Saving Social Security From the Benefit Cutters

Conservative critics of all things governmental love to talk about "saving Social Security."

But they use the term "saving" in the Orwellian sense.

Conservative plans to "save," "preserve" or "maintain" Social Security invariably involve gutting the program that provides an essential safety net for retired Americans and others in need.

The thing is that Americans, even those have not reached retirement age, like Social Security. And they recognize that, with minor tinkering in contribution rates for the wealthy and perhaps with the retirement age, it can be maintained for generations to come.

So overt schemes to render the program dysfunctional, like those advanced by former President George Bush and Congressman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, fail to attract public support.

The real threat to Social Security comes from backdoor plans that underfund and undermine it in the guise of "cost-saving" schemes that even some Democrats back.

An example of this is this year's decision by federal authorities, for the first time since 1975, to deny millions of seniors a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to their Social Security checks.

In fact, the trustees who oversee Social Security are projecting there won't be a cost of living adjustment for the next two years.

Denying cost-of-living adjustments has the effect of reducing the buying power of seniors who rely on Social Security to get by. While prices for necessities are rising -- especially for vulnerable seniors, according to studies by the American Association for Retired People -- the amount of money the seniors have to pay for those necessities does not increase.

That's an emergency for the 15 percent of beneficiaries who rely on Social Security as their sole source of income.

But it is no small concern for the 70 percent of recipients for whom Social Security provides more than half of their fixed- or declining- incomes. These individuals have taken particularly hard hits as the value of stocks and bonds have tanked in the past year.

"Many have seen their savings disappear, their pension funds severely decline and the value of their homes dramatically diminish -– all while poverty among seniors has gone up, as has the number of seniors declaring bankruptcy," explains Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who adds that, "It is my view that seniors are going to need help this year, and it would not be acceptable for Congress to simply turn its back."

Sanders and Congressman Pete DeFazio, D-Oregon, are responding to the cost-of-living cut by proposing the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act, which would provide Social Security recipients an extra one-time payment next year of $250.

DeFazio says it is urgent that Congress act. "Failure to provide a cost-of-living increase for seniors could not come at a worse time," says the Oregonian. "It would simply be unacceptable for seniors on fixed incomes to not receive the help they deserve to keep up with increased prices seniors pay for prescription drugs and medical care."

Comments (97)

1. DeFazio says it is urgent that Congress act. "Failure to provide a cost-of-living increase for seniors could not come at a worse time," says the Oregonian. "It would simply be unacceptable for seniors on fixed incomes to not receive the help they deserve to keep up with increased prices seniors pay for prescription drugs and medical care."

   --seems universal health care would be a good solution...

   Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 4:05pm

2. NICHOLS: "Sanders and Congressman Pete DeFazio, D-Oregon, are responding to the cost-of-living cut by proposing the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act, which would provide Social Security recipients an extra one-time payment next year of $250."

   Seems a transparent play to offset some of the damage Obamacare inflicted on the Seniors' support.

   Buying votes, pure and simple!

   Posted by Happy at 09/17/2009 @ 4:07pm

3. Denying cost-of-living adjustments has the effect of reducing the buying power of seniors who rely on Social Security to get by. While prices for necessities keep rising, the amount of money the seniors have to pay for those necessities does not increase.

   *********************************************************

   Duh, the price of necessities has declined. That's why the CPI movement has been negative. They are lucky not to get a COLA adjustment because it would reduce their benefits.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/17/2009 @ 4:07pm

4. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/17/2009 @ 4:07pm

   The Left's grasp of basic economics is below kindergarten level. I bought a gallon of milk during my lunch outing today, $1.99!

   Posted by Happy at 09/17/2009 @ 4:11pm

5. So the left who never fails to see an opportunity to steal tax money, wants to break the law and give money where the law says none is warranted.

   Only an idiot would not recognize that this is nothing more than a combination of the socialism of Sanders combined with pure political pandering.

   Something the left excels at.

   Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 4:21pm

6. "So the left who never fails to see an opportunity to steal tax money, wants to break the law and give money where the law says none is warranted. "

   Is it stealing?

   1 [ trans. ] take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it : thieves stole her bicycle | [ intrans. ] she was found guilty of stealing from her employers | [as adj. ] ( stolen) stolen goods.

   Congress has legal right due to the Constitution.

   "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;"

   Now we can squabble about the meaning of general welfare. But in no way is this considered to be stealing considering it does not meat the criteria of the word.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/17/2009 @ 4:55pm

7. To have a pastor objecting to helping seniors is despicable. To worry about political pandering and not people is simply shameful./ Santi ,I think you should spend less time worrying about tax returns and think about 80 year olds and the stretching they are doing with their personal budgets. Droopy ,what can I say. The artificial low interest rates that are helping the banks are hurting everyone from dairy farmers to regular consumers. Better freeze that$1.99 gallon of milk. Gold hit $1020 yesterday,is that an indication of low inflation I think not.

   Posted by whatizz at 09/17/2009 @ 5:16pm

8. To have a pastor objecting to helping seniors is despicable. To worry about political pandering and not people is simply shameful./ Santi ,I think you should spend less time worrying about tax returns and think about 80 year olds and the stretching they are doing with their personal budgets. Droopy ,what can I say. The artificial low interest rates that are helping the banks are hurting everyone from dairy farmers to regular consumers. Better freeze that$1.99 gallon of milk. Gold hit $1020 yesterday,is that an indication of low inflation I think not.

   Posted by whatizz at 09/17/2009 @ 5:16pm

   I do not object to helping seniors. I object to breaking the law to do so. If I steal from a bank because I want to help seniors, is that a good thing?

   Is the govt responsible for ensuring your standard of living with every move up and down in the economic cycle? If so, to what extent? What will satisfy everyone's definition of a good standard of living?

   Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 6:26pm

9. "Something the left excels at"

   according to antisocialist's "logic," whenever an individual draws attention to the plight of a vulnerable group of citizens (in this case, seniors), they are, by default, liberals (or socialists) engaged in "political pandering." and, by "logical" extension, no republican or conservative would *ever* pander to a particular group of citizens, no matter how vulnerable.

   yet more evidence that antisocialist is a fraudulent, misanthropic "christian."

   Posted by darladoon at 09/17/2009 @ 6:29pm

10. "I do not object to helping seniors. I object to breaking the law to do so"

    oh, this is about the law?

    hmmm....interesting.

    what laws, exactly, is mr sanders proposing we break?

    Posted by darladoon at 09/17/2009 @ 6:32pm

11. I do not object to helping seniors. I object to breaking the law to do so. If I steal from a bank because I want to help seniors, is that a good thing?

    Is the govt responsible for ensuring your standard of living with every move up and down in the economic cycle? If so, to what extent? What will satisfy everyone's definition of a good standard of living?

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 6:26pm

    I don't know if you didn't read my post or what but you should look up the word steal or just go up and read my post. You will find that in no way is the government stealing.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/17/2009 @ 6:52pm

12. Not only would the one time payment of $250 next year help to pay for food & medicine, but it would help to pay property taxes, increased rents (rising numbers of the foreclosed in competition) egregiously high insurances,etc.

    The above statements apply to reasonably healthy people. Those in bad health are in another realm entirely; consult Anti (Cash in Your Chips)Socialist.

    Posted by Sorelish at 09/17/2009 @ 6:56pm

13. You will find that in no way is the government stealing.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/17/2009 @ 6:52pm

    The Founders and others (including myself) would disagree

    <Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor. Seizing the results of someone's labor is equivalent to seizing hours from him and directing him to carry on various activities. –

    Robert Nozick, Harvard philosopher

    Experience [has] shown that, even under the best forms [of government], those entrusted with power have, in time and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

    Thomas Jefferson 1779

    A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

    Thomas Jefferson (1801)

    If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.

    Thomas Jefferson

    "We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."

