Why am i a liberal l.d.s?

[Elphaba]

My son and his wife lived in Mass for awhile and they were very pleased with the Mass. plan.

Do you, or do they, know how it differs from Obama's plan?

Elph

[Elphaba]

Romney care isn't Kennedy care. Obama care is Kennedy care.

Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America PAC - VIDEO: CNN - What about Romney care? (8/20)

Since you linked to Romney's own page about his healthcare plan, I thought sure you'd want to see Obama's own page about his healthcare plan as well.

After all, each of us know they're both going to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help them Zeus.

The White House - Health Care Reform

Elphaba

Edited September 22, 2009 by Elphaba
fixed a typo

[MrsAri]

Since you linked to Romney's own page about his healthcare plan, I thought sure you'd want to see Obama's own page about his healthcare plan as well.

After all, each of us knows they're both going to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help them Zeus.

The White House - Health Care Reform

Elphaba

Obama is a liar. I have no desire to read anything he says.

[MsQwerty]

Elphaba - In my own personal study, I have found evidence that I believe points to the Instead, we elect the popular, handsome, elequent speaker, who really doesn't care that our nation is inspired by Heavenly Father.

As evidenced by the devilishly handsome and smooth-talking G.W. Bush - voted in for two presidential terms...

[Gatorman]

As evidenced by the devilishly handsome and smooth-talking G.W. Bush - voted in for two presidential terms...

Well, I put Bush in the same category as Obama, Hillary, Bill, Huckabee, Romney, etc, etc, etc. I don't support ANY of them. I railed against Bush as well. I believe that the standard Republican and the standard Democrat politician will both lead us to the same place, a broken and corrupt nation. They will just take different paths to get there.

There are exceptions. And, there are degrees of how bad they are for the nation. But, in the end, I can not support any of those types of people.

[pam]

Obama is a liar. I have no desire to read anything he says.

Well that makes it easy. When you post your opinion on something Obama has said..and call him a liar...it will be discredited as you have now said you wouldn't read it.

Thanks for making that comment and making it ever so much easier for us.

[MsQwerty]

I'll agree to disagree with you on several points, MsQwerty, but did want to respond to the following:

The automatic stay, which prevents creditors from attempting to collect a bill from you, goes into effect at the moment you file your case for bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy court sends out notices to the creditors in about a week or so.

Chapter 7 cases are usually wrapped up in three to four months; Chapter 13s take three to five years, depending on your income and a variety of mathematical factors. But again--the debt relief goes into place immediately upon filing.

People who actually file for bankruptcy have pretty much resolved to carry on, and so I'd imagine their suicide rate (as opposed to those who are merely insolvent) is reasonably low. Again--it's just a case of getting out the information as to what people's options are.

I've tried to initiate a discussion on several threads as to what "bankruptcy" really means. So far no one seems to have engaged on it. Do you wish to?

The automatic stay must be a huge relief for people who find themselves financially overburdened - good to know that at least is one less worry for the bankrupt.

Thanks for all that info and for the exchange of ideas - I always enjoy a good chat about social issues in different nations. We can agree to disagree, and meanwhile hope the powers that be come up with useful reforms that will benefit the people of your country. As my husband and two of my children are American citizens I'm of course hopeful for the future of the US.

I guess I'm not that interested in what 'bankruptcy' really means since I'm not in that position and the laws in my neck of the world are probably different to what you are familiar with. If I did discuss it I'd be talking out of my hat and wasting your time. But thanks for the info you've already provided. Maybe you'll find someone who is more interested in the subject if you try starting another thread? :)

[annewandering]

Elphaba, I will try to remember to ask him what he thinks the differences are when I see him thursday.

[MsQwerty]

Thanks Pam. I had never clued in on that part of Smith's platform before.

I read Pam's link and looked up the original document on Joseph Smith's platform - great reading if you're interested or haven't seen it before.

Smith History Vault: 1844 "Gen. Smith's Views"

[MrsAri]

Well that makes it easy. When you post your opinion on something Obama has said..and call him a liar...it will be discredited as you have now said you wouldn't read it.

