The scary thing

[Guest Guest]

Good grief! We're talking about federalizing the nation's healthcare system and this leftist moron is talking about lettuce in feb. I get my healthcare from private companies, I control the level of insurance I want and I'm responsible for premiums and deductables, just the way I like it. I don't need zerO sticking his hands into my pocket to pay for Joe Sixpack. You socialists just can't imagine taking responsibility for your own actions and needs, you want to live in a nanny state and live like zombies doing everything Comrade zerO tells you to do. The Founding Fathers would puke listening to you.

Wrong, stupid. I probably pay more in taxes than you make in income. But you have to have a narrative, so as always you make up a story about someone you know nothing about.

Under the old system, 47 million Americans were uninsured. The system wasn't working. So Congress passed legislation to try to make it work better. It's less government involvement than in most countries, whose health care systems work better than yours. And of course, you insist on describing it as a government take-over of health care, which it is not.

You'll never hear that. You're not listening. All you know is your rigid ideology. To you, everyone seems like a leftist. Of course they do. When you're as far off on the radical right as you are, what else can you expect?

[Guest 2smart4u]

Wrong, stupid. I probably pay more in taxes than you make in income. But you have to have a narrative, so as always you make up a story about someone you know nothing about.

Under the old system, 47 million Americans were uninsured. The system wasn't working. So Congress passed legislation to try to make it work better. It's less government involvement than in most countries, whose health care systems work better than yours. And of course, you insist on describing it as a government take-over of health care, which it is not.

You'll never hear that. You're not listening. All you know is your rigid ideology. To you, everyone seems like a leftist. Of course they do. When you're as far off on the radical right as you are, what else can you expect?

You paying more in taxes than I make ?? Now that's funny!! Anyone who thinks Comrade zerO is not taking over healthcare doesn't have enough gray matter to make much more than minimum wage.

[Guest Guest]

You paying more in taxes than I make ?? Now that's funny!! Anyone who thinks Comrade zerO is not taking over healthcare doesn't have enough gray matter to make much more than minimum wage.

I'm sure MOST pay more in taxes than you earn. You're a welfare fraud sitting around posting incredibly ignorant rants while waiting for your free meals on wheels lunch to be delivered. All your gray matter is contained in your quite ample, sitting at a computer ass. Enjoy your government cheese while bitching about the federal government. Cheese is appropriate for you since you were quiet as a mouse for the republican destruction of our country. Bon appetit maggot!

[Guest Guest]

I agree it isn’t a weak point you have it exactly correct. The framers of the constitution were very exact and precise with their wording and meaning. It states what government is responsible for and limits it. The framers wanted to establish justice-the courts, insure domestic tranquility-how states interact, provide for the common defense-the military and promote the general welfare-pursuit of happiness like the Declaration says. Promote meaning to encourage, not creating a welfare state.

Here’s what James Madison the “Father of the Constitution” and Thomas Jeffersons said about it:

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

The Framers were brilliant men; it’s very clear what they had in mind. You can’t interpret the Constitution to fit your ideology.

And you can't change the law. Since the 1930s, when the necessary role of government increased, the Supreme Court has used the broader interpretation. You can babble about it being unconstitutional all you like, but that's not the law. The modern interpretation has been shared by judges both right and left, even since the Great Depression proved that it was necessary. "Promote the general welfare" is a general term, whether you like it or not. It's broader than your self-serving, crabbed interpretation. So say all our courts for nearly 100 years.

Furthermore, if you ever got your way, the

country's economy would collapse,

and the country with it. We wouldn't even be a second-rate power any more. We would become a nation of homeless people with widespread anarchy because of all the dislocations. Capitalism is a great system, but only if government properly regulates it.

Think I'm wrong? then name one developed country in this modern age, with all our industries, institutions and vast network of economic parts, that operates the way you think we should. There isn't one. That's because every country on Earth has the good sense to realize that your idea is

FREAKING STUPID!

[Guest Guest]

You paying more in taxes than I make ?? Now that's funny!! Anyone who thinks Comrade zerO is not taking over healthcare doesn't have enough gray matter to make much more than minimum wage.

I paid more than $250,000 in taxes last year. How much do you make, moron?

By the way, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates don't agree with you either.

