|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Why are the tea partiers so angry?
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE] But it should NEVER be on the Federal level, only State and local. Big Gov't is bad, small gov't is not so bad and more easily remedied when it goes "south".
Yes, you've said that several times now, but, despite repeated requests, you have yet to supply a shred of evidence to support this. Do you have evidence that state and local governments are statistically any more efficient or less corrupt than federal ones? As I noted before, I can think of several examples to the contrary.
That isn't the point I am arguing: it is obvious that a "machine" of many integrated parts can be fixed where a part goes bad; and that a bad part doesn't break the rest of the machine. But if the entire machine is dependant on a single interface and the rest of the machine has no access to that interface, then when that interface goes bad the entire machine ceases to function. A dependency of the States on the Fed is bad enough (a necessary "evil" in the view of the Founders, with their "promote the general welfare" stipulation for the need of a Fed at all): a Fed lordship over increasing State minutia is not only a stupid system it is bound to become an evil one....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
What you seem to be proposing is that the Constitution is outmoded anymore; that it only worked when we were a bucolic, low-population Nation of largely farmers with limited city size and industry. Or perhaps during your arbitrary "19th century" focus the USA passed some kind of tipping point?
Yep, that's exactly it. The tipping point was the Civil War. What emerged from the Civil War was a very different American "nation" and a very different US Constitution (never underestimate the importance of the 14th Amendment). The victory of the industrial-capitalist North over the agrarian-"feudalist" South standardised, homogenised and unified American society and culture around a single (Northern) norm. Suddenly the sort of federalism envisaged by the original US Constitution made a lot less sense. However, Noah Webster and Henry Ford probably did more damage to the "Framers' Original" version of the US Constitution than Lincoln or the 14th Amendment: the exceptionally high mobility of American society , both cultural and geographical, made the original federalism very difficult to sustain. By the Progressive era, the people were calling for "national solutions to national problems", this reached its apogee during the New Deal, but has never really gone away.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]
I am proposing a simple fix: return obligation for welfare to the local and State govt's and get the Fed out of that "business" altogether. National healthcare is totally moving in the wrong direction. Those on the local level who provide healthcare will still do so for those not capable of buying their own medical insurance and hiring the docs of their choice, etc. It's just that the funding will be also on the local level, not Federal.
Yeah, unfunded federal mandates are so very popular with the states right now... cuz they're just flush with $$.
[ 29. June 2010, 23:45: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Another issue,Merlin; many of the ideals you and the Tea Party espouse might work with a 19th century level of population and industry, but not the current.
That is an interesting assertion that I disbelieve.
What you seem to be proposing is that the Constitution is outmoded anymore; that it only worked when we were a bucolic, low-population Nation of largely farmers with limited city size and industry. Or perhaps during your arbitrary "19th century" focus the USA passed some kind of tipping point?
The point I was attempting to make is the economies of the various states are interconnected to the point that a strong central government is necessary to regulate their interaction. The current population is such that this is an inevitability. I have not attacked the US Constitution in any way, shape or form.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Precisely why the funding must come through the private sector and not gov't taxation and redistribution. That's why the Fed has to possess the power to compel lending institutions to get their kiesters off the cash; there's plenty of money already out there, it's just frozen because of the uncertain times.
They could have quite easily done this by putting stipulations on the bailout.
Compelling business, hmm, sounds a bit like what you lot are protesting.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Once the lending apparatus us flowing again, the incorporated cities, counties and even State gov'ts can take out loans to pay for the virtually inexhaustible work projects that can be created (I don't care what it is, anything from painting curbs, eradicating graffiti, trash pickup, parks and public gardens beautification, even building projects for those possessing the skills; and for those who are physically incapacitated, there are all manner of needs for tutors, mentors, clerical or otherwise "intellectual" work).[/QB]
How very socialistic of you. (FDR's ghost just rolled past)
The Fed ultimately possesses the control over the assigned value and amount of money in circulation: that makes the Fed (promoting the general welfare) capable of (responsible for) insuring that there is money to back up all the loans being taken out by incorporated cities, counties and even States; and regulating due process in any cases of default - as I said, it ain't a perfect system, but it's the best one I've seen so far.[/QB][/QUOTE]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Even better, Merlin just said that the Fed should compel private banks to lend.
A government institution should have the power to force a private company to act against its own best interest.
Yeah, Merlin just said he likes Big Government.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
What you seem to be proposing is that the Constitution is outmoded anymore; that it only worked when we were a bucolic, low-population Nation of largely farmers with limited city size and industry. Or perhaps during your arbitrary "19th century" focus the USA passed some kind of tipping point?
Yep, that's exactly it. The tipping point was the Civil War. What emerged from the Civil War was a very different American "nation" and a very different US Constitution (never underestimate the importance of the 14th Amendment). The victory of the industrial-capitalist North over the agrarian-"feudalist" South standardised, homogenised and unified American society and culture around a single (Northern) norm. Suddenly the sort of federalism envisaged by the original US Constitution made a lot less sense. However, Noah Webster and Henry Ford probably did more damage to the "Framers' Original" version of the US Constitution than Lincoln or the 14th Amendment: the exceptionally high mobility of American society , both cultural and geographical, made the original federalism very difficult to sustain. By the Progressive era, the people were calling for "national solutions to national problems", this reached its apogee during the New Deal, but has never really gone away.
That's something that's always kinda bugged me. People on the right (tea-party types) tend to claim that we can know the intentions of the founding fathers, and that we must stick precisely to those intentions. For that reason, they tend to read the Constitution and founding documents like fundamentalists read the Bible. But it seems to me that the founders crafted the Constitution so that it would be organic enough to adapt to unforeseen circumstances.
