The flaw in your argument is that in the activist result in Scenario 3 is impossible. Because even if AGW is real, the solutions proposed will either be too little too late (check out the cap-and-trade bill passed by the US house - it will fail to have any significant affect), or it will be a full-on destruction of the global economy, implemented by a tyrannical world government run by unelected autocrats.
Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Odds are that Northrop engineers brought this up on multiple occasions, but if the site was designed as an HA environment and utilizes one or more SANs, there's a reasonable chance that management believed that a backup system would be unnecessary, especially given the cost of a proper implementation. I've seen similar things happen where I work as management pays more attention to the budget than to reality.
“At selected sites, high availability options including diverse access paths, multiple independent routers, uninterrupted power supply (UPS), Hot Standby Routing Protocol (HSRP), and other techniques that have proved to increase uptime will be incorporated in the technical approach.“
There’s even a diagram showing an example of multiple paths from the MAN/WAN.
The same way Beck and co. have people convinced that Pres. Obama has not released his birth certificate and is hiding something, even though he has. Parody.
... or the way some idiots are convinced that Beck is a birther, even though the birthers are pissed at him for dismissing their theory.
I really wish people would learn a little history before making comments like this. Inflammatory and sensationalist journalism was a staple for much of American history. Read some of the writings of Benjamin Franklin before the Revolution, or the New York Journal just before the turn of the 20th Century. Journalists felt no need to hide their opinions, and stories about the government or politics virtually always reflected the opinions of the journalists or publishers.
It's only been in recent years that news organizations have tried to hide their biases in an air of neutrality. Today most news (especially on TV) presents an appearance of impartiality by presenting "both sides" in measured tones, and the viewpoint is less obvious and sometimes hidden in insidious ways.
This phenomenon of national leaders singling out journalists for derision isn't entirely new (Richard Nixon also targeted the Washington Post for exclusion), but a national leader directly calling an entire news organization produces nothing but propaganda and discrediting all of their reporting is certainly a unique phenomenon.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe MSNBC isn't a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party so trying to equivocate it with Fox News is nonsense? Yes MSNBC's main talking heads currently lean left if you disregard Morning Joe but they are also frequently very critical of the Democrats.
Also during most of Bush's term MSNBC was much less liberal than it is now. Remember Tucker Carlson?
I wasn't criticizing MSNBC, or making any comment about them at all. What I was commenting on was a sitting president demonizing a media network. It seems... unseemly. For a President of the United States. And I don't recall that being done in the recent past. So far no one has pointed out what I may have missed.
BakaHoushi was equivocating that attack (coming directly from President Obama, as well as the White House communications directors and others) with complaints about George W. Bush's behavior toward MSNBC. I've seen the letter from Gillespie (White House council during the Bush administration) regarding a specific issue raised during a specific story on NBC. I just don't think that is equivalent at all.
In fact I think the White House has an obligation to answer or correct any statements from media that are misleading or incorrect. But demonizing an entire media organization, and claiming everything they report is untrustworthy, is an improper use of authority.
Well that doesn't really (actually, at all) answer the question. The letter (written by White House counsel, nothing from W) addressed a specific problem with a specific news report. Which is what the White House should be doing, not dismissing the entire organization as a partisan mouth-piece. I find it discouraging that the administration would take this kind of tactic. I can't think of any administration as harsh with its critics since Lincoln jailed journalists that criticized his war.
It's also interesting that the GGP gets modded up for making such an unfounded quip, but partisan attacks often get kudos regardless of whether they have any foundation.
Well now that's interesting. Because I never heard about W claiming that MSNBC wasn't a "real" news organization, or that they were the mouthpiece of the Democratic party. When did that happen? Can you provide a reference?
It probably did start out as parody, but it's grown significantly beyond that. The way this has been spread around to message boards and emails and the like, without any proper context that reveals it as parody, has seemingly convinced a number of people that there is some old rape/murder case that has some connection to Glenn Beck's past. The web site is pretty obvious what it's referring to, but other sources are not.
But if that's the case, then that should have been the one that Beck made, rather than trying to use the "trademark" argument. The decision in this case is clearly correct.
As far as crimes against the first amendment, those thing are still happening. Obama's detractors were not allowed into the Creigh Deeds rally in Newport News just a few weeks ago, so the SS is still using "free speech zones" the same way they did under Bush.
