At 11/29/12 11:15 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Like what? Greece? Spain? Italy?

Most of Europe.
Yeah you do sound like someone who analyzes things fairly haha.

Good. Those are voluntary actions.

No, not really. If you're left alone you're pretty much dead in this scenario.
But hey, for you that's a choice apparently. But good news, you have that choice now! Hurray!

Millions die, and starve, and become homeless in the current system.

Yet, way less than under your proposed "system".

I'm suggesting a government that plays by the same rules as it's people.

You haven't really proposed anything so far, beyond "the government should only do good things".
Yeah that's pretty groundbreaking.

What those things are, you cannot say.
I think we have "roads" now. Anything else? Haha.

So your world is basically a government that does nothing but build roads, without collecting taxes. This will somehow result in an utopia and not a horrible post-apocalyptic mad max hellscape. You know this because HOW COULD RON PAUL BE WRONG? He's not a crazy old man at all.

At 11/29/12 10:27 PM, poxpower wrote:

This is a problem that some are actively trying to solve by introducing a constitutional amendment: http://www.wolf-pac.com/

This is something that I really like. I doubt that it'll ever make any true headway in our government in our lifetimes due to the fact that I'm sure the corporations that are supposed to be shut out in the deal will fight it tooth and nail, but I do like to see something like this existing in a respectable way. Thanks for sharing.

At 11/30/12 08:39 AM, ZJ wrote:

This is something that I really like. I doubt that it'll ever make any true headway in our government in our lifetimes due to the fact that I'm sure the corporations that are supposed to be shut out in the deal will fight it tooth and nail, but I do like to see something like this existing in a respectable way. Thanks for sharing.

The corporations only have power in that they give the politicians their jobs, which in turn insures that the politicians can go work as lobbyists / consultants for those same corporations later on. This is nothing more than legalized corruption.

So the idea here is to threaten their job security by first targeting on a more local level and gradually having heads roll all over the country. It's kind of like a boycott. Once that happens enough times, you can start threatening to pass this new amendment, which will make the government shit its pants in terror and most likely compromise and repeal some existing shitty laws instead of risking taking the full force of the amendment up the cornhole.

At 11/30/12 09:02 AM, poxpower wrote:

repeal some existing shitty laws instead of risking taking the full force of the amendment up the cornhole.

I do like the sound of that. The one thing to note is that it would be the first time that a Constitutional Amendment would actually be brought up by a National Convention brought on by the States instead of going through the two houses of our Federal government. It'd be a first, but I do think it's possible.

At 11/30/12 12:54 AM, poxpower wrote: Most of Europe.

Most of the EU is in a financial crises and begging for bailouts and loans from other governments :)

No, not really. If you're left alone you're pretty much dead in this scenario.

Exactly. And if you choose not to participate in something, YOU reap the consequence. No one else. Just you.

Yet, way less than under your proposed "system".

More money, more jobs, cheaper food/necessities = more starvation and homelessness than we have now...makes sense I guess (just kidding. That makes zero sense)

You haven't really proposed anything so far, beyond "the government should only do good things".

I'm suggesting that the government follows the law/constitution, and laws that prevent political power to be bought or sold.

What those things are, you cannot say.
I think we have "roads" now. Anything else? Haha.

What does this even mean?

So your world is basically a government that does nothing but build roads, without collecting taxes. This will somehow result in an utopia and not a horrible post-apocalyptic mad max hellscape. You know this because HOW COULD RON PAUL BE WRONG? He's not a crazy old man at all.

A) I never said anything about no taxes. I said we should be taxed for things that contribute to the nation as a whole instead of being taxed for things that benefit a specific group of people.

B) No where in the constitution does it say the government should do much of anything other than protect the border, print money, and work out trade deals with other nations. I don't see anything about social security, bailouts, or invading non-threatening countries in there.

C) Not Ron Paul. Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell, son. Read a book :)

At 11/30/12 11:00 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Most of the EU is in a financial crises and begging for bailouts and loans from other governments :)

I always find that weird, because how exactly is America any different?

At 11/30/12 06:32 PM, Warforger wrote: I always find that weird, because how exactly is America any different?

We aren't. That's the point.

It's no secret that europe is collapsing (again). What I don't get is why American politicians are trying to policies that we have seen fail.

At 11/30/12 06:54 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 11/30/12 06:32 PM, Warforger wrote: I always find that weird, because how exactly is America any different?

We aren't. That's the point.

politicians are trying to policies that we have seen fail.

A) Because they don't give a shit.
B) Because they do not have a choice.

At 11/30/12 11:00 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

Most of the EU is in a financial crises and begging for bailouts and loans from other governments :)

They're largely doing better than the US but I'll let you live in your dream land where every country in Europe is Greece and not Germany, a country which has a "nanny state" too yet is doing pretty damn well right now.

You know, there is such a thing as abusing social nets. More isn't always better. But none is far worse than some, which is the entire crux of the argument.

Exactly. And if you choose not to participate in something, YOU reap the consequence. No one else. Just you.

Just you? How so? What's preventing me from turning to crime? And mobs?
Oh right, nothing. Which is what happens.
Guess what else happens? I spread my filth everywhere, beg in the streets and pollute other people's stuff. Oh, you think you own this lake? No, sorry, that's where I dump my poo now because I don't feel like paying for sewage systems.

Again another point dumbass ultra libertarians don't get: You don't live in a little bubble where no one's actions but your own have any repercussion on your life.

More money, more jobs, cheaper food/necessities = more starvation and homelessness than we have now...makes sense I guess (just kidding. That makes zero sense)

Yeah again this is the proposed libertarian mantra that is always fuzzy on when exactly it happens. You need SOME government of course! But how much? Don't ask for specifics!

Cops? Oh, yeah, probably. Courts? Roads? Infrastructure? Printing money? Erh... WHO KNOWS!

All you really actually point out is bad policy and corruption and then generalize those things to mean that governments are bad and can't work, ignoring reality and examples of when it actually does, as with nationalized healthcare for instance.

Somehow the USA has the "best in the world" yet no independent healthcare ranking organization places your dumb asses anywhere near the top. But republicans and libertarians sure love to tout how America is NUMBER ONE IN HEALTHCARE!

Yeah I guess, if you're Bill Gates.

I'm suggesting that the government follows the law/constitution, and laws that prevent political power to be bought or sold.

Again that's not actually proposing what exactly the government has to spend money on. There's no "The government shall tax people to build roads" anywhere in there. Where did you figure that it's now the government's role to work on infrastructure?

