It’s Time For Constitutional Convention
by Blake on Sep 26, 2009 at 11:36 Political
For many years, our government has been getting increasingly more powerful, and our various liberties have been shrinking, a normal, if deplorable condition. Governments have a natural tendency to grow their power, because it is true that power corrupts- you only have to look at Charlie Rangel to see that. and absolute power corrupts absolutely- that would be the Resident and his czarlets, commisars, and running dog lackeys.
Take this alleged “Healthcare” debate- it is really not about “health” or “care”, but power- power over the citizens that the liberal progressives believe are too ignorant to look after themselves. Citizens that only the Progressives are wise enough, and smart enough to rule. They will force you to do as they wish- a good example is the mandate to buy insurance- if you choose not to buy it, you will be charged an “excise tax” of $1900.00- if you refuse to pay that, you could be sentenced to one year in jail, and a $25,000 fine.
These A**holes are going to use the IRS, already a hated institution, for the additional purpose of extorting money from citizens? That is what it is- Extortion, no matter that it is your government doing the extorting, it is wrong, and illegal. But when has that stopped this administration before?
These traitors have become expert at avoiding the constitutional requirements or limits that were written into the law, but then they counted on having a complicit Congress aiding this dictator in his takeover of this country. All the Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and just plain old liberals who voted for this POS are sure going to be surprised when their world also turns to mud, and they discover that good old Barry Hussein Obama doesn’t give a rat’s A** about them either. Just gotta love that Change! Everybody can be miserable! Now that’s Democracy!
The sixteenth amendment was created to allow the government to collect taxes, (which at that time were assessed at one percent)- but it also led to the creation of the IRS,and the beginning of the most tortuous legalisms in the world, to the point that even the IRS doesn’t really comprehend its own tax code. Lewis Carroll couldn’t have written Jabberwocky any more incomprehensibly.
And then there is Article one, Section eight of the Constitution, generally known as the interstate commerce clause, and this catchall has been misused and abused more than a single child at a pedophile convention. Everytime a member of Congress wants to ram a law down our throat, and the Constitution stands in his way, he just crafts the language enough to justify the law through this one ambiguous clause in the Constitution- this must change.
It is time for all the states to call for a Constitutional Convention for the narrow purpose of amending these sections of the Constitution, and no more than that.
I am so tired of our Constitution being treated as a Handi- Wipe by those traitors in government who want to “Fundamentally Transform our Country”. I believe our country is the greatest country on Earth, and we do not have to apologize to anyone, nor do we need to remake our country to suit the preconceived ideas or attitudes of any other country.
If we, as individuals, being a part of our respective States, do not act as one, uniting in the call for a Constitutional Convention for the sole purpose of closing these loopholes through which these traitors are destroying our great country, we will not have a country that we recognize, and by taking the easy road of doing nothing, we will have truly gotten the government we deserve.
Freedom, once lost, is rarely regained. Do not allow this opportunity to slip away- our path to continued freedom is fraught with pitfalls, but we must take this path. To take any other is to lose our way, and once we are lost, we may be lost forever.
Is that what you would have for your children’s legacy? Is that how you want them to remember you? That you played it safe, and spent their liberty for your momentary comfort?
That is not only selfish, but cowardly.
And surely you are not that.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: amendments, constitution, convention, invertebrate Congress, traitors
Funny how this same rant could have been published by a leftist when Bush II was in power.
The folks on the losing side of an election always seem to scream about how it’s the end of the world.
Get a grip.
It’s called democracy.
Yes, it goes to show that we are not that far apart- there are many valid criticisms of Bush, but Nobama really takes the Marxist cake.
And it is not a democracy- the term is rightly called a Republic- there IS a difference.
We don’t live in a Democracy, we live in a Democratic Republic. Many folks here ranted about Bush and spending. The reality is that now Obama is in office and he is out of control. Since he is the one in office he gets the wrath.
Funny, but I don’t recall Bush EVER demanding a National helath plan.
I remember him killing a pile of mooselimbs. I remember him having a virolant media at his throat for 6 of 8 years.
I remember him having a Dumacrat controlled House and Senate that resisted every move he made, for better or worse.
I remember Republicans standing ground for many good causes, including sending soldiers and National Guardsmen to war with our enemies.
I remember the media’s horor and bloody attack of Sarah Palin, an attack that has not yet ended.
I think it is quite clear that Liberals are hateful crazy idiots, and they are in control. That makes you a “winner?”
In the election of Obama and the liberals to government today, we are ALL on the losing side, even though you, Koowan, think you are a winner.
You are a double-loser, because you don’t even know how badly you lost.
I agree that the 16th amendment has been hijacked!
It appears that our federal system is very badly broken. I attribute all of the problems to the federal government’s treatment of money (every branch).
Four simple words amended to the US Constitution, would overturn Supreme Court rulings and put an end to all this greedy chaos:
“Money is not speech.”
Merriam-Webster.com defines money as “something generally accepted as a medium of exchange or a means of payment.”
Merriam-Webster.com defines speech as “the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words.”
I can live well, when I use money to buy food to eat.
I will not live long if I have to eat only my words.
Stop fucking whining and take a good long hard look.
1) It’s beyond dispute that the health care system is utterly completely broken
2) government run/sanctioned health care works great in GB, France, Switzerland, Sweden and tons of other countries, which all rank way above America in terms of public health.
So basically you’re saying “well yeah, we can’t look after ourself, and our government is going to do worse”, which in short comes down to America sucks, good, I can agree with that.
1)- It is beyond dispute that the healthcare system needs some fixing, but it is not completely broken- if you had been a frequent visitor, you might have changed your mind some.
