• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

SCOTUS upholds strip-search on arrest.

  • Thread starter Herr Heckler Koch
  • Start date

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
[snippers]

When I use positivism I am using it in the definition of the ideology that a law is a good law simply because it went through proper channels or that when a government does something it is right and proper or even that a majority rule is good rule, like prop 8.

I see where we have diverged. You are under the impression that I believe a law is a good law because it went through the proper channels; you should be careful here--the reason I say that is because if you are arguing that although the law went through the proper channel it isn't necessarily good then all laws are suspect. So how do we determine whether a law is good or not good: we can try and determine whether or not a law is moral or not moral. But if we do that we must start with a premise, that there are moral things, and not moral things. That still does not prove that there is anything Fundamental about any of our premises, assertions, or principles. So, how to we come to a Moral Truth, how do we discover a Moral Truth? Morality is a construct, Truth is a construct. We manufacture these things because the alternative will drive most of us mad.

You seem to be mistaking "good" "legitimate" "moral," and "proper."

The simple answer to your prop 8 question is: it is both good and not good, legitimate and not legitimate, moral and not moral, proper and not proper. Sorry, but that's all I have to give.

Just because I express something, doesn't mean I agree with it. Take for instance the Government making a law, whether it be moral or not moral. Now I can state that the law is moral if the Government has a set of principles that deemed something to be either moral or not moral, and those principles of 'moral' are met. Just because the Government states "this is moral, and this is not moral." I don't necessarily agree.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Er, it's a "scheme" in the same sense that any other set of conditions that describe a state of management would be. E.g. our republican scheme of government. I'm using the "systematic plan of action" definition, not the "secret plot" one.

Hey, I believe you. It's just interesting you would decide on "scheme."

If corporations, too, are taxed at 90% of total wealth, where do you expect people to work? I'm at Microsoft, and most of my other prospects would be in the 90%+ bucket you've advocated. Should I just go on the government dole and start my own shop that doesn't get taxed into nothing?

Don't ask me, ask Romney, he's the one who stated Corporations are people. I think that there ought to be more small businesses than large Corporations.


I gave you a clue how much we make based on our tax bracket crossover from single to married. You should be able to do the math and figure it out. We're not near 500k+ per year, but that seems such an arbitrary number that I am trying to figure out where you get it. What proportion of your wealth do you contribute to society? In what manner?

It seems arbitrary because it is.

*shrug* I have a hard time disagreeing with this, but it has further implications that you aren't exploring. For example, I think "universal healthcare" should be a state-driven thing, because I want to see a bit of competition between plans (also, because I think it's unconstitutional if the federal government attempts to mandate it without a constitutional amendment). Second, the assertion about "no more money to any other State that can take care of it's[sic] own mess" contradicts the federal healthcare provision - wouldn't that be the federal government helping the states take care of their citizens?

What is with this notion of competition in healthcare. There has been compentition for decades, and we are in a hole. As I stated, take healthcare from for-profit to non-profit; the only way to do that would be the Federal Government take over healthcare, there be a Constitutional ammendment on increases...wait, including as part of the ammendment some sort of minimum standard of care that obligates both the health insurance, doctors, and the Federal Government in meeting. No moneys for healthcare can be diverted to anything else.

Rather than "all the money" how about a fraction of it, since the rest is really needed to balance the budget? I could also get behind a healthcare provision in the constitution. However, the plan and mechanism would have to be defined. Single-payer seems ideal, but maybe I'm missing something that would need to be tested, first.

If we tax the piss out of the wealthy, and make insurant not-for-profit, and cut back on defense spending (significantly), we will start getting the budget under control. The we have to decide what to do with all the old people retiring in the coming years. We ought to have planned for all of this but the Baby Boom generation squandered everything they inherited.

The rest of the provisions I'm pretty meh about. Seems to me to be an inefficient form of centralized planning (but I repeat myself). Perhaps a fraction of the budget mandated to be invested into these technologies?

Government is not efficient, it can be a better alternative to what we are dealing with right now regarding insurance companies. You might not think an insurance company is inefficient until you are requesting chemotherapy where they make you wait sometimes weeks for an answer.