A) I never said anything about no taxes. I said we should be taxed for things that contribute to the nation as a whole

Again, you've yet to name any of those things besides "roads".

B) No where in the constitution does it say the government should do much of anything other than protect the border, print money, and work out trade deals with other nations. I don't see anything about social security, bailouts, or invading non-threatening countries in there.

Yeah and there was nothing about letting women vote or abolishing slavery either. Note also that it doesn't say you can print money since you have to pay in gold and silver. So really, you can only print so much, which, as it turns out, is a bad thing.

See this is why it's retarded to believe a piece of paper written over 2 centuries ago somehow has more wisdom than all of today's top economists, anthropologists, sociologists and scientists combined.

Any government program or law should stand on its own merits and not be judged on whether or not some crusty old dudes thought it was a good idea 100 years before horses were replaced by cars.

Note that in the constitution it also says that the government has to maintain the post office and POSTAL ROADS, not just "roads" or bridges or railroads.
Wasn't Milton Friedman raving about how shitty the post office is? And if Ron Paul and his ilk as such literally constitutionalists, why are they always complaining that the post office is shit?

Guess that for the things they don't like, they don't really give a damn about the constitution do they?

The constitution has been amended a bunch of times as well, like that time they banned alcohol. Whoops. Which version of the constitution is right exactly?

How about: We don't care?

No one 250 years ago was so smart and progressive that they could write how to run a country today, neither socially nor economically.

At 12/1/12 02:10 AM, poxpower wrote: They're largely doing better than the US

No

You know, there is such a thing as abusing social nets. More isn't always better. But none is far worse than some, which is the entire crux of the argument.

More is ALWAYS worse. The less you have the more potential for abuse.

FWIW, nowhere did I advocate a no safety net policy.

Just you? How so? What's preventing me from turning to crime? And mobs?

The community you chose not to join will arrest and/or kill you depending on the severity of the crime....which again, would be your own fault because you CHOSE to turn to crime, instead of joining the society.

Guess what else happens? I spread my filth everywhere, beg in the streets and pollute other people's stuff. Oh, you think you own this lake? No, sorry, that's where I dump my poo now because I don't feel like paying for sewage systems.

Exactly and you will be punished for your choice that infringes on other's rights. Property rights, in this case.

Again another point dumbass ultra libertarians don't get: You don't live in a little bubble where no one's actions but your own have any repercussion on your life.

That's exactly the point.

Yeah again this is the proposed libertarian mantra that is always fuzzy on when exactly it happens. You need SOME government of course! But how much? Don't ask for specifics!

No, libertarians don't want to abolish government. The specifics of which laws, etc that should be in place are right there in the constitution. Basically a libertarian calls for government only to protect against the infringements on rights of others.

Example: I should be fully allowed, by law to drink as smoke or possess as much pot as I want...the moment I infringe on someone else's personal property or rights in order to obtain it, then legal action should be taken against me. Get it, dunce?

Cops? Oh, yeah, probably. Courts? Roads? Infrastructure? Printing money? Erh... WHO KNOWS!

Those things are either A) in the constitution, or B) fall under that whole "general welfare" thing, or C) Funded/created/supported by the state.

All you really actually point out is bad policy and corruption and then generalize those things to mean that governments are bad and can't work, ignoring reality and examples of when it actually does, as with nationalized healthcare for instance.

Show me where nationalized healthcare works.

Somehow the USA has the "best in the world" yet no independent healthcare ranking organization places your dumb asses anywhere near the top. But republicans and libertarians sure love to tout how America is NUMBER ONE IN HEALTHCARE!

Like I said WE are the innovators in technology and medical procedures. There's a reason why medical students COME HERE to study. There's a reason why patients COME HERE for treatment.

Again that's not actually proposing what exactly the government has to spend money on. There's no "The government shall tax people to build roads" anywhere in there. Where did you figure that it's now the government's role to work on infrastructure?

Because it falls under the general welfare clause because no group or person is benefited at the cost of others. What the government can spend money on is right there in black and white. It's when you get progressives like George Bush's or FDR's courts into the mix that things are "interpreted" differently.

Again, you've yet to name any of those things besides "roads".

That's because there aren't any...or at least not very many. Many of the things that people deem as a federal responsibility, are meant to be handled by the state...you know that 10th amendment thing.

B) No where in the constitution does it say the government should do much of anything other than protect the border, print money, and work out trade deals with other nations. I don't see anything about social security, bailouts, or invading non-threatening countries in there.

Yeah and there was nothing about letting women vote or abolishing slavery either. Note also that it doesn't say you can print money since you have to pay in gold and silver. So really, you can only print so much, which, as it turns out, is a bad thing.

It's funny you bring this up because you're totally right. It was the governments at the time that prevented women from voting, and made black people count as 3/5 of a person. Those were laws passed by the government. It was the government who created that bondage :)

See this is why it's retarded to believe a piece of paper written over 2 centuries ago somehow has more wisdom than all of today's top economists, anthropologists, sociologists and scientists combined.

No one has proposed that. See, this is how retard Europeans misinterpret Americans :)

Please explain the constitutions flaws and how going against it benefits society. Because as I can tell, every time America goes against it's founding documents, people die, wars breakout, poverty levels rise, etc.

Any government program or law should stand on its own merits and not be judged on whether or not some crusty old dudes thought it was a good idea 100 years before horses were replaced by cars.

Agreed. Unfortunately, most of the programs you're deeming necessary or good, ARE being judged on their own merits. And those merits suck ass. Social Security, bankrupt. Medicare, bankrupt. Obamacare, bankrupts people.

Note that in the constitution it also says that the government has to maintain the post office and POSTAL ROADS, not just "roads" or bridges or railroads.

Mmhhhmm...and?

Wasn't Milton Friedman raving about how shitty the post office is? And if Ron Paul and his ilk as such literally constitutionalists, why are they always complaining that the post office is shit?

The post office IS shit. They are ALSO bankrupt. They lose packages. You know who is making record profits in that industry? UPS. Know who has leaps and bounds better service? UPS. Know who the post office turns to to deliver mail abroad? FedEx.

The mail industry is the PERFECT example of private sector companies out doing governments' (space travel, and automobiles are a couple others)

Guess that for the things they don't like, they don't really give a damn about the constitution do they?

Oh riiight....they want to abolish the post office *rolls eyes*

The constitution has been amended a bunch of times as well, like that time they banned alcohol. Whoops. Which version of the constitution is right exactly?

