This can develop into deep-seated depression as time passes; simply because, as our country divides into multiple factions, each side equally distressed about the state of American politics, nothing is done by the ones we entrust our voices to in order to alleviate our frustrations.
As history progresses, the truths that entail it become more evident; the American political process has become disturbingly efficient at being inexplicably inefficient.
For instance, while the system of checks and balances was established to regulate the powers of the government, and a certain degree of inconsistency may be good for democracy, this system should be subject to criticism when it obviously has achieved nothing.
In the end, the issues that plagued our parents are the same issues that our grandchildren will have to face. Therefore, it is clear that the ideal of accomplishment has been annulled out of the virtues of United States lawmaking.
Many aggravated Americans no longer attribute justice and liberty with the House, Senate, and other ruling legislative powers. Rather, they are considered to stand alongside Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson; all talking heads making a mockery of what Americans truly cherish.
Until genuine reform can be made upon not only United States law, but the lawmaking bodies themselves, their status as the proverbial rock of support of the people will descend to a governmental sponge, sucking democracy out of the political process.
Citizens of the United States have segregated themselves into multiple political parties, each disagreeing to varying extents.
The ONE very important similarity between these groups is that they are all concerned deeply with the interests of their homeland. While Conservatives and Liberals may never agree upon the timeless controversial issues, there is one matter both parties can find concurrence upon: the refusal to allow this country to be governed by officials capable of doing a sub par job at best. And that is what we call bipartisan politics.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 65
I wish more of us had that attitude. Unfortunately, sub-par pretty much defines our government today. The president thumbs his nose at the Congress and the electorate; the Congress plays as his lap dog.
Personally, I see a huge number of our current governmental ineptitudes being forged and fed by the heightened attitude of competition that seems to grip all of our nation; from the rise of the corporate mentalities, no doubt.
The constant dualistic conflicts of Republican versus Democrat, conservative versus liberal, religionist versus secularist, traditional versus progressive, reductionist versus prosperist, exclusionist versus inclusionist, etc, etc, etc,.. has all reached near-militant conflagory.
The binding attitude that Americans are a diverse people who work together for the "common good" suffocates under the self-serving, special interest serving and party serving ragings of certain, not all (but too many), leaders.
Sadly, governmental leaders have remained increasingly adept at lavishly spending our money.
To bad you were tuned to C-SPAN. The most recent debates took place on MSNBC.
Thanks for sharing this writing. 10
A great first step would be for the existing laws to be enforced in a consistent manner. Too many laws are being broken, bent, spindled and mutilated, by the very people who are supposed to be enforcing and writing our laws. How can you begin reform, when there is no consistent place to start from?
If one listens to the melancholy diatribes of the Sean Hannitys and the Ann Coulters of this country one will come away with a warped idea of the very nature of this nation. And probably convinced that the nation was on the fast track down the primrose path to total destruction.
On the other hand, things do change. We've seen marked evidence of that is such things as the resignation of Richard Nixon, the constitutional amendments freeing the slaves and allowing women to vote. These were landscape altering changes! So th system does allow for change. It's just that 300 million people have a hard time agreeing on just what they want of their government.
The best we can hope for is gradual but continual improvement while simultaneously addressing new and unforeseen problems with which we must deal. So I'd hold a much more optimistic view of the situation and what the future holds for America! It can be gret but it is up to the citizens to come together and make it so. We can't wait for that magical charismatic leader who will pull people together in their own best interests but we must do, as individuals, the best that we can and assist others in doing so also.
I was also trying to recall the name of the book and author that recently came out. I heard an interview with the author on NPR last month, and he had several ideas on possible changes to the Constitution that might set things on a better track. I Googled, and came up with it right away: Larry Sabato.
But, his is not the only book that may be of interest: here's a link to an article that came out this week on three books examining the origins of the Constitution and its application to present-day politics. (Of course it applies, except when Pres. Bush - or others - don't want it to apply!)
Check it out, take some deep breaths, do something fun (other than writing news, commentary, or exams), and then look for ways we can improve things: http://www.newsday.com/features/booksmags/ny-bkcov5498343dec16,0,166833.story
>>It is depressing because it is depressing.<<
Absolutely true. We are a Prozac nation and that's just how those in control want us. Sedated and believing it's us, not the situation. --If you're current anti-depressant isn't working, we've got new pills for you to take. We'll keep changing them and adding to them until you're the zombied sheep we want you to be. -- You're not having trouble with depression if the circumstances are depressing. You're reaction is normal. The depression comes from feeling things aren't likely to improve anytime soon. They're not, especially when the spin doctors and moles keep saying take deep breaths, increase your sense of calm, take more drugs, don't worry, be happy and forget the facts. That way you won't rock the boat. Rock away, Fatima!!
The founding Fathers did not do this!! The rich elitists from this generation did it. The founding fathers did not say it was Ok to tap your phone, read your mail, hold you indefinitely without trial or recourse, lie and start a war so you could become a billionaire instead of a multi-millionaire, sign a bill and say it doesn't apply to you unless you want it to, commit treason by exposing a CIA operative and on and on. That would be Bush, not Washington.
We are the only true super power left in the world, but not if we let politicians have their way. We won't even be a democracy if the rich stay in power. I believe we can be a great nation again. I do not believe it has to take a long time to do it. It just takes clear headed people with the guts to get the job done instead of kowtowing to the rich and corporate greed. The biggest problem we need to address is our current politicians. All of them. They're the reason for despair, not the issues. (The issues are incidental and fixable through many means.) They're pretty much all dirty. Why do you think the Democratic congress hasn't gone after Bush. He has something to use against anyone who counts. They all have the goods on each other. The only time they sling the dirt public is to control or get rid of someone who won't play ball. Want to really fix this country. Get rid of all politicians currently in office. That way you're sure to get the right ones and if they don't do the will of the people roll them out they way they let hospitals dump homeless people in skid-row- heartlessly....
I am well off, but can't help to notice, that darkness has over taken the lamp of liberty. There is no longer a middle class. Children are sent home to die, because SCHIPS was vetoed twice by this president. There are multiple tiers of health care depending on who your insurer is. If you unfortunate enough to be disabled, genocide is being committed on you. First by raising Medicare premiums, copays, and then reducing the percentage paid to health care providers. This means that Grandma and Grandpa, or even a three year old with a heart defect, gets sent home to die, because the hospitals can't afford to absorb the cost, neither can the parents pay their way through the Part D Donut hole, or the increased copay. Even those who believe they have good insurance often end up bankrupt because their insurers hire people to find a reason to say no.
The richest nation on earth and we have one of the highest infant mortality rates, why? Can even Ann Colder explain that one?
The American family is paying higher taxes, to corporations, and to the government. Wall Street has been moving sideways for months, because of 500 billion in sub-prime loans. I know it's a big number, but just one company, McAfee stoled $200 million from share holders. I know, let's make all the companies that have stolen from share holders make up the difference, instead of raising taxes on the public.
As far as contracts, Bush would have been out of office in a week. You can tell when he's lying, because his lips are moving.
And a president that doesn't know which end is up .
Can't wait till 2008.
What do YOU expect from our federal government?
I believe the answer to this question will answer another question: Are you a liberal or conservative.
The more you believe our federal government should do, the more likely you are to be a liberal. The less you believe our government should do, the more likely are you to be a conservative.
Here is a striking example: The number of pages required to print the Constitution of the United States of America ( The Original Constitution of The United States was a mere four pages, but did not include the Bill of Rights, which required an additional page. Adding the subsequent 17 Amendments, would require an additional dozen or so pages, MAYBE.)
Compare that, to the number of pages required to print the proposed "Reform Treaty of the European Union" (The new reform treaty will include more than 3000 pages compared to the 560 pages in the rejected constitution, and changes the word "constitution" to the phrase "Reform Treaty.)
Both entities are part of what is known as the "western world." Both entities enjoy what we call "freedom." However, I think most people would recognize the very real differences between Europe, and the United States.
These differences can be seen rather dramatically in comparing the length of our Constitution, to the proposed Reform Treaty being drafted in Europe, and demonstrate rather clearly, what American citizens expect from their government, compared to the socialist leaning citizens of Europe.
The problem with Congress isn't that they are "inefficient" as suggested by Fatima; rather, the problem is they are far too efficient, producing literally HUNDREDS of pieces of legislation per year, from THOUSANDS of committee hearings, with over 90% of these documents NEVER BEING VOTED ON.
If this is inefficient, I'd hate to know what an efficient government would produce.
The simple fact is, in the USA, our freedom is much more free from burdensome governmental interference, than the freedom experienced by our European brethren, as they seek to live under the yoke of governmental intrusion into the minutiae of their daily lives.
