Why?



I am sure stoning some one is against the law no matter what religion they are from. Settling disputes in court, or by an approved arbitrator is the way we all have to go, if we chose to, but physical harm is against the law.

So far it has been kept on lower levels like arbitration. But as we all known we all need to keep an eye on things as they progress.

I am more concerned with Christians who deny birth control to women than I am about stoning, but I do know of Americans who have killed because their religion gives them that right, or so they have alleged, but thank god they ended up in jail for murder.

Orato: Texas Father Main Suspect in Murder Cab Driver Murders Two Daughter in Possible Honour Killing (http://www.orato.com/world-affairs/texas-father-main-suspect-murder)

I think we should be vigilante for anyone who breaks the law regardless of religion.

By deny as far as birth control do you mean asking the person to pay for it? Or are you talking about an outright ban?

I was speaking to the context of law as you didn't seem to be aware of how it has crept its way into american law. Of course we all have to be mindful of illegal acts around us and bring the perps to justice.

If I remember correctly employer heath insurance is paid for by contributions from the employer, and the employee, and benefits are paid by insurance companies who set policy standard, not churches. I also know that churches get group rates and participate in a larger group to get better rates.

Now if the church can tell what benefits the policy holder gets, then the employee should have the option of not buy their insurance, and take cash instead of a benefit, which would be fair of any employee, and let the consumer decide. I dare say that employees will be looking around for the employers who have the better benefits, pay, and working conditions.

That's what its all about choices made by consumers, and working people, and has little to do with the right of religion. I don't think churches should make rules for companies, plain and simple, and the states agree because they have already made laws to prevent such policy. At least 34 so far and more are considering it.

Many churches have opted to underwrite their own insurance, but have a hard time finding an insurance company to go along with their rules. So I guess the janitor, or the clerk will be asking for more money to buy their own health insurance that meets their needs, not the churches.

Churches are tax exempt, but are their employees? I haven't checked, but I doubt it. But churches pay for a policy, they don't pay for a benefit of the policy.

Not that it matters one way or the other, but my church body, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, cuts through all this and has its own plan that covers all of its church and parochial workers. Concordia Health Plan - Concordia Plan Services (http://www.concordiaplans.org/detailpage.aspx?Id=21)

Not that it matters one way or the other, but my church body, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, cuts through all this and has its own plan that covers all of its church and parochial workers. Concordia Health Plan - Concordia Plan Services (http://www.concordiaplans.org/detailpage.aspx?Id=21)

That's what most church health plans look like, not unlike private sector plans. I fail to see what religiou freedom has to do with health insurance since churches neither pay for the benefits, nor despenses them.


I was speaking to the context of law as you didn't seem to be aware of how it has crept its way into american law. Of course we all have to be mindful of illegal acts around us and bring the perps to justice.

Why can't Islamic law be as American as Catholic or Christian laws? Isn't that a basic tenant of American laws, the right of free practice of any religion you choose?

Being none of the above they all look alike to me, one no better, or worse than the other. Frankly it's the people who practice whatever that turn me off... or on! Agood person, is a good person. And a bad one is just BAD! Right?

got it backwards . The law cannot violate the free exercise clause . If a law is crafted that violates that provision it is an unconstitutional law.


Unless the government can show a compelling interest.

Tom, you left that bit out.



Tut

Unless the government can show a compelling interest.
And that "compelling interest" is?

I've read the 1st amendment many times and can't find that compelling interest clause.

And that "compelling interest" is?


Hi Wondergirl. Long time no chat.

According to Wikipeda compelling interest in bound up in a legal application allowing the government to regulate a given matter. Religion being just one example. Obviously there are others.

It seems to me compelling government interest can be interpreted in different ways depending on the time and your history seems to show this. Sometimes compelling interest was interpreted in a narrow fashion; sometimes broadly.

I guess the obvious point is that a limited number of religious practices are not acceptable if they are in fact a criminal act. The overwhelming majority are not.

Tut

I've read the 1st amendment many times and can't find that compelling interest clause.


Hi Tom,

It's there, you are just not looking hard enough.

Perhaps I can borrow from Justice Scalia and get around it using a couple of select phrases:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps I could also find some evidence of absence in there somewhere. Worked for him in Citizens United.

I've looked for his quote in Citizens United a couple times and haven't found it . Do you have that link ?

Hi Wondergirl. Long time no chat.

According to Wikipeda compelling interest in bound up in a legal application allowing the government to regulate a given matter. Religion being just one example. Obviously there are others.

It seems to me compelling government interest can be interpreted in different ways depending on the time period and your history seems to show this. Sometimes compelling interest was interpreted in a narrow fashion; sometimes broadly.

I guess the obvious point is that a limited number of religious practices are not acceptable if they are in fact a criminal act. The overwhelming majority are not.

Tut

Yes it's true that human sacrifice or stoning would not be permitted under our laws because they conflict with other people's God given right to life. I won't get into that obvious contradiction in our abortion laws...

I thought I am the government. It's my tax dollars at work doing some of that ministering to the "least among us."

So the government is now the church?

So the government is now the church?Hello again, Steve:

If the politician and/or the government worker wants to THINK they're doing God's work, why shouldn't they? Don't they have religious freedom?

I just happen to think that children should be able to eat a nice breakfast.. It has NOTHING to do with God.

excon

I've looked for his quote in Citizens United a couple times and haven't found it . Do you have that link ?

Wikipedia 1/4 of the way down under the heading of, 'Concurrences'

Scalia addressing Stevens' dissent... Scalia stated that Stevens' dissent was in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment.. It(First Amendment) never shows why 'Freedom of Speech' that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form.

In other words, absence of evidence


Scalia then goes on to say that the First Amendment was written "in terms of speech, not speakers" and that the text offers no foothold for excluding the category of speakers.

In other words there is evidence of absence.

We could debate the merits or otherwise of his statement but that is not the issue here. For the purpose of this exercise we need to recognize that he has hypothesized in relation into the Amendment.

Why can't we hypothesize in a similar fashion when it comes to the Free exercise Clause?


Besides the state has always shown a compelling in these and similar matters./ Sometimes a broad interest sometimes a narrow interest. But the compelling interest is always there.


Tut

You don't have to be a church to provide for the general welfare of the people.

We aren't saved because we are being responsible for others. We are responsible for others because we are saved.

We are the government in this country. Rome's government was mainly in one person, was a monarchy during Jesus' time.

The composition of the government is irrelevant to Jesus' teachings. He never advocated a secular government perform the functions of the church. In fact He was clear that His concerns were for a spiritual Kingdom which is "not of this world."

God is concerned with matters of the heart. The federal government has no heart. But that's OK, you guys are going to miss the church when the feds take over her ministries.

you don't have to be a church to provide for the general welfare of the people.

Ok. And??

Hello again, Steve:

If the politician and/or the government worker wants to THINK they're doing God's work, why shouldn't they? Don't they have religious freedom?

I would never have seen you ask that question 5 or 6 years ago. You guys were terrified at the thought of Bush doing God's work.


I just happen to think that children should be able to eat a nice breakfast.. It has NOTHING to do with God.

OK. And you know good and well that those of us on this side of the aisle believe that as well. My tax money providing a government safety net is a good thing... for those who truly need it. Expanding the safety net to include a cradle to grave nanny for "99 percent" so we can all live the life of Julia is a terribly bad idea and has no connection whatsoever to the bible's teachings as the Obamas would like for you to believe. I'm beginning to think you did drink the koolaid.

Its in the constitution, and its what the government does.

What constitutes the "general welfare?"

What constitutes the "general welfare?"Hello again, Steve:

I can tell you what it's NOT... Dying because you can't afford to see a doctor. Going bankrupt because you can't pay your medical bills. Going hungry, or going without shelter. Being denied rights that others have..

You know, stuff like that.

excon

Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What constitutes the "general welfare?"

What Ex said.

Hello again, Steve:

I can tell you what it's NOT... Dying because you can't afford to see a doctor. Going bankrupt because you can't pay your medical bills. Going hungry, or going without shelter. Being denied rights that others have..

You know, stuff like that.

excon

No one has to die because they can't afford to go the doctor. Another bald-faced lie of the whole debate. And by the way, bankruptcy is a safety net, just like food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance, SSA, SSD, and on and on and on.

No one in this country has to do without, there is no issue with access to health care, no shortage of access to contraceptives, no trouble getting clean water, no shortage of food. If you can't make your case without just plain making stuff up then the policy deserves to die.

No one in this country has to do without, there is no issue with access to health care, no shortage of access to contraceptives, no trouble getting clean water, no shortage of food. If you can't make your case without just plain making stuff up then the policy deserves to die.Hello again, Steve:

When you look around at the world you live in, and determine that racism is over because we have a black president, that people live in the hood, BECAUSE THEY CHOOSE TOO, that everybody can get all the health care they want, that nobody is going hungry, and nobody wants to dirty up your water or your air, I suggest, Sir, that it's YOU who's making stuff up.

But, we've been here before.

excon

Wikipedia 1/4 of the way down under the heading of, 'Concurrences'

Scalia addressing Stevens' dissent... Scalia stated that Stevens' dissent was in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment.. It(First Amendment) never shows why 'Freedom of Speech' that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form.

In other words, absence of evidence


Scalia then goes on to say that the First Amendment was written "in terms of speech, not speakers" and that the text offers no foothold for excluding the category of speakers.

In other words there is evidence of absence.

We could debate the merits or otherwise of his statement but that is not the issue here. For the purpose of this exercise we need to recognize that he has hypothesized in relation into the Amendment.

Why can't we hypothesize in a similar fashion when it comes to the Free exercise Clause?


Besides the state has always shown a compelling in these and similar matters./ Sometimes a broad interest sometimes a narrow interest. But the compelling interest is always there.


Tut

So in other words ;that quote is not in his dissent.


For the purpose of this exercise we need to recognize that he has hypothesized in relation into the Amendment.

No hypothesis needed .It is clear cut in the amendment ;in the history of "free speech " ,and in the words of the founders that are not in the Constitution that Freedom of Speech also includes people in association.
"but the remedy of destroying the
liberty of some factions is worse than disease. Factions should be checked by
permitting them all to speak and by entrusting the people to judge what is true
and what is false."[Madison Federalist 10 ]

The truth of this is evident in that the left would at the same time restrict corporate speech ;they don't at the same time raise a fuss when their special interests groups become involved in campaigns.

Without insurance a doctor visit is 200 bucks. What part of can't afford is a lie? How much do you pay?

Hey Tom if Adelson makes his loot from China, and gives it to Mitt, is that foreign money?

I don't know Tal. If Soros makes his loot overseas should he fund special interest groups that support the President's campaign?

Hello again, Steve:

When you look around at the world you live in, and determine that racism is over because we have a black president, that people live in the hood, BECAUSE THEY CHOOSE TOO, that everybody can get all the health care they want, that nobody is going hungry, and nobody wants to dirty up your water or your air, I suggest, Sir, that it's YOU who's making stuff up.

But, we've been here before

Yep we've been here before, I didn't say those things.

America is a wealthy country, our "poverty" is a joke. I've been over what America's "poor" have before; typically more than one car, more than one TV, A/C, cell phones, game consoles and cable or satellite TV.

When I look around at the world I live in I see those things, and those who don't have them need not go without food, clothing shelter and health care. That's just a plain fact, ex.

Poor is living on less than a dollar a day. Poor is Bangladesh and Sudan where 16 percent of the children suffer from wasting because they have no food. Poor is having no clean water, no sanitation - poor is Niger (http://www.worldvision.org/our-work/international-work/niger). And the thing is, these poor probably don't realize they're poor while our "poor" think they're entitled to be cared for by the rest of us.

Why should our "poor" be treated to a lifetime of care while that Nigerian child goes without a clean glass of water?

Without insurance a doctor visit is 200 bucks. What part of can't afford is a lie? How much do you pay?

Apparently there are no clinics or ERs in anywhere but Amarillo, TX?

So in other words ;that quote is not in his dissent.


No hypothesis needed .It is clear cut in the amendment ;in the history of "free speech " ,and in the words of the founders that are not in the Constitution that Freedom of Speech also includes people in association.
"but the remedy of destroying the
liberty of some factions is worse than disease. Factions should be checked by
permitting them all to speak and by entrusting the people to judge what is true
and what is false."[Madison Federalist 10 ]

The truth of this is evident in that the left would at the same time restrict corporate speech ;they don't at the same time raise a fuss when their special interests groups become involved in campaigns.



Hi Tom,


Scalia is getting stuck into Stevens for his dissenting opinion. He is critical of Stevens' conclusions because he see Stevens'dissent being arrived at without any regard to the actual wording of the First Amendment.

Scalia gives his reasons as to why the conclusion can be reached just by consulting the wording of the Amendment alone. I am very sure there are other supporting texts, such as Federalist Number 10. As you have pointed out. I am not disputing that at this stage.

