Papa John Is Mad About Obama Care

Individual

I was just quoting you. Ok, rather than get into a debate about that - explain what is consented to as defined in your Constitution.

 

Good choice of words. I approve.

 

The reason I asked was because the U.S. Constitution and the creation of our form of government was covered in great depth and detail when I was schooled, 60 years ago. It seems to still be covered today but with changes that have occurred interpretively, and not by the people as originally intended.

Rather than turn this thread into a debate over how the Constitution is to be interpreted, I would suggest you read Article I, Section 8, which enumerates the powers of the Federal government.

 

The only part that is applicable, it seems, is: 'General Welfare'

"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."

If you are asking me to ignore James Madison and Alexander Hamilton then the above tells me nothing in particular. If you don't then it also tells me nothing in particular. You seemed to be quite specific: 'consented to as defined in our Constitution'. So what am I supposed to take from Article I, Section 8 - in relation to your opinion (which you have not really clarified)?

 

25

What are you basing that on? How many? The things I’ve read seem to indicate that fraud is actually small and that there are mechanisms in place to investigate and prosecute fraudsters.

(“In fact, welfare fraud among Philadelphia’s 95,456 recipients is “minute,” according to Peter Berson, assistant chief of the government fraud unit in the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office. The 200 to 400 cases of welfare fraud in the city each year – down 50% since 2002 because of better enforcement and fewer recipients” Erin O’Brien, a poverty expert at the University of Massachusetts.)

I’m all for reform but you seem to be starting off from the position that most of the people seeking assistance are criminals wanting to milk the system because they are too lazy to work, which is likely to colour your attitude towards what reform you would take.

How big a problem?

Again you seem to be suggesting that they are receiving foodstamps fraudulently because they are lazy.

And it should also be remembered that many that work are entitled to food stamps because of their low income. What evidence do you have that people receiving food stamps do not want to work?

Again you start with the premises that ‘they’ are just lazy.

The thing is what would be your solution to this be?

*

Again you seem to be suggesting that ‘they’ are not working out of laziness.

Please define what you mean by ‘comfortable’ in this context. Are you suggesting that you want to make peoples lives so bad that they do wish to revolt?

 

25

What do you mean by ‘true capitalism’? And what is your evidence for this assertion?

But there never has been and never can be a ‘free market economy’ and austrian economics it seems to me is more ideology than viable economic theory.

As I’ve written elsewhere the ‘American dream’ always had an element of myth about it and a lot of it was based on people tapping previously untouched resources.

To repeat - The US had risen on a wave of previously untapped resources but by the 1940's resources had either been tapped, were becoming harder to extract or had been exhausted. I mean the material and mineral wealth of the old world has been exploited for some 5000 years (for example tin mining in Cornwall). Large areas of the US didn’t become exploited until the 19th century. For example in 1848 Europe was in turmoil as revolutions sprang up across the continent many based around resources and there distribution, while in the US you had the beginning of the California gold rush

 

25

As explained at length if anything the cause of the last financial crisis was down to deregulation and non-regulation, and the big problem was that ‘government’ was under the control of political groupings that had been seduced by wealth sponsored neoliberal ideas - as I’m afraid to say had many of those that voted those groups into power.

 

25

But have you a rational and reasonable argument for disagreeing?

Government is or should be run by the representatives ‘the people’ elect into power. If the ‘government’ is the problem then the real problem is the people that voted for those that should be running it into power. The question that should be asked is why they voted for those representatives?

Again can you back this up in any way?



Sorry but your posts (like others here) seems to be full of assertions that I don’t think stand up to scrutiny.

 

come on balbus one question at a time, you ask so many that it makes responding impossible without having a clusterfuck of who is talking to who about what.
at least for us people that dont put 13 seperate quotes between each response.
well just a small response to your first comment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0

 

Pen

Are you claiming that you are basing your view of all claimants on such individuals? Are you claiming that all people seeking assistance are the same?

It seems to me that the woman and her husband seem to be an indictment of a failing social system, why had she had 10 children with one man and 5 with another?

The implication seems to be that she and other disadvantaged women get pregnant because they know they can get welfare. To me it would seem more of a problem of education, expectation and healthcare access.

Now if it were true one great indicator of it would be teenage pregnancy and thanks in large part to government sponsored educational programmes and greater access to contraception in the US teenage pregnancy has dropped dramatically in the last decade (44 percent drop from 1991 to 2010) although there are nine times as many teen mothers in America than in other developed countries.