Incrementally, we ought to invest greater portions of our budget in technologies other than oil technologies. Don't get me wrong, if someone can figure out a way of making a gallon of gas go at least a hundred miles, then we may be on to something here. OPEC, IMO, is nothing more than your run-of-the-mill mafia, and I dread every drop of foreign oil I put into my vehicle, but I also don't think drilling state-side is going to solve the generationally long-term issue.

Unfortuantely, we will sit, and do nothing as a Nation, then when SHTF we will not be prepared with nuclear, clean coal, and alternative energies. Other countries that don't rely on OPEC oil will fair much better than us, and there will be great violence in the street of America, IMO. Then again, it seems Americans are partial to violence, so, maybe we will all feel more at home.
 
Last edited:

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
Howdy Folks!
All this talk about taxing the wealthy seems to neglect a simple fact... many avoid taxes altogether.

Taking Romney for an example, he has over 3 million stashed in a Swiss bank account. He doesn't pay any taxes, nor has he ever, on that money. Then we find that he has accounts in the Cayman Islands, again for the express purpose of avoiding taxes. Interest drawn on those accounts simply gets shifted to the Swiss bank account, and he makes a bundle of money and doesn't pay a dime in tax.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/mitt-romneys-offshore-bank-accounts/

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/romneys_offshore_accounts_draw034846.php

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/romney-parks-millions-offshore-tax-haven/story?id=15378566

http://azstarnet.com/news/national/...cle_ad8a17be-259a-547f-bb82-d0e42aab79af.html

Why should a private citizen, such as you or I, be held liable to a tax rate in the 30-35% range, when people rich enough to make Solomon blush get off paying far less than the people they employ as a percentage of their income.

Individuals and corporations that send their money off shore to avoid taxes (like Romney) should be responsible to paying their fair share.
But I guess that would be inconvenient considering how busy they've been shipping our jobs offshore.

Can't do that though... they're the job creators. Like they've done lots of that over the past 12 years!!!

Besides, how can Romeny pay for an elevator in his garage for his cars if he ends up having to pay taxes for money he's got stashed beyond the reach of responsible reporting? And by the way... how many jobs has Romney created? Not hearly so many as he's eliminated. Just ask anybody who worked for Clear Channel broadcasting... once upon a time... about the blood letting that followed when Bain took control!

On a different note, in recent months, many millionaires and billionaires have approached congressional representatives asking that their taxes be raised... offering to pay more... because they actually care about America (you know... the one we grew up in with a degree of affluence under every administration since Eisenhower that taxed at a much higher rate... that America... where jobs stayed in America and the job creators invested in American jobs for American people rather than folks in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, the Phillipines, China, etc)
Those folks can't get heard because of an ideology that believes the best way to balance the budget is to reduce income. Try that at home for awhile, see how that works out for ya.

Meanwhile, the middle class (the one I grew up in America enjoying) has been decimated.

In closing, I'd just like to note that folks seem to be very much against paying taxes to the government, but don't seem bothered in the least paying taxes to corporations such as Exxon, Mobile, et al. There is absolutely no reason for gas prices to be at the level we see today, except that they are raking us over the coals with high prices to fatten their bonus checks. The rich get richer... and how's that working out for the rest of us when we must fuel up?

It doesn't seem to be taxes folks resent, but paying a fair share to the government rather than some corporation that fleeces us far more than the government ever imagined possible!

Blessings,
M-Taliesin
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
<class warfare snip>

In closing, I'd just like to note that folks seem to be very much against paying taxes to the government, but don't seem bothered in the least paying taxes to corporations such as Exxon, Mobile, et al. There is absolutely no reason for gas prices to be at the level we see today, except that they are raking us over the coals with high prices to fatten their bonus checks. The rich get richer... and how's that working out for the rest of us when we must fuel up?

Clearly, you don't understand the forces that work on the petroleum market. Geopolitical influences such as your beloved Obama's warmongering in the Middle East (not that every other recent president hasn't done the same) and obscene federal/state taxes also raise the price at the pump.