Certainly our nation is quite different in the modern era, and the fact that people frequently cross state lines (sometimes daily for a commute into a major city) seems to call for a standardization of rights and social safety nets across the states. Most of us think of ourselves as US citizens before we think of ourselves as citizens of our state (in my experience, anyway - Texas of course is the exception that proves the rule). ISTM that's the reason the federal gov't pumps money into states according to need even if that state can't contribute as much to the federal government - because as a union, we can't have the economy and general welfare of our citizens go to seed in a particular state. (Well, we do tend to tolerate it to a certain degree, particularly in some southern states and in the rust belt.)
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
That's something that's always kinda bugged me. People on the right (tea-party types) tend to claim that we can know the intentions of the founding fathers, and that we must stick precisely to those intentions. For that reason, they tend to read the Constitution and founding documents like fundamentalists read the Bible. But it seems to me that the founders crafted the Constitution so that it would be organic enough to adapt to unforeseen circumstances.
It is possible for historians to make reasonable claims about what some of the major the Founding Fathers thought, what their intentions were, and how they understood the Constitution at the time they were writing it. Madison's notes from the Convention, the Federalist Papers, and the private and public papers of some of the people involved provide good sources of information. But the "original intent" school comes up with a number of problem, which the populist right tends to ignore:
Firstly, many of the Founders were well aware of their own limitations as constitution-makers. They'd had a bit of experience with State Constitutions and with the Articles of Confederation, but the "art or science of free government" was still very much in their infancy. Any clear "intent" is sometimes difficult to discern, because they were not quite sure what they were doing. They flip-flopped on lots of issues (the USA very nearly ended up with a single-term seven-year President elected by both Houses of Congress; the four-year term with re-election and the Electoral College were last-minute desperate compromises.
Secondly, not all Founders spoke with the same voice. Jefferson and Hamilton represent two extremes: Jefferson a champion of the small-government left, and Hamilton a champion of big-government right. There were lots in between. To say, "the Founders intended XYZ" is, at best, a gross summary of a variety of nuanced views, and it's impossible to tell exactly who voted for what and why. (Actually, although Jefferson was such an influential figure in early US history, he is arguably not even a Founding Father, because he was in France at the time and took no direct part in the Convention - just don't tell the Texas State Board of Education!)
Thirdly, there is the question of the source of the US Constitution's legitimacy. It was "constituted" in the name of the people, not by the convention delegates who drafted it, but by the State legislatures which ratified it. Are we to consider the views and debates of State legislatures in the ratification process as reflective of "original intent"? If so, the difficulty of separating out the one voice of "the people" or "the Founders" from all the separate voices which went into forming it are magnified.
Fourthly, as soon as we get away from the Founder's views on the issues of their day, and try to apply original intent to the issues of our day, we are on purely speculative ground. It is problematic to apply "original intent" to questions like gay marriage and abortion because the Founders did not consider or write about those issues. If the Founders were faced with the knowledge, technology and problems of our day, would they have produced the same Constitution? Almost certainly not.
Fifthly, we are in danger of misinterpreting and misunderstanding the views of the Founders, because we tend to see them through our own ideological lens. For a long time, from the Civil War to the present, the dominant ideological understanding has been one of individualist liberalism (using liberal in its classical sense, of a Lockean limited state which protects the natural rights of atomistic and contract-forming individuals). Recent scholarship since the 1970s, and the "rediscovery" of the civic-republican tradition, have some constitutional scholars and historians of political thought to challenge that dominant view, and to re-cast the Founders' intentions in a civic-republican mould. Either way, we run the risk of hearing what we want to hear according to our own pre-conceived notions.
Sixthly, why should "original" intent be all that important anyway? Surely a Constitution is supported by the current intent of its living citizens. Placing the intent of people who lived two centuries ago above the intent of those alive today is a sort of ancestor-worship.
I like Constitutions to be clear, simple and comprehensive. I think they they should be amended to reflect current needs rather than historical ones. I'm open to different levels of entrenchment, making certain provisions (e.g. distribution of competences between the federal and state levels) easier to amend in response to changing circumstances than other provisions (e.g. the Bill of Rights). I think an understanding of the historical process and of the ideas which informed the Constitution is important. I'd rather amend the Constitution than "interpret it" to the point of meaninglessness. But "original intent" is very shaky founds for constitutional construction, and it seems particularly perverse to use "original intent" to prevent, say, the national regulation of health insurance provision, while at the same time ignoring it on other issues (such as control of military force, which has become a presidential prerogative).
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
^ An excellent post. Although it triggered unfortunate flashbacks to studying constitutional law, that was really only because it says so many of the things that the Australian High Court has said about the dangers of having recourse to the constitutional debates of the 1890s in our own system.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
remind me why Utah bothered joining the United States again??
They didn't choose to. They were conquered.
OK, that was a serious answer to a rhetorical question - but it might be part of the explaination why some people in those parts have a tradition of cynicism about the Federal government.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Conversely, why did the US let them in?
If I was being cynical I'd say it was because Congress needed three more territories that they could threaten to make into new states to balance the numbers in the slavery compromise in the 1850s. They didn't really care about Utah (or Nevada or New Mexico) as such but wherever they had a territory they could make a State and so change the balance of power in the Senate if needed.
On the other hand Utah and Nevada have some of the most nationalised economies in the USA. Government and military work supplies a disproportionate part of their income, and most of the land is owned by the government, state and especially federal.
Its ironic that in the supposedly free-market USA a far larger proportion of the land is owned by the government than it is here in Britain. And the highest proportion of all in the Western and Mountain states. Whose farming and ranching populations are were founded by federal land grants, and are subsidised by low rents and above all cheap water supplied to them below cost (and way below market value) by engineering projects paid for by taxpayers money - and mostly east-coast taxpayers money at that.
Its called Pioneering Spirit.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Oh, and Utah is the most urbanised state in the Union (apparently even more than New Jersey - its the Australia effect) and Nevada the one with the highest proportion of the workers in trade unions. So I am told, that's one of those facts that's too good to check - I won't feel hurt if someone proves it wrong.
