Enjoy the grand depression by yourself ;-) ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
PC doesn\'t mean Politically Correct, it means Political Cowardice.
Bend over, it'll be painless... the probe goes straight in.... ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
PC doesn\'t mean Politically Correct, it means Political Cowardice.
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." --James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792
Thomas Jefferson, who promulgated and advocated the very idea of a Federal government, who was there arguing at the table at the Convention as the Constitution was drafted, wrote at length on the meaning of the general welfare clause:
formatting link
(see 3391-97)
Jefferson says by the "general welfare" language they meant to limit Congress' power to further limit those specific powers in the specification that follow (the "enumerated powers") in the Constitution:
"I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words "general defence and public welfare". These words only express the motives which induced the Convention to give to the ordinary legislature certain specified powers which they enumerate, and which they thought might be trusted to the ordinary legislature, and not to give them the unspecified also; or why any specification?
He mocks the idea that the general welfare clause be construed as giving Congress the authority & discretion to do anything they wanted:
"They could not be so awkward in language as to mean, as we say, " all and some ".
And thought that a fearful thing:
"And should this construction prevail, all limits to the Federal Government are done away. This opinion, formed on the first rise of the question, I have never seen reason to change, whether in or out of power; but, on the contrary, find it strengthened and confirmed by five and twenty years of additional reflection and experience: and any countenance given to it by any regular organ of the government, I should consider more ominous than anything which has yet occurred." Thomas Jefferson, to Spencer Roane, 1815
The intent of the Founders? It doesn't get much clearer than that.
"Joel Koltner" wrote in news:3FnLm.212681$ snipped-for-privacy@en-nntp-05.dc.easynews.com:
You flunked. losing means you were beaten by the other side,giving up means you defeated yourself.
there's a difference between retreat and surrendering,too. retreat is only temporary.
except it was not "imminent". Even the NV General Giap admitted the North had lost until we took ourself out and dropped support.
you flunked again.
Actually,we never really FOUGHT a war against N.Vietnam;we kinda played around,never put a full effort into it. Political correctness prevented us from attacking the port of Haiphong where NV received arms from the USSR,we never really bombed Hanoi,never invaded the North.
We fought with at least one arm tied behind our backs. Then,after we had them defeated,we crept out,and then DROPPED SUPPORT for the S.Vn regime,which gave the North a second chance.
yes,there is a big difference. Even while losing,one still has the honor in giving it their best effort,but those who give up threw away their honor. Giving up is cowardice.
I didn't want to pile on whilst everyone pressed you on other fronts, but back to this point on health care, you do realize this chick's financially illiterate, don't you?
She blabbers about the horrible insurance company profits in dollars without giving the percentages, and tells you stupid stuff like:
"In 2003, the HMO industry as a whole reported total earnings of $5.5 billion=97up 83 percent from $3 million in 2002[...]"
without bothering to calculate that a) $3 million is effectively zero profit--which is unsustainable-- b) $5.5 billion is not a large profit, it's on the order of 5% And, BTW, c) $5.5 billion is 1,833% more than $3 million, not 83%. d) Dingbat's formula for overhead is (fudged administration costs) / (benefits paid). By that formula they should double their payments, cutting overhead in half. What a savings!
She's a nitwit. The post she's trying to bury with drivel is better:
formatting link
re.html
But they both miss the bigger issues and most of the $$s: defensive medicine, fraud, and the distributed overhead thrust on the providers.
Medicare's current fraud losses alone are estimated at $60-80B out of $430 billion. That is, Medicare squanders 14% (as compared to the industry's immoral 5%):
formatting link
Medicare is a financial disaster, which the President acknowledges. If Medicare's the proof of socialized medicine's efficiency, we're doomed. So said the President, as he pressed for "reform".
The key difference between government and business is the the latter is
*unelected*, while the government *is* and is why the power of business must be curtailed to prevent it from doing stuff against the interests of the common good, rather than the shareholder minority.
By the same token, if you get a bad govenment, that's the citizens fault for not being awake and for not ensuring that the right people get elected. The old saying that people get the government they deserve is probably not far off as well :-)...
That's a great point, but exactly wrong. Business is elected every day, as people prefer the products and services they provide with their money, or not.
The problem being that the government runs the schools, badly.
Awareness? Why, Mr. Koltner's told us he never even had civics. How is he then equipped to rebut or even resist the "general welfare" fallacy, or other specious arguments of politics and economics?
And if he's in that predicament, imagine the 1/3rd of our population that doesn't even graduate high school...
We are at that stage predicted by Tyler roughly 200 years ago:
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy [...]"
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.