It doesn't seem to be taxes folks resent, but paying a fair share to the government rather than some corporation that fleeces us far more than the government ever imagined possible!

"Fair share."

If you want to go pay your fair share, be my guest. However, you don't get to decide what is a fair share of another person's property to be stolen by the government. At least corporations provide a valuable product/service that I willingly pay for, and they don't bomb innocent people in third-world countries with the proceeds, or try to steal my rights here at home. They aren't perfect, but at the same time, don't pretend they operate in this Randian world of free-markets. They don't. The petroleum industry is one of the most heavily-regulated (at least in this country).
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Clearly, you don't understand the forces that work on the petroleum market. Geopolitical influences such as your beloved Obama's warmongering in the Middle East (not that every other recent president hasn't done the same) and obscene federal/state taxes also raise the price at the pump.

Of course he doesn't. Why don't you educate us all. Oh, wait a minute here, President Obama's picking up after W. is now warmongerring. Federal/state gas taxes have gone up recently?--can you please cite this; wait, there is likely nothing there to complain about.

"Fair share."

If you want to go pay your fair share, be my guest. However, you don't get to decide what is a fair share of another person's property to be stolen by the government. At least corporations provide a valuable product/service that I willingly pay for, and they don't bomb innocent people in third-world countries with the proceeds, or try to steal my rights here at home. They aren't perfect, but at the same time, don't pretend they operate in this Randian world of free-markets. They don't. The petroleum industry is one of the most heavily-regulated (at least in this country)

Of course, no person should decide what another persons fair share is. It isn't like we live in the same society, and it isn't like people who have money shooting out of their ears ought to pay more taxes.

You are right, Corporations provide a product/service, hmmm, Lockheed Martin comes to mind!

You make taxing the piss out of the wealthy more and more palatable each post.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Of course he doesn't. Why don't you educate us all. Oh, wait a minute here, President Obama's picking up after W. is now warmongerring.

The Squatter-on-the-Potomac's dangerous statements regarding Iran and Syria, as well as his unauthorized military action in Libya, are warmongering. Nice try with the "ZOMG EVERYTHING IS BUSH'S FAULT!!!!" thing though.

Federal/state gas taxes have gone up recently?--can you please cite this; wait, there is likely nothing there to complain about.

I never claimed they went up recently. I did claim that the levels are obscene and raise the price one pays at the pump. Learn to read, twit.

Of course, no person should decide what another persons fair share is.

Yep. Your ideas are no better than my ideas (in fact, they are immeasurably worse/less intelligent, but that's another story). No person has a moral right to tell another person what to do with his property, much less steal it from him, which is your wet dream.

It isn't like we live in the same society

Yes, unfortunately I am forced to breathe the same air as you. Despite that unpleasant reality, the fact remains that, despite your social contract theory bunkum, one does not become party to an agreement which allows you to steal his property simply because he breathes. Quit huffing the airplane glue and come back down to the real world.

and it isn't like people who have money shooting out of their ears ought to pay more taxes.

Just because someone has x amount of property + $1 does not give you any additional claim to his property.

You are right, Corporations provide a product/service, hmmm, Lockheed Martin comes to mind!

Umm...OK...so do Smith and Wesson, Ruger, Springfield Armory, etc. The point is that if I give less money to your beloved federal government, that is more money I have to buy the things my family and I need and less money your government has to bomb other families in third-world countries. Of course, you don't care about innocent people suffering acts of U.S. military aggression now that Uncle Barack is in power. Code Pink was only fashionable when Bu$hitler was around...

Just goes to show that you are completely bereft of morals or even real principles. You have about as much spine as a dead jellyfish.

You make taxing the piss out of the wealthy more and more palatable each post.

And I can't wait for the day when the system collapses and you will have to do your own stealing. I just wish I could see it when some homeowner has you at full draw and all you can manage is a "But, but, but...I'm ENTITLED to it!!!! Waaaaahhhhh!"
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
[snipping through the foreplay] No person has a moral right to tell another person what to do with his property, much less steal it from him, which is your wet dream.