    Thomas Paine

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 7:23pm

14. how ironic that antisocialist would quote a radical (thomas paine) to defend a conservative point of view.

    and how convenient of him to completely sidestep the clear rebuttals of two posters.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/17/2009 @ 8:45pm

15. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/17/2009 @ 4:07pm

    Perhaps you should look again.

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

    Posted by Happy at 09/17/2009 @ 4:11pm

    As opposed to....your understanding? Besides, talking about what a group understands is stupid. Groups don't understand things, individuals do.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 4:21pm

    Are you the same guy that supported taking all my tax money and spending it bombing Muslims? Or more correctly, doubling the deficit to bomb them, so I can pay on it later - long after you imagine yourself going into the great beyond to help God rid the world of Satan's influence?

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/17/2009 @ 9:17pm

16. Well John..............

    The democrats control everything. So have at it. Save Social Security. And fix health care.

    Strengthen Medicare and Medicaid so that it covers, (as Antisocial pointed out), people traveling outside the country, provides full dental care, (the elderly need it more that any other group), and is financially secureded for the next generation or more.

    Provide for a catastrophic national insurance policy, with the same structure as FICA to voluntarily cover everyone against financial ruin because of a serious illness or accident. Make premiums affordable on a sliding scale in proportion to an individuals assets.

    Enact tort reform, (savings of one trillion over the next decade.)

    Make denial of medical coverage by insurance companies because of prior condition illegal.

    Run clinics in poor communities to take the strain off of ERs.

    Get it done or get out of the way.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/17/2009 @ 9:37pm

17. Santi- I would like to see you explain yourself to my 80 year old mother and my 90 year old mother -in-law. My mother is conservative so you could probably fool her with rhetoric. My mother-in-law would tell you where to stick it.The ideals you exhort have screwed seniors. I am enraged by and your conservative brethren. Guess what, both of the above mentioned women's rent increased. Their supplemental insurance price dropped to reflect the insurance companies lowered coverage. They now pay more for prescriptions so that was a net loss to them. So the price increases over the past year due to fuel costs have not backed off(groceries). Perhaps the smaller size of the containers has you fooled. Maybe your revenue has decreased in line with seniors.It could be that Mike Steele rode to your rescue with help in proportion of what the Republicans are going to help seniors with relative to their Medicare. You and D the little troll had better hope you are perfectly set for senior citizenship.

    Posted by whatizz at 09/17/2009 @ 9:38pm

18. how ironic that antisocialist would quote a radical (thomas paine) to defend a conservative point of view.

    and how convenient of him to completely sidestep the clear rebuttals of two posters.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/17/2009 @ 8:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Personal attacks such as you launched without even the slightest substantuating facts are just that, they hardly could be considered rebuttals.

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/17/2009 @ 11:13pm

19. Are you the same guy that supported taking all my tax money and spending it bombing Muslims? Or more correctly, doubling the deficit to bomb them, so I can pay on it later - long after you imagine yourself going into the great beyond to help God rid the world of Satan's influence?

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/17/2009 @ 9:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Perhaps you should reconsider your totally personal attack which is not based on fact evidenced biblically? God has already defeated Satan through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ making your point meaningless!

    No sense arguing your ideology of military prepardness or defense of the nation against foreign aggressors know to demonstrably desire and be clearly capable of taking American lives on our own soil.

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/17/2009 @ 11:21pm

20. What was the Confederacy? Were they foreign aggressors in the civil war after they seceded from the Union.They demonstrated a desire and the capability to take American lives on our soil. Why? Because of the misguided argument that they could "own" other people . Were was Jesus Christ in that conflict. He certainly has not been the reason or an influence in this debacle has he. Please don't say the Lord had anything to do with "the war on terror".

    Posted by whatizz at 09/17/2009 @ 11:57pm

21. The Left's grasp of basic economics is below kindergarten level.

    Posted by Happy at 09/17/2009 @ 4:11pm

    Ha!!

    You know, Happy, you may be right.

    Before Obama, (who is bailing like a sailor, unfortunately), this country was in the good hands of All State... and AIG.... and Country Wide... Bank of America... Bernie Madoff (A lefty for sure)... Enron... Lehman Brothers... Goldman Sachs.... and many, many other left, left, lefties on Wall Street. People who make money off of interest. Those other people who CAUSED all the problems are socialist lefty infiltrators who wreaked havoc in those venerable institutions because of that kindergarten level of understanding. Curse them!

    You may be right. We cannot have this countries financial dealings in the hands of those darn lefties. They just don't know what they're doing. A sane person would just give all the control back over to those on the right. Social security? That's just welfare for OLD PEOPLE! The nerve of them, getting old!

    Conservatives and those on the right would be sure to fix things right up. Just ask Anne Coulter. We'd get back to business as usual and America would rear it's head and sell Alaska back to Putin. Now THAT would be hopey and changey! To the RIGHT, two, three, four, to the RIGHT, two, three, four....

    Posted by ficheye at 09/18/2009 @ 02:15am

22. Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 7:23pm

    Yet all of those people still wrote into the Constitution that Congress has the power to create taxes in order to secure the general welfare of the country. I'm reading it word for word. On top of that, only one of those people was a founder. So you should say that Thomas Jeffeson would disagree. Not the founders. Which is probably why Congress is allowed to create taxes for the general welfare and not just for military purposes only.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 04:58am

23. That will get Santi to adjust his version.

    Posted by whatizz at 09/18/2009 @ 05:21am

24. To have a pastor objecting to helping seniors is despicable.

    Posted by whatizz at 09/17/2009 @ 5:16pm

    "Helping"

    Is it really "helping" someone to strongly encourage them into dependence on the charity of others? In 1935 the Social Security act was pass as a measure to help widows and orphans. Since then it's reach has been expanded many times.

    I've praise OASDI as the most wildly successful anti-poverty program in the history of the universe. My figures are many years old, but the last time I looked the figure was something like without SS 50% of elderly would live in poverty and with SS the figure is about 10% (after tax).

    But to some extent, it is a self-fulliing prophecy. In a world without SS the 50% figure would be smaller because people would know they have to save more during their working lifetime. We will never know whether in the absence of SS the 50% would be 15% or 49%. We can also never know what ventures the increased savings would have capitalized. A cure for cancer? A universal translator? More gay cowboy movies?

    Also in the absense of SS seniors would be more dependent on their children. This would increase our birthrate. It would also bring families closer together out of necessity. There would be a lot less of "sticking dad in a home".

    I guess the point of this rambling is that I agree that OASDI is a program that makes our country a better country. But like everything, there are pro's and con's. Like every program, there are people who benefit and ther are people who would be better off without.

    I am also offended by the simplistic notion that "giving people money" is always helpful. How do children learn responsibility if they are given everything. Many drug addicts die from OD when they get a windfall of government cash.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/18/2009 @ 07:08am

25. The idiots on the right never stop their privatizing efforts. They want to privatize social security, use private mercenary companies instead of the nations real army, and of course believe that private corporations have the right to be between you and your doctor.

    Someone brought up an extremely important issue that hasn't been brought up at the national level. Insurance companies don't cover seniors. As it stands, insurance companies cover the low risk age groups and profit handsomely off the deal. As stats show, most money that is spent on patients is towards the end of their lives which is the senior crowd in general. Insurance companies don't cover them, so what's with all of this crap with the government telling granny she has to die because she's old?

    What's going on here is nothing short of corporate welfare and Max Baucus's bill is mandatory corporate welfare enforced by fines.

    The real situation is that the government is now paying for the high risk patients anyway, and insurico is raking in the cash on the low risk patients.

    The insurance industry is afraid of competition with the low risk patients. They should be run out of the business because they are killing their patients for profit.

    You idiots out there against public health care coverage are nothing but schills for the healthcare insurance companies.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/18/2009 @ 07:15am

26. Just think, if we had listened to Dubya back in 2005....

    the Stock Market Crash would have cut the benefits for us! Saving a lot of bother.

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2009 @ 07:16am

27. Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 4:21pm |

    So we can count Dubya as a 'pandering leftist' with his vote-buying 'drug plan' for the seniors?