In the USA, we believe freedom is ensured by guarantees of individual choice and expression, and to a large degree, our government allows this concept to grow and thrive.
In Europe, they believe freedom is inexplicably entwined with entitlements, guarantees of "quality of life" issues, and paternal, "take care of us" attitudes, and to a large degree, demand these things from their government.
Sadly, it seems readily apparent, many in the USA would like our government to do more, to protect us from ourselves, and our mistakes. A "subprime" example of such thinking is the current "bailout" of not only those that borrowed money to by a house, but also those institutions that allowed the unqualified, to be qualified.
In a country that truly believed in freedom, under what authority would the government protect you from your own bad financial mistakes? Under what authority would the government protect businesses from making bad business decisions?
The truth is, our founding fathers understood the inherent nature of government to expand, to usurp freedom from the people, and take it for themselves, to do as they please.
Our freedom, isn't defined by endless words in a document, delineating what can and cannot be done, it is defined by the whim of the individual. This seems to me to be true freedom, imposing the requirement that if you make a mistake, you bear the burden of the consequences for that mistake, or reap the benefits of making a proper decision.
It all comes back to my original question: What do you expect from our federal government?
If you think the federal government should be in the business of paying for the expenses required to sustain the life of a baby born to a crack addicted mother, then you expect a great deal of the government, and will be frustrated by unreasonable expectations.
If on the other hand, you believe the federal government cannot ensure your happiness, or cause your frustrations, you will be emboldened to believe you can do for yourself, what the government could never supply.
It is unrealistic to expect our government can end murder, that our government should be involved in taking care of the poor, the diseased, the hungry. It is unreasonable, because there is no end to negative, self destructive behavior. It is unreasonable, because the government is not equipped or skilled in the way a parent is skilled in caring for his child.
The government quite simply cannot be all things, to all people, and should therefore limit those things it should be doing, to those things that benefit the commonweal of the whole, rather than the individual, allowing the individual to decide what is best done, in self interest.
There is no utopia, not even in the USA. There will always be those people, demanding more from their government, when we should be demanding less. The poor, the sick, the hungry, and the just plain stupid, will always walk among us, and can never fully be eradicated. To expect the government to "solve" the issues that plagued our parents, our grandparents, and the very same issues that our grandchildren will have to face, is to have unreasonable expectations, that will inevitably lead to frustration.
For instance, nearly as soon as the ink was dry on the original Constitution, immigration became an issue, and the "Aliens and Sedition Act" was made law.
Do you really believe there will be a point some time in the future, where immigration issues will not be on the table?
The issue of a "good public education" has been with us since the founding of our nation as well. Do you really believe this is an issue our government will ever "solve?"
I could go on and on, down the list of things people are concerned about, and therefore, the things our government is compelled to "deal with," because that is "what the people want."
I ask you one more time, "What do YOU expect from our federal government?"
No more or less than before you filled this thread with enough verbiage that most people would rather drop the topic than read all your babbling and respond.
I am a conservative. Never been a Republican or Democrat. Don't believe in locking myself into a box or allowing the powers that be to separate me from others by dividing us into groups. I am a Christian. No denomination for the same reasons. The more you sub-divide a people the less say-so you have and the more power the big-wigs have.
What I expect from my government is a civilization. That is the only reason to have a government or nation. The base of any lasting civilization depends on a few simple basic areas. Law equally applied to all, and the enforcement there of, a Military to protect our sovergnty and borders, equal Education for all citizens, and equal Medical care for all citizens. Without those no civilization is civilized.
What I do not want from my government? That's also simple. I do not want the government doing anything that interferes with my personal life unless my actions affect the rights of another person. Taping my phone, no. Reading my mail, no. Telling me how to interpret Gods Word, no. Invading another nation who has not attacked ours, no. Lying to my fellow citizens regarding governing my country(I could care less about who gets what kind of sex from who in what office), no. Spending my tax dollars on an illegal war, no. Spending my tax dollars to give themselves raises, no. Taking bribes from special interest groups, no. Make laws that give to the rich and take from the poor, BIG NO!!!
You would hold those who act accountable for their actions and in the same breath allow a baby (who has no choice in who it's parents are) born to a crack mother to die. You would tell people they have low paying jobs because they are lazy or stupid while allowing this government to place loopholes in tax codes that let the rich and corporations pay lower tax rates than their employees. You fail to mention their good paying jobs are being out-sourced and in-sourced and our government does nothing to protect it's citizens.
So, what is government capable of doing? Nothing, as long as long winded moles like you hang around and spin the issues. Without your input and that of others like you, anything. I'm not stupid and neither are those in congress. The budget can be balanced. Healthcare can be made available to all. Education can be equalized and improved. Law enforcement can control crime. Goodness knows they collect enough money. It's not what government can or can't do. It's what they should and should not do that screws us. Two trillion dollars on a war that was no more than a rich spoiled boy ensuring his families fortune forever and wanting to out-do his Daddy, would have gone a long way in feeding our hungry, providing healthcare to our children, and education so our children can never be fooled by someone like you....
By the way, you might be interested to know, the AUTHOR OF THIS PIECE wrote me an eMail HERSELF, thanking me for such an INDEPTH response, and suggested she "must be doing something right" if I took the time to write such a long piece in refutation.
That is the most flawed interpretation of the Constitution; I have ever had to endure.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
What do those words mean to a monolithic Fox News Worshiper? I'm sure you call yourself a Christian too. How amazing. I bet you've never read any of the words out of that book either. The first thing a Republican will say is our country is based on Judea/Christian Values and never crack the book. Just sit in the first pew and shovel the money at the local one line Charlie. But I'll talk religion and politics later after we've looked at the little preamble I posted.
What about the phrase, "Establish Justice". Does that not mean equal justice, or should we dig deeper into history?
What about the, "Promote the general Welfare Part"?
What about, "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"? Does that mean, You're either with us or against us? I think not, the Republicans have taken the entire world to the edge of the abyss, and they don't have a clue, what that void is. It's the place in the world, where the US use to be. Bush and his cronies have destroyed every aspect of personal liberty, not only for this nation, but every where his shadow is cast.
You seem to rank yourself above the stupid level, but every one of your points in this long post, is completely unfounded in history, or in anyone's mind that functions above the third grade.
The same argument you just posted, is the argument Hitler used for the final solution. If you would like me dissect this horrible article and compare it point by point to Hitler's writings I will. The current administration has applied Hitler's theories to the same effect. It will end the same way. In disgrace and defeat.
No person in the richest nation in the world should go without food, a warm place to sleep, or health care. Except maybe you, and the current executive branch.
I look forward to your response and our journey through history together. It is always my pleasure to debate a fascist, as single mindlessness is a common attribute.
So you got a gold star. How impressive. I could write endless pages of the same garbage you just posted to the same effect. Do you think, Government is smaller now? They can listen to your phone calls. Read you mail. Last time I checked, the middle class was in the worst economic condition since The Great Depression. There I go with those facts things again. Not because they've received a huge tax break(Average $400), it's because of artificial inflation caused by the Oil President, I mean War President. I could go on and on, so please talk to me.
You guys have to suck it in and face the music. Katrina should have told you that: America wants government to WORK for them. That's political reality as Dubya found out.
I'm glad you think you have all the answers. More power to you. Fight with someone else, I'm content to see you reveal yourself by your own words.
Personally, I'll stick to the words actually in the Constitution, rather than attempt to interpret them to my own liking, as you've done.
The Constitution is clear, any powers not SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED to the federal government, are left to the states. There is NOTHING SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution that suggests "no person in the richest nation in the world should go without food, a warm place to sleep, or healthcare."
You just happen to think it's a good idea, and by the way, we weren't the "richest nation on earth" when the Constitution was enacted, so that kind of puts a flaw in your interpretation of the words.
I'm an originalist, you seem to be an activist interpreter. I prefer a straightforward reading of the Constitution.
Thanks for being you. *chuckle*
So you live in a world that hasn't existed since 1861. The time of slavery, and succession. How wonderful to finally actually engage a real skin head. You see, after the civil war, much of the powers that the states had enjoyed, were dissolved, and a stronger central federal government installed. So do you believe that the slave owners were correct, and because it was legal in their state to own slaves, that the practice should continue.
Furthermore, if you actually knew anything about the the Constitution, you would know that it is open ended and there is no such thing as an originalist. As that is contrary to the founding fathers intent. Have you ever heard of the word amendment?
