[tomder55]

It is completely consistent with conservative principles.

Adam Smith wrote extensively on that in 'The Wealth of Nations'.Smith never suggested that government should not intervene to set and enforce minimum social, health, safety, and environmental standards in the common interest . That is why as a conservative I can consistently argue for what I call "a safety net" . The very concept of a safety net assumes a degree of government control.

[excon]

it is completely consistent with conservative principles. The very concept of a safety net assumes a degree of government control.

Hello again, tom:

I agree again with you, although I'd insert the word Republican for conservative. Because it's a Republican viewpoint that government power SHOULD be used when it meets the Republican social agenda. Democrats think the same thing, only their social agenda is different than yours.

Indeed, your safety net is a police force, as you've amply described above, and the Democrats safety net is a bureaucrat. BOTH call for government to intervene. Therefore, BOTH are liberal positions.

The CONSERVATIVE viewpoint is closer to my own, and Ron Paul.

excon

[speechlesstx]

The CONSERVATIVE viewpoint is closer to my own, and Ron Paul.

Your view of health care sounds nothing like Ron Paul's to me.

Well, one think you have to do is say why do people come up short and why is the cost so high and it’s inflation and it’s the government management of the healthcare system that is at fault. But even though I have my ideal system, I would like to see the government out completely because that would be a much better system.

[excon]

Your view of health care sounds nothing like Ron Paul's to me.

Hello again, Steve:

No, it doesn't. But, I didn't say it did. I was talking about the stuff above where MY view IS more CONSERVATIVE than yours or toms. If you want to argue that, instead of deflecting, like you're won't to do, I'll be happy to take your liberal a$$ on.

excon

[tomder55]

I guess then you are calling Adam Smith a liberal. Your position is that government should control any business that is big and any business you don't like . But it should be hands off the free trade of marijuana.

I would call your's an economic libertarian position if it wasn't so inconsistent.

[speechlesstx]

If trying to reconcile your contradictory views is deflecting then I'm guilty.

[excon]

I guess then you are calling Adam Smith a liberal. Your position is that government should control any business that is big

Hello again, tom:

Maybe I can tie up my views about this for you, and even for myself, perhaps.

I'm a believer in free markets as long as those markets work for the people. I'm a believer in regulation that guarantees markets stay that way. When the players in the market get "too big to fail", it indicates to me that whatever market regulation we had in place is either NOT working, or isn't being enforced.

That is today's reality.

My posts take on two different tenors, as do yours. I, like the Wolverine, sometimes post based upon my THEORY of what should be, and what should have been. Like I say, so do you...

Then there's my posts about how we should deal with the economic reality of the day... Here's where my WISHLIST meets reality, because if my WISHLIST would have been followed, we wouldn't have the problems we do. But, it wasn't, and we DO.

So, even though I don't believe an entity should ever have been permitted to get "too big to fail", it does NOT mean that I think it should just fail. It's my belief that the problem got sooo out of wack, that only government can put it back.

Will government take its hands off when it gets put back? Probably not. But, I'm willing to deal with that question down the road.

excon

PS> I wonder where the wolverine is, anyway.

[inthebox]

I'm a believer in free markets as long as those markets work for the people. I'm a believer in regulation that guarantees markets stay that way. When the players in the market get "too big to fail", it indicates to me that whatever market regulation we had in place is either NOT working, or isn't being enforced.

That is today's reality.

Healthcare is not a free market. There is too much government regulation and even more so in this bill. Why no interstate national health insurance competition? Why different state mandates? Why no tort reform? Why no expansion of HSAs - true free market reform?
Is this truly "working for the people," or just a means to stay in office?
Instead this bill is about pay offs, about MORE government regulation, of backroom deals in which taxpayor dollars are used to buy votes at the expense of those taxpayors.

Speaking of free market, why is the POTUS telling the bankers to loan more now, when it was exactly risky loan practices encouraged by the likes of CRA and acorn that are at the root of the current economic crisis.

G&P

[speechlesstx]

While we're waiting to see who's more conservative, me, tom or ex, the chief wascal has inserted language into the bill that hamstrings future Congresses and makes Senator Reid a little dictator. On page 1020 is a clause that states "the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses."

There’s one provision that I found particularly troubling and it’s under section C, titled “Limitations on changes to this subsection.”

And I quote — “It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”

This is not legislation. It’s not law. This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a Senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future Senates.

I mean, we want to bind future Congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of Senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future Congresses.

This is beyond outrageous, beyond shameless and entirely unacceptable.

[inthebox]

Unconstitutional

G&P

[tomder55]

When the players in the market get "too big to fail", it indicates to me that whatever market regulation we had in place is either NOT working, or isn't being enforced

This I mostly agree with although it was sheer panic that caused anyone to think any of the zombies were too big to fail. I still don't see where it would've been greater damage if they were just cut loose. I really don't believe in too big to fail. They get big often because govt. interference prevents a competitive environment .

Lehman Brothers went down . Does anyone miss them today ?

Citi should've been allowed to fail . They are now a zombie that is holding our money and are still an anchor around our necks. In a year has that changed ? They tried to give back their TARP money by floating stocks and there are no takers. $17 billion shares at $3.15 apiece, below the $3.25 price at which the government bought its Citi stake.We hold 7.7 billion Citi shares... about a quarter of the company.
Lehman's gone and forgotten RIP .Citi is still an albatross an "undead" .