    I suppose Reagan's witchhunt in the SS disability tools is more along your conservative lines?

    http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/19/us/ us-to-reconsider-denial-of-benefits-to-many-disabled.html

    Posted by snowball777 at 09/18/2009 @ 07:19am

28. Yet all of those people still wrote into the Constitution that Congress has the power to create taxes in order to secure the general welfare of the country. I'm reading it word for word. On top of that, only one of those people was a founder. So you should say that Thomas Jeffeson would disagree. Not the founders. Which is probably why Congress is allowed to create taxes for the general welfare and not just for military purposes only.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 04:58am

    A couple of small points:

    The founders never agreed to the taxation of income. That was ruled unconstitutional, which led to the 16th Amendment.

    From a Constituional perspective, Liberals hang WAAAAAY to much reliance on "the general Welfare".

    It is in the Constitution's PREAMBLE (not the body of text) that it is mentioned along with other over-arching objectives.

    And it is not "SECURE" general welfare. We SECURE the blessing of liberty. We only PROMOTE the general welfare.

    We the people of the United States, in order to

    FORM a more perfect union,

    ESTABLISH justice,

    INSURE domestic tranquility,

    PROVIDE for the common defense,

    PROMOTE the general welfare, and

    SECURE the blessing of liberty for ourselves and our posterity

    ********************************************************

    Then in the text of the body of the Constitution, it say that these objective are met through the ENUMERATED POWERS.

    Torturing dissidents might help insure domestic tranquility, but since it is not one of the enumerated powers, it is not permitted.

    Anti is right: The Constitution does not permit the feds to fund healthcare because it is not an enumerated power. The problem is, none of our justices care so from a practical standpoint, that political battle has been lost.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/18/2009 @ 07:22am

29. The idiots on the right never stop their privatizing efforts.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/18/2009 @ 07:15am

    Someone famous got it right when he said, "Government must not do for a man what he ought to do for himself."

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/18/2009 @ 07:27am

30. I do not object to helping seniors. I object to breaking the law to do so. If I steal from a bank because I want to help seniors, is that a good thing?

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 6:26pm

    Since I'm in an ornery mood this morning...

    Do you know what else pisses me off? I'll tell you what. It is that the left has re-written the story of Robin Hood.

    In reality, Robin Hood was more conservative than any of the right-wingers here.

    Robin recognized the legitimate need for government. He was loyal to Good King Richard, who was fair and just. But when Good King Richard was off to war to protect the nation, his corrupt brother joined with thr corrupt Sherrif of Knottingham and the corrupt tax collectors and taxed the people into poverty.

    Robin Hood did not steal from "the rich". He stole from a the corrupt actors in government. Robin Hood never took a penny from a private individual. He stole for kleptocraic government theives.

    And when Good King Richard returned, He hailed Robin Hood as the savior of the kingdom for fighting goverment corruption.

    And the left had somehow stolen the legend of Robin Hood by claiming he stole from "the rich" and completely ignores the parts about a corrupt government taxing the people into poverty.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/18/2009 @ 07:35am

31. Perhaps you should look again.

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/17/2009 @ 9:17pm *************************************************************

    I claimed the price of necessities decreased and SRJ invited me to take a closer look. Here are the first two paragraphs:

    Consumer Price Index - August 2009

    On a seasonally adjusted basis, the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) rose 0.4 percent in August, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The index has decreased 1.5 percent over the last 12 months on a not seasonally adjusted basis.

    The 0.4 percent seasonally adjusted increase in the CPI-U was driven by a 9.1 percent rise in the gasoline index. This increase accounted for almost the entire advance in the energy index and over 80 percent of the overall increase. Despite the August increase, the gasoline index has fallen 30.0 percent over the last 12 months. ***********************************************************

    I read the CPI has decrease 1.5% in the last 12 months.

    I also read that the entire increase in energy is gasoline.

    GOOD! Old people shouldn't be driving in the first place. If you've seen the Southpark episode about granpa driving you'll know what I mean.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/18/2009 @ 07:50am

32. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/18/2009 @ 07:35am

    Someone might want to mention to Darin that Errol Flynn and directors Michael Curtiz and William Keighley are not the SOLE arbiters of what the "Robin Hood" legend was.

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2009 @ 07:51am

33. Small Troll- Like the pastor you miss the point. We are helping our Seniors. What is wrong with that ? What lessons are we teaching when we say they should not get an extra $250 to survive on. This is the "greatest generation" we want to screw. Santi, the great quoter of history maybe WW2 is to current for you. Social Security has been the most "robbed" program in the history of our government. Medicare was supported by 8 Republican Senators. But I am"high" when I ramble about various topicswith social implications. The corrupt government has been run by Republicans from 1980-1992 and 2000-2008. It was the opposite from Robin Hood because it"stole"from the low and middle class and gave to the rich. Santi and Troll you are going to be seniors pretty soon. When your neck and back problems give yop excruciating pain what are you going to do. Your private medical care will probably bankrupt you then because you 2 have sworn off socialized care.Or will you ,that is the question you will have to face. You can be like the seniors now that are demonstrating against socialized medicine. They do not knowe how good they have and neither do you two.

    Posted by whatizz at 09/18/2009 @ 08:00am

34. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/18/2009 @ 07:08am

    This isn't hard. Look up the historical statistics of elderly poverty rates in books on the subject. Your ideas about people saving up for their elderly years is sheer fantasy. People, back in those days, had children as their social security. But, that strategy only works when you have large part of your population living on a farm. People in cities end up in the poor house. Which, come to think of it, how many of those can you identify where you live?

    http://flare.prefuse.org/launch/apps/job_voyager

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/18/2009 @ 07:22am

    The clause you are looking for is "necessary and proper" and that's not in the preamble. Also, the founders didn't make provisions for a standing army. So, if you want to take the position you are taking, you have to address that point.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/18/2009 @ 07:27am

    Can you tell us how an individual can do for himself when it comes to supplying sewage services, electricity, telephones, internet, roads, garbage removal, etc. - and even supposing that a "man" can do all of these things, when he might have time to earn a living? No one lives on a farm homestead anymore, and you can't just head out to the wood lot to fuel your stove in the city.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/18/2009 @ 07:35am

    Robin Hood is a folk tale of obscure origins. However, like outlaws or insurgents everywhere and at every time, they need the support of the local population in order not to be informed upon and turned over to the state. So, it's quite clear giving to the poor would be important. As for taxation, the story focuses on corruption not tax rates.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 08:10am

35. Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 08:10am

    BTW, don't you love THIS line from Darin's rendition of "Robin Hood"?

    "But when Good King Richard was off to war to protect the nation...."

    Richard was the first "neo-con"...invading the Middle East due to the "threat" it posed to his country!...LOL

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2009 @ 08:42am

36. Someone famous got it right when he said, "Government must not do for a man what he ought to do for himself."

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/18/2009 @ 07:27am

    Oh, I see. So we should allow private industry to decide what, when and how we should get medical care?

    I hope you are run over by a truck away from home with no identity and no proof of insurance etc. and then we'll see how much you like the privatized healthcare system after you end up owing $$$ due to your emergency treatment. And, since your such a stoic rethug, you'd have no problem in paying all that money back to the hospital since they saved your life afterall....with the best healthcare in the world.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/18/2009 @ 08:46am

37. look at mask deseperately trying to communicate with someone (today it's darin, yesterday it was larry) who's ignored him!

    time to quit your stalking and move on mask...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/18/2009 @ 09:08am

38. I hope you are run over by a truck away from home with no identity and no proof of insurance etc. and then we'll see how much you like the privatized healthcare system after you end up owing $$$ due to your emergency treatment. And, since your such a stoic rethug, you'd have no problem in paying all that money back to the hospital since they saved your life afterall....with the best healthcare in the world.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/18/2009 @ 08:46am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --what nice people so many liberals are! a few days ago it was texasflood hoping for a catastrophe that would dwarf 9/11 and hurricane katrina and the recession COMBINED!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/18/2009 @ 09:18am

39. --what nice people so many liberals are! a few days ago it was texasflood hoping for a catastrophe that would dwarf 9/11 and hurricane katrina and the recession COMBINED!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/18/2009 @ 09:18am

    Us cons are so used to Lib hypocrisy......though we could use our own MASK.