Firstly.What I am saying is that Scalia is giving Stevens a lesson in how to interpret the text correctly.

Secondly, In doing so Scalia is using the 'absence of evidence' approach (as I have pointed out earlier).

Thirdly, In doing so he must be hypothesizing.

As I said, at this stage I am not disputing the Federalist Papers as evidence. It may well be the case that no further evidence was necessary when arriving at the majority decision.

I am saying Scalia is hypothesizing in relation to the wording of the Amendment. I say this because this is exactly what he is doing.


Tut

What constitutes the "general welfare?"

Hi Steve,

The answer to that question is, a social contract. Your Constitution is a social contract.

I would be surprised if you couldn't find the words, 'general welfare' in there somewhere.


Tut

Yep we've been here before, I didn't say those things.

America is a wealthy country, our "poverty" is a joke. I've been over what America's "poor" have before; typically more than one car, more than one TV, A/C, cell phones, game consoles and cable or satellite TV.

When I look around at the world I live in I see those things, and those who don't have them need not go without food, clothing shelter and health care. That's just a plain fact, ex.

Poor is living on less than a dollar a day. Poor is Bangladesh and Sudan where 16 percent of the children suffer from wasting because they have no food. Poor is having no clean water, no sanitation - poor is Niger (http://www.worldvision.org/our-work/international-work/niger). And the thing is, these poor probably don't realize they're poor while our "poor" think they're entitled to be cared for by the rest of us.

Why should our "poor" be treated to a lifetime of care while that Nigerian child goes without a clean glass of water?

I have to disagree with your description of what poor people have, just from my own observations, and don't think its fair to compare America to any where else in the world. And the poor I know don't think they are entitled, they are stuck because of a lack of guidance, and opportunity that keeps them on the day to day struggle of dealing with nothing, and they attitude of others like yourself that are prejudiced against them.

Hi Steve,

The answer to that question is, a social contract. Your Constitution is a social contract.

I would be surprised if you couldn't find the words, 'general welfare' in there somewhere.


Tut

I was looking for someone to define the scope of the "general welfare." How broad? How narrow?

I was looking for someone to define the scope of the "general welfare." How broad? How narrow?Hello again, Steve:

We've been discussing that since the founding of the Republic..

I think it's safe to say, however, that in terms of social issues, liberals think it's broader than conservatives do.. In terms of security issues, conservatives think it's broader than liberals do...

I know, I know... You actually BELIEVE that conservatives are for small government. But, when it comes to using government power to achieve YOUR objectives, you have NO problem with it... Need I mention the drug war?

In fact, government spending promoted by YOUR side is bankrupting us too, if not faster than social programs are.

excon

I was looking for someone to define the scope of the "general welfare." How broad? How narrow?

As broad as it need be to cover all of us, and as narrow as it takes to be effective, that's what general means. It's a problem I think to be locked into a preconceived notion of what the boundaries are because we are then very unprepared for emergency situations, or unplanned events, especially the ones we cannot control.

Natural disasters, and power outages come to mind, along with sudden recessions, or depressions, death of a breadwinner, or the business cycle.

I have to disagree with your description of what poor people have, just from my own observations, and don't think its fair to compare America to any where else in the world. And the poor I know don't think they are entitled, they are stuck because of a lack of guidance, and opportunity that keeps them on the day to day struggle of dealing with nothing, and they attitude of others like yourself that are prejudiced against them.

First, you can disagree all you want but facts are facts (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty) and I thought you liked facts.

Second, I have no prejudice against anyone - especially the poor - which is why I keep mentioning the children in countries that are truly poor. I mean really, Tal, duh! And if you don't compare their plight to the "poor" in America then you have no basis to judge what poverty really is.

My wife and I feel enough compassion and sympathy and have the love to support 4 truly poor children every month, 2 in Guatemala, 1 in El Salvador and 1 in Peru. I may feel sympathy for struggling Americans but I don't feel a bit guilty about not helping them pay their cell phone bill while children are actually starving.

That's the point I've made over and over about the church, reaching out to the entire world to care for "the least of these" is what the church does and does it infinitely more efficiently than the federal government, and you guys on the left want to screw that up. I've said many times now, you're going to miss the church when you tie her hands from carrying out their ministries because you think women deserve free contraceptives.

I cannot believe how pathetically stupid of an idea that is and yet liberals/progressives have made destroying the church and replacing her ministries with faceless, incompetent bureaucrats a fundamental tenet.

If women get those free contraceptives, then churchgoers and other compassionate people won't have to waste some of their precious income on poor and starving children in this country and in others.

I love facts, but am careful about who defines it, and why. It's the American standard that applies, and the issues of the rest of the world are an entirely different subject of which free contraceptives here, and the churches position are contrary to what the goal is, not making unplanned children, for the ones financially challenged for whatever reason, and to eliminate the need for abortions. That's one way to have less poor people in my view.

The well to do don't have that problem, but the poor don't have that option. Your link suggest that Americas poor need NO help, and should be grateful, and that is baloney. FACT is they are not in some third world country, and should not be treated as such, and their needs ignored.

I take issue with that mentality. Is that why you can build jails and NOT schools?

and I thought you liked facts.

you guys on the left want to screw that up. I've said many times now, you're going to miss the church when you tie her hands from carrying out their ministries because you think women deserve free contraceptives. Hello again, Steve:

Have you noticed that the Republicans are using the phrase, "patient centered care" these days?? Maybe not just yet, but you'll be hearing it a LOT. Those words don't mean anything, really. They're a euphemism for free market care, but Republicans have been told by Frank Luntz that they can't use the words free market... They're hoping that THEIR words will replace the truth.

In that same sense, you wingers want the words "free contraceptives" to replace the words "medicine that's paid for by INSURANCE"... You certainly don't think your medical care is free, do you??

Your words, free contraceptives, are right wing talking points. They are NOT fact.. Indeed, it's a bald faced LIE, and you bought it hook, line and sinker.

excon

If women get those free contraceptives, then churchgoers and other compassionate people won't have to waste some of their precious income on poor and starving children in this country and in others.

So birth control pills here are going to prevent pregnancies abroad. That's some pretty useless logic.

P.S. I don't consider feeding a hungry child a "waste" of my personal income.

Hello again, Steve:

Have you noticed that the Republicans are using the phrase, "patient centered care" these days??? Maybe not just yet, but you'll be hearing it a LOT. Those words don't mean anything, really. They're a euphemism for free market care, but Republicans have been told by Frank Luntz that they can't use the words free market... They're hoping that THEIR words will replace the truth.

In that same sense, you wingers want the words "free contraceptives" to replace the words "medicine that's paid for by INSURANCE"... You certainly don't think your medical care is free, do you???

Your words, free contraceptives, are right wing talking points. They are NOT fact.. Indeed, it's a bald faced LIE, and you bought it hook, line and sinker.

excon

And you guys fell for "hope and change."

The insurance company doesn't pay for it and you know it, the policyholder pays for it and the result is free contraceptives to the user, so where did I lie?

Basically you don't lie, you just don't know what you are talking about, or have no knowledge of how things work.

In other words, your premise is not based in facts!! If I am wrong, SHOW ME!!

Basically you don't lie, you just don't know what you are talking about, or have no knowledge of how things work.

Really, Tal? You're resorting to insulting my intelligence again?


In other words, your premise is not based in facts!! If I am wrong, SHOW ME!!

No sir, your turn. An insult does nothing to refute my point, "The insurance company doesn't pay for it and you know it, the policyholder pays for it and the end result is free contraceptives to the user."


Feel free to point out which part is wrong and why. Shifting the burden from the employer to the insurance company is smoke and mirrors. No insurance company is going to give coverage away, it will be reflected in your premiums. I think you know that, as much as you whine about how big business does nothing but prey on others. But feel free to contradict one of your stock arguments.

Your words, free contraceptives, are right wing talking points. They are NOT fact.. Indeed, it's a bald faced LIE, and you bought it hook, line and sinker.

excon

Am I missing something here??

Beginning in August, woman of all income brackets will be able to obtain contraception, annual well-woman visits, screenings for sexually transmitted infections and gestational diabetes, breastfeeding support and supplies, and domestic violence screenings without any co-pays or deductibles.


It sounds like free to me ? Most of the medicines that people take carry a co-pay.

Even Michelle says so and has been touting it around the country.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/michelle-obama-boasts-obamacare-mandates-basic-things-like-contraception-as-catholics-start-2-week-protest-against-unjust-law?f=must_reads

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/obamacare-women-supreme-court-contraception-pregnancy_n_1634480.html

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mrs-obama-boasts-obamacare-mandates-basic-things-contraception-catholics-start-2-week

Hello again, dad:

Looks like we got TWO issues going on.. One is the coverage Obamacare is going to provide, and the other is the order to the Catholic church to cover contraceptives.

excon

Hello again, dad:

Looks like we got TWO issues going on.. One is the coverage Obamacare is going to provide, and the other is the order to the church to cover contraceptive coverage.

excon

Yes two separate yet intermingled issues. Regardless it still appears that the contraceptives are going to be free as provided by the carrier.

As far as the church issue goes Im expecting a court challenge to come forth because of the "moral" issue presented by the situation. I also believe the line may be drawn at the point of being "self insured" as opposed to those that buy a policy from an outside source.

First, you can disagree all you want but facts are facts (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty) and I thought you liked facts.




In this case the facts are not the facts. I didn't get much past the preamble and the first graph to realize this.



The study says that the government estimates the number of poor to be about 30 million. On what basis are we talking. Income, possessions? Both? The 30 million is probably an underestimation because it is clear the report wants to define poverty in terms of material possessions owned. This is clear from the onset.

This assumption is further enhanced by using asking the average person their definition of poverty. There is always the danger of overestimating your potential and underestimating the potential of others. It can work the other way depending on how you word the question. Anyone conducting this sort of survey would know that. It is not surprising that poverty is seen by the average person as someone living in some sort of degradation.

Armed with the 'average persons' understanding of poverty we are expected to believe that the average poor person doesn't fit this definition because of the number of possessions they have.

In order to prove that poor people are not really poor in terms of possessions they set up a null hypothesis by comparing two sets of statistics in the form of a graph. Namely, 'All Households Which have Various Amenities' and 'Poor Households Which Have Varies Amenities'. Even if valid, which it is not- the hypothesis cannot be proven.

In order to further substantiate the claim that the poor are not really poor the writer introduces erroneous comparisons (fallacy of false analogy). That is, by comparing people in poverty in other countries against the standard of the poor in their country. This fallacy is further enhanced by comparing people of an earlier time to his own time.

That's as far as I wanted to go into that report.

Tut

In this case the facts are not the facts. I didn't get much past the preamble and the first graph to realize this.



The study says that the government estimates the number of poor to be about 30 million. On what basis are we talking.? Income, possessions? both? The 30 million is probably an underestimation because it is clear the report wants to define poverty in terms of material possessions owned. This is clear from the onset.

This assumption is further enhanced by using asking the average person their definition of poverty. There is always the danger of overestimating your potential and underestimating the potential of others. It can work the other way depending on how you word the question. Anyone conducting this sort of survey would know that. It is not surprising that poverty is seen by the average person as someone living in some sort of of degradation.

Armed with the 'average persons' understanding of poverty we are expected to believe that the average poor person doesn't fit this definition because of the number of possessions they have.

In order to prove that poor people are not really poor in terms of possessions they set up a null hypothesis by comparing two sets of statistics in the form of a graph. Namely, 'All Households Which have Various Amenities' and 'Poor Households Which Have Varies Amenities'. Even if valid, which it is not- the hypothesis cannot be proven.

In order to further substantiate the claim that the poor are not really poor the writer introduces erroneous comparisons (fallacy of false analogy). That is, by comparing people in poverty in other countries against the standard of the poor in their country. This fallacy is further enhanced by comparing people of an earlier time period to his own time period.

That's as far as I wanted to go into that report.

Tut

The report is directly from Census Bureau information. You mean our government lied and the average person in poverty as defined by our government is really much worse off?

You can dismiss the summary, but you cannot dismiss the facts.

I had a quick look at that report and it seemed the defining difference between the middle class and the poor was whether the family owned a dishwasher and a dryer. According to the graph a small percentage of poor people own jucuzzi. There would appearently be some serious question as to who created these definions whether they come from the Bureau of Statistics or elsewhere because they seem a little out of touch with real poverty or is that reality

The facts of who owns a dishwasher comes from the Census Bureau but the using that as a definition of poverty is entirely from the ultra-conservatibe Heritage Foundation 'think tank': "The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies"

The report is directly from Census Bureau information. You mean our government lied and the average person in poverty as defined by our government is really much worse off?

You can dismiss the summary, but you cannot dismiss the facts.

Yes, I do dismiss the summary for good reasons. I don't dismiss the facts. What I am dismissing is the way the facts are being used in the report. The way they are being used borders on dishonesty.