GM is now government motors . Any improvement ? They can't decide if they want to keep or sell Saab and Opal. They are still a mess. We left Ford alone. Now their shares are the highest they have been in 4 years.
We will never see the TARP money that went into GM again.

[tomder55]

Back to the constitutionality issue. I believe the insurance mandate is unconstitutional and that the Dems know it. I believe they view it as the camel's nose under the tent to get the public option.

As the bill now stands ; it will be the first time in history a federal law will mandate that you buy a product from a private business(even if you have no income) .

You have to be part of SS ,Medicare etc even if you never receive any benefit because they are gvt run plans.

I think the Dems know this will not survive a court challenge . Then they will be able to make the case that the only way to guarantee insurance for everyone would be with a mandate to purchase a gvt run plan.

[twinkiedooter]

Back to the constitutionality issue. I believe the insurance mandate is unconstitutional and that the Dems know it. I believe they view it as the camel's nose under the tent to get the public option.

As the bill now stands ; it will be the first time in history a federal law will mandate that you buy a product from a private business(even if you have no income) .

You have to be part of SS ,Medicare etc even if you never receive any benefit because they are gvt run plans.

I think the Dems know this will not survive a court challenge . Then they will be able to make the case that the only way to guarantee insurance for everyone would be with a mandate to purchase a gvt run plan.

Tom - that cute little phrase

“It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”

That the law can't be changed is worse than chilling - it's unconscionable and unconstitutional. I hope someone in Congress has half a brain and deletes this phrase.

[tomder55]

Reid is a slick operator. He tried to sneak that little provision in it.

You are right ;that is ripe for a Constitutional challenge if it remains in the final law.
Many States are looking to challenge the favoritism of the Medicaid exemption going to Nebraska (including Excon's Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna ).
It is being called the Nebraska Compromise but I prefer to call it Cash for Corn Huskers.

Sen.Kay Bailey Hutchison on the floor yesterday brought up a potential 10th amendment challenge saying the bill improperly usurps the authority of states to regulate insurance.

Another important case related to this bill is the unanimous 1989 Duquesne Light vs. Barasch decision . In that case it was ruled that it is not constitutional to legislate investors out of a return on the basis of stealth price controls and conflicting, destructive mandates. This is explained better than I can by Richard Epstein; professor of law at the University of Chicago and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...924143158.html

But basically he argues that the Reid bill would unconstitutionally drive private insurance companies out of business;and that this bill becomes a defacto government take over of the insurance industry

.
Heard this on the radio this morning

twas the night before Christmas and all through the House

it's a showdown on health care as the taxpayers grouse.

they dropped public option
they nixed single payer

they created more bureaucracy ..layer upon layer

they feuded on abortion they paid off Nebraska

this could mean clear sailing for that ex-governor of Alaska

as our lawmakers made off with our money in flight

they yelled MERRY CHRISTMAS SUCKERS !! to all a good night.

[excon]

Hello Righty's:

Now, I'm testing my old brain, here, but I seem to remember something in the dufus years about bills that you wanted "rammed" through, where provisions were written in that they couldn't be challenged by the Supreme Court... Probably had something to do with security...

If you folks of the right wing persuasion want me go find it, I will. But, I'll assume your silence on the subject will be recognition of the rightness of my post.

You should pay better attention, because I do.

excon

[tomder55]

I don't recall that at all . So my silence does not presume my acquiesce.It is possible that a super majority provision was added to a bill .But I don't recall the instant.

Anyway it is a practice known as adding an "entrenchment provision" . Are entrenchment provisions binding legally ? No. A Congress can pass all the entrenchment provisions it wants, but the next Congress can repeal them by majority rule.

But Reid takes this to new hights. Not only does his language make it harder to change the law... but completely prohibits it.

[excon]

I don't recall that at all . So my silence does not presume my acquiesce.

Hello again, tom:

Frankly, due to the inadequate search engine on this site, I was unable to find the stuff I wanted... Nonetheless, I do not prevaricate, as you know. So, you'll just have to take my word for it, that your politicians ain't no better than the other guys.

Of course, you won't, because you're full of yourselves...

excon

[N0help4u]

Anyway it is a practice known as adding an "entrenchment provision" . Are entrenchment provisions binding legally ? No. A Congress can pass all the entrenchment provisions it wants, but the next Congress can repeal them by majority rule.

But Reid takes this to new hights. Not only does his language make it harder to change the law...but completely prohibits it.

Maybe the future generations can pull the ''Thats not what it means'' like they are doing now with the constitution.
Reid put that in there because they KNOW that even their faithful Dems are going to realize what a mess within a matter of time.

[excon]

Hello again:

I'm sure I said it when we had this discussion before, but it's absolutely true that congress can't pass a law that says what they just did can't be reviewed. Besides, the writers of a provision like that KNOW it's un-Constitutional, or they wouldn't have written it in the first place.

The whole IDEA of our three branch system is accountability. You can't change that by writing a law.

Now, the idea that the next congress can just repeal what the last congress did isn't a good idea, either... We, as citizens need some consistency in our laws.. After all, we WANT people to obey our laws, no? But, who's going to obey them if we know they're going to be changed back??

Nahhh... Bad idea.

excon

[N0help4u]

I agree 100% but they are up to something bigger and this is only a single piece of that puzzle.