[CharonY]

ZoltarV said:

you can still have a communist society with capitalism and you obvioulsy have a democratic society engaging in capitalism as well.

Technically, you can't. You are right in the assertion that democracy and communism are not on opposite ends. However, in capitalism the means of production are in the hand of individuals, whereas in a communistic society they would be shared by everyone. As the powers were also supposed to shared by everyone (though I do not know how that was supposed to work out) there wouldn't be any ruling class or group. In a sense communism was also supposed to be a democratic society.
Again, I am only talking about the theory as originated by Marx and Engels not how it eventually played out. China, in that sense, is not communistic, but authoritarian (despite being widely capitalistic) as others have pointed out.

[Zolar V]

CharonY said:

Technically, you can't. You are right in the assertion that democracy and communism are not on opposite ends. However, in capitalism the means of production are in the hand of individuals, whereas in a communistic society they would be shared by everyone. As the powers were also supposed to shared by everyone (though I do not know how that was supposed to work out) there wouldn't be any ruling class or group. In a sense communism was also supposed to be a democratic society.
Again, I am only talking about the theory as originated by Marx and Engels not how it eventually played out. China, in that sense, is not communistic, but authoritarian (despite being widely capitalistic) as others have pointed out.

There is a way around your problem, of communists cannot engage in capitalism.
You can have a society of communists engaging in capitalism by, having the society agree to trade/buy goods from another country in order to benefit itself.

^^ sounds kinda like a democracy, but in reality democratic and communistic (Marx and Engels) is basically the same.

WTB Utopia.

[jackson33]

Pangloss quote;

Quote

Of course. And as far as I know there aren't any laws on the books that were "done incorrectly" or don't "hold to the procedures available", or were put in place by "coercion" or "force". (Wasn't that your point? Or am I misremembering something from another thread?)

Quote

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.....


For this reason, Congress often seeks to exercise its powers by offering or encouraging the States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards; a system known as cooperative federalism. One example of the exercise of this device was to condition allocation of federal funding where certain state laws do not conform to federal guidelines. For example, federal educational funds may not be accepted without implementation of special education programs in compliance with IDEA. Similarly, the nationwide state 55 mph (90 km/h) speed limit, .08 legal blood alcohol limit, and the nationwide state 21-year drinking age were imposed through this method; the states would lose highway funding if they refused to pass such laws. See e.g. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).

http://wapedia.mobi/...es_Constitution

Pangloss, is laymen's terms, this means Congress has used it's power to subvert the State right to regulate or even make law according to their wishes. Seat belt laws and most everything involving Education has been implemented by the Federal, are also example.

Also in that reference site, is current State Legal Activity, of NOW 25 States to try and void some Health Care requirements placed on their State, which will be squashed by the Federal, by some action to refuse funding for other than Health Care. Along the same line, mentioned before, NO Hospital/Clinic or Medical Facility in a State can be forced to treat non paying customers. Aside from this not being a natural tendency of the profession (Hippocratic oath) or the general societies themselves (to provide), the Federal will NOT pay it's share for any Medicaid or Medicare patients that institution accepts.

Quote

National Health Care Nullification - As of March 2010, 25 states have introduced legislation which would declare certain provisions of any proposed national health care bill to be null and void within the state; the legislation passed in Arizona and Virginia. [11] Such provisions include mandatory participation in such a system as well as preserving the right of a patient to pay a health care professional for treatment (and for the professional to accept it) outside of a single-payer system. Arizona's legislation passed as a proposed constitutional amendment, to be submitted to the voters in 2010. [12] On February 1, 2010, the Virginia Senate took a stand against a key provision of a proposed federal health care overhaul, passing legislation declaring that Virginia residents cannot be forced to buy health insurance.