[Guest Guest]

I agree it isn’t a weak point you have it exactly correct. The framers of the constitution were very exact and precise with their wording and meaning. It states what government is responsible for and limits it. The framers wanted to establish justice-the courts, insure domestic tranquility-how states interact, provide for the common defense-the military and promote the general welfare-pursuit of happiness like the Declaration says. Promote meaning to encourage, not creating a welfare state.

Here’s what James Madison the “Father of the Constitution” and Thomas Jeffersons said about it:

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

The Framers were brilliant men; it’s very clear what they had in mind. You can’t interpret the Constitution to fit your ideology.

As usual, you right wingers insist on cherry picking the parts of history you like and ignoring everything you don’t like. Alexander Hamilton, who was also an author of The Federalist papers, expressed a broader view of the general welfare clause in numbers 30 (http://books.google.com/books?id=8d0AIxSXr6cC&pg=PR9&dq=Hamilton+Federalist+Papers+number+30&cd=1#v=onepage&q=30&f=false) and 34 (http://books.google.com/books?id=8d0AIxSXr6cC&pg=PR9&dq=Hamilton+Federalist+Papers+number+30&cd=1#v=onepage&q=34&f=false), and also in his Report on Manufactures (1791). (http://books.google.com/books?id=gCk5AAAAMAAJ&dq=alexander+hamilton+report+on+manufactures&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=voPYS5_lIsL98Aadp-SvBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=general%20welfare&f=false.)

In Helvering v. Davis (1937), the United States Supreme Court held, in agreement with Hamilton, that the general welfare clause was very broad, and that Congress was the arbiter of what laws would serve the general welfare. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8426251106033758246&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr.) As the Supreme Court held in that case, “The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton . . . has prevailed over that of Madison . . .” You right wingers can whine all you want but when you claim that the government isn’t following the Constitution, you’re just ignoring all the evidence that proves you’re wrong – no surprise, since that is what you right wingers always do.

What really galls me is that you state these things as fact, as though all these other parts of history didn’t exist. It’s the same thing as lying.

The Supreme Court in Helvering went on to hold: “The purge of nation-wide calamity that began in 1929 has taught us many lessons. Not the least is the solidarity of interests that may once have seemed to be divided. Unemployment spreads from State to State, the hinterland now settled that in pioneer days gave an avenue of escape. Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 442. Spreading from State to State, unemployment is an ill not particular but general, which may be checked, if Congress so determines, by the resources of the Nation.” As you have been told on this site time after time after time after time, the role of government is bigger today because it is necessary for it to be bigger. The country would collapse if government was what you want it to be. Yet you persist in your fantasy world, in which we have a strong country with virtually no government. Not one advanced country does that, or would try to do that today. Wake up to the 21st century!

Since Helvering, through liberal courts and conservative courts, this interpretation has not been overturned. It is the law of the land. Because the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what isn’t, you’re simply wrong. It’s not that someone else has a different opinion. You’re just wrong. The Supreme Court determines what is constitutional, not you. Jefferson and Madison had their view but Jefferson did not attend the Constitutional Convention, and as strong a voice as Madison was in drafting the Constitution, his view is not determinative.

Furthermore, since the Helvering case, the United States has grown in power and influence in the world, becoming the world's dominant power. If a broad interpretation of the general welfare clause has such dire consequences as you claim, then why has the United States risen to world dominance during the era? You won't answer that question because you can't.

The Convention could have chosen narrower language. It declined to do so, choosing instead the very broad language, “general welfare,” which has been interpreted broadly ever since these issues began to arise out of economic necessity. If you really believed in a strict interpretation of the words the Framers actually used, you would admit that “general welfare” is very broad language. At least one of you (2stupid4words) has admitted it, then just fluffed it off because he didn’t like it.

Look, you right wingers. If you ever got your way, we would have to amend the Constitution. If we didn’t, our economy would collapse in a week, and our country with it. This country could not function without a broad interpretation of the general welfare clause.

[Guest Guest]

Good grief! We're talking about federalizing the nation's healthcare system and this leftist moron is talking about lettuce in feb.

YOU are in no position to call ANYONE a moron.

