CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Derideo_Te]

The only remedy is to limit the ability of those in that Permanent Political Class to pick and choose winners and losers and limit their ability to benefit themselves. And that requires removing much power and authority from the federal government and returning it to the people where it was intended to be.

Why not just disenfranchise We the People while you are about it?

Because that is exactly what you are proposing.

The ONLY means that We the People have to oppose the Libertarian oligarchs like the Koch bros. is the government OF the people and FOR the people.

The Libertarian Koch bros want you to disenfranchise yourself so that you won't have any means whatsoever to stop them from strip mining America of everything they can steal from us.

What exactly do you think the Koch Bros are stealing from us? And how is giving power back to the people disenfranchising them or taking away their means to deal with bad behavior by anybody?

And how would taking away the ability of the Koch Brothers to buy any influence with the federal government be a bad thing? Because that is what I have proposed.

The Libertarian Koch bros have already stolen our representatives from us, or hadn't you noticed?

We the People are supposed to elect OUR representatives that will represent OUR INTERESTS and not those of the Libertarian Koch bros.

The Libertarian Koch bros and their ilk are the problem, not the government OF the people FOR the people.

WE are the government, or at least that is how it is supposed to work but as long as you continue to want to tear down the OUR government you are handing over all of OUR power to the Libertarian Koch bros.

 

[Foxfyre]

You cannot go back and find statements of mine to support what you have accused me of saying when I have protested being mischaracterized or misrepresented.

Ironic given that was exactly what you just did which is why I called you out on it.

And nowhere will you find any post of mine where I claim to be a paragon of virtue and not indulging in any of the things that you not only accuse others of doing, but where you are the worst offender in this thread of doing all of the above.

You, on the other hand, have repeatedly tried to claim to be above all wrongdoing while castigating everyone who exposes your Libertarian Utopia for the unrealistic farce that it will always be. Furthermore in those same self serving posts you actually commit the same wrongdoing that you accuse others of doing.

This is not intended to derail the thread but to set the record straight. You have deliberately mischaracterized not only my posts but the posts of others too. If you persist in doing so then you can expect to be called out whenever you cross the line you drew in the sand.

I make no bones about my disdain for your OP and your unrealistic attempts to "legislate morality". In the real world We the People need a workable and functioning Constitution that doesn't hand over power to unAmerican Libertarian oligarchs like the Koch bros.

You can now return to your previously scheduled indignation.

I notice you did not refer to any post I made to support your accusations here. I still challenge you to do that.

#1208
The problem with D.T.'s conclusion drawn from that presumed Princeton study is that the oligarchy will be found mostly in the modern permanent political class. But then since he seems to believe that it is wrong that some of us are suspicious or wary of or disenchanted with big government, he will probably side with the leftwing in that the evil ones who have created this situation are the private sector and that government had nothing to do with it.

#1215
I will also note that as the discussion proceeds, those on the left continue to reinforce my opinion that they simply cannot and/or will not argue a concept without ad hominem, red herrings, building straw men, non sequitur, or engaging in personal insults.

#1219
Just for once, is it possible that you could make an argument without slandering me? Without misquoting, mischaracterizing, or mistating what I have posted?

#1181
You are correct. Today's bureaucrats and the permanent political class cannot be trusted to honor the existing constitution and they regularly bypass it in order to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth. Therefore, they should not be trusted with any pretense at reform because any such 'reform' they come up with would most likely benefit them more than it would benefit anybody else. They have also demonstrated that they don't care what reform any of us out in flyover country want. Most have demonstrated that they don't care what short range or long range negative affect what they do has on the general welfare of all. It is fairly certain they expect to have theirs and be long gone before it all finally hits the fan at which time whomever is unlucky enough to be there then will get the blame.

#1184
Who do you trust in Congress or the White House to accurate describe the mission and/or use the exact words that are applicable to justify military intervention? Before you answer, remember that we were assured by our fearless leader and others that the ACA would require no new taxes and the revenue provisions in the legislation were NOT taxes. . . .UNTIL. . . .they had to be taxes in order to pass muster with the Supreme Court and all of a sudden they were taxes. And we can use many, many more such examples to illustrate the point here.

#1141
And again you mischaracterize what I said. Under liberty, there is NO OBLIGATION to involuntarily provide for anybody. There is no morality whatsoever in forcibly confiscating from the productive and transferring that property to somebody else. I said that a moral society will take care of the most helpless among it, but that will come from morality, i.e. voluntarily either individually or via social contract. Distribution of resources via a large one-size-fits-all central government or a government that presumes the power to assign who will give and who will receive is not liberty. That is totalitarianism.

#1144
When the federal government has power to dictate to we the people what we MUST buy and denies us any other option, and when it dictates to the insurance companies what they MUST insure and denies them any other option, and when it dictates what medical services must be provided at all levels, the federal government is controlling every aspect of our healthcare.

#1139
If you can show how Obamacare does NOT effectively control every aspect of the healthcare industry to what products the insurance companies MUST offer and what the people are REQUIRED to buy, go for it. If you can show how people going to their jobs and running their businesses for their own benefit does not benefit society as a whole at prices people can afford to pay and are willing to pay, go for it. How can anybody rate a program successful that takes away most choices from most Americans and is projected to cost unfunded trillions in coming years? That would be Medicare alone. Add Obamacare to that and you have unsustainable chaos.
I'm sure single payer sounds wonderful to some. To me it sounds like a straight jacket, like totalitarianism in its worst form, a method to take away all choice, opportunity, options, and liberty from the people.
How can I feel good about any program sold to the people with intentional and blatant lies so that they won't object to it until it is too late?​

Plenty of mischaracterizations on your part in just that handful of your posts. There are a great deal more where those came from.

