CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So who does the government steal from when the rich are no longer able to be the engine of economic growth and there are too few resources to steal?

that's not a great argument since the rich have more wealth than ever to steal nowadays. Of course this is not to say that it is right to steal from anyone ever.

 

[Foxfyre]

So who does the government steal from when the rich are no longer able to be the engine of economic growth and there are too few resources to steal?

that's not a great argument since the rich have more wealth than ever to steal nowadays. Of course this is not to say that it is right to steal from anyone ever.

Its an excellent argument for those of us who know you don't make the poor richer by making the rich less rich, and in fact when the government presumes to make the rich less rich or unrich, they invariably hurt the poor.

And I don't care how rich the rich are. There is no such thing as a bottomless well and if the government presume to see the rich as one, they will only drive the rich and/or their resources elsewhere leaving the poor with much fewer resources than before.

 

[dblack]

very incorrect since Constitution created greatest country on earth by far in all of human history.

It is a great country....hasnt lasted as long as Rome or some others

and heading for a downfall if we dont change things

Rome went through ups and downs too. Nothing runs smoothly. The current Constitution weathered the crisis of a civil war. It has a very sturdy foundation in my opinion. All it needs is to updated to deal with the present realities and the Founding Fathers were prescient and humble enough to acknowledge their inability to predict what the future might bring.

It is up to us to deal with our reality and come with viable solutions. And yes, mistakes have been made in the past and were repealed. You cannot legislate morality. So that is one of the guidelines we need to follow in this process.

In real terms it means that the principle of equality under the law trumps the morality police when it comes to gay marriage and abortion.

99% of our current problems have to do with a failure to act responsibly and tax in accordance with our spending. To deal with that I have a proposal for a tax that only applies when the nation has any debt. In that instance all income over 20 times the poverty level is to be taxed at a rate that will eliminate the national debt in 20 years.

If there is no national debt the tax rate doesn't apply at all. It is self regulating since those who want any additional spending will be required to pay the additional taxes therefore they won't be lobbying for corporate tax breaks knowing that it will just come out of their own pockets.

Your thoughts?

its idiotic to steal from the rich since they are the engine of economic growth.

It's a lot smarter than stealing from the poor.

So who does the government steal from when the rich are no longer able to be the engine of economic growth and there are too few resources to steal?

You see all kinds of arguments can be made for just about anything. What I hope to do with this exercise is to reach a consensus on what we want government to do and what we do not want government to do in any given matter.

I want government to have no more power to take resources from anybody than it absolutely has to have to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsbilities.

Agreed. I'm not saying it's sustainable. Or moral.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Taxation is not theft, and such statements indicate a lack of constitutional understanding.

 

[dblack]

Taxation is not theft, and such statements indicate a lack of constitutional understanding.

Settle down. That's not what I said.

 

[Olde Europe]

Yes. When a bill is made law under false pretense, and then remains law without majority support - I call that undermining democracy. If you call that 'business as usual', then is it any wonder so few people bother to vote?

So, they hid from you the fact that there would be money to pay for failure to comply with the mandate? Oops, they did not. Is "penalty" a term that could be deemed inappropriate to describe a fine for the refusal to comply with a law? Oops, it is not. So, they avoided the term "tax" because it is set to get the Norquist acolytes and anti-tax hysterics into a hissy, and chose another, entirely legitimate term instead.

But then, in order to have some balance and fairness here, let's revisit the mendacious screeches about "the biggest tax hike in history" (no, it wasn't), "death panels" (there are none), "helping granny to her premature death" (no that wasn't in the book)", or the distorted meaning that was given Pelosi's statement "we need to pass it in order to see what's in it" (which was Pelosi expressing her hope that Americans would like the ACA once they experienced the law's effects, not her admission that no one could know what they were voting on).

Yeah, you know, need I be explicit to tell you where you can take your selective outrage?

_____________________________________________________

I don't mind if people disagree with me (no matter how wrong they are ), but please don't try to tell me what I wish when even a cursory review of my posts would completely dismantle your opinion of what I wish. Most especially when you phrase it in leftwing propaganda as to what you seem to think we constitutional originalists want to happen or what is satisfactory for us which is both insulting and completely erroneous.

