Just out of Curiousity

[Darkwind]

Public schools are unconstitutional? What does that even mean? The Department of Education is unconstitutional? When was that decision rendered?

Show Me the language in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to run public schools.

That's begging the question. You're asking people to answer a question within which is the concession that you are right, i.e., that in order for anything to be Constitutional it has to be stated in the Constitution, complete with all details, that this or that is constitutional. That is a false premise.

It is not and do you know why? Because the Constitution is a restriction on the powers of Government. Intentionally so. You'll note that no where in the Constitution are there restrictions upon the citizens.

The federal government directly runs schools for military dependents overseas. Where does it say THAT in the Constitution? Are they thus unconstitutional?

And who exactly are they competing with?

The military has all sorts of government employees (including the troops themselves) doing jobs that the private sector could do. Are they all unconstitutional? Is the soldier who's a truck mechanic in the battalion motor pool in an unconstitutional job because the Army could contract that work out to a private sector civilian mechanic?

Maintaining military equipment is NOT a competitive issue. I can't help but notice that when speaking about the military, everyone seems to forget that our Defense Department IS the only authorized expenditure in the Constitution.

National security reasons alone takes motor pool maintainence out of the whole picture.

So far, all I see is grasping at straws as a way to justify allowing government to compete in the private sector and have yet to see anyone come up with an answer as to why competition by government would be a bad thing. Though they are numerous.

 

[Luissa]

No, It did not. The Postal Service does not compete with private industry. No other corporation provides letter service in this country AND the Postal Service is no longer a government agency.

Why do you have to be contrary when someone proves you wrong?

Since when does the Postal Service not compete with UPS or FedEx?

As for letter service...

These things came about AFTER th Postal Service went private.

So, lets get back on topic, shall we.

Where does the authority come from that gives the Feds the justification for competing with the private sector.


But more important. Can you even list a reason for why it is morally wrong for the Federal Government to compete with the private sector?

are countries expansion was based on competing with private business, it is called real estate. They owned land, they sold it, or they gave it away to soldiers and they passed a few land acts governing this. Like I said before your answer is there.
and the government competes with the private sector all the time.

 

[Darkwind]

Why do you have to be contrary when someone proves you wrong?

Since when does the Postal Service not compete with UPS or FedEx?

As for letter service...

These things came about AFTER th Postal Service went private.

So, lets get back on topic, shall we.

Where does the authority come from that gives the Feds the justification for competing with the private sector.


But more important. Can you even list a reason for why it is morally wrong for the Federal Government to compete with the private sector?

I suggest you look into your history books...recall The Pony Express and Wells Fargo.

Okay, lets see if you even know.

What happened to the Pony Express? Without looking it up.

 

[Luissa]

We could go ask our founding fathers. Better yet, if we lived in the time, we could go send them a letter through the postal office.

the post office is private not govt....amtrack is govt........

Well, it is quasi-government in that it has some law enforcement ability. But outside of that....Its pretty much a private entity now.

I doubt anyone is going to show up and answer My questions. Questions that should be put to the three stooges...

Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

I love how in this post you imply Obama is the first president to compete with private business.

 

[Darkwind]

Why do you have to be contrary when someone proves you wrong?

Since when does the Postal Service not compete with UPS or FedEx?

As for letter service...

These things came about AFTER th Postal Service went private.

So, lets get back on topic, shall we.

Where does the authority come from that gives the Feds the justification for competing with the private sector.


But more important. Can you even list a reason for why it is morally wrong for the Federal Government to compete with the private sector?

are countries expansion was based on competing with private business, it is called real estate. They owned land, they sold it, or they gave it away to soldiers and they passed a few land acts governing this. Like I said before your answer is there.
and the government competes with the private sector all the time.

And I'm asking you. What authority gives them that right? Who polices them? What are the consequences? Who settle conflicts of interest?

The Constitution exists to restrict government. Simply because we have been lax in enforcing that restriction does not mean that it is okay, legal or even right.

This is among the top five reasons why government is to be feared.

 

[Darkwind]

the post office is private not govt....amtrack is govt........