Needless to say you will deny all of them because that is your default kneejerk response to all legitimate criticism of what you post.

So you can expect to be called out again and again whenever you do it.

The first quotation (#1208) did refer to you personally only to accurately point out that your criticisms of those on the right, and me specifically, who are suspicious of or critical of the federal government. And that was tempered with 'seems to' believe rather than draw a firm conclusion about what you do or do not believe.

I do and will continue to call out those who misrepresent what I have said. I do not mind anybody disagreeing with me or making their very best argument to rebut my argument. But I won't agree that I said something or meant something or want something or believe something (et al) that I didn't say.

I fail to see how any of the other quotations you copied and pasted and misrepresenting what anybody has said. They are all arguments I am making. Unless you consider that if my argument does not agree with yours, then that is mischaracterizing what you said? Is that what you mean? Is your rule for debate that nobody can express an opinion you don't like without being personally insulted or being a mischaracterization?

My point is that you castigize others for doing the same thing that you do all the time.

Misrepresentation is misrepresentation. When you do it about the government or the ACA it is still misrepresentation just as when you do it about what others post.

Stop whining that others are doing it when you are just as guilty of doing it yourself.

Then we can get on with actually coming up with an Amendment that will actually give We the People back OUR government FOR the people.

The only thing I have complained about here is when you or anybody else accuses ME, that is ME personally, of saying something, intending something, wanting something, believing something etc. etc. that I did not and have never said. Or implying that what I did say means something else.

I will accept that you cannot find any quote of mine in which I have mischaracterized you or misrepresented anything you said in the same way.

I will not agree that somebody holding an opinion about anything that others disagree with is misrepresentation. Saying that Obamacare is the greatest thing since sliced bread is NOT misrepresentation. Saying that Obamacare takes away choices, liberties, options, and opportunities is NOT misrepresentation.

Saying that Obamacare allows all Americans to keep their doctor if they like their doctor and to keep their health plan if they like their health plan IS misrepresentation.

 

[Foxfyre]

The only remedy is to limit the ability of those in that Permanent Political Class to pick and choose winners and losers and limit their ability to benefit themselves. And that requires removing much power and authority from the federal government and returning it to the people where it was intended to be.

Why not just disenfranchise We the People while you are about it?

Because that is exactly what you are proposing.

The ONLY means that We the People have to oppose the Libertarian oligarchs like the Koch bros. is the government OF the people and FOR the people.

The Libertarian Koch bros want you to disenfranchise yourself so that you won't have any means whatsoever to stop them from strip mining America of everything they can steal from us.

What exactly do you think the Koch Bros are stealing from us? And how is giving power back to the people disenfranchising them or taking away their means to deal with bad behavior by anybody?

And how would taking away the ability of the Koch Brothers to buy any influence with the federal government be a bad thing? Because that is what I have proposed.

The Libertarian Koch bros have already stolen our representatives from us, or hadn't you noticed?

We the People are supposed to elect OUR representatives that will represent OUR INTERESTS and not those of the Libertarian Koch bros.

The Libertarian Koch bros and their ilk are the problem, not the government OF the people FOR the people.

WE are the government, or at least that is how it is supposed to work but as long as you continue to want to tear down the OUR government you are handing over all of OUR power to the Libertarian Koch bros.

I believe you believe that about the Koch Brothers. But again I ask you to show me HOW. What exactly have they stolen from us? How are the Koch Bros. the problem and not the government?

Philosophical question: What is worse? Offering a bribe? Or accepting one?

Don't give me a highly partisan cut and paste from some leftwing source. Put it in your own words. Exactly what do the Koch Bros do that is so evil or bad?

And there again you misrepresented/mischaracterized what I said. I have not said nor have I suggested that I "want to tear down the OUR government.' I want to reform it and restore it to the people where it was intended to be. And the reforms I have suggested would prevent the government/our elected legislators from accommodating the interests of the Koch Brothers more than they accommodate the interests of everybody else and would prevent them from benefitting in any way from the Koch Brothers.

How is that not the best solution to that problem if it is indeed a problem?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Ironic given that was exactly what you just did which is why I called you out on it.

And nowhere will you find any post of mine where I claim to be a paragon of virtue and not indulging in any of the things that you not only accuse others of doing, but where you are the worst offender in this thread of doing all of the above.

You, on the other hand, have repeatedly tried to claim to be above all wrongdoing while castigating everyone who exposes your Libertarian Utopia for the unrealistic farce that it will always be. Furthermore in those same self serving posts you actually commit the same wrongdoing that you accuse others of doing.

This is not intended to derail the thread but to set the record straight. You have deliberately mischaracterized not only my posts but the posts of others too. If you persist in doing so then you can expect to be called out whenever you cross the line you drew in the sand.

I make no bones about my disdain for your OP and your unrealistic attempts to "legislate morality". In the real world We the People need a workable and functioning Constitution that doesn't hand over power to unAmerican Libertarian oligarchs like the Koch bros.

You can now return to your previously scheduled indignation.

I notice you did not refer to any post I made to support your accusations here. I still challenge you to do that.

#1208
The problem with D.T.'s conclusion drawn from that presumed Princeton study is that the oligarchy will be found mostly in the modern permanent political class. But then since he seems to believe that it is wrong that some of us are suspicious or wary of or disenchanted with big government, he will probably side with the leftwing in that the evil ones who have created this situation are the private sector and that government had nothing to do with it.

#1215
I will also note that as the discussion proceeds, those on the left continue to reinforce my opinion that they simply cannot and/or will not argue a concept without ad hominem, red herrings, building straw men, non sequitur, or engaging in personal insults.

#1219
Just for once, is it possible that you could make an argument without slandering me? Without misquoting, mischaracterizing, or mistating what I have posted?