As for the ridiculous notion that the Founders designed a government for the plutocracy, what is the one constant theme from the big government people in modern times? That the rich have too much, yes? That there is too wide a disparity between the rich and the poor? And yet they continue the very policies designed to limit the ability/incentive for the rich to help others become more rich--that would be by forcing them to shelter their income, do business elsewhere, limit expansion and growth--and the big government people continue the policies that provide encouragement and incentive for people to remain poor.

I once thought such efforts to be misguided but well intended. I no longer believe that is the case. I believe such efforts are deliberate to keep those in government safely in government where they are greatly enriching themselves at our expense. And to do so they have to keep the power and resources funneling into the central government instead of returning those to the states and local communities who would almost certainly do a much better job of meeting the needs of the people with them. It is no accident that as of 2011, the highest per capital incomes in the USA were the Washington DC metro area.

My hope for an improved Constitution would be to restore the original limits on federal government and thereby correct a whole host of bad things. Where you and I disagree is that if the federal government does not do it, then it won't be done.

Having read that several times now, I can't but conclude that you still won't face up to the obvious consequences of your proposals, which would take the U.S. back to pre-New Deal, or more likely, to pre-Great Depression times. Derideo_Te asked you several times to do so, and you refused every time. There is nothing insulting or erroneous about these requests, in that the latest refusal to pick up the ACA's almost completely nationally funded Medicaid expansion demonstrates quite conclusively the lengths to which quite a number of states would go to deny the poor and destitute whatever is possible to deny them, and yes, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that vast areas in the U.S. would be without Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or SNAP, if the federal government were to drop the ball.

There are no incentives for people to remain poor. That's just reactionary propaganda.

The income distribution over the U.S. of A. is far more diverse than you would depict them, and the conclusion you draw from the per capita income in the Washington metro area are likely wrong (as those government types you continuously decry make just a fraction of those living in that area).

Here's a discussion about that issue that isn't marred by anti-government bigotry:

In 2007, before the recession began, five counties in suburban Washington made it into the top 10. By 2010, there were six. The seven in the latest ranking is an all-time high.

“It’s not only that we have low unemployment and a lot of dual-income households,” said Stephen Fuller, director of the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University. “We lost a few government jobs, but not the high-paying, professional business-service jobs that are still growing, if not as fast as they used to. Since the rest of the country is in such poor shape, we just have to show a little bit of growth here, and we look pretty good.”

While looming federal budget cuts could threaten the growth of Washington’s high-income households, the region is rife with the kind of residents that have thrived even in tough times.

The area has the nation’s highest level of adults with college degrees. It also is high in shares of households that have two incomes and married couples who postpone having children until they establish themselves professionally.

“A big sliver of American society that generally does well tends to cluster in Washington,” said William Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution. “When people make the argument that $250,000 is middle income, that’s way higher than most of the country regards as middle income. But here in Washington, your next-door neighbor has that kind of income.”

[..]

The District, which the census compares to both states and counties, has seen its ranking shoot up in the last five years as its median household income has risen from $54,000 to about $63,000. When compared with states, it rose from 16th to fifth. Compared with counties, it ranks 125, up from 247.

The high household-income levels throughout the region reflect its success in attracting newcomers who work in private business, a growing sector of the economy, as well as the federal government.

“This is a result of the moves of the Northrop Grummans, the Hiltons, the Volkwagens, the SAICs,” said Jim Dinegar, head of the Washington Board of Trade, citing corporations that expanded their presence in Washington in recent years. “They provide high-paying, good jobs that bring more of these people to the area.”​

 

[Derideo_Te]

very incorrect since Constitution created greatest country on earth by far in all of human history.

It is a great country....hasnt lasted as long as Rome or some others

and heading for a downfall if we dont change things

Rome went through ups and downs too. Nothing runs smoothly. The current Constitution weathered the crisis of a civil war. It has a very sturdy foundation in my opinion. All it needs is to updated to deal with the present realities and the Founding Fathers were prescient and humble enough to acknowledge their inability to predict what the future might bring.

It is up to us to deal with our reality and come with viable solutions. And yes, mistakes have been made in the past and were repealed. You cannot legislate morality. So that is one of the guidelines we need to follow in this process.

In real terms it means that the principle of equality under the law trumps the morality police when it comes to gay marriage and abortion.