Sorry, but I am a conservative and you are the reason no one will admit face to face to being a Republican. You and those like you would have some believe you are conservatives. You are not. You are Nazis. The moral majority, which are conservative, are not heartless, self-centered, anti-American fascists. You are a mole, a spin-doctor. It is your job to confuse and frustrate, to divide and conquer. I doubt you believe in anything save yourself and it is doubtful you think much of yourself but you're probably not smart enough to realize that....
If we were to do a Size comparison based on intellect, you would be neolithic Nazi, and she would be a compassionate genius. It's so sad, a man with a small penis and those with even smaller intellects, resort to sexually inappropriate comments, as soon as they get their rumps handed to them intellectually.
Berlin, 1 Sept. 1939
Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Med. Brandt are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the competence of certain physicians, designated by name, so that patients who, on the basis of human judgment, are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death after a discerning diagnosis.
A. Hitler
(c.f. Friedlander, 1995, p.67)
Operation T4 and the Roots of the Final Solution
Tens of thousands of people with disabilities were murdered during the Holocaust, killed in the so-called "euthanasia" program, authorized by Hitler in the fall of 1939. The purpose of the program (otherwise known as Aktion T4 for the location of the headquarters at Tiergartenstrasse 4 in Charlottenberg) was to eliminate people considered "defective" by Nazi ideals - the institutionalized elderly, the incurably ill, and people with various physical or mental disabilities.
Unlike other victims of the Holocaust - the Jews, Roma and Sinti, Gays, Lesbians, and Jehovahs Witnesses - the disabled were not killed in the death camps. Instead, they were systematically murdered in the institutions and state hospitals where they lived or were staying temporarily for health reasons. Hitler's letter (above) was written with the intent of assuring hesitant physicians and civil servants that they would not be criminally liable for murder, should they participate in the program, despite the absence of an officially enacted law authorizing the killing of disabled persons (Friedlander, 1995, pp.62-85). Those who did take part developed an elaborate scheme of deception and disguise in order to keep the killing operations secret.
Operation T4 was the Nazi's first organized mass murder, laying the groundwork for the "final solution" - the massive organized ethnic genocide that took place in the death camps in the later years of WWII. Efficient methods of killing were perfected on people with disabilities in hospitals and later applied in the death camps. Practices such as the "scientific" selection of people considered inferior, meticulous record-keeping, the use of gas chambers to kill large numbers of people at one time, and the use of crematoriums to dispose of bodies were all first used for the mass murder of people with disabilities. (Friedlander, 1995, pp.86-101). The state hospitals and mental institutions where T4 took place served as a training ground for many Nazi officials; in fact, many of the same leaders involved in T4 helped to set up the death camps at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka (Friedlander, 1995 pp.187-245; Burleigh, 1994, p.232).
Although the actual killing of people with disabilities did not begin until the start of the war, the T4 program was based on Nazi ideals developed long before. In 1920, two eminent German scholars, Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche, published the book Permission for the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life, in which they argued that the law should permit the killing of the "incurably feebleminded." The authors were not clear about the criteria they considered necessary for inclusion in this category, but Binding asserted his belief that the worth of one's life is dependent on one's worth to society -and those that he considered "feebleminded" he believed unworthy to society. The authors went so far as to discuss methods of implementing the destruction of "life unworthy of life" (Binding & Hoche, 1920, c.f. Friedlander, 1995, p.14). This book put into print ideas that had previously only been contemplated by proponents of the growing German race hygiene movement. Binding and Hoche's ideas merely echoed the general attitude of the scientific community involved in the study of eugenics at the time.
The Psychometrics of Genocide
Emerging from this climate of race hygiene, it is not surprising that as early as 1935, Hitler told the Reich physician leader, Gerhard Wagner, of his plan to implement euthanasia when the war began. While Hitler remained true to his plan, the persecution of people with disabilities actually began in 1933, when the Nazi party came to power. At this time, the sterilization law was put into effect, directed at persons with possible hereditary mental or physical disabilities. Qualification for sterilization was dependent upon human judgment; mental ability was determined using an orally administered test during which examiners also judged the test-takers conduct (e.g. eye contact, pronunciation, rapidity of response). Severity of physical disabilities were also open to subjective decision-making by the examiners. In October of 1935, The Law for the Protection of the Hereditary Health of the German Nations, also known as the Marriage Health Law, was put into effect prohibiting marriages if either party was diagnosed with a mental disability, hereditary disease, (including conditions such as blindness, epilepsy, or physical deformity) contagious illness, or had a legal guardian (Friedlander, 1995, p.31; Burleigh, 1994, pp. 55-60).
Placing a Plus or Minus on a Child's Form
The euthanasia program began in 1939, with the murder of disabled children. These murders were not officially part of T4; T4 referred specifically to the adult killing program. Midwives and physicians were ordered to report all infants born with disabilities, a policy disguised as a scientific investigation to aid children with serious medical conditions. Based solely on the forms filled out by midwives and physicians,"experts" made the decision whether a child was to live or die by placing a plus or minus sign on the child's form. Three experts voted, but all knew what the others had voted - the same forms were passed between the experts (Friedlander, 1995, pp.39-61). Several children's wards where the killing occurred were established in state hospitals or similar institutions. Methods used to murder children included deliberate starvation and overdoses of medications.
Shortly after the killing of children began, the operation expanded to include adults, and became officially known as Operation T4. The gas chamber was developed when the killing of adults began, and a more efficient method of killing was needed to accommodate the much greater numbers of adults being killed (Friedlander, 1995, p.86). Six killing centers were developed in all, including Hadamar, Grafeneck, Brandenburg, Hartheim, Sonnenstein, and Bernburg (Friedlander, 1995, p.103).
In order to keep questioning relatives away, official causes of death were faked. Doctors were supplied with a list of possible causes of death which they matched with patients' age, sex, and physical condition before killing them. Before notifying a family of the death of a relative, a letter was usually sent informing them of the transfer of that patient. Shortly thereafter, a condolence letter was sent expressing sympathy at the unexpected death of the patient. The condolence letters contained false information, not only about the cause of death, but often about the date and place of death. This was done to avoid the possibility of too many families from one town receiving similar death notices from the same institution, at too close a period in time. Although families were asked if they wished to have the ashes of their deceased returned to them, those who did received ashes gathered from the crematorium ovens and randomly distributed among urns. (Burleigh, 1994, p.150; Friedlander, 1995, pp.101-107) The elaborate measures taken to disguise what was actually taking place was likely due to the fact that the doctors, nurses, and other hospitals aids were murdering a population of people comprised primarily of relatives and loved ones of their own supporters, the German, Aryan, public.
Because many of the records were destroyed during the war, an exact number of children murdered in the euthanasia program does not exist. It is estimated that at least 5000 children were killed during WWII in the children's wards (Friedlander, 1995, p.61). An estimated 80,000 adults were murdered in the T4 program (Friedlander, 1995, p.110).
This brief article barely touches the surface of this particular part of the Holocaust. For more in depth information on the tragedies known as Aktion T4 and the children's "euthanasia" program, the Friedlander (1995) and Burleigh (1994) books referenced below are two excellent resources.
References:
Binding & Hoche, (1920) Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens (Authorization for the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life.)
Burleigh, M. (1994). Death and Deliverance: 'Euthanasia' in Germany c. 1900-1945. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge: NY.
Friedlander, H. (1995). The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution. The University of North Carolina Press: London.
This isn't a debate-- it's a child's game. I told Mister Pick a Fight, IF HE ADDRESSES THE FACTS PRESENTED, rather than simply using 1300 words to call me a nazi, I'll gladly leave his post, posted--- here are the FACTS Mister Pick a Fight REFUSES TO ADDRESS---
What about the, "Promote the general Welfare Part"?
what about it ????
Liberal like you always want to suggest whatever your favorite little flaw with America happens to be, is the "general welfare."
The reason it is so dangerous to INTERPRET the Constitution, as opposed to simply looking for SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS, clearly spelled out, without ambiguity or question, is that you can read whatever the hell you want to read into the "general welfare" phrase.
Some people say they can't live without their crack cocaine. In fact there is a HUGE SUBSET of American culture that apparently seem to believe they can't live without their crack cocaine, and would tell you, "life isn't worth living without my drugs."
Okay so that's a bit extreme, let's look at something a bit more realistic.
No child should be allowed to die, when the means to save the child is at our disposal.
Do you know how many children die in this country every year ??? Liberal like you always like to point out the USA has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world (with about 4.25 million births per year, 5 per 1,000 die, translating into 25,000 babies per year die,) why do you suppose that is dickwad ????
I'll tell you--- FREEDOM ! ! ! ! ! ! And what does freedom have to do with it ???
When freedom reigns, bad people are allowed to do bad things, engage in destructive behavior, and in general, become a drag on the rest of society.
