[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

I have long felt that the Federal government has taken far too much power unto itself. It has been a steady weathering away of State's Rights and personal liberties for many years. But I'll admit that obamacare, where some blowhard a thousand miles away is demanding that I buy a service otherwise they'll penalize or rather tax me, has kinda pushed me over the edge. If I had a black toga, I'd be wearing it.

In my opinion the big shift from a capitalist based system toward a socialist one came with the rise of the unions and during the Great Depression. Granted, at the time, unions were necessary and there are even some places where they could do some good. I'm not saying to wipe out all unions, just the national and international affiliations. The Great Depression had several causes, and some viewed it as "the failure of capitalism". It was at that point that the Federal government began to introduce some national social programs. Also it saw Congress surrender monitary controll to the Federal Reserve Bank.

First, thank you for a thoughtful post in response. TracyCoxx could take some lessons from you. By the way, are you aware that TracyCoxx speaks for you in the post just above mine? I'm wondering whether that is with your specific permission.

To your post, tslust ...

Words matter, and despite your much appreciated answer to the question I posed you still use the term socialism to describe something that isn’t even remotely socialist. You described the term “socialist” as abstract in an earlier post. Do I understand correctly that, in the concrete, you reserve the right to describe as socialist an entire country regardless of how much “socialism” (i.e., national government “intervention” in economic affairs might exist)? If so, than is every capitalist country in the world actually a socialist country? Do you advocate zero government intervention in the economy? And, by extension, do you think that all things that are created for public use should be built by the private sector? How would you reconcile the public use with the private desire to make these things inaccessible or charge fees for their use? And what about regulation? Isn’t regulation of economic activity socialism? Should there be completely unfettered capitalism?

These are serious questions, even if the cartoon below is tongue-in-cheek.

Originally Posted by tslust

There is no Constitutional basis for the Federal government to take controll of health care. In Articles One and Two, there is a clear list of what powers the Federal government is to have. In the Tenth Ammendment it says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." therefore according to the Constitution, health care is not the domain of the Federal government.

You seem to have a very broad definition of the Third Article. Honestly, judical review is not listed as one of the unSupreme Court (If you are offended by this, then I'm sorry. But why didn't I ever see your distain towards some of the more left leaning members who use the same term to disparage Bush and conservatives?) powers. I can see where that has been interprited as part of their powers, however it is not listed in the Constitution. They most certainly do not have the Constitutional authority to rewrite legislation. For argument's sake, if the unelected nine were to rule that all Americans must purchase only 2% milk, what would you do?

I don’t remember anyone calling Bush “unSupreme,” but your point is taken. If it makes you feel better to use the term “unSupreme,” go ahead. Using such words does nothing to bolster an argument, and only makes arguments look rather childish ... in my opinion.

To the point regarding “constitutionality,” though, I guess I'll try one last time to make my point, which at this stage of the discussion I must admit I think is being deliberately ignored. My point (and you will either respond or not): the Supreme Court is, in essence, given the power to determine its own powers. Yes, you can quote the Constitution, but our system is set up in a way that thwarts the literal interpretation of the Constitution in that the Court itself can rule that it has powers. My point all along has been that this is how it works, and you either support the system or you don’t. The Court has ruled many times in ways that seem to go against what the Constitution, taking its words literally, might mean. Most scholars of the U.S. Constitution use the word “beauty” to describe how the Founding Fathers made it so “wise” men and women would use their judgment.

Do they get it wrong? Sure, often. They ruled that Blacks were less than whole persons, for instance.

Look, I don’t like the Affordable Care Act. I have quoted Lawrence O’Donnell, in agreement, calling it the Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act. But you know, tslust, that anything not strictly stated in the Constitution is open to Court interpretation. You can say you disagree when the Court does this and agree when the Court does that, in fulfilling its interpretative mandate, but if you support the system than you have to agree that sometimes you’ll agree and sometimes you’ll disagree with the Court’s decision. The Court’s interpretative mandate to DECIDE is constitutional. Again, that has been my point all along.

As for your “argument’s sake” question, I won’t answer for a very simple reason. It belittles the argument to compare healthcare and 2% milk, on so many levels. It does not cost society anything based on my decision of which kind of milk to purchase. I pay when the guy next door doesn’t have health insurance. That alone makes your analogy ridiculous. Ask something of substance if you want to have this debate.

By the way, do you now advocate electing the justices of the Supreme Court? That is the implication of how your 2% milk question is initially posed.

Originally Posted by tslust

The honest answer, about two days after hell freezes over.

I believe that most subsidizes can be done away with. My question is why do we continue to purchase oil from the Saudis when there are plenty of other sources? It would be a good idea to provide meaningful investments into researching alternative fuels.

Well, I'm glad to read that, but do you believe that most subsidies SHOULD be done away with? That’s the far more important question.

Finally, "provide meaningful investments" by ... the government?! My god, wouldn't that be socialism?!