So if someone set up a similar site in your name it, you'd rest with the decision that it was parody and legal?
Well based on the argument, that his name is a trademark used for marketing, and the site should be shut down based on trademark infringement, then you would pretty much have go to along with it, because that's the way the law does and should work.
But, no, you don't necessarily have to rest with that, but you will have to find another way to combat it. Like pointing out what a douche the site owner is for doing something like that. And this crazy idea has practically become a meme: check out all the comments on Digg (ugh) that reference Glenn Beck raping and murdering a girl in the 1990's. While you're there, see if you can figure out how many people without background knowledge have to wonder whether there is some basis for the questioning - it's ridiculous.
It's bad enough using ad hominem attacks against someone just because you don't like what they say. But this goes way beyond what should be considered decent.
Irregardless of the lack of civility and/or ultimate damage to reputation (intentioned or not) that the site may have caused, you can't argue with the legal decision in this case. It was correct.
A democracy allows tyranny by the majority, which is what is happening now. That's why we are a Constitutional republic. The Constitution explicitly protects property rights.
If your family seems "petty and intrusive" to you, that's your problem to fix, and you should be able to do something about it. Changing the abusive behavior of a faceless armed bureaucracy is much more difficult. Just ask the children from the Branch Dividian compound, or the thousands of citizens sitting in jail for having the wrong kind of plant in their pockets (you know the US has the most prisoners in the world, right?) It's too late to ask most of the victims of our current 2 "wars", but I think I can guess which they would rather deal with.
It's not, really, other than you may not understand our system of government, and you've already lost some of your basic rights.
I don't see any fundamental distinction between a local government taking taxes and providing a service and a national one doing the same.
That's funny because I thought I pointed it out pretty clearly. It's a fundamental aspect of our Republic: power flows upward. People, family, community, locality, state, federal. With the greatest authority as close to the people as possible. This provides a greater chance of freedom, requires more responsibility from the people, and resists tyranny from the faceless armed bureaucracies in DC.
That's an assertion, and a highly flawed one.
You can make that claim if you want, but that "highly flawed assertion" is what the entire US system of Federal government is based on.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
That's because the AMA has lobbied for (and received) federal rules that allow them to set the number of doctors (that is, to ration doctors) in order to keep salaries high.
This isn't adversarial - I'm asking for a reference for this because I'm interested. I have not heard this before. How does this work?
No, Qzukk, I'm not talking about "you have to go to school and get a license", it's much more insidious than that. Here's the deal:
The marketplace doesn't determine how many doctors the nation has, as it does for engineers, pilots and other professions. The number of doctors is a political decision, heavily influenced by doctors themselves.
Congress controls the supply of physicians by how much federal funding it provides for medical residencies — the graduate training required of all doctors.
This is from an article in USA Today, but you can find plenty of other sources for information on how the supply of doctors is controlled.
1. America has a "free" market for health insurance/care
Lol. That's rich! The only thing "free" about it is that the states freely regulate health insurance.
2. America pays more than most Western countries for health insurance/care
3. America gets worse results than most Western countries
That depends on how you measure "results". Yes, the US has a slightly lower average lifespan and a higher incidence of, for instance, premature births. However, cancer patients in the US have a much higher survival rate, and premature infants have a better chance of survival in the US. If you separate general "health" issues from "care for the sick and injured", the US usually does much better. The US is also the country where most new, experimental drugs first become available, and they are sold here for higher prices than any other countries. This is done because generally Americans can afford to pay more for drugs, so they bear the brunt of making up the cost of R&D.
4. Most States have one insurer that has >40% of the insurance market
Because of state and federal regulations, and thus is not really a free market at all.
Economists have to be the most arrogant people on the face of the earth. And even after trying the same theories of using central banking fiat money supply nonsense being proven false and causing all kinds of problems, they insist on going on to prove how they were right all along and somebody just didn't understand what they were saying when they said it.
Nonsense, capitalism is awful at things that don't make a profit and where value is not easily expressed in terms of money. This includes things like education, environmental protection, and health care. Quit spewing dumb soundbites.
Actually, it seems that education is much better when it's paid for with private funds. Even publicly funded education was better before the Federal government got involved and created the Department of Education. Outcomes for public education have deteriorated significantly since.
Whether health care can be any good when no profit motive is involved remains to be seen. The vast majority of medical advances in the last century have been made by people hoping to profit from their discoveries. These include pharmaceutical companies, teaching hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers, etc.