So, we have 25,000 babies die each year, but at what cost ?? In 1990, the cost was $250,000,000-- 1/4 of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS (accounting for about 18% of all health care dollars,) as the so called health professionals seek to extend the lives of unviable babies.
Can you dig that number pal ??? Nearly 20% of all money spent on health care, is spent on trying to keep babies alive, that really, don't have a chance of living, no matter how much is spent.
At the other end of the spectrum, the elderly, the number is about the same. Roughly 20% of all health care dollars spent each year, are spent trying to extend life, where viability is questionable.
That means nearly 40% of all health care dollars are spent on the FUTILE ATTEMPT to extend viability at both ends of the extreme, where viability is questionable at best.
This is a recipe for DISASTER, and cannot be logically justified. The only way it can be justified, is by emotional, knee jerk reactions to the "cruelty" of it all, if you just let them die.
I personally, as a dialysis patient, am over 4 million dollars old. This is obscene-- society gets NOTHING IN RETURN for the investment they've made in me, and there are 250,000 other people just like me. By the time I eventually die, I'll probably have consumed 10 million dollars in health care costs.
TEN MILLION JUST TO KEEP ONE PERSON ALIVE, with 250,000 others getting the same amount, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO RETURN ON INVESTMENT, other than of course, the "happiness" it affords the patient and his family to hang around on borrowed time.
The insanity of it all is MIND BOGGLING ! ! ! ! !
But hey--- YOU say we should do it, what ??? NO MATTER WHAT THE COST IS ! ! ! ! !
That's just 2 ways we could reasonably define "promote the general welfare" idea; how many other self interest groups out there do you think would be pushed forward and how much would they cost???
51% of all American citizens now receives a check from the US Treasury, direct from the pockets of the taxpayers of America. OVER HALF of the electorate is on the government teat NOW--- yet-- those 25,000 babies die every year.
Social Security CURRENTLY is 20% of the budget. Medicare about 15% of the budget, and Medicaid 10%, with "assorted welfare programs" coming in at another 10%.
An unbelievable 55% of our budget is spent on the "general welfare," and that number is growing faster than any other portion of the budget. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are going to BANKRUPT this nation, and yet-- YOU think we aren't spending enough money as it is.
Defense spending on the other hand, WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION, only gets about 18% of the federal budget.
Logically, this is insanity on a level that is cannot be sustained.
Your INTERPRETATION of the Constitution is already getting 55% of the federal budget, while the SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED DUTY of the Constitution gets 18%.
It is LUNACY ! ! ! ! ! And it's only getting worse as more and more American citizens seek to "get their fair share" of those "entitlements" they think they DESERVE ! ! ! !
So uh, take your LUDICROUS ideas about what the richest nation on earth should being doing, and shove it where the sun don't shine, okay loser ???
I'm taking your logic and comparing it to the same historical logic. SCHIPS, the bill that would have provided health care to the working poor, total cost 35 billion. What you failed to mention is your numbers is, just because some one doesn't have health insurance, it doesn't mean that it doesn't impose great cost on society. Hell even the AMA is jumping on the universal health care band wagon.
From The AMA
WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 11, 2003 — In an unprecedented show of physician support for National Health Insurance (NHI), 7,782 U.S. physicians propose single payer NHI in an article in the August 13 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
The "Physicians' Proposal for National Health Insurance" was drafted by a blue ribbon panel of leading physicians. The signers include 2 former U.S. Surgeons General, the former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of medicine,hundreds of medical school professors and deans, and thousands of practicing doctors throughout the nation. The Proposal will be presented in D.C. at The National Press Club on August 12 at 10am in the Murrow room.
"This is an historic moment. Today, thousands of physicians are taking a stand on the side of patients and repudiating the powerful insurance and drug lobbies that block wholesome reform," said Dr. Quentin Young, a leading Chicago physician who chaired the Department of Medicine at Chicago's Cook County Hospital and convened the group of prominent physicians that drafted the proposal."
The doctors' article also critiques the health reform plans that have been offered by President Bush and the major Democratic presidential contenders. "Proposals that would retain the role of private insurers - such as calls for tax-credits, Medicaid/CHIP expansions, and pushing more seniors into private HMO's - are prescriptions for failure. By perpetuating administrative waste, such proposals make universal coverage unaffordable," said Dr. Young.
The physicians call for national health insurance that would cover every American for all necessary medical care - in essence an expanded and improved version of traditional Medicare.
* Patients could choose to go to any doctor and hospital. Most hospitals and clinics would remain privately owned and operated, receiving a budget from the NHI to cover all operating costs. Physicians could continue to practice on a fee-for-service basis, or receive salaries from group practices, hospitals or clinics.
* The program would be paid for by combining current sources of government health spending into a single fund with modest new taxes that would be fully offset by reductions in premiums and out-of-pocket spending.
* The proposed single payer NHI would save at least $200 billion annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private, investor-owned insurance industry and reducing spending for marketing and other satellite services.
* Administrative savings would fully offset the costs of covering the uninsured as well as giving full prescription drug coverage to all Americans.
"In the current economic climate, we can no longer afford to waste the vast resources we do on the administrative costs, executive salaries, and profiteering of the private insurance system", states Dr. Marcia Angell, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. "We get too little for our money. It's time to put those resources into real health care for everyone."
The physicians' call for NHI comes as rising health costs and premiums, and the increasing number of uninsured have stimulated a new round of health reform initiatives. Yet most politicians have steered clear of NHI, offering proposals for incremental reforms of the current system.
"How bad does it have to get before politicians are willing to prescribe the major surgery our health system needs? Premiums are skyrocketing and we already spend twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation. 41 million people are uninsured, and millions more are under-insured and can't afford vital medicines. How bad does it have to get before our politicians admit we need national health insurance?" asked Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, lead author of the proposal and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard.
This article was from 2003. The cost doesn't go away. It's much cheaper to practice preventive care, than pay for catastrophic illness. Jack, I'll post those numbers too, if you'd like. You need to know the facts, before you start talking about letting babies die.
I was mainly addressing the political aspects of your arguments and relating them to history as that is what we were debating. There is not a right to health care in the constitution, and in the beginning the right to tax income was not included. But if the government takes money and agrees to provide a service, then the government is obligated to do just that. Since 1935, the government has collected Social Security Taxes. Now it's time to pay back that money. the problem is, the money has been stolen. It has been incorporated into the general budget, and does not exist as a true trust. You shouldn't be beating up on the poor for this, but the government and corporations who reaped the benefits from stealing this money. A man is only as good as his words, and a government only as good as living up to it's commitments.
Social Security is constitutional.
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The difference is FICA, a tax levied, was intended to be a trust, to be distributed upon disability or retirement. The biggest moron in the world could have invested 80 years of national wealth and returned a huge profit. Compounding interest on 12+% of national income, for 80 years.
I guess it's all in where your priorities are. Spend the money on illegal wars, or grow the US. In most cases war would have benefited the economy. In this case however, the wealth was distributed to such a small segment of society, that it has actually depleted the treasury and the middle class.
It's not my interpretation, it's the Constitution, and it's amendments. You have to take it as a whole, not just the parts you like.
Shame, shame....
But, it is generally what happens when someone is exposed for what they are. Thank you, Jackie Wackie, for proving my point. You are a mole and a spin-doctor for the extreme right-wing, call yourself what you may. Commonly those with the views you defend are being called Neo-nazi in society today.
It is obvious you do not even live the ideals you proclaim as you say you are on dialysis, government funded I am sure.
I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they feel is right. However, I do have a problem with anyone, whether it be an individual, lobbyist, or spin-doctor who attempts to confuse the issues just to "win".
Correction, it should have been Neo-con not Neo-nazi. But, six of one half a dozen of another...
I wanted to thank you for your insightful post. I hope you will continue to post. You are obviously intelligent and concerned. That is what we need in this country. Perhaps someday you will be among our future leaders helping to bring us back together.
I paid for that right Essie Dessie--- just like everyone else. Why should I go to my grave when I have paid into a system that was FORCED UPON ME ????
And by the way dearie, I never claimed to be a polly anna that deplored name calling, in fact, I REVEL in name calling *chuckle*
I personally do not believe name calling, in any way negates the facts you present.
YOU on the other hand, have some silly notion it seems, that only "civilized" discussion is "worthy" discussion, and that anyone that stoops to name calling is AUTOMATICALLY proven to be "stupid."
That kind of silliness is reason enough for me to call you an idiot.
The Constitution is a list of things the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT may do, Constitutionally. It is a specific list, of specific things. If that specific list does not say the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY DO THIS--- then ONLY THE STATES MAY DO IT.
