AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Diest TKO,

DTKO, check your lifepreserver. It's leaking. Too many holes in it!

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

DTKO, check your lifepreserver. It's leaking. Too many holes in it!

Life preservers are Styrofoam molds, idiot.

You're never going to make it as captain of the conservative's metaphor team this way...

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

ican teaches people to fly, not to float in water. LOL

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

the constitution does not specify that people may fly. or that they have a right to invade my right to privacy by flying over my house.

he must be stopped.
Very Happy

2 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

The question is how?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Ican, thanks to both you and Foxfyre for your info.

JM

2 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

You're welcome James, but we have so far to go to get good information to everybody. There are certain elements of society who really do want to intimidate or coerce or shame us into just shutting up. I think we can't allow that to happen.

Here's one brave Congressman who I think might be speaking for a lot of us but I doubt any of you have heard about it in your local newspapers or on your local ABC or NBC affiliate. What do you guys think?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

and offered not a single solution.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Federal employees, especially veterans, earned the tax money the federal government gives them.

So, if a bank is run by a former employee of the federal government then it is constitutional to loan that bank money?

What if some of the stockholders are veterans?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Public airports do not themselves regulate commerce. It is some of the people or organizations who run airports that regulate commerce.

I agree. But you must agree that the federal government can't justify building airports simply by putting people inside of them who are performing constitutionally sanctioned activities. The government can't build a casino, for instance, and stick a few tax collectors in there and then claim it's constitutional under the government's taxation power.

ican711nm wrote:

When money lended by the government to persons or organizations is not paid back, that money constitutes a transfer of wealth, unless the government can seize other assets of the persons or organizations equivalent to the money it has lended.

But that's just a contingency. It has no bearing on whether the government has the constitutional authority to lend the money in the first place. After all, we don't say that the government can't levy taxes because some people will cheat. So, does the federal government have the constitutional authority to lend money to banks?

ican711nm wrote:

In Article I. Section 8., the Constitution grants the federal government the power: "To coin money, to regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standards of weights and measures;"

A Congress of the United States and a president have chosen to regulate the value of coin money by printing money. If that is not a power that clause has granted to the federal government, then the federal government printing money is unconstitutional until such time as an amendment to the Constitution is passed that grants the federal government that power.

How does the printing of paper money "regulate" the value of specie? Paper money and specie have the same value. Paper money doesn't regulate the value of specie anymore than specie regulates the value of paper money.

ican711nm wrote:

Does the power granted by the Constitution to the federal government to coin money and regulate the value thereof include the power to print money? I think so!

Why would you think that? The constitution says nothing about printing money. Would it help if I copied-and-pasted the dictionary definitions of "print" and "coin" for you?

You're awfully literal about the interpretation of other provisions in the constitution. Why are you being so lax in your interpretation when it comes to congress's authority to print money? Isn't the rule that if it isn't permitted by the constitution it's prohibited? So why is the printing of money permitted?

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:
But if the government lends money to a bank and then takes the value of stock in the bank to cover what was lent, that IS a transfer of wealth?

That is not a transfer of wealth.

So when you said that TARP, which involved the government lending (not giving) money to banks, was an unconstitutional transfer of wealth, that wasn't quite right. Correct?

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

and offered not a single solution.

Oh but people like this guy have. And they have been rejected in every proposal and suggestion thus far. But Congress types can legitimately use a hearing for two purposes 1) to express the problem and communicate concerns to people in a position to do something, and 2) to gather information needed to solve a problem or reveal corruption or verify that something is or is not working.

The point is that rushing to do SOMETHING just so they can say they did something is extremely foolish and dangerous when you're dealing with a program that is so big, so all emcompassing, so expensive, and has such potential for so many unintended negative consequences.

Americans should be glad that there are those who have their heels dug in and are demanding that Congress know what it is doing and what the effects will be BEFORE they do it on this one.

1 Reply

Gleaning from my morning e-mail:

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

The point is that rushing to do SOMETHING just so they can say they did something is extremely foolish and dangerous when you're dealing with a program that is so big, so all emcompassing, so expensive, and has such potential for so many unintended negative consequences.

Oh yes, the unintended negative consequences of health insurance.

Foxfyre wrote:

Americans should be glad that there are those who have their heels dug in and are demanding that Congress know what it is doing and what the effects will be BEFORE they do it on this one.

I remember vividly your probing questions before the Iraq war was started ...

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

I read another article that presents the irony of the conservatives of today who are trying to defeat universal health care; it was Nixon who suggested it, but Edward Kennedy was the one who apposed it.

