Thread: Constitutionality of Obamacare

Direct quote from the trancript:

" but the supreme court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the warren court it wasnt that radical 40;30 it didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constituion at least as it has been interpreted and the warren court interpreted it generally in the same way that the constitution is a document of negative liberties 40:43 says what the states cant do to you says what the federal govt cant do to you but it doesnt say what the federal govt or state govt mst do on your behalf and that hasnt shifted and i think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that 41:01 the civil rights movement becaem so court focused i think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities 41:12 on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change 41:20 and in some ways we still suffer from that"

You don't see how the nationalization of healthcare is the first step toward his stated goal of redistribution of wealth? (and that is a stated goal of his. He wants to take from X and give to Y) You also don't see that he wants to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constituion" ?

It seems to me that an unconstitutional nationalization of healthcare is a first step toward his goal of redistribution of wealth.

As stated, Rome wasn't built in a day, and it also didn't fall in a day.

Originally Posted by gugi

It seems to me that the difference in mortality rates in pneumonia before penicillin was invented and after it was used is real data. Obviously the smaller the effect you are trying to measure the more precisely you have to control the experiment, there is no mystery about this.


Yes, this is real data and simple math. Now imagine you just apply what you seem to be proposing - cut 90% of the government spending with the corresponding cut in taxes. You personally are not making more than $60,000 a year and after standard deductions your tax is no more than $10,000. You will get 90% of it, so you will have an extra $9,000, or $750/month.
The society that you will have to live in however will be rather different from what you're used to. It certainly depends how that 90% cut is being implemented, but no matter what you do the military spending will be cut by more than half, spending on social programs a lot more. Research money will be probably zero.
Consider all the people who are affected negatively by your proposal and the changes in society that will result from their situation worsening. If that your extra $750/month will provide you enough cushion to deal with what is coming, then the simple math does work.

Your points are well taken. However, I would rather give my $750 to Georgia than to any federal programs. Most research is bull$&@" to begin with, but the only major beneficial research is privately funded anyway. Plus the military spending is not going to the soldiers or their care. It goes to defense contractors and people who only make profits. As for social programs, let the states handle them, that way the people get a vote and not a group of beurocrats trying to get elected. You are right, the society I live in would be different, and much better.

Originally Posted by treydampier

Your points are well taken. However, I would rather give my $750 to Georgia than to any federal programs. Most research is bull$&@" to begin with, but the only major beneficial research is privately funded anyway. Plus the military spending is not going to the soldiers or their care. It goes to defense contractors and people who only make profits. As for social programs, let the states handle them, that way the people get a vote and not a group of beurocrats trying to get elected. You are right, the society I live in would be different, and much better.

Lol.

So where do you think almost everything we have today came from? No one researched anything like, the precision of lasers? The accuracy of laser use in manufacturing? The quality control behind circuit boards? The electronics used to make the computer you are typing on? Of course not. It was trial and error.

No one researched microbiology? The types of antibodies your body creates? Their response to viruses? How to emulate a live virus to stimulate this response? The vaccine in the end to help humanity? Of course not. Once again, trial and error.

Research is all bull**** apparently...

Originally Posted by JMS

Is that why so many died in that bloody war Bruno?

You'll have to give me something on your Lincoln statement.

By the way Bruno, are all Europeans so jaded and cynical? Is their any love or hope for whats right or is it a given among Europeans that all is for selfish and self serving purposes?

Lol. I'll agree Europeans are more realist, not jaded. This "love and hope for what's right" has lead to an immense propaganda campaign in the US- euphamised by some as "revisionist history". Basically its where instead of reporting facts- like Lincoln's statements about black/white equality- they report things like the Gettysburg address- which freed slaves in rebel states (and since they were rebel US law did not apply) so effectively it freed no one. But it sounded good and allowed people to ASSUME Lincoln was against slavery. Revisionist history is not wrong, but allows some to make conclusions that may not be true. Thanksgiving is another one. "Look how peaceful and loving our bond with native Americans was! We got together with them to share a meal!" Before brutalizing them, kicking them out of their homes, shipping them off to reservations or marching them out west. etc etc etc

Originally Posted by gugi

So you're saying in some respects they had no idea what they were doing? Because they certainly didn't mean to abolish slavery, or to treat women on equal footing with men.
That would be contrary to your insistence that after much deliberation they came up with the perfect system which has been deteriorating ever since.

And yet, because of the system the Founders established for America the door was opened, directly leading to the abolishment of slavery in America and the granting of suffrage for women.

Give credit where credit is due.

(And when you say that they, meaning the founders, didn't mean to abolish slavery, I don't believe that history will support that view. And as for women's rights - like I said before, I think the world had to catch up with the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution. And obviously, for the most part, at least in America, it has.)