2)- government run anything always does poorly,GB, France, Sweden are all trying to capitalize their system- less socialization means more incentive to go the extra mile in treatment, which might mean the difference between living and dying. Switzerland has a better system, but we do not need to throw the whole system away just for some needed tweaks.
3)- What I am saying is that the two loopholes give government, Of EITHER party, too much power to rob us blind.
Witness the Social Security mess- both parties raided that fund, and now it will be insolvent by 2016- way before many had predicted it.
Limited Government is the way to go, especially for the mindset of Americans- we thrive on people telling us we can’t do something.
we do it just to show them it CAN be done.
4)- I do not whine.
BLK: “GB, France, Sweden are all trying to capitalize their system->>
DAR
Sure they are. They look to the US and say “We want THAT.”
BLK: Switzerland has a better system, but we do not need to throw the whole system away just for some needed tweaks.>>
DAR
Yes, they do have a better system, as do the other countries you mentioned. As with all of our peer countries, they cover everyone, with better outcomes, for less.
But let’s consider the Swiss, since they recently and purposely threw out some of this “capitalization” you speak of. And with good reason. Like our system, it wasn’t working.
The Healing of America, pg. 177:
Excerpt:
“In health care,… the equality of society became badly strained near the end of the twentieth century. The Swiss health insurance business was coming to resemble the American system. Traditionally, Switzerland had had a network of “mutual,” or nonprofit, health insurance plans; workers brought insurance through their employer. But Switzerland is home to some of the world’s largest insurance firms. In the 1980’s, these private insurance giants learned a profitable lesson from American insurers. U.S. companies like Aetna and UnitedHealth had been buying up nonprofit health insurers like Blue Cross and Blue Shield and converting them into profit-making operations. As it turned out, for-profit health insurance produced fabulous bottom-line results, especially when the insurers were picky about the people they covered and diligent about denying clams. The big Swiss insurance firms were impressed;they started buying the old mutual health plans in Switzerland and converting them into profit-making business. By the early 1990’s Switzerland’s health care system was the closest in the world to the American model. Costs were high–Switzerland ranked second only to the Uniteded States in per-capita spending on health care–and more and more Swiss citizens were being left without insurance. Just as in America, the insurance companies refused to cover anybody with a preexisting condition, on the logical theory that covering sick people would cost more and eat into profits. Even those who had coverage found their claims being denied, because the insurers decided, logically, that every claim they paid would eat into the profits.
It was a fine example of unfettered capitalism at work. But in Switzerland, there was a problem. Even more than it cherishes capitalism and profit, Switzerland cherishes its solidarity. Some Swiss people could afford to see a doctor, others could not. Some peopole were covered for large medical bills; others faced bankruptcy. By 1993,… about 5 percent of the population had no health insurance coverage. By US standards, of course that would be barely a blip; in 2009, some 16 percent of Americans were living without health insurance. For the Swiss, though, leaving 5 percent of their fellow citizens oustide the health care system was an unacceptable violation of the core national values: solidarity, community, equality.
A special task force was set up to study this national problem.
[result…] Insurance companies were required to offer a basic package of benefits to all applicants, and insurers could not make a profit on basic health coverage (any profits or surplus earnings must be used to reduce premiums for the next year). To soften the impact on the insurance industry, the new law required that everyone buy health insurance; anyone who didn’t sign up was automatically assigned to one of the companies, and the premium was deducted from their paycheck… Further insurers were allowed to make a profit on supplemental coverage…
…heated debate, with the for-profit insurance industry, the drug industry, and the most of the rest of the business community fiercely opposed.
The new system went into effect on January 1, 1996.
…a dozen years later, universal health care coverage was so firmly entrenched as an element of Swiss life that nobody seemed to oppose it anymore. Even M. Couchepin, the conservative businessman who became president, agreed. “Nobody would want to go back to the system before, when some people were locked out of the insurance,” he told me. “We have a system now that means everybody, rich or poor, can have the best health care we can provide. It is accepted; it is working. We are happy that we made the changes in 1994.”
DAR
Sorry if I am more than a little skeptical that the countries you speak of “are all trying to capitalize their system.”
D.
——————
Recommended further reading here.
Oh great, a quote from T R Reid, a WaPo writer and NPR contributor. He has an unbiased view of things like Michael Moore and his Sicko lies. I wonder, if the world is so great, like Cuba, why did Castro fly in a doctor from another country to treat him?
Why do so many people come here fro treatment? Why are the doctors in the UK refusing to see poor patients and why do the doctors and nurses there say the system they have is screwed? Why do so many people come to America for medical training and though many go home to treat their fellow countrymen, a large number stay here to work. Why would these people want to work here in such a screwed up place?
The system needs to be repaired but you all want to completely overhaul it and put private insurance out of business. I want to put government out of the business of business. It does not belong and we should not go down this road.
Maybe if we can get all politicians and voters who support this idea to pledge we can put them in front of a firing squad if this passes and ends up costing too much or people still go uncovered then we would not have to worry. I mean, they should have to suffer a consequence if they bring disaster to the masses.
Bigd: “a quote from T R Reid, a…”>>
DAR
Non-responsive, genetic fallacy.
Bigd: “Why do so many people come to America for medical training>>
DAR
We have had some very good schools. The world is catching up. I recommend this presentation I gave some time ago about the state of science education in America, here.
Bigd: Why would these people want to work here”>>
DAR
To make lots of money. Much of which comes through the government. About half of the US medical system is socialized. That’s the more efficient half, with lower costs.
D.
