|
|
Post by cenydd on Oct 22, 2013 8:54:07 GMT
According to a Fox News poll, more than two-thirds of all Americans are either "somewhat concerned" or "very concerned" about this new law. A poll of 900 people? And what was the balance of those 'random' 'registered voters' between declared party affiliations? The balance of demographics of them if they were chosen at 'random'? Nowhere near big enough a study to be portrayed as any kind of 'representative sample' across the entire population of the USA, so the results should really be considered as nothing other than entirely meaningless in terms of the whole country. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 22, 2013 17:00:53 GMT
According to a Fox News poll, more than two-thirds of all Americans are either "somewhat concerned" or "very concerned" about this new law. A poll of 900 people? And what was the balance of those 'random' 'registered voters' between declared party affiliations? The balance of demographics of them if they were chosen at 'random'? Nowhere near big enough a study to be portrayed as any kind of 'representative sample' across the entire population of the USA, so the results should really be considered as nothing other than entirely meaningless in terms of the whole country.
Assuming that being the case the study if actually fairly accurate as it would only have a margin of error of about +/- 4% but that isn't what's really important.
All the poll established is that a large percentage of people were "somewhat concerned" or "very concerned" with the Affordable Care Act and they should be. Regardless of whether they are "liberals" or "conservatives" they have reason to be concerned. The "liberals" are concerned that not enough people will enroll in the health care insurance programs and the Republicans are concerned that too many will enroll. Both related to whether the program will succeed in providing health care benefits to those in American that would die or not receive medical services. The "liberals" are afraid that not enough people will get the health care services they need and Republicans are afraid of people getting health care services.
Both sides have concerns that related to the "success" of Obamacare. Liberals are afraid it could fail by not providing health care services to enough people and Conservatives are afraid it could succeed by providing health care services to too many people.
Hell, several Republican states have even refused to expand Medicaid that the federal government is initially providing 100% funding for just to make sure that about 5 million American won't received necessary medical services. They really don't want people to receive medical services they need but can't afford so of course they don't want "Obamacare" to succeed in accomplishing that. They should be very concerned because it actually looks like it might succeed.
I think liberals have less reason to be concerned as more time passes. In WA where I live 15% of those expected to sign up for insurance did so the first week. At that rate far more that were expected to sign up for "Obamacare" will do so before January 1st.
|
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Oct 22, 2013 17:10:14 GMT
As noted if the sample was not random then the study is problematic but I would assume that even Fox News employed a polling agency that would ensure that the poll was conducted based upon a random sample. Assuming that being the case the study if actually fairly accurate as it would only have a margin of error of about +/- 4% but that isn't what's I believe it claims only =/-3%, in fact, but I would dispute the accuracy of that on the basis that the sample is so numerically tiny compared with the breadth of opinion it is supposed to be representing. |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 22, 2013 17:42:49 GMT
A poll of 900 people? And what was the balance of those 'random' 'registered voters' between declared party affiliations? The balance of demographics of them if they were chosen at 'random'? Nowhere near big enough a study to be portrayed as any kind of 'representative sample' across the entire population of the USA, so the results should really be considered as nothing other than entirely meaningless in terms of the whole country.
Assuming that being the case the study if actually fairly accurate as it would only have a margin of error of about +/- 4% but that isn't what's really important.
All the poll established is that a large percentage of people were "somewhat concerned" or "very concerned" with the Affordable Care Act and they should be. Regardless of whether they are "liberals" or "conservatives" they have reason to be concerned. The "liberals" are concerned that not enough people will enroll in the health care insurance programs and the Republicans are concerned that too many will enroll. Both related to whether the program will succeed in providing health care benefits to those in American that would die or not receive medical services. The "liberals" are afraid that not enough people will get the health care services they need and Republicans are afraid of people getting health care services.
Both sides have concerns that related to the "success" of Obamacare. Liberals are afraid it could fail by not providing health care services to enough people and Conservatives are afraid it could succeed by providing health care services to too many people.
Hell, several Republican states have even refused to expand Medicaid that the federal government is initially providing 100% funding for just to make sure that about 5 million American won't received necessary medical services. They really don't want people to receive medical services they need but can't afford so of course they don't want "Obamacare" to succeed in accomplishing that. They should be very concerned because it actually looks like it might succeed.
I think liberals have less reason to be concerned as more time passes. In WA where I live 15% of those expected to sign up for insurance did so the first week. At that rate far more that were expected to sign up for "Obamacare" will do so before January 1st.
"Yeah.....I'll pay for it for a couple years.....and then I won't. AFTER you get millions more to enroll, I'll be backing right back out on ya. I'm Uncle Sam; and I'm here to help. You believe that, don't ya???"  |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 22, 2013 17:57:42 GMT
The article that is the centerpiece of the OP--that brands Tea Part members as "nihilists" who (allegedly) "hate government," and their supporters as racists and ethnocentrists--is, at best, highly tendentious. More to the point, it is highly inaccurate. The overwhelming majority of those of us on the right do not "hate government"; rather, we reject the Hobbesian concept of government (i.e. the Leviatan state, that is authoritatively superior to the individual). And many of us also reject the theory of federal supremacy (as embodied in the so-called "Supremacy Clause" of the US Constitution: Article VI, Clause 2), and instead favor states' rights and the attendant doctrine of nullification. As for the charge of racism--well, that is almost laughable, considering that many of us supported Herman Cain in the primaries for a very long time. (Of course, the charge is not really meant to have any evidence in support of it; but it is merely intended to tar those who are targeted with the charge, and thereby diminish their moral authority...)
I'm a card carrying Libertarian with my political philosophy firmly based upon Classical Liberalism that was the foundation for government in the United States. I also oppose large government but there is a difference between me and the Tea Party Movement. The Tea Party Movement has focused on the symptom of problems in the United States while ignoring the actual problems that created the "Leviathan" federal government. If we eliminate or reduce the problem the it reduces the size of the government. Simple ignoring the problem and addressing the symptom does not eliminate or reduce the problem.
For example both the Tea Party and I want to reduce welfare spending. The problem isn't the welfare spending though. Welfare assistance mitigates the effects of poverty but does not end poverty. It is a symptom of the poverty and the only way to reduce the spending is to reduce the poverty. We need to solve the problem of poverty which, in turn, reduces any need to mitigate the effects of poverty. The Tea Party Movement has not made any proposals that could be implemented that would reduce the poverty which, in turn, reduces the need to mitigate the effects of poverty and would reduce government spending on Welfare Assistance. Reducing poverty needs to be the goal and not simply cutting welfare assistance while doing nothing to address the poverty.
