 |
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
What Ex said.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What constitutes the "general welfare?"
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
So in other words ;that quote is not in his dissent.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
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.Quote:
For the purpose of this exercise we need to recognize that he has hypothesized in relation into the Amendment.
"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?
Yep we've been here before, I didn't say those things.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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. 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?
Apparently there are no clinics or ERs in anywhere but Amarillo, TX?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
Hi Steve,Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I was looking for someone to define the scope of the "general welfare." How broad? How narrow?Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Natural disasters, and power outages come to mind, along with sudden recessions, or depressions, death of a breadwinner, or the business cycle.
First, you can disagree all you want but facts are facts and I thought you liked facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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?
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
So birth control pills here are going to prevent pregnancies abroad. That's some pretty useless logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
P.S. I don't consider feeding a hungry child a "waste" of my personal income.
And you guys fell for "hope and change."Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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!!
Really, Tal? You're resorting to insulting my intelligence again?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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."Quote:
In other words, your premise is not based in facts!! If I am wrong, SHOW ME!!
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.
Am I missing something here??Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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
Yes two separate yet intermingled issues. Regardless it still appears that the contraceptives are going to be free as provided by the carrier.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
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"
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
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.
And yet you and your sources are completely free of ideology, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
My what and what sources of mine? I don't have a dog in this race.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
BS, ex. When did doing everything you could to take care of you and family without a government nanny stop being a virtue?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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. How many do you support?Quote:
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.
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.
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?Quote:
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.
Um , Obama is the one that played the "brother's keeper" card. He is the president.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
P.S. It is the Obama administration's contraceptive mandate, not Michelle's.
Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:34 AM. |