99% of our current problems have to do with a failure to act responsibly and tax in accordance with our spending. To deal with that I have a proposal for a tax that only applies when the nation has any debt. In that instance all income over 20 times the poverty level is to be taxed at a rate that will eliminate the national debt in 20 years.

If there is no national debt the tax rate doesn't apply at all. It is self regulating since those who want any additional spending will be required to pay the additional taxes therefore they won't be lobbying for corporate tax breaks knowing that it will just come out of their own pockets.

Your thoughts?

its idiotic to steal from the rich since they are the engine of economic growth.

It's a lot smarter than stealing from the poor.

So who does the government steal from when the rich are no longer able to be the engine of economic growth and there are too few resources to steal?

You see all kinds of arguments can be made for just about anything. What I hope to do with this exercise is to reach a consensus on what we want government to do and what we do not want government to do in any given matter.

I want government to have no more power to take resources from anybody than it absolutely has to have to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsbilities.

The wealthy have the ability to generate more wealth which the poor do not. There is zero evidence that higher taxes ever hindered the growth of the economy or wealth for that matter.

On the other hand there is hard evidence that lowering taxes is a disincentive for the wealthy to take risks by investing in the economy when the government is handing them massive taxcuts that come with zero risk.

So higher taxes are an incentive for the wealthy to grow the economy just as higher wages are an incentive for consumers to spend more and grow the economy.

I know all of the above is the exact opposite of the failed rightwing economic propaganda of the last 3+ decades but the facts don't lie. The economy boomed in the 1990's after the 2 largest tax increases in the history of the nation and it has subsequently stagnated this century after the 2 largest taxcuts.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So who does the government steal from when the rich are no longer able to be the engine of economic growth and there are too few resources to steal?

that's not a great argument since the rich have more wealth than ever to steal nowadays. Of course this is not to say that it is right to steal from anyone ever.

Its an excellent argument for those of us who know you don't make the poor richer by making the rich less rich, and in fact when the government presumes to make the rich less rich or unrich, they invariably hurt the poor.

And I don't care how rich the rich are. There is no such thing as a bottomless well and if the government presume to see the rich as one, they will only drive the rich and/or their resources elsewhere leaving the poor with much fewer resources than before.

None of the above is based on any factual data. Instead that is all based upon the Libertarian canard that "taxes are stealing".

 

[dblack]

Yes. When a bill is made law under false pretense, and then remains law without majority support - I call that undermining democracy. If you call that 'business as usual', then is it any wonder so few people bother to vote?

So, they hid from you the fact that there would be money to pay for failure to comply with the mandate? Oops, they did not. Is "penalty" a term that could be deemed inappropriate to describe a fine for the refusal to comply with a law? Oops, it is not. So, they avoided the term "tax" because it is set to get the Norquist acolytes and anti-tax hysterics into a hissy, and chose another, entirely legitimate term instead.

But then, in order to have some balance and fairness here, let's revisit the mendacious screeches about "the biggest tax hike in history" (no, it wasn't), "death panels" (there are none), "helping granny to her premature death" (no that wasn't in the book)", or the distorted meaning that was given Pelosi's statement "we need to pass it in order to see what's in it" (which was Pelosi expressing her hope that Americans would like the ACA once they experienced the law's effects, not her admission that no one could know what they were voting on).

Yeah, you know, need I be explicit to tell you where you can take your selective outrage?

No need at all. That's the attitude I've come expect from statists when their hypocrisy is pointed out to them.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes. When a bill is made law under false pretense, and then remains law without majority support - I call that undermining democracy. If you call that 'business as usual', then is it any wonder so few people bother to vote?

So, they hid from you the fact that there would be money to pay for failure to comply with the mandate? Oops, they did not. Is "penalty" a term that could be deemed inappropriate to describe a fine for the refusal to comply with a law? Oops, it is not. So, they avoided the term "tax" because it is set to get the Norquist acolytes and anti-tax hysterics into a hissy, and chose another, entirely legitimate term instead.

But then, in order to have some balance and fairness here, let's revisit the mendacious screeches about "the biggest tax hike in history" (no, it wasn't), "death panels" (there are none), "helping granny to her premature death" (no that wasn't in the book)", or the distorted meaning that was given Pelosi's statement "we need to pass it in order to see what's in it" (which was Pelosi expressing her hope that Americans would like the ACA once they experienced the law's effects, not her admission that no one could know what they were voting on).