The Tea Party likes to claim that they support the US Constitution but in the above statement it clearly establishes that they don't. Someone that supports the US Constitution supports ALL OF IT and not just the parts they like while rejecting the parts they don't like. The "Supremacy Clause" is a part of the US Constitution and every State in the nation agreed to that clause in the US Constitution. If the every State agreed to the Supremacy Clause they no State or person has any right to say that they don't support it. I don't like the 16th Amendment but I accept it as being the Supreme Law of the Land when it comes to federal taxation.
The US Constitution is technically a social contract established by the States and is not a social contract of the People. The authority for the States to form this national social contract was delegated to the States by the State Constitutions that are a social contract of the People of the State. Don't like the US Constitution? Fine, that's a matter for the person to deal with by contacting their State government. If the States decide to change the US Constitution they can do that by Constitutional Amendment under Article V. They don't even need to involve the federal government in changing the US Constitution. As it stands right now the States and Agreed to the Supremacy clause based upon State's Rights so that's the way it is.
Get over it Tea Party and start supporting the US Constitution as opposed to simply giving lip service to it. If you don't like provisions of the US Constitution then work within your State to propose and Amendment that changes the US Constitution and then, after that happens, you can support the revised Constitution.
As for the claims of racism against the Tea Party this is more by correlation and logical deduction than anything else. A single example, such as some support for Hermann Cain, is anecdotal at best. Hermann Cain is not the representative of African-Americans in the United States and many claim he's little more than an Uncle Tom although I don't personally make that claim. There are two more telling facts that support the logical conclusion of "racism" that are levied against the Tea Party. First of all is the fact that virtually no African-Americans support the Republican Party because they believe that the Republican Party does not represent all Americans regardless of race. This is also supported by the minority support of Hispanics that are typically very conservative in their political ideology but that don't generally support the Republican Party. 75% of Hispanics and virtually all African-Americans voted for Obama in the 2012 election. Based upon the 2012 election we can see that minorities apparently believe that the Republicans don't support minorities but instead focus on policies beneficial to "White" Americans as opposed to policies based upon "ALL" Americans.
Next is the simple fact that an undisputed 2012 study found that the majority of Americans had anti-black racial prejudice the highest percentage was with "Republicans" where 79% expressed explicit anti-black racial prejudice.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/27/poll-black-prejudice-america/1662067/
That leaves only 21% of "Republicans" that didn't express explicit anti-black racial prejudice and logic tells us that these were probably more centralist or liberal Republicans that are about as far away as possible for the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party that the Tea Party typically represents. The logical deduction would be that a member of the Tea Party Movement is probably one of the 79% that express explicit anti-black racial prejudice and racial prejudice is the primary cause of racism. I know its a matter of connecting the dots but the dots are right there for everyone to connect.
Yes, Republicans like to express the opinion that this study was invalid but have never produced any evidence that would contradict it. It's been over a year since the results of this study were released and subjected to peer review and yet not a single study since then, that could easily have been conducted, contradicts it. If it's wrong then an ultra right-wing organization like the Heritage Foundation would have certainly funded a scientific study to discredit this study but that hasn't happened and the reason is clear. The study was relatively accurate and can't really be disputed by another study.
I'll just leave "Republicans" and the "Tea Party" members here with the challenge. If 79% of Republicans don't express explicit anti-black racial prejudice then what percentage do and based upon what study? I'm open for a legitimate rebuttal but simple expressing unsupportable opinions is not legitimate rebuttal.
If the 79% percentage is incorrect then what is the correct percentage?
Bottom line for the Tea Party.
1) Propose solutions to the problems in America so they can be addressed and the size of the government will automatically reduce itself because the problems will no longer exist or will exist to a lesser degree. Addressing just the symptoms doesn't resolve the problems.
2) Support the US Constitution, ALL OF IT, regardless of whether you like the individuals provisions or not. If you don't like a provision then lead an effort to change it but until it is changed support the US Constitution as is.
3) Address racial prejudice within the Republican Party, especially if you're not one of those with racial prejudice, because racial prejudice results in racial discrimination.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 22, 2013 18:09:45 GMT
That's because many of us are SMART enough to know when we're being snookered. It's the old "bait and switch."
"Yeah.....I'll pay for it for a couple years.....and then I won't. AFTER you get millions more to enroll, I'll be backing right back out on ya. I'm Uncle Sam; and I'm here to help. You believe that, don't ya???"
Out of these 5 million people some are unquestionably going to get sick, many with life threatening illnesses, but they won't have the money to pay for medical treatment (except for immediate life saving procedures that an emergency room would provide) nor will they have insurance to pay for treatment.
So what are the SMART people proposing so that these 5 million people will be treated if they happen to become sick?
Remember without any proposal on how they are to be treated and how that treatment is paid for we end up with the default proposal of: 1) Don't get sick, or; 2) If you get sick die quickly.
SO WHAT'S THE SMART PEOPLE PLAN?
I love SMART people plans so I'm just waiting to find out what it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 22, 2013 18:21:21 GMT
A poll of 900 people? And what was the balance of those 'random' 'registered voters' between declared party affiliations? The balance of demographics of them if they were chosen at 'random'? Nowhere near big enough a study to be portrayed as any kind of 'representative sample' across the entire population of the USA, so the results should really be considered as nothing other than entirely meaningless in terms of the whole country.
Both sides have concerns that related to the "success" of Obamacare. Liberals are afraid it could fail by not providing health care services to enough people and Conservatives are afraid it could succeed by providing health care services to too many people.
It is just not correct to assert that Republicans are afraid that "too many [people] will enroll" in ObamaCare; or that conservatives are afraid of its "providing health care services to too many people." I am both a Republican and a conservative; and I resent this heavy-handed, statist approach to healthcare in America. For openers, it is inherently coercive, as witnessed by its individual mandate. Moreover, it is almost certain to lead, eventually, to healthcare rationing--especially among seniors, since that is where the big (potential) savings really are. And I also do not like the fact that it serves as an incentive for companies to keep their personnel beneath the magic number of 50, if at all possible; and that it also serves as an incentive to reduce (at least some) full-time workers to less than 30 hours per week... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 22, 2013 18:22:27 GMT
As noted if the sample was not random then the study is problematic but I would assume that even Fox News employed a polling agency that would ensure that the poll was conducted based upon a random sample. Assuming that being the case the study if actually fairly accurate as it would only have a margin of error of about +/- 4% but that isn't what's I believe it claims only =/-3%, in fact, but I would dispute the accuracy of that on the basis that the sample is so numerically tiny compared with the breadth of opinion it is supposed to be representing.
