|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Fourth of July 2017 (7/17/2017 1:38:23 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
Your comments on the history were correct, and not hyperbole, but you weren't commenting on the history of the oppression of blacks. You were trying to tie moving towards a more limited government as leading back to the times when blacks were oppressed, which was the hyperbole.
Not hyperbole at all. When the Federal Government withdrew from the Southern states they were free to re-enslave blacks. An example to make us wary of limited Federal government.
Yes, it is hyperbole, Vince. Do you think we'd trend back to those times if we had a more limited government? Do you think we'd see the same results if we adopted a more limited government?
quote:
quote:
The elderly and sick weren't being taken care of? Really? I think you're drifting back into hyperbole, there, Vince. And, no, it's not the Federal Government's job to take care of them. And, that's not a cruel philosophy, either.
Still, its achievement in improving life expectancy and reducing poverty among the elderly has been enormous. Before Medicare, almost half of all Americans 65 and older had no health insurance. Today that number is 2 percent. Analysts say that between 1970 and 2010, Medicare contributed to a five-year increase in life expectancy at age 65, by providing early access to needed medical care.
Again, no hyperbole . . . https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/opinion/medicare-and-medicaid-at-50.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States) quote:
Before Medicare's creation, approximately 60% of those over 65 had health insurance, with coverage often unavailable or unaffordable to many others,
Hyperbole on the part of the NY Times.
Here's an interesting graph from Forbe's in 2014 (using 2012 data):
[image]http://blogs-images.forbes.com/danmunro/files/2014/04/hccostsbyage.png[/image]
The spending for those who qualify for Medicare is where spending diverges most.
From HuffPo (2013 article using 2012 spending numbers):
[image]http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/2013_09_HealthCareCosts2_1.png[/image]
We spend more than almost every other nation already, in terms of Public money. How is that going to not rise by adding the rest of the country?
quote:
Displaced workers over age 50. Again, not hyperbole. Here is research on the difficulty of finding a new job. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150616131615.htm
Yep, difficulty finding re-employment. It took, on average, 6 weeks longer for them to find re-employment as compared to younger people.
Are you claiming that's the fault of the Federal Government, or that the Federal Government has the authority and/or responsibility to effect a change in those outcomes?!?
quote:
Constitutional originalism . . . sometimes Madison's view prevailed and sometimes Hamilton's view prevailed even down through subsequent Supreme Court Opinions. Let's not pretend that the Founders were a monolith of agreement. Madison represented the views of the wealthy plantation, slave owners, and Hamilton represented the views of the Northeastern merchant class. But nobody represented the common man as roughly only 3% of what we would now consider the electorate actually were able to vote on the new Constitution. Originalism is not a holy grail.
Yet, it does provide a consistent and stable framework upon which Government can be formed. If we're always going to apply changing definitions according to current popular thought, how are we to ever know what government can or can not do?
quote:
Regulation and taxes on businesses. . . . poor sods bitch and moan about paying but then do not shy from enjoying the benefits of interstate transit, clean environment, and military defense.
You ignore that every individual can enjoy those same benefits.
Plus, there's this: quote:
To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.
Yes, that's Madison during his veto of a Federal Public Works bill. Note his explanation that interpreting the Constitution as allowing the bill "would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation." Interesting, huh?
Then there is Grover Cleveland in his veto of an 1887 bill to help farmers recover from a drought:quote:
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.
Note his view that the "power and duty of the general government" shouldn't be extended "to the relief of individual suffering."
quote:
quote:
Who - here or in a public forum - has argued for no taxes on businesses, and no regulations? If there isn't anyone, then, once again, you're drifting towards hyperbole.
To listen to the wing nuts in Congress one would have to believe they would be happy at getting to as close to zero as possible, especially in regulations. You need only to look at Trump's cabinet to see a platoon of anti-regulation moguls. Teddy Roosevelt would cry.
I do think it's your misconception and misinterpretation that there are elected representatives that are in favor of zero business taxes and/or zero regulation. Any cites for your claim?
quote:
If I am hyperbole, DS, you are head buried in the sand. [:D] Always an interesting and civil challenge.
You use hyperbole to attempt to invoke emotion in the readers of your posts (through your use of hyperbole), in an effort to gain their agreement. I find that to be disingenuous.
|
|
|
|