Amendements are totally legal, acceptable ways of changing laws to suit the times. The original constitution was never meant to be untouchable because they knew society would change. That's why there's a process to change the law. The only untouchable parts are the bill of rights.

Having said that, can you show me the Constitutional amendment for Obamacare, SS, Medicare, etc?

No one 250 years ago was so smart and progressive that they could write how to run a country today, neither socially nor economically.

Exactly. Hence why they created an...elastic, if you will, system that allowed evolution and change over time.

Geez, we already had too much trouble boycotting Chic-fil-a. Now here too? I have this habit of never going to a restaurant twice when I get a new job and since I got my latest job, I didn't go to Chic-fil-a or Papa John's, so I guess I'll just have to wait until they stop being like this.

Besides, I have a Domino's gift card.

At 12/1/12 09:51 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

More is ALWAYS worse. The less you have the more potential for abuse.
FWIW, nowhere did I advocate a no safety net policy.

You just did IN THE SENTENCE ABOVE THIS SENTENCE.
lol

The community you chose not to join will arrest and/or kill you depending on the severity of the crime....which again, would be your own fault because you CHOSE to turn to crime, instead of joining the society.

Lol this is EXACTLY what you hate about the government.

Basically a libertarian calls for government only to protect against the infringements on rights of others.

Yeah this isn't an actual concrete thing in case you haven't noticed. There's no formula to know if something is "infringing on the rights of others". It's almost meaningless as "rights" are a made-up things in the first place.

Not to mention that sometimes you can't give rights to some without taking away rights to others.

Those things are either A) in the constitution, or B) fall under that whole "general welfare" thing, or C) Funded/created/supported by the state.

Yes but that doesn't tell me if you think they should be done by the government.

Show me where nationalized healthcare works.

What does "work" mean?
In your head it probably means "Show me where it's 100% good, has no corruption, bureaucracy and saves 100% of everyone".
Here's just one example of what nationalized healthcare does for a country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mor tality_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

Everywhere you see nationalized healthcare correlated with better and cheaper healthcare standards. The USA is an outlier in that it has a sick as fuck population even though it's incredibly wealthy, specifically because you don't have nationalized healthcare.

Like I said WE are the innovators in technology and medical procedures.

Yeah you don't seem to grasp the fact that this doesn't make your citizens healthier or your overall healthcare cheaper.

Because it falls under the general welfare clause because no group or person is benefited at the cost of others.

Haha no group or person is benefited more by roads? Hahaha what are you even saying?
How are you measuring that? Some people drive for hours every day. Some don't even use roads, they use the subway or trains or bike paths. Or walk.

It's hilarious that you can't realize the road argument is the exact same as the healthcare argument. The entire point of public roads is to spread the cost among everyone and to have roads open for anyone's usage, even if some will use it more than others.

It's THE EXACT SAME THING.

But for some crackpot reason you think this only works for roads, but can't work for schools or healthcare.

Many of the things that people deem as a federal responsibility, are meant to be handled by the state

Newsflash: State governments are still governments.
Wow this is getting more intricate now! So public healthcare can't work for 300 million people, but it could work for 20 million! Yes makes sense! There is sure to be high levels of corruption on a FEDERAL level, of course, since it's so big, unlike say the government of California, which as we know is tiny. After all they only oversee an economy , territory and population larger than most countries on earth.

It's funny you bring this up because you're totally right. It was the governments at the time that prevented women from voting, and made black people count as 3/5 of a person. Those were laws passed by the government. It was the government who created that bondage :)

Yeah and now it's preventing people under the age of 18 from voting as well. DAMN YOU GUVMENT!
Why in your perfect world, people could vote from birth. "Legal age"? That's a stupid oppressive concept! Kids can smoke and get laid by prostitutes whenever they want!

The post office IS shit. They are ALSO bankrupt. They lose packages. You know who is making record profits in that industry? UPS. Know who has leaps and bounds better service? UPS. Know who the post office turns to to deliver mail abroad? FedEx.

BUT I THOUGHT WE HAD TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION AND IF WE STRAYED, PEOPLE WOULD DIE AND BE POOR :,(

Having said that, can you show me the Constitutional amendment for Obamacare, SS, Medicare, etc?

Where does it say it's unconstitutional exactly?

At 12/1/12 12:20 PM, poxpower wrote: You just did IN THE SENTENCE ABOVE THIS SENTENCE.

No?

Lol this is EXACTLY what you hate about the government.

Again, no. A small city level government (as we're talking about here) has every right to pusnish those who infringe on the rights of others. I've never said anything to the contrary.

Yeah this isn't an actual concrete thing in case you haven't noticed. There's no formula to know if something is "infringing on the rights of others". It's almost meaningless as "rights" are a made-up things in the first place.

Yes there is. You kill someone, you're infringing on their rights. You steal. You're infringing. You hurt someone. You're infringing on them. You steal money form one group to fund your corporate buddies. That's infringing.

Are you so dense to not know what it means to infringe on somebody's right?

Not to mention that sometimes you can't give rights to some without taking away rights to others.

Yes you can. See: Bill of Rights

Yes but that doesn't tell me if you think they should be done by the government.

Doesn't it 0__o

What does "work" mean?

Fiscal solvency?

In your head it probably means "Show me where it's 100% good, has no corruption, bureaucracy and saves 100% of everyone".

No

Everywhere you see nationalized healthcare correlated with better and cheaper healthcare standards. The USA is an outlier in that it has a sick as fuck population even though it's incredibly wealthy, specifically because you don't have nationalized healthcare.

No, we're sick as fuck because our food and water is poisoned by industry, and everyone is on drugs.

If you notice, in the countries you're refering to, the quality of care is low, while availability is high.

Yeah you don't seem to grasp the fact that this doesn't make your citizens healthier or your overall healthcare cheaper.

As I said, our citizens are sick because of food monopolies poisoning us, and healthcare is expensive because the government enforces/protects the medical industry from the market.

Haha no group or person is benefited more by roads? Hahaha what are you even saying?

No, everyone benefits from it equally.

How are you measuring that? Some people drive for hours every day. Some don't even use roads, they use the subway or trains or bike paths. Or walk.

Subways and bike paths are not usually funded by federal tax dollars...

It's hilarious that you can't realize the road argument is the exact same as the healthcare argument. The entire point of public roads is to spread the cost among everyone and to have roads open for anyone's usage, even if some will use it more than others.

Except it isn't because healthcare is a service. A road is not.