A good share of this style intrusion into State OBLIGATION, occurred during the building of the US Interstate System in the 1950's, once it was dropped as a security issue and for use by the military only, before construction began. Even today, to receive back the billions collected by the Federal Gas Taxes, they are compelled to comply to certain building and maintenance codes, that cannot be controlled with the regular US Highway System. The following is a short PDF, but one I can't cut and paste, but goes through many of the arguments made 50-60 years ago...

http://www.scribd.co...76/Chapter-3gov

95% of the proposed programs (literally hundreds in the HC Bill), be it Health Care, Welfare, Cap and Trade or any other distribution of wealth are IMO, unconstitutional including the ACT's (opposed to constitutional amendments) they were built on, based on the requirement 3/4th's of States must agree on anything deemed major or be done through the amendment process. There are far more informed people out there arguing these things daily in the Courts, than myself and I won't go back over all I've offered, on several threads over the years.

Quote

Yes, but (IMO) they make them on an issue-by-issue basis. Not on the basis of the kind of over-arching ideological basis that partisans would like for them to make their decisions on.

Not when voting. If a candidate makes certain promises the average person hears only what they want to hear, that being what concerns them self the most. For all practical purposes everyone in the US votes for only five people, P/VP, their district House member and their two State Representative to the Senate. Remember the original intent was for this to be limited to -1-, their local House member.

Quote

You are right in the assertion that democracy and communism are not on opposite ends.

Chyron; This stems back to a comment of mine, that I didn't follow up on or defend. In short, the average person accepts these as opposites, in the US, at least in my opinion, while trying to show the various mix. If I had said the opposite of Democracy could be a 'Muslim Totalitarian Monarchy' was the opposite of the American Republic Representative System, though more accurate, few would have understood it.

Zolar; A Communist State is briefly a single party rule, that follows the Communism Ideology, which by definition, can't be free market Capitalism.

Quote

Communism is a social structure in which, theoretically, classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

[CharonY]

ZoltarV said:

You can have a society of communists engaging in capitalism by, having the society agree to trade/buy goods from another country in order to benefit itself.

Hmm an interesting thought. Though one could argue that at this point the communistic country would still not considered capitalist as the goods would dissipate within its own country instead of accumulating in limited hands. If I recall my highschool history lesson correctly the ownership of the capital rather than the trading itself was an issue. But then I am really not knowledgeable enough in the fine points.

[Zolar V]

CharonY said:

Hmm an interesting thought. Though one could argue that at this point the communistic country would still not considered capitalist as the goods would dissipate within its own country instead of accumulating in limited hands. If I recall my highschool history lesson correctly the ownership of the capital rather than the trading itself was an issue. But then I am really not knowledgeable enough in the fine points.

i see your point, and i counter with this.
instead of looking at the society as a group of individuals. look at it as if it was a single entity. The idea of a society being communist (or insert government here) is that the people(or the people in charge) define themselves as such for themselves. the key being here is that the people can define them selves as communist and practice communism and therefore be a communist society.
however once you allow the society to be viewed as a single entity, the question of whether or not the dissipation of a purchased product is considered capitalist is easily answered. that answer being yes of course. because the goods where bought from country A into country B.

^^ this makes sense to me, but it may not make sense to you. i could actually take the time to explain it if you want.

[Pangloss]

jackson33 said:

Pangloss, is laymen's terms, this means Congress has used it's power to subvert the State right to regulate or even make law according to their wishes. Seat belt laws and most everything involving Education has been implemented by the Federal, are also example.

And it did this correctly -- in a manner not only allowed but explicitly encouraged by the Constitution. Strict constructionism is not a logical basis for objections to safety regulations.

Furthermore, in my opinion what fuels these kinds of constitutionality arguments is a frustration with the inability to convince large groups to agree with one's moral/ethical viewpoints. Instead of being prey to people's ignorance, they leverage it. Rush Limbaugh uses "reason" like this all the time, and in my opinion it's something that normal people like you and I should run away from, not pass along.

This post has been edited by Pangloss: 11 March 2010 - 02:48 AM
Reason for edit: that's "prey" not "pray" (lol)

[Moontanman]

It seems to me this argument is bogus, providing social services does not make a government socialist, all governments provide socialist type services to their people. Socialist does not equal communist and a democracy is not threatened by offering social services to it's people.

[Zolar V]

im pretty sure the OP wasn't about whether or not the government is socialist, it was just a sort of list of socialist services the government is providing.