#1181
You are correct. Today's bureaucrats and the permanent political class cannot be trusted to honor the existing constitution and they regularly bypass it in order to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth. Therefore, they should not be trusted with any pretense at reform because any such 'reform' they come up with would most likely benefit them more than it would benefit anybody else. They have also demonstrated that they don't care what reform any of us out in flyover country want. Most have demonstrated that they don't care what short range or long range negative affect what they do has on the general welfare of all. It is fairly certain they expect to have theirs and be long gone before it all finally hits the fan at which time whomever is unlucky enough to be there then will get the blame.

#1184
Who do you trust in Congress or the White House to accurate describe the mission and/or use the exact words that are applicable to justify military intervention? Before you answer, remember that we were assured by our fearless leader and others that the ACA would require no new taxes and the revenue provisions in the legislation were NOT taxes. . . .UNTIL. . . .they had to be taxes in order to pass muster with the Supreme Court and all of a sudden they were taxes. And we can use many, many more such examples to illustrate the point here.

#1141
And again you mischaracterize what I said. Under liberty, there is NO OBLIGATION to involuntarily provide for anybody. There is no morality whatsoever in forcibly confiscating from the productive and transferring that property to somebody else. I said that a moral society will take care of the most helpless among it, but that will come from morality, i.e. voluntarily either individually or via social contract. Distribution of resources via a large one-size-fits-all central government or a government that presumes the power to assign who will give and who will receive is not liberty. That is totalitarianism.

#1144
When the federal government has power to dictate to we the people what we MUST buy and denies us any other option, and when it dictates to the insurance companies what they MUST insure and denies them any other option, and when it dictates what medical services must be provided at all levels, the federal government is controlling every aspect of our healthcare.

#1139
If you can show how Obamacare does NOT effectively control every aspect of the healthcare industry to what products the insurance companies MUST offer and what the people are REQUIRED to buy, go for it. If you can show how people going to their jobs and running their businesses for their own benefit does not benefit society as a whole at prices people can afford to pay and are willing to pay, go for it. How can anybody rate a program successful that takes away most choices from most Americans and is projected to cost unfunded trillions in coming years? That would be Medicare alone. Add Obamacare to that and you have unsustainable chaos.
I'm sure single payer sounds wonderful to some. To me it sounds like a straight jacket, like totalitarianism in its worst form, a method to take away all choice, opportunity, options, and liberty from the people.
How can I feel good about any program sold to the people with intentional and blatant lies so that they won't object to it until it is too late?​

Plenty of mischaracterizations on your part in just that handful of your posts. There are a great deal more where those came from.

Needless to say you will deny all of them because that is your default kneejerk response to all legitimate criticism of what you post.

So you can expect to be called out again and again whenever you do it.

The first quotation (#1208) did refer to you personally only to accurately point out that your criticisms of those on the right, and me specifically, who are suspicious of or critical of the federal government. And that was tempered with 'seems to' believe rather than draw a firm conclusion about what you do or do not believe.

I do and will continue to call out those who misrepresent what I have said. I do not mind anybody disagreeing with me or making their very best argument to rebut my argument. But I won't agree that I said something or meant something or want something or believe something (et al) that I didn't say.

I fail to see how any of the other quotations you copied and pasted and misrepresenting what anybody has said. They are all arguments I am making. Unless you consider that if my argument does not agree with yours, then that is mischaracterizing what you said? Is that what you mean? Is your rule for debate that nobody can express an opinion you don't like without being personally insulted or being a mischaracterization?

My point is that you castigize others for doing the same thing that you do all the time.

Misrepresentation is misrepresentation. When you do it about the government or the ACA it is still misrepresentation just as when you do it about what others post.

Stop whining that others are doing it when you are just as guilty of doing it yourself.

Then we can get on with actually coming up with an Amendment that will actually give We the People back OUR government FOR the people.

The only thing I have complained about here is when you or anybody else accuses ME, that is ME personally, of saying something, intending something, wanting something, believing something etc. etc. that I did not and have never said. Or implying that what I did say means something else.

I will accept that you cannot find any quote of mine in which I have mischaracterized you or misrepresented anything you said in the same way.

I will not agree that somebody holding an opinion about anything that others disagree with is misrepresentation. Saying that Obamacare is the greatest thing since sliced bread is NOT misrepresentation. Saying that Obamacare takes away choices, liberties, options, and opportunities is NOT misrepresentation.

Saying that Obamacare allows all Americans to keep their doctor if they like their doctor and to keep their health plan if they like their health plan IS misrepresentation.

I will accept that you cannot find any quote of mine in which I have mischaracterized you or misrepresented anything you said in the same way.

Except that I did just that in #1256 and you are now lying to yourself and to everyone else in this thread.

Saying that Obamacare allows all Americans to keep their doctor if they like their doctor and to keep their health plan if they like their health plan IS misrepresentation.

Simply because you are gullible enough to believe the disinformation spewed by Fauxnews, Rush Limbaugh and Hate AM doesn't mean that it is true.

8216 Millions 8217 Lost Insurance

Critics of the law now say millions lost their health insurance. But that’s misleading. Those individual market plans were discontinued, but policyholders weren’t denied coverage. And the question is, how many millions of insured Americans had plans canceled, and how does that compare with the millions of uninsured Americans who gained coverage under the law.

There is evidence that far more have gained coverage than had their policies canceled.

The AFP ad also makes the claim that “millions of people can’t see their own doctors,” but there’s no evidence that all those who had individual market policies discontinued ended up not being able to keep their own doctors. Anecdotally, we knowof some folks who were able to keep the same doctor on a new insurance policy. But those are only a few individual stories. One of our guiding principles here is the saying, “The plural of anecdote is not data.”​

Because you believe and continue to spout those canards you are misrepresenting the ACA even after the FACTS have established them to be false.