I reject your premise. Moral Rights are merely constructs.
[snippers] one does not become party to an agreement which allows you to steal his property simply because he breathes.[snippers.

Yes, one can, and one does.

Just because someone has x amount of property + $1 does not give you any additional claim to his property.

I agree. But it does give the Government claim if it sees fit.


[snipper] Of course, you don't care about innocent people suffering acts of U.S. military aggression now that Uncle Barack is in power. [snipps]

Actually, I have stated on multiple occasions that we ought to pull out of the entire Middle East, and send them nothing but food.



Just goes to show that you are completely bereft of morals or even real principles. You have about as much spine as a dead jellyfish.

Real Principles do not exist, there are just Principles, and they are merely constructs. Morality is merely a construct, there is nothing Fundamental about Morality.

I may have a spine.


And I can't wait for the day when the system collapses and you will have to do your own stealing. I just wish I could see it when some homeowner has you at full draw and all you can manage is a "But, but, but...I'm ENTITLED to it!!!! Waaaaahhhhh!"

*sniggers*

I promise, when President Obama's SS comes for you, I will speak-up.
 
Last edited:

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Don't ask me, ask Romney, he's the one who stated Corporations are people. I think that there ought to be more small businesses than large Corporations.
Let's forget about Romney. I don't like the guy and won't be voting for him, so what he says or not is irrelevant to this discussion.



It seems arbitrary because it is.
With less arbitrary numbers/vitriol and more definitional/statistical models, you may be on to something. The problem is that you're setting it up as a bitter form of class warfare, and not as a productive compensation for society.


What is with this notion of competition in healthcare. There has been compentition for decades, and we are in a hole. As I stated, take healthcare from for-profit to non-profit; the only way to do that would be the Federal Government take over healthcare, there be a Constitutional ammendment on increases...wait, including as part of the ammendment some sort of minimum standard of care that obligates both the health insurance, doctors, and the Federal Government in meeting. No moneys for healthcare can be diverted to anything else.
Competition would be the following:
State 1 says that insurance stays as it is
State 2 says that insurance may only be run by not-for-profit companies
State 3 enacts a plan like Obamacare - insurance remains for-profit, but everyone has to buy it, and insurance companies may not reject someone for x y or z reasons
State 4 enacts a public option - a state pool of healthcare paid for by taxes that includes everyone in the state. It does not ban private insurance, but allows for the public option to compete with the private option
State 5 enacts mandatory public insurance and bans private insurers.

These are just some options. Say that states 6-10 see that state 4's option is working well for their citizens and want to join in. They may now go to Congress and form an inter-state compact that outlines how the program works. The ideas compete for efficiency. Sure, states like Mississippi would still end up with poor, sick, uneducated people, but I'm beyond trying to save those who won't even try to help themselves through measured social improvements.


If we tax the piss out of the wealthy, and make insurant not-for-profit, and cut back on defense spending (significantly), we will start getting the budget under control. The we have to decide what to do with all the old people retiring in the coming years. We ought to have planned for all of this but the Baby Boom generation squandered everything they inherited.
That's the problem, "taxing the piss out of the wealthy" won't do squat for getting the budget under control. It will take much broader increases to make a difference. I'm don't think you're as wrong as others will accuse you, but there's a bit of rhetoric and a whole lot of harsh realities that need to be faced. For one, most of the taxable wealth lies between 50k-500k, which is hugely unpopular as a target, since that's the heart of the middle class.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Let's forget about Romney. I don't like the guy and won't be voting for him, so what he says or not is irrelevant to this discussion.

Romney is a great example, but we can forget about him.


With less arbitrary numbers/vitriol and more definitional/statistical models, you may be on to something. The problem is that you're setting it up as a bitter form of class warfare, and not as a productive compensation for society.

Class Warfare is already taking place with the wealthy against the poor and middle class.

Competition would be the following:
State 1 says that insurance stays as it is
State 2 says that insurance may only be run by not-for-profit companies
State 3 enacts a plan like Obamacare - insurance remains for-profit, but everyone has to buy it, and insurance companies may not reject someone for x y or z reasons
State 4 enacts a public option - a state pool of healthcare paid for by taxes that includes everyone in the state. It does not ban private insurance, but allows for the public option to compete with the private option
State 5 enacts mandatory public insurance and bans private insurers.