Thanks for making that comment and making it ever so much easier for us.

Yes, I said I wouldn't read what he said...not that I wouldn't listen to it. And what I've heard thus far are lies.

Obama is a liar. I have no desire to read anything he says.

[FunkyTown]

Which is a good thing that the US Government is a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy. Because, our government is still bound by the Constitution and to gain new powers, the Constitution must first be changed. Until then, the majority can call for relocation the US to the Moon, if the Constitution does not give power to the government, it doesn't matter.

And apparently the constitution allows for the government to provide medicare under the Powers of Congress section:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

And dictionary.com has this to say about what the word welfare means:

wel⋅fare  /ˈwɛlˌfɛər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [wel-fair] Show IPA

Use welfare in a Sentence

See web results for welfare

See images of welfare

–noun 1. the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.

2. welfare work.

3. financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare.

4. (initial capital letter) Informal. a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, esp. those unable to work.

—Idiom

Note that health is specifically a part of the definition of welfare and thus falls under the purview of the constitution.

I know what you're saying, I do: You're frustrated because you feel that you have no voice in the government. You feel this is wasteful and the beginning of tyranny. I should point out, though, that you're arguing many points that simply aren't correct:

1) Public health care is the beginning of Tyranny:

Many countries have public health care that haven't descended to big brother status: Britain, Canada and Australia for one. This isn't an argument that the US should have it, but it certainly means the argument that it's tyrannical is a lie and an overreaction.

2) The government shouldn't be able to tax me to provide services for anyone else.

The government does this for many services that you agree. Saying they shouldn't do this is not correct: You most likely agree with public schooling, police, the military, a public roadworks option, etc. There are many services that you already accept as government run. Since this is the case, the argument becomes 'I don't think the government should provide a health care option.' which is very different than the original argument in this case. In the second case, you should establish reasoning for this. In the first, your argument provides the reasoning and assumes that the government shouldn't provide any services - Which you clearly don't agree with.

However, and you aren't going to like this: There is a country where the government doesn't interfere in the lives of the populace: Where taxation doesn't exist and where you can make a life with the regular folk with complete and total freedom:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html

Somalia!

[Gatorman]

Except, that is not how our General Welfare clause is written and meant...Here is one source, though there are others:

A General Welfare clause is a section that appears in many constitutions, and in some cases in charters and statutes, which provides that the body empowered by the document may enact laws as it sees fit to promote the well-being of the people governed thereunder. Such clauses are generally interpreted as granting the state a power to regulate for the general welfare that is independent of other powers specified in the governing document.

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. However, it is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. Unlike most General Welfare clauses, however, the clause in the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as a limitation on the power of the United States Congress to use its powers of taxing and spending. The narrow construction of the General welfare clause is unusual when compared to similar clauses in most State constitutions, and many constitutions of other countries. An international example is provided by a report from the Supreme Court of Argentina:

“ In Ferrocarril Central Argentino c/Provincia de Santa Fe, 569 the Argentine Court held that the General Welfare clause of the Argentine Constitution offered the federal government a general source of authority for legislation affecting the provinces. The Court recognized that the United States utilized the clause only as a source of authority for federal taxation and spending, not for general legislation, but recognized differences in the two constitutions.[1]

[Gatorman]

Further, the other side of the section you referred to only applies to the governments ability to tax to use the powers laid out elsewhere. It does not grant them further powers.

[FunkyTown]

So... Wait... You're saying that you're taking the Argentinian interpretation of your constitution? You are aware that the government has and will continue to provide public services that aren't covered specifically under the constitution, right?

Examples were already given of public options the government is giving. Please give examples where the supreme court of the USA has ruled public health care unconstitutional.

The 'Unconstitutional' stick is just a bully tactic that is meaningless. Both Republicans and Democrats were talking about offering a public health care system in the last election. Both were offering it. Now, they're trying to block the Democrats from passing it because they want to create the system themselves and try to steal votes that way. I guarantee you that in the next election, a public health care option will still be a major selling point for both parties if it doesn't pass here. Just like it was in the election before last.