So once again we have your own words proving that you engage in misrepresentation and mischaracterization. Yes, you are doing it and the links prove that you are doing it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The only remedy is to limit the ability of those in that Permanent Political Class to pick and choose winners and losers and limit their ability to benefit themselves. And that requires removing much power and authority from the federal government and returning it to the people where it was intended to be.

Why not just disenfranchise We the People while you are about it?

Because that is exactly what you are proposing.

The ONLY means that We the People have to oppose the Libertarian oligarchs like the Koch bros. is the government OF the people and FOR the people.

The Libertarian Koch bros want you to disenfranchise yourself so that you won't have any means whatsoever to stop them from strip mining America of everything they can steal from us.

What exactly do you think the Koch Bros are stealing from us? And how is giving power back to the people disenfranchising them or taking away their means to deal with bad behavior by anybody?

And how would taking away the ability of the Koch Brothers to buy any influence with the federal government be a bad thing? Because that is what I have proposed.

The Libertarian Koch bros have already stolen our representatives from us, or hadn't you noticed?

We the People are supposed to elect OUR representatives that will represent OUR INTERESTS and not those of the Libertarian Koch bros.

The Libertarian Koch bros and their ilk are the problem, not the government OF the people FOR the people.

WE are the government, or at least that is how it is supposed to work but as long as you continue to want to tear down the OUR government you are handing over all of OUR power to the Libertarian Koch bros.

I believe you believe that about the Koch Brothers. But again I ask you to show me HOW. What exactly have they stolen from us? How are the Koch Bros. the problem and not the government?

Philosophical question: What is worse? Offering a bribe? Or accepting one?

Don't give me a highly partisan cut and paste from some leftwing source. Put it in your own words. Exactly what do the Koch Bros do that is so evil or bad?

And there again you misrepresented/mischaracterized what I said. I have not said nor have I suggested that I "want to tear down the OUR government.' I want to reform it and restore it to the people where it was intended to be. And the reforms I have suggested would prevent the government/our elected legislators from accommodating the interests of the Koch Brothers more than they accommodate the interests of everybody else and would prevent them from benefitting in any way from the Koch Brothers.

How is that not the best solution to that problem if it is indeed a problem?

Are you denying that the Koch bros are funding the Tea Party?

Are you denying that the Koch bros want all federal campaign finance laws deregulated and have actually succeeded to a great degree?

Are you denying that the Koch bros are opposed to not only the ACA but also Medicare and Medicaid and were behind many Republican state legislatures obstructing the ACA and denying extended Medicare to their most vulnerable citizens?

Are you denying that the Koch bros are behind the tax cuts that benefit them hugely and that their ultimate goal is to eliminate all taxation? Are you denying that they also want to repeal all laws regarding tax evasion? What does that say about their agenda?

Are you denying that the Koch bros want to completely eliminate the EPA and have been pushing for the defunding of the EPA?

Are you denying that the Koch bros want to abolish the FDA, the FAA, Consumer Product Safety, OSHA and all usuary laws?

Are you denying that the Koch bros want to completely eliminate Social Security foe everyone?

Because that is only part of their unAmerican agenda.

Can you see the parallels between what the Koch bros want and what Republican candidates are pushing on the stump? Do you see that the Koch bros have effectively redefined the entire agenda of the GOP into their own Libertarian Utopia agenda?

And do you realize that you are doing their nefarious bidding even though it is directly against your own personal best interests?

 

[Foxfyre]

I give up. Somebody else will have to debate D.T. I will focus on those who will answer a pertinent question put to them regarding their own posts, and who can address the argument that is actually made without a lot of ad hominem and non sequitur.

So moving right along, I wonder what authority, if anything, those participating in the thread or reading in are willing to take away from the federal government and assign to the states to manage?

What authority do you think the federal government should have that it does not now have?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I give up. Somebody else will have to debate D.T. I will focus on those who will answer a pertinent question put to them regarding their own posts, and who can address the argument that is actually made without a lot of ad hominem and non sequitur.

So moving right along, I wonder what authority, if anything, those participating in the thread or reading in are willing to take away from the federal government and assign to the states to manage?

What authority do you think the federal government should have that it does not now have?

You were given 10 straightforward questions and you couldn't answer a single one of them. Why was that? Was it because the answers made you uncomfortable when you had to face the truth about your Libertarian icons and their unAmerican agenda.

Then true to form you chose to vilify me because you could not answer the questions. There were no ad homs and non sequiturs in what I posted either. But run along and pretend that I am the "bad boy" because I held up a mirror and you didn't like what you saw of yourself in it.

The terms "pathetic" and "zero credibility" are what come to mind with your latest failure to respond honestly.

Have a nice day.

 

[dblack]

Google Liz Fowler.

Seriously, have you ever read up on her role in the creation of ACA? You should, because that's why you didn't get "single payer" or a "public option", and why nearly every well-meaning attempt to 'reign in' corporate power is turned against itself. And guess what? She's not a libertarian.

EDIT to add:

Because reading is hard ...

One individual did not stop "single payer" or the "public option". If you believe that simplistic nonsense then there is no point in discussing this with you.

Please read more carefully. I said her role was the problem - DC's infamous revolving door. If you don't agree that's a problem, then you're right - there's no point in discussing this with me.

Go back to the very first posts I made on this thread and you will see that I placed strict limitations on the role of lobbyists. That you are this woefully late to the party is unfortunate but at least you have caught up a little.

What are your specific proposals when it comes to limiting lobbyists?

Limit the whores catering to them.

That is a bumper sticker. Please be specific.