When all medical care is control and rationed by government, it may just stagnate. Then again, there will probably plenty of billionaires walking around wanting to spend money on medical advances for themselves and their families. We may even still call them Senators, Congressmen, CEOs, board members, cabinet members, and bankers.
Here's a civics lesson for you: If someone has taken an oath, it's okay to point out to them when they appear to be violating it, or at least justify why they think they are abiding by it.
Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
You hide that "general welfare" part behind the Interstate Commerce clause in your sentence so well! It almost makes it seem like it has nothing to do with establishing laws that affect the general welfare of the people. I bet a lot of people who read it actually stop and have a wtf? moment, which makes them miss out on those two little important words!
Wow you're a moron. Reading comprehension failure to the nth degree. The "general welfare" clause has NOTHING to do with the enumerated power of regulating interstate commerce. Idiot. Go back to school and tell your 10th grade teacher she's not teaching the Constitution right.
The "General Welfare" clause is NOT applied to "the people" - the people look out for their own welfare. The "General Welfare" clause authorizes Congress to ensure the welfare of the country. And adding new entitlements to a $1.4 trillion deficit, $12 trillion of debt, and $34 trillion of unfunded liabilities is the OPPOSITE of anything good for the welfare of the country.
You undermine your own argument, because your entire reasoning for the unconstitutionality is that it does not provide for the welfare of the country. Your entire rationale behind this is the assertion that you do not like the spending.
That's fine, as you are entitled to your opinion, and nobody likes spending. But that hardly makes it unconstitutional!
If you want to make the argument, make the god damn argument. Don't get caught up in your ridiculous talking points using buzzwords like entitlement, deficit, debt, liabilities, and expect them to hold any water in a genuine discussion about the subject. Parroting opinions and talking points is only going to get you ignored by anyone with a brain, especially if you get caught up in ridiculous lines of reasoning like it being unconstitutional.
You're not making any sense. "deficit" and "debt" are buzzwords? You don't know what they mean?
Although, as you say, that's beside the point. The point is that the clause you would like to use to allow congress ability to do whatever they want, does no such thing. Otherwise there would be no point to the enumerated powers.
“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”
Following that passage you will find 21 specific, enumerated powers granted to congress. Nothing more.
Here's what Madison (one of the authors and proponents of the Constitution) had to say about your idea:
“Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity”
Madison was emphatic: He said it was “error” to focus on the “general expressions” and disregard “the specifications which ascertain and limit their import”; and to argue that the general expression provides “an unlimited power” to provide for “the common defense and general welfare”, is “an absurdity”.
Maybe your rights come from some idea of groupthink or tyrannical majority. Mine do not.
If that's the way you view rights, then you don't have anything. Nothing. And as people vote away the rights of more and more minorities in order to get things for themselves, eventually even your life will be forfeit.
Good luck convincing the ruling tyrants that you didn't agree to this "social contract" when they come to cart you off.
Can you provide some fundamental, inarguable definition of "inherent rights", and explain from first principles why health care isn't one but security is?
Volunteer fire brigade? Really? Bloody hell.
What are you, English? We call them the "rescue squad" or the "fire department", but yea they are primarily staffed by volunteers. There are locality-supported fire departments not far from here, but they are funded by local government. Local governments are... local. They are accountable to their community, and they can only spend what they bring in. If they issue bonds (debt) it must be approved by a plurality of the voters. I view this significantly different than a federal government, run from thousands of miles away, printing and spending money without the means to pay it.
You are born with inherent rights. They are part of you. They cannot be taken or given away, they are not supplied by governments. They do not require someone else to provide them for you.
I never said that "security" was an inherent right. I said the purpose of government is to secure inherent rights. That is, the only reason for that necessary evil is to ensure that individuals do not infringe on the rights of other individuals.
If you are really unclear on the concept, here is a good primer on inherent rights.
You can start by explaining how a multi-trillion dollar government program is going to make things better.
What the invasions and occupations are now programs? Because they are the ONLY thing that was multiple trillions. The health program will be less than 1 trillion over a decade. Now, I have major issues with it, but out and out lying about it solves nothing and will only change the mind of idiots.
I don't know what ill conceived foreign invasions and interventionist foreign policies that are still in place (I won't go into why need to start a pull out from Afghanistan right away - you can read Matthew Hoh's letter yourself) has to do with this health care bill, but you seem to have bought into the talking points about it, so let me educate you a bit.