We are supposed to accept the reports new definition of poverty. Not the definition that one would normally expect governments to use in accessing poverty .For example, income, availability of goods and services.

The reports working definition for poverty doesn't take into account all of these things. In fact the definition employed for this purpose is something called 'the average persons definition of poverty'

What sort of methodology is this? We have a Census Bureau's definition of poverty and an average man in the street definition of poverty. So we go with the definition that tells us that poor people are not that poor because they have almost as many amenities as most wealthier people.

So, our method of analysis in order to determine poverty becomes availability of amenities. Did it every occur to the people compiling the report that the government uses a variety of methods to determine poverty rather than relying on just on determining factor?

The facts of the report attempt to do the following:

Compare two hypotheses. The government hypothesis ( which is never presented in any detail what so ever) and the alternative hypothesis.

In refuting the Census definition of poverty ( we can only assume that is what it is trying to do) it is hoped to establish the alternative. That alternative being that poor people are appliance rich therefore they are not really poor. Not poor in terms of what the average person understands as being poor.

Another way of saying this is, the report refutes the first hypothesis by proving the second.

This is very bad science and I am very sure that wouldn't be just my opinion.

This cannot be a government funded research, surely.

Just read NK's post. That would explain it.

Tut

Hello again,

Let me throw in my two cents... Research, schmeasearch... The right wing BELIEVES that poor people are poor because of CHOICES they themselves made, and they're LOATHE to offer them ANYTHING.

Human beings, on the other hand, KNOW that NOT to be true at ALL. Therefore, they're willing to step up to the plate to help.

All this talk of the right wing being WILLING to help the poor, if ONLY they could tell WHO the poor actually are, is BOGUS, BOGUS, and even BOGUSER.

excon

Yes, I do dismiss the summary for good reasons. I don't dismiss the facts.

Thank you.

What borders on dishonesty, Tut, is the way the left spins poverty in this country. This report seeks to counter that narrative with the facts, which you don't dismiss. Heritage (nor I as I've done repeatedly) doesn't dismiss the poor or pretend poverty isn't an issue, but on average those in "poverty" in America have it pretty darn good. Fact.

But to get back on track, my point - again - is it's a tremendously stupid idea to hamstring the church in it's ministries to "the least of these" and replace it with a heartless, inefficient, government nanny.

We'll be glad to help the poor and needy, but don't pretend Jesus taught that forced government redistribution was how to be "my brother's keeer" as is the gospel according to the Obamas.

We spent 8 years listening to American liberals scream "separation of church and state" over their irrational Bush theocracy fears, and yet nary a peep over the current administration preaching social Christian state.

The facts of who owns a dishwasher comes from the Census Bureau but the using that as a definition of poverty is entirely from the ultra-conservatibe Heritage Foundation 'think tank': "The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies"

And yet you and your sources are completely free of ideology, right?

And yet you and your sources are completely free of ideology, right?
My what and what sources of mine? I don't have a dog in this race.
I realize that conservatives view personal wealth/success has a goal to be reached above all else. Others don't have that same life ambition I guess. You just need to learn that people can have different views and ambitions without insulting or denigrating them all the time.

and yet nary a peep over the current administration preaching social Christian state.Hello again, Steve:

Here's the deal. Michelle Obama is NOT the administration.. I didn't vote for HER. She's a FREE citizen of this great country of ours practicing her religion just like YOU do. Sounds to me, like you think she SHOULDN'T. That's NOT very American of you...

I suppose you'll next tell us that Obama supports sh!tting in the yard because his dog, I mean his administration, is doing it...

excon

Hello again,

Let me throw in my two cents... Research, schmeasearch... The right wing BELIEVES that poor people are poor because of CHOICES they themselves made, and they're LOATHE to offer them ANYTHING.

BS, ex. When did doing everything you could to take care of you and family without a government nanny stop being a virtue?


Human beings, on the other hand, KNOW that NOT to be true at ALL. Therefore, they're willing to step up to the plate to help.

My wife and I support 4 children every month, 2 in Guatemala, 1 in El Salvador and 1 in Peru. But I already said that (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/churches-633427-54.html#post3179279). How many do you support?

In fact, I'm the one that repeatedly for years has suggested to these users to give to the poor for Christmas rather than buy themselves another useless trinket. Don't talk to me about stepping up to the plate, we've given and given and given and you want to take, and take and take. Sorry, but my money goes much further to help the needy my way than Obama's way. When the federal government becomes as efficient as say, World Vision we can talk.



All this talk of the right wing being WILLING to help the poor, if ONLY they could tell WHO the poor actually are, is BOGUS, BOGUS, and even BOGUSER.

Like that poor law student that needed help with her $3000 contraceptive bill who didn't know she buy them at Target for $9.00 a month (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sandra-fluke-says-she-didnt-know-target-sells-birth-control-pills-9)?

Hello again, Steve:

Here's the deal. Michelle Obama is NOT the administration.. I didn't vote for HER. She's a FREE citizen of this great country of ours practicing her religion just like YOU do. Sounds to me, like you think she SHOULDN'T. That's NOT very American of you...

I suppose you'll next tell us that Obama supports sh!tting in the yard because his dog, I mean his administration, is doing it...

excon

Um , Obama is the one that played the "brother's keeper" card. He is the president.

P.S. It is the Obama administration's contraceptive mandate, not Michelle's.

My what and what sources of mine? I don't have a dog in this race.
I realize that conservatives view personal wealth/success has a goal to be reached above all else. Others don't have that same life ambition I guess. You just need to learn that people can have different views and ambitions without insulting or denigrating them all the time.

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.
Just letting you know that people live their lives differently than you choose to and they aren't bad people for doing so.

http://consumerist.com/2007/09/target-matches-walmarts-9-birth-control-pill-program.html


Here's the bad news, those of you who reside in states that prohibit stores from selling prescription drugs as loss leaders are not getting the $9 birth control:


Laws in Minnesota, Wisconsin and seven other states prevent pharmacies from selling drugs below their true cost. As a result, Wal-Mart will charge more to consumers here for nine of the 24 drugs being added to its generic discount program.

In the case of a generic birth control pill called Tri-Sprintec, two Wal-Mart pharmacies in the


Twin Cities on Friday were selling a one-month supply for $26.88.

"We cannot provide the $9 for the three women's health drugs in those states," said Wal-Mart spokeswoman Deisha Galberth, referring to Tri-Sprintec as well as a second birth control drug and a fertility treatment.

http://contraception.about.com/b/2009/04/08/can-birth-control-pills-be-bought-over-the-counter.htm


Speaking in terms of the United States, ALL birth control pills require a doctor's prescription, so the unfortunate news for Angela is that there are NO types of oral contraceptives that are sold over the counter. There is, though, one exception, and that is Plan B One-Step(more commonly known as the morning-after pill) as this can be bought over the counter. The clincher - you need to be at least 17 years old to purchase it. Those of you under 17 still are required to obtain a prescription in order to buy Plan B One-Step. Most pharmacies stock this behind the counter, so you will need to provide proof of age to purchase it. Plan B One-Step consists of only one pill that is designed to provide a heavy dose of hormones in hope of preventing a pregnancy AFTER one has had unprotected sex (so it doesn't work like birth control pills do and is not a substitute for them).

Just for all the facts.

Just letting you know that people live their lives differently than you choose to and they aren't bad people for doing so.

And I never they were, that's just another one of your gross misrepresentations.

The Consumerist Target Matches Walmart’s $9 Birth Control Pill Program (http://consumerist.com/2007/09/target-matches-walmarts-9-birth-control-pill-program.html)


Just for all the facts.

That's hardly all the facts. Even if there were no other options like PP, Target, Costco, Healthwarehouse.com and that was the only generic available, that's $322.56 a year, not the $3000 that Fluke grossly misrepresented. Or over a nine year supply for her numbers.

The Consumerist Target Matches Walmart's $9 Birth Control Pill Program (http://consumerist.com/2007/09/target-matches-walmarts-9-birth-control-pill-program.html)



Can Birth Control Pills Be Bought Over the Counter? (http://contraception.about.com/b/2009/04/08/can-birth-control-pills-be-bought-over-the-counter.htm)



Just for all the facts.

Im calling BS on the "facts" as the morning after pill is being sold in vending machines. Just like cigarettes used to be.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/02/08/pennsylvania-college-sells-morning-after-pills-in-vending-machine/

http://www.therightscoop.com/morning-after-pill-now-available-in-vending-machines/

I guess the population is moving beyond the law. Or is it?

Morning-after pill? It?s in the vending machine. Really. - latimes.com (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/02/morning-after-pill-vending-machine.html)


The vending machine, which also dispenses condoms and pregnancy tests, is in a private room at the college's student clinic and is accessible only by students -- all of whom are 17 or older, the age at which Plan B is available without a prescription.

From wikipedia,


On March 23, 2009, a US judge ordered the FDA to allow 17 year olds to acquire Plan B without a prescription.[93] This now changes the August 24, 2006 ruling and Plan B is now available "behind the counter" for men and women. There is a prescription method available for girls under 17.

So my mistake as the link I provided is from 2006, sorry. What, you thought I was perfect??

What, you thought I was perfect?????Hello tal:

Yup, and I still do.

excon

Thanks Ex!!

Back in my day we bought condoms from a machine in the mens room at the gas station. We have come along way baby!

Thank you.

What borders on dishonesty, Tut, is the way the left spins poverty in this country. This report seeks to counter that narrative with the facts, which you don't dismiss. Heritage (nor I as I've done repeatedly) doesn't dismiss the poor or pretend poverty isn't an issue, but on average those in "poverty" in America have it pretty darn good. Fact.




Steve, what you have done here is exactly the same type of thing I was criticizing in the research into poverty paper you posted.

Please don't thank me for your opportunity to misrepresent my position by misquoting me. What you have presented is called the fallacy of contextomy. It is a very unattractive fallacy..

What I actually saying was that I didn't dispute the facts. I am disputing is the way the facts have been used.

I can assure you I would never say [quote] I don't dispute the facts. [unquote].

Reason... Facts by themselves are meaningless.

I hope this clears this up for you and anyone else reading you earlier post to me.

The so called research paper itself is dishonest. It only gives people the impression there must be a hidden agenda somewhere. If these people are so concerned about the cost of poverty why didn't they fund a proper research?


By the way, you question in regarded to 'general welfare'. I googled it and there are two general welfare clauses. One, being in the Preamble of the Constitution and the others is located in taxation policy.

Tut

Please don't thank me for your opportunity to misrepresent my position by misquoting me. What you have presented is called the fallacy of contextomy. It is a very unattractive fallacy..Might as well get used to it, that happens all the time here. If you point it out you then become the bad guy.

I guess the population is moving beyond the law. Or is it?

Morning-after pill? It?s in the vending machine. Really. - latimes.com (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/02/morning-after-pill-vending-machine.html)



From wikipedia,



So my mistake as the link I provided is from 2006, sorry. What, you thought I was perfect?????


Nobody is perfect. I know for sure Im not. Its just to make the argument fair we need to strive for accuracy. The internet has become old. With that there is a lot of information that is old and still makes its way into search engines. I see it all the time in the "Law" sections of the boards.

I think the biggest issue and maybe / possibly worth discussing is how Roe v Wade has been changed and evolved into something that for point of fact is being ignored.

Im not so sure that a vending machine can tell who is buying what as much as a human can. But with unrestricted access there will always be abuse. Just look at how many new "am I pregnant" questions we get in a days time.

Im just glad that we have a place like AMHD where we can bump heads and seek opinions and still walk away smiling from the debates.

One thing I have seen is no matter the law, people are quick to exploit ways around it and actively search for loopholes through it. Ingenuity knows no bounds, and while Roe V Wade upheld the right of women to have an abortion, many laws have popped up to make it harder, or restrict it in some form or fashion.

That the beauty of a free society, there are many ways to view the law, and flexibility is a key function of making things work. I would argue that America is not flexible enough, and to easily subject to gumming up the works when compromise, and consensus are hard to reach.

Oh and the vending machines are in a place that only students can access, at least that's their story.

Might as well get used to it, that happens all the time here. If you point it out you then become the bad guy.

Again, the pot calling the kettle black.

Steve, what you have done here is exactly the same type of thing I was criticizing in the research into poverty paper you posted.

Please don't thank me for your opportunity to misrepresent my position by misquoting me. What you have presented is called the fallacy of contextomy. It is a very unattractive fallacy..

What I actually saying was that I didn't dispute the facts. I am disputing is the way the facts have been used.

I can assure you I would never say I don't dispute the facts.

Tut, the report is from a conservative perspective so I would expect a conservative slant, but it's far from dishonest.

From the beginning you stated "In this case the facts are not the facts. I didn't get much past the preamble and the first graph to realize this" and ended with "That's as far as I wanted to go into that report."

In between you made judgements based on a lack of knowing the full content so what kind of fallacy is that, Tut?