Yeah, you know, need I be explicit to tell you where you can take your selective outrage?

No need at all. That's the attitude I've come expect from statists when their hypocrisy is pointed out to them.

But you said absolutely nothing to refute Olde Europe's points so they all still stand unchallenged.

 

[dblack]

Yes. When a bill is made law under false pretense, and then remains law without majority support - I call that undermining democracy. If you call that 'business as usual', then is it any wonder so few people bother to vote?

So, they hid from you the fact that there would be money to pay for failure to comply with the mandate? Oops, they did not. Is "penalty" a term that could be deemed inappropriate to describe a fine for the refusal to comply with a law? Oops, it is not. So, they avoided the term "tax" because it is set to get the Norquist acolytes and anti-tax hysterics into a hissy, and chose another, entirely legitimate term instead.

But then, in order to have some balance and fairness here, let's revisit the mendacious screeches about "the biggest tax hike in history" (no, it wasn't), "death panels" (there are none), "helping granny to her premature death" (no that wasn't in the book)", or the distorted meaning that was given Pelosi's statement "we need to pass it in order to see what's in it" (which was Pelosi expressing her hope that Americans would like the ACA once they experienced the law's effects, not her admission that no one could know what they were voting on).

Yeah, you know, need I be explicit to tell you where you can take your selective outrage?

No need at all. That's the attitude I've come expect from statists when their hypocrisy is pointed out to them.

But you said absolutely nothing to refute Olde Europe's points so they all still stand unchallenged.

I didn't intend to. All he said was that the Republicans are hypocrites too. I agree. But nothing Olde Europe said refutes the fact that ACA was passed on false pretense. Pretending a tax is a "penalty" is no different than pretending torture is an "enhanced interrogation technique".

My outrage is, in this case, selectively aimed at those who voted for ACA.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. When a bill is made law under false pretense, and then remains law without majority support - I call that undermining democracy. If you call that 'business as usual', then is it any wonder so few people bother to vote?

So, they hid from you the fact that there would be money to pay for failure to comply with the mandate? Oops, they did not. Is "penalty" a term that could be deemed inappropriate to describe a fine for the refusal to comply with a law? Oops, it is not. So, they avoided the term "tax" because it is set to get the Norquist acolytes and anti-tax hysterics into a hissy, and chose another, entirely legitimate term instead.

But then, in order to have some balance and fairness here, let's revisit the mendacious screeches about "the biggest tax hike in history" (no, it wasn't), "death panels" (there are none), "helping granny to her premature death" (no that wasn't in the book)", or the distorted meaning that was given Pelosi's statement "we need to pass it in order to see what's in it" (which was Pelosi expressing her hope that Americans would like the ACA once they experienced the law's effects, not her admission that no one could know what they were voting on).

Yeah, you know, need I be explicit to tell you where you can take your selective outrage?

No need at all. That's the attitude I've come expect from statists when their hypocrisy is pointed out to them.

But you said absolutely nothing to refute Olde Europe's points so they all still stand unchallenged.

I didn't intend to. All he said was that the Republicans are hypocrites too. I agree. But nothing Olde Europe said refutes the fact that ACA was passed on false pretense. Pretending a tax is a "penalty" is no different than pretending torture is an "enhanced interrogation technique".

My outrage is, in this case, selectively aimed at those who voted for ACA.

AND.....it adds nothing to the debate and adds a toxic element when some seem to be unable to refrain from some version of the 'your side did it too or your side did it first and that makes our side okay' argument. Or the 'because something went wrong or was bad, none of the good counts' argument.

Which is why I (and I note several of us) are trying to keep partisanship out of this discussion and focus on the actual concepts. This may actually prove to be an impossibility for some, but I remain optimistic.

Indeed the ACA was sold to the American people amidst a great deal of deception, lies, false promises, and under the table deals that have become obvious only long after the fact.

For the purposes of this thread, it doesn't matter who was responsible for that. What matters is that it happened and is a huge part of the stagnant economy and a national debt that is increasing at a terrifying rate that will totally crash the economy and there aren't enough people yet in Washington with the political will to fix that. It remains to be seen whether there will be a political will to fix that in January.

I want an improved Constitution that cannot be reinterpreted in a way that allows our government to foist anything like that upon us.