Just think. All those city-dwelling desk-bound unionised Mormon government employees being subsidised by the tax paid by hard-working New England farmers ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Oh, and Utah is the most urbanised state in the Union (apparently even more than New Jersey - its the Australia effect)
Dubious. What is the source? I'd be curious how they arrived at that.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Even better, Merlin just said that the Fed should compel private banks to lend.
A government institution should have the power to force a private company to act against its own best interest.
Yeah, Merlin just said he likes Big Government.
I should clarify that the Fed should not implement enforced lending upon the banks across the board: I was specifying loans to incorporated cites, counties and even State gov'ts. The capitalist segment of the national economy is not under that compulsion. It is in the best interests of the lenders to be smart about who they loan money too; that wouldn't be infringed upon. But to get the money flowing again, the banks must lend to all incorporated cities, counties and States that apply for the loans in order to fund the "gov't work". All such loans would be paid back through value rendered by said-work, but especially by general taxation upon the capitalist interests. If necessary a fairly considerable time would be allowed to pay back the loans. Obviously, in order for this to work and not turn into total socialism (or worse) the amount of capitalism needs to be considerable. I trust that still in the USA there are sufficient capitalist interests and reserves to take over the burden of repayment; and that as capitalism increases again and thrives, that the repayment burden is shared by more people, ergo paid back more swiftly.
Big is okay, BIG is not. The original idea behind the necessity of a Fed was to create a unifying whole out of the various sovereign States. This could only be done if some form of Big Gov't was implemented. But those serving within it are supposed to know and agree on how far (how Big) the Fed should be. And many today are taking a long hard look at that and saying that our Fed is BIG which is not ministering economically in any practical manner to provide for the common welfare.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
So you want to confiscate private property (returning it later is meaningless) and use it for government purposes without the owner's consent?
Dear me Merlin, you are a Big Government Democrat aren't you? Next think you know we'll all be banking at non-profit Community Credit Co-operatives.
Care for some granola?
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
I find it interesting that MtM's "simple" solution is for governments to seek credit from large corporations rather than private citizens/individual investors by issuing bonds. Apparently if there's not some huge corporate sponsor involved taking its cut, the plan isn't ideologically pure enough. The current rate of return on ten year U.S. government bonds is 2.97%. If there were an unwillingness to lend money to the U.S. government this ridiculously low rate would be significantly higher. Whatever the financial problems of today may be, they're certainly not that no one is willing to lend money to the government.
If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that the main issue is the unwillingness of the U.S. government to spend money on anything besides blowing shit up. For some reason the idea that the U.S. might not be able to afford killing foreigners is never brought up with the frequency of the idea that the U.S. might not be able to afford treating its citizen's medical problems.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QB]
If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that the main issue is the unwillingness of the U.S. government to spend money on anything besides blowing shit up.
That's not really true. The US governments (Federal and State) spend more of their people's tax money per head on healthcare than the UK does. But their absurd and antiquated system means they don't get what they pay for.
In effect Americans pay four times over for every medical procedure - once to the medics, once to the government, once to the lawyers, and once to the insurance company.
The crazy thing about their system isn't that it is private - because it isn't really - its that it is absurdly expensive. The way the British NHS is set up makes private healthcare cheaper. Doesn't happen in the USA.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The crazy thing about their system isn't that it is private - because it isn't really - its that it is absurdly expensive. The way the British NHS is set up makes private healthcare cheaper. Doesn't happen in the USA.
A not-insignificant number of the ever-graying population has been convinced that with a national system, services will be rationed or denied, probably due to age or complexity of the procedure. (This video clip, at about 1:00, reflects that line of thinking)
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
A not-insignificant number of the ever-graying population has been convinced that with a national system, services will be rationed or denied, probably due to age or complexity of the procedure. (This video clip, at about 1:00, reflects that line of thinking)
The obvious thing about the "adding all those currently uncovered people to the health care system will lead to rationing" argument is that it tacitly admits that there is already rationing (i.e. those without health insurance must do without except on an emergency basis), it's just rationed in a way that favors anyone already in the system.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Oh, and Utah is the most urbanised state in the Union (apparently even more than New Jersey - its the Australia effect)
Dubious. What is the source? I'd be curious how they arrived at that.
Census data, I'd gather: the proportion of the state population that lives in an urban/suburban area.
Here's a snapshot from the 1990 Census. In this table, for Utah it is 87%, just behind New Jersey (89.4%) and Nevada (88.3%).
As Ken said, it's the Australia effect: lots of land with almost no people, and the bulk of people in a few cities.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
I should add, by way of clarity, that it has nothing to do with land area. A very high proportion of the land in Utah is rural rather than urban. However, the population of Utah is urban rather than rural, proportionally speaking.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
That's something that's always kinda bugged me. People on the right (tea-party types) tend to claim that we can know the intentions of the founding fathers, and that we must stick precisely to those intentions. For that reason, they tend to read the Constitution and founding documents like fundamentalists read the Bible. But it seems to me that the founders crafted the Constitution so that it would be organic enough to adapt to unforeseen circumstances.
It is possible for historians to make reasonable claims about what some of the major the Founding Fathers thought, what their intentions were, and how they understood the Constitution at the time they were writing it. Madison's notes from the Convention, the Federalist Papers, and the private and public papers of some of the people involved provide good sources of information. But the "original intent" school comes up with a number of problem, which the populist right tends to ignore:
Firstly, many of the Founders were well aware of their own limitations as constitution-makers. They'd had a bit of experience with State Constitutions and with the Articles of Confederation, but the "art or science of free government" was still very much in their infancy. Any clear "intent" is sometimes difficult to discern, because they were not quite sure what they were doing. They flip-flopped on lots of issues (the USA very nearly ended up with a single-term seven-year President elected by both Houses of Congress; the four-year term with re-election and the Electoral College were last-minute desperate compromises.