—————-
Ph.D. in physical science and engineering…
US citizens receiving Ph.D’s in 1987: 4,700
Asians: 5,600
US citizens receiving Ph.D’s in 2001: 4,400
Asians receiving Ph.D’s in 2001: 24,900
“By 2010, 90 percent of all Ph.D. physical scientists and engineers in the world will be Asian living in Asia.”
–R.E. Smalley, Nobel Prize-winning scientist from Rice University
Bigd: “like Michael Moore and his Sicko lies.>>
DAR
Would love to see an example. Big dog got one of those?
D.
—————–
“Sicko premiered on May 19, 2007 at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival, receiving a 15-minute standing ovation… the third-highest grossing documentary in the USA since 1982”
T.R. Reid and Moore- geez-and you say we have no references? By your standards I could quote Walker, Texas Ranger, and be right in line with your references, D- You are so full of Bullsh*t that you HAVE to be the major cause of “global warming”-
I do know you are the major cause of global whining.
You can chalk the pitiful state of our educational system down to liberals who feel that indoctrinating our children should take precedence over actually educating them, as a result, many do not know how to write, or the History of the world, or many things they should know by the time they have graduated High school. But when you have a union AND the federal government controlling the schools, ignorance is the result.
And yes- when you get down to it, Social Security is socialized, and unconstitutional, as is Medicare and Medicaid- and all are broke, in the red, and need more money, like EVERY program run by the government, they are failures- they pay out much more than they take in.
The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.
Darrel- read THIS-
Tell me that Canada’s system doesn’t suck like a wind tunnel-
BLK: “T.R. Reid and Moore”>>
DAR
Read for comprehension. I didn’t quote Moore, Bigd tried to smear my source (rather than respond to the content), by comparing him to Moore. All ad hominem, all fallacy, all the time.
You claimed various Euro countries are moving toward privatization. I provided a specific detailed example of the Swiss recently moving AWAY from that and for reasons stated.
You throw insults and ignore it, and Bigd does the same.
BLK: “Social Security is socialized, and unconstitutional, as is Medicare and Medicaid”>>
DAR
Thank you for answering my question.
BLK: “all are broke, in the red,”>>
DAR
SS won’t be broke for decades. You are confused.
BLK: “Tell me that Canada’s system doesn’t suck>>
DAR
I have already shown you it doesn’t suck, with extensive reference of scientific studies showing it beats the US, in all main categories of interest to the public, easily.
Your article references an anecdote (we don’t have any horror show stories here in the US now do we?) and then says:
“More than 70 private health providers in British Columbia now schedule simple surgeries and tests…”
This is good news. I hope the public system gets some private competition. Canada is too far to the left on this, and a few other issues.
So Canada is dealing with the issue of allowing a crack in the door of the government monopoly. Some are for it, others against it. I hope it makes it but it will be for the public (or the courts) to decide.
Here in the US, you guys wet your pants at the thought of people even having the option of using a government run non-profit.
I have been consistent. The US should have a private option, and so should Canada. Britain does, but very few (about 3%) bother to use it.
Starting with a public option will be fine.
D.
——————–
How to talk to Complete Idiots.
Government run means taxpayers pay for it. Why should I pay for my care and someone else’s? I do not have Reid’s book, I only have your quote from it. However, I can read about the author and determine he is not exactly unbiased in his past work and can assume he would not be unbiased in his current work.
He went to different countries seeking treatment for an ailment and based it upon that? Perhaps he could go to Mexico where they would confiscate his passport, give him medication to make him sicker and then keep extorting money from him until he was broke before he was “better” and then released or until he bribed the right people to get out. This happens all the time.
I do not think anyone in America has ever been made sicker and held hostage until they had spent all they had to get out.
The so called scientific studies show little. American medicine beats other countries hands down. Oh, we rank 32nd in a list that bases its rankings on things like how much we send to other nations and other unmeasurable items like “how do you feel about your health insurance” and other unmeasurable items. If you are injured in the US you have a greater chance at survival. 5 year survival rates for most diseases is best in the US. If Princess Di had her accident in the US she might still be alive.
Bigd: “Why should I pay for my care and someone else’s?>>
DAR
We are already doing it and we’re paying too much and thousands are dying anyway. System is bloated and busted.
Bigd: I can read about the author and determine he is not exactly unbiased>>
DAR
No one is “exactly unbiased.” Reid, as a correspondent, lived for years in India, Canada, Germany, UK, Switzerland etc., and he investigated their medical systems and the history of the development of the medical systems of the world. His book is incredibly informative, understated and fair. You don’t know what you are talking about.
Bigd: [can’t] assume he would not be unbiased in his current work.>>
DAR
How is this any thing other than 100% genetic fallacy?
Bigd: Perhaps he could go to Mexico>>
DAR
Why should he go to Mexico? Is that a country we should look to as an example? (Unfortunately, there probably are some thing we could learn about providing access).
Bigd: The so called scientific studies show little.>>
DAR
Yes, why appeal to science when it is just easier to assert or believe otherwise! Did you learn that in church? I bet you did.
Link.
Bigd: American medicine beats other countries hands down.>>
DAR
Hurray! This is great news. I am so glad.
Bigd: Oh, we rank 32nd in a list that bases its rankings on things like…>>
DAR
Actually 37th. Right beside Slovenia.
Bigd: how much we send to other nations>>
DAR
Nope, you made that up. Completely.
***
WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).
***
Bigd: and other unmeasurable items like “how do you feel about your health insurance”>>
DAR
Nope, you made that up. No scientific study measures such a thing.