I said the report was a counter to the prevailing narrative which is dishonest and agenda driven. I also said the report does not dismiss the needs of the poor:


However, there is a range of living conditions within the poverty population. The average poor family does not represent every poor family. Although most poor families are well housed, a small minority are homeless.

Fortunately, the number of homeless Americans has not increased during the current recession. Although most poor families are well fed and have a fairly stable food supply, a sizeable minority experiences temporary restraints in food supply at various times during the year. The number of families experiencing such temporary food shortages has increased somewhat during the current economic downturn.

Of course, to the families experiencing these problems, their comparative infrequency is irrelevant. To a family that has lost its home and is living in a homeless shelter, the fact that only 0.5 percent of families shared this experience in 2009 is no comfort. The distress and fear for the future that the family experiences are real and devastating. Public policy must deal with that distress. However, accurate information about the extent and severity of social problems is imperative for the development of effective public policy.

In discussions about poverty, however, misunderstanding and exaggeration are commonplace. Over the long term, exaggeration has the potential to promote a substantial misallocation of limited resources for a government that is facing massive future deficits. In addition, exaggeration and misinformation obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem. Poverty is an issue of serious social concern, and accurate information about that problem is always essential in crafting public policy.

Again, do we want to be effective and efficient in dealing with the needs of the truly distressed, or do we want to just throw money everywhere and have a nation of dependents based on the gospel of Obama and bankrupt the country in the process? Do we buy the lie that the 12 year old girl who shares a tiny home with 11 other people and her drug addicted mother is typical of poverty in America?

Al Jazeera and others buy the propaganda...


One of the most regrettable aspects of official U.S. government poverty statistics is the misleading negative image that they project around the world.

U.S. government poverty numbers are like a Potemkin village in reverse, suggesting to the rest of the globe that living conditions in the U.S. are much worse than they actually are.

For example, Al Jazeera uses U.S. government poverty numbers to tell the world what a terrible place the U.S. is. Al Jazeera tells a global audience: “37 million people—that is one in eight Americans—live below the official poverty line. That means these people are often homeless, hungry, and have no health insurance.” Al Jazeera shows a representative poor American family: six people living in a one-bedroom apartment. Other stories go farther. An Al Jazeera special report on “poverty in America” shows America’s poor as homeless or living in rat-infested, crumbling shacks while suffering from life-threatening
Malnutrition.

Sorry, but that's not America and we're all more than willing to help the deprived, but we need a little sunshine on the agenda driven lie being propagated about "poverty" in America.

Oh, I know where the "general welfare" clauses are located. Again, I asked what is the scope of "general welfare?" Where do we draw the line?

How about a case by case evaluation? That's a good place to start, and the feds may supply the money, but Medicaid is administered by the states, so lets blame governors for facts and figures, and outcomes and not the White House.

And why do you give what some foreign newspaper says about what we do here in America any credence? And 30 million poor people,mostly children is NOT propaganda! Ask them!

So you fight the propaganda war but dismiss it as irrelevant?

How about we drop the propaganda and the agenda and let's help those who are truly deprived instead of intentionally expanding the welfare class?

help those who are truly deprived instead of intentionally expanding the welfare class?
What are your criteria for "truly deprived"? How are you going to find them?

The states don't go looking for deprived people, they have to come in and sign up. Then they are evaluated. The process has been around for a while. The best way to fight propaganda, spin, agendas, and lies is with deeds, actions, and accomplishments. You HAVE to expand the welfare class, because it IS growing!

What are your criteria for "truly deprived"? How are you going to find them?

What are your criteria?

Like Tal said, they sign up and then get checked up on. If they can jump all the hurdles, they qualify.

The states don't go looking for deprived people, they have to come in and sign up. Then they are evaluated. The process has been around for a while. The best way to fight propaganda, spin, agendas, and lies is with deeds, actions, and accomplishments.

And you propose a government that has an already 13,000 page health care law is the most efficient way solve poverty?


You HAVE to expand the welfare class, because it IS growing!

That's easy when it's intentional.

Like Tal said, they sign up and then get checked up on. If they can jump all the hurdles, they qualify.

That's not criteria, that's method.

The method is check the eligibility against established criteria, like we did at Catholic Charities before allowing clients to get services on a sliding scale.

Critera is a function of individual states. Not the federal government.They all have a procedure in place.

So the federal government never imposes its will on the states. Bwa ha ha ha!!

Obama has said on many occasions that any plan that meets the criteria of his plan can be done, and he sent EVERY state the money to evaluate, and formulate any plan that they deemed effective. That was in 2010, and they have until 2014.

Yeah sounds like he is a real dictator all right. More like the CEO of the worlds biggest economy, trying to get the job done. Many states have already done this, some are just plain lazy, or reticent.

Hospitals will make sure Perry gets on board, kicking or screaming he will comply. They all will or lose one helluva savings. It's a great deal for the states, especially the poor ones.

Tut, the report is from a conservative perspective so I would expect a conservative slant, but it's far from dishonest.

From the beginning you stated "In this case the facts are not the facts. I didn't get much past the preamble and the first graph to realize this" and ended with "That's as far as I wanted to go into that report."

In between you made judgements based on a lack of knowing the full content so what kind of fallacy is that, Tut?

I said the report was a counter to the prevailing narrative which is dishonest and agenda driven. I also said the report does not dismiss the needs of the poor:



Again, do we want to be effective and efficient in dealing with the needs of the truly distressed, or do we want to just throw money everywhere and have a nation of dependents based on the gospel of Obama and bankrupt the country in the process? Do we buy the lie that the 12 year old girl who shares a tiny home with 11 other people and her drug addicted mother is typical of poverty in America?

Al Jazeera and others buy the propaganda...



Sorry, but that's not America and we're all more than willing to help the deprived, but we need a little sunshine on the agenda driven lie being propagated about "poverty" in America.




Steve we are talking past each other on this issue my. Criticism is aimed at the academic side of the report. I'll leave the politics of the report up to you. You know more about the politics than myself when it comes to this matter.

What I am saying is that I am critical of the methodology and notably, the lack of secondary research found in the paper.

Perhaps you are right, 'dishonest' was a bit strong. Perhaps I can replace that with, 'conveniently neglected information and research'.

Where is the distinction between ,'relative poverty' and 'absolute poverty? Easily accommodated in most reports in the form of secondary research results.

Where is the analysis of the poverty threshold? I would have though that some type of critical analysis of this would be an important prerequisite.

"Yet if poverty means lacking good adequate warm housing and clothing for the family, relatively few of the 30 million identified by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor"


The average person's understanding of poverty would make no distinction between absolute and relative poverty. It is clear the average person understands poverty in absolute terms. So the working definition of the report becomes 'absolute poverty' or what the average person understands by poverty Relative poverty is ignored because chances are most people in relative poverty have all the amenities.

The conclusion is that these people cannot be regarded as poor because if you have all the amenities.

This conclusion could be true but it was never put up for testing. If they are unhappy with relative poverty then they should have said so rather than ignore it. While not necessarily being correct, relative poverty is statistically significant.

If you don't believe me then compare this report to the one you posted.

www.epi.org/publications/webfeature_viewpoints_econ_oppty_and_poverty/


P.S. If as you say the research has a political slant then it is bad research. The idea is to minimize the bias as much as possible

Dumb idea 101:

Since churches are not subject to tax. And the Health Care Bill is declared a tax. Then the churches are not subject to it because of taxation.

That would settle everything.


P.S. Note to Tut your link didn't work for some reason.

P.S. Note to Tut your link didnt work for some reason.
AMHD messes it up for some reason.

Economic Opportunity and Poverty in America | Economic Policy Institute (http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_viewpoints_econ_oppty_and_poverty/)

Since churches are not subject to tax. And the Health Care Bill is declared a tax. Then the churches are not subject to it because of taxation.

That would settle everything.Hello dad:

Couple things.. The "Bill" wasn't declared a tax, only the mandate was. The mandate/tax is for INDIVIDUAL freeriders who want other people to pay for their health care.. Church's don't qualify.

So, let me ask you guys. Is it the PAYING for it you don't like, or the idea that everybody is going to be covered?? I STILL can't figure out WHY you guys DON'T like it. It's got to be cheaper than what we're spending now.

excon

P.S. If as you say the research has a political slant then it is bad research. The idea is to minimize the bias as much as possible

Good luck with that. One of the primary - misleading - mantras of the left in this country is they're not ideological. Nonsense, their ideology permeates everything they do and the majority of our media and I believe there is a legitimate place for research that counters the narrative.

And your EPI? Check out how much commentary is revealed under their publications (http://www.epi.org/publications/) link.

Here's a report, Black metropolitan unemployment in 2011 (http://www.epi.org/publication/ib337-black-metropolitan-unemployment/). Tell me there's no bias in the conclusion:


While the country as a whole needs the federal government to provide more economic stimulus, African Americans—who currently experience the highest unemployment rates among America’s major racial and ethnic groups—are especially in need of such assistance. There is broad agreement among economists that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act worked; the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the act created more than three million jobs (Montgomery 2012). Additional federal aid to state and local governments is particularly important to black workers, who have suffered the biggest proportional losses of good public-sector jobs as state and local governments responded to budget shortfalls with layoffs (Cooper, Gable, and Austin 2012). While the Obama administration has proposed providing more aid to state and local governments, conservatives in Congress have blocked such efforts (Pear 2011). The time to act is now.

That is a distinctly progressive view of things.

Good luck with that. One of the primary - misleading - mantras of the left in this country is they're not ideological. Nonsense, their ideology permeates everything they do and the majority of our media and I believe there is a legitimate place for research that counters the narrative.

And your EPI? Check out how much commentary is revealed under their publications (http://www.epi.org/publications/) link.

Here's a report, Black metropolitan unemployment in 2011 (http://www.epi.org/publication/ib337-black-metropolitan-unemployment/). Tell me there's no bias in the conclusion:



That is a distinctly progressive view of things.


Below may failed link is NK's post. Apparently he has fixed it.


The primary and secondary sources I am referring to are those sources found in a research paper. Both papers put up for examination contain primary sources. It is the lack of secondary sources relating to absolute and relative poverty that I see as a problem.


I was actually suggesting a comparison of the methodologies used because of the similar nature of the papers. In other words, I was asking which of the papers is most thorough in terms of methodology. I am on about the quality of the research, not the politics. As I said before, I will leave the politics( primary or secondary) up to you.

The conclusion you have presented above in relation to unemployment may well be bias. I don't know because the only papers I read was the one I cited and the one you originally posted.

I can read it and get back to you if you like, but I am not sure what it has to do with the poverty papers. They probably have different authors.


Tut

"If as you say the research has a political slant then it is bad research."

I believe those were your words.

Why are your neighbors so poor and live as they do? I ask because you see it upclose, so I just wanted your thoughts.

I don’t recall my neighbors saying they're poor, and that's my point about "poverty" in America. Some are content with what they have. Some, like my neighbor across the street and the little old man on the corner I watched out for until he passed, need help. But mostly, they don’t stay stagnant.

Like the guy that bought the little old man’s teeny house has worked on it and expanded until it’s a nice looking place. Another neighbor across the street that barely speaks a lick of English took a place that was run down, bought it cheap and has done the same.

I’ve seen it countless times in my neighborhood and with friends I’ve known all my life, they kept at it until they bettered themselves. I admire that, that’s the spirit we need to foster again in America instead of gathering as many as we can under Nanny Sam’s wing because they’re too helpless to do any better for themselves.

I have seen the same thing and believe that people can do better if they have a mind to. I also think that most have a mind to, and sometimes just need a chance, and that's what the social safety net is about. Not a life choice to do nothing, or an excuse to do wrong.

But during hard times for many is NOT the time to withdraw help from those that need it, and I bet they are grateful to the NANNY state for getting them through it. Like there is shame that they have fallen on hard times.

This ain't good times for people who have nothing after their foundation has been ripped from them. You have to give them more than gloom, and doom, and blame game, dontcha?

I mean the guy who takes a shack and makes it better had to have a bank, or a job to hang his hat on, doesn't he? I don't think any of us succeeds in a vacuum.

The gospel of Obama is not about giving someone a chance, it's intentionally expanding the welfare class to hold a dependent constituency hostage to the liberal oligarchy. I would think you could see that given your rants about corporate America preying on others.

I'm all for giving people a chance and helping them when they're down, I'm not for keeping them down.

That's almost funny, that you think helping those displaced by the results of corporations extracting the wealth and moving overseas, is some kind of socialist plot. Go ahead, give Romney and his running buddies more than they have already, and see if you ever see it again.

LOL, unless you move to Switzerland.

Ditto that in giving the federal government more of your money to waste and see if you ever see it again.

You can believe the exponential expansion of IRS or HHS jobs is the preferred method of "job creation" if you want, but in reality the private sector is where jobs are created. The federal government produces nothing but debt. What are we going to do when they suck us all dry?