Therefore, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has every right to collect taxes, BUT IT CAN ONLY SPEND THAT MONEY ON THINGS THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY LISTED by the Constitution.
Since Social Security is no where to be found in the Constitution, THE STATES ARE FREE TO ENACT SOCIAL SECURITY LAWS, but the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is not--- do you see that ????
I didn't say Social Security is "illegal" per se-- but it is illegal for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be doing it--- even though individual States are free to do whatever they want.
Our founding fathers NEVER WANTED A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, as they believed giving authority to the government should be done on a local level, as close to the people as possible, so that LOCAL CONTROL could be maintained, and only those things the people of that location wanted done, would be done.
Do you get that now ????
What a bad boy. We've gone over it over and over. If your contention is that Social Security is illegal, why hasn't the Bush administration challenged it in court? They certainly have been attacking it for years. If there was a chance in hell, that it was unconstitutional, the Justice department would be arguing the point. They know the same as anyone with an IQ above 70, that Social Security is constitutional and legal. In fact I have not heard you support your argument with one lucid point. So I suggest lowering your medication, while you debate politics. When it comes to the law, it is , or it isn't. Your wrong, all but a few Neos agree with you as is evidenced by your lack of a fan club, when my first post hit.
Quit being such a hypocrite. Regardless of how much you paid in, if you believe what you are doing is illegal, you should refuse all government help, and pay for your own treatments.
I have an idea, become lucid. Apologize for your language, and those you offend with your mindless behavior. Then start writing movie reviews, as they have no effect on people.
>>Do you get that now ????<<
Are you kidding me? You sound like the creep from Red Dragon...
Can you see it now? Can you see it now?...
Not surprising. Your logic is just as perverted.
As for your dialysis, I do not want you to refuse treatment and die. I believe my tax dollars should go to helping those like you. That's the difference between us. I do want my tax dollars used to help my fellow citizens. I do not want my tax dollars to be used to kill people in a war that came from lies. My point is you are being a hypocrite. Saying one thing, acting in the opposite manner.
I never said I had problems with name calling. You did. You said you deleted someones posts on your article because they called you names.
What is being exposed about you is you are a practicing hypocrite. You want poor babies to die. You are a chauvinist. (makes me wonder if the crack babies you would let die are of a particular skin color?) You think you are above your own rules as you call people names, then delete their posts and demand they not call you names.
So, you are irrelavant and not worth responding to. Good bye, Jackie Wackie...
Then you aren't comprehending what I have said-- or you haven't read it. And just because a politician doesn't have the balls to challenge it, means NOTHING, except of course he's a spineless loser that refuses to take on the entitlement mentality our country's citizens have come to embrace.
I'll post it again, just because you say you haven't seen it-- but if you don't see the lucidity of it, there's nothing I can do to expand your knowledge---
The Constitution is a list of things the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT may do, Constitutionally. It is a specific list, of specific things. If that specific list does not say the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY DO THIS--- then ONLY THE STATES MAY DO IT.
Therefore, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has every right to collect taxes, BUT IT CAN ONLY SPEND THAT MONEY ON THINGS THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY LISTED by the Constitution.
Since Social Security is no where to be found in the Constitution, THE STATES ARE FREE TO ENACT SOCIAL SECURITY LAWS, but the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is not--- do you see that ????
I didn't say Social Security is "illegal" per se-- but it is illegal for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to be doing it--- even though individual States are free to do whatever they want.
Our founding fathers NEVER WANTED A STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, as they believed giving authority to the government should be done on a local level, as close to the people as possible, so that LOCAL CONTROL could be maintained, and only those things the people of that location wanted done, would be done.
Do you get that now ????
I don't take any medications, thank you very much, I don't need them. I'm not wrong, and you haven't been able to tell me why I'm wrong, as I have refuted your every point with valid, legal reasoning.
Regardless of how much you paid in, if you believe what you are doing is illegal, you should refuse all government help, and pay for your own treatments.
Why ???? you yourself said, "if the government makes a deal with the public, the government should keep that deal" --- I'd be STUPID to simply go to my grave, after I have lived up to my part of the misguided bargin the government made with the people. I was FORCED TO PAY for a program I find misguided, and I would be equally misguided to forgo the benefits I have already paid for. That isn't hypocritical, it's just logical.
It is only your contention that I am NOT lucid, and why should I apologize for something someone is offended by ???? I am not responsible for YOUR reaction to my words, or are you saying I have control over your emotions ??? MY my my, what a powerful person you say I am, if you believe I am responsible for YOUR actions.
You sound like the creep from Red Dragon
I have no idea what the "red dragon" is---
Your logic is just as perverted.
That's an easy, empty accusation to make, but you don't say HOW it is "perverted." Hence, your self serving allegations are little more than a tempter tantrum.
My point is you are being a hypocrite.
Well, that's just as empty as your other accusations, as I said, I lived up to my part of the bargin, the government must now live up to theirs. I was forced to pay for the misguided policies, and am certainly then entitled to accept the benefits of the misguided policies.
do want my tax dollars used to help my fellow citizens.
Me too, except of course, I insist that the "help" be a Constitutional mandate. Medicare isn't, and I've explained why.
I never said I had problems with name calling. You did.
All I said was, you SEEM to have a problem with it, because you were "on the record" and WHINING about the name calling being done-- fine--- you don't have a problem with it, you stupid idiot, great, we agree then, you moronic dolt.
You said you deleted someones posts on your article because they called you names.
No, I said I deleted some comments from the idiot "let's have a fight" guy, you know, the 68 year old diabled Marine that says he walks the walk.
What is being exposed about you is you are a practicing hypocrite.
It's only been "exposed" by your estimation, I am certainly NOT a hypocrite, as I was FORCED to pay for a misguided program, and therefore I am entitled to accept the benefits of that misguided program. That isn't hypocritical, that's logical.
You want poor babies to die
No I don't, I simply don't want the federal government to pay to keep them alive. It isn't a Constitutional mandate to keep them alive, and I have said quite clearly, I don't care if the States enact such programs, because that would be Constitutionally legal.
You are a chauvinist. (makes me wonder if the crack babies you would let die are of a particular skin color?)
Wrong again, or atleast half wrong. Technically I am not a mysogonist, but a misanthrope *ROFL* And uh, if I was concerned about skin color, I would be a bigot, not a chauvanist, get your terminology correct you idiot.
You think you are above your own rules as you call people names, then delete their posts and demand they not call you names.
I have no rules sister woman-- I'm all about FREEDOM, and I wouldn't even consider telling you how you should "debate" here on gather, or anywhere else. And I didn't delete any posts because I was being called names, I deleted them because they were IRRELEVANT TO THE CONVERSATION, they were red herrings, they were about the nazis, when this conversation has NOTHING TO DO with nazis.
So, you are irrelavant and not worth responding to.
Yet another cop out--- I'll respond to your lunacy all day long, because that is how it works here on gather. So you go ahead and say good bye, you little supercilious weakling. Fine by me-- I couldn't care less if you want to give up defending your misguided positions. I can defend my ideas to the last breath.
Good bye essie dessie, and don't worry, your gender is known for being weak and unable to maintain logic, and instead wallow in your emotionalism. I get it-- since you don't have an appendage between your legs, you are inferior.
Hey you stupid disabled Marine, are you going to be a cry baby and cut off the debate too ???? *ROFL*
No I enjoy it. You are insurance that a Democrat will get elected to the executive. You have contradicted yourself so many times today, It would take at least an hour to even start to type them. Why waste the brain power. As far as being a Marine. What branch did you serve in, or were you afraid? Did you hide behind money like GW, or were you just a coward?
Do you abuse your wife and female relatives. You seem to have an abusive character. I bet you slap your significant other around when they make you angry. I'm not using gender, because I've found, and recently the news has borne it out, the more radical the Republican, the more gay you are. This is further evidenced by your apparent hostility towards women and children. I'm going out on a limb on this one, but do you also drive a big truck? You seem to want to compensate for some sort of inadequacy.
Your political and historical knowledge is nonexistent. You say you are something, and five minutes later your something else. History, unlike you is fixed. You may have to study(read), to actually understand it, but facts are facts. Go read that document, you say you have such a firm grasp of, and then come back and discuss facts. I really get a kick out of your personal opinions, because they are laughable, but I prefer to debate sane knowledgeable people.
Boy, you sure do think I'm something, don't you ?? But uh, since I'm hoping Obama gets elected, so what ???
You have contradicted yourself so many times today, It would take at least an hour to even start to type them
Another empty accusation, without specificity, how predictable. I guess you'd better get started, eh ???
What branch did you serve in, or were you afraid?