Bigd: If you are injured in the US you have a greater chance at survival.>>
DAR
Nope, let’s spank that one again:
“Preventable mortality: The U.S. fell to last place among 19 industrialized nations on mortality amenable to health care—deaths that might have been prevented with timely and effective care. Although the U.S. rate improved by 4 percent between 1997–1998 and 2002–2003 (from 115 to 110 deaths per 100,000), rates improved by 16 percent on average in other nations, leaving the U.S. further behind.”
Results from the National Scorecard on U.S. Health System Performance, 2008.
Also: “Up to 101,000 fewer people would die prematurely each year from causes amenable to health care if the U.S. achieved the lower mortality rates of leading countries.” –ibid
You should take a moment and read that article carefully. You could learn a lot.
Bigd: 5 year survival rates for most diseases is best in the US.>>
DAR
For breast cancer, and a few others. Any comprehensive study of a broad spectrum of survival rates shows us lagging behind our peers. For well understood and rather sad reasons. Lack of access and preventative care. This is inexcusable.
D.
There has NEVER been a government run not for profit. there HAVE been many government run negative cash flow bureaucracies that we constantly have to throw money at, but none that just zero out.
Period.
BLK: “There has NEVER been a government run not for profit.”
DAR
All government… is not for profit.
D.
——————
How to talk to Complete Idiots
No, but government should never lose the people’s money wantonly.
After all, this is NOT the government’s money.
BTW Darrel- Is that a self-help book there?
Absolutely. It helps me learn how to talk to complete idiots. But I was pretty good at it already.
His advice is, don’t do it.
This fellow, who was involved in founding the evangelical movement, and worked to elect McCain, explains why.
[cause you’re not sane]
Absolutely. It helps me learn how to talk to complete idiots. But I was pretty good at it already
I am not surprised. It would seem that this is a specialty of yours as well (as is it the specialty of your associates). I am not saying you are a complete idiot, you still have a little work to do…
No one said America sucks except the non patriots. The system is not completely broken down. That is the echo chamber that you and folks like Darrel live in, one where you are spoon fed your information from questionable sources and then you regurgitate it to others. 80% of the people are happy with what they have and under this plan many will not be able to keep it, regardless of what Obama says.
Democrats keep voting down amendments that are introduced in order to get specific and to pin them down on positions. They voted against specific language to keep illegals from getting care and they voted against a measure that said if a million or more people lost the health care thay want to keep it would nullify the plan. They vote against these because they know what will happen and they want it to.
Americans have a better survival rate for most of the major diseases and they fair well in most categories. I discount rankings that are based upon items that cannot be measured like how much a country goves to poor nations. That is not a measure of your own viability or success.
If these countries of which you speak are so great explain to me why GB is the only one in the list that will be able to provide H1N1 vaccine to poor countries. Explain how it is that this completely broken system allowed America to come up with the vaccine in pretty quick order. Explain why WHO is asking us to give some to poor nations to keep them from being devastated by the virus.
If all of them were so great they would have come up with it.
America’s system has problems but is better than the ones in these other countries where government controls the people. Reform health care with my plans and it will be more affordable.
No matter what they do, it is unconstitutional. Everyone has a right to health care access and everyone has it. You however, have no right to health care paid for by someone else.
Bigd: “80% of the people are happy with what they have”>>
DAR
That’s no doubt why:
“…85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt,”
LINK.
Bigd: “Americans have a better survival rate for most of the major diseases and they fair well in most categories.”>>
DAR
There’s a reason why you never back such claims up and there is a reason why I can and have provided standard mainstream references over and over showing otherwise. Your claim is false. Even Canada, which is mediocre by world standards, beats the US. The US does not come out well in comparisons with our peer countries.
Bigd: “Reform health care with my plans…”>>
DAR
You have plans? Anything other than lowering taxes for the extremely wealthy?
Bigd: “No matter what they do, it is unconstitutional.”>>
DAR
Is medicare unconstitutional? Is social security unconstitutional? Is the VA medical system unconstitutional?
D.
——————
“Virtually every step forward in our history has been a liberal initiative taken over conservative opposition: civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, rural electrification, the establishment of a minimum wage, collective bargaining, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and federal aid to education, including the land-grant colleges, to name just a few. Many of these innovations were eventually embraced by conservatives only after it became clear that they had overwhelming public approval for the simple reason that almost every American benefited from them. Every one of these liberal efforts strengthened our democracy and our quality of life. I challenge my conservative friends to name a single federal initiative now generally approved by both of our major parties that was not first put forward by liberals over the opposition of conservatives.”
–George McGovern
Virtually every liberal “step forward” has actually been a step back, a curtailment of some of our liberties- the reason these things had “public approval” was that people like to get stuff that they believe is free, when in actuality it is not- there is always a price to pay, whether it be blood, treasure, or our freedoms- something must be paid for these “liberal gifts”- these Trojan horses “progressives” bring.
I challenge liberals to name a single government program that has worked as advertised, and pays its own way- nothing McGovern has cited in the above quote does this- the federal beast must continually be fed from the tax coffers, and therefor taxes will increase.
BLK: “I challenge liberals to name a single government program that has worked as advertised,>>
DAR
Oh, the free market never has products that don’t work “as advertised” now does it?
BLK: and pays its own way-“>>
DAR
That’s easy. They all do. And they’re a bargain. Just try changing one, like SS, and see what happens.
Oh wait, already tried that.
And how expensive were “civil rights” anyway? Did we make the bigots pay for it?
D.
——————-
Here are a few more: guaranteed bank deposits, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Park Service, the National School Lunch Program, the Voting Rights Act, and the graduated income tax. Etc.
none of those pay their own way, D, and you know it.
BLK: “none of those pay their own way”>>
DAR
Not only does SS pay it’s own way, it’s been paying for a lot of other things too, for a very long time.