States would have nothing to do with it. Healthcare would be in one centeral location, with the Federal Government.

These are just some options. Say that states 6-10 see that state 4's option is working well for their citizens and want to join in. They may now go to Congress and form an inter-state compact that outlines how the program works. The ideas compete for efficiency. Sure, states like Mississippi would still end up with poor, sick, uneducated people, but I'm beyond trying to save those who won't even try to help themselves through measured social improvements.

Interstate Commerce has been a sticker for decades, no thanks. Cut out the fight, and centeralize healthcare.

That's the problem, "taxing the piss out of the wealthy" won't do squat for getting the budget under control. It will take much broader increases to make a difference. I'm don't think you're as wrong as others will accuse you, but there's a bit of rhetoric and a whole lot of harsh realities that need to be faced. For one, most of the taxable wealth lies between 50k-500k, which is hugely unpopular as a target, since that's the heart of the middle class.

No person has said it would be easy, just worth it. Some of that taxable welath is individuals being paid 1 bucks a year but receiving stocks, and other bennies, and it not being considered income. Five hundred thousand dollars a year is not middle-class.

The poor ought not pay taxes, they don't even make enough to live off of. The middle class ought to receive tax exemptions, and the wealthy ought to be levied the highest taxes.

You can call it Class Warfare, or whatever you like. What is happening right now, as we have this back-and-forth, is Class Warfare against the poor and middle class, waged by the wealthy. I have zero sympathy for the wealthy who complain that they ought not pay higher taxes when they are making five hundred thousand a year plus while others in our society are eating from garbage cans, or on the brink of losing everything they have because they are middle class and came down with cancer.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Romney is a great example, but we can forget about him.




Class Warfare is already taking place with the wealthy against the poor and middle class....

Like your new avatar, but how did they ever get that jackass on the unicorn?

When he begins to speak to the audience everyone goes into a trance, and they see Obama riding-in on a unicorn. The rainbow is from Obama's boyish face, pleasant smile, and Harvardian intellect. President Obama is a Political, and Presidential dream-boat. *swoons* Am I the only one here that gets a prophetic sense in my tummy when President Obama speaks?--as if my ears have been touched by the voice of God.
 
Last edited:

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
Yes, you are the only one. My tummy just gets nauseated.

Perhaps this would be a more suitable avatar for you?

250px-MadlHatterByTenniel.svg.png
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
States would have nothing to do with it. Healthcare would be in one centeral location, with the Federal Government.
How do you know the plan enacted will be a good one that works within the American system of jurisprudence and culture? I'm proposing the states be allowed to put forth different plans because you've currently only used the vague term "healthcare" without defining it, while I'd expect a real proposal to have a lot more.

No person has said it would be easy, just worth it. Some of that taxable welath is individuals being paid 1 bucks a year but receiving stocks, and other bennies, and it not being considered income. Five hundred thousand dollars a year is not middle-class.
That's a differentiation between individual tax and capital gains tax. The money doesn't go untaxed, it's just taxed at a different rate. Whether it should be or not is always in debate.

The poor ought not pay taxes, they don't even make enough to live off of. The middle class ought to receive tax exemptions, and the wealthy ought to be levied the highest taxes.
Even if it's just a symbolic amount (say $1), I think that anybody above the poverty line, even if "poor", should pay _something_. I'm not sure what you mean by tax exemptions (i.e. do you mean they get the same rate as the rich but are eligible for more exemptions, or are given a lower rate, or what?), and your arbitrary numbers don't define the middle class - the bell curve does. And sure, adjust the curve based on relative owned wealth, but don't pretend that by attacking the "rich" you are helping society.

You can call it Class Warfare, or whatever you like. What is happening right now, as we have this back-and-forth, is Class Warfare against the poor and middle class, waged by the wealthy. I have zero sympathy for the wealthy who complain that they ought not pay higher taxes when they are making five hundred thousand a year plus while others in our society are eating from garbage cans, or on the brink of losing everything they have because they are middle class and came down with cancer.