Thats almost funny, that you think helping those displaced by the results of corporations extracting the wealth and moving overseas, is some kind of socialist plot. Go ahead, give Romney and his running buddies more than they have already, and see if you ever see it again.

LOL, unless you move to Switzerland.

Do you really think that big brother isn't doing the same kind of things ?

http://msbusiness.com/2010/08/panel-billions-in-tarp-money-went-overseas/

"If as you say the research has a political slant then it is bad research."


Yes.. and if it has bad methodology then it is also poor as well.

Conversely having little political slant and good methodology is a good yardstick for accessing the worth of this type of genre.

Using that criteria the only paper discussed that makes it through is, Economic Opportunity and Poverty in America.


In answer to a couple of your earlier questions.

I don't really know about 'general welfare' as applied. Going on what has been happening lately I would imagine if push comes to shove on the issue SCOTUS will have the final say.

I also think the issue of 'general welfare' will end up being defined in broad or narrow terms depending on the political make up of SCOTUS at the time.

As to the fallacy of only reading half a research paper? I don't really know, but I would imagine it would be some type of select reading fallacy.

I have since corrected that error.

Tut

I also think the issue of 'general welfare' will end up being defined in broad or narrow terms depending on the political make up of SCOTUS at the time

But in the context of what the founders understood it ,it is clear. Also talking the phrase out of context with the whole understanding of the taxing power envisioned in the Constitution has been a fatal flaw.


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;
That is a single paragraph of which the general Welfare is not a separate entity. Nor is it severed from the words following it... of the United States . It does not talk of the general welfare of the people of the United States (and that is not the same as some people here argue.. In the preamble the founders made a distinction... We the people of the United States ;the United States not being only the people.

The key to understanding the scope of the taxing power is then found in the subsequent clauses in Article 1 Sec 8 where the specific taxing powers are enumerated... and not in the phrase 'general welfare ' .As you see ,with even a judge that was once considered a minimalist,without the specific enumerations ;there is room for broad interpretation ;and the possibility to tax anything and everything under the guise of the general welfare.
So it is the enumerated powers of the rest of Article 1 Sec 8 that define the limits of what can be done in the name of general welfare .

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows..
Madison Federalist 41

That is a single paragraph of which the general Welfare is not a separate entity. Nor is it severed from the words following it .... of the United States . It does not talk of the general welfare of the people of the the United States (and that is not the same as some people here argue .. In the preamble the founders made a distinction ...We the people of the United States ;the United States not being only the people.



Yes, and this is why it creates so many problems.

"We the people of the United States; the United states not being only the people".

I know you get sick of me saying this but, when it comes to language you can't have it both ways. It cannot be both the people of the United States and the concept of the United states at the same time.

The problem as I see it is that the actual quote I have isolated speaks exclusively in terms of concepts. The words, Congress, we the people, the United States are all meant to be concepts. That is, mental constructs for the purpose of conveying further concepts or ideas. Once we start talking in terms of concepts we are usually forced to keep talking in those terms. As you can see in the relevant quote it becomes rather infectious. The reason we do so for the purpose of brevity.

The problems begin when we want to explain our concepts in terms of categories, i.e actual people who might make the general welfare. We then are forced to explain why something IS the case (concept) and how or why it ought or ought not apply to particular situation.

In the end SCOTUS will become involved, as it usually does.

Tut

SCOTUS had so perverted the "concept " as to be beyond recogition from the founding definition (even in Hamiltonian broader standards of interpretation). I have ,and still maintain that if the Congress and we the people wanted the Constitution to evolve ;then the founders put the remedy for that in the document too.

SCOTUS had so perverted the "concept " as to be beyond recogition from the founding definition (even in Hamiltonian broader standards of interpretation). I have ,and still maintain that if the Congress and we the people wanted the Constitution to evolve ;then the founders put the remedy for that in the document too.


Hi Tom,

I don't disagree with the majority of what you are saying. The problem is that concepts are very much easily perverted. They are easily perverted when we think that somehow they actually refer to something concrete and tangible.

Let me give you an example, using Australia.

If I have never been to Australia I might want to see and learn as much as possible about the country. The tourist guide might take me on a comprehensive tour of every state. He shows me everything.

When the tour is over I might say to him, "Well, that was very interesting you showed me all of the relevant physical features, all the significant monuments, seats of government, but when are you going to show me 'AUSTRALIA'

The error is to think that Australia actually exists as something over and above all the things I have been shown. In other words, there is somewhere a thing that is 'AUSTRALIA'

This is not a moot point and it becomes significant when we think that we can talk about concepts in terms of other concepts. I will quickly add there is no problem with this provided we don't mistakenly think that there is something physically real about the concepts we are talking about.

So the CONCEPT,'general welfare' as applied to the CONCEPT, United States, tells us very little, don't you think?

Tut

Have you started that amendment yet that says congress cannot tax what you don't want them to tax? Have you started the proper process that enumerates what you want the constitution to limit? The process is there for a reason and we all have access to it.

We really do not have to debate what the founders meant, or didn't mean, that's a schoolhouse debate. They put the process in place to make amendments to the constitution to evolve as the people evolved because they knew that it would become irrelevant if it didn't.

The question becomes not what the founders meant but what they envisioned and obviously they envisioned a constitution that could be the structure to be built on as we grew into a nation.

They knew other great, smart guys would come along and debate how best to expand and grow this country. Pretty obvious also, that while we were free to worship at our own pleasure, the church should never be bigger than the government. The government defined by we the people,and that covers whatever our general welfare is. It even accounts for those that worship nothing, and those that worship MONEY.

Jefferson, and all them guys were smart, but the federalist papers are but their arguments of the time, not the law. The law is in the constitution, a guide to the states for their governance. Like it or NOT, SCOTUS has the last word.

Keep trying Tom, within the law of course, let me know when you get enough signatories to your petition to the courts to make the government subject to the religion of your choice.

Have you started that amendment yet that says congress cannot tax what you don't want them to tax? Have you started the proper process that enumerates what you want the constitution to limit? The process is there for a reason and we all have access to it.

I of course am in no position to do that expect through the power of free speech. What I would like to avoid is what I see beginning to happen ,which is bad for the country is States beginning to assert their power of nullification. As you know ;there were some nullification crisises before the Civil War . They usually happen when Congress makes unconstitutional law backed by SCOTUS.

I contend ,that it is your side that wants the constitution to expand and resolve and therefore it is your side that should initiate the process and not rely on a judiciary that will twist words into pretzels to rule in favor of a preconceived outcome.


Keep trying Tom, within the law of course,

Well then that brings us right back to the OP . I ,you ,and nobody else ,has no obligation to comply to immoral law.

As you know ;there were some nullification crisises before the Civil War . They ususally happen when Congress makes unconstitutional law backed by SCOTUS.Hello again, tom:

It's true.. But, THOSE differences were based on POLICY and not POLITICS. This is PURE politics... However, if you're saying that those Republican run states are ready to secede from the nation because of Obamacare, then I say BRING IT ON...

I also say, bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

They don' t need secession to nullify laws any more than a jury needs it.

they don' t need secession to nullify laws any more than a jury needs it.Hello again, tom:

If these cockamamie governors want to REFUSE to take federal money that will BENEFIT their own citizens, then they'll face the wrath of them at the voting booth. Their Tea Party existence will be like a fart in a windstorm..

excon

PS> That would BE, of course, if they all waited in line, and spent the money to get their ID's.

In less than a decade ,they will be proven to be the wise ones .The other states will set up an infrastructure to expand Medicaid only to see the rug cut out from under them by Congress ;and they will be left to find the funding .
But I was talking of the immoral law that tells the Catholics to fund abortion pills and contraception for their employees.

We will see in a decade, and we will also see that your words "funding contraceptives" is totally inaccurate. They partially fund standard insurance premiums. If your words are accurate, that would apply to dispensing Viagra.

No wonder your interpretation of the constitution is off. The right is semantically challenged it seems. No matter, the progressives will protect you from yourselves like we always do.

Speaking of which I have reviewed the new taxes that you have taken issue with, and they are so narrowly targeted, YOU will not be affected at all, unless of course you scam the system and incur medical bills without insurance coverage, or fail to report sales of over 600 dollars, or produce the proper paper work that goes with those you claim as a deduction, which as you know was and has been the law for a few decades already. Now I am currently looking for the new IRS hires you say will be needed to accomplish this, but it appears the IRS has gone HI TECH, so they can handle the additional paper work.

About that extra paper work, it was eliminated for small businesses that have electronic filing capability which comes with the Microsoft 2010 program that requires a scanner. But that's been around for the last 8 years, because that's how I have filed my own taxes. Matter of fact, all my doctors (4) share files and result with each other, eliminating redundant tests, and wear and tear running to different labs to have those extra tests done.

As more doctors, hospitals, and clinics learn the fine points of networking, which they will, practicing defensive medicine will be a thing of the past. If you conservatives on the far right weren't so afraid of your own shadows, and used a calculator instead of counting on your fingers and toes, you could realize the savings that's channeled through the complexities of the new bill. To some of us, its not rocket science, or complex, just targets that are evaluated, and adjusted to. A structural guideline if you will.

The only congress that will take away the whoppin', eye poppin' saving to state budgets, are the yahoos you righties elect to do battle against your own fiscal interests.

Don't worry my conservative buddies, the progressives will share the benefits of being of the people with you, no matter the GOD(S) you choose to worship.

They partially fund standard insurance premiums. If your words are accurate, that would apply to dispensing Viagra.

And you talk of semantics ?

Those are not semantics, just the accurate use of language so don't twist them for your own nefarious feeding of your fears, or agenda, because the qualifier is "standard insurance premiums", which is different from funding, or paying for.

I doubt you get the same price for a premium insurance policy, or a special one that's tailor made for churches. Indeed, fact is, most states don't allow that kind of discrimination by law. You obey the guidelines of their exemptions, or you don't offer insurance.

How come you guys never thought of suing the states? Oh that's right! I forgot you guys are trying to sling mud at the president,and not the governors, mostly REPUBLICANS who started this years ago. And the number of states are filling suit!

That's not semantics either. You have proved you CAN read and spell, but you have to work on the comprehension required for nuanced complex communications. Then you wouldn't go nuts over words like, TAX, FEES, OR PENALTIES.

nuanced complex communicationslol that is what the founders were guarding against... the expansion of Federal Power though nuanced complex parsing of language . In retrospect ,the Anti-Federalists had it right.


But it is said, by some of the advocates of this system, "That the idea that Congress can levy taxes at pleasure, is false, and the suggestion wholly unsupported: that the preamble to the constitution is declaratory of the purposes of the union, and the assumption of any power not necessary to establish justice, etc. to provide for the common defence, etc. will be unconstitutional.
I would ask those, who reason thus, to define what ideas are included under the terms, to provide for the common defence and general welfare? Are these terms definite, and will they be understood in the same manner, and to apply to the same cases by everyone? No one will pretend they will. It will then be a matter of opinion, what tends to be the general welfare; and the Congress will be the only judges in the matter.
(Brutus, Essay VI, 27)
As I wrote earlier ,Madison argued that the power to tax and spend did not confer upon Congress the right to do whatever it thought to be in the best interest of the nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated. History has proven him wrong ,and the Anti-Federalists right. That is the legacy that progressives have left us.

Well there you go, all we have to do is take the motors off the wheels, and go back to doing farming and pick cotton.

If the Constitution only is about the 13 original colonies, then what should the rest of us do? I know, you guys can be the past, and the rest of us will keep building the future. Bet you miss those knickers and three cornered hats.

Of course all you want is to be tax exempt. Good luck with that. I didn't know your free market ideas were restricted to just corn.

Well there are some people in those eastern states you could ask for advice, I hear they are big on horse power

The Constitution works very well in the 21st century... you should try it.

lol that is what the founders were guarding against ... the expansion of Federal Power though nuanced complex parsing of language . In retrospect ,the Anti-Federalists had it right.

(Brutus, Essay VI, 27)
As I wrote earlier ,Madison argued that the power to tax and spend did not confer upon Congress the right to do whatever it thought to be in the best interest of the nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated. History has proven him wrong ,and the Anti-Federalists right. That is the legacy that progressives have left us.


Hi Tom,

Yes, I think it is pretty clear as to the intention. We are obviously talking about things that need to be set aside from the general welfare. Congress can only further some ends, not all of them.

I think this is pretty clear, but as I said before it creates a problem. The problem becomes, 'the general welfare of the United states'. If there intention was to enumerate then they should have left these words out altogether.

How many things can we add or take away from 'the general welfare' before it no longer becomes, 'the general welfare?' It is of course an impossible question to answer. It would have been better to leave it out given their intention.

Tut

That is why I go further and read the Federalist Papers ,the Anti-Federalist Papers ,and the ratification debates . Madison made it clear that the general welfare can only be advanced in accordance to the defined and ,limitted powers that are clearly enumerated .