    WE need you to stick around, and stick it to both sides!

    Posted by Happy at 09/18/2009 @ 09:27am

40. Posted by urmygyro at 09/18/2009 @ 09:18am

    The wish is, merely, that people that advocate brain-dead policies have the misfortune to be impacted by them. Unfortunately, most of the time this is not the case. It's easy to argue the war or the utility of cluster munitions, depleted uranium, torture or bad social policies if they don't impact you and your neighborhood.

    Darin is all for abolishing Social Security, because he knows that he won't have to walk over the bodies of the people impacted by his policy "solution" on his way to his car to go to work in the morning. And it will take years before he becomes one of them - and by then no one will care, just like in the Magnificent Ambersons.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 10:11am

41. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/18/2009 @ 07:22am |

    "From a Constituional perspective, Liberals hang WAAAAAY to much reliance on "the general Welfare". It is in the Constitution's PREAMBLE (not the body of text) that it is mentioned along with other over-arching objectives."

    Article 1, Section 8, Enumerated Powers:

    <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;>

    "And it is not "SECURE" general welfare. We SECURE the blessing of liberty. We only PROMOTE the general welfare."

    Read it...we PROVIDE FOR...the general welfare.

    "The problem is, none of our justices care so from a practical standpoint, that political battle has been lost."

    The problem is...antiquarians like yourselves are in denial about the battle having been lost.

    Posted by snowball777 at 09/18/2009 @ 10:43am

42. Posted by Happy at 09/18/2009 @ 09:27am

    HAPP....you're ruining urmy's claim of being "the most liberal poster" here when guys like you support him.

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2009 @ 11:34am

43. I hope you are run over by a truck away from home with no identity and no proof of insurance etc. and then we'll see how much you like the privatized healthcare system after you end up owing $$$ due to your emergency treatment. And, since your such a stoic rethug, you'd have no problem in paying all that money back to the hospital since they saved your life afterall....with the best healthcare in the world.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/18/2009 @ 08:46am

    It's funny you should mention this. When I was 13, I was run over by a truck while riding my bicycle away from home. Snapped both right forearm bones, broke my left clavical, and seven stitches to a cut in my left arm.

    The kids who hit me gave me a ride to the hospital then left. (One of them was in my geography class so finding them wasn't hard.) I had no ID, no proof of insurance, and no adults to sign for me.

    They admitted me instantly, called my mom, and stiched up my arm. I had surgery to set my arm a couple of days later.

    Even though we had health insurance (My dad owned a plumbing business so he purchased his own), for some goofy, fucked up reason, my mom's car insurance paid the hospital bill. The only thing the driver's insurance paid was $180 for a new bike (A Schwinn 10 speed).

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/18/2009 @ 12:16pm

44. Read it...we PROVIDE FOR...the general welfare.

    Posted by snowball777 at 09/18/2009 @ 10:43am

    I did read it. You are Dowdifying with your elipse.

    ESTABLISH Justice, [comma]

    INSURE domestic Tranquility, [comma]

    PROVIDE for the common defense, [comma]

    PROMOTE the general Welfare, [comma]

    and SECURE the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, [comma]

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/18/2009 @ 12:23pm

45. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/18/2009 @ 12:27pm

46. Oh, I get it. I thought you were arguing about the preamble.

    My bad.

    In 1776, the word "welfare" did not mean what it means today. The founders understood charity to mean charity. There was no word for governments giving money to poor people.

    It is as if some started referring to Canada as ,"our Posterity". If in 10 years time "our Posterity" was a sysnonym for "Canada" what wouldn't give us the right to tax Canadian citizens because we changed the meaning of the word, "Posterity".

    Likewise, changing the meaning of the word "Welfare" dosen't create new powers under the Constitution.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/18/2009 @ 12:34pm

47. Snowball already addressed that it is in the body of the text. I don't know if the ruling of the Supreme Court was not biased. The Constitution provides for Congress to create direct and indirect taxes. And income tax is a direct tax. Now how is it unconsitutional? It says right in the Constitution that Congress's powers are to create taxes, and not just in the preamble but in the body of the text, in defense of the general welfare and for defense purposes. Now tell me how an income tax is not a direct or indirect tax.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 12:46pm

48. Then in the text of the body of the Constitution, it say that these objective are met through the ENUMERATED POWERS.

    Torturing dissidents might help insure domestic tranquility, but since it is not one of the enumerated powers, it is not permitted.

    Anti is right: The Constitution does not permit the feds to fund healthcare because it is not an enumerated power. The problem is, none of our justices care so from a practical standpoint, that political battle has been lost.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/18/2009 @ 07:22am

    Here is the problem. The fundamental issue of the Constitution that leaves it open to this argument.

    "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;"

    What is the general welfare?

    "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

    Combine those two. Now I consider the general welfare to be health. There is no general welfare if everyone is sick. Now the question becomes how far did the expect to go "for the common defence and general welfare?" I would contend that the founders never even imagined such a thing as healthcare nor most of the things we have as modern day concepts. So to say they did not provide for healthcare is to make the assumption that they knew what healthcare was.

    Continued.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 12:56pm

49. The argument about healthcare comes down to this point, because the founders did not know what healthcare was, do you consider health to be a part of the general welfare?

    "By 1832, the federal government of the United States established a smallpox vaccination program for Native Americans."

    That's from wikipedia. No granted this is about 60 years after the signing of the declaration of independence. But it's obvious that early in this countries history the government took and interest in protecting it's citizens health to one degree or another. The federal government started vaccinating people to prevent disease.

    "In the United States, from 1843 to 1855 first Massachusetts, and then other states required smallpox vaccination."

    Once again. The government vaccinated. Which is taking an interest in healthcare. So the founders obviously did believe that some measures had to be taken to protect the health of the US citizens. Now the question becomes does that only mandate vaccinations from viruses or does that allow for healthcare because it is obvious from the fact that early on in this countries history the government took a marked interest in protecting the health of it's citizens.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 1:06pm

50. Yet all of those people still wrote into the Constitution that Congress has the power to create taxes in order to secure the general welfare of the country. I'm reading it word for word. On top of that, only one of those people was a founder. So you should say that Thomas Jeffeson would disagree. Not the founders. Which is probably why Congress is allowed to create taxes for the general welfare and not just for military purposes only.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 04:58am

    Well, here's what Jefferson said about the general welfare and he is very specific that Congress has only LIMITED power for the general welfare.

    <"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

    Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

    "They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

    Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791>

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 1:09pm

51. So we can count Dubya as a 'pandering leftist' with his vote-buying 'drug plan' for the seniors?

    I suppose Reagan's witchhunt in the SS disability tools is more along your conservative lines?

    http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/19/us/ us-to-reconsider-denial-of-benefits-to-many-disabled.html

    Posted by snowball777 at 09/18/2009 @ 07:19am

    I was completely against Bush's expansion of Medicare and I've said so for since he proposed it.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 1:16pm

52. When your neck and back problems give yop excruciating pain what are you going to do. Your private medical care will probably bankrupt you then because you 2 have sworn off socialized care.Or will you ,that is the question you will have to face. You can be like the seniors now that are demonstrating against socialized medicine. They do not knowe how good they have and neither do you two.

    Posted by whatizz at 09/18/2009 @ 08:00am

    I don't use private or public medical care and have no use or need for it.

    I have a permanent disability from a broken neck and I don't use prescription drugs or doctors to treat it. I use natural medicine.

    You are welcome to use doctors but I don't.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 1:20pm

53. Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 1:20pm

    Yes. However, when you get hit by a car or some other ailment happens, you'll be showing up to the emergency room and you will be saved by the public medical system. Now, you might have a cyanide capsule on you or hope one of your relatives will use their gun on you, but the reality is that you - and people like you - are precisely the reason a "public option" is being discussed.