Secondly, not all Founders spoke with the same voice. Jefferson and Hamilton represent two extremes: Jefferson a champion of the small-government left, and Hamilton a champion of big-government right. There were lots in between. To say, "the Founders intended XYZ" is, at best, a gross summary of a variety of nuanced views, and it's impossible to tell exactly who voted for what and why. (Actually, although Jefferson was such an influential figure in early US history, he is arguably not even a Founding Father, because he was in France at the time and took no direct part in the Convention - just don't tell the Texas State Board of Education!)
Thirdly, there is the question of the source of the US Constitution's legitimacy. It was "constituted" in the name of the people, not by the convention delegates who drafted it, but by the State legislatures which ratified it. Are we to consider the views and debates of State legislatures in the ratification process as reflective of "original intent"? If so, the difficulty of separating out the one voice of "the people" or "the Founders" from all the separate voices which went into forming it are magnified.
Fourthly, as soon as we get away from the Founder's views on the issues of their day, and try to apply original intent to the issues of our day, we are on purely speculative ground. It is problematic to apply "original intent" to questions like gay marriage and abortion because the Founders did not consider or write about those issues. If the Founders were faced with the knowledge, technology and problems of our day, would they have produced the same Constitution? Almost certainly not.
Fifthly, we are in danger of misinterpreting and misunderstanding the views of the Founders, because we tend to see them through our own ideological lens. For a long time, from the Civil War to the present, the dominant ideological understanding has been one of individualist liberalism (using liberal in its classical sense, of a Lockean limited state which protects the natural rights of atomistic and contract-forming individuals). Recent scholarship since the 1970s, and the "rediscovery" of the civic-republican tradition, have some constitutional scholars and historians of political thought to challenge that dominant view, and to re-cast the Founders' intentions in a civic-republican mould. Either way, we run the risk of hearing what we want to hear according to our own pre-conceived notions.
Sixthly, why should "original" intent be all that important anyway? Surely a Constitution is supported by the current intent of its living citizens. Placing the intent of people who lived two centuries ago above the intent of those alive today is a sort of ancestor-worship.
I like Constitutions to be clear, simple and comprehensive. I think they they should be amended to reflect current needs rather than historical ones. I'm open to different levels of entrenchment, making certain provisions (e.g. distribution of competences between the federal and state levels) easier to amend in response to changing circumstances than other provisions (e.g. the Bill of Rights). I think an understanding of the historical process and of the ideas which informed the Constitution is important. I'd rather amend the Constitution than "interpret it" to the point of meaninglessness. But "original intent" is very shaky founds for constitutional construction, and it seems particularly perverse to use "original intent" to prevent, say, the national regulation of health insurance provision, while at the same time ignoring it on other issues (such as control of military force, which has become a presidential prerogative).
Thank you for spelling that out in a way I could not. I agree, though, 100%.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
A not-insignificant number of the ever-graying population has been convinced that with a national system, services will be rationed or denied, probably due to age or complexity of the procedure. (This video clip, at about 1:00, reflects that line of thinking)
The obvious thing about the "adding all those currently uncovered people to the health care system will lead to rationing" argument is that it tacitly admits that there is already rationing (i.e. those without health insurance must do without except on an emergency basis), it's just rationed in a way that favors anyone already in the system.
YES! One hesitates to cite Michael Moore, since anyone opposed to health care reform writes him off as a Communist to avoid having to weigh the merits of anything he actually says, but I heard him interviewed around the time "Sicko" came out, and he made what I think is a brilliant point: Of course you're going to get your medical procedure more quickly if you exclude millions of people from the line ahead of you!
Since I, like Moore, am from Michigan, I have elderly relatives living in the Detroit suburbs, who claim when they're in their doctor's waiting rooms, they encounter a lot of Canadians (the way they tell it, you'd think they were the only US citizen in the room) who are crossing the border to get "good" medical care without the long wait they'd have in their own country. Well, obviously, anywhere you go, people who have enough money are going to opt out of common life (unless they're inclined to consider common life a good) in order to buy themselves privilege - perhaps a slightly shorter wait to see a doctor. However, all the Canadians I've ever met love their health care system and think ours in the US is insane. So I guess it's six of one sort of anecdote and a half dozen of the other.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Thirdly, there is the question of the source of the US Constitution's legitimacy. It was "constituted" in the name of the people, not by the convention delegates who drafted it, but by the State legislatures which ratified it. Are we to consider the views and debates of State legislatures in the ratification process as reflective of "original intent"? If so, the difficulty of separating out the one voice of "the people" or "the Founders" from all the separate voices which went into forming it are magnified.
If I can insert a brief historical correction here, the U.S. Constitution was not ratified by state legislatures but rather by state Constitutional Conventions specially elected for that purpose and having no other duties. The drafters of the Constitution feared (rightly, in most cases) that since the proposed Constitution transferred a large amount of power from the states to the central government that the state governments would balk at the prospect. This was practical politics at its most basic.
At any rate RW's main point about Constitutional legitimacy still stands, just substitute "State Constitutional Conventions" wherever it says "State legislatures" in the above paragraph.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
I should add, by way of clarity, that it has nothing to do with land area. A very high proportion of the land in Utah is rural rather than urban. However, the population of Utah is urban rather than rural, proportionally speaking.
Trying to parse that out, I guess what there saying is that the rural areas (as well as probably the large amount of land that is state & federal parks) are very sparsely populated, so that the population tends to be concentrated densely in the few urban areas. Whereas other states such as NY and CA that have much larger and more densely populated urban areas also have rural areas with higher population density, so that it all evens out.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Thanks, Crœsos. My bad.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Sorry for the double-post, but here's a handy cut-out-n-keep Spotter's Guide to Libertarians, which you can take with you to the next Tea Party gathering. I think it sums it up pretty well.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Re: the current state of healthcare. I am not sure if it is the chicken or the egg, but Medicare (old or disabled) and Medicaid (poor and uninsured) are the WORST at reimbursement. Half of the time the physician does not even recoup what the visit or procedure literally cost. I'm not talking what the charge is with a markup, I'm talking about the actual money paid out for the office, the techs, the nurse, etc. Not that private insurance is much better, I mean, good luck getting Blue Cross to not nitpick the claims to death. But all those who screech about not touching their Medicare are soon going to find that no physician will treat them. It's not worth it.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
May I present Tea Party Jesus! Saying of actual Tea Partiers (or associated media figures) superimposed on kitschy Jesus portraits.
