Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Whatever wealth I have has nothing to do with money.

---

Copy that! Takes a village whether its your kid or not.

From each according to their ability to each according to their needs ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

from each according to their ability to each according to their needs ?

---

;) Are we agreeing, or are you pulling my leg?? :confused::eek:

Does that sum up your position ?
How about this ?Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth -- the soil and the labourer.

Naw, I prefer shared prosperity, through shared effort, for the good of all.

Left up to me, I would burn the money, and trade on need. Yeah I'm out there, but it works so well for the ANTS. I guess humans ain't as smart.

All the ants I see are just following each other around foraging their little butts off for the queen. Is that what you mean?

That's how they keep making and raising more ants, but my point is they all work for the common good. You mean you can't get with humans working for the common good?

Not really, my primary responsibility is to take care of my family and your idea of the "common good" probably differs from mine.

Common good... sounds like something out of the French
Revolution. The problem with the concept of the common good is that it is often used to subjugate the individual. Those who speak it loudest are good for telling others what their shared sacrifice should be.

Working for the common good, what a quaint notion in a land where averice and greed reign supreme. Have you suddenly become communist?

Marxist maybe... I find it's the statists who usually shout common good the loudest.

You left out the concept of "We the people", the principle of how this country was built. Not Corporations or banks but all of us who have a right to vote, and negotiate our own destiny.

Not the few dictating to the many. Is that Marxist? Communist? Or any other ism you choose that you think connotes a back handed put down?? Funny how the very people you choose to worship, and protect, the very rich, have written a letter to the congress telling them to cut a deal, NOW.

But of course the low information right wing says my way, or no way still. That's why informed repubs in Wisconsin voted with democrats against fake democrats. Oops wrong thread, SORRY!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You left out the concept of "We the people", !

---

It's sad you fail to recognise that we the people has echoed in so many places each time taking a different form until you have diametrically opposed philosophies saying much the same thing. When the French broke the shackles of royalty they suddenly discovered tyranny not in those they killed but among the "people" The two move hand in glove for the people, the mob, always rule by tyranny.

So spare us the lofty ideals and recognise that today the decisions are made by a few and they are not always for the common good but to serve the political machine

So what are you saying? We should give up the idea that we elect people to serve the interest of the people, and get the ones who don't out. Or we should just go along with the program, and do nothing?

If it starts with we the people, we the people have a responsibility to be informed, and active in exercising our rights. What's your solution oh great Canada?

No we have to realise that those who are elected don't serve the people but they are beholding to the machine. It is the machine who organised the supporters, raised the funds and pushed the candidate because at the end of the day, if your candidate isn't elected you have no say in what is done. By all means remove those who obviously neglect the will of those who elected them, but also realise that even if you didn't approve of all of the platform, it will go forward anyway. In a situation where there is little between one candidate and another you can be sure that half the people oppose anything that is done so the will of the people is subject to the whim of the voter. I don't come from Canada but I do come from a place where democracy is strong but needs constant protection from those who are ruled by ideology.

Sorry Clete, my mistake as to your background, but you are right, in my opinion, you have to be on guard against idealogs. Now those we have a lot of here, both left, and right, but we still have to handle our business the best way we can. Hopefully the people with enough sense will try to do the right things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Sorry Clete, my mistake as to your background, but you are right, in my opinion, you have to be on guard against idealogs. Now those we have a lot of here, both left, and right, but we still have to handle our business the best way we can. Hopefully the people with enough sense will try to do the right things.

---

Yes Tal and the right thing usually is to let government govern and not be too obstructive. You have a difficult system over there, I don't know how you manage to get anything done. Ours is modelled on yours but without some the obstructiveness. Like you we can get a hostile Senate but it really isn't possible to have a hostile House, when that happens everything changes or it goes back to the voters

The founders wrote into the Constitution limited and defined enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government in Art 1 Sec.8 .
They always intended to limit the impact of the Federal Government.

The problem has been in the interpretation of clauses like the 'Commerce Clause' and the 'Necessary and Proper Clause' in Article 1 .

Early in the history of the country there was a political split between those who believed like Hamilton that those clauses gave the Federal government broad powers over commerce and taxation ;and those of the Jefferson camp who believed those clauses should have very narrow interpretation.

What is being played out in this discussion is the continuation of that debate unresolved .We have seen the Hamiltonian interpretation of the role of the powerful central government bring us to the brink of financial crisis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

We have seen the Hamiltonian interpretation of the role of the powerful central government bring us to the brink of financial crisis.

---

I'm pretty that was due to the government reducing their regulatory oversight of certain industries which allowed the corporations to bring on the meltdown due to their ruthless nature and greed of the owners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The founders wrote into the Constitution limited and defined enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government in Art 1 Sec.8 .
They always intended to limit the impact of the Federal Government.

The problem has been in the interpretation of clauses like the 'Commerce Clause' and the 'Necessary and Proper Clause' in Article 1 .

Early in the history of the country there was a political split between those who believed like Hamilton that those clauses gave the Federal government broad powers over commerce and taxation ;and those of the Jefferson camp who believed those clauses should have very narrow interpretation.

What is being played out in this discussion is the continuation of that debate unresolved .We have seen the Hamiltonian interpretation of the role of the powerful central government bring us to the brink of financial crisis.

---

Tal in our democracy we have seen certain clauses of our Consititution tested as to what powers it gives government. We were very surprised when we found the foreign treaties power actually gave the government the ability to prevent a state corporation building a dam to supply hydro power. Our states ceded the taxation power to the federal government in exchange for a guaranteed distribution, they have spent a long time arguing about the formula, but no one argues their absolute ability to control taxation. The commerce power enables our government to regulate trade practices which will soon manifest a world first, plain packaging for cigarettes.

Limited intrepretation works only so long as the people are satisfied but remember how quick they were to take away constitutional rights to ensure homeland security