Except, that is not how our General Welfare clause is written and meant...Here is one source, though there are others:

A General Welfare clause is a section that appears in many constitutions, and in some cases in charters and statutes, which provides that the body empowered by the document may enact laws as it sees fit to promote the well-being of the people governed thereunder. Such clauses are generally interpreted as granting the state a power to regulate for the general welfare that is independent of other powers specified in the governing document.

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. However, it is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. Unlike most General Welfare clauses, however, the clause in the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as a limitation on the power of the United States Congress to use its powers of taxing and spending. The narrow construction of the General welfare clause is unusual when compared to similar clauses in most State constitutions, and many constitutions of other countries. An international example is provided by a report from the Supreme Court of Argentina:

“ In Ferrocarril Central Argentino c/Provincia de Santa Fe, 569 the Argentine Court held that the General Welfare clause of the Argentine Constitution offered the federal government a general source of authority for legislation affecting the provinces. The Court recognized that the United States utilized the clause only as a source of authority for federal taxation and spending, not for general legislation, but recognized differences in the two constitutions.[1]

[Gatorman]

Well, as I said, there are further things out there, I just happen to be working and not looking that hard. Specifically, the definition of Welfare when the Constitution was written had 2 definitions. Definition for 'people' and definition for 'states'. In Constitution is specific when a power refers to 'the people', IE: welfare for people. This is not one of them. Also, James Madison was very specific in his arguments that the general welfare clause did not give any new powers. It was meant to allow the government to spend money for the welfare of the United States, IE: The states and the governments, to excercise the powers granted elsewhere. Further search brings about:

WikiAnswers - What does general welfare mean

Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever

That is the predecesor of our general welfare clause. It was determined that they did not grant the government the ability to raise income to pay for laws. So, you have article 8 granting them federal government the ability to raise money to pay for the laws it passes that are for the general welfare of the states. This is not a power to provide for the general welfare of the people. Either that, or our forefathers were severely disfunctional, in that they created a document to form a limited government, were specific about powers the government could excercise and which ones where applicable to providing to the people, and then threw all that work out and said 'Government can do whatever it wants.' Sorry, I don't see our Forefathers being that stupid or Heavenly Father inspiring such a worthless limitation on power.

[FunkyTown]

Now that's a fair point.

There's actually different ways of interpreting the Constitution. Sadly, nobody has come out and said 'This is how we should interpret the constitution.'

Here's a previous posting that I had made that discusses the various means people come to their conclusions about what the Constitution means:

Here's a generalized discussion - Not of the Constitution, but of various means and lenses through which the Constitution is viewed. The important part of your question, where you say you believe in the constitution as an inspired document, must be questioned: Do you believe it ceased to be an inspired document as soon as it was amended? Did it cease to be inspired after the second, third or forth amendment? How do you interpret the deliberately vague wording of the Constitution?

Here's a breakdown of different ways the Constitution(Which I also believe is an inspired document) can be viewed:

The Constitution is many things to many people. Undoubtedly, it is the frame work for the Government of the United States of America, defining the three branches and clearing delineating the powers of the branches. It also undoubtedly grants certain power to the federal government and grants others to the states; and it undoubtedly guarantees the basic rights of the people.

The Constitution is short; it cannot and does not attempt to cover every eventuality. Even when it seems it is clear, there can be conflicting rights, conflicting spheres of power. When disputes arise, it comes time for people, and most importantly judges of the Judicial Branch, to interpret the Constitution. The concept of constitutional interpretation is foreign in some countries, where the constitution makes a reasonable effort to cover every eventuality. These constitutions are generally rigid and little changing, adapting slowly to advances in political views, popular opinion, technology, and changes in government. The U.S. Constitution, however, has been termed a Living Constitution, in part because it grows and adapts to internal and external pressures, changing from one era and generation to the next.

When a new situation arises, or even a new variation on an old situation, the Constitution is often looked to for guidance. It is at this point that the various interpretations of the Constitution come into play.

There is no one right way to interpret the Constitution, and people often do not always stick to one interpretation. Below, then, are the major divisions in interpretation; your own personal beliefs may fall into several of these categories.