Truly an art expression for our time.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
A not-insignificant number of the ever-graying population has been convinced that with a national system, services will be rationed or denied, probably due to age or complexity of the procedure. (This video clip, at about 1:00, reflects that line of thinking)
The obvious thing about the "adding all those currently uncovered people to the health care system will lead to rationing" argument is that it tacitly admits that there is already rationing (i.e. those without health insurance must do without except on an emergency basis), it's just rationed in a way that favors anyone already in the system.
YES! One hesitates to cite Michael Moore, since anyone opposed to health care reform writes him off as a Communist to avoid having to weigh the merits of anything he actually says, but I heard him interviewed around the time "Sicko" came out, and he made what I think is a brilliant point: Of course you're going to get your medical procedure more quickly if you exclude millions of people from the line ahead of you!
Since I, like Moore, am from Michigan, I have elderly relatives living in the Detroit suburbs, who claim when they're in their doctor's waiting rooms, they encounter a lot of Canadians (the way they tell it, you'd think they were the only US citizen in the room) who are crossing the border to get "good" medical care without the long wait they'd have in their own country. Well, obviously, anywhere you go, people who have enough money are going to opt out of common life (unless they're inclined to consider common life a good) in order to buy themselves privilege - perhaps a slightly shorter wait to see a doctor. However, all the Canadians I've ever met love their health care system and think ours in the US is insane. So I guess it's six of one sort of anecdote and a half dozen of the other.
See, there's a key difference between Medicare in Canada and the NHS in the UK. Under the Canada Health Act it is illegal to pay privately for publicly-insured services. The federal government deducts the entire cost of such billing from health transfers to the provinces. Since these transfer can make up a third or more of provincial budgets, the provinces have banned private billing for public services, including extra billing.
Therefore in Canada there is no parallel private system alternative to Medicare. That's what the US is for. We get away with this policy because the private clinics are in the US and that's a couple of hours drive away for most Canadians. "Critical Illness" insurance, currently all the rage up here is marketed with a wink and a nudge because it's really meant to pay for your queue-jumping trip to Buffalo after you have a heart attack.
In the UK you can pay for private care and there are private clinics. Most people don't bother because the NHS is just as good and free at point of use. The UK's "safety valve" is therefore more transparent.
Canada, due to geography, gets to fudge more and be dishonest about private care.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
Sober Preacher's Kid - thanks for explaining that! Do you get the sense where you are that people are unhappy with the Canadian health care system? Is it really that normal for people to go to the US for care?
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Sorry for the double-post, but here's a handy cut-out-n-keep Spotter's Guide to Libertarians, which you can take with you to the next Tea Party gathering. I think it sums it up pretty well.
That's awesome. I recognized lots of kids I met in college in there... Especially the "Arrogant" and the one pushing Ayn Rand.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
No, most people are happy with the care we get up here. In fact many snowbirds who've had to deal with US care come back scared and bewildered by the experience.
It's just due to geography that Detroit and Buffalo do a significant trade in private medical care for Canadians. That's where the border crossings are and people stop at the nearest suitable clinic once they're over the border.
You wouldn't find so many Canucks in Chicago or Indianapolis. There's always been a steady stream of such people.
It's not that common and the people who do it are usually rich businessmen or retirees who vote Tory anyway. Never mind what they saved on private insurance costs for the rest of their lives.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I find it interesting that MtM's "simple" solution is for governments to seek credit from large corporations rather than private citizens/individual investors by issuing bonds. Apparently if there's not some huge corporate sponsor involved taking its cut, the plan isn't ideologically pure enough. The current rate of return on ten year U.S. government bonds is 2.97%. If there were an unwillingness to lend money to the U.S. government this ridiculously low rate would be significantly higher. Whatever the financial problems of today may be, they're certainly not that no one is willing to lend money to the government.
If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that the main issue is the unwillingness of the U.S. government to spend money on anything besides blowing shit up. For some reason the idea that the U.S. might not be able to afford killing foreigners is never brought up with the frequency of the idea that the U.S. might not be able to afford treating its citizen's medical problems.
How many straw men can a single post raise up?
I'll only reply to say that city, county and State gov'ts all have credit ratings too. And the fat kiesters squatting on the money supply right now IS the problem. The "grease" the "life's blood" of capitalism is money flowing. And right now the "machine" is mostly frozen up.
In order for the money to flow it must be loaned. In order for the money to be loaned during times of insecurity there must be a venue besides force: yet we must "force" the money flow! If we don't it won't flow.
Capitalism mandates that "pieces" (people) be excised in order to save the whole "body" of the business/company/megacorp, ergo unemployment goes up, tax revenues continue to drop (raising taxes merely increases the momentum toward economic death). In order to make the money flow it must be illegal to squat on it. Yet compulsion is the antithesis of capitalism, it is the behavior of a dictatorship. So there must be a compromise.
Two factors must be in place at the same time or "this" won't work: there must be a non capitalist venue for the money to flow into to "jump-start" the failing economy - to "lubricate" the machine; and, there must be no freebies, no unearned entitlements. Therefore, those not employed (jobless within capitalism) must work for what their city, county and State gives them: this prepares them to reenter capitalism instead of fostering a welfare state mentality. The second factor is the non-capitalist venue of "gov't work" where Federal Law demands that money always flow to when there is a demand, i.e. loans to all incorporated cities, counties and State gov'ts may not be denied. These loans do not directly employ any capitalist interest/company/business; rather, the loans are only sufficiently large to meet the needs of the needy (unemployed within capitalism).