That "trillion dollar" price tag is simply a CBO estimate of the treasury outlays required to support federally funded measures in the bill. It does not include the trillions and trillions of dollars in resources that will be required from industry (and ultimately, private citizens) to support the regulations, nor the unfunded state mandates it includes. Health care is approximately 15% of GDP. The GDP of the US is about $14 trillion. So that's $21 trillion spent on health care over 10 years. This bill will regulate every aspect of health care, purports to cover more people, requires more coverage by all "approved" health care plans, and as far as I can tell, does nothing to address the actual costs of health care (thanks, AMA).
In fact, there are several provisions that will necessarily increase health care costs. For instance, the bill has a nod to the trial lawyer lobby by rolling back the tort reforms that states have passed which lowered expenses for doctors.
So, yes, it will likely be many trillions of dollars in additional costs. Add to that the fact that this will be run as an entitlement, without caps, and that CBO estimate may turn out to be as laughably naive as their estimate of the cost of Medicare back in 1966. Back then, the CBO estimated Medicare (which cost $3 billion in 1965) would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly "conservative" estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.
What in the world makes you think that the "unelected CEOs and millions of nameless managers and directors, whose only goal in life is to suck more money out of the economy for their own gain" as you describe them, aren't partners in this scheme? I've got some news for you: They are. It's a collusion.
The pharmaceutical companies where on board with this early in the game. The health insurance companies made an agreement with the White House not to oppose it months ago (which is why they were so incensed when Humana sent out a newsletter describing issues with the bill). With the threat of jail time in this bill for NOT buying health insurance, they will have lots of new victims - some supported by government largess.
This is not a government program where angels on The Hill will push back the dark forces and shower magic beans on the people. It's a takeover by the elites in government, on the boards of directors, CEOs and Wall Street executives. Those elites will not pay for this - the middle class will. Those 45% of the American people that pay federal taxes and have trouble making ends meet because those taxes and fees and tolls and charges and regulations etc. are eating up more and more of the resources they are able to produce.
Is it any wonder why we are quickly headed towards third world status?
No, not with people like you fooled into supporting this tyrannical oligarchy they want. Eventually there will be nothing but Serfs and Lords. And once this new Order is in place, if you're not a good little serf contributing to what the Lords want, what use will they have for you then?
Slashdot Mirror
The flaw in your argument is that in the activist result in Scenario 3 is impossible. Because even if AGW is real, the solutions proposed will either be too little too late (check out the cap-and-trade bill passed by the US house - it will fail to have any significant affect), or it will be a full-on destruction of the global economy, implemented by a tyrannical world government run by unelected autocrats.
Actually, that breach happened after NG took over the systems. The contract has been in place for 4 years.
Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Odds are that Northrop engineers brought this up on multiple occasions, but if the site was designed as an HA environment and utilizes one or more SANs, there's a reasonable chance that management believed that a backup system would be unnecessary, especially given the cost of a proper implementation. I've seen similar things happen where I work as management pays more attention to the budget than to reality.
NG agreement - Schedule 3.3, Appendix 8, Addendum 7, Page 4:
There’s even a diagram showing an example of multiple paths from the MAN/WAN.
The same way Beck and co. have people convinced that Pres. Obama has not released his birth certificate and is hiding something, even though he has. Parody.
... or the way some idiots are convinced that Beck is a birther, even though the birthers are pissed at him for dismissing their theory.
I really wish people would learn a little history before making comments like this. Inflammatory and sensationalist journalism was a staple for much of American history. Read some of the writings of Benjamin Franklin before the Revolution, or the New York Journal just before the turn of the 20th Century. Journalists felt no need to hide their opinions, and stories about the government or politics virtually always reflected the opinions of the journalists or publishers.
It's only been in recent years that news organizations have tried to hide their biases in an air of neutrality. Today most news (especially on TV) presents an appearance of impartiality by presenting "both sides" in measured tones, and the viewpoint is less obvious and sometimes hidden in insidious ways.
This phenomenon of national leaders singling out journalists for derision isn't entirely new (Richard Nixon also targeted the Washington Post for exclusion), but a national leader directly calling an entire news organization produces nothing but propaganda and discrediting all of their reporting is certainly a unique phenomenon.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe MSNBC isn't a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party so trying to equivocate it with Fox News is nonsense? Yes MSNBC's main talking heads currently lean left if you disregard Morning Joe but they are also frequently very critical of the Democrats.