Note: the major sources for material for this section were "Constitutional Law: Cases and Commentary" by Daniel Hall, and "On Reading the Constitution" by Lawrence Tribe and Michael Dorf.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originalism, or, Original Intent

Originalists think that the best way to interpret the Constitution is to determine how the Framers intended the Constitution to be interpreted. They look to several sources to determine this intent, including the contemporary writings of the framers, newspaper articles, the Federalist Papers, and the notes from the Constitutional Convention itself.

Originalists consider the original intent to be the most pure way of interpreting the Constitution; the opinions of the Framers were, for the most part, well documented. If there is an unclear turn of phrase in the Constitution, who better to explain it than those who wrote it?

Opponents of originalism note several points. First, the Constitution may have been the product of the Framers, but it was ratified by hundreds of delegates in 13 state conventions - should not the opinions of these people hold even more weight? Also, the Framers were a diverse group, and many had issues with specific parts of the Constitution. Whose opinion should be used? Next, do the opinions of a small, homogeneous group from 200 years ago have the respect of the huge, diverse population of today? To a black woman, how much trust can be placed in the thoughts of a white slave owner who's been dead for generations?

In truth, as with all of the following interpretations, most people use originalism when it suits them. Finding a quote from a framer to support a modern position can be a powerful way to advance your point of view.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modernism/Instrumentalism

Those who most oppose the Originalist approach often consider themselves to be modernists, or instrumentalists. A modernist approach to Constitutional interpretation looks at the Constitution as if it were ratified today. What meaning would it have today, if written today. How does modern life affect the words of the Constitution? The main argument against originalism is that the Constitution becomes stale and irrelevant to modern life if only viewed through 18th century eyes. Additionally, we have more than 200 years of history and legal precedent to look back on, and that we are modern individuals, with as much difficulty in reasonably thinking like 18th century men as those 18th century men would have had trouble thinking like us.

Modernists also contend that the Constitution is deliberately vague in many areas, expressly to permit modern interpretations to override older ones as the Constitution ages. It is this interpretation that best embodies the Living Constitution concept: the Constitution is flexible and dynamic, changing slowly over time as the morals and beliefs of the population shift. Modernists do not reject originalism - they recognize that there is value in a historical perspective; but the contemporary needs of society outweigh an adherence to a potentially dangerously outdated angle of attack.

Originalists feel that modernism does a disservice to the Constitution, that the people who wrote it had a pure and valid vision for the nation, and that their vision should be able to sustain us through any Constitutional question.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Literalism - historical

Historical literalists believe that the contemporary writings of the Framers are not relevant to any interpretation of the Constitution. The only thing one needs to interpret the Constitution is a literal reading of the words contained therein, with an expert knowledge in the 18th century meaning of those words. The debates leading to the final draft are not relevant, the Federalist Papers are not relevant - only the words.

The historical literalist takes a similar look at the Constitution as an originalist does, but the literalist has no interest in expanding beyond the text for answers to questions. For example, an historical literalist will see the militia of the 2nd Amendment as referring to all able-bodied men from 17 to 45, just as in the late 18th century, and this interpretation will color that person's reading of the 2nd Amendment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Literalism - contemporary

Very similar to an historical literalist, a contemporary literalist looks only to the words of the Constitution for guidance, but this literalist has no interest in the historical meaning of the words. The contemporary literalist looks to modern dictionaries to determine the meaning of the words of the Constitution, ignoring precedent and legal dissertation, and relying solely on the definition of the words.

Just as the historical literalist view parallels the originalist view, but much more narrow in focus, so too does the contemporary literalist mirror the modernist; and again, the main difference is the literalist looks only to the words of the Constitution for meaning. To expand on the 2nd Amendment example, the contemporary literalist will view the militia as the modern National Guard, and this will color that person's views on the 2nd.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Democratic/normative reinforcement

Finally, the democratic interpretation is the last approach to interpretation. Democratic interpretation is also known as normative or representation reinforcement. Democratic proponents advocate that the Constitution is not designed to be a set of specific principles and guidelines, but that it was designed to be a general principle, a basic skeleton on which contemporary vision would build upon. Decisions as to the meaning of the Constitution must look at the general feeling evoked by the Constitution, then use modern realism to pad out the skeleton.