 

[Olde Europe]

Which is why I (and I note several of us) are trying to keep partisanship out of this discussion and focus on the actual concepts. This may actually prove to be an impossibility for some, but I remain optimistic.

Indeed the ACA was sold to the American people amidst a great deal of deception, lies, false promises, and under the table deals that have become obvious only long after the fact.

You know, Foxfyre, your latter paragraph seems to articulate the starkest-possible contradiction to the professed high-minded optimism of the former.

 

[Foxfyre]

Which is why I (and I note several of us) are trying to keep partisanship out of this discussion and focus on the actual concepts. This may actually prove to be an impossibility for some, but I remain optimistic.

Indeed the ACA was sold to the American people amidst a great deal of deception, lies, false promises, and under the table deals that have become obvious only long after the fact.

You know, Foxfyre, your latter paragraph seems to articulate the starkest-possible contradiction to the professed high-minded optimism of the former.

No contradiction. It is simply stating the truth, a truth that should be obvious to everybody by now from countless editorials, commentary, and straight news reporting from Obama's admission that he said stuff people believed that turned out to not be the case to the whole Jonathan Gruber scandal to the obvious affect on the U.S. economy to what many of us are reporting on how it has affected us directly.



Now you may believe it was all worth it and it has been all or mostly a good thing and the U.S. government should have the power to pass legislation of this type that affects everybody in the country. If so, you will not be among those who would agree to a new and improved constitutional clause that would ensure that the federal government could never do something like that to us again.

 

[Olde Europe]

No contradiction. It is simply stating the truth, a truth that should be obvious to everybody by now from countless editorials, commentary, and straight news reporting from Obama's admission that he said stuff people believed that turned out to not be the case to the whole Jonathan Gruber scandal to the obvious affect on the U.S. economy to what many of us are reporting on how it has affected us directly.

Now you may believe it was all worth it and it has been all or mostly a good thing and the U.S. government should have the power to pass legislation of this type that affects everybody in the country. If so, you will not be among those who would agree to a new and improved constitutional clause that would ensure that the federal government could never do something like that to us again.

The contradiction was stark, and obvious.

The statements about the ACA during the extensive debates and negotiations were for the most part true, and the ACA was implemented with no appreciable effect on the economy; if there was anything it was the screeching emerging from reactionary circles about "part time jobs", "hours reduced to 30 all over the country", "tens of millions losing their health insurance", which all turned out to be wrong, or at least overwrought. If anything the economy was picking up since the enactment.

So much for the facts.

As to concepts, I have asserted before that you are entirely comfortable with people going without health insurance, and thus live a far more precarious existence, and face bankruptcy when falling seriously ill, which pre-ACA they did in droves, which you denied. The ACA has extended health insurance to millions, and above you express your wish it hadn't been done. That seems to prove my point.

Why is that important, conceptually? Obviously, living a precarious existence has a deleterious effect on those living in such circumstances, such as living in constant fear of falling ill, or delaying treatment only to become more seriously ill, and that isn't even beginning to describe children growing up that way. Hardly anyone burdened like that would reach anything like their true potential, and the impact on children is particularly stark. As is commonly known, the Founders had an expression for one of these unalienable rights, that is, the pursuit of happiness, which hardly gets a mention, much less impacts policy considerations, amongst right-wingers. That right, obviously, doesn't mean government is there to make everyone happy; it means that government is to create certain preconditions and structures that further and stabilise the pursuit of happiness.

I'd say, those who believe that the Founders' thinking and perceptions, with all their limitations, given the time they lived in, should be imposed on those living now express scathing disregard for the Founders' wisdom, as these certainly did not believe their insights should govern the Republic for the rest of her existence, or even a century. Historically exceedingly well informed, they knew full well that societies change over time, different needs and necessities arise, and they most assuredly wanted governments to be responsive to the needs of those they govern. It is, in conclusion, an unspeakable atrocity to impose that narrow-minded view of the Founders' stance on those now living, and every attempt to do so should be exposed as that which it is: An attempt to deprive many of those now living of the fruits of their labor, of the stability, and the means to pursue happiness in a 21st century society, of which the Founders couldn't even dream, in effect turning a boneheaded interpretation of the Founders' intent against one of their pre-eminent insights in furtherance of a plutocracy in which the less fortunate are out there in the cold to fight for themselves. As in, "ensure that the federal government could never do something like that [extending health insurance to millions of Americans] to us again."