Well, it is quasi-government in that it has some law enforcement ability. But outside of that....Its pretty much a private entity now.

I doubt anyone is going to show up and answer My questions. Questions that should be put to the three stooges...

Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

I love how in this post you imply Obama is the first president to compete with private business.

I never mentioned Obama once.

I asked a simple question. What authority exists that gives government the right to compete with the private sector?

Or is, "They did it to" the only answer you have?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Exactly when did it become legal or even moral for government to compete with private business?

From where does the legal authority come that allows the government to compete with private business?

Healthcare, right?

Two points then:

1 Insuring the poor isn't competing with Private Business. Private Insurance doesn't want customers that can not pay.

2. You'd be surprised, but I agree that The Feds shouldn't get into this. The States should. If you're going to implement healthcare for the poor (and I do believe we should), it should be at the State level. The 10th Ammendment would allow for that, barring problems with the individual state constitutions, plus each state has a different standard of living and a different poverty level. Implementing a plan at the State level allows for greater flexibility, plus if a plan isn't working you can fix it at the State level easier than at the Federal level.

The problem is the States are broke, so a fix isn't likely at the State level where it would be most effective.

 

[Darkwind]

Exactly when did it become legal or even moral for government to compete with private business?

From where does the legal authority come that allows the government to compete with private business?

Healthcare, right?

Two points then:

1 Insuring the poor isn't competing with Private Business. Private Insurance doesn't want customers that can not pay.

2. You'd be surprised, but I agree that The Feds shouldn't get into this. The States should. If you're going to implement healthcare for the poor (and I do believe we should), it should be at the State level. The 10th Ammendment would allow for that, barring problems with the individual state constitutions, plus each state has a different standard of living and a different poverty level. Implementing a plan at the State level allows for greater flexibility, plus if a plan isn't working you can fix it at the State level easier than at the Federal level.

The problem is the States are broke, so a fix isn't likely at the State level where it would be most effective.

To your first point. Government is making it mandatory that everyone is insured and then getting into the game. That means that they are in direct competition with insurance companies. Even one of their talking points is that government has 30% less overhead then private insurance and that makes them a better option. Is there really no slippery slope in this for those on the left? I really want to know. And if it is okay to do this, where do we stop?

As for point two. I agree. It is a States right issue and should be addressed at that level.

 

[paperview]

These things came about AFTER th Postal Service went private.

So, lets get back on topic, shall we.

Where does the authority come from that gives the Feds the justification for competing with the private sector.


But more important. Can you even list a reason for why it is morally wrong for the Federal Government to compete with the private sector?

I suggest you look into your history books...recall The Pony Express and Wells Fargo.

Okay, lets see if you even know.

What happened to the Pony Express? Without looking it up.

Er, the invention of the telegraph, for starters...
and the transcontinental railroad a few years later sort of put them out of business.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

To your first point. Government is making it mandatory that everyone is insured and then getting into the game. That means that they are in direct competition with insurance companies. Even one of their talking points is that government has 30% less overhead then private insurance and that makes them a better option. Is there really no slippery slope in this for those on the left? I really want to know. And if it is okay to do this, where do we stop?

Institute criterion for qualification for coverage and this won't be an issue. The trick is making sure that the Government only picks up insuring those that absolutely can not afford it otherwise. Those folks won't be in the pool that private insurance wants and viola, no issue with competition.

As for point two. I agree. It is a States right issue and should be addressed at that level.

Yeah. The state level has the added benefit that if a state goes overboard and screws up, private industries will move to other states, taking jobs with them. The state gets the message, fixes the problem, and jobs return.

If the Feds screw it up, private industry leaves the country. Once a business moves out of the country its is awfully hard to bring them back.

I do think we need to probably implement a public system, but it should definitely be at the State level if at all possible.

 

[Luissa]

These things came about AFTER th Postal Service went private.

So, lets get back on topic, shall we.

Where does the authority come from that gives the Feds the justification for competing with the private sector.