As evidence, democrats point out that many phrases, such as "due process" and "equal protection" are deliberately vague, that the phrases are not defined in context. The guidance for interpretation must come from that basic framework that the Framers provided, but that to fill in the gaps, modern society's current morals and feelings must be taken into consideration. Changes in the Constitution that stem from this kind of philosophy will end up with principles of the population at large, while ensuring that the framers still have a say in the underlying decision or ruling. This interpretation is seen to enhance democratic ideals and the notion of republicanism.

The funny thing here that I've noticed: People tend to use a mix of those views to support what they want and decry anybody else's use when interpreting it. If I found, for instance, a definition from a dictionary from the time of the Framers that supported that health was indeed part of the definition for welfare, would you come around?

If not, a very strict decision must be made on how to interpret the constitution. Which of those ways is the correct way?

Well, as I said, there are further things out there, I just happen to be working and not looking that hard. Specifically, the definition of Welfare when the Constitution was written had 2 definitions. Definition for 'people' and definition for 'states'. In Constitution is specific when a power refers to 'the people', IE: welfare for people. This is not one of them. Also, James Madison was very specific in his arguments that the general welfare clause did not give any new powers. It was meant to allow the government to spend money for the welfare of the United States, IE: The states and the governments, to excercise the powers granted elsewhere. Further search brings about:

WikiAnswers - What does general welfare mean

Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever

That is the predecesor of our general welfare clause. It was determined that they did not grant the government the ability to raise income to pay for laws. So, you have article 8 granting them federal government the ability to raise money to pay for the laws it passes that are for the general welfare of the states. This is not a power to provide for the general welfare of the people. Either that, or our forefathers were severely disfunctional, in that they created a document to form a limited government, were specific about powers the government could excercise and which ones where applicable to providing to the people, and then threw all that work out and said 'Government can do whatever it wants.' Sorry, I don't see our Forefathers being that stupid or Heavenly Father inspiring such a worthless limitation on power.

[Gatorman]

FT - Fair enough. My take on the Constitution is that specific, well defined powers were created specifically and that those are the ONLY powers the Federal Government has, until we create more. The document was inspired, including the rules regarding how to amend the document. So, the amendments are still within the original inspired intent. Anything not specifically laid out by the Constitution is a power that resides with the States. Hence, the 10th amendment. Otherwise, the General Welfare clause, under your interpretation, makes the 10th a moot point. It would mean that Congress can create any law they want and fund it, without restriction. Our founders had just over thrown such a government and their intent was to make sure our government could not be like that.

So, which way to interpret is simple. Look at the powers specifically enumerated. Those are the only ones that need to be interpreted. The only thing that can grant them new powers is if we pass a new amendment. It is meant to be difficult, to ensure we don't pass things willy nilly.

[FunkyTown]

FT - Fair enough. My take on the Constitution is that specific, well defined powers were created specifically and that those are the ONLY powers the Federal Government has, until we create more. The document was inspired, including the rules regarding how to amend the document. So, the amendments are still within the original inspired intent. Anything not specifically laid out by the Constitution is a power that resides with the States. Hence, the 10th amendment. Otherwise, the General Welfare clause, under your interpretation, makes the 10th a moot point. It would mean that Congress can create any law they want and fund it, without restriction. Our founders had just over thrown such a government and their intent was to make sure our government could not be like that.

So, which way to interpret is simple. Look at the powers specifically enumerated. Those are the only ones that need to be interpreted. The only thing that can grant them new powers is if we pass a new amendment. It is meant to be difficult, to ensure we don't pass things willy nilly.

I think your way is the best way, Gatorman: Interpreting it as a limiting document designed specifically to allow states to decide how to govern themselves.

Here's the rub, though: The US has not been run in that way for a very long time. Eisenhower's Interstate highway system(Which I must admit, I like) broke a strict limitation view of the Constitution, as did Taft's Trust-Busting(Which most agree with), development of the post office, Buchanan's invasion of Utah, the Civil War(Which a strict constitutionalist must uneasily admit was beyond the powers granted to the government since it would not have been a defensive war if the federal government had allowed secession).