Constitutionally limit the power of Congress to pass laws that regulate our economic decisions. I've posted about this, at length and in specific detail, but you dismiss it because it would limit your visions of 'social justice'.

Democracy requires that 'we the people' (which, as much as it may frustrate you, includes business people), have the right to petition our representatives. The problem is not Washington's open door policy regarding lobbyists. The problem is what they're walking out the door with. As long as Congress has the power to pass laws like ACA, laws that literally dictate the purchasing decisions of consumers, greedy people will seek to control that power. This is why corporate influence over Washington actually grows with federal power to regulate. It grows because of it, not despite it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

One individual did not stop "single payer" or the "public option". If you believe that simplistic nonsense then there is no point in discussing this with you.

Please read more carefully. I said her role was the problem - DC's infamous revolving door. If you don't agree that's a problem, then you're right - there's no point in discussing this with me.

Go back to the very first posts I made on this thread and you will see that I placed strict limitations on the role of lobbyists. That you are this woefully late to the party is unfortunate but at least you have caught up a little.

What are your specific proposals when it comes to limiting lobbyists?

Limit the whores catering to them.

That is a bumper sticker. Please be specific.

Constitutionally limit the power of Congress to pass laws that regulate our economic decisions. I've posted about this, at length and in specific detail, but you dismiss it because it would limit your visions of 'social justice'.

Democracy requires that 'we the people' (which, as much as it may frustrate you, includes business people), have the right to petition our representatives. The problem is not Washington's open door policy regarding lobbyists. The problem is what they're walking out the door with. As long as Congress has the power to pass laws like ACA, laws that literally dictate the purchasing decisions of consumers, greedy people will seek to control that power. This is why corporate influence over Washington actually grows with federal power to regulate. It grows because of it, not despite it.

Once again you fail to provide specifics. When I posted about lobbyists I stipulated that all meetings between politicians and lobbyists must be on the record and in public with recordings made and released.

How are you going to stop lobbyists from "walking out the door with" what they want?

 

[dblack]

I give up. Somebody else will have to debate D.T. I will focus on those who will answer a pertinent question put to them regarding their own posts, and who can address the argument that is actually made without a lot of ad hominem and non sequitur.

So moving right along, I wonder what authority, if anything, those participating in the thread or reading in are willing to take away from the federal government and assign to the states to manage?

What authority do you think the federal government should have that it does not now have?

We need to raise awareness that, all too often, regulations that purport to control businesses, actually control customers. Likewise, laws that claim to regulate employers on behalf employees, all too often, regulate employees on behalf of employers.

Minimum wage is a great example. Supporters operate under the delusion that minimum wage laws force employers to pay people more money. But on examination, they don't actually do that. They simply prevent them from hiring people to work for less. They prevent employees from working for less, even if they want to. Even if they'd rather do that than be unemployed.

Likewise, "consumer protection" laws presume to force businesses to offer high-quality goods and services. But, again, they don't actually do that. They simply prohibit them from offering low-quality goods and services. They prevent customers from buying low-quality goods and services, even if they'd rather do that than go without. Even if the low-quality goods are all they can afford.

We need to raise awareness that increasing Congressional power to interfere in the economy doesn't "reign in" corporate power. Like throwing gasoline on a fire, it only feeds it.

 

[Foxfyre]

One individual did not stop "single payer" or the "public option". If you believe that simplistic nonsense then there is no point in discussing this with you.

Please read more carefully. I said her role was the problem - DC's infamous revolving door. If you don't agree that's a problem, then you're right - there's no point in discussing this with me.

Go back to the very first posts I made on this thread and you will see that I placed strict limitations on the role of lobbyists. That you are this woefully late to the party is unfortunate but at least you have caught up a little.

What are your specific proposals when it comes to limiting lobbyists?

Limit the whores catering to them.

That is a bumper sticker. Please be specific.

Constitutionally limit the power of Congress to pass laws that regulate our economic decisions. I've posted about this, at length and in specific detail, but you dismiss it because it would limit your visions of 'social justice'.

Democracy requires that 'we the people' (which, as much as it may frustrate you, includes business people), have the right to petition our representatives. The problem is not Washington's open door policy regarding lobbyists. The problem is what they're walking out the door with. As long as Congress has the power to pass laws like ACA, laws that literally dictate the purchasing decisions of consumers, greedy people will seek to control that power. This is why corporate influence over Washington actually grows with federal power to regulate. It grows because of it, not despite it.

That is an interesting twist on the argument I've been making. We agree that increased federal power to regulate increases the exploitation of government by special interests. But unless I am misreading you, you see those special interests as those outside government while I am seeing most of the exploitation coming from the Permanent Political Class in government.

Maybe its a chicken/egg sort of thing?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I give up. Somebody else will have to debate D.T. I will focus on those who will answer a pertinent question put to them regarding their own posts, and who can address the argument that is actually made without a lot of ad hominem and non sequitur.

So moving right along, I wonder what authority, if anything, those participating in the thread or reading in are willing to take away from the federal government and assign to the states to manage?

What authority do you think the federal government should have that it does not now have?

We need to raise awareness that, all too often, regulations that purport to control businesses, actually control customers. Likewise, laws that claim to regulate employers on behalf employees, all too often, regulate employees on behalf of employers.

Minimum wage is a great example. Supporters operate under the delusion that minimum wage laws force employers to pay people more money. But on examination, they don't actually do that. They simply prevent them from hiring people to work for less. They prevent employees from working for less, even if they want to. Even if they'd rather do that than be unemployed.

Likewise, "consumer protection" laws presume to force businesses to offer high-quality goods and services. But, again, they don't actually do that. They simply prohibit them from offering low-quality goods and services. They prevent customers from buying low-quality goods and services, even if they'd rather do that than go without. Even if the low-quality goods are all they can afford.