But more important. Can you even list a reason for why it is morally wrong for the Federal Government to compete with the private sector?

are countries expansion was based on competing with private business, it is called real estate. They owned land, they sold it, or they gave it away to soldiers and they passed a few land acts governing this. Like I said before your answer is there.
and the government competes with the private sector all the time.

And I'm asking you. What authority gives them that right? Who polices them? What are the consequences? Who settle conflicts of interest?

The Constitution exists to restrict government. Simply because we have been lax in enforcing that restriction does not mean that it is okay, legal or even right.

This is among the top five reasons why government is to be feared.

by the way the american people police them, that is our jobs as tax payers and citizens. and our fouding father's were the first ones to get in the business of competing with private businesses.

 

[Darkwind]

are countries expansion was based on competing with private business, it is called real estate. They owned land, they sold it, or they gave it away to soldiers and they passed a few land acts governing this. Like I said before your answer is there.
and the government competes with the private sector all the time.

And I'm asking you. What authority gives them that right? Who polices them? What are the consequences? Who settle conflicts of interest?

The Constitution exists to restrict government. Simply because we have been lax in enforcing that restriction does not mean that it is okay, legal or even right.

This is among the top five reasons why government is to be feared.

by the way the american people police them, that is our jobs as tax payers and citizens. and our fouding father's were the first ones to get in the business of competing with private businesses.

The Founding Fathers ran private businesses. Anyone with a bit of history understands that in the beginning, it was the rich land owners that provided the backing for our country.

And I've given examples of how the people do NOT police our government. As of right this moment, the government is all powerful and unstoppable. Nothing short of a revolt can stop them from doing whatever it is they wish to do.

 

[Luissa]

Well, it is quasi-government in that it has some law enforcement ability. But outside of that....Its pretty much a private entity now.

I doubt anyone is going to show up and answer My questions. Questions that should be put to the three stooges...

Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

I love how in this post you imply Obama is the first president to compete with private business.

I never mentioned Obama once.

I asked a simple question. What authority exists that gives government the right to compete with the private sector?

Or is, "They did it to" the only answer you have?

um the quote I quoted of yours mentions obama, you should have read it.
and I could be wrong but section 8 of I believe article one or two gives you your answer on the US be involved in gaining revenue which would be competing with any private business.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;"

 

[Darkwind]

Institute criterion for qualification for coverage and this won't be an issue. The trick is making sure that the Government only picks up insuring those that absolutely can not afford it otherwise. Those folks won't be in the pool that private insurance wants and viola, no issue with competition.

Truthfully, the Federal government has failed to even prove that they need to step into this problem to begin with.

First;

The problem is one of numbers. The Feds, in their typical overkill fashion, are going to spend a trillion dollars on less then 6% of the population.

Second;

Of those who supposedly 'need' help, almost a full 3% of them are young and don't want to spend the money on insurance because they are...well, young and the others are rich enough not to need insurance. A simple deduction into a HSA (much like Social Security) for those who cannot afford health insurance because they are young and just starting out in their careers is a better solution. They have less need for medical services at the beginning and this allows for them to build a significant equity in a HSA for when they do start feeling their age. They can then use these monies to pay for preventative care which will go a long ways to keeping them from needing catastrophic care until much later in life. At that stage, they should be able to afford health insurance or have an employer who will provide it for them.

Third;

Of the remaining 2%, mostly children, they can be picked up by the Stated in which they live. Using State laws.

I just do not see a need for the Federal Government to intervene and the consequences of politicians having a health care benefit to hold over the citizens head is one that should cause concern to every person in this country.

Yeah. The state level has the added benefit that if a state goes overboard and screws up, private industries will move to other states, taking jobs with them. The state gets the message, fixes the problem, and jobs return.

If the Feds screw it up, private industry leaves the country. Once a business moves out of the country its is awfully hard to bring them back.

I do think we need to probably implement a public system, but it should definitely be at the State level if at all possible.

If the Feds get a hold of it, they won't care if they do not come back.

I do support a State level program to address this issue however.

 

[Luissa]

And I'm asking you. What authority gives them that right? Who polices them? What are the consequences? Who settle conflicts of interest?