[jackson33]

Pangloss; Coercion, otherwise known as blackmail IS NOT legal and not authorized in the Constitution, the exact opposite is....there is no correct or legal way to coerce.

It's up to States, what are considered safety laws (thousands of other issues) and can very to extremes. NY for instance has 25 or so seat belt laws, where in New Hampshire there are no laws covering anyone over the age of 18. Fines are just as extreme. Speed laws today, vehicle condititon (Safety Stickers) and all fines or class for infractions (misdemeanor/felony) can be extreme. Driving 80MPH in Texas, on certain roads is legal, as in Montana. On and on, and I won't bore you with how different Family/Estate Laws varies. Point we are 50 separate, sovereign and independent States with certain guaranteed rights, that are being ignored.

I'll also disagree that people with different viewpoints should remain silent, to avoid Constitutionality discussion, maybe the opposite. I know this is hard to believe, but probably half the people over 18 in this Country today, honestly believe it's the Federal responsibility to provide from 10 to all things classified essential and if fact none are. I should be long gone, but if projected deficits are in fact 22T$, with additional obligation of anywhere from 40-80T$, by 2020, there won't be ANY services available. Reorganization, no less than any business must go through in bankruptcy, will be devastating on the society. Don't believe for one second this could not happen. Since this is your second mention of Limbaugh, I'm afraid he thinks these proposed programs can be turned around or that the underlying problems do NOT exist and IMO, both wrong....

Thanks for your comments and the platform to spin from...but we're probably getting off the message the thread author intended.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Quote

It seems to me this argument is bogus, providing social services does not make a government socialist, all governments provide socialist type services to their people. Socialist does not equal communist and a democracy is not threatened by offering social services to it's people.

Moon; If the means to provide those services, is taken from those that already have the service, to allow being provided for less or no cost, that's the meaning of a Socialist society.

Quote

im pretty sure the OP wasn't about whether or not the government is socialist, it was just a sort of list of socialist services the government is providing.

There were very few programs mention in the OP, that were Federal in the first place and where my discussions come from. Except for one (Security) those IMO were improperly imposed on the States and that one (Security) was agreed to by the founders.

[Mr Skeptic]

Zolar V said:

im pretty sure the OP wasn't about whether or not the government is socialist, it was just a sort of list of socialist services the government is providing.

Indeed, someone was opposing the proposed healthcare bill as it is a socialist program, and I thought it would amuse them to see how many other socialist services our government already provides -- some of which I'm sure he approves of. Regardless of all these socialist programs, I wouldn't consider the US to be socialist unless over half our money went to socialist programs. As it is, we are a mixed economy leaning toward capitalism, and that's just fine with me.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Pangloss said:

And as far as I know there aren't any laws on the books that were "done incorrectly" or don't "hold to the procedures available", or were put in place by "coercion" or "force". (Wasn't that your point? Or am I misremembering something from another thread?)

I think jackson33's examples of federal expansions of power seem to be a legal loophole that allows the federal to blackmail the states, by taking their money and only offering it back if they do as told. That's definitely coercion, though not force. Of course the states can refuse if they don't mind saying goodbye to their own money.

Quote

Yes, but (IMO) they make them on an issue-by-issue basis. Not on the basis of the kind of over-arching ideological basis that partisans would like for them to make their decisions on.

Ah, but it seems to me that for the most part they choose a single issue or two, or at least some people seem to do that.

[Moontanman]

Zolar V said:

im pretty sure the OP wasn't about whether or not the government is socialist, it was just a sort of list of socialist services the government is providing.

Zolar, have you been following this thread? I have and it has gotten way off the original OP.

[Zolar V]

Moontanman said:

Zolar, have you been following this thread? I have and it has gotten way off the original OP.

why yes, yes i have been folowing.
it really hasn't gotten to far off track.
anyways i was just trying to remind everyone that the op was not about the US being socialist, it was discussing what programs, if any, were socialistic in nature.

jackson33 said:

"here were very few programs mention in the OP, that were Federal in the first place and where my discussions come from. Except for one (Security) those IMO were improperly imposed on the States and that one (Security) was agreed to by the founders."

whether or not a service is considered federally provided or state provided it can still be considered socialist. if the state taxes the citizens to provide firefighters then it is still socialist. if the federal government taxes the us for firefighters it would still be socialistic service in nature.