But for some crackpot reason you think this only works for roads, but can't work for schools or healthcare.

Schools and healthcare are an industry and service. Roads, the military, etc. are not.

Newsflash: State governments are still governments.

And??

Wow this is getting more intricate now! So public healthcare can't work for 300 million people, but it could work for 20 million! Yes makes sense! There is sure to be high levels of corruption on a FEDERAL level, of course, since it's so big, unlike say the government of California, which as we know is tiny. After all they only oversee an economy , territory and population larger than most countries on earth.

States are free to do as they please, and I have no problem with a state exercising it's 10th amendment right. It's not intricate, you're just a moron.

Why in your perfect world, people could vote from birth. "Legal age"? That's a stupid oppressive concept! Kids can smoke and get laid by prostitutes whenever they want!

Says who? You're fucked up, incorrect idea of what a free society is? Sorry little bitch, it doesn't work that way.

BUT I THOUGHT WE HAD TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION AND IF WE STRAYED, PEOPLE WOULD DIE AND BE POOR :,(

Now you'er getting it :)

Where does it say it's unconstitutional exactly?

No, no, what part of the constitution permits it?

At 12/1/12 12:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote: No, no, what part of the constitution permits it?

Article 1, section 8.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, ... to pay ... for the ... general Welfare of the United States, ..."

At 12/1/12 02:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, ... to pay ... for the ... general Welfare of the United States, ..."

OMG! Are you trying to tell me that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of liberal pussies who wanted to give free cell phones to welfare queens?

At 12/1/12 12:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 12/1/12 12:20 PM, poxpower wrote: You just did IN THE SENTENCE ABOVE THIS SENTENCE.

No?

Yes you said "more welfare is always worse" literally one sentence before saying you don't advocate for any safety nets.

Again, no. A small city level government (as we're talking about here) has every right to pusnish those who infringe on the rights of others. I've never said anything to the contrary.

What is a "city". Some cities have millions of people.
Again this is the arbitrary anarchist definition of "government". Is a town council a government? No of course not! A city? A large city? A county? A state? Who knows!

It's generally just a way for them to yell at their own Federal government without providing any alternatives beyond "let's form mobs".

Are you so dense to not know what it means to infringe on somebody's right?

No, I'm smart enough to know the philosophical implications of your simplistic viewpoints on life.
Is abortion infringing on rights?
Am I infringing on your rights if you abuse your child and I try to prevent it? Am I infringing on a child's right if he doesn't want to go to school? Can I play loud music if you have a headache? Can I claim your land by force, since you don't really own anything you can't protect

What does "work" mean?

Fiscal solvency?

Wtf does that mean? Again, every country has a debt. So will you exclude every country that owes money, blaming their healthcare system, a system that BY DEFINITION shouldn't generate money and will therefore always be "insolvent" in your eyes?

No, we're sick as fuck because our food and water is poisoned by industry, and everyone is on drugs.

The madness deepens lol

If you notice, in the countries you're referring to, the quality of care is low, while availability is high.

No, the quality of care in countries like France, Germany, Japan, Canada etc. is on average equal / higher than in the US.

How are you measuring that? Some people drive for hours every day. Some don't even use roads, they use the subway or trains or bike paths. Or walk.

Subways and bike paths are not usually funded by federal tax dollars...

Despite the fact that I just showed you examples of people benefiting VASTLY MORE from roads than others, you still drone on about how "everyone benefits equally from roads".

This is just nonsense now.

How can two citizen who work the same job and consume the same level of stuff, but where one drives to work while the other takes the bike path, depend on the road system equally??

Except it isn't because healthcare is a service. A road is not.

Again this is mental whereby you seem to now claim that the government can provide "goods" ( which roads aren't,really, or entirely, as they need to constantly be policed and maintained ) but not services ( like, for insance, the post office, which the constitution explicitly say the government must do ) or the army ( which the constitution talks about a lot ).

Now you'er getting it :)

So why are you raving against the post office? The constitution explicitly states that it's the role of the federal government to provide postal service.

Where does it say it's unconstitutional exactly?

No, no, what part of the constitution permits it?

Maybe you should read it to get a general idea of what it actually talks about lol
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

It's purpose isn't to list exactly what the government can and can't spend money on. How could you even do that? Unless something is explicitly prohibited in there, YOU CAN DO IT.

The government can spend all the money on a giant penguin farm tomorrow if they want, there's nothing in the constitution to prevent this.

At 12/1/12 02:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, ... to pay ... for the ... general Welfare of the United States, ..."

Exactly

general Welfare of the United States, ...

GENERAL: Affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread

Obamacare benefits insurance tycoons at the cost of the poor. Something that Democrats used to greatly oppose, sometimes to the point of suggesting impeachment when implemented by Republicans. But evidently, as a Democrat, stealing from the poor to benefit tycoons and corporate interests in A-ok.

Obamacare and similar nanny programs do not benefit "all or most people".

At 12/1/12 02:49 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 12/1/12 02:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, ... to pay ... for the ... general Welfare of the United States, ..."

Exactly

general Welfare of the United States, ...

GENERAL: Affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread

Obamacare benefits insurance tycoons at the cost of the poor. Something that Democrats used to greatly oppose, sometimes to the point of suggesting impeachment when implemented by Republicans. But evidently, as a Democrat, stealing from the poor to benefit tycoons and corporate interests in A-ok.

I know right Insurance companies love all those new regulations which force them to take up people who actually need the insurance like right now.

Obamacare and similar nanny programs do not benefit "all or most people".

Obamacare is hardly a "nanny" program. It's pretty much regulations to make a market free-er an competitive.

At 12/1/12 02:48 PM, poxpower wrote:

Yes you said "more welfare is always worse" literally one sentence before saying you don't advocate for any safety nets.

I said, or at least meant, more government, is always worse. Proof: every tyrannical dictatorship, ever.

What is a "city".

According to WebsterA large town

Again this is the arbitrary anarchist definition of "government". Is a town council a government? No of course not! A city? A large city? A county? A state? Who knows!

What are you talking about? A town council is a government. As is a city, county, state, etc. WTF are you even talking about? What I'M talking about is the federal government over-ruling it's smaller counterparts rights to govern themselves.

You seem to be going off on some...tangent.

It's generally just a way for them to yell at their own Federal government without providing any alternatives beyond "let's form mobs".

No, the alternative is to minimize dictatorship/monarchist qualities in the FEDERAL government, by giving it's parts (states) equal power to it

No, I'm smart enough to know the philosophical implications of your simplistic viewpoints on life.