But by employing the labor of those without jobs (or insufficient income to meet the minimum living standard requirement), said-gov'ts creating the "govt' work" also get their materials and many services from capitalists; in fact it can come from nowehere else: ergo the "gov't work" projects directly impact the demand on capitalism and it too is benefitted.
One more thing: the food, clothing, housing, medical attention, education received by the unemployed (and under-employed) must be of a low enough standard such that it does not form an inducement to consider it "good enough", at least by most people. For the same kind and amount of work for the "gov't project" in the private sector, an individual could be earning a paycheck and getting a better/bigger house, buying a car, nicer clothes, even private health insurance, etc. So the inducement to leave the "safety net" would always be there. And the opportunity to do so would increase to include more people as capitalism recovered and thrived.
Only capitalism (defined as private property and the freedom to increase it) has produced the wealth and productivity of the USA and its imitators. No other system can match it. But capitalism ALONE cannot recover itself when depression looms. Therefore there must be a non capitalist venue (as I have briefly described it) where the money never ceases to flow; and this venue must have as its two-part goal the "safety net" for the unfortunate, through an integral work ethic (no freebies), and the reenergizing and maximizing of capitalism.
(ironically, I believe that China is moving closest today in achieving something like this, coming at it through the "back door" as it were)....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Therefore, those not employed (jobless within capitalism) must work for what their city, county and State gives them
Erm, if there's no work for them to be employed to do, what are they supposed to be doing in order to earn their benefits? Is it just busywork to keep them from sitting on their asses all day, but without any real economic value?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
Btw, don't be misled by my use of the word "simple" about this solution. The theory is simple enough to explain, and essentially two-part -- no freebies, and no more squatting on the money by the lending industry, i.e. compulsory lending to incorporated cities, counties and State gov'ts (which is all that I meant by "simple"). But the implementing of it would demand one of the most complex, integrated economic systems ever: a system "worthy" of today's massive, instantaneous information highway. I doubt that such a system as I propose in general terms could have even been put in place before the computer age....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Therefore, those not employed (jobless within capitalism) must work for what their city, county and State gives them
Erm, if there's no work for them to be employed to do, what are they supposed to be doing in order to earn their benefits? Is it just busywork to keep them from sitting on their asses all day, but without any real economic value?
Don't confuse "work" with "jobs." JOBS are what you get paid for within capitalism. WORK is in infinite supply. Call it "busy work" if you like: but if your city started to look like a paradise of the future (eradicated graffiti, beautified parks and roadways, beautified and improved private residences, etc.), I think the euphemism "busy work" would hardly describe what the "unemployed" would be doing! The real econimic value would be instantaneous: supply would go up as demand for materials and services increased: and such would come from capitalism. The loan to the city, county and State would pay for that as well as the food, clothing, housing, etc. of those working within the "safety net". With the increased demand on capitalism, the number of jobs available would increase, further diminishing the numbers of those within the "safety net"....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Therefore, those not employed (jobless within capitalism) must work for what their city, county and State gives them
Erm, if there's no work for them to be employed to do, what are they supposed to be doing in order to earn their benefits? Is it just busywork to keep them from sitting on their asses all day, but without any real economic value?
Don't confuse "work" with "jobs." JOBS are what you get paid for within capitalism. WORK is in infinite supply. Call it "busy work" if you like: but if your city started to look like a paradise of the future (eradicated graffiti, beautified parks and roadways, beautified and improved private residences, etc.), I think the euphemism "busy work" would hardly describe what the "unemployed" would be doing! The real econimic value would be instantaneous: supply would go up as demand for materials and services increased: and such would come from capitalism. The loan to the city, county and State would pay for that as well as the food, clothing, housing, etc. of those working within the "safety net". With the increased demand on capitalism, the number of jobs available would increase, further diminishing the numbers of those within the "safety net"....
I'm not attacking, just asking:
How would city governments ever pay back their loans?
And, would these unemployed people be working in exchange for services, or would they get money too? I'm asking that question to try to figure out whether they would be taxpayers to the states and federal government, since I know you favor tax cuts generally.
Just seeking clarification.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
One more thing: the food, clothing, housing, medical attention, education received by the unemployed (and under-employed) must be of a low enough standard such that it does not form an inducement to consider it "good enough", at least by most people.
This is more than a patronizing vision. It's cruel and scary.
We already have a system in which people with money get better everything, but to institutionalize that philosophy even further.... ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:
So the inducement to leave the "safety net" would always be there. And the opportunity to do so would increase to include more people as capitalism recovered and thrived.
Not if people are denied "good enough" health, education,food, etc.
This sort of "inducement" is not an inducement at all and may well backfire.
If the set-up is to make survival so difficult that a person will want to find a way to a different situation, that very mobility is compromised and possibly thwarted by the not-good-enough resources or lack of resources resulting from the not-good-enough situation.
In fact, this seems to be a recipe for maitaining the so-called culture of poverty or at the very least, a replica of the status quo for too many people out there.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Therefore, those not employed (jobless within capitalism) must work for what their city, county and State gives them
Erm, if there's no work for them to be employed to do, what are they supposed to be doing in order to earn their benefits? Is it just busywork to keep them from sitting on their asses all day, but without any real economic value?
Don't confuse "work" with "jobs." JOBS are what you get paid for within capitalism. WORK is in infinite supply. Call it "busy work" if you like: but if your city started to look like a paradise of the future (eradicated graffiti, beautified parks and roadways, beautified and improved private residences, etc.), I think the euphemism "busy work" would hardly describe what the "unemployed" would be doing! The real econimic value would be instantaneous: supply would go up as demand for materials and services increased: and such would come from capitalism. The loan to the city, county and State would pay for that as well as the food, clothing, housing, etc. of those working within the "safety net". With the increased demand on capitalism, the number of jobs available would increase, further diminishing the numbers of those within the "safety net"....