I started with the Navy, then went to the Air force, then the Marines, and lastly the Army. None of them would take a cripple. That was their loss.
Do you abuse your wife and female relatives. You seem to have an abusive character. I bet you slap your significant other around when they make you angry
I'm too selfish to have a wife, besides, they bitch bitch bitch.
the more radical the Republican, the more gay you are
Well, you sound like the expert, I guess you'd know, as it takes one to know one.
This is further evidenced by your apparent hostility towards women and children.
Apparent is correct, because I have no hostility at all, that's just another one of your fantasies.
I'm going out on a limb on this one, but do you also drive a big truck?
I don't drive, period. I love to ride my bicycle however.
You seem to want to compensate for some sort of inadequacy.
Again, seems is correct, I embrace my inadequacies, as I know, they merely make me human.
Your political and historical knowledge is nonexistent
Another empty, self serving accusation. You're full of them.
You say you are something, and five minutes later your something else
Probably because I am a multi-faceted man of many talents, and skills.
Go read that document, you say you have such a firm grasp of, and then come back and discuss facts.
Okay-- now I'm back.
I really get a kick out of your personal opinions, because they are laughable, but I prefer to debate sane knowledgeable people.
Since you've been "debating" me for a number of hours now, by your own definition I am a sane, and knowledgeable person.
Thank You for the compliment, though considering the source, I'm not sure how puffed up my chest will get.
I started with the Navy, then went to the Air force, then the Marines, and lastly the Army. None of them would take a cripple. That was their loss."
Jack Said, "I'm going out on a limb on this one, but do you also drive a big truck?
I don't drive, period. I love to ride my bicycle however."
Contradiction?
Apparent is correct, because I have no hostility at all, that's just another one of your fantasies."
Jack Also Said"I never said I had problems with name calling. You did.
All I said was, you SEEM to have a problem with it, because you were "on the record" and WHINING about the name calling being done-- fine--- you don't have a problem with it, you stupid idiot, great, we agree then, you moronic dolt.
You said you deleted someones posts on your article because they called you names.
No, I said I deleted some comments from the idiot "let's have a fight" guy, you know, the 68 year old diabled Marine that says he walks the walk.
What is being exposed about you is you are a practicing hypocrite.
It's only been "exposed" by your estimation, I am certainly NOT a hypocrite, as I was FORCED to pay for a misguided program, and therefore I am entitled to accept the benefits of that misguided program. That isn't hypocritical, that's logical.
You want poor babies to die
No I don't, I simply don't want the federal government to pay to keep them alive. It isn't a Constitutional mandate to keep them alive, and I have said quite clearly, I don't care if the States enact such programs, because that would be Constitutionally legal.
You are a chauvinist. (makes me wonder if the crack babies you would let die are of a particular skin color?)
Wrong again, or atleast half wrong. Technically I am not a mysogonist, but a misanthrope *ROFL* And uh, if I was concerned about skin color, I would be a bigot, not a chauvanist, get your terminology correct you idiot.
You think you are above your own rules as you call people names, then delete their posts and demand they not call you names.
I have no rules sister woman-- I'm all about FREEDOM, and I wouldn't even consider telling you how you should "debate" here on gather, or anywhere else. And I didn't delete any posts because I was being called names, I deleted them because they were IRRELEVANT TO THE CONVERSATION, they were red herrings, they were about the nazis, when this conversation has NOTHING TO DO with nazis.
So, you are irrelavant and not worth responding to.
Yet another cop out--- I'll respond to your lunacy all day long, because that is how it works here on gather. So you go ahead and say good bye, you little supercilious weakling. Fine by me-- I couldn't care less if you want to give up defending your misguided positions. I can defend my ideas to the last breath.
Good bye essie dessie, and don't worry, your gender is known for being weak and unable to maintain logic, and instead wallow in your emotionalism. I get it-- since you don't have an appendage between your legs, you are inferior.
Hey you stupid disabled Marine, are you going to be a cry baby and cut off the debate too ???? *ROFL* "
Jack Also said,"You have contradicted yourself so many times today, It would take at least an hour to even start to type them
Another empty accusation, without specificity, how predictable. I guess you'd better get started, eh ???"
Jack also said,"Do you abuse your wife and female relatives. You seem to have an abusive character. I bet you slap your significant other around when they make you angry
I'm too selfish to have a wife, besides, they bitch bitch bitch. "
Contradictions??? Jack your full of crap.
It doesn't mean my life has to be wasted. We have wasted many hours debating a piece of paper with words on it. It means nothing, until you realize it was paid for in blood, suffering, death and destruction of human life. Even among fellow country men, in our own civil war.
I am so passionate about saving our children and the sick, because my own personal loss has to mean something. I didn't give up what my life would have or could have been, to make the rich richer, or the the poor poorer. I did it to defend my country, and the great love and sacrifice that had been given before me. The folks, who served before me, were the poorest of the poor in many cases. Leaving their families, to fend for themselves, while they went off to defend a dream. Not a dream of a utopia, but one of equal opportunities, of freedom, and a better life for their children.
Equal opportunities no longer exist. It is a myth. Especially in health care. Where the rich receive one level of care and the rest of us grovel for the crumbs from the table. The constitution was never meant to be used as a device for keeping the poor and suffering in their place, but just the opposite, to protect the common man from a tyrannical government. You say that the crack babies should die, because the government should not make provision for them, and they are reaping the punishment for the sins of their fathers, but I say their blood is innocent and cannot be measured in dollars and cents. Their is no shortage of health care, just a shortage of insurers willing to let doctors and hospitals live up to their oath. Above that, I believe with all my heart, there is a special place in hell, for the politicians that have abandoned the weak, for lobbyist dollars.
No words can justify the murder of a child through inaction. Would I sacrifice what's left of my life for what remains of the American Dream? Semper Fi(Always Faithful). Jack that includes defending your right to be a hard hearted and bitter man. You may not be worthy of pity, but every American is worthy of their idea of freedom no matter how misguided.
"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on."
-- Thomas Jefferson
» America enjoys the best health care in the world, but the best is no good if folks can't afford it, access it and doctor's can't provide it.
- Bill Frist
» America has the best doctors, the best nurses, the best hospitals, the best medical technology, the best medical breakthrough medicines in the world. There is absolutely no reason we should not have in this country the best health care in the world.
- Bill Frist
» As a matter of principle, we believe patients should be able to see the right doctor at the right time. As a matter of principle, we believe nothing should interfere with that doctor-patient relationship. As a matter of principle, we believe all Americans deserve affordable, available, and reliable quality health care.
- Bill Frist
» When wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, all is lost.
- Billy Graham
One of the things that keeps you from dropping them in the nearest volcano is that you had to work too hard to get them. You had to cry, you had to scream, you had to sweat, you had to cuss out health care officials, and when that's all over with, you'll be willing to put up with a lot more from your kids.
- Barbara Hall
Look to your health; and if you have it, praise God and value it next to conscience; for health is the second blessing that we mortals are capable of, a blessing money can't buy.
- Izaak Walton
Yet, what do they hear ??? What do they say, I've said ???
"You hate the poor, you hate the disabled, you are a cold and bitter man without a life."
It is truly amazing. Because I Constitutionally disagree with their INTERPRETATION of the Constitution, and instead INSIST that a word for word meaning would better serve our nation, I am labled a hater, I am labeled a killer of babies, I am labeled bitter and cold, because I simply want to follow an originalist view of the Constitution.
Que sera sera.
In effect, we were told to go forth and prosper, worship as you please, and enjoy the inaliable rights afforded to you.
After the Revolutionary War, after the great men we call founding fathers, after the simple men we have never heard of, after they defeated the British and this great republic was introduced to the world, the citizens of this great nation In effect, we were told to go forth and prosper, worship as you please, and enjoy the inalienable rights afforded to you BY THE SHEDDING OF OUR BLOOD.
After the great sacrifices of these men, AND WOMEN--- and children of the revolutionary era, these men and women simply went home and told the rest of us, do as you will, worship as you will, but do not look to us, do not look to your government again, to save your souls, to feed you, to shelter you, or solve any of your other problems, we have done enough, and we have paid in blood.
Our government then went about buying land, building roads, making treaties with other nations, establishing a currency, and all of the other things a nation does to promote and create the environment, for it's citizens to succeed.
For a great many years, this seemed to suffice, and then came "The Great Depression."
Twenty five percent of our citizens were thrown in to turmoil, left without a job, and instead of weathering the storm on their own merits, they decided to LOOK TO THE GOVERNMENT TO SAVE THEM.
This was the beginning of the end.