I'm not talking about philosophy, I'm talking about reality...

Is abortion infringing on rights?

I don't get involved in the abortion debate. I'm not doctor, nor am I a woman. I will never be in a position where abortion applies to me, so I don't put my opinion in that debate. Were my wife or girlfriend in a situation where it DID apply, the decision/discussion would lie between her and I.

Am I infringing on your rights if you abuse your child and I try to prevent it? Am I infringing on a child's right if he doesn't want to go to school? Can I play loud music if you have a headache? Can I claim your land by force, since you don't really own anything you can't protect

Depends. Beating a child is infringing on the child's right's, therefore you are subject to legal intervention.

Wtf does that mean? Again, every country has a debt. So will you exclude every country that owes money, blaming their healthcare system, a system that BY DEFINITION shouldn't generate money and will therefore always be "insolvent" in your eyes?

What does fiscal solvency mean?

Damn dude...

The madness deepens lol

Fun fact, there are some nations who will not import our food because it's full of pesticides, steroids, and genetic modification. If you are denying that, you're delusional.

No, the quality of care in countries like France, Germany, Japan, Canada etc. is on average equal / higher than in the US.

No. JAPAN?!?! Those fuckers don't even have central heating! They still use fax machines for fuck's sake!

Despite the fact that I just showed you examples of people benefiting VASTLY MORE from roads than others, you still drone on about how "everyone benefits equally from roads".

Except you didn't.

How can two citizen who work the same job and consume the same level of stuff, but where one drives to work while the other takes the bike path, depend on the road system equally??

Because food, fuel, and almost every good in your house comes from the interstate system.

Again this is mental whereby you seem to now claim that the government can provide "goods" ( which roads aren't,really, or entirely, as they need to constantly be policed and maintained ) but not services ( like, for insance, the post office, which the constitution explicitly say the government must do ) or the army ( which the constitution talks about a lot ).

Now you're just talking nonsense. A government is not meant to provide goods or services that benefit one group of people (in the case of Obamacare, insurance CEO's), at the expense of others.

You aren't using your brain, you know it, you're playing stupid, and trying to twist words into something nonsensical. That's fine, everyone here can see your near-insanity for what it is...

So why are you raving against the post office? The constitution explicitly states that it's the role of the federal government to provide postal service.

No it doesn't. It does not say a postal service is required. I'm, er, "raving", against it because it's a bankrupt money pit that does nothing.

Maybe you should read it to get a general idea of what it actually talks about lol
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Yeah, I've read the Constitution. More than once. You still have to explain where nanny-programs like Medicare, for example, are explicitly mentioned and/or permitted.

It's purpose isn't to list exactly what the government can and can't spend money on.

Except it is. Everything that isn't explicitly mentioned, is to be handled by States.

The government can spend all the money on a giant penguin farm tomorrow if they want, there's nothing in the constitution to prevent this.

Except there is.

At 12/1/12 03:00 PM, Warforger wrote: I know right Insurance companies love all those new regulations which force them to take up people who actually need the insurance like right now.

You mean the regulations that guarantee they will have millions of new customers who they can price gouge as they please because the people can't opt out?

Read this. Currently, Virginia CareFirst BlueCross offers two insurance plans: a "guaranteed issue" insurance plan costing $1,978/month that covers pre-existing conditions and an insurance plan with no guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions at $333/month. However, under the President's law, the only insurance option will be the expensive insurance plan

Obamacare is hardly a "nanny" program. It's pretty much regulations to make a market free-er an competitive.

Exactly. It's the government playing nanny to those "fat cats" Obama used to bash...

At 12/1/12 03:06 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I said, or at least meant, more government, is always worse. Proof: every tyrannical dictatorship, ever.

The Founding Fathers are turning in their graves after you said that. You want to know when it's a good thing? Check Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.

Fun fact, there are some nations who will not import our food because it's full of pesticides, steroids, and genetic modification. If you are denying that, you're delusional.

And those nations are suffering because of that when all these "zombie foods" amount to is just adding in a gene which makes them resistant to drought or insects.

No, the quality of care in countries like France, Germany, Japan, Canada etc. is on average equal / higher than in the US.

No. JAPAN?!?! Those fuckers don't even have central heating! They still use fax machines for fuck's sake!

Fax machines have little to do with standard of living, the reason they're there is because Japan's demographic pyramid is lopsided, the old outnumber the young and they sure as hell don't want to go to new technology. As for Central Heating that is not because they can't afford it, it's because they don't want it. Other than this Japan's healthcare ranks some of the best in the world, whereas the US is average but spends the most in the world on healthcare per person. Even worse it's ineffective because some groups aren't even living in a 1st world country and have mortality rates of 2nd world nations, thus we overspend on healthcare, get less back and not cover everyone. The US definitely ranks far behind the world in many area's and tends to only lead the world in the # of prisoners per capita and military spending but I'm not sure that's something to be proud of.

Now you're just talking nonsense. A government is not meant to provide goods or services that benefit one group of people (in the case of Obamacare, insurance CEO's), at the expense of others.

Actually pretty much every political ideology does that.

You aren't using your brain, you know it, you're playing stupid, and trying to twist words into something nonsensical. That's fine, everyone here can see your near-insanity for what it is...

Typical Libertarian bullshit. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is either evil or stupid.

So why are you raving against the post office? The constitution explicitly states that it's the role of the federal government to provide postal service.

No it doesn't. It does not say a postal service is required. I'm, er, "raving", against it because it's a bankrupt money pit that does nothing.

Except it kind of does give the Federal government the authority to create a Postal Service as that is the job of the Federal government and it always has been ever since the goddamn Articles of Confederation.

Yeah, I've read the Constitution. More than once. You still have to explain where nanny-programs like Medicare, for example, are explicitly mentioned and/or permitted.

You do realize every bill that passes Congress cites the place in the Constitution where it's permitted right? For Medicare it's the "General welfare of the people".

It's purpose isn't to list exactly what the government can and can't spend money on.

Except it is. Everything that isn't explicitly mentioned, is to be handled by States.

And that is what has been going on.

The government can spend all the money on a giant penguin farm tomorrow if they want, there's nothing in the constitution to prevent this.

Except there is.

Like what?

At 12/1/12 03:18 PM, Warforger wrote: The Founding Fathers are turning in their graves after you said that. You want to know when it's a good thing? Check Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.