State/federal properties have no bearing in if a service is considered socialist.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
Jackson33,
However, i do agree with you that most, laws passed by the government are incredibly shady and do not reflect properly on the constitution and bill of rights. in fact i would go so far as to say that no laws created or passed in the present come anywhere close to being lawful in accordance with the constitution. imo
But i did notice, last time i went through looking at the constitution and its amendments, that there is a shady little amendment stating that the federal government can do whatever the hell it wants.

[Pangloss]

jackson33 said:

Coercion, otherwise known as blackmail IS NOT legal and not authorized in the Constitution, the exact opposite is....there is no correct or legal way to coerce.

Passing a law is not an act of coercion. Amending the constitution is not an act of coercion. Giving the states money and then telling them to do something specific (or lose the money) is not an act of coercion (that's a semantic and I understand Mr Skeptic's point, but it's their money and the Constitution does not address that issue; as Skeptic points out they can choose not to accept it).

And in the end it's pretty much moot because regardless of what the state does or doesn't want, the final arbiter is the federal. This is as intended, and was firmly established by the civil war. Let's face it -- if the federal government decides that all grass needs to be green, and the supreme court decides that that's constitutional, Kentucky cannot make theirs blue. That's pretty much all there is to it.

And you're just not going to get another civil war to fight that one out. You may think you have a popular movement behind you, but it's going to evaporate the moment the budget is balanced. What they're really demanding is a restoration of sane BALANCE. Not a switch from one extreme to another.

Quote

I'll also disagree that people with different viewpoints should remain silent

I didn't say that.

Quote

probably half the people over 18 in this Country today, honestly believe it's the Federal responsibility to provide from 10 to all things classified essential and if fact none are

Maybe so. So let's not make things worse by telling them that they live in a pure-free-market society when they never have, were never intended to, and never will.

Quote

if projected deficits are in fact 22T$, with additional obligation of anywhere from 40-80T$, by 2020, there won't be ANY services available.

I agree. But that's a reason to balance the budget, not eliminate services. You're leveraging a financial need to attack an unrelated ideological desire. But hey, you can fool some of the people some of the time.

Quote

Thanks for your comments and the platform to spin from

Any time, man. :-)

[The Bear's Key]

jackson33 said:

I may be guilty of trying to explain the unexplainable

That could be a problem. No one can be on the same page if what everyone's talking about can't be defined or lacks a reasonable standard to perceive it by.

jryan said:

Well, I don't think that the US military really qualifies as a Socialist program as it is a consumer of capitalist products. If the Military were running the industry that built the planes it used then yes, it would be socialist. But since it doesn't own the means of production, and is instead a consumer of it, it can't be claimed to be socialist.

In that case, universal healthcare by a public option isn't socialism, as the government doesn't run the industry that builds medicine, equipment, pills, lab coats, all that fun stuff.

jryan said:

NASA, likewise, is not socialist as it's products and built by private industry...

Ditto on the healthcare point.

jryan said:

Also, I don't think it's fair to label NASA as "few returns on investment" as NASA drove a large portion of the technology industry for decades, and few would question the value in pushing that envelope now, even when when the moon was the only readily available goal then.

Few returns for *private* investment. I wasn't talking about benefits to society, just $$ returns for a business to have explored the moon or space before government did.

jackson33 said:

If I wish being agreed with, there are plenty of forums to visit, blogs or political gatherings, where my comments would be and have been accepted nearly 100%.

Just to make sure you do realize it's no different for any of us.

jryan said:

But you are redefining "Socialist" to suit your argument. The military is a service, to be sure, but it is not a SOCIALIST service because it owns no industry and produces no materials.

The healthcare point again :-)

jryan said:

But it is not a product in an economic sense, it is a service. Not only is it a service, it is a service that derives all of it's effectiveness through capitalist purchases.

Plus, the US government doesn't build the tanks and planes and ships either.

So again, absent the materials used by the military you are left with the people... who can't be owned.