D.
SS hasn’t been in the black for a long time, and it will be completely, irretrievably insolvent by 2016- that is not paying its own way. Only a complete idiot would think that.
“Mainstream sources”? That would be impossible for you- we provide them, and you say we cherry pick, then you go all far wingnut dingbat leftie on us and what are we supposed to think?
And yes- once again, all of those programs are in fact, unconstitutional, and just a liberal panacea that is not sustainable, simply because politicians from both sides of the aisle have robbed them blind, and they are hollow shells that could collapse at any time.
And Nobama wants to take another 150 BILLION out of Medicare advantage?
The only thing or entity that helps is AARP, which is the only reason they are onboard. Talk about selling out their members.
BLK: “SS hasn’t been in the black for a long time,”>>
DAR
SS won’t be out of the black in your lifetime, and probably mine. And that’s without changing anything. You don’t know what you are talking about.
“…variously estimated as 2041 (by the Social Security Administration[84]) or 2052 (by the Congressional Budget Office[85]), the Social Security Trust Fund will have exhausted the claim on general revenues that had been built up during the years of surplus. At that point, current Social Security tax receipts would be sufficient to fund 74 or 78% of the promised benefits, according to the two respective projections.”
SS has almost always run surpluses and…
“Congress invested these surpluses into special series, non-marketable U.S. Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund. Under the law, the government bonds held by Social Security are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.”
“In 2007, the cumulative excess of Social Security taxes and interest received over benefits paid out stood at $2.2 trillion.”
That’s a fair chunk of dough. Why that’s almost half as much as Bush flush down Iraq. I think if we can afford to have immoral wars of choice we can afford to take care of the old folks, orphans and widows. WWJD?
BLK: “irretrievably insolvent by 2016- that is not paying its own way.>>
DAR
Irretrievably? SS has done much more than pay it’s own way, it’s paid for a lot of your favorite wars too.
Soon, because of the decline of the working population we will be paying back on some of those IOU notes the nice folks over at SS have been kind enough to loan us.
Might have to raise some taxes. We’ve got lots of room for that.
D.
When the free market has products that don’t work as advertised, people do not buy that product, and the company goes out of business. That does not happen with government- bureaucracies never die. Name one> We still have a Bureau of Indian Affairs, despite us now being in the 21st century.
And NONE of these bureaucracies pay their own way- none.
The top 1% pays 10% of all taxes
The top 10% pay 30% of all taxes
The top 50% pay 97% of all taxes
The middle class pay the remaining 3% of taxes, and the poor pay none at all- indeed they get a rebate, which is FREE money- money they did not earn.
BLK: “We still have a Bureau of Indian Affairs,>>
DAR
We still have Indians. Your type didn’t manage to kill them all off. It wasn’t from lack of trying!
BLK: NONE of these bureaucracies pay their own way.>>
DAR
They aren’t suppose to. But your wrong anyway, S.S. has ran surpluses most years, the Post Office often has as well. Government is non-profit, on purpose.
BLK: The top 1% pays 10% of all taxes>>
DAR
The top 1% have as much wealth as the bottom 95%. They’re getting a bargain.
BLK: The middle class pay the remaining 3% of taxes,>>
DAR
You define “middle class” as the bottom 50%? Sorry, I can’t take that seriously.
D.
SS will begin running a deficit beginning in 2016, and by 2037, will be doing so, UNSUSTAINABLY, because people have taken the actual money out- this is the GAO report that says this- and I would think they know better than you, D
So you’ve change your tune from:
“SS hasn’t been in the black for a long time, and it will be completely, irretrievably insolvent by 2016”
To…
“by 2037, will be doing so, UNSUSTAINABLY”>>
DAR
Well that’s what matters isn’t it? It’s not quite right to say someone is broke when they have over 2 trillion in the bank. I suppose you are improving. 2037 is an estimate btw, and it’s actually quite a ways away don’t ya think?
A little tweak here and there, raise taxes on the rich a little, cut some of their deductions a bit, it’ll be fine. Plus, by then, we’ll be passed the baby boomer thing, whites will only be five years away from being a minority and as for the ever shrinking republican base… the Christians…
“Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years — about 0.9 percentage points per year.
If this trend continues, then: By about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S.”
Link.
D.
SS does not have 2 trillion in the bank. The money is all spent and the paper backing it is worthless. Where will we get the money to cover the debt. To make it clear, there is no money in the bank. It has been spent.
Bigd: “SS does not have 2 trillion in the bank.”>>
DAR
You’re right, they have more than that.
“In 2007, the cumulative excess of Social Security taxes and interest received over benefits paid out stood at $2.2 trillion.”
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html
Bigd: “the paper backing it is worthless.”>>
DAR
The paper backing it is just as “worthless” as every dollar you have in your wallet. If your American dollars are “worthless” please pack them up and send them to me. I’ll send you a little billy goat which is worth about $15. Not much, but more than your “worthless” dollars.
Bigd: “Where will we get the money to cover the debt.”>>
DAR
Ah, a good question! Maybe we don’t need over a thousand military bases around the world? Maybe we don’t need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on our military? Maybe we could address our health care problems and stop paying more than any other country for an inefficient system that doesn’t cover everyone? Etc.
Bigd: To make it clear, there is no money in the bank. It has been spent.”>>
DAR
Bah. The US has lots of net wealth tucked away. But huge fiscal problems are coming on the horizon. Which party do we trust to not run up huge deficits? What does the record show? See below.
D.
—————–
Which party has had the largest annual deficits? Over the last 75 years, Republican administrations have had an average annual deficit of $83.4 billion. The average for Democratic presidents is one fourth of that, only $20 billion.