Right...they're in agreement with what I said...what exactly is your point?

And those nations are suffering because of that when all these "zombie foods" amount to is just adding in a gene which makes them resistant to drought or insects.

No, hormones do not just add drought resistance.

:The US definitely ranks far behind the world in many area's and tends to only lead the world in the # of prisoners per capita and military spending but I'm not sure that's something to be proud of.

Which must be the reason so many people come here for surgeries and caner treatments, right?

Actually pretty much every political ideology does that.

Except capitalism.

Typical Libertarian bullshit. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is either evil or stupid.

When you can't see the 2+2 is 4 and are screaming at the top of your lungs that the sky is green, yes, I think you're quite stupid.

Except it kind of does give the Federal government the authority to create a Postal Service as that is the job of the Federal government and it always has been ever since the goddamn Articles of Confederation.

Of course they have the authority to do it. That doesn't make it a good idea.

You do realize every bill that passes Congress cites the place in the Constitution where it's permitted right? For Medicare it's the "General welfare of the people".

That's what happens when you have corrupt govt. officials who chase money instead of defending it's people :)

And that is what has been going on.

Really? You think so? Then why aren't any states allowed to opt out of Obamacare, or Social Security, or write their own tax codes? Why are states like California not allowed to pass their own marijuana laws?

Like what?

I don't even see the word penguin anywhere in there. At all.

At 12/1/12 04:17 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Right...they're in agreement with what I said...what exactly is your point?

So by agreeing with the transition for the AoC to the Constitution, you say that yu approve of bigger government.

No, hormones do not just add drought resistance.

I know, seriously. The last GMO tomato I tried to eat challenged me to an arm wrestling match, and won.

Which must be the reason so many people come here for surgeries and caner treatments, right?

They have the money to pay for the best. The upper echelon in the US is top notch. Everything below that is utter shit.

When you can't see the 2+2 is 4 and are screaming at the top of your lungs that the sky is green, yes, I think you're quite stupid.

Where did you learn that 2+2=4? The government. Who has fought to keep the skies above American from becoming LA green? The Government.

That's what happens when you have corrupt govt. officials who chase money instead of defending it's people :)

*its

Also, Medicare definitely defends the American people. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just lying to themself.

Really? You think so? Then why aren't any states allowed to opt out of Obamacare, or Social Security, or write their own tax codes? Why are states like California not allowed to pass their own marijuana laws?

Article 4. The supremacy clause.

At 12/1/12 04:17 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 12/1/12 03:18 PM, Warforger wrote: The Founding Fathers are turning in their graves after you said that. You want to know when it's a good thing? Check Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.

Right...they're in agreement with what I said...what exactly is your point?

No they're not. First off you're assuming the Founding Fathers were Libertarians, they weren't, in fact it's stupid to say they had one ideology because you had some people who wanted all the power in the legislative branch while others wanted the President to have a life term. Many of the Founding Fathers did not like Democracy but accepted it as a way to check the government. They had no qualm with big government as long as it was checked, to them no one group was always right (which is totally in contrast to Libertarian ideology and their demigod business leaders). On top of this the whole point of the Constitution was to expand Federal power, not shrink it. And it worked, the Constitution was much more successful than the Articles of Confederation. To them the Common Good was not the same thing as the Common Interest. This is why up until the late 1800's Senators were appointed by state legislatures, this is why we have an Electoral College to pick the President and this is why the Supreme Court is unelected. The Founding Fathers did not believe that a bigger government was a bad thing hell Madison even argued why it was a good thing.

And those nations are suffering because of that when all these "zombie foods" amount to is just adding in a gene which makes them resistant to drought or insects.

No, hormones do not just add drought resistance.

You listed 3 things one of them being GMO's which tend to provoke the most controversy, those become drought resistant. I'm going to guess by hormones you mean when they give hormones to cows so they can milk them more. But my point stands, the danger of these substances are largely exaggerated and dirtied by a few bad cases, and these nations are buying into the spin and are suffering for it.

The US definitely ranks far behind the world in many area's and tends to only lead the world in the # of prisoners per capita and military spending but I'm not sure that's something to be proud of.

Which must be the reason so many people come here for surgeries and caner treatments, right?

To private hospitals I presume which only the rich can go to. Otherwise it really doesn't happen aside from a few isolated cases meaning it doesn't indicate anything. But even if this idea that the US has better care was true it still doesn't address the point that people don't have access to it, which is why we get so little in return when it comes to healthcare.

Except capitalism.

Nope, capitalism favors the businessmen over everyone else.

Typical Libertarian bullshit. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is either evil or stupid.

When you can't see the 2+2 is 4 and are screaming at the top of your lungs that the sky is green, yes, I think you're quite stupid.

Funny that's what everyone has been doing here ever since you started posting. I wonder if that's a coincidence.....

Except it kind of does give the Federal government the authority to create a Postal Service as that is the job of the Federal government and it always has been ever since the goddamn Articles of Confederation.

Of course they have the authority to do it. That doesn't make it a good idea.

...Ok?

You do realize every bill that passes Congress cites the place in the Constitution where it's permitted right? For Medicare it's the "General welfare of the people".

That's what happens when you have corrupt govt. officials who chase money instead of defending it's people :)

Except that's a rather vague term so it's not like they can't argue they're doing something for the welfare of the people.

And that is what has been going on.

Really? You think so? Then why aren't any states allowed to opt out of Obamacare, or Social Security, or write their own tax codes? Why are states like California not allowed to pass their own marijuana laws?

They are actually able to op out of it. First off California is allowed to pass its own marijuana laws, in fact CA enforces its state laws and tells the Federal government that if it wants Federal laws enforced it will have to enforce them through Federal agencies. Otherwise yes they are, because things like Obamacare, medicare, medicaid etc. are either Grants or Mandates. Now what a Grant does is it offers a state money in exchange it carries out the requirements of what is specified in the Grant, so say Mississippi wants money from the government it will have to set up an agency to carry out what the Grant entails, like say give healthcare to poor people. Mississippi will get money from the government to carry out what is specified in the Grant. Mandates work in a similar way, it's just they don't give you money and if you don't obey them the Federal government will pull all funding away from the state for all projects. Now they aren't practically able to opt out of these programs because if they do they'll lose a large portion of their state budgets, so of course even insane governors would enforce these mandates/grants. Now this does give the Federal government a bit too much power but it's not unconstitutional, it may not have been what the Founding Fathers intended but it's not illegal.

Like what?

I don't even see the word penguin anywhere in there. At all.