My plan for the "economic stimulus" was to create jobs in the "greening" of public buildings. Train able-bodied unemployed persons in various aspects of green industry to retrofit your various public buildings. Immediate savings would be found for cash-strapped municipalities in decreased utility bills, as well as the environmental benefits associated with that. Long-term you would be training people in a growth industry, so that when the economy picks up, hopefully they would find gainful employment putting that training to work in the private sector.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
sabine, you make me think of this:
quote:
Greed twists eternal in the human breast
But the market has no brain
It doesn't love it's not God
All it knows is the price of lunch
--Bruce Cockburn, "You've Never Seen Everything" (from the album of the same name)
I feel a little sorry for Merlin, because it's sorta him against everyone else on this thread (more or less) and he does seem to be trying to come up with a constructive solution. I disagree with the premises of that solution, though - what seems to be a quasi-religious faith in the market, even if we have to prop it up a bit (shh, don't tell!). But at least he's admitting that the market can't work its magic all on its own.
I think that now we've found nothing substantial ever trickles down, we have to do more than shake the awnings hoping to find a pool up there that hasn't dried up yet.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
sabine, you make me think of this:
quote:
Greed twists eternal in the human breast
But the market has no brain
It doesn't love it's not God
All it knows is the price of lunch
--Bruce Cockburn, "You've Never Seen Everything" (from the album of the same name)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
I feel a little sorry for Merlin, because it's sorta him against everyone else on this thread (more or less) and he does seem to be trying to come up with a constructive solution. I disagree with the premises of that solution, though - what seems to be a quasi-religious faith in the market, even if we have to prop it up a bit (shh, don't tell!). But at least he's admitting that the market can't work its magic all on its own.
I think that now we've found nothing substantial ever trickles down, we have to do more than shake the awnings hoping to find a pool up there that hasn't dried up yet.
My feelings for the solutions put forth by Merlin wax and wane. I think some of them are, as you put it, hooked into a belief in the market that hasn't yet proved itself to be viable. Others so marginalize certain groups of people that I wonder if those solutions have been well thought out.
It's a hard task to be an almost-lone voice on an issue.
It's also time and energy consuming, which is why I think tea party sympathizers will run out of steam at some point--unless, of course, they are making their living at being tea party sympathizers and have the backing of talk radio and certain news channels.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
...
How would city governments ever pay back their loans?
And, would these unemployed people be working in exchange for services, or would they get money too? I'm asking that question to try to figure out whether they would be taxpayers to the states and federal government, since I know you favor tax cuts generally.
Just seeking clarification.
It would be taxed capitalism that would largely pay back the loans. Obviously I am talking about an "American fix", not proposing this kind of compromise as the basis for, say an African economy, which has virtually NO capitalism to fund such a payback. I am also not complicating this with the way the USA borrows money from other Nations. That is part of the complexity that I was talking about!
Those doing "gov't work" would mostly not receive cash, but rather the services and goods that capitalists pay money for, ergo the "safety net" denizens would not be paying taxes for the labor that they perform for their gov't provided goods and services. There would be some exceptions to this: those unfortunates who possessed skills but lacked employment would be the first and most likely to be rescued back into capitalism: that would require cash, so these would only receive goods and services as a subsidy and they would get a paycheck too: the entire goal would be to restore capitalism as quickly as possible: so their previous history would count a lot toward whether or not they are deemed a worthy risk with a paycheck funded by the loan the city/county/State took out. The sooner they got back into being participants in capitalism the sooner their income would be generating taxes to help repay the loan....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
One more thing: the food, clothing, housing, medical attention, education received by the unemployed (and under-employed) must be of a low enough standard such that it does not form an inducement to consider it "good enough", at least by most people.
This is more than a patronizing vision. It's cruel and scary.
We already have a system in which people with money get better everything, but to institutionalize that philosophy even further....
Ah, the power of words! to create such differing imaginations with the very same prose.
I am not suggesting anything onerous, just not plush, not "upper class" or "cool". I envision a motivation even a momentum to rise up. Snobbery would undoubtedly attach stigma to the "saftey netters" who are squatting content where they are, afraid or too lazy to move: because their food is plentiful and of a good quality, their modest house is warm in winter and pleasant in summer, their clothing is adequate and comely, their education opportunities sufficient or politely refused, etc. But human nature doesn't usually like just sitting with enough; it wants what others have too. And capitalism is the open door to that, not State welfare!
quote:
So the inducement to leave the "safety net" would always be there. And the opportunity to do so would increase to include more people as capitalism recovered and thrived. quote:
Not if people are denied "good enough" health, education,food, etc.
This sort of "inducement" is not an inducement at all and may well backfire.
Again, I am not suggesting that the "safety net" goods and services be of such a low quality that it isn't "good enough" to promote the general welfare.
quote:
In fact, this seems to be a recipe for maitaining the so-called culture of poverty or at the very least, a replica of the status quo for too many people out there.
sabine
It could be corrupted into that kind of tool. But we can only try and hope that we win and any such prejudices lose....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My plan for the "economic stimulus" was to create jobs in the "greening" of public buildings. Train able-bodied unemployed persons in various aspects of green industry to retrofit your various public buildings. Immediate savings would be found for cash-strapped municipalities in decreased utility bills, as well as the environmental benefits associated with that. Long-term you would be training people in a growth industry, so that when the economy picks up, hopefully they would find gainful employment putting that training to work in the private sector.
Excellent! And that work would occupy a lot of people for a very long time and consume massive amounts of capitalist-supplied materials. Win-win all the way. That's a perfect example of what I envision when I say "There is literally no end to the work that can be done"....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Just no money to pay for it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Scratch every rabid Republican wingnut and underneath you'll find a corporatist Keynesian.
I'll bet Merlin actually sleeps with his dog-eared copy of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.