Now once again since many of those other countries have rather generous public assistance but vastly smaller rates of teen pregnancy, the implication that such things are linked to generous welfare doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny.

(The US rate is 39 births per 1,000 girls, ages 15 through 19 BUT Sweden has a rate below 8 and the Netherlands is close to 4.)

And a number of studies indicate that high teenage pregnancy rates seems more linked to religious beliefs against contraception than welfare.

 

i dont think that this woman gives a shit about your numbers or whats happening in sweden. and there are educational programs in school that warn of the problems of teenage pregnancy and disease. it is one of the reasons i am disease free today. i dont know what exactly it is about our country but despite knowing the problems of living a reckless lifestyle there are still MANY here that live there lives that way.
as one side note to your claims that fraud is minute...(what you post) that is the number of claims they know about. when i was a kid there where dozens of people i knew that were trading foodstamps for cash so they could buy booze. i didnt know about drugs then but im sure many if not all of them were using that foodstamp money to buy drugs also.
and i am for foodstamp type systems but it isnt monitored as well as you apparently think from what you read. i lived it and i saw that it isnt like a guy comes to your house to see if you have a 4 door garage with a beemer and a range rover inside. if your wondering how that can be then i will tell you the main culprit is under the table paid jobs.

 

Well, it's not fraud, but it's giving people a reason to stay home. Sometimes, for women with a lot of children, make a lot of government money. More so, than being a waitress or some type of job like that. So, people stay on welfare, because it pays more, and live their life like that. I know, I've have government insurance in NY, but New York State took 20% out of my paycheck every week!!! The Liberal Agenda costs a lot of money!!

I'' have to talk to you more later man. I want to make myself another hemp Necklace , my old one broke.

 

Well, how do you interpret "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." differently (1) ignoring Madison and Hamilton, and (2) NOT ignoring Madison and Hamilton?

 

You seemingly have interpreted it: 'consented to as defined in our Constitution', but seem to to be shy on articulating that point. It's how it is is being interpreted, and your thoughts on that - not mine.

 

I don't find a need to interpret it at all; it simply means what it says. But I'm still curious to know what it is of Madison or Hamilton you were referring to??

"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."

Consider also the fact that Article I, Section 9 covers taxation for the purposes of funding the Federal government.

 

What does 'welfare' mean to you? and what does: 'general Welfare of the United States' mean to you?

If you have a signature that says: "The difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is a matter of time." -- Ayn Rand
...'welfare' obviously means something to you.
I was asking what your 'consented to as defined in our Constitution' meant.
If it means 'General welfare' - it could mean anything at all.
You can say your comment meant absolutely nothing and was a throwaway flippant remark if you like.

 

To me 'welfare' means 'the well being of.'

The "general Welfare of the United States" means exactly that, the United States, currently 50 of them.

Yes, "The difference between a welfare State (singular) and a totalitarian State (singular) is a matter of time."

The United States is NOT a unitary State, and perhaps if you read the U.S. Constitution with an open mind, noting that the founders went to great length to try and create a government in which the people were the source of their government, sovereignty beginning with the individuals, and not sourced to the people from either the State or the Federal government.

Prior to the early 20th Century how much welfare, as you and many others today might define it, was provided by the Federal government?

I'm still waiting to read your response to my question about Madison and Hamilton.

 

Don't see it as rich & poor myself; tho its seems a big theme here at times.

It's just that its the big frauds which piss me off.

Guys like Illinois govenour Rod Blogjacovich, the wholesale corruption, where everything is for sale ( like a seat in the Senate ) and everyone can be bought and sold.

Creatures like this thrive in environments lacking in political competition. Where the same political faction is entrenched.

Meanwhile our pundits seek to flog Corporations, and are willing to give a pass to corrupt politicians, Why?

 

if a corporation isnt sponsoring the channel that the pundit is on then they will be raked under the coals while if a politician is in the same predicament it will be reported as it is.

 

Pen

I wasn’t talking to the woman I was talking to you, have you actually got any rational arguments against welfare?

But given the numbers outlined above, why is the US seemingly doing so badly compared with other developed countries?

So shouldn’t you be asking yourself what it is exactly about your country that causes this problem?

Trouble is self serving stories that begin – “…When I was a kid”… or …”I heard that” - are not rational arguments.

Why not? Have you any evidence?