Since you don't understand the point, I'll explain it to you, stupid. We can have lettuce in February because we have an interstate highway system that allows the product to be shipped and modern transportation like trucks, railroads and airplanes to carry it. Those industries all owe their existence to government, which established the corporate form, regulates the banks that provide their loans and (until recently) regulated the economy so that it didn't collapse under the weight of speculative greed. The federal government ran the program that built the highway system. Your life is better because of what the government did.

But you're too stupid and too stubborn to admit it. You fantasize a world in which you have everything government has made posssible without government. That's like imagining how much better your life would be if your parents had never lived.

Hey, now there's a thought!

[Guest Guest]

Promote meaning to encourage, not creating a welfare state.

So what are they supposed to do - get some pompoms and yell "go team?"

How about this: "Chrysler, Chrysler, they're our man! If they can't do it, GM can."

How freaking stupid. Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about?

[Guest Loki]

Wrong. The general welfare means the welfare of all the people taken as a group, as in the welfare of the country and its people.

People have plenty of incentives to work hard, and most Americans are working hard. What we need, and hopefully now have, is a system that makes sure people have affordable medical care; that makes medical care a right, not merely a privilege.

Your idea of going it alone is a fantasy. No one goes it alone, except those few people who cut themselves off from society, go into the woods and become hermits. If you were going it alone, you wouldn't be on a computer. How do you think the Internet exists at all: did you create it?

How do you think you get health care? Are you going to take out your own appendix if it becomes inflamed? No, you're going to rely on someone else to do it. And you're going to hope that your insurance policy covers it, or you earned enough money to pay for it if you don't have insurance. So what are you going to do if you become so ill that you need medical care that costs $100,000 per year? Do you think spreading the risk is a good idea? If so, why not spread the risk among 350 million Americans, instead of just those who signed on with a particular insurance company? Either way, you're hardly going it alone.

So the question is how much is the individual and how much is society. If you want all the things we have today, like computers and medical care and cars and fresh lettuce in February, you're going to have to accept the fact that we all depend on each other. You can't have it both ways: the philosophy of the rugged individualist doesn't mean the same thing it meant 200 years ago, and barring a catastrphe it never will again.

At no point did I dispute what the GENERAL WELFARE meant. My point was that it was not the governments responsibility to provide that for everyone, but rather to create an atmosphere where each could attain their own level of comfort. You can't twist the question to suit your argument.

And, like another poster said, I am not suggesting that I will "go it alone." But the decisions should be made by me, and not the government. If, for some unknown reason, I decide not to carry insurance, that is my decision. Truthfully, if I were independently wealthy, I would carry a great hospitalization policy, and all my doctors would be paid in CASH. But, I digress. But, where I work, what kind of insurance is/isn't provided are all factors that need to be weighed by me.

And, as everyone knows, Al Gore created the internet, (along with so many other factual inaccuracies floating in that lame brained head of his.)

[Guest 2smart4u]

As usual, you right wingers insist on cherry picking the parts of history you like and ignoring everything you don’t like. Alexander Hamilton, who was also an author of The Federalist papers, expressed a broader view of the general welfare clause in numbers 30 (http://books.google.com/books?id=8d0AIxSXr6cC&pg=PR9&dq=Hamilton+Federalist+Papers+number+30&cd=1#v=onepage&q=30&f=false) and 34 (http://books.google.com/books?id=8d0AIxSXr6cC&pg=PR9&dq=Hamilton+Federalist+Papers+number+30&cd=1#v=onepage&q=34&f=false), and also in his Report on Manufactures (1791). (http://books.google.com/books?id=gCk5AAAAMAAJ&dq=alexander+hamilton+report+on+manufactures&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=voPYS5_lIsL98Aadp-SvBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=general%20welfare&f=false.)

In Helvering v. Davis (1937), the United States Supreme Court held, in agreement with Hamilton, that the general welfare clause was very broad, and that Congress was the arbiter of what laws would serve the general welfare. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8426251106033758246&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr.) As the Supreme Court held in that case, “The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton . . . has prevailed over that of Madison . . .” You right wingers can whine all you want but when you claim that the government isn’t following the Constitution, you’re just ignoring all the evidence that proves you’re wrong – no surprise, since that is what you right wingers always do.

What really galls me is that you state these things as fact, as though all these other parts of history didn’t exist. It’s the same thing as lying.