Trust me, it's accurate assuming a random sampling.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 22, 2013 18:42:15 GMT
It is just not correct to assert that Republicans are afraid that "too many [people] will enroll" in ObamaCare; or that conservatives are afraid of its "providing health care services to too many people." I am both a Republican and a conservative; and I resent this heavy-handed, statist approach to healthcare in America. For openers, it is inherently coercive, as witnessed by its individual mandate. Moreover, it is almost certain to lead, eventually, to healthcare rationing--especially among seniors, since that is where the big (potential) savings really are. And I also do not like the fact that it serves as an incentive for companies to keep their personnel beneath the magic number of 50, if at all possible; and that it also serves as an incentive to reduce (at least some) full-time workers to less than 30 hours per week...
Whether it will lead to health care rationing is speculative at best because we don't know if that will actually happen. What I do know it that private health clinics in my state (WA) accept private insurance but overwhelmingly reject new Medicare/Medicaid patients because they lose money treating them due to underpayments by these two programs. Unless Medicare/Medicaid increase their payments (that cost a lot of money) then all of the new Medicaid patents will be forced into the hospitals that are required to treat them and that is problematic. It wouldn't technically be "rationing" but instead too much demand for the hospital to handle resulting in delays of treatment.
In spite of the above whether "Obamacare" works or not is if it provides health care services to millions of people that wouldn't receive health care without it. It's estimated that 45,000 people die annually because they don't have health insurance. Millions of people don't receive medical services for non-fatal illnesses because they don't have insurance and don't qualify for Medicaid. If "Obamacare" prevents a significant percentage of these people from dying prematurely and provides necessary medical services that people couldn't previously afford then it's a success regardless of cost or coercion.
It's pretty hard to argue against a program that saves lives and provide essential medical services over costs and coercion alone. The entire "Obamacare" program spending is dwarfed by DOD spending just so we can play World Cop for example. I've offered a similiar choice before related to feeding the poor in American that I can apply to "Obamacare" to think about.
Given the choice between saving American lives and providing necessary medical services and playing World Cop I'm going to vote for saving lives and providing medical services.
I don't like "Obamacare" because, as noted, it's coercive and expensive but it's far better than nothing. I want to see solid proposals that provide the same life saving and necessary medical services for Americans that isn't as coercive and that doesn't cost so much. The "NOTHING" option isn't an option IMHO but that's all I'm hearing from Conservatives.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 22, 2013 20:33:44 GMT
Shiva: "I want to see solid proposals that provide the same life saving and necessary medical services for Americans that isn't as coercive and that doesn't cost so much. The "NOTHING" option isn't an option IMHO but that's all I'm hearing from Conservatives."
Life saving and necessary medical services?
Are you aware that most ALL, if not ALL, health insurance plans out there today (before Obamacare) include preventative care services?
Are you aware that there are already out there low-cost insurance like HMO's....and Catastrophic Insurance......for the young or otherwise healthy who might not want expensive health plans and/or to be forced into a tax penalty for NOT purchasing them?
Are you aware that there are already out there in every state I know of low-cost, or no-cost clinics for the very poor?
Are you aware that even those who are illegal get treated at hospital emergency rooms.....and do NOT die as a result of their accident/illness?
(That's how humanitarian we are!!) (So, with Obamacare, as our Saviour.....can we now turn them away....or is that cost going to continue? I'm betting that cost does NOT go away for taxpayers---what do you bet?_)
Are you aware that most large and medium-sized companies provide health insurance coverage for the employee AND their families at a better cost than they could buy it on the open market? (pre-Obamacare, that is)
Are you aware that under Obamacare....the cost of having a low-cost plan also includes a huge yearly deductible....in some cases 5,000 to 8,000 dollars?
Are you aware that normally the very large federal gov't is less likely to run something this large as well as the private sector? Think about it......why do they keep raising the price of our stamps? Why are other mailing avenues being used more and more about citizens? It's because the private sector can do it better, more efficient, and less cheaper.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 23, 2013 0:23:16 GMT
The article that is the centerpiece of the OP--that brands Tea Part members as "nihilists" who (allegedly) "hate government," and their supporters as racists and ethnocentrists--is, at best, highly tendentious. More to the point, it is highly inaccurate. The overwhelming majority of those of us on the right do not "hate government"; rather, we reject the Hobbesian concept of government (i.e. the Leviatan state, that is authoritatively superior to the individual). And many of us also reject the theory of federal supremacy (as embodied in the so-called "Supremacy Clause" of the US Constitution: Article VI, Clause 2), and instead favor states' rights and the attendant doctrine of nullification. As for the charge of racism--well, that is almost laughable, considering that many of us supported Herman Cain in the primaries for a very long time. (Of course, the charge is not really meant to have any evidence in support of it; but it is merely intended to tar those who are targeted with the charge, and thereby diminish their moral authority...)
I'm a card carrying Libertarian with my political philosophy firmly based upon Classical Liberalism that was the foundation for government in the United States. I also oppose large government but there is a difference between me and the Tea Party Movement. The Tea Party Movement has focused on the symptom of problems in the United States while ignoring the actual problems that created the "Leviathan" federal government. If we eliminate or reduce the problem the it reduces the size of the government. Simple ignoring the problem and addressing the symptom does not eliminate or reduce the problem.
For example both the Tea Party and I want to reduce welfare spending. The problem isn't the welfare spending though. Welfare assistance mitigates the effects of poverty but does not end poverty. It is a symptom of the poverty and the only way to reduce the spending is to reduce the poverty. We need to solve the problem of poverty which, in turn, reduces any need to mitigate the effects of poverty. The Tea Party Movement has not made any proposals that could be implemented that would reduce the poverty which, in turn, reduces the need to mitigate the effects of poverty and would reduce government spending on Welfare Assistance. Reducing poverty needs to be the goal and not simply cutting welfare assistance while doing nothing to address the poverty.
The Tea Party likes to claim that they support the US Constitution but in the above statement it clearly establishes that they don't. Someone that supports the US Constitution supports ALL OF IT and not just the parts they like while rejecting the parts they don't like. The "Supremacy Clause" is a part of the US Constitution and every State in the nation agreed to that clause in the US Constitution. If the every State agreed to the Supremacy Clause they no State or person has any right to say that they don't support it. I don't like the 16th Amendment but I accept it as being the Supreme Law of the Land when it comes to federal taxation.