Also during most of Bush's term MSNBC was much less liberal than it is now. Remember Tucker Carlson?
I wasn't criticizing MSNBC, or making any comment about them at all. What I was commenting on was a sitting president demonizing a media network. It seems... unseemly. For a President of the United States. And I don't recall that being done in the recent past. So far no one has pointed out what I may have missed.
BakaHoushi was equivocating that attack (coming directly from President Obama, as well as the White House communications directors and others) with complaints about George W. Bush's behavior toward MSNBC. I've seen the letter from Gillespie (White House council during the Bush administration) regarding a specific issue raised during a specific story on NBC. I just don't think that is equivalent at all.
In fact I think the White House has an obligation to answer or correct any statements from media that are misleading or incorrect. But demonizing an entire media organization, and claiming everything they report is untrustworthy, is an improper use of authority.
Well that doesn't really (actually, at all) answer the question. The letter (written by White House counsel, nothing from W) addressed a specific problem with a specific news report. Which is what the White House should be doing, not dismissing the entire organization as a partisan mouth-piece. I find it discouraging that the administration would take this kind of tactic. I can't think of any administration as harsh with its critics since Lincoln jailed journalists that criticized his war.
It's also interesting that the GGP gets modded up for making such an unfounded quip, but partisan attacks often get kudos regardless of whether they have any foundation.
George W Bush, MSNBC.
Hardly the first time.
Well now that's interesting. Because I never heard about W claiming that MSNBC wasn't a "real" news organization, or that they were the mouthpiece of the Democratic party. When did that happen? Can you provide a reference?
Or should I just subscribe to your newsletter?
It probably did start out as parody, but it's grown significantly beyond that. The way this has been spread around to message boards and emails and the like, without any proper context that reveals it as parody, has seemingly convinced a number of people that there is some old rape/murder case that has some connection to Glenn Beck's past. The web site is pretty obvious what it's referring to, but other sources are not.
But if that's the case, then that should have been the one that Beck made, rather than trying to use the "trademark" argument. The decision in this case is clearly correct.
As far as crimes against the first amendment, those thing are still happening. Obama's detractors were not allowed into the Creigh Deeds rally in Newport News just a few weeks ago, so the SS is still using "free speech zones" the same way they did under Bush.
So if someone set up a similar site in your name it, you'd rest with the decision that it was parody and legal?
Well based on the argument, that his name is a trademark used for marketing, and the site should be shut down based on trademark infringement, then you would pretty much have go to along with it, because that's the way the law does and should work.
But, no, you don't necessarily have to rest with that, but you will have to find another way to combat it. Like pointing out what a douche the site owner is for doing something like that. And this crazy idea has practically become a meme: check out all the comments on Digg (ugh) that reference Glenn Beck raping and murdering a girl in the 1990's. While you're there, see if you can figure out how many people without background knowledge have to wonder whether there is some basis for the questioning - it's ridiculous.
It's bad enough using ad hominem attacks against someone just because you don't like what they say. But this goes way beyond what should be considered decent.
Irregardless of the lack of civility and/or ultimate damage to reputation (intentioned or not) that the site may have caused, you can't argue with the legal decision in this case. It was correct.
On the concept of "blow-by-blow coverage."
Expect to be hearing from my lawyer.
I know what you mean. My lawyer is a complete whore too.
I'm replying to your comment because I accidentally modded it redundant.
This is the exact same thought I had when I read that argument. Free will is your god-like ability to collapse a wave function. ;)
A democracy allows tyranny by the majority, which is what is happening now. That's why we are a Constitutional republic. The Constitution explicitly protects property rights.
If your family seems "petty and intrusive" to you, that's your problem to fix, and you should be able to do something about it. Changing the abusive behavior of a faceless armed bureaucracy is much more difficult. Just ask the children from the Branch Dividian compound, or the thousands of citizens sitting in jail for having the wrong kind of plant in their pockets (you know the US has the most prisoners in the world, right?) It's too late to ask most of the victims of our current 2 "wars", but I think I can guess which they would rather deal with.
Yes, I am English. Not sure why that's relevant.
It's not, really, other than you may not understand our system of government, and you've already lost some of your basic rights.
I don't see any fundamental distinction between a local government taking taxes and providing a service and a national one doing the same.