The Constitution as a strictly limiting document has not been followed for centuries. Considering that's almost as long as the Constitution has been around, it is up to the citizenry to establish a more strict interpretation of the Constitution(Which may interfere in longterm growth as the living constitution concept has allowed the US unprecedented mobility in comparison to other countries with more strict constitutions) or to allow the looser interpretation.

Ultimately, this means that Health Care is not against the Constitution until the people charged with interpreting the Constitution decide it is. That would mean that the sole chance for re-establishing a Federalist viewpoint of limited government would be to convince them it is for the best.

[Gatorman]

Does that mean, because people go out and have pre-marital sex, it is no longer a sin? Or, is it that it is still a sin and just has become acceptable to society? Similarily, it is still unConstitutional, but people have decided they like what was done.

Now, to follow up on your points:

1 - Yes, the Southern States had the authority and a right to secede. I see Lincoln as one of the first Presidents to seriously damage the Constitution and the limitation of the power of the Federal Government. Do I think slavery should have continued? No. But, neither did the government have the power or authority to force the states to remain.

2 - Interstate highways - Truly a conundrum. But, I believe the interstate commerce rules would cover this, barely. Again, I would have to study this one more deeply to understand it better.

3 - Post Office - Not one I had considered in detail. Would require study.

4 - Health Care - If it appears to be against the Constitution, then, I can not support it. I can not support the further decline from what is right.

If we could return to what I believe is the proper understanding of the document, I am not one who says we have to immediately eliminate everything. Instead, we need to stop the slide in one direction, make serious plans to head the other way, and look to those who are absolutely dependant on the broken laws we allowed to exist. To me, that is our responsiblity as a people for continuing to allow those violations. So, welfare, medicare, social security, etc, would be slated to go away. But, they would remain funded for the 'short' term. The education department would go away. How do you fund schools then? You continue to collect the taxes, but, then direct apportion them to the states with no strings attached. In fact, that would be a constitutional method of taxation. So, you have a couple of CPAs, instead of a massive government entity. Apply similar principles where they fit. Apply the 'social security' principle where it fits.

[FunkyTown]

I agree, Gator on the pre-marital sex thing.

I'm impressed you called Lincoln on the Civil War. Very few people would and that's exactly what you're up against: The vast majority of Americans do not agree with a strict state-run, non-interventionist government.

And because the Constitution was designed specifically to be a loose set of guidelines to allow the US to evolve. Even the founding fathers didn't necessarily agree, when we look at Ben Franklin's quote:

I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.

What you need to do is not berate health care, which will not work since you and others are operating on different views of the Constitution. Instead, you must educate the world about proper framing of the Constitution. Explain not just what, but why.

Does that mean, because people go out and have pre-marital sex, it is no longer a sin? Or, is it that it is still a sin and just has become acceptable to society? Similarily, it is still unConstitutional, but people have decided they like what was done.

Now, to follow up on your points:

1 - Yes, the Southern States had the authority and a right to secede. I see Lincoln as one of the first Presidents to seriously damage the Constitution and the limitation of the power of the Federal Government. Do I think slavery should have continued? No. But, neither did the government have the power or authority to force the states to remain.

2 - Interstate highways - Truly a conundrum. But, I believe the interstate commerce rules would cover this, barely. Again, I would have to study this one more deeply to understand it better.

3 - Post Office - Not one I had considered in detail. Would require study.

4 - Health Care - If it appears to be against the Constitution, then, I can not support it. I can not support the further decline from what is right.

If we could return to what I believe is the proper understanding of the document, I am not one who says we have to immediately eliminate everything. Instead, we need to stop the slide in one direction, make serious plans to head the other way, and look to those who are absolutely dependant on the broken laws we allowed to exist. To me, that is our responsiblity as a people for continuing to allow those violations. So, welfare, medicare, social security, etc, would be slated to go away. But, they would remain funded for the 'short' term. The education department would go away. How do you fund schools then? You continue to collect the taxes, but, then direct apportion them to the states with no strings attached. In fact, that would be a constitutional method of taxation. So, you have a couple of CPAs, instead of a massive government entity. Apply similar principles where they fit. Apply the 'social security' principle where it fits.