We need to raise awareness that increasing Congressional power to interfere in the economy doesn't "reign in" corporate power. Like throwing gasoline on a fire, it only feeds it.

The Libertarian Utopia rush to the bottom is on display! 3rd world nation status is the next stop.

 

[dblack]

Google Liz Fowler.

Seriously, have you ever read up on her role in the creation of ACA? You should, because that's why you didn't get "single payer" or a "public option", and why nearly every well-meaning attempt to 'reign in' corporate power is turned against itself. And guess what? She's not a libertarian.

Why the reluctance to provide a link? As reading isn't really all that hard:
On Fowley.

And that's indeed damning. But, if you think that a Senator's staffer drafted the bill to suit her own predilections, which would render her "responsible" for the bill, that would be utterly preposterous. She drafted the bill according to reflect Baucus's policy objectives, and what would be necessary to ensure passage in the Senate. There plainly wasn't a large-enough majority to be had for single payer, and Baucus was against it from the get-go.

Far more preposterous is the naive belief that she wasn't there on behalf her benefactors, that the millions of dollars they donated to Baucus wasn't their 'entry fee' in exchange for her "participation".

 

[dblack]

Please read more carefully. I said her role was the problem - DC's infamous revolving door. If you don't agree that's a problem, then you're right - there's no point in discussing this with me.

Go back to the very first posts I made on this thread and you will see that I placed strict limitations on the role of lobbyists. That you are this woefully late to the party is unfortunate but at least you have caught up a little.

What are your specific proposals when it comes to limiting lobbyists?

Limit the whores catering to them.

That is a bumper sticker. Please be specific.

Constitutionally limit the power of Congress to pass laws that regulate our economic decisions. I've posted about this, at length and in specific detail, but you dismiss it because it would limit your visions of 'social justice'.

Democracy requires that 'we the people' (which, as much as it may frustrate you, includes business people), have the right to petition our representatives. The problem is not Washington's open door policy regarding lobbyists. The problem is what they're walking out the door with. As long as Congress has the power to pass laws like ACA, laws that literally dictate the purchasing decisions of consumers, greedy people will seek to control that power. This is why corporate influence over Washington actually grows with federal power to regulate. It grows because of it, not despite it.

That is an interesting twist on the argument I've been making. We agree that increased federal power to regulate increases the exploitation of government by special interests. But unless I am misreading you, you see those special interests as those outside government while I am seeing most of the exploitation coming from the Permanent Political Class in government.

Maybe its a chicken/egg sort of thing?

The problem is that those two groups, outside special interests, and the permanent political class, are - more and more - the same people.

 

[Foxfyre]

I give up. Somebody else will have to debate D.T. I will focus on those who will answer a pertinent question put to them regarding their own posts, and who can address the argument that is actually made without a lot of ad hominem and non sequitur.

So moving right along, I wonder what authority, if anything, those participating in the thread or reading in are willing to take away from the federal government and assign to the states to manage?

What authority do you think the federal government should have that it does not now have?

We need to raise awareness that, all too often, regulations that purport to control businesses, actually control customers. Likewise, laws that claim to regulate employers on behalf employees, all too often, regulate employees on behalf of employers.

Minimum wage is a great example. Supporters operate under the delusion that minimum wage laws force employers to pay people more money. But on examination, they don't actually do that. They simply prevent them from hiring people to work for less. They prevent employees from working for less, even if they want to. Even if they'd rather do that than be unemployed.

Likewise, "consumer protection" laws presume to force businesses to offer high-quality goods and services. But, again, they don't actually do that. They simply prohibit them from offering low-quality goods and services. They prevent customers from buying low-quality goods and services, even if they'd rather do that than go without. Even if the low-quality goods are all they can afford.

We need to raise awareness that increasing Congressional power to interfere in the economy doesn't "reign in" corporate power. Like throwing gasoline on a fire, it only feeds it.

All pertinent arguments.

And now I'll focus on the private sector for a bit. The reason that it is rarely big business, the big mega corporations, who object to increases in minimum wage, mandates to provide healthcare plans, etc. to their employees, etc. is because almost all of them already do. So such mandates affect their bottom line very little if at all.

But those same regulations do have a significant affect on the bottom line of their smaller competitors with much less diverse profit margins and some find it impossible to compete with the big boys. So big business is benefitted by having their competition disadvantaged in a way that they are not.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I give up. Somebody else will have to debate D.T. I will focus on those who will answer a pertinent question put to them regarding their own posts, and who can address the argument that is actually made without a lot of ad hominem and non sequitur.

So moving right along, I wonder what authority, if anything, those participating in the thread or reading in are willing to take away from the federal government and assign to the states to manage?

What authority do you think the federal government should have that it does not now have?

We need to raise awareness that, all too often, regulations that purport to control businesses, actually control customers. Likewise, laws that claim to regulate employers on behalf employees, all too often, regulate employees on behalf of employers.

Minimum wage is a great example. Supporters operate under the delusion that minimum wage laws force employers to pay people more money. But on examination, they don't actually do that. They simply prevent them from hiring people to work for less. They prevent employees from working for less, even if they want to. Even if they'd rather do that than be unemployed.

Likewise, "consumer protection" laws presume to force businesses to offer high-quality goods and services. But, again, they don't actually do that. They simply prohibit them from offering low-quality goods and services. They prevent customers from buying low-quality goods and services, even if they'd rather do that than go without. Even if the low-quality goods are all they can afford.

We need to raise awareness that increasing Congressional power to interfere in the economy doesn't "reign in" corporate power. Like throwing gasoline on a fire, it only feeds it.