–George Mason’s University, History News Network
Which party is better at “small government” and keeping federal spending down? Since 1959 federal spending has gone up an average $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. So it’s no surprise to find Republican presidents have increased the national debt much faster, more than $200 billion per year, versus less than a $100 billion per year under Democrats. And this is not even counting the second term of G.W. Bush.
–Michael Kinsley, Washington post
LINK.
Democrats gave us big government under FDR during the great depression. Want to reduce the money problems, get rid of the social welfare. Defense accounts for about 25% of the budget. Welfare is a much larger chunk. One of these is Constitutional.
I don’t trust either party to handle the problems.
No Darrel, there is NO money in the bank. If we had money tucked away we would not be borrowing from China. There is no money to pay for Social Security, it was spent on other things instead of being put away. If they put it away insolvency would not be an issue. If they let us invest our own money (at least as an option) we would not have a problem.
Yes, we spend more on our military than a lot of others. Might explain why they always call us when they need something. Might also explain why no one has invaded us and tried to take over.
I point out again, the military is Constitutional. Social programs are not. And more is spent here on social programs than on the military.
resident Eisenhower backed and signed the first two pieces of significant civil rights legislation in America in 1956 and 1960. He also appointed Republican judges in the south who moved Brown vs. The Board of Education to the Supreme Court. President Eisenhower was… say it with me… A Republican.
The landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act was back by 82% of Republicans in Congress while only 62 % of Democrats supported the measure. Opposition to the bill was led by Robert Byrd… Democrat! These other well know Senators also voted against the bill: Albert Gore Sr., William Fulbright, Richard Russell, and James Eastland–all Democrats! Two other well know historical figures were prominent in the segregation movement: George Wallace and Orval Faubus, both tried to block black students from attending “white” schools, both were Democrats. It is also interesting to note that both Faubus and Fulbright were counted as mentors by… anyone? William J. Clinton, who I believe was also a Democrat.
Now that you have been spanked at who was truly for civil rights, lets take a look at the smaller government claim.
Beginning with Woodrow Wilson, government had to grow bureaucracies like chancres, in order to accomodate his “League of Nations” stupid idea., but it was under FDR that the bureaucracies grew like a festering sore, which WWII slowed, and finally put a temporary stop to- Under Kennedy and then Johnson, The Peace Corps, and the “Great Society” began, and like the virus they are, have mutated into Amerikacorps, and other entitlement organizations.
Republicans are smarter than that.
Whites will be the minority? Wow, then the country will be in trouble. With us joining the ranks of minorities we will get special treatment and affirmative action.
The year is projected to be 2059 but that could change. We might have another civil war or some disease might disproportionately affect one group over another or there might be another baby boom.
It is hard for us to keep up with all the illegals and welfare dredge squirting out babies all over.
The problem with whites being in the minority is that what we have taking over is not much to look frward to. But, they can have gangs instead of political parties.
No, actually SS has not been in the black, but has been aided by money coming due from the other programs SS has had to sustain, which have nothing to do with the purported mission statement of SS- but by 2016, the money that has been stolen from SS will no longer be able to be shuffled back into SS to give the appearance of viability, and then we will see that SS is unsustainable, as this will be the case on a yearly basis, with no prospects of a positive reversal.
SS will be unsustainably broke.
So you’ve change your tune from:
“SS… will be completely, irretrievably insolvent by 2016″
To…
“by 2037, will be doing so, UNSUSTAINABLY”>>
To now, latest version:
“but by 2016,… SS will be unsustainably broke.”
Keep dancing.
Actually, you were right the second time.
Doing so unsustainably means we will not be able to put any money back fast enough to pay out claims-
As it is now, SS has no money of its own, just IOUs that Congress replaced the money with. Most of our government has been running on the SS money that has been borrowed.
I am sorry that you are confused by my comments- they are fairly simple, even an atheist like you should understand them- try reading s-l-o-w-l-y.
BLK: SS has no money of its own, just IOUs>>
DAR
Those dollars in your pocket?
IOU’s.
I wish I had a stack of $1000 bills going 151 miles in the air.
That’s what SS has.
D.
The govermnet does NOT owe everyone health and medical care.
Where did anyone get that idea?
The basic situation is so simple; if you want to be insured, then buy medical insurance. What is so hard about that? Can’t afford it? Well, gee. Togh luck.
That is just the way life is.
Get a job!
Can’t get a job?
Get an education.
Too stupid to get smart?
Well, I recommend you crawl away and die, remove your carcase from the gene-pool.
No one owes you life or health. Just because you survived being aborted does not mean we owe you your health care insurance.
We don’t.
You can buy it if you think it is that important.
Or not buy it.
At least, that’s the way things should be.
And this statement, “So basically you’re saying “well yeah, we can’t look after ourself, and our government is going to do worse”, which in short comes down to America sucks, good, I can agree with that…”
I really laugh when mental-retards try to parphrase. It makes them seem even more retarded than they are.
INON: “The govermnet does NOT owe everyone health and medical care.”>>
DAR
Question: If a child is born in the US, with a serious life threatening disease, and the parents are poor and without insurance, are you saying that if no one else steps forward to help the child, the government, our society, should NOT take action to care for the child?
D.
Answer- According to both Nobama AND Emanuel, no- the government has a right and a duty to stop that life in its tracks before it costs the government money- that was the point of Nobama’s vote in the partial birth abortion, and Emanuel’s little life chart- both believe that you as a person are only worth what you can contribute to society, i.e. government, in the form of taxes.
BLK: “both believe that you as a person”>>
DAR
A fetus isn’t a “person.” Sorry about that. Try again.