It is marvellous to be stuck in the eighteenth century, with a Constitution like this you can never go forward, though to have been founded by men of so little imagination

Ho humm.. I've already explained that there is a process to amend. It's happened 27 times so we know it can be done. The left loves to bypass that inconvenient obstacle and use judicial fiat .

that is why I go further and read the Federalist Papers ,the Anti-Federalist Papers ,and the ratification debates . Madison made it clear that the general welfare can only be advanced in accordance to the defined and ,limitted powers that are clearly enumerated .

So you don't think that it is a problem that he didn't say 'general welfare' of people? Or, is it expressed as 'general welfare of the people' elsewhere.

Tut

No it isn't and he clarified that in the quote I provided in Federalist 41.

Here are some of the greviences presented in the Declaration of Independence . You tell me if people who wrote this would empower a government with unlimited taxing power in the name of the general welfare .

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance

Would the people who wrote this approve of the pretzel logic applied to expand government ?

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments

Edit . General welfare is mentioned twice... in the Preamble and in Art 1 Sec8 .
The preamble reads: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Article 1, Sec 8 refers to the “general welfare” “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.. . ” NOT THE PEOPLE OR WE THE PEOPLE . Jefferson said the danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”

The answer lies in the 10th amendment which grants powers to the States that the Federal Government does not have ;and should be no part of.

The flaw in your argument is you keep skipping we the people. Its is us that has the final power to eliminate anything the congress has done and replace it with what we want done. That's the final balance to government.

Its both the power, and responsibility of the people to have the first, and last say of our government. That's why we the people must be informed, and vigilante in who we elect to represent us. The government works for US, it can only do what we allow it to do, and THAT was the original intent of the founding fathers.

I doubt seriously they intended any other institution, not churches, or corporations to be more influential in policy or practice, on the general welfare of its people.

no it isn't and he clarified that in the quote I provided in Federalist 41.

Here are some of the greviences presented in the Declaration of Independence . You tell me if people who wrote this would empower a government with unlimited taxing power in the name of the general welfare .

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance

Would the people who wrote this approve of the pretzel logic applied to expand government ?

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments

edit . general welfare is mentioned twice ... in the Preamble and in Art 1 Sec8 .
The preamble reads: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Article 1, Sec 8 refers to the “general welfare” “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .” NOT THE PEOPLE OR WE THE PEOPLE . Jefferson said the danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”

The answer lies in the 10th amendment which grants powers to the States that the Federal Government does not have ;and should be no part of.

Hi again Tom,

Yes I see. Article 1. Sec 8.

There is no doubt as to the intent, the historical evidence seems to be everywhere. But I think the actual wording could be a bit of a problem.

Perhaps they could have said something like

Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises to pay Debts and provide for the common good...

The word 'good' doesn't have a naturalistic meaning. It is an open question as to how we can define it. If something is very hard to define then there doesn't seem much point in asking the Federal Government to
Spread some of it around. On second thought that might not be a solution because, 'good' would have been regarded as having a naturalistic definition.

Back in those days I think, 'general welfare of the United states' would have had an essentialist meaning as applied to the concepts. It would also seem to me that this forces us to define that which is essential and that which is non-essential while at the same time leaving it's essence intact. Goes back to my earlier post. How do we do this impossible task while at the same time being forced to derive a meaning.

I don't have a problem with the history- just a problem with a few words.

Tut

I have a problem with the intent of those words when put in the context of additional facts, and a changed circumstances. The founding fathers probably never envisioned going to the moon, invading other countries, mega, multinational corporations,massive political ads, or the great depression.

Theory against actual circumstances. If language evolves and changes with time, so must our interpretations change. After all we have to include new concepts that affect us like bundled financial derivatives.

Explain that to Hamilton,and Jefferson. I would love to see the revised Federalist papers for the 21st century.

I have a problem with the intent of those words when put in the context of additional facts, and a changed circumstances. The founding fathers probably never envisioned going to the moon, invading other countries, mega, multinational corporations,massive political ads, or the great depression.

Theory against actual circumstances. If language evolves and changes with time, so must our interpretations change. After all we have to include new concepts that affect us like bundled financial derivatives.

Explain that to Hamilton,and Jefferson. I would love to see the revised Federalist papers for the 21st century.

Hi Tal,

Language is a labyrinth now and it was back then.

If we want to investigate the essentialist meanings of words such as Taxation, Duties, Imports we find that it to some extent possible. For example, taxation. What type laws can we do away with in terms of taxation and still claim that we are implementing taxation and not something else? I think it is possible to do this. Not that we are actually forced to offer and essentialist definition for taxation. We know what taxation is and we might have some idea about how to spread this around to promote the general welfare of the population

However, when it comes to 'general welfare' we are driven to an essentialist explanation. Why? Because we not told the meaning. But naturally assume the words have some meaning in the quote.

Are we to say that the things set aside in Sec 8. are the domain of the Federal Government because they are the essence of general welfare? Or are there some other things we can include?

These two questions are impossible to answer because we don't know what the essence of 'general welfare' actually is and to complicate it a bit more we are never told.However, all of this is speculation and doesn't really apply because Sec 8 says,"and the general welfare" So we have even less of a foothold.

The flaw in your argument is you keep skipping we the people. Its is us that has the final power to eliminate anything the congress has done and replace it with what we want done. Thats the final balance to government.Unfortunately Tal I think you've lost control of that part. I'm not sure what you can do to regain it.

Tal ,I always believe that the people are the final arbiters too. Unfortunately the horse was let out of the barn many years ago with decisions like Marbury v Madison ;and then New Deal power grabs like United States v. Butler,and Helvering v. Davis .

Its human nature to grab power, AND wealth. That's why we the people have to vote in OUR interest, and not allow power and wealth to make choices for us, in just there own interest. If indeed if the powerful, and wealth were good neighbors, and partners, there would be no opposition to them from me.

But they don't seem to care what I need, or want, so my vote will be against what they need and want. All the while knowing we have to co operate on some level.

ho humm.. I've already explained that there is a process to amend. It's happened 27 times so we know it can be done. The left loves to bypass that inconvenient obstacle and use judicial fiat .

Tom my comment was in reference to constantly referring back to original intent, if an amendemnt has taken place then you should not refer back any further than to that point, in any case most of those amendments were afterthoughts like the many years of debate was too short to get it right the first time and that should tell you something about original intent

if an amendemnt has taken place then you should not refer back any further than to that point, in any case most of those amendments were afterthoughts like the many years of debate was too short to get it right the first time and that should tell you something about original intent
Nah ;the amendments were adjusting to evolving times and the proper way to deal with evolving times.

I just want to say to those who claim the document is outdated because it was written 225 years ago by dead "rich" white guys should consider that the 1st 10 amendments.. aka.. the Bill of Rights was written 225 years ago by the same dead "rich" white guys . I have yet to hear a lib say that evolving times has changed them from their original intent.

I just want to say to those who claim the document is outdated because it was written 225 years ago by dead "rich" white guys should consider that the 1st 10 amendments ..aka ..the Bill of Rights was written 225 years ago by the same dead "rich" white guys . I have yet to hear a lib say that evolving times has changed them from their original intent.

Well Tom I don't know there has been a great deal of recent intrepretation and debate which might suggest that society has changed somewhat. Your church and state thing comes up for a lot of debate and you couldn't say commerce could be intrepreted in eighteenth century terms or intent. The taxing powers also appear to be somewhat limited in an era of much greater state control of economies in general But then federal taxation wasn't original intent. I wonder if those eighteenth century rich guys comtemplated legislation with thousands of pages of text and regulation? And if we look at the military and projection of military power, they had no intent of projecting military power beyond national borders and no concept of weapons of mass destruction, what then can you say of their intent. I think their intent was to continue to own slaves and limit civil liberties, somewhat counter to today's culture but in line with an agrian privileged existence they didn't necessarily see as becoming the norm for all citizens. As to the amendment process it took two hundred years to ratify one of those original amendments, so much for original intent as a closely followed concept

The taxing powers also appear to be somewhat limited in an era of much greater state control of economies in general... I wonder if those eighteenth century rich guys comtemplated legislation with thousands of pages of text and regulation?
Of course they did and recognized the danger of the Leviatan . I assure you they read Hobbes. This is what they rebelled against.

NO Tom too easy, they rebelled not against taxation and regulation but against the arbitrary nature of royal power and the lack of representation in decision making. They didn't want to finance foreign wars, somewhat at odds with today's views. Those were simpler days when a week of Congress a year was enough to set the course and Taxation consisted of excise and poll tax and you cannot say they were in favour of draconian legislation or a legislature that failed to get its job done.

I think the whole concept of original intent in today's context is pure rhetoric

when a week of Congress a year was enough to set the course
Yeah today a week of Congress is a week too many .

,

So you are in favour of Presidential decree then , get more done and no argy bargy

Tom wants the corporations, and the churches to make laws and policies, and tell the government what to do.

Yeah Tal he thinks money talks, only problem is he doesn't think B/S walks

Of course they did and recognized the danger of the Leviatan . I assure you they read Hobbes. This is what they rebelled against.

As far as Article 1. Sec 8. is concerned it might be a case of everyone knowing what they mean but not saying what they meant.

This leaves us open to a narrow or broad interpretation. Take you pick, the possibilities are almost endless.

As I argued earlier, 'general welfare of the United States' is the problem. If we desire we can interpret ,'the United States' as referring to the people of the United States. This is because it becomes impossible to know if interpreting,'the United States' as people adds or detracts from the essential meaning of the concept. The reason is because no one knows what the essential meaning of that concept actually is.

On this basis it becomes impossible to know if interpreting it in this way perverts its meaning. It also leads to to conclude that we can interpret it this way (or a variety of other ways) because we have no evidence that it does.

Tut

Tut we would like to add to the debate not detract from it

Tut ,the founders were precise. When I have time I'll dig up the ratification debates and the issues of language... including which punctuation was the correct one to use in Art 1 Sec 8.

Tom please forget this original intent debate, I think I have already shown you that this is at least passee

No it is not.. it is a genuine philosophical difference about how the nation should work .

So you are in favour of Presidential decree then , get more done and no argy bargy

No that would be our clueless Transportation Secretary who envies China (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/05/obama_s_transportation_secretary_hails_chinese_inf rastructure).


“The Chinese are more successful [in building infrastructure] because in their country, only three people make the decision."

You know speech I think he is right you could do with less bureaucrats

Steve , Clete admires the Chinese model too.

No Tom I wouldn't say admire but they do have a certain ability to stimulate their economy and keep people working and out of the dole ques, of course, you don't need any potemkin villages, having a glut of 40 million houses at the moment, but I hear you could do with some new bridges and perhaps a very fast train or two. It seems you could do with some more utility workers and people to do storm cleanup

Tut ,the founders were precise. When I have time I'll dig up the ratification debates and the issues of language ....including which punctuation was the correct one to use in Art 1 Sec 8.


Hi Tom,

I am not sure that would solve the problem. Their understanding of how language works would be different to ours. I am not saying it is a false understanding, just different. In exactly the same way their understanding of some words also differed in some cases in light of modern meanings (not many, but some).

There is no precise language that we can draw on when it comes to these matters. As I said so many times before language is a labyrinth. In terms of the modern world there are many different theories as to how language works. None of these theories portrays language as something we can use in a precise fashion.

Language is the possibility of the things we can do with words; there are many possibilities open to us. At the moment we don't have a language that accurately mirrors the world. We find our way around the labyrinth the best we can. Obviously some do it better than others, but no one is the master of language.


Tut

This is not a literary exercise . It is 'what does a legal document mean ? ' If the wording of the document doesn't mean what it's authors intended then it is out dated and needs revision. The good thing is that the authors gave us a means of change that does not include a Chief Justice doing his best Humpty Dumpty impersonation calling a 'penalty 'a 'tax'.

By the way... it was during the framing of the Constitution that the proper use of punctuation
Became an issue .Gouverneur Morris, a member of the committee of style that
Drafted the Constitution, tried to use a semicolon to change the intended meaning of Article I, Section 8 “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.. . ”
The consensus at the convention was that this sentence addressed
The Congress's powers of taxation but did not grant additional legislative powers.
Morris, however, wished for the government to have expansive powers. When he drafted this section, he used a semicolon where today we have a comma. Morris's version of the section read: “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.. . ”

Had not another member of the convention noticed this punctuation ploy, the section
Would have granted massive powers to Congress to legislate for the “general Welfare.”
Since then ,all the power grabs in the name of the general welfare has been Constitutional only because of judicial fiat.

this is not a literary exercise . it is 'what does a legal document mean ? ' If the wording of the document doesn't mean what it's authors intended then it is out dated and needs revision. The good thing is that the authors gave us a means of change that does not include a Chief Justice doing his best Humpty Dumpty impersonation calling a 'penalty 'a 'tax'.

btw ...it was during the framing of the Constitution that the proper use of punctuation
became an issue .Gouverneur Morris, a member of the committee of style that
drafted the Constitution, tried to use a semicolon to change the intended meaning of Article I, Section 8 “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 ofthe United States . . .”
The consensus at the convention was that this sentence addressed
the Congress's powers of taxation but did not grant additional legislative powers.
Morris, however, wished for the government to have expansive powers. When he drafted this section, he used a semicolon where today we have a comma. Morris's version of the section read: “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 . . .”

