From: Go Fig on 14 Jul 2006 02:02
In article <vaCtg.3850$2v.1760(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, mrtravel
> Go Fig wrote:
> > In article <1152783265.123356.230620(a)35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Jordi <jordi.uso(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>Tchiowa wrote:
> >>>>Would you leave road building or national security in the hands of
> >>>>private investment? Health care is just like that.
> >>>Infrastructure and health care have very little in common. Same with
> >>>national security.
> >>National interest covers everything from having healthy educated
> >>citizens to having good roads and ports.
> > Hummm... and just where do you find the authority for this in the U.S.
> > Constitution ???
> Was that the idea behind "promote the general Welfare"?
> This also seems to be mentioned in Article 1 Section 8, which gives
> Congress the power to levy taxes "for the common Defence and general
> Welfare of the United States"
It then goes on to enumerate those specific items the Feds have
Moreover, the Founder's did not provide for a national public hospital
nor a public school or university... to this day they don't exist.
> Of course, this is subject to interpretation, but it seems there haven't
> been any recent major constitutional challenges to things like Social
Technically, an insurance policy that is administered by the Feds...
the rate of return is based on contribution.
> and Medicare.
The Feds have the States administer these programs so it can pass
muster (for some).
Thu Jul 13, 2006
From: John H on 14 Jul 2006 02:24
And to support that system, which is no better then Socialism or copmmunism
is for the US to run trillion dollar deficits to prop up the ailing
industries that expect to run unfettered of any regulation bnut scream for
taxpayer subsidies when things arent going well.
"Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> mrtravel wrote:
>> Go Fig wrote:
>> > In article <1152783265.123356.230620(a)35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Jordi <jordi.uso(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>Tchiowa wrote:
>> >>>>Would you leave road building or national security in the hands of
>> >>>>private investment? Health care is just like that.
>> >>>Infrastructure and health care have very little in common. Same with
>> >>>national security.
>> >>National interest covers everything from having healthy educated
>> >>citizens to having good roads and ports.
>> > Hummm... and just where do you find the authority for this in the U.S.
>> > Constitution ???
>> Was that the idea behind "promote the general Welfare"?
>> This also seems to be mentioned in Article 1 Section 8, which gives
>> Congress the power to levy taxes "for the common Defence and general
>> Welfare of the United States".
> Note the difference in the wording. *promote* the general welfare as
> opposed to "provide" Defense.
> Promote implies guide rather than guarantee. And I submit that the
> General Welfare of the country is better promoted by supporting success
> rather than punishing it.
> The Left wants something free *today*. Free medical care *today*. Free
> retirement pensions *today*. Soak the rich *today*. I want, I want, I
> want, you pay.
> The Right wants medical care and retirement pensions *forever*.
> Including the next generation and the next and the next. Socialism
> works fairly well for a decade or two. Maybe even a generation or two.
> But it eventually fails because it doesn't accept the cost of investing
> for the future nor does it accept the reality that people will work
> harder and do more if they or their families reap a benefit from it.
> Social Security is failing in the US now. It's bound for bankruptcy.
> All of the plans put forward by the Left simply postpone the failure.
> Same with the NHS in the UK. Same for health care in Sweden.
> And just look at the history of the Soviet Union.
> A good and easy to understand example is prescription drugs. The Left
> demands cheap drugs *now*. The Right understands that if the drug
> manufacturers can't recoup their investment costs there will be no new
> drugs *tomorrow*. And if the Left had gotten their way a decade or two
> ago then the cheap drugs the Left is demanding now would never have
> been invented.
> Socialism is a proven failure. Some people won't let go of it. I don't
> understand why.
> Bottom line is that the best way to "promote the general welfare" is
> Free Market Capitalism.
> As has been proven over and over and over and over and over and over
From: mrtravel on 14 Jul 2006 02:33
Go Fig wrote:
> The Feds have the States administer these programs so it can pass
> muster (for some).
The states don't administer Medicare.
You are possibly thinking of Medicaid
From: Carole Allen on 14 Jul 2006 02:35
On 13 Jul 2006 23:13:58 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
But there are some specific powers given to Congress about regulating
>commerce between states. Then add this little gem: "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." and that seems to very specifically bar the Federal Government
>from owning all the businesses.
Oh, that explains all those suits and actions taken at the federal
level to interfere in state issues such as right to die and medical
marijuana, then, huh?
From: Jordi on 14 Jul 2006 02:59
> Jordi wrote:
> > Of course, you search for the most efficient way which a lot of
> > countries have found is this one. The figures are elsewhere in this
> > topic.
> And where do you stop? Healthy citizens, wonderful idea. Can't be
> healthy if you don't eat. Should food be considered the same way?
> Should the government take over all farms, dairies, ranches, fisheries,
> etc.? Run the whole food distribution chain?
Not necessarily. Obviously you can't see any good in anything that is
not a full-blown 100% capitalist economy and everything that is not
will inevitably fail.
> > "The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is an independent public policy
> > think tank whose mission is "to broaden the debate on our future
> > through public policy research and education and to explore positive
> > changes within our public institutions that support economic growth and
> > opportunity."
> Sounds like a good idea to me.
You are in their target group.
> > You can as well say that the US doesn't have queues because a lot of
> > people can't afford the treatment they need.
> Except that simply isn't true.
Don't you agree a significant part of US population is not able to
access to proper Cancer treatment or a heart transplant?
> > I rather like our system better, thanks.
> Quit thinking about just today. Think about the next generations. The
> selfishness of the Left in promoting Socialism carries a price that the
> next generations will pay for.
Don't worry, that will not happen in your great U. S. of A. Let our
little Europe drown in Communism once and for all.