I'm simply stating a fact: by calling it "taxing the piss out of the rich" you are sabotaging your own goal.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
When he begins to speak to the audience everyone goes into a trance, and they see Obama riding-in on a unicorn. The rainbow is from Obama's boyish face, pleasant smile, and Harvardian intellect. President Obama is a Political, and Presidential dream-boat. *swoons* Am I the only one here that gets a prophetic sense in my tummy when President Obama speaks?--as if my ears have been touched by the voice of God.

Well, kinda like my tummy, I guess. When I hear the moron reading from his omni-present teleprompter, I want to puke...
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
For the sake of the discussion (these can get lengthy), I am going to only focus in-on some of your post.

How do you know the plan enacted will be a good one that works within the American system of jurisprudence and culture?

The current system is not working--I am sure we agree on this. HealthInsurance (not healthcare...sorry for the misnomer) ought to be at the Federal level.

I'm proposing the states be allowed to put forth different plans because you've currently only used the vague term "healthcare" without defining it, while I'd expect a real proposal to have a lot more.

I disagree about the States. I understand why you prefer this, you are under the impression that the States are supposed to have some sort of sovereignty from the Federal Government--I disagree; the Federal Government is better equiped to handle HealthInsurance, merely the centerality of HealthInsurance at the Federal level breaks down a number of hurdles that exist with our current insurance system.


I'm simply stating a fact: by calling it "taxing the piss out of the rich" you are sabotaging your own goal.

I agree, but "taxing the piss out of the wealthy" has a nice ring to it, and it pokes just the right people in the eye with a blunt stick.
 
Last edited:

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
For the sake of the discussion (these can get lengthy), I am going to only focus in-on some of your post.

The current system is not working--I am sure we agree on this. HealthInsurance (not healthcare...sorry for the misnomer) ought to be at the Federal level.


I disagree about the States. I understand why you prefer this, you are under the impression that the States are supposed to have some sort of sovereignty from the Federal Government--I disagree; the Federal Government is better equiped to handle HealthInsurance, merely the centerality of HealthInsurance at the Federal level breaks down a number of hurdles that exist with our current insurance system.
I agree the system is not working, and I even agree that ultimately a federal system would be better. What I disagree with is the mechanism to achieve that federal level. Presently there are a few competing ideas for what health insurance or care provided by taxes should look like. The plan which ended up being passed in MA (RomneyCare) and the similarly-templated yet differently-implemented Federal one that will likely be overturned (ObamaCare) are just one example of the options for making healthcare something which won't bankrupt a person who gets sick. Another option, and one I've seen a lot of evidence for, though I was initially against, is the public option. This is essentially a taxpayer-funded, nonprofit, government insurance program - everyone is automatically included. It stands as an option for those who don't have or don't want private insurance. Any party that wants private insurance or to pay private hospitals may do so. Provisions dealing with prices, acceptance, etc would all need to be figured out.

States should have some degree of independence from the federal government, but the measure and extent of that is debatable. Indeed, the federal government would be required under the constitution in order to allow the states to form a compact (Article 1 Section 10). If healthcare is found to be under the purview of federal preemption, either via amendment or otherwise, then you still have to deal with the "what's the best plan" problem.

I agree, but "taxing the piss out of the wealthy" has a nice ring to it, and it pokes just the right people in the eye with a blunt stick.
I'd rather have meaningful solutions than poke people in the eye. Bitterly saying "tax the rich" isn't going to fix the budget issues. Those of us in the middle class are going to need to contribute, too.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Some ignore the ninth and tenth amendments, and the enumerated powers of the federal government. Or how about this little fact of history, the king of England had to name all 13 colonies in his truce it wasn't a singular agreement with United States.

But of course when you think there is no fundamental things that make us human that would be an easy assumption to make that somehow a all powerful government would be more correct than individual humans.:rolleyes:

What current system? Get the government out of medicine then tell me the current system isn't working. The current system spends an ungodly amount of time trying to please and accomplish government requirements.
 
Top