Had not another member of the convention noticed this punctuation ploy, the section
would have granted massive powers to Congress to legislate for the “general Welfare.”
Since then ,all the power grabs in the name of the general welfare has been Constitutional only because of judical fiat.


Tom, I am not implementing a punctuation ploy. We don't need punctuation changed to interpret 'general welfare' to mean the people. The words themselves leave open this possibility.

What the document means actually is a literary exercise. Isn't it? How else do we know what it means. If you are saying that it means what the other historical documents point out then yes I would agree with that.

If the 'general welfare of the United states' was left out of that particular section then this probably would tighten up the meaning.

The problem with providing the opportunity to change it creates a political divide. Do we want a narrow or a broad definition? What ever way is decided it will forever be seen as a political amendment. That is, favoring one side of politics over the other.



Tut

Tom wants to debate whether a penalty is a tax, an impost or indeed why isn't we have debated whether it is a fee, but you see Tom although the CJ didn't say it the meaning of the word impost is very open so even if it is not a tax it is caught within the meaning of this clause. So much for the precision of the language Tom. You need to get over it, the government of the day has decided upon a particular course of action, when another government has a clear mandate you can change it

Then the US government is not the limited government restrained by defined enumerated powers . May as well use the Constitution as rolling papers and get high as it gets burned .

Don't give ex any ideas.

Then the US government is not the limited government restrained by defined enumerated powers . May as well use the Constitution as rolling papers and get high as it gets burned .

Tom if you President signs piece of legislation into Law in a manner allowed in the Constitution and the Court has not said it is unconstitutional for him to do so, then perhaps your intrepretation could do with some modification. When you have elected a different government with a clear mandate they can change the law

No you don't understand.. a court decision establishes stare decisis ;and that in turn is like a snowball rolling down hill.Soon laws that no one would've ever considered constitutional are suddenly justified under precedent.

As an example; there is a clause in the 5th amendment that is the Eminent Domain clause.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

That would seem to be straight forward. Public use is for roads ,etc. But in the Kelo decision,the court decided to expand that clause so that private property could be taken from the owner for a private interest ;the public interest being advanced by the private interest (waterfront condos ).
Well now there is a movement afoot in the US to seize mortgages from investors ,at what the government deems is a fair compensation ;and then using a private financial institution ,restructuring the mortgage for the homeower (for a fee of course ) . Who had to absorb the loss ? The investor does . And this is being done justified under the expanded interpretation of the Eminent Domain clause.

no you don't understand .. a court decision establishes stare decisis ;and that in turn is like a snowball rolling down hill.Soon laws that no one would've ever considered consitutional are suddenly justified under precedent.

As an example; there is a clause in the 5th amendment that is the Eminent Domain clause.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

That would seem to be straight forward. Public use is for roads ,etc. But in the Kelo decison,the court decided to expand that clause so that private property could be taken from the owner for a private interest ;the public interest being advanced by the private interest (waterfront condos ).
Well now there is a movement afoot in the US to seize mortgages from investors ,at what the government deems is a fair compensation ;and then using a private financial institution ,restructuring the the mortgage for the homeower (for a fee of course ) . Who had to absorb the loss ? The investor does . And this is being done justified under the expanded interpretation of the Eminent Domain clause.


Hi Tom,


I blame the information society we live in for that problem. People are very good at exploiting niches. As soon as enough people realize the potential of an idea it is not long before everyone knows about it. It suddenly becomes the way to do things. Hence the snowball effect.

The same niches or opportunities existed in the past- as they exist now. The big difference being they are no longer difficult to refine and communicate.

Tut

no you don't understand .. a court decision establishes stare decisis ;and that in turn is like a snowball rolling down hill.Soon laws that no one would've ever considered consitutional are suddenly justified under precedent.

As an example; there is a clause in the 5th amendment that is the Eminent Domain clause.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

That would seem to be straight forward. Public use is for roads ,etc. But in the Kelo decison,the court decided to expand that clause so that private property could be taken from the owner for a private interest ;the public interest being advanced by the private interest (waterfront condos ).
Well now there is a movement afoot in the US to seize mortgages from investors ,at what the government deems is a fair compensation ;and then using a private financial institution ,restructuring the the mortgage for the homeower (for a fee of course ) . Who had to absorb the loss ? The investor does . And this is being done justified under the expanded interpretation of the Eminent Domain clause.

The operative words here are just compensation. If the value of the asset being acquired has devalued then just compensation means market value. You know the market Tom it's mechanism you have great faith in. It is a bit of a stretch to call it eminent domain but the public interest is in maintaing some sort of stability in the market. I agree with you that private property should not be acquired so that any individual or corporation should profit, but governments have a long history of nationalising assets.

I am aware of precident Tom it is the basis upon which all common law has advanced and I expect that as the court did not strike down the Obamacare legislation as unconstitutional because Obama signed into law a piece of legislation not actually agreed to that there was sufficient precident for this, and now your imperium has been established whereby the President (read emperor) and his cabinet (read proconsuls) are now capable of ruling by decree. Obama took you to war in Libya without benefit of congress and I expect they will become increasingly irrevelant, which of course, is the result of their own actions

Then the US government is not the limited government restrained by defined enumerated powers . May as well use the Constitution as rolling papers and get high as it gets burned .


Tom, why do you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Is it possible that someone during the ratification process someone wanted a few words added to leave open the possibility that congress may want to pass laws that may well turn our to be necessary in the future but find themselves limited by the ones enumerated? You know something like a safety valve in case of unusual circumstances.

Wouldn't that make sense? I don't know-you know more about the history than I do.

You seem to see many things as one or the other; no in between. You don't think you are creating a false dilemma for yourself?

Tut

Tut Tom is very good at painting himself into a corner. To Tom the Congress holds the power and no one else is allowed exercise any power they have not rubber stamped. This is the righeous cause of the opposition you and I are both very familiar with the concept. They shall not pass. It is a shame the US parliament is bicameral because the house has taken on that righteous mantle and yet the Senate has the ability to make decisions too. Tom there is a mechanism where impasses can be resolved, respect it.

The Senate was seriously diluted as a useful institution with the passage of the 17th Amendment .

So what you are saying is original intent went out the window

No original intent was maintained by changing the Constitution the proper way. I think it was a better system before the change because the Senate was designed to be the States representatives . But the people decided otherwise.

17th Amendment legal definition of 17th Amendment. 17th Amendment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/17th+Amendment)

The people tweaked the system. What? You thought the ability to fire people is exclusive to the elite power brokers and party bosses? I think that was the original intent of the founders, if enough people want change there is a process to change.

I think they recognized that the constitution, and the laws would have to be able to adjust to changing circumstances, and situations so they built in a mechanism to grow. They KNEW the nation was going to grow.

Again ;I may not agree with the amendment (I think it seriously eroded the idea of federalism . ). Your link hit the nail on the head "This successful struggle marked a major victory for progressivism"

But at least it was an amendment... not some judges interpretation of what 'we the people mean' or 'general welfare' .

Now if we can just get the money out of politics, which should be the next constitutional challenge through the amendment process. There is nothing more disgusting to me than buying politicians to unfairly grease the wheels of industry, by allowing them to write legislature and regulate themselves, against the interest of the welfare and safety of the public.

As specific instances of this pollution by the energy sector that has no responsibility to correct their own mistakes. BP, Exxon, and others are well documented as having no scientific, or moral will to safeguard the people who are harmed by their lack of preventing their profits over people business approach.

Tar sand spill - Bing News (http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Tar+sand+spill&qpvt=Tar+sand+spill&FORM=EWRE)

July 11 News: $800 Million Tar Sands Oil Spill In Michigan Blamed On Corporate Neglect And 'Weak Federal Regulations' | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/11/514366/800-million-tar-sands-oil-spill-in-michigan-blamed-on-corporate-neglect-and-039weak-federal-regulations039/)

Have we forgotten BP in the gulf already? Or the Virginia miners? As Speech likes to say "its a good thing nobody got killed!".

No original intent was maintained by changing the Constitution the proper way. I think it was a better system before the change because the Senate was designed to be the States representatives . But the people decided otherwise.

You think unelected Senators are preferrable to those who have to face the ballot box, it is a great pity you didn't extend this process to making cabinet members face the ballot box too. What makes you think that a Senator who is elected to represent a state by electors in that state is less able that the crony selected by members of state legislatures. It seems the people saw through the original intent of entrenching politicians

The Senate was essential as constructed at the founding . It was designed so the country could retain it's federal character. Unlike the peoples House ,which has proportional representation ;the Senate would treat all States as equal . You think that it is not democratic because it required that Senators were selected by the Legislatures of the States .But those Legislatures were all elected by the people . So no... I don't think the change made it more representative of the people.What the change did do was to move the country away from it's federalist roots towards the goal of progressives ;more central control.

What the HELL is a federal character!? Seems more a collusion between elected elite,and appointed elites to me. Good thing those progressives saw it for what it was, crony capitalism!

Settled, done, move on, nothing to see here!

If you want to repeal something, repeal the electoral college! One vote, one outcome!

Tom you attitude puts you squarely in the Tea Party camp. They want to repeal the 17th amendment and take you back to eighteenth century thinking. Will they also abolish other advances such as civil rights? Democracy is best served when the peoples voice is heard not the voices of politicians and corporations, not the voices of vested interests and those who can buy influence

Tal is cleary uncomfortable with the founding . He thinks the world began in the 20th century ;and that all the reason for the founding is out of date philosophy.

Tom you attitude puts you squarely in the Tea Party camp.
Yup

They want to repeal the 17th amendment
And as a bonus ,the 16th amendment .

democracy is best served when the peoples voice is heard not the voices of politicians and corporations, not the voices of vested interests and those who can buy influence
That is exactly my point. The people cannot be heard as well from Washington as they can at the localist levels .
You are out of your mind if you think the people are served by the giant unrecognizable monstrosity that the progressives have created . Listen to them .Tal complains about Frankenstein's monster when it is the people he supports that created it .

Tom the days of cracker barrel politics are over, nothing gets done at a local level, that is why you have state governments and a federal government, because there is a bigger picture here. Yes you have to address local issues but you also have to address national issues. The way democracy works is you have elections, not appointments and you hold politicians accountable in the ballot box. I know that some of your states didn't ratify the 17th amendment, they remain stuck in the eighteenth century along with you, unwilling to change and listen to the voice of the people and please don't confuse me with Tal, not because he isn't a good guy but because you need to get it together

Tal is cleary uncomfortable with the founding . He thinks the world began in the 20th century ;and that all the reason for the founding is out of date philosophy.
Why should I be uncomfortable with history? We learn from the past for a better future as we evolve, and do better. When we don't, we get stuck in the past, and don't adjust to changing circumstances, concerns, and needs.

The people cannot be heard as well from Washington as they can at the localist levels .
Elections will make them listen if we stop the outside money from subverting the system at all levels of government.

You are out of your mind if you think the people are served by the giant unrecognizable monstrosity that the progressives have created .
Do you mean the government, of and by the people, or the rich big fat job creators that suck all the wealth from the global economy, that you worship, and protect?

Listen to them .Tal complains about Frankenstein's monster when it is the people he supports that created it .
And its we the people that will deal with it. With or without those that holler and complain. Unlike conservatives who long for the good old days because these are so lousy, progressives are always ready to get the work done that needs to be done, so we can keep it moving.

Don't worry it will help you too! Today, and tomorrow

Don't worry it will help you too! Today, and tomorrow [/B]

And there is the crux of the progressive attitude - "don't worry about it," because they know better than we what's good for us.

That's what it all boils down to. That's why they want conservatives silenced, why they want a return to the "fairness doctrine," why they object to corporations having a say in matters that affect them and on and on and on. If only those idiots would shut and get out of the way of "progress."

Sorry buddy, I will not go quietly and surrender my freedom while my country goes to a progressive/socialist hell.

Sorry buddy, I will not go quietly and surrender my freedom while my country goes to a progressive/socialist hell.

Speech if the content of a video in another thread is accurate then I would say your country is teetering on the edge of a conservative/fascist hell, internal searches being conducted for "illegal" aliens, non citizens in the best traditions of Europe of the nineteen thirties

Speech if the content of a video in another thread is accurate then I would say your country is teetering on the edge of a conservative/fascist hell, internal searches being conducted for "illegal" aliens, non citizens in the best traditions of Europe of the nineteen thirties

Nice hyperbole.. taking lessons from Ex ? I'll tell you that being stopped entering a tunnel going into Manhattan on a very busy congested rush hour highway is much more of an inconvenience than being stopped on a low traffic desert highway. But there is a resonable purpose to both that doesn't either violate the Constitution ,or put us on a slippery slope to fascism .