That's funny because I thought I pointed it out pretty clearly. It's a fundamental aspect of our Republic: power flows upward. People, family, community, locality, state, federal. With the greatest authority as close to the people as possible. This provides a greater chance of freedom, requires more responsibility from the people, and resists tyranny from the faceless armed bureaucracies in DC.
That's an assertion, and a highly flawed one.
You can make that claim if you want, but that "highly flawed assertion" is what the entire US system of Federal government is based on.
This isn't adversarial - I'm asking for a reference for this because I'm interested. I have not heard this before. How does this work?
No, Qzukk, I'm not talking about "you have to go to school and get a license", it's much more insidious than that. Here's the deal:
This is from an article in USA Today, but you can find plenty of other sources for information on how the supply of doctors is controlled.
1. America has a "free" market for health insurance/care
Lol. That's rich! The only thing "free" about it is that the states freely regulate health insurance.
2. America pays more than most Western countries for health insurance/care 3. America gets worse results than most Western countries
That depends on how you measure "results". Yes, the US has a slightly lower average lifespan and a higher incidence of, for instance, premature births. However, cancer patients in the US have a much higher survival rate, and premature infants have a better chance of survival in the US. If you separate general "health" issues from "care for the sick and injured", the US usually does much better. The US is also the country where most new, experimental drugs first become available, and they are sold here for higher prices than any other countries. This is done because generally Americans can afford to pay more for drugs, so they bear the brunt of making up the cost of R&D.
4. Most States have one insurer that has >40% of the insurance market
Because of state and federal regulations, and thus is not really a free market at all.
Economists have to be the most arrogant people on the face of the earth. And even after trying the same theories of using central banking fiat money supply nonsense being proven false and causing all kinds of problems, they insist on going on to prove how they were right all along and somebody just didn't understand what they were saying when they said it.
Meddling bastards.
Nonsense, capitalism is awful at things that don't make a profit and where value is not easily expressed in terms of money. This includes things like education, environmental protection, and health care. Quit spewing dumb soundbites.
Actually, it seems that education is much better when it's paid for with private funds. Even publicly funded education was better before the Federal government got involved and created the Department of Education. Outcomes for public education have deteriorated significantly since.
Whether health care can be any good when no profit motive is involved remains to be seen. The vast majority of medical advances in the last century have been made by people hoping to profit from their discoveries. These include pharmaceutical companies, teaching hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers, etc.
When all medical care is control and rationed by government, it may just stagnate. Then again, there will probably plenty of billionaires walking around wanting to spend money on medical advances for themselves and their families. We may even still call them Senators, Congressmen, CEOs, board members, cabinet members, and bankers.
Here's a civics lesson for you: If someone has taken an oath, it's okay to point out to them when they appear to be violating it, or at least justify why they think they are abiding by it.
You hide that "general welfare" part behind the Interstate Commerce clause in your sentence so well! It almost makes it seem like it has nothing to do with establishing laws that affect the general welfare of the people. I bet a lot of people who read it actually stop and have a wtf? moment, which makes them miss out on those two little important words!
Wow you're a moron. Reading comprehension failure to the nth degree. The "general welfare" clause has NOTHING to do with the enumerated power of regulating interstate commerce. Idiot. Go back to school and tell your 10th grade teacher she's not teaching the Constitution right.
You undermine your own argument, because your entire reasoning for the unconstitutionality is that it does not provide for the welfare of the country. Your entire rationale behind this is the assertion that you do not like the spending.
That's fine, as you are entitled to your opinion, and nobody likes spending. But that hardly makes it unconstitutional!
If you want to make the argument, make the god damn argument. Don't get caught up in your ridiculous talking points using buzzwords like entitlement, deficit, debt, liabilities, and expect them to hold any water in a genuine discussion about the subject. Parroting opinions and talking points is only going to get you ignored by anyone with a brain, especially if you get caught up in ridiculous lines of reasoning like it being unconstitutional.
You're not making any sense. "deficit" and "debt" are buzzwords? You don't know what they mean?
Although, as you say, that's beside the point. The point is that the clause you would like to use to allow congress ability to do whatever they want, does no such thing. Otherwise there would be no point to the enumerated powers.
Following that passage you will find 21 specific, enumerated powers granted to congress. Nothing more.