Funny how history reveals all the irony of politics and politicians, but especially the conservatives on these boards who fail to understand that a revamp of health care in this country is no longer a choice when insurance premiums become more unaffordable for companies and individuals, and our competitiveness in the world marketplace becomes more difficult because companies must include the cost of health insurance into their products and services.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Time and again Obama has 'explained' the financing for health reform, and time and again those with an interest in honesty and accuracy have pointed out how the financing he stated would be used would be inadequate, impossible, insufficient, etc. and/or would not decrease but would actually increase healthcare costs putting an even greater strain on the average American to pay them.

I don't believe this is true at all. I don't believe that Health Care reform opponents HAVE in fact explained the actual problems with the proposed system; I think there has been a lot of obfuscation and demonization, but precious little analysis.

How will instituting a Public Option system increase health care costs? Specifically.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Re: Foxfyre (Post 3745061)
Quote:

Quote:

Time and again Obama has 'explained' the financing for health reform, and time and again those with an interest in honesty and accuracy have pointed out how the financing he stated would be used would be inadequate, impossible, insufficient, etc. and/or would not decrease but would actually increase healthcare costs putting an even greater strain on the average American to pay them.

Where did Foxie get this information from? I'd like to see the source for this information? Is this another "death panel" claim?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't believe this is true at all. I don't believe that Health Care reform opponents HAVE in fact explained the actual problems with the proposed system; I think there has been a lot of obfuscation and demonization, but precious little analysis.

How will instituting a Public Option system increase health care costs? Specifically.

Cycloptichorn

It seems to me that the burden of proof here is on you and the defenders of the comprehensive new changes now being proposed - and not on the critics of the various proposals. I haven't seen anything to suggest that you have accepted the same standards of proof for the benefits you claim that you demand from others.

There are few examples of government and the private sector doing comparable things, but nearly all strongly suggest that private sector competition yields better quality and cheaper results - as well as greater flexibility, adaptability and innovation over time.,

Medicare and Medicaid both have already substantially increased U.S. health care costs through increased demand and, in some cases, poor management and fraud. Why sould we believe a new, expanded program will be any different?

The contradictions between the president's (admittedly vague) forecasts and assertions on cost and associated deficit impacts and those determined by the Congressional Budget Office strongly suggest that at least some of the Administrations claims are .... a bit exaggerated or even deceitful.

The argument isn't just about cost. It also concerns individual control and choice. Despite the vague presidential assurances that government won't involve itself in individual selections of insurer, service provider or how medical decisions will be made, the various draft laws circulating through the Congress do indeed give the government the power to do all those things.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

The point is that rushing to do SOMETHING just so they can say they did something is extremely foolish and dangerous when you're dealing with a program that is so big, so all emcompassing, so expensive, and has such potential for so many unintended negative consequences.

Oh yes, the unintended negative consequences of health insurance.

Foxfyre wrote:

Americans should be glad that there are those who have their heels dug in and are demanding that Congress know what it is doing and what the effects will be BEFORE they do it on this one.

I remember vividly your probing questions before the Iraq war was started ...

You remember that vividly do you? How flattering that you would take such an interest in me almost a full year before I even knew you existed.

The invasion of Iraq was March 20, 2003 following three long months of talks at the U.N. and vigorous debate in the U.S. Congress culminating in a bipartisan vote of over 2/3rds of Congress authorizing the invasion.

My own interest was conflicted during that time but my personal feelings were strongly that I did not want to do it and I freely expressed those convictions. Once the decision was made, I did put my full support behind the effort in hope of a quick and decisive victory so that casualties on both sides would be minimized and our own brave young men and women who were in harm's way would not have their jobs made more difficult. The lessons of Vietnam were still very strong in my memory and my emotions.

I joined A2K on March 8, 2004.

So tell me again about my probing questions about that process before it was enacted?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Excuse me, foxfyre that the 'sarcasm-button' didn't work on my computer.

Nevertheless it's good to know that you were against the war in Iraq.

------------------

What do you think, are "unintended negative consequences of health insurance"?

From my own experiences and that of all persons I know, combined with the experience of older persons who experienced health insurance in the early 20th century, I would agree that costs went up, and we got less (like only three weeks cure after operations instead of four or six, no money for the funeral) but on the other hand a lot is paid what people didn't think of 10 years ago (acupuncture, alternative medicine to name two things).

I really wonder what 'your' negatives might be.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know