    And until you pass some legislation that will allow the EMTs to put a bullet in you rather than drag your sorry ass to the hospital, you should realize that this bullshit "I don't use doctors (until I acquire a medical condition that requires them)" argument doesn't work. You have to be willing to die on the side of the road first - and fortunately for you, your fellow Christians don't want to just leave you there for dead. So, they have to figure out a way to pay for it when your number comes up and a doctor is necessary.

    Personally, I'd be interested in conservatives pushing mercy killing laws as a way to save our Constitutional Republic. Medical is too expensive. Mandatory euthanasia for everyone, a la Logan's Run. Why should Democrats get all the death panel fun when this could be a key conservative issue?

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 1:34pm

54. Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 1:09pm

    "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;"

    Now you love to quote Jefferson as if he is the only person who had say in the Consitution. Here is why your lining of reasoning is flawed. For one it says"and Provide for the common defence." Now I don't know what you think that but that certainly doesn't say only tax. According to your line of logic. Congress can raise tax money for any purpose it just can't actually use it for that purpose. Does that even begin to make sense? Why provide the power to raise taxes for the common defence if you are not in fact allowed to provide that money for the common defence. I think Jefferson was wrong in what he said because it was fully logical. If you provide Congress the power to raise money for the common defence then in the end you provide Congress the ability the provide for the common defence. Anything else is illogical.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 1:36pm

55. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 1:36pm

    Keep in mind CCC....these guys supported the idea of invading Afghanistan AND Iraq....with no increase in taxes.

    So they don't even support "raising taxes for the common defence", much less the "general welfare."

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2009 @ 1:39pm

56. Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 1:34pm

    However crudely deliver SRJ makes a valid point. If you get hit by a car and are unconcious you will be taken to the hospital and doctors will work on you which costs money. Now you may pay this out of pocket. But if you can't the state picks up the bill. The reason doctors were willing to make concessions on prices when the public option was being discussed was because of the people who go to the hospital and then don't pay. They seem to think that is a big deal. So they were willing to charge less because the public option guarantees that they will get paid which will help to lower prices even more.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 1:40pm

57. The Constitution provides for Congress to create direct and indirect taxes. And income tax is a direct tax. Now how is it unconsitutional? It says right in the Constitution that Congress's powers are to create taxes, and not just in the preamble but in the body of the text, in defense of the general welfare and for defense purposes. Now tell me how an income tax is not a direct or indirect tax.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 12:46pm |

    The income tax was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court leading to the 16th amendment.

    The founders thought that taxing someone's labor was theft.

    A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

    Thomas Jefferson (1801)

    "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

    Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

    The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.

    John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 1:40pm

58. Yes. However, when you get hit by a car or some other ailment happens, you'll be showing up to the emergency room and you will be saved by the public medical system. Now, you might have a cyanide capsule on you or hope one of your relatives will use their gun on you, but the reality is that you - and people like you - are precisely the reason a "public option" is being discussed.

    And until you pass some legislation that will allow the EMTs to put a bullet in you rather than drag your sorry ass to the hospital, you should realize that this bullshit "I don't use doctors (until I acquire a medical condition that requires them)" argument doesn't work. You have to be willing to die on the side of the road first - and fortunately for you, your fellow Christians don't want to just leave you there for dead. So, they have to figure out a way to pay for it when your number comes up and a doctor is necessary.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 1:34pm

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 1:40pm

    you both are showing a lack of thinking on this.

    1. If in an auto accident that is someone else's fault and I choose to be treated, I'm covered by their insurance. If their insurance is not sufficient, my uninsured/underinsured coverage would take care of it.

    2. If my injuries are life threatening, my living will stipulates that no extraordinary treatment be rendered. In other words, I have already accepted a willingness to die in that circumstance.

    I've stated before that in the past 5 years, I've had a heart attack, a fractured knee, a broken wrist, and a torn ligament and I did not seek medical attention. I self treated through natural medicine.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 2:08pm

59. I guess I know where all these responsible, upRight capitalists were when corporate pensions were transformed into 401k's, and interest rates skyrocketed & bankruptcy laws tightened & the Social Security age was raised. They were making sure that people wealthy enough to live off investment income pay less income tax than those who get to wear out their bodies doing real work. I could say more, but it would just lead to another self gratifying rant.

    Posted by etherbunny at 09/18/2009 @ 2:17pm

60. 1. If in an auto accident that is someone else's fault and I choose to be treated, I'm covered by their insurance. If their insurance is not sufficient, my uninsured/underinsured coverage would take care of it.

    2. If my injuries are life threatening, my living will stipulates that no extraordinary treatment be rendered. In other words, I have already accepted a willingness to die in that circumstance.

    I've stated before that in the past 5 years, I've had a heart attack, a fractured knee, a broken wrist, and a torn ligament and I did not seek medical attention. I self treated through natural medicine.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 2:08pm

    Does your auto insurance cover you as a pedestrian? And, if you are unconcious do the doctors check your living will before they administer treatment in the emergency room? This is assuming that it's a stranger who found you not your wife or children.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 2:25pm

61. Does your auto insurance cover you as a pedestrian? And, if you are unconcious do the doctors check your living will before they administer treatment in the emergency room? This is assuming that it's a stranger who found you not your wife or children.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 2:25pm

    1. My auto insurance doesn't cover me as a pedestrian. The liability coverage of the driver who hits you covers that.

    2. I carry in my wallet, a statement of my living will like this one.

    Prehospital Medical Care Directive

    In the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest, I refuse any resuscitation measures including cardiac compression, endotracheal intubation and other advanced airway management, artificial ventilation, defibrillation, administration of advanced cardiac life support drugs and related emergency medical procedures.

    Patient: _______________________ Date: _________ (Signature or mark)

    Attach recent photograph here or provide all of the following information below: Date of birth________________ Sex ________ Eye Color _________ Hair Color ___________ Race ____________

    Hospice program (if any) ______________________

    Name and telephone number of patient's physician: ________________________________

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 3:09pm

62. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 1:40pm

    Crude imagery gets the point across in a way that hand holding does not. You cannot argue that you do not use medical services unless there is a policy of euthanasia. But, you'll never see the so called conservatives here taking their thinking to the logical conclusion because it conflicts with their notions about a "culture of life".

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 1:40pm

    The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional only because it was not apportioned equally. It's also interesting to note that the Civil War was the cause of the first income tax. Care to explain to us how you conduct a war on Islam using only excise taxes?

    You are also talking about a time when more than half the population was involved in farming. Now that's less the one percent and most people live in cities. You cannot have large cities without large government providing basic services. Fact.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 2:08pm

    Let's imagine this auto accident was caused by the bridge you are using collapsing because you didn't want to use my taxes for road maintenance. Or snow or rain causes you to lose control of your vehicle and hit a tree. There are thousands of scenarios that don't leave you the option of bilking someone's insurance, but leaves you getting treated on the public dime.

    Let's imagine this causes some form of brain hemorrhage that only enables you to blink. Who's going to pay for your ambulance ride, doctor evaluation, feed tubes, Foley catheters, nursing care and so forth and so on? Answer: my taxes. Why? Because you didn't bother to get basic catastrophic coverage to cover scenarios you apparently weren't capable of imagining - and that are worse than death.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 3:15pm

63. Let's imagine this auto accident was caused by the bridge you are using collapsing because you didn't want to use my taxes for road maintenance. Or snow or rain causes you to lose control of your vehicle and hit a tree. There are thousands of scenarios that don't leave you the option of bilking someone's insurance, but leaves you getting treated on the public dime.