FDR became their savior, instead of saving themselves. The proverbial genie was out of the bottle, and there is now, no going back. Thirty years later, when MLK and his brothers marched through the streets demanding equality, LBJ instead enslaved them once more, with a very pretty name called "The Great Society."
LBJ told them, don't you worry our poor little black brothers, this government is here to feed you, house you, and make you whole. Black culture was destroyed, and now we have 70% of the nations black children born without a father in the home, born to children in their teens, that cannot even fend for themselves, much less their child.
Then came the new century and GW Bush. He told the seniors of this great nation, do not fear, we will give you drugs, even as our elderly were already awash in drugs that may or may not have been creating a better life for them.
Three men that have changed the very course of history, and with good intentions in mind, instead destroyed a once great nation. Three small promises, that now consume 55% of our federal budget, AND GROWING.
G-d Bless this Nation, for without the grace of G-d, we are surely lost. We no longer believe we are capable of saving ourselves, and have instead, given over to the idea our government will save us, even as the vast majority of people in the nation believe the government is corrupt.
How ironic we have come to this place, by merely exercising freedom "
Jack said,"
LBJ told them, don't you worry our poor little black brothers, this government is here to feed you, house you, and make you whole. Black culture was destroyed, and now we have 70% of the nations black children born without a father in the home, born to children in their teens, that cannot even fend for themselves, much less their child."
You are a biggot Jack.
FACTORS AFFECTING THE LIKELIHOOD OF DIVORCE
Changed Nature of the Family
The shift from an agricultural society to an industrial one undermined many of the family's traditional functions. Schools, the media, and peers are now important sources of child socialization and child care. Hospitals and nursing homes manage birth and care for the sick and aged. Because the family pays cash for goods and services rather than producing or providing them itself, its members are no longer interdependent. As a result of losing many of its social and economic underpinnings, the family is not a necessity. It is now simply one of the many choices we have.
Social Integration
Social integration is the degree of interaction between individuals and the larger community is emerging as an important factor related the incidence of divorce.
In this country, the rates of divorce increase from east to west. The highest rate is found in California, where tow divorces currently occur for every three marriages. The greater likelihood of divorce in the West and Southwest may be caused by the higher rates of residential mobility and lower levels of social integration with extended families, ethnic neighborhoods, and church groups (Glenn and Supancic, 1984: Glenn and Shelton, 1985). Among African Americans, the lowest divorce rate is found among those born and raised in the South; African Americans born and raised in the North and West have the highest divorce rates. One study found that urban residence was the highest correlate of divorce (Breault and Kposowa, 1987). Those who live in urban areas, where the divorce rate is higher than in rural areas, for example, are less likely to be subject to the community's social or moral pressures. They are more independent and have greater freedom of personal choice.
Individualistic Cultural Values
American culture has traditionally been individualistic. we value individual rights; we cherish images of the individual's battling nature; we believe in individual responsibility.
DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic status is probably the most important correlate of divorce. Overall, the higher the socioeconomic status - comprised of employment status, income and education (which tend to be interrelated) - the lower the likelihood of divorce (Guttman, 1993).
Employment Status
Among whites, a higher divorce rate is more characteristic of low-status occupations, such as factory worker, than of high-status occupations, such as executive. (Greenstein, 1985; Marin and Bumpass, 1989). Unemployment, which contributes to marital stress, is also related to increased divorce rates.
Studies conflict as to whether employed wives are more likely than nonemployed wives to divorce; overall, though, the findings seem to suggest that female employment contributes to the likelihood of divorce, because the employed wife is less dependent on her husband's earnings (White, 1991). Wives' employment may lead to conflict about the traditional division of household labor, child-care stress, and other work spillover problems that, in turn, create marital distress.
Income
The higher the family income, the lower the divorce rate for both whites and African Americans. The higher a women's individual income, the greater her chances of divorce, perhaps because with greater incomes women are not economically dependent on their husbands, or because conflict over inequitable work and family roles increases marital tension.
Education level
For whites, the higher the educational level, the lower the divorce rate. Divorce rates among African Americans are not as strongly affected by educational levels.
Ethnicity
African Americans are more likely than whites to divorce. The relation between ethnicity and divorce is not surprising because of the strong correlation between socioeconomic status and divorce: the lower the socioeconomic class, the more likely a person is to divorce. As income levels for African Americans increase, in fact, divorce rates decrease, they become similar to those of whites (Raschke, 1987). IN 1993, 8.8 percent of whites, 10.5 percent of African-Americans, and 7.3 percent of Latinos were divorced (Saluter, 1994).
Among Latino groups, there are different divorce rates. Mexican Americans and Cuban Americans have lower divorce rates than do Anglos; the divorce rate among Puerto Rican, however, approaches that of African Americans (Frisbie, 1986).
Religion
Frequency of attendance at religious services (not necessarily the depth of beliefs) tends to be associated with the divorce rate (Glenn and Supancic, 1984). Among white males, the rate of divorce for those who never attend religious services is three times as high as for those who attend two or three times a month. By religion, the lowest divorce rate is for Jews, followed by Catholics and then Protestants. Fundamentalist Protestants have a higher divorce rate than those of more moderate Protestant denominations (Guttman, 1993). Because the Roman Catholic Church prohibits divorce, more Catholics than Protestants are separated (Raschke, 1987).
The greater the involvement in religious activities, the less likelihood there is of divorce. Because the major religions discourage divorce, highly religious men and women are less likely to accept divorce, because it violates their values. It may also be that participation in organized religious life affirms the (Guttman, 1993).
LIFE COURSE FACTORS
Intergenerational Transmission
Both African Americans and whites have a slightly increased likelihood of divorce if their families of origin were disrupted by divorce or desertion. All in all, coming from a divorced family appears to have relatively little effect on adult children's divorcing.
Age at Time of Marriage
Adolescent marriages are more likely to end in divorce than are marriages that take place when people are in their twenties or older. This is true for both whites and African Americans. After age twenty-six for men and age twenty-three for women, however, age at marriage seems to make little difference (Glenn and Supancic, 1984).
Premarital Pregnancy and Childbirth
Premarital pregnancy by itself does not significantly increase the likelihood of divorce. But if the pregnant women is an adolescent, drops out of high school, and faces economic problems following marriage, the divorce rate increases dramatically. If a women gives birth prior to marriage, the likelihood for divorce in subsequent marriages increases, especially in the early years. This negative effect on marriage is stronger for whites than for African Americans (White, 1991).
Remarriage
The divorce rate among those who remarried in the 1980s is so far about 25 percent higher than those who entered first marriages in that decade (White, 1991). It is not clear why there is a higher divorce rate in remarriages. Some researchers suggest that the cause may lie in a "kinds-of-people" explanation. The probability factors associated with the kinds of people who divorced in first marriages - low levels of education, unwillingness to settle for unsatisfactory marriages, and membership in certain ethnic groups - are present in subsequent marriages, which increases the likelihood of divorce (Martin and Bumpass, 1989). Others argue that they dynamics of second marriages, especially the presence of stepchildren, increase the chances of divorce (White and Booth, 1985). Stepfamily research, however, does not provide much support for this hypothesis (see Ganong and Coleman, 1994).
FAMILY PROCESSES
The actual day-to-day marital processes of communication-handling conflict, showing affection, and other marital interactions- may be the most important factors holding marriages together or dissolving them (Gottman, 1994).
Marital Happiness
Although it seems reasonable that there would be a strong link between marital happiness (or, rather, the lack of happiness) and divorce, this is true only during the earliest years of marriage. Those who have low marital-happiness scores in the first years of marriage are four or five times more likely to divorce within three years than those with high marital happiness (Booth et al. 1986). In fact, alternatives to one's marriage and barriers to divorce appear to influence divorce decisions more strongly than does marital happiness.
Children
It is not clear what relation, if any, children have to the likelihood of divorce (Raschke, 1987). Children were once considered a deterrent to divorce - people stayed together for the sake of the children - but 60 percent of all divorces now take place among couples who have children. The birth of the first child reduces the chance of divorce to almost nil in the year following birht: this preventive effect does not hold true, however, for subsequent births (White, 1991). Parents of sons are less likely to divorce than parents of daughters. The research suggest that fathers participate more in the parenting of sons than daughters, thereby creating greater family involvement for the men (Morgan, Lye, and Condran, 1988). In some instances, the presence of children may be related to higher divorce rates. Premaritally conceived (during adolescence) children and physically or mentally limited children are associated with divorce. Children in general contribute to marital dissatisfaction and possibly divorce, according to one researcher (Raschke, 1987).
Marital Problems
If you ask divorced people to give the reasons for their divorce, they are not likely to say, "I blame the changing nature of the family" or "It was demographics." Personal characteristics leading to conflicts are obviously very important factors in the dissolution of relationships.