Take a Gov class. For god's sake.

1. My understanding is the economic situation in Several European countries is worse than the United States at present. Including the obvious ones, Italy, Greece, Spain, also Portgual, and France is probably going to join them.

2. If Federal spending exceeds the maximum historical rate of taxation as a percentage of GDP then odds are you are not going to be able to actually turn a deficit around. That maximum in the United States is 20%. Keeping tax rates constant, increased federal spending during a recession is probably going to reduce revenues as a percentage of GDP, given that federal spending is a component of GDP, and the private economy is shrinking. Raising taxes where it gets as close to that barrier as possible combined with spending cuts to bring it below the barrier is a task much tougher than what is considered reasonable political discourse.

3. The idea that SS would have worked fine if not for Dubya seems highly questionable to me, the fundamental nature of the program was that it relied on a particular level of economic growth or a particular ratio of tax payers to elderly persons. Since as far as I know it never relied on actually taking taxed funds and saving them, it was not a question of if but when it would have broken down. Increases in payroll taxes and reductions in benefits have occurred to slow down the time that the shift from revenue-generating to revenue-draining Entitlements occurred. The recession brought social security to that shift earlier than anticipated.

SS was quite simply an ingenious tool developed by Politician many decades ago to raise income taxes on lower and middle income Americans by nominally attaching the taxes to an outlay program. And no one has drunken that kool-aid more thoroughly than elderly conservative voters, ironically. The benefits the Social Security scheme had for federal coffers have dried up and it is likely the SS system will never generate net revenues again, not without continued increases in payroll taxes and reductions in benefits. [Defeating the purpose of the program entirely]

At 12/1/12 03:06 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

What are you talking about? A town council is a government. As is a city, county, state, etc. WTF are you even talking about? What I'M talking about is the federal government over-ruling it's smaller counterparts rights to govern themselves.

Ok so if I understand this...

The FEDERAL government should be as small as possible, which just so happens to be the exact size described in the constitution INCLUDING the amendments, but any size of government lower than the Federal one can do anything they want?

In other words, public healthcare is foolish,wasteful and insane, except if Connecticut passes it on a state level.

Depends. Beating a child is infringing on the child's right's, therefore you are subject to legal intervention.

Why does the child only get SOME rights?
Your society sounds like it's infringing on their rights bro.

What does fiscal solvency mean?

Yeah what does fiscal solvency mean for a government program?
Do explain!
Because as far as I can tell, countries with nationalized healthcare haven't gone bankrupt.

And the army is insolvent too by your definition. How is the army solvent, but healthcare wouldn't be??

Fun fact, there are some nations who will not import our food because it's full of pesticides, steroids, and genetic modification. If you are denying that, you're delusional.

Don't forget to rave against vaccines too. Those are pretty evil.

No. JAPAN?!?! Those fuckers don't even have central heating! They still use fax machines for fuck's sake!

Sad but true
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranki ng_of_health_systems

The US is ranked at 37 in quality of care, but first in expenditure per citizen.

How can two citizen who work the same job and consume the same level of stuff, but where one drives to work while the other takes the bike path, depend on the road system equally??

Because food, fuel, and almost every good in your house comes from the interstate system.

Again, THE TWO CITIZENS ARE THE SAME IN THOSE RESPECTS.
But one uses the roads STRICTLY MORE.

How are you even measuring money back on road usage anyway?

Now you're just talking nonsense. A government is not meant to provide goods or services that benefit one group of people (in the case of Obamacare, insurance CEO's), at the expense of others.

Where is that in the constitution.

You aren't using your brain, you know it, you're playing stupid, and trying to twist words into something nonsensical.

Lol whatever you say. I think my questions are fairly clear and easy to understand, but apparently I'm playing mind games now because I ask you to actually think about what you're saying.

No it doesn't. It does not say a postal service is required. I'm, er, "raving", against it because it's a bankrupt money pit that does nothing.

Yeah it does, in article 8 "Power of Congress"
- To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

Yeah, I've read the Constitution. More than once.

Lol apparently not.

Except it is. Everything that isn't explicitly mentioned, is to be handled by States.

It doesn't say anything about interstate roads in there. Just postal roads.
Which are "a road over which mail is carried"

But it does say this:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

get that?

GENERAL WELFARE.

Don't you KIND OF understand how that can be interpreted as ANYTHING? Haha. Healthcare, schooling, social security and so forth.

Apparently I know more about the US constitution being a Canadian who's read it once than you did by reading Milton Friedman and all those other genius books.

At 12/2/12 12:04 PM, poxpower wrote: The FEDERAL government should be as small as possible, which just so happens to be the exact size described in the constitution INCLUDING the amendments, but any size of government lower than the Federal one can do anything they want?

In other words, public healthcare is foolish,wasteful and insane, except if Connecticut passes it on a state level.

That's exactly right, because states, by way of 10th amendment, are allowed to pass whatever laws they want in their own legislatures, and the 10th Amendment prevents the federal government from over-riding, or over ruling it. The government can only over rule things that defy the Bill of Rights, or amendments. The federal government has no legal power to over-ride a state's laws provided it is not in violation of the Bill of Rights, or the Constitutions amendments. That is why states are required to have their own legislatures, courts, constitutions, etc.

Why does the child only get SOME rights?

They don't?

Yeah what does fiscal solvency mean for a government program?
Do explain!
Because as far as I can tell, countries with nationalized healthcare haven't gone bankrupt.

Really? See Greece, or Spain :) FWIW, if those governments can only "afford" nationalized healthcare because the US gives them so much in military and financial aid. If those countries were required to pay for their own militaries, for example, they wouldn't be able to implement statist programs :)

And the army is insolvent too by your definition. How is the army solvent, but healthcare wouldn't be??

Because the use of the military justifies itself. Every American benefits from the US having a strong military. Every country's people benefit from strong militaries. Mandatory healthcare is a FORCED transfer of money from one group of people, to benefit a small percentage of the population (in this particular situation, it would be insurance and medical industry tycoons)

Don't forget to rave against vaccines too. Those are pretty evil.

No they aren't.

Sad but true
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranki ng_of_health_systems

And they can afford it because we almost fully fund their military. Don't forget, Japan's debt is almost 200% of their GDP

The US is ranked at 37 in quality of care, but first in expenditure per citizen.

Except it actually isn't.

But one uses the roads STRICTLY MORE.

How are you even measuring money back on road usage anyway?

The fuck?

Where is that in the constitution.

