going? The whole system needs a reality check.

Do you really need to ask this question? Lawyers and malpractic insurance providers.

[quote]
Does a hospital need to buy 3 “super triple wave positron body scanners” at unrecoupable costs just so they can get on some “best of…” list when that machine offers no appreciable value over a good ol’ x-ray in 99.5% of cases?
[/quote] That’s entirely none of your business or the gov’t.

Does an insurance company have any right to reject paying for the prescription that my doctor wrote because they don’t “agree” that drug is a viable first line treatment for my condition, forcing me to pay out of pocket if I want the best option?

It’s their business they can cover whatever they would like and put into their contracts. The only requirement they have is to honor the contract they sign with you. Go somewhere else if you don’t like it. Oh yeah, we can’t. Maybe that’s the problem?

This system is just as fucked up as all of our other institutions, and the poor are staying sick, and people who actually have health insurance are still forced to declare bankruptcy because they were stupid enough to catch cancer.

It’s fucked up for a reason. That reason is federal and state gov’t. That reason is the power given to the AMA. That reason is the reform needed in our judicial system. Pretty simple actually.

Health care operates outside of the influence of the free-market [quote] BINGO…this is the problem and in here lies the solution [/quote]and to me it isn’t worth people dying in the short-term to try dumping healthcare directly into the market ala McCain’s $5000 credit. Obama’s plan of creating new health care options, but allowing one to keep their existing programs if better, is a way to get the system to start a change without throwing things into turmoil that could prove deadly for some.

This is yet another bandiad paid for by the tax payer. The problem is not difficult to fix all together yet large numbers of people want to keep it broken and shift the costs to those that will reap zero benefit from the bandaid. How is this different than the bailout? The people that are making money now continue to make money. The only diffence is that you’ve shifted the economic burden to the few individuals in the country that are already paying for everything gov’t provides.

[Sloth]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government is limited in what it decides it should spend on or tax to support.

The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states. [/quote]

I have no idea how you don’t see the contradiction.

[jsbrook]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government is limited in what it decides it should spend on or tax to support.

The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states.

I have no idea how you don’t see the contradiction.

[/quote]

Because the power to tax and spend is expressly granted to the federal government both for defense and the general welfare. And this is no written limitation on this power.

I am in full agreement that the government has no plenary power to enact other types of laws to further the general welfare the way a state can. I think that’s pretty damn clear. And I disapprove of the loopholes it uses to try to get around this. Such as pretending something is interstate commerce when it clearly is not.

[katzenjammer]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
jsbrook,

I realize that the Constitution is an inconvenience to those who would like to engage in “social engineering” towards (allegedly) “socially desirable” outcomes, but one thing that people like you never seem to understand is this: we either have the rule of law via written documents (such as the constitution) or rule by decree. Which do YOU prefer?

Gimme a break.

Article 1, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and GENERAL WELFARE (emphasis added) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;[/quote]

Gee, you forgot the qualifiers that follow that semicolon there JS. Moreover, the Federalist papers DO NOT support a broad interpretation of the welfare clause.

Furthermore, to misinterpret the welfare clause in this manner is to misconstrue the entire purpose of the constitution which is based upon enumerated powers - specific powers that the states were willing to grant to the federal government on the specific provision that those enumerated powers DID NOT grant or imply ANY OTHER transfer of powers.

To maintain otherwise is just an attempt to justify trampling on the constitution in pursuit of ideological aims.

[katzenjammer]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

I am in full agreement that the government has no plenary power to enact other types of laws to further the general welfare the way a state can. I think that’s pretty damn clear. And I disapprove of the loopholes it uses to try to get around this. Such as pretending something is interstate commerce when it clearly is not.[/quote]

Exactly, there’s another abused clause. Now if we agree about this, how can you call healthcare a right that comes under the purview of the federal government to guarantee??

[dhickey]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Gimme a break.

Article 1, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and GENERAL WELFARE (emphasis added) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;[/quote]

We have been over this quite a few times but here we go again. The constitution isn’t just a collection of words that one can interpret to mean whatever fits their needs. More important than the actual words is the intent of the framers, and more importantly those that ratafied it. Secondly general welfare means the general welfare of the several states. Not the general welfare of a random individual or group at the expense of my general welfare.

If you had read any history at all you would know that ratification was not an easy process and it could have just as easily not passed. The biggest fear was that the federal gov’t would be come too big and step on the rights of the states and of the people. A few assholes assured the members, that would later ratify the constitution on behalf of the states, that this was not the case. Shortly there after they proceded to increase the power of the federal gov’t and did indeed step on the rights of the states. Those that take even the slightest interest in our nation’s history will know who I am talking about. The rest of you should read a bit more.

[Sloth]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government is limited in what it decides it should spend on or tax to support.

The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states.

I have no idea how you don’t see the contradiction.

Because the power to tax and spend is expressly granted to the federal government both for defense and the general welfare. And this is no written limitation on this power.

I am in full agreement that the government has no plenary power to enact other types of laws to further the general welfare the way a state can. I think that’s pretty damn clear. And I disapprove of the loopholes it uses to try to get around this. Such as pretending something is interstate commerce when it clearly is not.[/quote]

But how can it spend money on powers not stated.

You did say, [quote]The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states[/quote]

I don’t see a stated power to set up and maintain a healthcare system.

[jsbrook]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
jsbrook,

I realize that the Constitution is an inconvenience to those who would like to engage in “social engineering” towards (allegedly) “socially desirable” outcomes, but one thing that people like you never seem to understand is this: we either have the rule of law via written documents (such as the constitution) or rule by decree. Which do YOU prefer?