Don’t need to try again- I was spot on the first time.
That you believe a fetus is not a person is your opinion, but you completely missed the point- try again.
Also, according to John Holdren, after the child is born, the female would be forced to be sterilized, so that she has no more children.
BLK: “John Holdren,… female would be forced to be sterilized”>>
DAR
Why would you continue with this lie after it has been so thoroughly exposed?
The only answer could be that you love lies, and you hate truth. What a sad condition!
You have got to be one of the most dishonest persons I have ever had exchanges with.
D.
They are his own words, Darrel- so unless you can go back in time and shut that village idiot’s mouth retro actively, perhaps you should simmer down now.
BLK: “They are his [Holdren’s] own words”>>
DAR
Although I have repeatedly asked, you have never once provided his “own words.” And you already admitted, you couldn’t find them.
So why keep lying about it?
D.
You are making an apples and oranges comparison. First of all, there is no obligation for these people to have the care paid for. They have access to health care for the child and it might cost them a fortune.
Fortunately, there are orgaizations (non governmental) that provide care regardless of ability to pay. Some of them are hospitals run by the religious organizations you despise. For example:
I realize you said “an no one steps forward” but this is not the case. There are plenty of these organizations in America.
Bigd: “no obligation for these people to have the care paid for. They have access to health care for the child and it might cost them a fortune.>>
DAR
My question included the information that they didn’t have a fortune.
You didn’t answer the question, as you know.
Would you like to try again:
Question: If a child is born in the US, with a serious life threatening disease, and the parents are poor and without insurance, are you saying that if no one else steps forward to help the child, the government, our society, should NOT take action to care for the child?
If you would like examples of people dying in the US due to lack of coverage, I have only 18,000 instances per year to refer to.
D.
I did answer the question by pointing out the numerous hospitals that give free care to such people.
However, 18,000 is certainly a number that could be on health care the government already pays for. Because they do not have the insurance does not mean the system should be changed to affect me and others who do.
100,000 Canadians per year die while waiting on a list for medical care.
Bigd: “I did answer the question by pointing out the numerous hospitals that give free care to such people.”
DAR
That doesn’t answer the question. Would you like to try again:
Question: If a child is born in the US, with a serious life threatening disease, and the parents are poor and without insurance, are you saying that if no one else steps forward to help the child, the government, our society, should NOT take action to care for the child?
Yes, or no.
Now, if you would like to put the burden on hospitals, do THEY have an obligation to provide free care?
Are you going to duck that one too?
Why is it that in the wealthiest country in the world, when people (or their children) get sick, and they don’t have insurance, or enough insurance (that’s 25 million) they have to go around BEGGING and then hope for the best?
Bigd: “18,000 is certainly a number that could be on health care the government already pays for.”>>
DAR
Well then why are they dying? And if this is true, why are you opposed to having a government program if it’s just a formal version of what “the government already pays for?”
Bigd: “100,000 Canadians per year die while waiting”>>
DAR
My claim of 18k is from the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific organization in the US. Extremely conservative in their claims and exhaustively thorough. They don’t make stuff up, it doesn’t get any better than this.
And this came out a few days ago:
Harvard Medical Study Links Lack of Insurance to 45,000 U.S. Deaths a Year
I have several others, with higher numbers, which I have less confidence in.
In contrast, your claim, is unreferenced.
That’s because it’s the product of someone’s bottom.
Just for fun I did some checking. Your gateway pundit spin site is the only place on the planet making that claim. If there were any merit to it whatsoever, and there is none, it would be everywhere. Especially in Canada. It’s utter garbage.
D.
——————
From a lecture I gave:
Canada has had wait times for some procedures that have been too long. In 2007 Canada had a conference about this and is spending $4.5 billion to address this. This is being carefully measured and tracked by hospital by hospital. Currently, for non-urgent care:
“The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 3 months.” —LINK pdf
“The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 3 months.” –ibid
“The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months.” –ibid
as far as your question goes, once again, we have hospitals that do not turn away the children- now, in your little liberal world, if this fubar bill passes, according to Emanuel, Holdren, Sunstein, et al, these children would be denied care, because they are of no worth to the state- and you say conservatives have no heart?
It would be the same for older people- they wouldn’t contribute to the tax base, so onto the ice floe- hence the “death panels”
and waiting time for surgeries in Canada is about 1 1/2 years- if they do not deny you completely.
BLK: “waiting time for surgeries in Canada is about 1 1/2 years>>
DAR
Actually, about half are considered urgent and done immediately.
As for the non-urgent cases, they are as I carefully referenced from an extensive study:
“The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months.” LINK
BLK: if they do not deny you completely.>>
DAR
Another advantage of the Canadian system. If your doctor says you need it, you get it. No exceptions because there are no insurance companies to haggle with (about 1 in 5 insurance claims are denied in the US).
Why do you find it useful to tell such obvious lies? I can’t imagine it impresses anyone, and it’s kind of embarrassing.
D.
It IS rather embarrassing for Canada, isn’t it D? There is just too much Inconvenient truth there for you? Of course you are Canuk, so hometeam bias comes into play, I can understand, it is hard to see your homies be so incompetent, but that’s life—– Ooops- perhaps that is not life, but death.
BLK: “It IS rather embarrassing for Canada, isn’t it D?”>>
DAR
What’s embarrassing? No, my comment about embarrassing was regarding you lying, all the time. You should be ashamed of your behavior.
My parents belonged to a religion that caused me to be raised in a manner that was completely non-political. For instance, when the national anthem was played in Canada I was not allowed to stand for it. So I am about as non-patriotic as it gets. I don’t have much use for tribalism.