    Let's imagine this causes some form of brain hemorrhage that only enables you to blink. Who's going to pay for your ambulance ride, doctor evaluation, feed tubes, Foley catheters, nursing care and so forth and so on? Answer: my taxes. Why? Because you didn't bother to get basic catastrophic coverage to cover scenarios you apparently weren't capable of imagining - and that are worse than death.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 3:15pm

    1. Your premise starts from a faulty basis since I have repeated stated that a) Article 1, Sect 8 provides for Fed hwys and bridges necessary for interstate commerce, and b) I have never been against state and local govts taxing for hwys and bridges.

    2. If someone hits me and their liability insurance pays the medical expenses, explain how that is "bilking" someone's insurance. that is the express purpose of the Bodily Injury portion of a liability policy.

    3. The last part is already answered in my response to CCC

    <Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 3:09pm>

    Sorry SRJ, but your constructs are faulty.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 3:37pm

64. ( in an ingratiating response to urmygyro )

    Us cons are so used to Lib hypocrisy......though we could use our own MASK. WE need you to stick around, and stick it to both sides! Posted by Happy at 09/18/2009 @ 09:27am

    HA!

    The most obsequious thing I've seen you offer so far. It's like the McDonalds ad... I'm lovin' it!

    If either side had the balls to depart from the mandated policies of their chosen area of influence and speak in ways that would create a combined force against the powers that be we might have a freaking chance. Why does urmygyro have to go it alone? All it takes is pulling your head out of your....(expletive deleted).

    Go, urmy! You are creating second thoughts among both sides. It's a good thing.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/18/2009 @ 3:56pm

65. I've stated before that in the past 5 years, I've had a heart attack, a fractured knee, a broken wrist, and a torn ligament and I did not seek medical attention. I self treated through natural medicine.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 2:08pm

    You forgot to mention that head trama that you suffered from and continue to suffer from. Bully for you if you chose to let nature take her natural course and suffer in pain. I for one appreciate the beauty of pain killers and treatment if treatment is possible.

    When I'm older I plan on going the DNR route myself, but I still have two kids I've got to get through school to worry about.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/18/2009 @ 4:07pm

66. The following has been excerpted

    "Property," March 29, 1792 (What man attaches value to and has a right to)

    By James Madison

    That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.

    A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

    If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their Fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 4:12pm

67. From a letter by Samual Adams which provides insight into the view of another founder on taxation of property (by which the founders included income)

    <Samuel Adams: Massachusetts Circular Letter, February 11, 1768

    SIR,

    The House of Representatives of this Province have taken into their serious consideration, the great difficulty that must accrue to themselves & their Constituents, by the operation of several acts of Parliament imposing Duties & Taxes on the American Colonys.

    That in all free States the Constitution is fixd; & as the supreme Legislative derives its Power & Authority from the Constitution, it cannot overleap the Bounds of it without destroying its own foundation: That the Constitution ascertains & limits both Sovereignty & allegiance, & therefore, his Majestys American Subjects who acknowledge themselves bound by the Ties of Allegiance, have an equitable Claim to the full enjoymt of the fundamental Rules of the British Constitution. That it is an essential unalterable Right in nature, ingrafted into the British Constitution, as a fundamental Law & ever held sacred & irrevocable by the Subjects within the Realm, that what a man has honestly acquird is absolutely his own, which he may freely give, but cannot be taken from him without his consent:>

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 4:21pm

68. Excerpt from Founder John Dickenson on taxation from his 2nd Letters from a Countryman

    <There are two ways of laying taxes. One is, by imposing a certain sum on particular kinds of property, to be paid by the user or consumer, or by rating the person at a certain sum. The other is, by imposing a certain sum on particular kinds of property, to be paid by the seller.

    When a man pays the first sort of tax, he knows with certainty that he pays so much money for a tax. The consideration for which he pays it, is remote, and, it may be, does not occur to him. He is sensible too, that he is commanded and obliged to pay it as a tax; and therefore people are apt to be displeased with this sort of tax.

    The other sort of tax is submitted to in a very different manner. The purchaser of an article, very seldom reflects that the seller raises his price, so as to indemnify himself for the tax he has paid. He knows that the prices of things are continually fluctuating, and if he thinks about the tax, he thinks at the same time, in all probability, that he might have paid as much, if the article he buys had not been taxed. He gets something visible and agreeable for his money; and tax and price are so confounded together, that he cannot separate, or does not chuse to take the trouble of separating them.

    This mode of taxation therefore is the mode suited to arbitrary and oppressive governments. The love of liberty is so natural to the human heart, that unfeeling tyrants think themselves obliged to accommodate their schemes as much as they can to the appearance of justice and reason, and to deceive those whom they resolve to destroy, or oppress, by presenting to them a miserable picture of freedom, when the inestimable original is lost.>

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 4:30pm

69. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/18/2009 @ 07:50am

    Strangely, you come to the exact opposite conclusion than what the report says. If you look at the year-to-year numbers, the reason why it is negative is because of energy prices. Food increased, along with every other item except energy which reduced enough to bring the total number negative.

    The problem in your analysis is that you move from the -1.5% that is yearly and based on energy prices to talking about the month of August which had the exact opposite of the yearly trend.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 3:37pm

    It's interesting that in your response, you managed to avoid the thrust of the criticism. What happens to you in any scenario where you are not covered by someone else's insurance?

    These scenarios are legion. You slip and break a leg. You lose control of your car and hit a tree. A tree branch falls from above and bonks you on the head. You get struck by lightening. You get a non-terminal disease requiring medical treatment such as cancer, an aneurysm bursts in your head, whatever. These aren't hypotheticals. These happen every day.

    It's one thing to talk about extraordinary measures in a living will, but you have to be on life support and what not. Plenty can happen that would leave you very much alive, but leaving your medical bills to be paid from my taxes. What of that?

    Posted by ficheye at 09/18/2009 @ 3:56p

    In what way is urmyguru "sticking it to both sides"? I see a lot of sniping, particularly of Mask, but I've yet to read much from him that I thought was particularly insightful. Can you point me to an example?

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 4:42pm

70. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/18/2009 @ 4:07pm

    I think there is a solution to this problem: life insurance. While to some degree it depends on your age, term life should cover college and whatever else for your kids. You'd just have to make sure that your policy doesn't restrict you on the DNR, DNI or whatever front.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 4:44pm

71. In what way is urmyguru "sticking it to both sides"? I see a lot of sniping, particularly of Mask, but I've yet to read much from him that I thought was particularly insightful. Can you point me to an example? Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 4:42pm

    I never said that. ("sticking it to both sides") HAPPY said that. I was making fun of HAPPY.

    Sure, you may not think that he's(urmygyro) saying much. I'm not certain of his beef with Mask. I don't have a problem with Mask.

    What I think is good, though, is his refusal to take a rigid stance for one side or the other. I think we need to be more objective about that kind of thinking because it locks you into a party line. And that's not always good.

    So I support that; calling bullshit on both sides. Not "sticking it to" both sides. There's a subtle difference. I've long refused to state that I'm a 'liberal', much to the annoyance of CHERMAK. I'm not happy with the complacency of liberals. And the right wing/conservatives are just plain mean... their logic usually ends with something about money and Jesus, though that might be simplistic.

    The fact that Mr. Mean himself, HAPPY, is embracing urmy is highly humorous to me. It's like both sides embracing Steven Colbert. So to finish, you may not think that he's saying things that you like, but he's sowing seeds of doubt, which can be a good thing.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/18/2009 @ 5:03pm

72. Excerpts and thoughts on taxation from 3 people aside. We are talking about Constitutionality. What actually went into the Constitution. It says they are allowed to create taxes.

    "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,"

    It does not say but you can't tax income. That's it. It is clear about their power. The opinions of a few in the end don't make a difference because what's in the document is what our government runs itself by.

    "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

    They sure were specific about not taxing exports from the states. If they truly were fearful of taxing income, they would have put it into the document, they didn't. Which means there has to have been some disagreement and it fell on the side of the people who were fine with it. Again it was found unConstitutional on what grounds? Because the Consitution certain does not limit that power.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 5:13pm

73. The problem with using Thomas Jefferson as model is that he was opposed to any form of direct tax, which other founders weren't. When was President he abolished all direct taxes and relied solely on excises. Other founders before him had use direct taxes to make money. So it's obvious that not all of the founders shared the view that taxing income or taxing the citizens directly was a bad thing.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 5:22pm

74. the thrust of the criticism. What happens to you in any scenario where you are not covered by someone else's insurance?