All pertinent arguments.

And now I'll focus on the private sector for a bit. The reason that it is rarely big business, the big mega corporations, who object to increases in minimum wage, mandates to provide healthcare plans, etc. to their employees, etc. is because almost all of them already do. So such mandates affect their bottom line very little if at all.

But those same regulations do have a significant affect on the bottom line of their smaller competitors with much less diverse profit margins and some find it impossible to compete with the big boys. So big business is benefitted by having their competition disadvantaged in a way that they are not.

Assumes facts not in evidence!

In fact the evidence proves the exact opposite.

States That Raised Their Minimum Wages Are Experiencing Faster Job Growth ThinkProgress

Think a higher minimum wage is a job killer? Think again: The states that raised their minimum wages on January 1 have seen higher employment growth since then than the states that kept theirs at the same rate.

The minimum wage went up in 13 states — Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington — either thanks to automatic increases in line with inflation or new legislation, as Ben Wolcott reports in his analysis at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. The average change in employment for those states over the first five months of the year as compared with the last five of 2013 is .99 percent, while the average for all remaining states is .68 percent.

Digging deeper, all but one of those states are experiencing increases in employment, and nine of them have seen growth above the median rate.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I give up. Somebody else will have to debate D.T. I will focus on those who will answer a pertinent question put to them regarding their own posts, and who can address the argument that is actually made without a lot of ad hominem and non sequitur.

So moving right along, I wonder what authority, if anything, those participating in the thread or reading in are willing to take away from the federal government and assign to the states to manage?

What authority do you think the federal government should have that it does not now have?

We need to raise awareness that, all too often, regulations that purport to control businesses, actually control customers. Likewise, laws that claim to regulate employers on behalf employees, all too often, regulate employees on behalf of employers.

Minimum wage is a great example. Supporters operate under the delusion that minimum wage laws force employers to pay people more money. But on examination, they don't actually do that. They simply prevent them from hiring people to work for less. They prevent employees from working for less, even if they want to. Even if they'd rather do that than be unemployed.

Likewise, "consumer protection" laws presume to force businesses to offer high-quality goods and services. But, again, they don't actually do that. They simply prohibit them from offering low-quality goods and services. They prevent customers from buying low-quality goods and services, even if they'd rather do that than go without. Even if the low-quality goods are all they can afford.

We need to raise awareness that increasing Congressional power to interfere in the economy doesn't "reign in" corporate power. Like throwing gasoline on a fire, it only feeds it.

All pertinent arguments.

And now I'll focus on the private sector for a bit. The reason that it is rarely big business, the big mega corporations, who object to increases in minimum wage, mandates to provide healthcare plans, etc. to their employees, etc. is because almost all of them already do. So such mandates affect their bottom line very little if at all.

But those same regulations do have a significant affect on the bottom line of their smaller competitors with much less diverse profit margins and some find it impossible to compete with the big boys. So big business is benefitted by having their competition disadvantaged in a way that they are not.

But wait, there is even more evidence that this Libertarian Utopia claptrap is nonsensical.

Show This To The Next Person Who Says High Minimum Wages Kill Jobs

If you need more evidence that a higher minimum wage won't kill the economy, consider this: The city with one of the highest minimum wages in the country has had faster job growth than any other big city over the past 10 years.

San Francisco's small businesses are growing faster than those of any other big city or the nation as a whole, according to new data from payroll-processor Paychex and research firm IHS. And this is happening despite the fact that, as of January 1, San Francisco's minimum wage was $10.74 an hour, higher than any state minimum wage or the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

The chart above compares changes in job-growth rates in the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the country. It shows job growth as an index, with 100 representing the city's growth rate in 2004. A value of 101 means that city's job growth is 1 percent better than it was 10 years ago.

Meanwhile, as you can see in the chart below, Washington leads all states in job-growth acceleration, despite having a minimum wage of $9.32, the highest state minimum wage in the country. And Seattle has the second-best job-growth rate among major cities.

Of course, these data are limited, measuring only businesses with fewer than 50 workers. They don't account for broader economic trends, such as the tech boom affecting West Coast cities like San Francisco and Seattle, that might affect job growth, noted James Diffley, chief regional economist at IHS, who helped make these charts.

Many small businesses already pay more than minimum wage to attract better workers, so a higher minimum wage isn't necessarily something that would restrict their hiring. In fact, most small-business owners are in favor of raising the minimum wage.

Most minimum-wage workers are employed by large corporations like Walmart and McDonald's, not your local mom-and-pop burger joint or clothing store.

Still, these numbers suggest that higher minimum wages won't necessarily snuff out economic growth, as opponents of raising the national minimum wage claim. And an earlier report in Bloomberg reinforced the message of the Paychex data, suggesting overall job growth in Washington state outpaced the national rate.

“It’s hard to see that the state of Washington has paid a heavy penalty for having a higher minimum wage than the rest of the country,” Gary Burtless, an economist at Brookings Institution, told Bloomberg.

These numbers are especially relevant as President Obama has proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10, a proposal that congressional Republicans have blocked.

 

[Foxfyre]

Go back to the very first posts I made on this thread and you will see that I placed strict limitations on the role of lobbyists. That you are this woefully late to the party is unfortunate but at least you have caught up a little.

What are your specific proposals when it comes to limiting lobbyists?

Limit the whores catering to them.

That is a bumper sticker. Please be specific.

Constitutionally limit the power of Congress to pass laws that regulate our economic decisions. I've posted about this, at length and in specific detail, but you dismiss it because it would limit your visions of 'social justice'.