The US Constitution is technically a social contract established by the States and is not a social contract of the People. The authority for the States to form this national social contract was delegated to the States by the State Constitutions that are a social contract of the People of the State. Don't like the US Constitution? Fine, that's a matter for the person to deal with by contacting their State government. If the States decide to change the US Constitution they can do that by Constitutional Amendment under Article V. They don't even need to involve the federal government in changing the US Constitution. As it stands right now the States and Agreed to the Supremacy clause based upon State's Rights so that's the way it is.
Get over it Tea Party and start supporting the US Constitution as opposed to simply giving lip service to it. If you don't like provisions of the US Constitution then work within your State to propose and Amendment that changes the US Constitution and then, after that happens, you can support the revised Constitution.
As for the claims of racism against the Tea Party this is more by correlation and logical deduction than anything else. A single example, such as some support for Hermann Cain, is anecdotal at best. Hermann Cain is not the representative of African-Americans in the United States and many claim he's little more than an Uncle Tom although I don't personally make that claim. There are two more telling facts that support the logical conclusion of "racism" that are levied against the Tea Party. First of all is the fact that virtually no African-Americans support the Republican Party because they believe that the Republican Party does not represent all Americans regardless of race. This is also supported by the minority support of Hispanics that are typically very conservative in their political ideology but that don't generally support the Republican Party. 75% of Hispanics and virtually all African-Americans voted for Obama in the 2012 election. Based upon the 2012 election we can see that minorities apparently believe that the Republicans don't support minorities but instead focus on policies beneficial to "White" Americans as opposed to policies based upon "ALL" Americans.
Next is the simple fact that an undisputed 2012 study found that the majority of Americans had anti-black racial prejudice the highest percentage was with "Republicans" where 79% expressed explicit anti-black racial prejudice.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/27/poll-black-prejudice-america/1662067/
That leaves only 21% of "Republicans" that didn't express explicit anti-black racial prejudice and logic tells us that these were probably more centralist or liberal Republicans that are about as far away as possible for the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party that the Tea Party typically represents. The logical deduction would be that a member of the Tea Party Movement is probably one of the 79% that express explicit anti-black racial prejudice and racial prejudice is the primary cause of racism. I know its a matter of connecting the dots but the dots are right there for everyone to connect.
Yes, Republicans like to express the opinion that this study was invalid but have never produced any evidence that would contradict it. It's been over a year since the results of this study were released and subjected to peer review and yet not a single study since then, that could easily have been conducted, contradicts it. If it's wrong then an ultra right-wing organization like the Heritage Foundation would have certainly funded a scientific study to discredit this study but that hasn't happened and the reason is clear. The study was relatively accurate and can't really be disputed by another study.
I'll just leave "Republicans" and the "Tea Party" members here with the challenge. If 79% of Republicans don't express explicit anti-black racial prejudice then what percentage do and based upon what study? I'm open for a legitimate rebuttal but simple expressing unsupportable opinions is not legitimate rebuttal.
If the 79% percentage is incorrect then what is the correct percentage?
Bottom line for the Tea Party.
1) Propose solutions to the problems in America so they can be addressed and the size of the government will automatically reduce itself because the problems will no longer exist or will exist to a lesser degree. Addressing just the symptoms doesn't resolve the problems.
2) Support the US Constitution, ALL OF IT, regardless of whether you like the individuals provisions or not. If you don't like a provision then lead an effort to change it but until it is changed support the US Constitution as is.
3) Address racial prejudice within the Republican Party, especially if you're not one of those with racial prejudice, because racial prejudice results in racial discrimination.
I would respond to the three points listed at the end of the previous post, as follows: (1) Why should it be the obligation of the federal government to "propose solutions to the problems in America"? (I believe the old-fashioned term, "bootstraps," leaps to mind here.) (2) I would be far more inclined to support "ALL" of the US Constitution (caps in original) if the left would do the same. But, given its tendency to ignore the Tenth Amendment, and the limitations placed upon the fereral government by it, I can see no good reason to fetishize the so-called "Supremacy Clause"... (3) I really do not need another poll to establish that it is an absurdity to claim that almost four-fifths of all Republicans are "racist." Oh, and a fourth point: The observation that it is "speculative at best" to suppose that healthcare rationing is where ObamaCare will inevitably lead, is downright disingenuous. Especially for someone who claims such a fealty to the process of "connecting the dots." After all, if a large part of ObamaCare's raison d'etre is to reduce healthcare costs significantly, how better to accomplish that goal than through the means of healthcare rationing--especially for seniors, who (it may be rationalized) have "already lived their lives," and are (supposedly) due to step aside? And one more matter: To argue that it is "pretty hard to argue against a program that saves lives and provide essential medical services over costs and coercion alone" is to subordinate principle to undiluted pragmatism; and I find that most disappointing... |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 23, 2013 2:17:28 GMT
I like this post because it is worthy of rebuttal.
I'm a card carrying Libertarian with my political philosophy firmly based upon Classical Liberalism that was the foundation for government in the United States. I also oppose large government but there is a difference between me and the Tea Party Movement. The Tea Party Movement has focused on the symptom of problems in the United States while ignoring the actual problems that created the "Leviathan" federal government. If we eliminate or reduce the problem the it reduces the size of the government. Simple ignoring the problem and addressing the symptom does not eliminate or reduce the problem.
For example both the Tea Party and I want to reduce welfare spending. The problem isn't the welfare spending though. Welfare assistance mitigates the effects of poverty but does not end poverty. It is a symptom of the poverty and the only way to reduce the spending is to reduce the poverty. We need to solve the problem of poverty which, in turn, reduces any need to mitigate the effects of poverty. The Tea Party Movement has not made any proposals that could be implemented that would reduce the poverty which, in turn, reduces the need to mitigate the effects of poverty and would reduce government spending on Welfare Assistance. Reducing poverty needs to be the goal and not simply cutting welfare assistance while doing nothing to address the poverty.
The Tea Party likes to claim that they support the US Constitution but in the above statement it clearly establishes that they don't. Someone that supports the US Constitution supports ALL OF IT and not just the parts they like while rejecting the parts they don't like. The "Supremacy Clause" is a part of the US Constitution and every State in the nation agreed to that clause in the US Constitution. If the every State agreed to the Supremacy Clause they no State or person has any right to say that they don't support it. I don't like the 16th Amendment but I accept it as being the Supreme Law of the Land when it comes to federal taxation.
The US Constitution is technically a social contract established by the States and is not a social contract of the People. The authority for the States to form this national social contract was delegated to the States by the State Constitutions that are a social contract of the People of the State. Don't like the US Constitution? Fine, that's a matter for the person to deal with by contacting their State government. If the States decide to change the US Constitution they can do that by Constitutional Amendment under Article V. They don't even need to involve the federal government in changing the US Constitution. As it stands right now the States and Agreed to the Supremacy clause based upon State's Rights so that's the way it is.