And just to correct your misconception. Fascism is not a conservative philosophy .It is National SOCIALISM ;and socialism as you know is progressive left .

And just to correct your misconception. Fascism is not a conservative philosophy .It is National SOCIALISM ;and socialism as you know is progressive left .

There was nothing progressive about National Socialist Germany, it was hard core right wing and the enemy of Communist Russia, a somewhat progressive socialist state. You see when conservatives move to the far right they seek to restrict and control and one of the features is subjection of minority populations

And just to correct your misconception. Fascism is not a conservative philosophy .It is National SOCIALISM ;and socialism as you know is progressive left .Hello again, tom:

With all your political and historical savvy, you have NO idea that right wingerism verges on fascism?? Wow! The American right wing is even more dangerous than I though.. But, it does clear up some stuff, though.. You guys think the further right you go brings you closer to God, instead of the forces of evil...

I'm aghast.

excon

there was nothing progressive about National Socialist Germany, it was hard core right wing and the enemy of Communist Russia, a somewhat progressive socialist state.
You guys think the further right you go brings you closer to God, instead of the forces of evil... no ;the closer to liberty . I reject the left right axis in the doctrination.The left drew it. Socialism is socialism and it doesn't matter a bit if it's national socialism or international socialism . I've yet to see a Communist state that did not adopt the same methods of tyranical control that the Nazis used. It really is a distinction without a difference and they are both on the same side of the spectrum I recognize Tyranny on one side and Liberty on the other .

no ;the closer to liberty . I reject the left right axis in the doctrination.The left drew it. Socialism is socialism and it doesn't matter a bit if it's national socialism or international socialism . I've yet to see a Communist state that did not adopt the exact same methods of tyranical control that the Nazis used. It really is a distinction without a difference and they are both on the same side of the spectrum I recognize Tyranny on one side and Liberty on the other .


Hi Tom,

We've been through this before a while ago.

What you are saying is reductionism that doesn't make any sense. It is a gross oversimplification. I expanded on this last time and you didn't refute my argument. Have you developed your argument any better this time?

Tut

No my argument is essentially the same. Except for the Fascists' unwillingness to completely destroy capitalism by socializing industries (instead they allowed cartels of businesses the state approved of ,and destroyed any competition these companies had ) , it is hard to overlook the many similarities between the Stalinist Soviet Union on the one side and fascist Germany and Italy on the other. Looking at the workings of these regimes ;both Hitler and Stalin established a cult of his personality.Both the Soviet Union and Germnay were repressive, anti-democratic police states with camps for political prisoners .Stalin espoused a strong Russian nationalism under the mantle of socialist internationalism. Hitler espoused a strong German nationalism .Strong anti-Semitism can be found in both nations. Both became militaristic demanding from the people a fidelity to the state; had a monopoly on the media and propaganda, and persecuted minorities and dissenters.

Like I said... there is a distinction without a difference between the two systems.

Flawed logic. Because corporations are people too, then so are churches, but the government is NOT!? That idea won't bring us liberty. If your idea of a smaller, less central government is the way to form a more perfect union, then you go against the original intent of the constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Stalin, and Hitler were dictators, and our dictators are voted in, and are limited until the next election.

I recognize Tyranny on one side and Liberty on the other .Hello again, tom:

Wow. I thought we at least shared SOME visions of what freedom is... Guess not, huh? Apparently, you think allowing the cops to STOP people from moving about freely, is MOVING in the direction of liberty??

Interestingly, I see it as a march toward fascism... I'll bet the SS thought they were keeping Germany free...

excon

Only when you think in absolutes could you make that statement . One of the few legitimate roles of the government is secure the nation. You think being asked to produce a license when it is a requirement for the privilege of driving is a moving in the direction of tyranny ? Oye vey

What's with the sudden attraction to Godwin's Law, ex?

To be honest I think you're just panicking at the prospect of Obama losing.

You think being asked to produce a license when it is a requirement for the privilege of driving is a moving in the direction of tyranny ? oye veyHello again, tom:

Again, you mis-characterize my position... I don't object to being asked for a drivers LICENSE.. I object to being asked what my citizenship is. It's "show me your papers". It's NOXIOUS. It's reminiscent of Nazism, EVEN if you can't make the connection.

I don't know HOW you didn't get that, but you didn't.. It's pretty simple. Maybe you don't want to TALK about that, because if you did, you'd LOOSE.

excon

What's with the sudden attraction to Godwin's Law, ex? Hello again, Steve:

I'm not an expert in Godwin's law. I don't even know what it is. I AM, however, an expert in the United States Constitution. But, you don't have to be an expert to understand it.. That's why they wrote it like they did. So even dummy's like me could understand it...

And, I DO understand freedom... You don't. You think freedom is something the cops MIGHT let you have, or MIGHT not. And, that's FINE with you...

excon

FYI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)...


Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis.

And you think forcing churches to furnish contraceptives is liberty, forcing people to buy health insurance or pay a tax is liberty, that liberty is allowing unelected bureaucrats to manage my health care I can get which is insane.

I for one have no problem moving freely about the country so I don't know what your beef is other than are rules to drive on the roads. I thought you liked rules, like the kind that keeps Tyson from selling me tainted chickens or say rules against texting while driving (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/nanny-state-update-literally-613197-10.html#post2974244).

Your message is awfully mixed, buddy.

White guys don't get racially profiled and asked for citizenship papers. And the courts have ruled that churches are limited by state and federal laws, settled law.

That's why states attempts at an end run around the abortion rights law just went to court.

No my argument is essentially the same. Except for the Fascists' unwillingness to completely destroy capitalism by socializing industries (instead they allowed cartels of businesses the state approved of ,and destroyed any competition these companies had ) , it is hard to overlook the many similarities between the Stalinist Soviet Union on the one side and fascist Germany and Italy on the other. Looking at the workings of these regimes ;both Hitler and Stalin established a cult of his personality.Both the Soviet Union and Germnay were repressive, anti-democratic police states with camps for political prisoners .Stalin espoused a strong Russian nationalism under the mantle of socialist internationalism. Hitler espoused a strong German nationalism .Strong anti-Semitism can be found in both nations. Both became militaristic demanding from the people a fidelity to the state; had a monopoly on the media and propaganda, and persecuted minorities and dissenters.

Like I said ... there is a distinction without a difference between the two systems.


Here is where we should be starting the discussion:

There is some dispute among scholars about where along the left/right divide Fascism resides. Fascism is commonly described as the extreme right, conservative, and anti-conservative, national and international, rational and anti-rational. A number of historians regard Fascism as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which unites philosophies of the left and right, or as both of these things. Fascism was founded during World War 1 by national syndicates who combined both left and right wing political views.

Taken from wikipedia.

In other words, there is no generic Fascism. The other things you have mentioned are subject to volumes of debate as well- yet you seem to be able to sum up everything in a few paragraphs. Why is this?

I would have said these concepts are not subject to some simple reductionalist explanation. You seem to disagree.


Tut

Yes we disagree . I look beyond the words and see how they govern.

Yes we disagree . I look beyond the words and see how they govern.


I see, so you know some other way that language works?


Tut

As the adage goes 'actions speak louder than words' . Persecution. Violent. Oppressive. Excessive government control is the signature of both ends of the classic political spectrum... and on either end of the classic political spectrum is socialist models .

As the old adage goes 'actions speak louder than words' . Persecution. Violent. Oppressive. Excessive government control is the signature of both ends of the classic political spectrum....and on either end of the classic political spectrum is socialist models .

I see, after having read the wikipedia quote you now see socialism as occupying both ends of the spectrum. I assume you are occupying the middle?

Seems to me that when you presented the original classical political spectrum socialism, fascism totalitarianism etc were all on the left and nothing on the right except conservatism.

I think I said back then that no one uses the classical model any longer.Except to push an outdated view of the concepts.

Tut

Seems to me that when you presented the original classical political spectrum socialism, fascism totalitarianism etc were all on the left and nothing on the right except conservatism.Hello TUT:

You got him pegged.. I AM blown away with his revelations, though, although this view CAN be detected from his posts...

If you move leftward, EVERYTHING bad (Nazism, Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, and no garbage pickup on Thursday) lies over there... But, if you move RIGHTWARD, only wonderful things await...

That's scary.

excon

see, after having read the wikipedia quote you now see socialism as occupying both ends of the spectrum. I assume you are occupying the middle?

Seems to me that when you presented the original classical political spectrum socialism, fascism totalitarianism etc were all on the left and nothing on the right except conservatism

I already said I reject the classic spectrum . Yes I see one extreme end as totalitarianism ,and the other end as liberty ;and yes I see Conservatism as a pilosophy closer to liberty than progressivism .

I already said I reject the classic spectrum . Yes I see one extreme end as totalitarianism ,and the other end as liberty ;and yes I see Conservatism as a pilosophy closer to liberty than progressivism .

That should be obvious, but they think trying to protect an unborn child is trampling on liberty beyond measure as opposed to forced mandates on the church in violation of the first amendment, forced purchasing of health insurance, banning Cokes and Happy Meals, income redistribution...

trying to protect an unborn child
That unborn child is safe and happy inside Mommy's tummy, but then it gets born and Mommy is only 14 and her parents kick her out. Then what?

no ;the closer to liberty . I reject the left right axis in the doctrination.The left drew it. Socialism is socialism and it doesn't matter a bit if it's national socialism or international socialism . I've yet to see a Communist state that did not adopt the exact same methods of tyranical control that the Nazis used. It really is a distinction without a difference and they are both on the same side of the spectrum I recognize Tyranny on one side and Liberty on the other .

Tom, what Ex is pointing out is that the above statement is in conflict with this statement:

"Excessive government control is the signature of both ends of the classical political spectrum..and on either end of the classical political spectrum is socialist models."

Both can't be correct at the same time.

You say that you reject the classical model yet you keep using it to demonstrate the conceptual analysis . Again, you can't have both at the same time.

It is probably a fair question to ask if you actually do reject the classical model? If so then it will probably save you from dragging it out yet again in 12 months time.

And please don't try and tell me that, "I reject the left right axis in the doctrination " is evidence of your rejection. It is a rejection of how the concepts are placed on the axis, not a rejection of the axis itself.

Tut

That should be obvious, but they think trying to protect an unborn child is trampling on liberty beyond measure as opposed to forced mandates on the church in violation of the first amendment, forced purchasing of health insurance, banning Cokes and Happy Meals, income redistribution...


Well, no it is not obvious when Tom posts conflicting accounts.

Tut

I couldn't care less about a spectrum . What I reject is this indoctrination that conservatism is fascism light. I'll bring us right back to the beginning . Socialism both international and national are virtually one in the same . It is closer to the model that the progressives want with it's strong central control and concentration of government power over virtually everything including the economy.

It is closer to the model that the progressives want with it's strong central control and concentration of govenment power over virtually everything including the economy.Hello again, tom:

Every once in a while you and TUT say something that I can sink my teeth into...

In terms of the model that conservatives want, YOU want a strong central government TOO, as long as it's enforcing the mandates YOU like.. For example, you're VERY happy with the HUGE and POWERFUL federal agency known as the NSA who's reading your email and listening to your phone calls.. You're HAPPY with the HUGE and POWERFUL DEA who's job it is to promote SOCIAL change... You're happy with a HUGE and POWERFUL federal BORDER control agents who can STOP and ask for your papers ANYWHERE INSIDE these great United States... You'd like a HUGE and POWERFUL federal agency who's job would be to make sure EVERY pregnancy in the country ends the way YOU want it to. You're happy with a HUGE military... Apparently, you're happy with a HUGE and POWERFUL federal incarceration industry...

Soooo, I'm not buying your small limited government model... Not at all.

excon

. Yes I see one extreme end as totalitarianism ,and the other end as liberty ;and yes I see Conservatism as a pilosophy closer to liberty than progressivism .

Conservatism isn't liberty Tom it wants to stop progress and hold doggedly to its view of the world allowing no one the liberty to be themselves and socialism doesn't get the job done either.

On one end of the spectrum you have at best, benevolient dictatorship, monarchy and imperialism and on the other malevolient dictatorship. The great difficulty is that when you reach this stage it is difficult to tell one from the other and the only thing that will distinguish them is state ownership of property and the means of production. I would have thought that in your nation you would have learned where the excesses of conservatism lead and seek to avoid that path

Well, no it is not obvious when Tom posts conflicting accounts.

Tut

I don't know about conflicting accounts, I'm referring to present reality.

I don't know about conflicting accounts, I'm referring to present reality.


Ok then, but don't mention 'political spectrum'. I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it.

There are only two colours over there in the political spectrum red and blue, over here we have three, red, blue and green, whilst in some places there is only one which might be red or green. I'm thinking that you are slowly introducing purple into your line up