General Welfare clause

Yeah it does, in article 8 "Power of Congress"
- To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

They have the POWER to do it. The power is given to them via the Constitution. It is not a requirement.

It's funny how you are quick to cite Article 8 for the power to have a postal service, but it's okay to start other programs that aren't anywhere in those powers of Congress. lol. Make up your mind. Either the constitution gives powers to congress, or it doesn't.

Lol apparently not.

LOL. Been to college kid? You'd be surprised how many times you have to read there...

It doesn't say anything about interstate roads in there. Just postal roads.
Which are "a road over which mail is carried"

It actually says something about "the General Welfare" doesn't it?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

get that?

Yes. GENERAL WELFARE. Not welfare of a select few at the expense of others.

Don't you KIND OF understand how that can be interpreted as ANYTHING? Haha. Healthcare, schooling, social security and so forth.

The term "general" means wide spread..here's the dictionary definition
Affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things..

Obamacare, social security, subsidies for bank CEO's, etc do not benefit "all or most" people. Get it?

Apparently I know more about the US constitution being a Canadian who's read it once than you did by reading Milton Friedman and all those other genius books.

Except, evidently, you know nothing about it. You don't even know what the term "General" means. lol

At 12/2/12 12:46 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

That's exactly right

I'll let you ponder that haha. Wait that's pointless since I've already explained to you the irony of what you're proposing. Like. 40 times.
It seems you aren't actually interested in knowing what the government should or shouldn't do to benefit their people, you just seem to live under a delusion that if the FEDERAL government butts out.. free market.. will somehow.. work everything out..... at a state level.. no matter what laws states pass??

Why does the child only get SOME rights?

They don't?

Yeah, they can't vote, smoke, drive, join the army, buy firearms etc.

Really? See Greece, or Spain :)

*Most

FWIW, if those governments can only "afford" nationalized healthcare because the US gives them so much in military and financial aid.

Lol.
The EU is the second most powerful military after the US. Who exactly are you protecting the EU from? China? (entirely dependent on trade )? The UK ? Germany? Japan? France? The strongest countries in the EU militarily all have nationalized healthcare.

Looks like they can both take care of their armies and citizen's health.
http://europeangeostrategy.ideasoneurope.eu/2011/12/29/world s-fifteen-most-powerful-countries-in-2012/

Now I'm waiting for another one of your trademark defeaded unbacked / unsourced "NO IT ISN'T!"

Because the use of the military justifies itself.

Lol.
So basically you don't ACTUALLY care about the solvency of a program.

As long as you deem you can assert that a program "justifies itself" by "benefiting everyone" ( something you have failed to show a metric for beyond your vague philosophizing, which for some reason you don't want to apply to anything but what you currently think the constitution allows for ) then you don't care if it's basically useless.

Every American benefits from the US having a strong military. Every country's people benefit from strong militaries. Mandatory healthcare is a FORCED transfer of money from one group of people, to benefit a small percentage of the population

Again, saying "a strong military" is the same as saying "a good healthcare system".
A badly managed military is a FORCED transfer of money ( lol ) from one group of people to benefit a small percentage of the population, namely defense contractors.
Similarly, a badly managed healthcare system ( or any government program ) is the same thing.

But a well managed healthcare system DROPS the average cost of care for EVERYONE. Whoops.

Again the same argument you use for roads and the military applies to healthcare and schooling as EVERYONE benefits when EVERYONE ELSE is healthy, educated and productive, which somehow you can't seem to grasp.

And they can afford it because we almost fully fund their military.

How do you "fully fund" their military? Haha. Show me some numbers. I can't find such numbers, in fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Military_
Financing#By_account.2C_program_area_and_program_element

Almost all of the money goes to Israel, Iraq, Egypt and Afghanistan. All the money combined is like 14 billion dollars too, which is like 20% of what JUST FRANCE spends on its military per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e xpenditures

Again, you spend more than the rest of the world combined on your military, who exactly are you protecting people FROM? Since when is it the US's job anyway? But I guess you live in the world where if you can make the argument that YOUR shitty programs help ONE person, then that counts as "everyone" through some intricate butterfly-effect type reasoning, but if what I propose leaves JUST ONE PERSON OUT because he's a multi-trillionaire who lives in a moon base, then that can't be good because it doesn't "help everyone".

The US is ranked at 37 in quality of care, but first in expenditure per citizen.

Except it actually isn't.

Yeah it is, as illustrated in the link I posted.
But great argument! Wish I had thought of that one!

The fuck?

How are you coming to the conclusion that "everyone benefits equally from roads". How do you measure that?

Yeah it does, in article 8 "Power of Congress"
- To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

They have the POWER to do it. The power is given to them via the Constitution. It is not a requirement.

hahahahaha
This same logic applies to everything in the constitution.

It's funny how you are quick to cite Article 8 for the power to have a postal service, but it's okay to start other programs that aren't anywhere in those powers of Congress. lol. Make up your mind. Either the constitution gives powers to congress, or it doesn't.

Holy shit, can you really be this stupid?

It actually says something about "the General Welfare" doesn't it?

Yes apparently you CAN be this stupid. Allow me to retort:

It's funny how you are quick to cite Article 8 for the power to have a postal roads, but it's okay to start other programs that aren't anywhere in those powers of Congress. lol. Make up your mind. Either the constitution gives powers to congress, or it doesn't.

Yes. GENERAL WELFARE. Not welfare of a select few at the expense of others.

hahaha
You can't even quantify or show how/when something helps people and by how much, yet you think we should go by your assertions of what helps "everyone equally" and what doesn't?

The term "general" means wide spread..here's the dictionary definition
Affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things..

1. Government pays for a kid's college
2. Collect taxes from his salary
3. Taxes go into tax pool, thus benefiting everyone by funding the army

LOOKS LIKE I WIN AGAIN! How awesome it is to live in SIMPLELAND where assertions are reality and any strenuous rationalization becomes ironclad proof!

At 12/2/12 12:46 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

That's exactly right, because states, by way of 10th amendment, are allowed to pass whatever laws they want in their own legislatures, and the 10th Amendment prevents the federal government from over-riding, or over ruling it.

Based upon the history of the Supreme Court, which I would say has much more legal knowledge than you, your interpretation of the 10th amendment is completely wrong. There have only been three cases in the entire history of the US in which your interpretation of the law has been correct out of hundreds of potential cases. This stretches through liberal leaning and conservative leaning majorities in the Court, so u can't say it's partisan.