Get over it Tea Party and start supporting the US Constitution as opposed to simply giving lip service to it. If you don't like provisions of the US Constitution then work within your State to propose and Amendment that changes the US Constitution and then, after that happens, you can support the revised Constitution.
As for the claims of racism against the Tea Party this is more by correlation and logical deduction than anything else. A single example, such as some support for Hermann Cain, is anecdotal at best. Hermann Cain is not the representative of African-Americans in the United States and many claim he's little more than an Uncle Tom although I don't personally make that claim. There are two more telling facts that support the logical conclusion of "racism" that are levied against the Tea Party. First of all is the fact that virtually no African-Americans support the Republican Party because they believe that the Republican Party does not represent all Americans regardless of race. This is also supported by the minority support of Hispanics that are typically very conservative in their political ideology but that don't generally support the Republican Party. 75% of Hispanics and virtually all African-Americans voted for Obama in the 2012 election. Based upon the 2012 election we can see that minorities apparently believe that the Republicans don't support minorities but instead focus on policies beneficial to "White" Americans as opposed to policies based upon "ALL" Americans.
Next is the simple fact that an undisputed 2012 study found that the majority of Americans had anti-black racial prejudice the highest percentage was with "Republicans" where 79% expressed explicit anti-black racial prejudice.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/27/poll-black-prejudice-america/1662067/
That leaves only 21% of "Republicans" that didn't express explicit anti-black racial prejudice and logic tells us that these were probably more centralist or liberal Republicans that are about as far away as possible for the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party that the Tea Party typically represents. The logical deduction would be that a member of the Tea Party Movement is probably one of the 79% that express explicit anti-black racial prejudice and racial prejudice is the primary cause of racism. I know its a matter of connecting the dots but the dots are right there for everyone to connect.
Yes, Republicans like to express the opinion that this study was invalid but have never produced any evidence that would contradict it. It's been over a year since the results of this study were released and subjected to peer review and yet not a single study since then, that could easily have been conducted, contradicts it. If it's wrong then an ultra right-wing organization like the Heritage Foundation would have certainly funded a scientific study to discredit this study but that hasn't happened and the reason is clear. The study was relatively accurate and can't really be disputed by another study.
I'll just leave "Republicans" and the "Tea Party" members here with the challenge. If 79% of Republicans don't express explicit anti-black racial prejudice then what percentage do and based upon what study? I'm open for a legitimate rebuttal but simple expressing unsupportable opinions is not legitimate rebuttal.
If the 79% percentage is incorrect then what is the correct percentage?
Bottom line for the Tea Party.
1) Propose solutions to the problems in America so they can be addressed and the size of the government will automatically reduce itself because the problems will no longer exist or will exist to a lesser degree. Addressing just the symptoms doesn't resolve the problems.
2) Support the US Constitution, ALL OF IT, regardless of whether you like the individuals provisions or not. If you don't like a provision then lead an effort to change it but until it is changed support the US Constitution as is.
3) Address racial prejudice within the Republican Party, especially if you're not one of those with racial prejudice, because racial prejudice results in racial discrimination.
I would respond to the three points listed at the end of the previous post, as follows: (1) Why should it be the obligation of the federal government to " ropose solutions to the problems in America"? (I believe the old-fashioned term, "bootstraps," leaps to mind here.)
(2) I would be far more inclined to support "ALL" of the US Constitution (caps in original) if the left would do the same. But, given its tendency to ignore the Tenth Amendment, and the limitations placed upon the fereral government by it, I can see no good reason to fetishize the so-called "Supremacy Clause"...
(3) I really do not need another poll to establish that it is an absurdity to claim that almost four-fifths of all Republicans are "racist."
Oh, and a fourth point: The observation that it is "speculative at best" to suppose that healthcare rationing is where ObamaCare will inevitably lead, is downright disingenuous. Especially for someone who claims such a fealty to the process of "connecting the dots." After all, if a large part of ObamaCare's raison d'etre is to reduce healthcare costs significantly, how better to accomplish that goal than through the means of healthcare rationing--especially for seniors, who (it may be rationalized) have "already lived their lives," and are (supposedly) due to step aside?
And one more matter: To argue that it is "pretty hard to argue against a program that saves lives and provide essential medical services over costs and coercion alone" is to subordinate principle to undiluted pragmatism; and I find that most disappointing...
www.us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781595230690,00.html
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 23, 2013 11:49:51 GMT
I would respond to the three points listed at the end of the previous post, as follows: (1) Why should it be the obligation of the federal government to " ropose solutions to the problems in America"? (I believe the old-fashioned term, "bootstraps," leaps to mind here.)
(2) I would be far more inclined to support "ALL" of the US Constitution (caps in original) if the left would do the same. But, given its tendency to ignore the Tenth Amendment, and the limitations placed upon the fereral government by it, I can see no good reason to fetishize the so-called "Supremacy Clause"...
(3) I really do not need another poll to establish that it is an absurdity to claim that almost four-fifths of all Republicans are "racist."
Oh, and a fourth point: The observation that it is "speculative at best" to suppose that healthcare rationing is where ObamaCare will inevitably lead, is downright disingenuous. Especially for someone who claims such a fealty to the process of "connecting the dots." After all, if a large part of ObamaCare's raison d'etre is to reduce healthcare costs significantly, how better to accomplish that goal than through the means of healthcare rationing--especially for seniors, who (it may be rationalized) have "already lived their lives," and are (supposedly) due to step aside?
And one more matter: To argue that it is "pretty hard to argue against a program that saves lives and provide essential medical services over costs and coercion alone" is to subordinate principle to undiluted pragmatism; and I find that most disappointing...
www.us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781595230690,00.html
Unfortunately the link that JP5 provided didn't work but here's a link to a fairly good in depth article on Classical Liberalism.
www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism
We could summarize classical liberalism as a political philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and laissez-faire capitalism. The Declaration of Independence is generally described as being one of the most significant documents establishing classical liberalism as a political philosophy closely followed by the US Constitution that attempted to pragmatically implement the principles based upon the philosophy in forming of a government.
We should also note that the founders of America often fell far short of living up to the ideals that they espoused but that is not surprising. Thomas Jefferson who penned that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights was also a slave owner although he opposed slavery. Many believed the black man was inferior to the white man. This conflict between actions and ideals is not to be unexpected as it is virtually impossible to live up to an ideal. The ideal defines utopia and utopia is an unattainable goal. The ideal is what we must strive for but that which we will never achieve.