Dittoland.

jackson33 said:

95% of the proposed programs (literally hundreds in the HC Bill), be it Health Care, Welfare, Cap and Trade or any other distribution of wealth are IMO, unconstitutional

Constitution, Article I, Section 8.

...to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
........
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers

See, there's a loophole.

We don't need its removal, but some manner to assure us of ways that government can't abuse that loophole -- i.e. close it to abuses.

jackson33 said:

Pangloss; Coercion, otherwise known as blackmail IS NOT legal and not authorized in the Constitution, the exact opposite is....there is no correct or legal way to coerce.

Isn't blackmail hidden, not in open view? I agree that it'd be a shitty way to run things, but you could provide more specifics of what you're referring to also. Seems both parties are guilty of it.

Quote

It's up to States, what are considered safety laws (thousands of other issues) and can very to extremes. NY for instance has 25 or so seat belt laws, where in New Hampshire there are no laws covering anyone over the age of 18. Fines are just as extreme. Speed laws today, vehicle condititon (Safety Stickers) and all fines or class for infractions (misdemeanor/felony) can be extreme. Driving 80MPH in Texas, on certain roads is legal, as in Montana. On and on, and I won't bore you with how different Family/Estate Laws varies. Point we are 50 separate, sovereign and independent States with certain guaranteed rights, that are being ignored.

Notice something? Everything you mention is for dangers people know about (not hidden), generally they'll be self-inflicted -- affecting mostly them. It's an issue or responsibility for the state or lower government, and even that part's sketchy. But when citizens in danger by industry/others aren't helped by their local governments, it's when the Federal government steps nationally in to enforce and guarantee our rights.

Could be why abusers of industry love the idea of "small government". The industry's likely often more powerful than a local government.

[jackson33]

TBK;

Quote

Just to make sure you do realize it's no different for any of us.

In context, that statement was to enforce my desire to post, knowing it would be contested, rarely will I post anyplace, simply to agree with other's that I agree with.

Quote

Constitution, Article I, Section 8.
...to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
........
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers
See, there's a loophole.

We don't need its removal, but some manner to assure us of ways that government can't abuse that loophole -- i.e. close it to abuses.

Good point and one I've addressed a few hundred times. Note, that was written 223 years ago, yet interpreted to your definition (in part), in recent years. It would be my opinion, it's no loophole, rather a confirmation of the preamble, to the promotion of conditions for the societies welfare, NOT grant it. "Tranquility" the word most often used by the founders, placid or peaceful condition for the society to live under.

Additionally, when the Constitution was being drafted or for that matter any documents of that day, the States were very concerned about any central authority, having just rid themselves of one, the King of England.

Then, once again I'll mention the general misunderstanding, of folks here or in the general public, that it's the Federal Governments reasonability to provide (opposed to promote and a big difference in 1789) an increasing level of essentials. Think about what's going on today; We have a Harvard graduate in "CONSTITUTIONAL LAW" with a requirement in American History study, promoting social programs, never intended. He knows, I know and you probably know, once accepted abuses, for the good of some at the cost to others is accepted as being good for the collective, it set precedence or if you prefer abuse changes its level. (ref. "close it to abuses")

Zolar quote;

Quote

But i did notice, last time i went through looking at the constitution and its amendments, that there is a shady little amendment stating that the federal government can do whatever the hell it wants.

Zolar, this pretty well follows TBK comments; Your correct to a point; Usually first in the House, they can legislate anything they want and showing how even today, with more behind the scenes discussion over HC (It's Constitutional, not an amendment, giving that authority). In fact 90+% of House legislation, never reaches the Senate Floor, much less the Presidents desk. If you read through the Constitution once again, you'll find some pretty good remedies to over power any legislation, under the checks and balances provided, almost never used, aside from the election process. I'll also remind you that the Supreme Court, if a case qualifies for hearing, can overturn any legislation, deemed unconstitutional. It's pretty rare, when we have had one party rule, in the House, Senate and Executive all at one time (one party rule, sound familiar?), then with commanding majorities.