The Supreme Court in Helvering went on to hold: “The purge of nation-wide calamity that began in 1929 has taught us many lessons. Not the least is the solidarity of interests that may once have seemed to be divided. Unemployment spreads from State to State, the hinterland now settled that in pioneer days gave an avenue of escape. Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 442. Spreading from State to State, unemployment is an ill not particular but general, which may be checked, if Congress so determines, by the resources of the Nation.” As you have been told on this site time after time after time after time, the role of government is bigger today because it is necessary for it to be bigger. The country would collapse if government was what you want it to be. Yet you persist in your fantasy world, in which we have a strong country with virtually no government. Not one advanced country does that, or would try to do that today. Wake up to the 21st century!

Since Helvering, through liberal courts and conservative courts, this interpretation has not been overturned. It is the law of the land. Because the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what isn’t, you’re simply wrong. It’s not that someone else has a different opinion. You’re just wrong. The Supreme Court determines what is constitutional, not you. Jefferson and Madison had their view but Jefferson did not attend the Constitutional Convention, and as strong a voice as Madison was in drafting the Constitution, his view is not determinative.

Furthermore, since the Helvering case, the United States has grown in power and influence in the world, becoming the world's dominant power. If a broad interpretation of the general welfare clause has such dire consequences as you claim, then why has the United States risen to world dominance during the era? You won't answer that question because you can't.

The Convention could have chosen narrower language. It declined to do so, choosing instead the very broad language, “general welfare,” which has been interpreted broadly ever since these issues began to arise out of economic necessity. If you really believed in a strict interpretation of the words the Framers actually used, you would admit that “general welfare” is very broad language. At least one of you (2stupid4words) has admitted it, then just fluffed it off because he didn’t like it.

Look, you right wingers. If you ever got your way, we would have to amend the Constitution. If we didn’t, our economy would collapse in a week, and our country with it. This country could not function without a broad interpretation of the general welfare clause.

"This country could not function without a broad interpretation of the general welfare clause". OK, that's your opinion which means nothing, except to yourself of course.

How funny is it that all these Loonys who so embrace big government think they're such experts on the thoughts and desires of our founding fathers who believed in independence, self-reliance and personal responsibility.

[Guest Guest]

At no point did I dispute what the GENERAL WELFARE meant. My point was that it was not the governments responsibility to provide that for everyone, but rather to create an atmosphere where each could attain their own level of comfort. You can't twist the question to suit your argument.

And, like another poster said, I am not suggesting that I will "go it alone." But the decisions should be made by me, and not the government. If, for some unknown reason, I decide not to carry insurance, that is my decision. Truthfully, if I were independently wealthy, I would carry a great hospitalization policy, and all my doctors would be paid in CASH. But, I digress. But, where I work, what kind of insurance is/isn't provided are all factors that need to be weighed by me.

And, as everyone knows, Al Gore created the internet, (along with so many other factual inaccuracies floating in that lame brained head of his.)

Oh, now you want government to create an atmosphere. Just what does that mean? Are they supposed to put out some candles and put on some romantic music? You right wingers don't have any real ideas, only a collection of fantasies and illusions.

You're the one twisting things. The Supreme Court interprets the general welfare clause to allow the government to pass laws like this. And with a court stacked with right wing hacks, that's no small measure of the legal soundness of these laws.

And as you have been told repeatedly, the reason to give you a choice between carrying insurance and paying more in your taxes is that if you don't carry insurance, the rest of us are going to have to pay for your getting sick. That's not fair, is it. So Congress passed the new law, Obama signed it and that's how it's going to be. It makes sense and it's fair.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Oh, now you want government to create an atmosphere. Just what does that mean? Are they supposed to put out some candles and put on some romantic music? You right wingers don't have any real ideas, only a collection of fantasies and illusions.

You're the one twisting things. The Supreme Court interprets the general welfare clause to allow the government to pass laws like this. And with a court stacked with right wing hacks, that's no small measure of the legal soundness of these laws.

And as you have been told repeatedly, the reason to give you a choice between carrying insurance and paying more in your taxes is that if you don't carry insurance, the rest of us are going to have to pay for your getting sick. That's not fair, is it. So Congress passed the new law, Obama signed it and that's how it's going to be. It makes sense and it's fair.

Joe Sixpack thanks you.