There were really two political ideologies in America at the time of the American Revolution. There were those that believed completely in classical liberalism as it applied to "all men" but then there were those that believed that politically the goal was to establish a European (white) nation in America. For them classical liberalism only related to the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants that had immigrated from Europe. They had no problem with treating the "Blacks" and "Indians" as non-equals as they believed them to be inferior to the "White" race. They had no problem with persecuting those that were not Protestants such as the Mormons that were heavily persecuted and literally driven from the United States. Not using today's definition of "conservative" as used to describe Republicans but instead using the word based upon the definition that a "conservative" seeks to retain "traditional values" they sought to retain the traditional European or more specifically English "values" of "WASP superiority" and they were predominately located in the Southern Slave states.
The founding of America was really based upon an alliance between those with "classical liberal" ideologies and those with "European Conservative" ideologies of the times and to achieve the creation of the United States there were pragmatic compromises. This division was represented by the "Free States" and the "Slave States" as each fell at the opposite end of the spectrum ideologically and we know that the US Constitution was a compromise between the two political ideologies. It allowed slavery to exist without endorsing it.
Classical liberal political ideologies remained the core of political beliefs in America but it was always a case of two steps forward and one step back. For example we eventually ended slavery but the "European Conservatives" in the South responded with segregation laws, racial discrimination, and the forming on the KKK that had tremendous political power and was America's foremost hate group and terrorist organization (and remains that today).
The KKK is a WASP organization and was behind many laws that were passed such as immigration restrictions on the immigration of the Chinese, Catholics and Jews to America historically. Few "Republicans" today seem to see the correlation of our current immigration laws that predominately restrict Hispanic immigration as being in the identical context of the prior immigration restrictions based upon WASP political ideology but the connection is undeniable. They're not considered to be "Whites" and they're "Catholics" and this is fundamentally no different than the prior restrictions placed upon Eastern European Jews that was backed by the KKK.
Back to the point and that is that both today's "social conservatives" and "progressive liberals" have all but abandoned the ideals of classical liberalism. Perhaps the best example is that both rely on "progressive" interpretations of the US Constitution. where examples can be provided.
"Social conservatives" embrace the restrictive immigration laws we have today and yet no where in the US Constitution is the power to regulate immigration enumerated. The word "immigration" isn't found in the US Constitution but the word "naturalization" is. It is a "progressive" interpretation to assume that everyone coming to the United States is doing so to become a US citizen. The actual Constitutional authority granted is for the Congress to create "uniform laws of naturalization" and not to prohibit or restrict immigration.
From the opposite "progressive liberal" end we have programs like Social Security where it requires a progressive interpretation of the clause in Article I Section 8 that authorizes taxation to provide for the general welfare of the United States. The United States is not the People of the United States. Had the authors wanted the federal government to provide for the "general welfare of the People" the Constitution would have said that.
Both "social conservatives" and "progressive liberals" are relying on a progressive interpretation of the clause also found in Article I Section 8 that the congress is to provide for the common defenses of the United States. The Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, and the Iraq War had nothing to do with defending the United States from foreign invasion or attack by another nation. We can't even rationalize the Afghanistan War as being in the defense of the United States because Afghanistan never attacked the United States. Not a single war that the United States has engaged in since WW II was in defense of the United States from a foreign attack or invasion by any nation.
As always I do propose solutions and when it comes to the US Constitution I've done this by proposing an amendment to it. One thing I've learned over time is that when their is a split Supreme Court decision upholding an action as Constitutional there is always a dissenting opinion that establishes that the upheld act is of dubious Constitutionality. That's why there is a dissent because one or more justices believe the act is unconstitutional and provide the arguments as to why it's unconstitutional. I've learned far more about our Constitution from actually reading the minority opinions in Supreme Court decisions than from the majority opinion. So I made a proposal for a Constitutional Amendment.
I also know that this proposed Amendment wouldn't find any support among either "social conservatives" or "progressive liberals" because both of them depend upon progressive interpretations of the Constitution that are virtually always reflected by a split decision of the US Supreme Court.
Today we find ourselves a long ways from the ideals of Classical Liberalism often because of the residual effects of "European Conservatism" based upon WASP superiority typically reflected by "social conservatives" as well as the "progressive liberals" that advocate un-enumerated powers of the federal government. It's often simple things that we've adopted that shouldn't exist.
We shouldn't, for example, have any "marriage" laws in the United States. The government should have never become involved in the partnerships formed by consenting adults. Our laws related to marriage should be exclusively about protecting the Rights of People involved in partnerships and not defining who can or cannot form such a partnership.
We shouldn't have federal social welfare programs because providing for the general welfare of the people is a responsibility of state government and not the federal government. The federal government should be limited by enumeration in addressing the matters affecting the States while State governments should be limited to addressing the matters of the People. That's how the structure of the United States was established. We had 13 individual sovereign nations that by contract (the US Constitution) formed an alliance to become the United States. That is how it should be.
But that's not where we're at and we must address that in a pragmatic manner. I can, for example, argue both sides of "Obamacare" to prove a point. Massachusetts had "Romneycare" that ensured that all of the citizens and residents had access to medical services. From a State's Rights standpoint we can't argue with the authority of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts creating "Romneycare" and if all of the States had a similar health care program then there wouldn't have been any arguments for "Obamacare" because a health care crisis wouldn't have existed. All Americans would have had access to the medical services they required. The problem then can be defined as a failure of State governments to provide for the welfare of the People of the State which is a responsibility of the State.
Can even a Tea Party Republican argue against the fact that the State governments were failing in a fundamental responsibility to the People by not ensuring that they had access to health care? The State government is responsible for the welfare of the People of the State (every State Constitution delegates this role to the State government) but the State governments were failing in fulfilling a identifiable responsibility. As I noted above providing for the general Welfare of the People is and has always been a responsibility of the State and not the Federal government but that was not happening when it came to health care.
The Tea Party Republicans can make the argument for "State's Rights" but with that also comes "State's Responsibilities" and clearly the State governments (Massachusetts excepted) were failing in their Responsibilities related to ensure that the People had adequate heath care.
I don't know if this would pass Constitutional muster but a federal law mandating that the States ensure that all of the citizens and residents of the state can have access for medical services would certainly be superior to "Obamacare" but it would also require a phased in implementation. The federal government shouldn't have to create such a mandate because the States should have already done this. The States are RESPONSIBLE for the general welfare of the citizens and residents of the State and health care for all is a part of ensuring the general welfare of the People.
The federal government would not have to become involved in legislating a mandate for employers to provide health insurance if the States, which control businesses originating from and/or within the State had a state requirement to provide health insurance.