Quote

For this reason, Congress often seeks to exercise its powers by offering or encouraging the States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards; a system known as cooperative federalism.

Pangloss: this from the above site, followed up by the following....

Quote

For this reason, Congress has often avoided adoption of completely nationalized programs by one of two devices. In the first, Congress creates a delivery system for federal programs in which the national government encourages local implementation of a federal program by providing significant matching funds.....

The second method of encouraging states to implement federal programs is described in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992). In this form, the Congress states that it will take over the regulation of an activity at the national level, unless the State itself implements its own program of regulation meeting minimum federal standards. Here, the motivation for State compliance is that absent state regulation, the state loses power over the regulated area entirely. In New York v. United States, the court explained:

http://en.wikipedia....tive_federalism

Quote

Noun 1. coercion - the act of compelling by force of authority
terror - the use of extreme fear in order to coerce people (especially for political reasons); "he used terror to make them confess"
enforcement - the act of enforcing; ensuring observance of or obedience to

http://www.thefreedi...ry.com/coercion


States (the people), were originally intended to control the Federal Government (Constitution and Bill of Rights), by virtue of authority are to me, now being controlled by the Federal, to some degree going back 45 years with any measurable concern. What morally, ethically or in fact legally about the issues are not material. That is, it would be morally correct for States to accept Federal Assistance to provide for it's poor, but not legal to offer that aid with ANY requirements. To emphasize this, it's the peoples money to begin with, being used for the assistance. If I take money from you to begin with, you have the legal right to tell me what that money can be used for, but if I return that money I have no right to tell you what you can do with it. I forget the legal term....

Quote

And you're just not going to get another civil war to fight that one out. You may think you have a popular movement behind you, but it's going to evaporate the moment the budget is balanced. What they're really demanding is a restoration of sane BALANCE. Not a switch from one extreme to another.

Well, I'm not sure there is a popular 'movement' behind me or do I advocate any violence (if insinuated) and would oppose succession of States from the Union (Texas, Alaska or Hawaii having such movements).

I don't care which party is elected in any future election, the budget CANNOT be balanced for at least ten years, possible never again, without society as known, being hurt. I'll add it's only enhanced by this administration, not brought on by them.

Quote

Maybe so. So let's not make things worse by telling them that they live in a pure-free-market society when they never have, were never intended to, and never will.

Oh yes it is possible, to return to a free market Capitalist Society. I'd bet 30 States today operate very much this way, short of Federal involvement and business has been moving to these States for years. NY and California legislatures have been driving business and people out of their States for years and I don't know many more free States than Wyoming, Montana or Alaska to do business in. N/S Dakota are in a oil boom today, where in many States you can't even get a permit to look for oil.

[toastywombel]

Jackson33, if you are arguing that the constitution has no ability to be added upon, in the cases of general welfare for the public? Or that it limits the federal governments power to what is listed on the constitution. If so, how does it seem reasonable to you that we follow a document written 200 years ago, by men who have only a fraction of the knowledge all of us have today.

I mean look at the 2nd amendment for example, sure citizens have the right to bear arms, but back in the 1700's there were no automatic machine guns? That was not taken into consideration by the founders, it couldn't of been.

My point is, we cannot run an effective, modern government, based on strict rules that were devised over 200 years ago, its just not practical in an ever-changing world.

[Zolar V]

jackson33 said:

"Zolar, this pretty well follows TBK comments; Your correct to a point; Usually first in the House, they can legislate anything they want and showing how even today, with more behind the scenes discussion over HC (It's Constitutional, not an amendment, giving that authority). In fact 90+% of House legislation, never reaches the Senate Floor, much less the Presidents desk. If you read through the Constitution once again, you'll find some pretty good remedies to over power any legislation, under the checks and balances provided, almost never used, aside from the election process. I'll also remind you that the Supreme Court, if a case qualifies for hearing, can overturn any legislation, deemed unconstitutional. It's pretty rare, when we have had one party rule, in the House, Senate and Executive all at one time (one party rule, sound familiar?), then with commanding majorities. "

well it should sound familiar, because that was what i was referring to.