[Just_A_Guy]

As evidenced by the devilishly handsome and smooth-talking G.W. Bush - voted in for two presidential terms...

C'mon, MsQwerty. You mean, you weren't swooning with the rest of the women in this country when President Bush swaggered along the Abraham Lincoln's deck in that flight suit?

What's wrong with you?

[Guest]

Do you, or do they, know how it differs from Obama's plan?

Elph

Hi Elph, there are many differences between Romney and Obama's healthcare platforms. The main difference that made me prefer Romney's from Obama's is the divorce of healthcare insurance from employers. Another one is the public option. There are tons more.

Basically, Romney and Obama believe the same thing - that every citizen needs healthcare insurance. But they disagree on the implementation.

[Gatorman]

Hi Elph, there are many differences between Romney and Obama's healthcare platforms. The main difference that made me prefer Romney's from Obama's is the divorce of healthcare insurance from employers. Another one is the public option. There are tons more.

Basically, Romney and Obama believe the same thing - that every citizen needs healthcare insurance. But they disagree on the implementation.

I think I can agree with the idea that every citizen should have the ability to purchase insurance if they choose. Beyond that, not so much.

[Kenny]

)

That was a long post but I read and actually agreed with everything you said plus I don't even live in America.

Our news was filled recently with the perils of the NHS when your President made reference to an American health care system similar to ours.

The NHS is not perfect not by a long shot but it sure does help all that come to it or need help.

It costs the tax payer a fortune but nobody gets turned away. Some hospitals specialise in certain areas of medicine others don't so some hospitals might shunt you off to another if your illness falls within a category they don't specialise in. These are far and few between.

I listened to your president give a talk to on Islam and it was filled with words of peace. American standing in the world will rise because of him and if he can stay the course (eight years) he'll achieve more for the American people than any other president.

What happens there affects us here and the rest of the world. God did not choose your country to be the New Jerusalem lightly.

I stayed in Utah for a few weeks a couple of years back and saw for myself the fundamental differences between the well off and the not so well off. We stayed with well off friends whose generosity to us had no bounds.

When I compared what my host was receiving and paying out to what I was we concluded they were much the same. The real difference was that he was trusted with more of his money than perhaps I was. Your system rewards you for your contribution in tax breaks whereas we here pay higher taxes at source but for the lower paid we can claim tax credits back as a benifit.

Because you are trusted more the care of the poor is put on your shoulders where with us the government has already taken the money so fund almost all the needs of the poor, including health, directly.

The Lord will usher in the law of consecration when he returns but in the mean time the lesser law of tithing will suffice.

The church is a beacon for how to run an economy and governments will one day look to it and learn.

There so many tax breaks for the very rich that in many cases they actually pay zero amounts into the coffers. That is why good accountants earn so much.

If everybody paid one tenth of their gross income the amount of money that comes in multiplies exponentially. It is a much fairer system the only real loss the rich will suffer is that they might have three or four holidays a year instead of four or five.

God gave them the ability to earn so much, in many ways it is their weakness and like all weaknesses if they can be overcome the Lord will turn them into strengths.

We see that in the church all the time don't we?

Edited September 22, 2009 by Kenny

[rameumptom]

I think this might not be an effective argument, Rame. Are you suggesting that the government wants universal health care for their own benefit? It's safe to say that most of them will still opt for private health care. This means they are essentially raising taxes on themselves.

The way the current plan is set up, it will enrich certain constituents, while impoverishing the middle class with huge taxes in the future to pay for it. It is benefiting Congress and the White House in paying off lawyers and unions. And instead of passing a law to allow people to buy insurance across state lines, so competition actually occurs, they are insisting on a government "option" which will subsidize itself into a fully run government program, filled with job positions for the cronies of those in Congress. So, yes, it is for their own benefit.