Here's what Madison (one of the authors and proponents of the Constitution) had to say about your idea:
Madison was emphatic: He said it was “error” to focus on the “general expressions” and disregard “the specifications which ascertain and limit their import”; and to argue that the general expression provides “an unlimited power” to provide for “the common defense and general welfare”, is “an absurdity”.
Maybe your rights come from some idea of groupthink or tyrannical majority. Mine do not.
If that's the way you view rights, then you don't have anything. Nothing. And as people vote away the rights of more and more minorities in order to get things for themselves, eventually even your life will be forfeit.
Good luck convincing the ruling tyrants that you didn't agree to this "social contract" when they come to cart you off.
Can you provide some fundamental, inarguable definition of "inherent rights", and explain from first principles why health care isn't one but security is?
Volunteer fire brigade? Really? Bloody hell.
What are you, English? We call them the "rescue squad" or the "fire department", but yea they are primarily staffed by volunteers. There are locality-supported fire departments not far from here, but they are funded by local government. Local governments are ... local. They are accountable to their community, and they can only spend what they bring in. If they issue bonds (debt) it must be approved by a plurality of the voters. I view this significantly different than a federal government, run from thousands of miles away, printing and spending money without the means to pay it.
You are born with inherent rights. They are part of you. They cannot be taken or given away, they are not supplied by governments. They do not require someone else to provide them for you.
I never said that "security" was an inherent right. I said the purpose of government is to secure inherent rights. That is, the only reason for that necessary evil is to ensure that individuals do not infringe on the rights of other individuals.
If you are really unclear on the concept, here is a good primer on inherent rights.
You can start by explaining how a multi-trillion dollar government program is going to make things better. What the invasions and occupations are now programs? Because they are the ONLY thing that was multiple trillions. The health program will be less than 1 trillion over a decade. Now, I have major issues with it, but out and out lying about it solves nothing and will only change the mind of idiots.
I don't know what ill conceived foreign invasions and interventionist foreign policies that are still in place (I won't go into why need to start a pull out from Afghanistan right away - you can read Matthew Hoh's letter yourself) has to do with this health care bill, but you seem to have bought into the talking points about it, so let me educate you a bit.
That "trillion dollar" price tag is simply a CBO estimate of the treasury outlays required to support federally funded measures in the bill. It does not include the trillions and trillions of dollars in resources that will be required from industry (and ultimately, private citizens) to support the regulations, nor the unfunded state mandates it includes. Health care is approximately 15% of GDP. The GDP of the US is about $14 trillion. So that's $21 trillion spent on health care over 10 years. This bill will regulate every aspect of health care, purports to cover more people, requires more coverage by all "approved" health care plans, and as far as I can tell, does nothing to address the actual costs of health care (thanks, AMA).
In fact, there are several provisions that will necessarily increase health care costs. For instance, the bill has a nod to the trial lawyer lobby by rolling back the tort reforms that states have passed which lowered expenses for doctors.
So, yes, it will likely be many trillions of dollars in additional costs. Add to that the fact that this will be run as an entitlement, without caps, and that CBO estimate may turn out to be as laughably naive as their estimate of the cost of Medicare back in 1966. Back then, the CBO estimated Medicare (which cost $3 billion in 1965) would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly "conservative" estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.
What in the world makes you think that the "unelected CEOs and millions of nameless managers and directors, whose only goal in life is to suck more money out of the economy for their own gain" as you describe them, aren't partners in this scheme? I've got some news for you: They are. It's a collusion.
The pharmaceutical companies where on board with this early in the game. The health insurance companies made an agreement with the White House not to oppose it months ago (which is why they were so incensed when Humana sent out a newsletter describing issues with the bill). With the threat of jail time in this bill for NOT buying health insurance, they will have lots of new victims - some supported by government largess.
This is not a government program where angels on The Hill will push back the dark forces and shower magic beans on the people. It's a takeover by the elites in government, on the boards of directors, CEOs and Wall Street executives. Those elites will not pay for this - the middle class will. Those 45% of the American people that pay federal taxes and have trouble making ends meet because those taxes and fees and tolls and charges and regulations etc. are eating up more and more of the resources they are able to produce.
Is it any wonder why we are quickly headed towards third world status?
No, not with people like you fooled into supporting this tyrannical oligarchy they want. Eventually there will be nothing but Serfs and Lords. And once this new Order is in place, if you're not a good little serf contributing to what the Lords want, what use will they have for you then?