    These scenarios are legion. You slip and break a leg. You lose control of your car and hit a tree. A tree branch falls from above and bonks you on the head. You get struck by lightening. You get a non-terminal disease requiring medical treatment such as cancer, an aneurysm bursts in your head, whatever. These aren't hypotheticals. These happen every day.

    It's one thing to talk about extraordinary measures in a living will, but you have to be on life support and what not. Plenty can happen that would leave you very much alive, but leaving your medical bills to be paid from my taxes. What of that?

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 4:42pm

    Everything you have listed in this post I have previously addressed.

    I've had heart attacks and broken bones and didn't utilize doctors or the healthcare system.

    Again SRJ, don't worry, you will never have to pay out of your taxes for my to receive medical care.

    Are you going to make me get cancer treatments if I get cancer?

    And what don't you like about my wallet card?

    <In the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest, I refuse any resuscitation measures including cardiac compression, endotracheal intubation and other advanced airway management, artificial ventilation, defibrillation, administration of advanced cardiac life support drugs and related emergency medical procedures.>

    I would think an aneurysm is covered under that.

    For a anarchist, you sure want to impose forced govt upon me..

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 5:33pm

75. Posted by ficheye at 09/18/2009 @ 5:03pm

    I can agree that this notion of "both sides" is a problem. There's multifarious sides. But, I find quite a bit of sloppy reasoning from every direction, and while urmyguru may point to this fact, his arguments are frequently as bad as those he is criticisizing.

    Interesting Cermak thinks your a liberal. I've always thought of you as marginal right. But then, Cermak is an idiot, and this is just additional evidence.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 5:33pm

    Actually, LVL, I'm decidedly against forcing the government on you. However, I live in reality, and in reality, their are quite a few medical conditions that can happen that will not cause cardiac arrest. For example, suppose you wake up tomorrow morning and have a seizure caused by a brain tumor that is causing your brain to be squeezed against your skull.

    You just tough it out until it kills you? Or does someone in your family knuckle under when they see you rolling on the ground begging for Jesus to come and take you? Because you can live with that swelling for days, and it would be a source of pain and changes to your mental processes you cannot imagine now.

    You see, I don't have any problem with this scenario. If that's what you want, then hey, have at it. Where it starts to bother me is when you show up in the emergency room and start getting CT and MRI scans, pain medications and surgeries - and your family doesn't pay.

    And even if you stay true to your principles, what happens when you have a brain hematoma that is just bad enough to turn you into a breathing vegetable but not bad enough to leave you dead or require advanced life support?

    That's what I'm talking about - all the scenarios not covered like you think they are covered.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 6:00pm

76. And even if you stay true to your principles, what happens when you have a brain hematoma that is just bad enough to turn you into a breathing vegetable but not bad enough to leave you dead or require advanced life support?

    That's what I'm talking about - all the scenarios not covered like you think they are covered.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 6:00pm

    In that case, my family could take money from my life insurance policy under the critical illness provision (termed as having 1 yr or less to live). Out of that they could hire a nurse to make sure that I'm comfortable and then starve me to death as we did with several members of my family including a grandmother.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 6:29pm

77. The problem with using Thomas Jefferson as model is that he was opposed to any form of direct tax, which other founders weren't.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 5:22pm

    the direct tax is specified in the constitution. However, until the 16th amendment, income was not considered something subject to the direct tax.

    Most of the founders were adamant against ever taxing income, including Hamilton who was the biggest supporter of large govt.

    In Federalist 21, Hamilton made clear what constituted direct taxes, property, buildings, he supported the idea of consumption taxes for one of the direct taxes

    <Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard...It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, ``in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four

    .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.>

    Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Paine all were against taxing income.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 6:39pm

78. In Federalist 21, Hamilton made clear what constituted direct taxes, property, buildings, he supported the idea of consumption taxes for one of the direct taxes

    <Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard...It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, ``in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four

    .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.>

    Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Paine all were against taxing income.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 6:39pm

    I think you know Larry that in law it isn't what you meant it's what you said. They did not define what they meant in the document we are intended to follow. You can present the Federalist papers but that is still only the opinions of a few. So in the end all we really have is the Constitution and the Constitution makes no difference between taxable things.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 6:58pm

79. Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 6:29pm

    Now that's what I'm talking about. I applaud you sticking to your principles and your candor. I think this is the logical outcome of your position.

    The problem is that "let's starve grandma" isn't going to play so well in the right to life Christian right camp or even more moderate members of the electorate. However, this is exactly the conversation we, as a nation, need to be having.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 7:06pm

80. Now that's what I'm talking about. I applaud you sticking to your principles and your candor. I think this is the logical outcome of your position.

    The problem is that "let's starve grandma" isn't going to play so well in the right to life Christian right camp or even more moderate members of the electorate. However, this is exactly the conversation we, as a nation, need to be having.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 7:06pm

    After all those are the same people who pet Terri Schiavo in the news.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2009 @ 7:24pm

81. DarinTroll: "The founders never agreed to the taxation of income. That was ruled unconstitutional, which led to the 16th Amendment."

    --the founders made it possible to amend the constitution, via Article V. They knew future generations may want to add to or change the constitution. So, in a way, the founders have agreed to the taxation of income.

    DarinTroll: "From a Constituional perspective, Liberals hang WAAAAAY to much reliance on "the general Welfare"."

    --I tend to agree. It's not very specific. however...

    DarinTroll: It is in the Constitution's PREAMBLE (not the body of text) that it is mentioned along with other over-arching objectives."

    --...you're wrong. It is mentioned in the Preamble, but it is also mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 1. Do I mention this to say this automatically covers universal health care? No. But you're wrong, this exact phrase is IN the body of the constitution; and a reasonable argument could be made that it enables Congress to tax for universal health care.

    DarinTroll: "Then in the text of the body of the Constitution, it say that these objective are met through the ENUMERATED POWERS."

    --easily covered by the commerce clause if congress ever chooses to enact universal health care. example: my mom lives in CT, got cancer treatment in Mass. example: the drugs she had to take were from a company not located in CT. what about purely intrastate doctor/patient, pharmacy/drug buyer transactions? It's well established supreme court stare decisis that even intrastate transactions have an effect on interstate commerce.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 12:29am

82. DarinTroll: "Torturing dissidents might help insure domestic tranquility, but since it is not one of the enumerated powers, it is not permitted."

    --Article 1, Section 8 (where the "enumerated" powers are listed) ends by stating that Congress shall have the power: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers...."

    --The following is an enumerated power of Congress: "To declare War...and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" Seems if Congress thinks it to be right it can declare war and decide that torture of enemies is perfectly fine. Would Congress be moral to declare torture of enemies to be fine? No. And of course the U.S. has signed (if not necessarily bound itself) to many international treaties which surely ban torture. But for you to say that since the constitution doesn't specifically permit (i.e. "enumerate") torture that torture is unconstitutional is simply poor constitutional understanding. Morally, the U.S. (or anyone) shouldn't engage in torture. But read the constitution: the document makes it clear that Congress has broad powers in this arena. Does the President have the authority to order torture without Congress's approval? That's a whole different ball of wax (the president most certainly has the right to order the military to fight w/out an express go-ahead from congress in the form of a declaration of war).

    DarinTroll: "Anti is right: The Constitution does not permit the feds to fund healthcare because it is not an enumerated power."

    --Anti, and you, are both wrong.

    DarinTroll: "The problem is, none of our justices care so from a practical standpoint, that political battle has been lost."

