Or their employees in the form of lower wages. Or their stockholders in the
form of lower dividends. Or their suppliers in the form of lower prices. But
your core point is correct. Ultimately, taxes are always paid by people of the
two legged variety as opposed to people of the incorporated variety.
With regard to the Iraq war, I personally think that would be a great
idea, especially if the human cost were included. How many dead are
acceptable? How many wounded? Quadriplegic? Busted heads? Permanently
disabled mentally, including addicted and homicidal?
In many cases though, the cost cannot be totally estimated even
beforehand, and the "wisdom" of Congress should be used. No pun intended
The biggest problem is the spending of moneys in secific Congressional
districts. For instance, Boeing and other big companies successfully
distribute their operations over many states, so that Congress will
approve their projects. They have a bigger chance if many districts
profit from Congressional largess than if the money were to go abroad,
even if the foreign product were much better and cheaper. Congress'
voters need to earn a living ...
( X ) Yes ( ) No
(And make further war upon Iran until they give up their nuclear ambition.)
Anyone who has decided the reason to get out of the war just because
of the cost is indescribably shallow. There are arguments to be made
for- and against the war, but money isn't one of them. This is
especially true given that well over 50% of the US Federal
government's budget is spent on non-Constitutional social
entitlements. You want a balanced budget? Privatize social security,
get rid of Medicare and return the Federal government to it's
Consitutionally mandated limits. But that won't happen because the
mooching public wants what it has not earned, does not deserve,
cannot pay for, and will not work for. And *that* is why the emerging
nations of the world will crush the US economically, and possibly even
militarily in time: We have ceased taking personal responsibility
seriously as a culture...
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:29:09 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
last I heard, SS was still taking in more money than its paying out. If
not, it'd be taken "off budget" as it has been in the past.
As far as Medicare, it's the least effective health care plan of all the
industrialized nations. But at least it's a start. When we have a health
care system where nobody goes bankrupt from medical bills I'll be a lot
I paid close to the maximum into SS throughout my working life. I DID
earn it. I'll have to live past 90 to get back what I and my employers
paid in. And for much of the time I was self-employed and paid both
And I still pay close to $300 a month for Medicare and a supplement policy
and I still don't have dental coverage or decent drug coverage.
You'll be happy when we're all bankrupt, and nobody has health care.
That's what your asking for.
Except for one year (last year) I've paid the maximum too. However,
you're not getting *anything* "back", except off the backs of those
currently working. If you were "allowed" to save that money, you'd
have some nice nest egg.
...and you want the federal government to nationalize the entire
health care industry. Amazing.
If I put money in the bank, the money I take out in the future isn't the
same money. I still put money in and got money back. Your argument is
My wife is not yet eligible for Medicare. Her insurance costs over twice
what I pay and has a high deductible. I complained that Medicare wasn't
as good as the health care plans in other nations. I certainly didn't
mean that it was worse than the "health care industry" and their predatory
Sometimes I have trouble believing that posts like yours are sincere. Do
you really believe the party line you (and others) are spouting, or do you
just like to stir the pot and watch the bubbles?
In either case, I broke my resolution not to get involved in one of these
silly back and forth arguments again. My mistake.
It's hard, eh? I am really, really trying to stay out of pissing
contests, especially when it is obvious that many participants rather
generate heat than light (to quote Morris).
I plead guilty to being your basic shit disturber.
I posted "A Milestone", simply noting an historic moment.
That thread has taken a rather convoluted trail to arrive here.
I knew that would happen, that's one of the reasons I wrote it.
Kind'a like spreading chum on the water.
The reality is that the trajectory it is on is toward large amounts
of red ink, today's numbers nothwithstanding.
Then you will never be happy. No law can change a simple economic
fact: There is more demand for healthcare than there is supply.
Federalizing it does not change this fact (but it does violate
the Constitution which just multiplies the injury to a free people).
You want to see healthcare professionals leave in droves - or never
enter the profession in the first place? Make it a government
run program. For a good example, see how many of our best and
brightest choose to be government union employees as teachers. Not
all that many.
And for every person like you (and me) in this situation there are many
tens of thousands more who have the inverse situation: They will collect
more than they ever contributed. SS is a ponzi scheme that only worked
so long as people had lots of children. Those days are over and it's
the day of reckoning. Should you be treated fairly? Yes, of course.
But we *have* to get rid of this albatross that is gutting our Federal
coffers and return responsibility for retirement and healthcare where it
belongs: The individual. This should be done gradually and fairly, but
it needs to start now. Like I said, over 50% of the Federal budget is
entitlements. Entitlements that are bankrupting us at many times the
rate of military spending. Entitlements that are flatly non-Constitutional.
Entitlements that are just cheap election fodder for both parties.
From your postings here, I know you to be thoughtful and well read.
Please cite a single example in American legal history that would
ever lead you to believe any of this is the responsibility of the
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
Please note that "promot[ing] the general welfare" is not among the powers
granted by the Constitution to the federal government -- and therefore is
"reserved to the States respectively or to the People".
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:18:31 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
The section you quote reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
Since the "promote" clause is in the preamble, it could be held to be
"delegated to the United states". But yes, there is room for disagreement
on the meaning and scope.
But those who claim to be strict Constitutionalists (wow, I managed to
spell that!) are somewhat akin to strict Scripturalists. Very few of them
cut off offending parts, and those who handle serpents are considered a
wee bit off in the head. Old testament rules don't apply well today.
Likewise, many of the Constitutional provisions that made obvious sense in
a lightly populated agrarian society where power rested on white male
landowners lose something in today's society. For example:
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein,
be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim
of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
Yes, it's been abrogated by the 13th amendment, but the verbiage is still
in there :-). But the ultimate argument is that the Constitution says
that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is or is not
constitutional. So by definition anything they agree with is
constitutional. It may be reversed in the future, but for now you and I
are stuck with it.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
Hardly -- the preamble merely sets forth the _reasons_ for the establishment
of the Constitution. It's quite a stretch to claim that the language of the
preamble is describing the _powers_granted_ by the Constitution, since those
powers are enumerated quite specifically in the numbered Articles.
Not much, IMHO...
There's at least one major difference: the doctrine of "strict Scripturalism"
is found nowhere in Scripture, and is therefore logically inconsistent.
Actually, one could argue that it has not been abrogated: the 13th Amendment
doesn't prohibit *voluntary* servitude, and this language would certainly
appear to apply to any contracts thus involved. <g>
No, _by_definition_ "Constitutional" is what the Constitution says;
_for_practical_purposes_ "Constitutional" is what the S.C. agrees with. A
small disctinction, perhaps, but nonetheless a crucial one.
Yep. And that's the limit. Unfortunately, the S.C. often forgets that.
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Uh, the Constitution says no such thing. The organization of the federal
government under the Constitution implies that result, but the
Constitution does not expressly give the Supreme Court that power.
Madison commented on this clause specifically, knowing that people
would try to read it as you have: A Get Out Of Jail Free card for
all manner of Federal government action. He specifically said it
was *not* that - that reading it this way would undermine the doctrine
of enumerated powers that animates the entire Constitution.
"Promote the general welfare" is properly (in terms of the Framers'
intent) read to be a statement of *purpose for creating a Constitution*.
It is not a grant of unlimited power, but a *justification* for
a limited Federalist system bounded by very narrow enumerated powers -
the exact opposite of what you're trying to pry out of it.
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.