The Constitution exists to restrict government. Simply because we have been lax in enforcing that restriction does not mean that it is okay, legal or even right.

This is among the top five reasons why government is to be feared.

by the way the american people police them, that is our jobs as tax payers and citizens. and our fouding father's were the first ones to get in the business of competing with private businesses.

The Founding Fathers ran private businesses. Anyone with a bit of history understands that in the beginning, it was the rich land owners that provided the backing for our country.

And I've given examples of how the people do NOT police our government. As of right this moment, the government is all powerful and unstoppable. Nothing short of a revolt can stop them from doing whatever it is they wish to do.

and I was refering to them owning private land, I am talking about the fact the US owned land which they sold to private land owners. Read the Land Ordinance of 1785 and most Land Acts passed around that time. Anyone who knows even alittle bit about history would know that.
The federal government also set up the system of public schools with the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the way they would pay for them, thus competing with schools being run by churches.

 

[Darkwind]

I love how in this post you imply Obama is the first president to compete with private business.

I never mentioned Obama once.

I asked a simple question. What authority exists that gives government the right to compete with the private sector?

Or is, "They did it to" the only answer you have?

um the quote I quoted of yours mentions obama, you should have read it.
and I could be wrong but section 8 of I believe article one or two gives you your answer on the US be involved in gaining revenue which would be competing with any private business.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;"

Your right. I was actually being facetious, but I did mention it first.


You are actually going to use the general welfare clause as authority? And I though you might have been someone who was serious about discussing this.

The General welfare clause is not a catch all clause which gives the government the right to do anything they wish. Tell Me you understand that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Darkwind, the U.S. has been working with and in and for business since the first U.S. bank, before 1800. Go read the charter, the funds compilation, and the board directorship, then tell us what the percentage of federal directors were on the bank's board.

 

[Darkwind]

by the way the american people police them, that is our jobs as tax payers and citizens. and our fouding father's were the first ones to get in the business of competing with private businesses.

The Founding Fathers ran private businesses. Anyone with a bit of history understands that in the beginning, it was the rich land owners that provided the backing for our country.

And I've given examples of how the people do NOT police our government. As of right this moment, the government is all powerful and unstoppable. Nothing short of a revolt can stop them from doing whatever it is they wish to do.

and I was refering to them owning private land, I am talking about the fact the US owned land which they sold to private land owners. Read the Land Ordinance of 1785 and most Land Acts passed around that time. Anyone who knows even alittle bit about history would know that.
The federal government also set up the system of public schools with the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the way they would pay for them, thus competing with schools being run by churches.

Again. Because it was done in the past, its okay now?

By the way, you do realize that the land ordinance of 1785 actually violates the first amendment in that it directly imposes a law that limits religious education?

How about we stick with this premise.

Government directly competing in the private sector has serious conflict of interest issues across the board.

 

[Darkwind]

Darkwind, the U.S. has been working with and in and for business since the first U.S. bank, before 1800. Go read the charter, the funds compilation, and the board directorship, then tell us what the percentage of federal directors were on the bank's board.

I guess you all just don't understand the question.

And if I remember right, didn't one of the early Presidents do away with the central bank? Andrew Jackson it might have been.

He understood that government competition in the private sector was wrong.

Government does not exist to compete with its citizens.

This is a fundamental truth.

 

[Luissa]

I never mentioned Obama once.

I asked a simple question. What authority exists that gives government the right to compete with the private sector?

Or is, "They did it to" the only answer you have?

um the quote I quoted of yours mentions obama, you should have read it.
and I could be wrong but section 8 of I believe article one or two gives you your answer on the US be involved in gaining revenue which would be competing with any private business.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;"

Your right. I was actually being facetious, but I did mention it first.


You are actually going to use the general welfare clause as authority? And I though you might have been someone who was serious about discussing this.

The General welfare clause is not a catch all clause which gives the government the right to do anything they wish. Tell Me you understand that?

lawyers can take a lot of constitution, they could also say providing for the general welfare of the people could mean competing with private business. How do you think they legalized abortion through due process and right to privacy.