BTW Merlin you owe royalties to the estate of Lord Keynes for copying his work.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But human nature doesn't usually like just sitting with enough; it wants what others have too. And capitalism is the open door to that, not State welfare!
Well, some of us are content with enough, and want others to have, too. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
ISTM that what you're describing - entitlements that are good enough to promote the general welfare - is something the current system would have to aspire to. I'm not familiar with any welfare recipients who are living large on the government dole - maybe it's different in your state. I think the picture of lazy welfare recipients who are unmotivated to work because they get so much for free is an invention of the far right for the purpose of dismantling social safety nets.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Merlin--
Maybe you honestly don't know this, but most unemployed people, including those on welfare, ALREADY want to work, and want a better life.
But sometimes there is no work available. And the deck can be heavily stacked against someone:
--racial inequities;
--lack of appropriate clothing;
--lack of transportation--not just no car, but no money for bus, and inadequate or no bus service;
--lack of child care;
--lack of education and/or education was in a very underfunded school where most students are just written off;
--lack of enough food (and nutritious food) to fuel you through the workday, and possible lack of a lunch to bring;
--growing up in a community where all of the above is so entrenched and people are so squished down that it's nearly impossible to even imagine anything better, let alone figure out how to try to get it, or actually have someone take you seriously enough to employ you, and you may have never seen anyone from your community make it;
--the impressions, stereotypes, and prejudices in other people's minds;
and many other things.
Merlin, FWIW, many of your posts sound like you don't know or believe any of this...and many other posts sound you don't really care. Now, maybe you really don't know, and maybe you're just trying to work out something within your understanding of economics.
But people's reactions to your posts aren't coming out of the blue.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
What Golden Key says is right.
In Detroit, for example, on top of all the other problems families are facing, and the public schools are facing (including corruption that led to people skimming money off the school system, and you know people like that are never made to repay the money), there's an epidemic of lead poisoning as well - from lead paint still being in homes, but also from high levels of lead in the soil where children play in their own yards or in parks.
Lead poisoning leads to intellectual and emotional problems, and difficulty learning. These kids have more than an uphill climb.
I also can't recommend enough Thomas Sugrue's Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. It may seem irrelevant to anyone who's not particularly interested in my hometown, but the issues described there, in very detailed statistics as well as anecdotes, certainly weren't limited to Detroit; they were just particularly focused there because that's where the capitalist growth was at the time.
You wanna know what happens when you leave it all up to the market? Go to Detroit and see. See what the market did to us.
In some ways, the market still works there - after all, property theft is a huge problem, because people are so poor, they don't question whether the cheap goods available on the street were stolen - which they were. One of our Episcopal churches had to close a couple years ago because thieves stole everything, from the parish computer to the broken copier to the diapers the church was giving to neighborhood mothers. Why would they steal diapers? Because they can sell them. As long as they're cheaper than they are in the store, people will buy them, because people are so poor. Even before the economic recession we're in, a full third - and half of all the children - were living below poverty level. I'm not sure what the stats on that are now with unemployment around 30%. And people will risk going to jail to get a share of that market. That's the market at work for ya.
Tell me just how the city of Detroit's gonna put 30% of the population to work, even in exchange for services, when a third of the land is vacant - meaning no property taxes are being paid. The enclave city of Highland Park has finally been able to restore their police and fire departments - they were without those for several years due to bankruptcy. How would Highland Park have put unemployed citizens to work if it couldn't even keep its own police and firefighters employed?
The depopulation of Detroit and Highland Park were made possible thanks to the explosion of the auto industry (which drew over a million people to the area during a ~30-year period) and subsequent implosion of the same industry, due to the market - people buying foreign cars, the auto industry moving factories to places where they could function more cheaply (and, Sugrue discovers, so they could hire only white workers, e.g., out in rural Ohio). Our population dropped from 2 million in the '50s to less than 1 million by 2000. There's no market fix for that.
(Don't get me wrong - I love my hometown, and there's lots of good there, and I would love to wind up back there again.)
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Scratch every rabid Republican wingnut and underneath you'll find a corporatist Keynesian.
I'll bet Merlin actually sleeps with his dog-eared copy of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.
BTW Merlin you owe royalties to the estate of Lord Keynes for copying his work.
I was sure these ideas are not original (every possible permutation of economics has been combined, by now, has it not?). But I have never heard of the dude or the book. I have no economic books or background. You don't need one, in order to see some possible solutions to our present mess. The one I have advocated for here is, as I said, the best I've seen so far. Surely it isn't the only one that could be better than the frozen pile of poo we are trying to invest with "life" again....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But human nature doesn't usually like just sitting with enough; it wants what others have too. And capitalism is the open door to that, not State welfare!
Well, some of us are content with enough, and want others to have, too.
ISTM that what you're describing - entitlements that are good enough to promote the general welfare - is something the current system would have to aspire to. I'm not familiar with any welfare recipients who are living large on the government dole - maybe it's different in your state. I think the picture of lazy welfare recipients who are unmotivated to work because they get so much for free is an invention of the far right for the purpose of dismantling social safety nets.
I am looking ahead, not describing anything I see already existing! Welfare tends to breed entitlement welfare mentality, a very, very bad thing: which my two-part "solution" would seek to eradicate from the getgo. Working mentality is the key to successful capitalism, therefore it must be part of the welfare system, i.e. we must change what has grown in this country, into a "promoting of the general welfare" system that emphasizes work. So yes, I aspire to see that happen: it must happen as part of the "fix", or else any and all "stimulus" (or otherwise money sent to cities, counties and States) would just be throwing good money after bad: it would largely wind up going to special interests who are already fat cats and benefit the unfortunate not at all except by "trickle down" -- which we all agree is a myth more than a reality. The loans to cities, counties and States must FIRST be used to put the unfortunate (unemployed/underemployed) to work: secondarily, it can be used to hire the skills of capitalists where required....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