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes. When a bill is made law under false pretense, and then remains law without majority support - I call that undermining democracy. If you call that 'business as usual', then is it any wonder so few people bother to vote?

So, they hid from you the fact that there would be money to pay for failure to comply with the mandate? Oops, they did not. Is "penalty" a term that could be deemed inappropriate to describe a fine for the refusal to comply with a law? Oops, it is not. So, they avoided the term "tax" because it is set to get the Norquist acolytes and anti-tax hysterics into a hissy, and chose another, entirely legitimate term instead.

But then, in order to have some balance and fairness here, let's revisit the mendacious screeches about "the biggest tax hike in history" (no, it wasn't), "death panels" (there are none), "helping granny to her premature death" (no that wasn't in the book)", or the distorted meaning that was given Pelosi's statement "we need to pass it in order to see what's in it" (which was Pelosi expressing her hope that Americans would like the ACA once they experienced the law's effects, not her admission that no one could know what they were voting on).

Yeah, you know, need I be explicit to tell you where you can take your selective outrage?

No need at all. That's the attitude I've come expect from statists when their hypocrisy is pointed out to them.

But you said absolutely nothing to refute Olde Europe's points so they all still stand unchallenged.

I didn't intend to. All he said was that the Republicans are hypocrites too. I agree. But nothing Olde Europe said refutes the fact that ACA was passed on false pretense. Pretending a tax is a "penalty" is no different than pretending torture is an "enhanced interrogation technique".

My outrage is, in this case, selectively aimed at those who voted for ACA.

And yet you refuse to hold accountable those who blatantly lied about the ACA as hypocritical liars.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes. When a bill is made law under false pretense, and then remains law without majority support - I call that undermining democracy. If you call that 'business as usual', then is it any wonder so few people bother to vote?

So, they hid from you the fact that there would be money to pay for failure to comply with the mandate? Oops, they did not. Is "penalty" a term that could be deemed inappropriate to describe a fine for the refusal to comply with a law? Oops, it is not. So, they avoided the term "tax" because it is set to get the Norquist acolytes and anti-tax hysterics into a hissy, and chose another, entirely legitimate term instead.

But then, in order to have some balance and fairness here, let's revisit the mendacious screeches about "the biggest tax hike in history" (no, it wasn't), "death panels" (there are none), "helping granny to her premature death" (no that wasn't in the book)", or the distorted meaning that was given Pelosi's statement "we need to pass it in order to see what's in it" (which was Pelosi expressing her hope that Americans would like the ACA once they experienced the law's effects, not her admission that no one could know what they were voting on).

Yeah, you know, need I be explicit to tell you where you can take your selective outrage?

No need at all. That's the attitude I've come expect from statists when their hypocrisy is pointed out to them.

But you said absolutely nothing to refute Olde Europe's points so they all still stand unchallenged.

I didn't intend to. All he said was that the Republicans are hypocrites too. I agree. But nothing Olde Europe said refutes the fact that ACA was passed on false pretense. Pretending a tax is a "penalty" is no different than pretending torture is an "enhanced interrogation technique".

My outrage is, in this case, selectively aimed at those who voted for ACA.

AND.....it adds nothing to the debate and adds a toxic element when some seem to be unable to refrain from some version of the 'your side did it too or your side did it first and that makes our side okay' argument. Or the 'because something went wrong or was bad, none of the good counts' argument.

Which is why I (and I note several of us) are trying to keep partisanship out of this discussion and focus on the actual concepts. This may actually prove to be an impossibility for some, but I remain optimistic.

Indeed the ACA was sold to the American people amidst a great deal of deception, lies, false promises, and under the table deals that have become obvious only long after the fact.

For the purposes of this thread, it doesn't matter who was responsible for that. What matters is that it happened and is a huge part of the stagnant economy and a national debt that is increasing at a terrifying rate that will totally crash the economy and there aren't enough people yet in Washington with the political will to fix that. It remains to be seen whether there will be a political will to fix that in January.

I want an improved Constitution that cannot be reinterpreted in a way that allows our government to foist anything like that upon us.

The staggering IRONY of that post is off the charts.

Blaming others as being partisan while flinging baseless partisan canards is not going to change the tone. All it does is establish that the OP with the log in her eye obviously has no idea that it is there.