Democracy requires that 'we the people' (which, as much as it may frustrate you, includes business people), have the right to petition our representatives. The problem is not Washington's open door policy regarding lobbyists. The problem is what they're walking out the door with. As long as Congress has the power to pass laws like ACA, laws that literally dictate the purchasing decisions of consumers, greedy people will seek to control that power. This is why corporate influence over Washington actually grows with federal power to regulate. It grows because of it, not despite it.

That is an interesting twist on the argument I've been making. We agree that increased federal power to regulate increases the exploitation of government by special interests. But unless I am misreading you, you see those special interests as those outside government while I am seeing most of the exploitation coming from the Permanent Political Class in government.

Maybe its a chicken/egg sort of thing?

The problem is that those two groups, outside special interests, and the permanent political class, are - more and more - the same people.

You're probably right to some degree. Certainly when you have mega giants like G.E. who make billions from certain legislation, regulations, and government initiatives, the lines become very blurred.

But even when the regulations are fully within the proper authority of the federal government, there are what Schweizer calls the 'milking' campaigns where leaders of both parties extract enormous contributions for campaigns, leadership pacs, the political parties, etc. by threatening to pass or withhold certain legislation. And when they have a 'double milker' of competing special interests, it can be even more lucrative. He describes a 'milker bill' as one that ". . .gives politicians the opportunity to 'milk,' or squeeze, an industry for money. Whether the bill passes or not, the politicians still cash in. The best milker bills are those that allow the Permanent Political Class to squeeze two cows at the same time, one on each side of an issue. . . . ."

One example he used was the anti-piracy legislation that passed during the time the 2012 campaign was heating up. Hollywood, book publishers, the music industry etc. were losing billions to piracy of copyrighted material to places like China. They were lobbying heavily for legislation to protect their interests and the legislation they were clamoring for would, among other things, close the internet spigot by shutting down access to websites where most of the piracy was occuring.

But on the other side you had the internet giants like Google, Yahoo, YouTube, and Facebook on which the same legislation would have significant negative impact.

The Permanent Political Class held a lot of meetings with both camps with subtle suggestions that Congress wasn't really sure which way to go on this one and were still making up their minds. And voila, millions started pouring into campaign coffers and political leadership pacs and financed a big chunk of the 2012 campaign as well as significantly lining the pockets of those working in the campaigns.

The legislation that ultimately passed was pretty much a wash with both sides getting something but not all they wanted. But the Permanent Political Class made out like bandits.

 

[Olde Europe]

We need to raise awareness that, all too often, regulations that purport to control businesses, actually control customers. Likewise, laws that claim to regulate employers on behalf employees, all too often, regulate employees on behalf of employers.

Minimum wage is a great example. Supporters operate under the delusion that minimum wage laws force employers to pay people more money. But on examination, they don't actually do that. They simply prevent them from hiring people to work for less. They prevent employees from working for less, even if they want to. Even if they'd rather do that than be unemployed.

Likewise, "consumer protection" laws presume to force businesses to offer high-quality goods and services. But, again, they don't actually do that. They simply prohibit them from offering low-quality goods and services. They prevent customers from buying low-quality goods and services, even if they'd rather do that than go without. Even if the low-quality goods are all they can afford.

We need to raise awareness that increasing Congressional power to interfere in the economy doesn't "reign in" corporate power. Like throwing gasoline on a fire, it only feeds it.

Nice. Smart. But still it's crap.

Of course, lowly workers love nothing more than working for $3 an hour to benefit the corporation's bottom line. Hey, why not go for $2? Destitute Wall Mart and McD can use the workers' generosity. Of course, workers and their unions rail against the oppressive government-imposed mandate to earn more than that, just as Wall Mart lobbied fiercely for President Obama's proposal of $10.10.

And, of course, folks like nothing more than saving $5 on the tool they're buying, and the danger the tool will eventually electrocute them is not too huge a price to pay for that. And everybody likes saving some bucks on the next car, and the wheels coming off occassionally is a risk they'll gladly take.

Be honest, dblack, where did you get that crap?

Far more preposterous is the naive belief that she wasn't there on behalf her benefactors, that the millions of dollars they donated to Baucus wasn't their 'entry fee' in exchange for her "participation".

You seem to have missed my condemnation of the "revolving door" in the posting to which you responded with the above. And yes, that's a problem. But one staffer doesn't control legislation, and 50+ other Senators going along with a bill allegedly written by one staffer on behalf of some "benefactors" you also cannot explain with that rant of yours about Fowler.

Now, let's recap we agreed that moneyed interests have far too much influence in Washington. In that context, Fowler is but a symptom. Moreover, even whilst we agree on the diagnosis, it is highly unbecoming to bend facts so as to make them align with the diagnosis, such as reinterpreting product safety standards as a means of consumer oppression, or minimum wage legislation as a means of keeping workers out of slave jobs.

All in all, I find it puzzling that the anti-Federal-government paranoiacs cannot see how partly dismantling the Federal government would empower the States, which are subject to the same (or worse) influences and all-too human impulses as is the Federal government, with the added peril that the States would be played off against each other, and thus even more subservient to the plutocracy, as opposed to We the People. And that's exactly the point where your theorizing is falling apart.

 

[Foxfyre]

But as already been pointed out, one state screwing up things only affects the people of that state and not the entire country. And if it bothers the people of that state, they can either deal with it at the polls or they can move to another state that does it better. The lower the level of government, the more power the people have.

Nobody has suggested 'dismantling' the federal government. Nobody has argued that there is no role for the federal government in promoting the general welfare. Nor has anybody suggested there is no role for the federal government in promoting the public safety and securing their rights by regulating aspects of interstate commerce or imported products.

It is appropriate for the federal government to enforce laws that no person shall be forced to work for another for any amount of compensation, adequate or inadequate.

It is not appropriate for the federal government to dictate what compensation and benefits must be offered.