We can certainly condemn the US government for "over-reach" in imposing federal mandates but we must also condemn the State governments that have traditionally failed in fulfilling their Responsibility to Provide for the General Welfare of the People.
I can condemn the Federal Government's funding of education for example but if the States were fully funding education, which is their responsibility, then why would they accept federal funding? They don't have to accept these funds.
A very long post but I try to explain my position. Much of what the federal government is doing is unconstitutional IMO but the driving factor in many cases was the failure of State government to fulfill their responsibilities. Would we have required Social Security if the States had mandated individual "pension" plans of some kind that ensured that workers would have the assets to retire on when they became too old to work? Certainly the States had this power because they control all businesses within the State. I'm not suggesting that was the best solution but Social Security was created because roughly 1/2 of the People didn't have the personal wealth accumulation to provide income when they were too old to work. Social Security didn't even address the problem of a lack of personal wealth accumulation but instead addressed the symptom that was a lack of income for old people.
Bottom line I'm a pragmatic libertarian looking for solutions to the problems and that takes us back towards the ideal of classical liberalism. We can never reach the ideal but it is the goal we must strive for in a pragmatic manner.
As noted I've not seen one Tea Party proposal addressing the actual problems but instead I see Tea Party proposals that merely address the symptoms of the problems. That is where the Tea Party Fails IMHO. We do not create anything by merely tearing down everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 23, 2013 14:23:16 GMT
Good post. And of course, most people KNOW that our Founding Fathers did NOT form our country based on "Classical Liberalism." That's ridiculous. I recommend a great book for those who mistakingly believe that. It's called, "Founding Conservatives: How a Group of Unsung Heroes Saved the American Revolution." It's by a liberal professor, David Lefer....who did years of research of original records on the subject after a student asked him who John Dickinson was....and he didn't really know. Through all his years of thorough research Lefer said he came to have a newfound respect for these conservatives for what they did in saving the Revolution and then shaping and writing the Constitution.
www.us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781595230690,00.html
Unfortunately the link that JP5 provided didn't work but here's a link to a fairly good in depth article on Classical Liberalism.
www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism
We could summarize classical liberalism as a political philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and laissez-faire capitalism. The Declaration of Independence is generally described as being one of the most significant documents establishing classical liberalism as a political philosophy closely followed by the US Constitution that attempted to pragmatically implement the principles based upon the philosophy in forming of a government.
We should also note that the founders of America often fell far short of living up to the ideals that they espoused but that is not surprising. Thomas Jefferson who penned that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights was also a slave owner although he opposed slavery. Many believed the black man was inferior to the white man. This conflict between actions and ideals is not to be unexpected as it is virtually impossible to live up to an ideal. The ideal defines utopia and utopia is an unattainable goal. The ideal is what we must strive for but that which we will never achieve.
There were really two political ideologies in America at the time of the American Revolution. There were those that believed completely in classical liberalism as it applied to "all men" but then there were those that believed that politically the goal was to establish a European (white) nation in America. For them classical liberalism only related to the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants that had immigrated from Europe. They had no problem with treating the "Blacks" and "Indians" as non-equals as they believed them to be inferior to the "White" race. They had no problem with persecuting those that were not Protestants such as the Mormons that were heavily persecuted and literally driven from the United States. Not using today's definition of "conservative" as used to describe Republicans but instead using the word based upon the definition that a "conservative" seeks to retain "traditional values" they sought to retain the traditional European or more specifically English "values" of "WASP superiority" and they were predominately located in the Southern Slave states.
The founding of America was really based upon an alliance between those with "classical liberal" ideologies and those with "European Conservative" ideologies of the times and to achieve the creation of the United States there were pragmatic compromises. This division was represented by the "Free States" and the "Slave States" as each fell at the opposite end of the spectrum ideologically and we know that the US Constitution was a compromise between the two political ideologies. It allowed slavery to exist without endorsing it.
Classical liberal political ideologies remained the core of political beliefs in America but it was always a case of two steps forward and one step back. For example we eventually ended slavery but the "European Conservatives" in the South responded with segregation laws, racial discrimination, and the forming on the KKK that had tremendous political power and was America's foremost hate group and terrorist organization (and remains that today).
The KKK is a WASP organization and was behind many laws that were passed such as immigration restrictions on the immigration of the Chinese, Catholics and Jews to America historically. Few "Republicans" today seem to see the correlation of our current immigration laws that predominately restrict Hispanic immigration as being in the identical context of the prior immigration restrictions based upon WASP political ideology but the connection is undeniable. They're not considered to be "Whites" and they're "Catholics" and this is fundamentally no different than the prior restrictions placed upon Eastern European Jews that was backed by the KKK.
Back to the point and that is that both today's "social conservatives" and "progressive liberals" have all but abandoned the ideals of classical liberalism. Perhaps the best example is that both rely on "progressive" interpretations of the US Constitution. where examples can be provided.
"Social conservatives" embrace the restrictive immigration laws we have today and yet no where in the US Constitution is the power to regulate immigration enumerated. The word "immigration" isn't found in the US Constitution but the word "naturalization" is. It is a "progressive" interpretation to assume that everyone coming to the United States is doing so to become a US citizen. The actual Constitutional authority granted is for the Congress to create "uniform laws of naturalization" and not to prohibit or restrict immigration.
From the opposite "progressive liberal" end we have programs like Social Security where it requires a progressive interpretation of the clause in Article I Section 8 that authorizes taxation to provide for the general welfare of the United States. The United States is not the People of the United States. Had the authors wanted the federal government to provide for the "general welfare of the People" the Constitution would have said that.
Both "social conservatives" and "progressive liberals" are relying on a progressive interpretation of the clause also found in Article I Section 8 that the congress is to provide for the common defenses of the United States. The Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, and the Iraq War had nothing to do with defending the United States from foreign invasion or attack by another nation. We can't even rationalize the Afghanistan War as being in the defense of the United States because Afghanistan never attacked the United States. Not a single war that the United States has engaged in since WW II was in defense of the United States from a foreign attack or invasion by any nation.
As always I do propose solutions and when it comes to the US Constitution I've done this by proposing an amendment to it. One thing I've learned over time is that when their is a split Supreme Court decision upholding an action as Constitutional there is always a dissenting opinion that establishes that the upheld act is of dubious Constitutionality. That's why there is a dissent because one or more justices believe the act is unconstitutional and provide the arguments as to why it's unconstitutional. I've learned far more about our Constitution from actually reading the minority opinions in Supreme Court decisions than from the majority opinion. So I made a proposal for a Constitutional Amendment.