Studies of divorced men and women cite such problems as alcoholism, drug abuse, marital infidelity, sexual incompatibility, and conflicts, about gender roles as leading to their divorces. Kitson and Sussman (1982) found that the four most common reasons given were, in descending order of frequency, personality problems, home life, authoritarianism, and differing values. Extramarital affairs ranked seventh. Complaints associated with gender roles accounted for 35 percent of the men's responses and 41 percent of women's responses. But because studies included only divorced respondents, it is difficult to tell whether the presence of these factors can predict divorce. We know from studying enduring marriages than marriages often continue in the face of such problems.
As you can see, he freely admits he has taken MY WORDS from another thread, and has reposted them here. This is a clear VIOLATION OF TOS and I therefore had no choice but to flag your article.
I apologize to you Fatima, I am sorry he did this, and I am sorry I had to flag your article as a consequence.
You should know as well, he puts YOU in jeopardy too, as he has posted copyrighted material on your thread. He tried to do this to me as well, five different times, and I was forced to remove all five of his comments due to copyright infringement.
I publically stated he could repost the comments if he put them in his own words, but apparently he chose to put you and your article in jeopardy instead.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me, and once again, I am sorry for this. He says he is 68 years old, but he acts more like a child.
The smaller government is, the freer the people being governed are. It's as simple as that.
Fatima, Jack just got exposed for what he was. Using numbers that were just made up to slur ethics groups and women. I used authoritative sources as references, under the fair use clause of the Copyright Act. It is important when a true racist/Bigot emerges, that they are exposed. Social engineering by fascist, has always led to mass exterminations and migrations. I will never not respond to a diatribe of hate and filth. If the actual facts bother jack, perhaps he should find a new hobby, like cards.
I always quoted Jack by starting the post with Jack Said. Since he was addressing me, it is as much my right to use his post as it is his.
The smaller government is, the freer the people being governed are. It's as simple as that. "
Social Security has never been a redistribution of wealth. It is paid directly through FICA tax dollars, deducted from an individuals payroll check or Self Employment Taxes. The higher the contribution, the higher the benefit. So it does not fit within the frame work of your response. If your talking about funding illegal wars, that just benefit a few large corporations, I agree that is a redistribution of wealth. This is the first war in the history of the US, that was partly responsible for a depression.
Since Moynihan's report, there is little doubt that the difficulties of the nation's urban centers have gotten worse. Moynihan had been alarmed at 25 percent of black children being born to single mothers, not the 70 percent today. It should be noted that births to unmarried white women have also increased, now accounting for 30 percent of all births.
I doubt if you'll argue with the SOURCE as it is an African American think tank known as Policy Bridge -- and there website can be found at PolicyBridge.org
Since Moynihan's report, there is little doubt that the difficulties of the nation's urban centers have gotten worse. Moynihan had been alarmed at 25 percent of black children being born to single mothers, not the 70 percent today. It should be noted that births to unmarried white women have also increased, now accounting for 30 percent of all births.
I doubt if you'll argue with the SOURCE as it is an African American think tank known as Policy Bridge -- and there website can be found at PolicyBridge.org
"
Could it be the decay of the the inner city and the migration of the middle class to the burbs. Just like the report you deleted from your thread from a cumulation of authoritative sources, it's economics. Isn't it amazing that Latinos have a lower divorce rate than whites. The studies below was based in science, not on the fox network.
Ethnicity
African Americans are more likely than whites to divorce. The relation between ethnicity and divorce is not surprising because of the strong correlation between socioeconomic status and divorce: the lower the socioeconomic class, the more likely a person is to divorce. As income levels for African Americans increase, in fact, divorce rates decrease, they become similar to those of whites (Raschke, 1987). IN 1993, 8.8 percent of whites, 10.5 percent of African-Americans, and 7.3 percent of Latinos were divorced (Saluter, 1994).
Among Latino groups, there are different divorce rates. Mexican Americans and Cuban Americans have lower divorce rates than do Anglos; the divorce rate among Puerto Rican, however, approaches that of African Americans (Frisbie, 1986).
BTW, it was a democrat that reformed the welfare system, Bill Clinton. He limited assistance to 2 years, and put the focus on job training. He also had a budget surplus, even during the 98/99 recession. I think the thing that separates you from reality, is your NEO indoctrination.
In the case of SS, the government takes your money (interest free) then mismanages it by, borrowing from it without repayment, making it totally insolvent. BUT "we the people" believe that "we the people" are too stupid to save for our own retirement? Then the program is continued because we think the government is better at my retirement plan than I am? I just don't think so. Now, if the government made it a voluntary program and managed it like any solvent fanatical service benefiting the payees with a predictable interest rate, then I would have no problem with it, I might even want to participate, but I want the choice.
Any time the government forcibly takes money from the population like for example: the Federal Income Tax, then uses it for things like; the payment on the interest of the national debt to private bankers (The Federal Reserve) that the bankers created FOR PROFIT. Then add the department of education, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps and dozens upon dozens of other social programs; it is a MAJOR REDISTRIBUTION of wealth. Period. Government grows and grows...pretty soon it's will be the biggest employer and police department in the country. Then it will be too late.
"A USA TODAY analysis of 25 major government programs found that enrollment increased an average of 17% in the programs from 2000 to 2005. The nation's population grew 5% during that time. It was the largest five-year expansion of the federal safety net since the Great Society created programs such as Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s." We are moving very quickly towards full blown socialism in mho, and the train is headed down hill with no brakes.
So I don't know what your point is, but is seems like you prefer to argue just for the hell of it...lol. If you really want to understand the ABC's of the economic and political dog and pony show currently airing on your local FOX TV network, take some time and watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936 Otherwise this conversation is moot.
Someone that puts out a sign saying "let's fight" obviously prefers to argue just for the hell of it. "It's Time... To Pick My Nose" wants attention, which is why I now ignore him.
I too disagree with redistribution with wealth, but also don't agree with the basic principle, of you've taken my money, and now I want something more than this tee shirt.
M.C. the only redistribution of wealth that occurred over the last 8 years is to 400 people. The good news two hundred of them were American. This is based on the study of artificially low interest rates and a one sided tax code(40 trillion dollars). The top 1 percent has also benefited from the tax code. The middle class has seen little or no reduction in taxes, and the cost of living has gone up dramatically. Remember the inflation rate excludes certain items like fuel.
We were discussing Social Security when you posted, so it was a natural assumption, that you were chiming in on the issue being discussed. I'm all for people opting out of SS, as long as they reserve their cardboard boxes in advance. No coming back in 30 years, when the company has raided the pension fund, and gone into chapter 11, so they no longer provide health care, and saying whoops. I think you'll find that most people that have paid in to Social Security for years aren't ready to have that wealth redistributed.
Jack you are a coward and a Neo, that is why you ignore me.
This is called an aging population and a depression. This is what happens when economies fail. It's great to quote numbers, but sometimes you have to look beyond the numbers to the underlying cause. As far as moving toward socialism, those are indeed scary words, but you are incorrect in your cause and effect, so your conclusion is also incorrect.
Additionally, I was commenting on the article, I hadn't read any of your comments on social security, it's not like this is a chat room thread, it is a comment area for the article posted. Don't include me in on your assumptions please. Thanks.
I will repeat, I disagree with any federal program that requires me to pay for any redistribution of my money. The only place that would not apply is on the state level where the money I pay in property taxes is directed towards my local area. It would be really cool to see the individual states compete with one another again instead of financing wars and social programs that have drained the middle class and redistributed state power to the federal government. This is really not a good thing.
Now how does economics and politics become entwined. It's because 2/3's of the American economy is the consumer. The combination of deflation of housing values and the increase/reseting of interest rates. Lower paying Jobs. Increased cost, Housing, Health Care, Fuel, Food, Energy, concentrates the wealth into a small sector of society. The middle and lower class, no longer have money to spend, and Banks clamp down on lending, you've got yourself one hell of a recession/depression. I use the D word, because the Stock Market got off to it's worst start since 1932.
Now you propose that an entire generation give up 12% to 14% of the wealth they have saved/Taxed for over the last 80 years to the government. How does that benefit the economy. It only increases the speed at which the economy will fail.
Like I said before, you should be able to opt out with the agreement that you will never apply for benefits of any kind. I think you should consider before making up your mind that it was two Goldman Sachs Hedge Funds, that started the sub prime mess. When the liquidated the funds, they did so offshore, so they would not have to pay off investors. I guess the bottom line, it's not the public that can't be trusted, it's every single investment vehicle available to them, including their homes.