But I do like truth, getting the facts straight, and I don’t like fools, the voluntarily ignorant and liars. That’s why we are not likely to ever get along well.
Regarding Canada being “embarrassed,” (this is going to sound patriotic but…) I was doing a little snooping around and stumbled upon this little tidbit I had forgotten about. Guess which country has the coveted position of having the won “highest quality of life” more than any other country on the planet?
D.
——————–
“Most years attaining the highest Human Development Index (HDI), 10 out of 19 years
Field: Quality of life 2009”
Answer: Canada
List of statistically superlative countries.
So I don’t think they have too much to be embarrassed about.
“…a standard means of measuring human development—a concept that, according to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), refers to the process of widening the options of persons, giving them greater opportunities for education, *health care,* income, employment, etc. The HDI attempts to measure a country’s development.”
LINK
ANYTHING “according to the United Nations” has to naturally be viewed with EXTREME skepticism- indeed, it is safer and truer to assume the opposite of whatever it is they are touting, thus…..
There will always be poor and there will always be charities to provide for them. The government however, is not a charity. It is not the responsibility of government to provide this service. You act as if the government has some business where it makes money, it does not. It takes money from those who earn it and gives it to those who do not. I do not agree with that and am opposed to it. People are responsible for their own care and their own bills.
45,000 a year is an insignificant number statistically (unless you are one of them) and the entire system does not need to be changed to accomodate them. I do not advicate government programs, I merely point out that we already have programs under which these people would be covered without changing the whole damned thing. And it is linked? Come now, is that like the bogus claim of medical bankruptcies where the definition is designed to increase the number even though medical is the least of the problems?
There are plenty of things we could do to decrease the cost of health care but giving it to some is not that answer. You give stuff away and you have more people in line to get the stuff. My money belongs to me. I should decide how it is spent and i do not want it spent paying for other people’s health care.
I answered the question. You proposed something that is not the case. There are places for the people to go.
Bigd: “It is not the responsibility of government to provide this service.”>>
DAR
Thank you for answering the question.
D.
————–
“Over the weekend, thousands of Texans attended what is being called the “largest free clinic ever held in the United States” to get health care they otherwise could not afford. ABC-13, a local Houston station, reported that the event showed that there is an “epidemic” of people without proper health coverage in Texas….
Dr. Mehmet Oz, one of the physicians who worked at the clinic this weekend, compared what he saw there to the post-Katrina crisis:
DR. OZ: “We had no idea the overwhelming response we would have, the cries for help from the city of Houston and the state of Texas….This is the largest health mobilization in Houston since Katrina. So a national disaster which brought out this kind of response is now paralleled by a national disaster, because this is just an average day in Houston, and there are thousands of people who need help.”
LINK.
And the world watches in amazement as the wealthiest country in the world can’t provide health care for all of it’s citizens.
And the world watches in amazement as people flock to get free care- why should they pay for it if they can get it for free?
I am not saying that there were not people in need there, but there were some freeloaders also, those who just want to suck free stuff off of society- you know, liberals.
Yeah, you linked to this before, blah, blah.
And the world looks to America to save its a$$ time and again.
But you make a mistake. America provides health care for all its citizens. What the world looks at in amazement is that the government (ie the taxpayer) does not PAY for it all. It is not the government’s job to provide this. Nations who are amazed are Socialists. I look in amazement as Europe is unable to protect its citizens and needs America to keep troops all over the place.
Lets bring them all home and use the savings to provide health insurance for the truly poor who can earn it by cleaning the streets or something. As soon as we discuss that the rest of the world will look in amazement as America (in their view) abandons an ally.
Bigd: “45,000 a year is an insignificant number statistically…”>>
DAR
45,000 is a line of dead bodies laying end to end extending for 45 miles, every year.
Since these are preventable deaths, due to lack of medical access, in the wealthiest country in the world, this is in no sense “insignificant.”
Were the 58,000+ American deaths in Vietnam “statistically insignificant?”
D.
Statistically how are you meaning this? Are you saying that we have a Viet Nam every year, or are you saying that it is no big deal- Huh Darrel?
And a trillion dollars is a stack of thousand dollar bills 768 miles high. multiply that by 12 for the debt. It would take a lot of bodies to get there.
The 58,000 deaths in Vietnam as a number are statistically insignificant when compared to the number of people who served. Each was a tragedy and they all gave their lives for this country. The people are never and will never be insignificant but when compared to a much larger number, the number is insignificant. I would not say we must end the war or never fight one again because of this number of deaths just like I would not advocate overhauling an entire system for a small number of deaths associated with lack of care.
Bigd: “a trillion dollars is a stack of thousand dollar bills 768 miles high.”>>
DAR
Not even close. Four inches is a million dollars. A trillion is a stack only 358 feet high. You’re off by about 11,300x.
I prefer this example. Put $1 bills end to end. Then a trillion dollars goes from the earth to a little past the sun (90+ million miles).
D.
Actually we are both wrong. A billion dollars is 358 feet high. A trillion is 69 miles high.
I was thinking a stack of 100 dollar bills when I wrote this. A stack of 100 doallar bills would reach about 678 miles high. Fun can be dyslexia.
There are plenty of organizations that do help the poor- Shriner’s Hospital, for one- I have yet to see anyone not get care- but under the Resident’s plan(s), there would be rationing- how much are you worth? I mean, to the state? That is their determining factor.
But to answer your question directly- NO- the government should not. They would not do it right, but charities such as Shriners would, and do.
Constitutional Convention or…..
http://www.newsmax.com/john_perry/obama_military_coup/2009/09/29/266012.html
I never thought I would see this in print but I know it has to have been thought about.