Quote

Then, once again I'll mention the general misunderstanding, of folks here or in the general public, that it's the Federal Governments reasonability to provide (opposed to promote and a big difference in 1789) an increasing level of essentials. Think about what's going on today; We have a Harvard graduate in "CONSTITUTIONAL LAW" with a requirement in American History study, promoting social programs, never intended. He knows, I know and you probably know, once accepted abuses, for the good of some at the cost to others is accepted as being good for the collective, it set precedence or if you prefer abuse changes its level. (ref. "close it to abuses")


States (the people), were originally intended to control the Federal Government (Constitution and Bill of Rights), by virtue of authority are to me, now being controlled by the Federal, to some degree going back 45 years with any measurable concern. What morally, ethically or in fact legally about the issues are not material. That is, it would be morally correct for States to accept Federal Assistance to provide for it's poor, but not legal to offer that aid with ANY requirements. To emphasize this, it's the peoples money to begin with, being used for the assistance. If I take money from you to begin with, you have the legal right to tell me what that money can be used for, but if I return that money I have no right to tell you what you can do with it. I forget the legal term....


Oh yes it is possible, to return to a free market Capitalist Society. I'd bet 30 States today operate very much this way, short of Federal involvement and business has been moving to these States for years. NY and California legislatures have been driving business and people out of their States for years and I don't know many more free States than Wyoming, Montana or Alaska to do business in. N/S Dakota are in a oil boom today, where in many States you can't even get a permit to look for oil.

You know what would be a really interesting and wonderfully non-corrupted government that would be able to accomplish the proper goals and presets for modern society?
Communism.
Even in communism you could have capitalism, i already described how this would work, but i will reiterate here.
You could have capitalism within a communist society by having the society decide (via vote of course) whether or not to purchase/trade goods from their society to another society for the benefit of the communist society.

With thus you can still have capitalism at a layer of society even though in the lesser layers of society they are communist.

[Pangloss]

jackson33 said:

not legal to offer that aid with ANY requirements

I don't see any basis for this in any of the sources you've cited. You've not indicated a constitutional clause, law, supreme court decision or even a statement by the framers that says that the federal government cannot give money to a state government with conditions attached.

jackson33 said:

I don't care which party is elected in any future election, the budget CANNOT be balanced for at least ten years, possible never again, without society as known, being hurt. I'll add it's only enhanced by this administration, not brought on by them.

I don't know about "never again", but I agree with this in general. It's a real problem, made more so by the fact that we don't seem to be very good at solving this kind of problem.

We never have before -- it's always seemed to me that the Clinton administration stumbled into it thanks to unexpected income often connected to the dot-com bubble, rather than any sort of financial or budgetary wizardry. I know some disagree on this point, of course.

[jackson33]

Quote

Jackson33, if you are arguing that the constitution has no ability to be added upon, in the cases of general welfare for the public?

toasty; It would be my opinion, specifically the US Government (Union of 50 States), has neither the inherent or Constitutional authority to impose 'social justice' on all States. That in our system for governance, these issues were delegated to the States if seen important with in their sovereign society.

However, if the pre-set number of those separate entities, for any reason decide to alter or change the meaning of the Constitution, (provide, instead of promote) and allow that Constitution to remain viable, they MUST follow the agreed to method, process for amending, opposed to simple legislation or the use of judicial interpreting.

Quote

If so, how does it seem reasonable to you that we follow a document written 200 years ago, by men who have only a fraction of the knowledge all of us have today.

The US Constitution is a composite of ideas and systems for government, most of which were around long before our Constitution and/or will be integral parts of any free societies systems, probably until the end of humanity. Even the Greeks form of Democracy (think 1400BC), the British Magna Carta (1500's) and the 200 years of early American Colonial Systems, were used.

Quote

I mean look at the 2nd amendment for example, sure citizens have the right to bear arms, but back in the 1700's there were no automatic machine guns? That was not taken into consideration by the founders, it couldn't of been.

I'm not aware of any SCOTUS decision or State Law, saying citizens are allowed to keep and bare 'Sherman Tanks' or 'nuclear weapons. The right to bare arms today, is pretty much all that exist today, that was in 1789.