But it does establish that the OP has no interest in a compromise change to the Constitution. She just wants it done her way and no one else is allowed to dare offer any criticism or suggestions of their own that don't fit into her Libertarian Utopia.

 

[Foxfyre]

I posted very obvious evidence to back up my allegations. Do I have to post all the Jonathan Gruber clips too? All the statements from members of Congress who were promising this and that from the ACA that did not bear out to be true? All the evidence again of how the economy is being impacted? Those who have lost their healthcare plans, who have lost their doctors (that would be Hombre and me), and who have been pushed into higher premiums with bigger copays and deductibles? To say that none of this has happened to anybody is to really have one's head stuck deep in the ground.

And here is the most grevious deception of all that has received very little attention in the press, but which my (former) doctor spotted immediately:
The ACA A Train Wreck and a Lie National Review Online

I have very good and solid reason to believe that the American people were lied to in order to make the legislation look like something it never was and never will be. I have generally allowed other members here their opinions without attacking them personally. I would appreciate the same courtesy extended by everybody.

And I really don't CARE whether the Founders thought their ideas, values, concepts, and principles would stand the test of time. I am reasonably certain they had high hopes that they would even realizing that there would be those who would seek to undermine it all and fearing that such people would be successful.

It is my opinion that now that we know when and how the basic principles were underminded, that we do need to improve the Constitution to restore that original intent which I believe has proved itself to be a good thing.

And it is my opinion that the Constitution needs to be amended to make it much more difficult and improbable that a piece of legislation like the ACA could happen again.

 

[Olde Europe]

But it does establish that the OP has no interest in a compromise change to the Constitution. She just wants it done her way and no one else is allowed to dare offer any criticism or suggestions of their own that don't fit into her Libertarian Utopia.

I fear, I have to disagree with that, in that Foxfyre's willingness to compromise hasn't been seriously tested. Moreover, there's no fault in hoping that Constitutional change happens in one's own preferred way.

On the other hand, since Foxfyre would like to shift Constitutional standards into a direction that would be the very opposite of what should happen in my - and, I trust, in your - view, I'll have to restate that the document should much rather remain as is than being subjected to change of any kind.

Can you even imagine what sitting across a deeply torn and divided-amongst-TeaPartiers, Neo-Cons, Theo-Cons, and Wall Street henchmen-Republican party would entail? That would be where every remotely decent idea would go to die.

 

[dblack]

Yes. When a bill is made law under false pretense, and then remains law without majority support - I call that undermining democracy. If you call that 'business as usual', then is it any wonder so few people bother to vote?

So, they hid from you the fact that there would be money to pay for failure to comply with the mandate? Oops, they did not. Is "penalty" a term that could be deemed inappropriate to describe a fine for the refusal to comply with a law? Oops, it is not. So, they avoided the term "tax" because it is set to get the Norquist acolytes and anti-tax hysterics into a hissy, and chose another, entirely legitimate term instead.

But then, in order to have some balance and fairness here, let's revisit the mendacious screeches about "the biggest tax hike in history" (no, it wasn't), "death panels" (there are none), "helping granny to her premature death" (no that wasn't in the book)", or the distorted meaning that was given Pelosi's statement "we need to pass it in order to see what's in it" (which was Pelosi expressing her hope that Americans would like the ACA once they experienced the law's effects, not her admission that no one could know what they were voting on).

Yeah, you know, need I be explicit to tell you where you can take your selective outrage?

No need at all. That's the attitude I've come expect from statists when their hypocrisy is pointed out to them.

But you said absolutely nothing to refute Olde Europe's points so they all still stand unchallenged.

I didn't intend to. All he said was that the Republicans are hypocrites too. I agree. But nothing Olde Europe said refutes the fact that ACA was passed on false pretense. Pretending a tax is a "penalty" is no different than pretending torture is an "enhanced interrogation technique".

My outrage is, in this case, selectively aimed at those who voted for ACA.

And yet you refuse to hold accountable those who blatantly lied about the ACA as hypocritical liars.

No, I'm not letting them off the hook. But they didn't pass ACA. I have no doubt they would have, or would have passed something equally reprehensible, if they had been in the majority. But, this time, they weren't and they didn't.

It is apparently inconceivable to you, but I'm opposed the corporatist approach to governance because I think it's bad policy regardless of who is responsible.