I also know that this proposed Amendment wouldn't find any support among either "social conservatives" or "progressive liberals" because both of them depend upon progressive interpretations of the Constitution that are virtually always reflected by a split decision of the US Supreme Court.
Today we find ourselves a long ways from the ideals of Classical Liberalism often because of the residual effects of "European Conservatism" based upon WASP superiority typically reflected by "social conservatives" as well as the "progressive liberals" that advocate un-enumerated powers of the federal government. It's often simple things that we've adopted that shouldn't exist.
We shouldn't, for example, have any "marriage" laws in the United States. The government should have never become involved in the partnerships formed by consenting adults. Our laws related to marriage should be exclusively about protecting the Rights of People involved in partnerships and not defining who can or cannot form such a partnership.
We shouldn't have federal social welfare programs because providing for the general welfare of the people is a responsibility of state government and not the federal government. The federal government should be limited by enumeration in addressing the matters affecting the States while State governments should be limited to addressing the matters of the People. That's how the structure of the United States was established. We had 13 individual sovereign nations that by contract (the US Constitution) formed an alliance to become the United States. That is how it should be.
But that's not where we're at and we must address that in a pragmatic manner. I can, for example, argue both sides of "Obamacare" to prove a point. Massachusetts had "Romneycare" that ensured that all of the citizens and residents had access to medical services. From a State's Rights standpoint we can't argue with the authority of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts creating "Romneycare" and if all of the States had a similar health care program then there wouldn't have been any arguments for "Obamacare" because a health care crisis wouldn't have existed. All Americans would have had access to the medical services they required. The problem then can be defined as a failure of State governments to provide for the welfare of the People of the State which is a responsibility of the State.
Can even a Tea Party Republican argue against the fact that the State governments were failing in a fundamental responsibility to the People by not ensuring that they had access to health care? The State government is responsible for the welfare of the People of the State (every State Constitution delegates this role to the State government) but the State governments were failing in fulfilling a identifiable responsibility. As I noted above providing for the general Welfare of the People is and has always been a responsibility of the State and not the Federal government but that was not happening when it came to health care.
The Tea Party Republicans can make the argument for "State's Rights" but with that also comes "State's Responsibilities" and clearly the State governments (Massachusetts excepted) were failing in their Responsibilities related to ensure that the People had adequate heath care.
I don't know if this would pass Constitutional muster but a federal law mandating that the States ensure that all of the citizens and residents of the state can have access for medical services would certainly be superior to "Obamacare" but it would also require a phased in implementation. The federal government shouldn't have to create such a mandate because the States should have already done this. The States are RESPONSIBLE for the general welfare of the citizens and residents of the State and health care for all is a part of ensuring the general welfare of the People.
The federal government would not have to become involved in legislating a mandate for employers to provide health insurance if the States, which control businesses originating from and/or within the State had a state requirement to provide health insurance.
We can certainly condemn the US government for "over-reach" in imposing federal mandates but we must also condemn the State governments that have traditionally failed in fulfilling their Responsibility to Provide for the General Welfare of the People.
I can condemn the Federal Government's funding of education for example but if the States were fully funding education, which is their responsibility, then why would they accept federal funding? They don't have to accept these funds.
A very long post but I try to explain my position. Much of what the federal government is doing is unconstitutional IMO but the driving factor in many cases was the failure of State government to fulfill their responsibilities. Would we have required Social Security if the States had mandated individual "pension" plans of some kind that ensured that workers would have the assets to retire on when they became too old to work? Certainly the States had this power because they control all businesses within the State. I'm not suggesting that was the best solution but Social Security was created because roughly 1/2 of the People didn't have the personal wealth accumulation to provide income when they were too old to work. Social Security didn't even address the problem of a lack of personal wealth accumulation but instead addressed the symptom that was a lack of income for old people.
Bottom line I'm a pragmatic libertarian looking for solutions to the problems and that takes us back towards the ideal of classical liberalism. We can never reach the ideal but it is the goal we must strive for in a pragmatic manner.
As noted I've not seen one Tea Party proposal addressing the actual problems but instead I see Tea Party proposals that merely address the symptoms of the problems. That is where the Tea Party Fails IMHO. We do not create anything by merely tearing down everything.
Let me begin by commending the above poster for his issuing a thoughtful response. This is certainly a step in the right direction. But, whereas I agree with his assertion that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, I disagree as concerning other points. For instance: The easy correlation between the anti-Catholic and anti-nonwhite biases of 100 years ago and the opposition to the (illegal) invasion of the Southwest nowadays is simply preposterous. Some of us revere this nation's sovereignty; and to endorse (tacitly, at least) the utter destruction of that sovereignty--which is precisely what unregulated, unfettered "immigration" does--is repellent to us. And the notion that the several states have a "responsibility" to enact their own analogues to RomneyCare is equally ludicrous, it seems to me. (Note: This is not to suggest that healthcare insurance in America was just hunky-dorey, in every conceivable way, prior to ObamaCare--and I have suggested, in some other political forums, some fundamental changes I would propose; some of which are actually a part of ObamaCare--but I do not believe in such an expansive interpretation of "the general welfare" as to suppose that either the individual states or the federal government should be made responsible for healthcare insurance.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 23, 2013 15:19:26 GMT
Life saving and necessary medical services?
Are you aware that most ALL, if not ALL, health insurance plans out there today (before Obamacare) include preventative care services?
That's one of the flaws with "Obamacare" because even with the subsidies some people are going to be forced to purchase insurance that they can't really afford even after the subsidies. Many of these people really needed Medicaid and "Obamacare" did expand that but unfortunately many states have opted out of the expansion of Medicaid leaving about 5 million of these people that couldn't even afford a dime for insurance or medical services out in the cold with nothing.
As I previously mentioned if Medicaid had fulfilled it's Mission Statement of providing health care services for those requiring the services but couldn't afford them then there wouldn't have been a health care crisis in America that "Obamacare" was created to address. What we can also see is that not only didn't the US Congress fund Medicaid so that it would fulfill it's Mission Statement but because Medicaid was jointly funded by the Federal and State government many of the States wouldn't have funded it either. The expansion of Medicaid was an attempt to fulfill it's original Mission Statement and 26 (?) States have refused to accept that expansion even though it wouldn't have initially required any funding by them.
What do you think the odds would have been ten years ago if the Federal government decided to expand Medicaid so that it fulfilled it's Mission Statement but had only put up the 50% funding the federal government is responsible for? It would have prevented "Obamacare" from ever being considered but I seriously doubt that most States would have stepped up to the plate to provide the 50% funding they would have been required to contribute.
|
|