    --they care and their interpretation is what counts.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 12:43am

83. Posted by Happy at 09/18/2009 @ 09:27am HAPP....you're ruining urmy's claim of being "the most liberal poster" here when guys like you support him. Posted by Mask at 09/18/2009 @ 11:34am | ignore this person |

    --as long as you keep disagreeing with me Mask my claim to be the most liberal here is well secured. Remember, you're owned by the right-wing media...so your disagreements are more than welcome!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 12:49am

84. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817 "They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791> Posted by antisocialist at 09/18/2009 @ 1:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --funny, I don't recall reading a letter to Albert Gallatin in the text of the U.S. Constitution! Guess "strict constructionists" are really "activists" when it suits their purpose!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 12:53am

85. antisocialist: "The founders thought that taxing someone's labor was theft."

    --what did the founders think about hedge funds?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 12:56am

86. ( in an ingratiating response to urmygyro ) Us cons are so used to Lib hypocrisy......though we could use our own MASK. WE need you to stick around, and stick it to both sides! Posted by Happy at 09/18/2009 @ 09:27am HA! The most obsequious thing I've seen you offer so far. It's like the McDonalds ad... I'm lovin' it! If either side had the balls to depart from the mandated policies of their chosen area of influence and speak in ways that would create a combined force against the powers that be we might have a freaking chance. Why does urmygyro have to go it alone? All it takes is pulling your head out of your....(expletive deleted). Go, urmy! You are creating second thoughts among both sides. It's a good thing. Posted by ficheye at 09/18/2009 @ 3:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --but ficheye, how will I go on when Mask has pegged me as a right-winger? I mean, hooooooow will I go on?

    ;)

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 12:58am

87. antisocialist: it doesn't matter how many letters you dig up--the only law of the land is the text of the constitution, the amendments, the laws created by congress, and the rulings of the court.

    letters ain't the law!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 01:00am

88. Can you point me to an example? Posted by srjenkins at 09/18/2009 @ 4:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --I've been accused of being right-wing by Mask and other posters here. I've asked them the same question you did. Can anyone point to a post where my argument was right-wing? Just one!

    ...so far, none of them has...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 01:02am

89. The fact that Mr. Mean himself, HAPPY, is embracing urmy is highly humorous to me. It's like both sides embracing Steven Colbert. So to finish, you may not think that he's saying things that you like, but he's sowing seeds of doubt, which can be a good thing. Posted by ficheye at 09/18/2009 @ 5:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --I've made it clear (I've "enumerated" it!) many times that I'm liberal! I want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I want universal health care. I'm for gay marriage. I'm against the death penalty. I can go on. Does it make me not liberal to be against bank and auto bailouts? I don't think so. But if someone proved to me that it does, then I guess I'm less liberal than I thought. What Mask and many others do is accept democrat party lines (Mask does it by listening to Beck, Rush et al, then seeking out posters he thinks he sees talking like them, then tries to "call them out")...but what's he accomplishing? (quite frankly, what are any of us here actually "accomplishing"?)...the democrats on many issues are not liberal (esp. not liberal enough for my taste).

    How I feel can perhaps best be expressed this way: on inauguration day this year was I thrilled Obama was the President instead of George Bush or John McCain? Hell yes! Today I have to say: "what's the difference?"

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 01:08am

90. antisocialist: it doesn't matter how many letters you dig up--the only law of the land is the text of the constitution, the amendments, the laws created by congress, and the rulings of the court.

    letters ain't the law!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 01:00am

    I have never suggested that the letters carry the weight of law. What they provide is the understanding of what the Founders meant by the terms and phraseology they used. It is customary to consider the history of the language of a document when attempting to interpret it's meaning.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 11:19am

91. I have never suggested that the letters carry the weight of law. What they provide is the understanding of what the Founders meant by the terms and phraseology they used. It is customary to consider the history of the language of a document when attempting to interpret it's meaning.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 11:19am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --letters written years (or decades) after the constitution was enacted, even if by people who helped draft the constitution and were present at the convention...is weak evidence at best of what the intent was. you know why? because intent can be (and often is) made very clear within the text of the document itself. so someone many years later, after seeing controversies about certain parts of the document, obviously can say "well this is what we meant"...and, of course, he doesn't speak for all "wes" present at the convention. if a "founding father" contradicts another in his private letters...then which is to rule?

    stick with the text of the document. you're far better served.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 11:59am

92. --letters written years (or decades) after the constitution was enacted, even if by people who helped draft the constitution and were present at the convention...is weak evidence at best of what the intent was. you know why? because intent can be (and often is) made very clear within the text of the document itself. so someone many years later, after seeing controversies about certain parts of the document, obviously can say "well this is what we meant"...and, of course, he doesn't speak for all "wes" present at the convention. if a "founding father" contradicts another in his private letters...then which is to rule?

    stick with the text of the document. you're far better served.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 11:59am

    I would agree, except that I clearly see the constitution saying one thing, whereas others say it is ambiguous and thus allows a broad interpretation.

    thus you go back to the founders who complain that no such broadness was intended.

    How then is a court supposed to find a way to resolve that dispute? By relying as much as possible on the intent.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 2:17pm

93. I would agree, except that I clearly see the constitution saying one thing, whereas others say it is ambiguous and thus allows a broad interpretation.

    thus you go back to the founders who complain that no such broadness was intended.

    How then is a court supposed to find a way to resolve that dispute? By relying as much as possible on the intent.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 2:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --constitutional law should not be a battle of the expert witnesses you want it to be...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 4:21pm

94. --constitutional law should not be a battle of the expert witnesses you want it to be...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 4:21pm

    Really? So, where there is debate over the meaning of a phrase or clause in the constitution, the statement(s) of the writer(s) have no bearing on making that determination.

    If I write procedure for safety in a company and someone says that they are unsure of the exact meaning, they should not consult me as the writer to make sure what I intended?

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 7:56pm

95. Really? So, where there is debate over the meaning of a phrase or clause in the constitution, the statement(s) of the writer(s) have no bearing on making that determination. If I write procedure for safety in a company and someone says that they are unsure of the exact meaning, they should not consult me as the writer to make sure what I intended? Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 7:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --no one "founding father" enacted the constitution. one founding father's opinion does not control what the document means. and your analogy is faulty because I can actually ask you questions...I can't ask a letter a question, like "if what you write in this letter is so clearly what is intended in the constitution why doesn't the text of the document make it just as clear?" etc, etc, etc.

    I think Justice Robert Jackson said it best in the Steel Seizure case: "Just what our forefathers did envision, or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh. A century and a half of partisan debate and scholarly speculation yields no net result but only supplies more or less apt quotations from [343 U.S. 579, 635] respected sources on each side of any question. They largely cancel each other."

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 08:49am

96. I think Justice Robert Jackson said it best in the Steel Seizure case: "Just what our forefathers did envision, or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh. A century and a half of partisan debate and scholarly speculation yields no net result but only supplies more or less apt quotations from [343 U.S. 579, 635] respected sources on each side of any question. They largely cancel each other."

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 08:49am

    and Jackson was clearly wrong, and emblematice of the morass that liberal constitutional interpretation has brought this country.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 09:53am

97. and Jackson was clearly wrong, and emblematice of the morass that liberal constitutional interpretation has brought this country. Posted by antisocialist at 09/21/2009 @ 09:53am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --Jackson, the last justice to not have his brain washed in a law school; served both as an attorney general (prosecutor) and solicitor general (argue in front of supreme court), was a prosecutor at the nuremberg trials?

    --He who feuded with Hugo Black (a fellow supreme court justice whom Jackson thought improperly put his personal preferences in his jurisprudence)?

    --and, here's the important question for you: if two "founding fathers" have conflicting contemporaneous notes about a part of the constitution (taken down during the convention or shortly thereafter) or conflicting letters/correspondence/notes taken years or decades after the constitution was enacted--how do you choose who was correct? the text of the constitution doesn't itself say how to deal with interpreting convention notes or letters written years or decades after the fact by any "founding father." so how do you interpret these extraneous materials to the constitution without imposing your own personal bias on what is important, or ranking some versus others?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 1:52pm