Gimme a break.

Article 1, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and GENERAL WELFARE (emphasis added) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Gee, you forgot the qualifiers that follow that semicolon there JS. Moreover, the Federalist papers DO NOT support a broad interpretation of the welfare clause.

Furthermore, to misinterpret the welfare clause in this manner is to misconstrue the entire purpose of the constitution which is based upon enumerated powers - specific powers that the states were willing to grant to the federal government on the specific provision that those enumerated powers DID NOT grant or imply ANY OTHER transfer of powers.

To maintain otherwise is just an attempt to justify trampling on the constitution in pursuit of ideological aims. [/quote]

That’s extremely misleading. That’s one view. Madison’s. The other view, espoused by the OTHER author of the Federalist papers (Alexander Hamilton) is that spending WAS a specifically enumerates power designed to allow Congress to independently serve the general welfare.

This view was also supported by other primary literature and debates of the time, and the supplanting of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. The weakness of the federal government of the Articles of the Confederation were considered its key failing.

In fact, there has never been a concensus on what this provision was supposed do, what powers it granted, and what powers and limits the Constitution was supposed to be establishing. Even when it was writtern. There have always been this conflict and these TWO prevailing views.

[jsbrook]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government is limited in what it decides it should spend on or tax to support.

The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states.

I have no idea how you don’t see the contradiction.

Because the power to tax and spend is expressly granted to the federal government both for defense and the general welfare. And this is no written limitation on this power.

But how can it spend money on powers not stated?

You did say, The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states

I don’t see a stated power to set up and maintain a healthcare system. [/quote]

The powers are specifically stated: 1. Common defense. 2. General welfare. No one has any beef over the federal government having sole discretion over necessary taxing and spending for defense.

It’s only the General Welfare part that gets some. I know it would be much easier if these words weren’t there. But they are. You can explain them away with an interpretation and claim they too only were meant to refer to security and defense. But you can’t just ignore them.

[jsbrook]

You have your view. Maybe it’s the right one. But please don’t try and pretend it’s so unambiguous. Or go back and reinvent history and try and pretend there was ever a concensus when the Constitution was debated and ratified.

[jsbrook]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government is limited in what it decides it should spend on or tax to support.

The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states.

I have no idea how you don’t see the contradiction.

Because the power to tax and spend is expressly granted to the federal government both for defense and the general welfare. And this is no written limitation on this power.

I am in full agreement that the government has no plenary power to enact other types of laws to further the general welfare the way a state can. I think that’s pretty damn clear. And I disapprove of the loopholes it uses to try to get around this. Such as pretending something is interstate commerce when it clearly is not.

But how can it spend money on powers not stated.

You did say, The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states

I don’t see a stated power to set up and maintain a healthcare system. [/quote]

The argument would be that national healthcare is in support of the general welfare. This is not a position I myself agree with.

[rainjack]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
It’s only the General Welfare part that gets some. I know it would be much easier if these words weren’t there. But they are. You can explain them away with an interpretation and claim they too only were meant to refer to security and defense. But you can’t just ignore them.[/quote]

Government sponsored health care is not “general welfare”.

General welfare is spending that benefits everyone. Healthcare, welfare, and all the other social programs benefit some at the expense of others.

It is not that hard to understand that taking money from one group for the benefit of another group is not what the founding fathers intended.

That was why they started the damn revolution in the first place: unfair taxation.

Now, the left wants to do exactly what England did to us over 200 years ago. Tax the shit out of some so that others don’t have to do anything.

We need another fucking revolution.

[Sloth]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government is limited in what it decides it should spend on or tax to support.

The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states.

I have no idea how you don’t see the contradiction.

Because the power to tax and spend is expressly granted to the federal government both for defense and the general welfare. And this is no written limitation on this power.

But how can it spend money on powers not stated?

You did say, The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states

I don’t see a stated power to set up and maintain a healthcare system.

The powers are specifically stated: 1. Common defense. 2. General welfare. No one has any beef over the federal government having sole discretion over necessary taxing and spending for defense.

It’s only the General Welfare part that gets some. I know it would be much easier if these words weren’t there. But they are. You can explain them away with an interpretation and claim they too only were meant to refer to security and defense. But you can’t just ignore them.[/quote]

Common defense and General welfare is shorthand for “the STATED powers, that aren’t reserved for the states.” What you’re quoting is meant to spell out the obvious, “yes the federal government can tax to carry out it’s powers.”

Otherwise, your own statement [quote]The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states[/quote] makes absolutely no sense, because the government can now do anything and everything. Own and operate the means of production and distribute the goods to everyone, equally? And decide how scarce resources are going to be used? It’s for the general welfare! Set a limit on how much a CEO or doctor can be paid? It’s for the General welfare!

[jsbrook]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
It’s only the General Welfare part that gets some. I know it would be much easier if these words weren’t there. But they are. You can explain them away with an interpretation and claim they too only were meant to refer to security and defense. But you can’t just ignore them.

Government sponsored health care is not “general welfare”.

General welfare is spending that benefits everyone. Healthcare, welfare, and all the other social programs benefit some at the expense of others.

It is not that hard to understand that taking money from one group for the benefit of another group is not what the founding fathers intended.

That was why they started the damn revolution in the first place: unfair taxation.

Now, the left wants to do exactly what England did to us over 200 years ago. Tax the shit out of some so that others don’t have to do anything.

We need another fucking revolution. [/quote]

I am not in favor of national healthcare myself. I just don’t believe it’s unconstitutional.