Quote

well it should sound familiar, because that was what i was referring to.

Zolar; Good, then you understand the system being used by the Executive/Legislature, with reference to the HC Bill, is not constitutional...checks and balances that are available will have to come in after the fact (if passed) and will work. Many, if not most or all involved, will be found unconstitutional. By the way, I heard yesterday 34 States are now considering legal action, can't afford the mandates being proposed and will fight to have many items overturned......Just what this country needs, in the current economic environment.

Quote

With thus you can still have capitalism at a layer of society even though in the lesser layers of society they are communist.

Not at the Federal Level; Several States in the US do employ many aspects of Socialism with in their Democratic systems, and it's NOT working. So long as Capitalism can move, business simply moves to more accommodating States, or out of the Country. California, by use of Taxing, has made doing business so expensive or having wealth, that people and business leaving, has created a serious problem, just as in NY.

A good example of Communism in the US, though a stretch, is the virtual take over of GM. Do you think the Japanese Government, the people of Japan or many investors from abroad that are invested in the US really think, all this attention on 'Toyota' recalls, IS NOT contrived?


Pangloss;

Quote

I don't see any basis for this in any of the sources you've cited.

Please don't get started on this style of debating, it's unbecoming of you.

Quote

You've not indicated a constitutional clause, law, supreme court decision or even a statement by the framers that says that the federal government cannot give money to a state government with conditions attached.

The Constitution set up a census, to count the number of people in each State to keep representation to the House, proportionate to each other. Later it was used to determine amounts of funding allocated each State for any appropriations. As for conditions placed on funding, it depends on the condition and as described in several post, these conditions were simple coercion to get States to conform to National Policy and ILLEGAL. For the record, NH, which never has mandated 'seat belts' for adults, under the threat of losing 10% of some funding, never lost that funding.

Quote

I don't know about "never again", but I agree with this in general. It's a real problem, made more so by the fact that we don't seem to be very good at solving this kind of problem.

If the statistics are correct and obligations of the US Government are someplace over 40T$, that are not counted as National Debt (should be), you would need to expand GDP 8% (figures double each 10 years) per year for 40 years, with out inflation or an increase in interest on that debt. That is GDP would be 240T$ in 2050, the then projected ND somewhere around 150T$. The GDP actually did this between 1984 and 2008, but with near off setting inflation. That scenario into the future, is not possible, IMO.

On solving problems; It's really not that complicated, CUT GOVERMENY COST.

Quote

We never have before -- it's always seemed to me that the Clinton administration stumbled into it thanks to unexpected income often connected to the dot-com bubble, rather than any sort of financial or budgetary wizardry. I know some disagree on this point, of course.

Well, I do think there was some "wizardry" involved, but by someone you wouldn't expect me to give credit. Robert Rubin, served as assistant to the President (Clinton) for Economic Affairs, from the day of Inauguration, to 1995, when he became the Secretary of the Treasury and I credit him for Clinton's policy and being acceptable to the Republican Congress to WORK with (after 1994). It's been my long held theory, he bailed in July of 1999, knowing of the pending bubble burst and it wasn't that hard to predict. The Y2K forecast, launched hundreds of small Companies and over valued absolutely every other tech company, creating the tech bubble burst. I bailed on tech stocks late in 1999, Jim Crammer (CNBC Mad Money) shorted every tech stock making billions, for his Hedge fund and himself and if you check out the chart below, you can see the reasoning, behind my comments. Of yes, most all those Y2K Companies folded and a good share of the over valued, as did the investor when the NASDAQ dropped 75% of its value (March 2000 to August 2002), IMO could have resulted in today's problems if it had not been for the TAX CUTS.

http://moneycentral....pe=0&CP=0&PT=11

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Robert_Rubin

[Pangloss]

jackson33 said:

For the record, NH, which never has mandated 'seat belts' for adults, under the threat of losing 10% of some funding, never lost that funding.

So where's the problem? They got their money, they kept their "freedom", and if they want to ignore the fact that highway deaths are the lowest they've been since 1954 well, hey, more power to them, right?

Just not seeing a usurpation of state's rights here, either on "coercion" or anything else.