Liberals...Hahahahahaha!

[stormshadow]

If you would study organizational theory or take a leadership course, you would learn that profit is only one part of it, and a temporary motivation. Other factors are more important to motivate, eg:

Inspiring work
Democracy
Recognition

Check Herzberg's Two Factor Theory if you want to know more.

Of course there are other motivating factors.  Quit trying to distract my argument with knee jerk factors that are secondary to man's Primary and most important motive PROFIT.

I am friends with millionaires, along with wage slaves.  I do not know one person that would continue to do what they do if it did not provide a sufficient income.  They may enjoy building computers or running a daycare, but if the income stopped, they would do something else.

So don't waste my time talking about secondary motives for producing value.

Of course there are people that need help and cannot provide for themselves, and that is when we rely on compassion and love to help our fellow man.  WE DO NOT NEED TO RELY ON FORCE

An example of the unintended consequences that result from fucking around with legalized theft:

My neighboor gets fired and asks me for rent money for the next month so he can find a job.  He then decides to screw off all month.  If he has the nerve to ask me for more, he will not get it.

Now when Socialists such as yourself demand that my money is stolen by govenment and then redistributed to the same man, it becomes an entitlement from an organization with no face, no family, and no expectations.  He has no incentive to produce for himself.

If man does not need to work to recieve his profit, there is no incentive.

Profit is the primary motive.  Save the secondary bullshit for a social science class in a public school.

[Decker]

So running astronomically high debts and then increasing taxes to pay them off is good for the economy? That's a stretch even for a socialist.

I prefer to be charitable with my money at my own discretion, I say again I'm not fond of charity at gunpoint.

Paying off debt is a good thing.  How is that a stretch?  The fact at hand is the Reagan tax increase for pre-funding Soc. Was spent and the T-bills must be paid in full.  This was Reagan’s cute maneuver to raise taxes on the poor and middle class and still claim not to raise income taxes.  He had to find some source to fund governmental spending while slashing income taxes irresponsibly.

By definition Social Security retirement benefits are not charity b/c the benefit can only be received if the worker pays into the system.

I'd say the GI bill was vastly more successful than Social Security. The GI bill helped get education and become productive members of society. Social Security is just an income redistribution program.

Social Security is superior to life insurance and retirement benefits? Do you actually know how much Social Security actually pays people? About $1000 a month on average. WOW what an awesome retirement that would be, a whole 250 bucks a week. All you have to do is pay 9% of your income for you whole life, gain absolutely no interest on it, and then get paid next to nothing when you retire.

If you would pay 9% of your income into a 401(k) plan for your whole life, you'd get all of that money that paid in when you retire PLUS interest and growth of your stock options. 401(k) is a far superior to Social Security.

Comparing life insurance to Social Security to life insurance is comparing apples to oranges. When you die, your life insurance pays your beneficiaries lots of money, Social Security pays your beneficiaries nothing and your Social Security Payments do not transfer over to your spouse, they just stop. What a compassionate way to handle a death of a spouse in retirement, not give the widow(er) a dime. Thanks government!

Any government program that redistributes wealth is a redistribution program including the GI Bill.
SSI’s retirement benefit is supplemental not primary.  You show me a private insurance company that provides for one low cost: retirement benefits, life insurance and disability insurance for life without qualifying exams for life and then we’ll see which system is better.

SSI’s death benefit is not dependent on insurability, private LI is.  SSI wants to be inclusive.  Private LI is exclusive. 

Where do you get the notion that social security payments just stop upon the death of a spouse?  You’ve never heard of the Widow’s pension for surviving spouses?

Get real, politicians are not using the Social Security Trust Fund to buy T-Bills, they're spending it in order to buy votes and fund social programs.

How is growing money risky? Investing in the stock market is not gambling, the stock market grows every year regardless of recessions and depressions.

Plus more than likely you won't get back all of the money you paid into Social Security anyway.

The trust fund is currently funded by T-bills.  That is a debt instrument of the federal government since the money was borrowed from the trust to pay other bills.  So I’m not sure what you are talking about.

“Investment in the stock market is not gambling?”  Are you serious?  Have you ever heard of options trading which, in some cases, gambles on the notion that a stock will lose money?  Are you aware that due to the stock market tanking, some people’s 401(k) individual accounts have lost up to half of the equity?

It is not more likely than not that people will see their benefits reduced.  I don’t know where you got that estimation.

Because $1000 bucks a month is not a "living wage", and it won't support you in retirement, and payments are likely to go down in the future.

Social Security retirement benefits were never ever meant to be the sole source of retirement income for anyone.  It’s always been a supplemental benefit.

Preventive medial plans in the US are a joke, plain and simple. There is no reward for healthy behavior in our system today.

I guess having a healthy body is its own reward?

One who? A Canadian or American citizen?

“one” refers to Canadians seeking out of province medical care.

Because I can read. This information is not a secret.

Then provide a citation so I too can read the information re your claim.

...
It's not just the cost of medical insurance that drives up prices. The threat of litigation changes behaviors. Doctors are more likely to perform unnecessary tests and procedures just to cover their asses in case of a lawsuit. The cost of all these unnecessary procedures are way more than 2%. What's hard to understand about that?

We want doctors to change their behaviors from that of careless and incompetent to careful and competent.  Let's face it, it's a field that demands a lot from its practitioners. 

"The total cost of medical malpractice insurance is less than 2 percent of all U.S. health care spending."  Do you think the author of the article is lying?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/27/sebok.edwards/index.html?iref=newssearch

[Decker]

...Now when Socialists such as yourself demand that my money is stolen by govenment and then redistributed to the same man, it becomes an entitlement from an organization with no face, no family, and no expectations.  He has no incentive to produce for himself.

If man does not need to work to recieve his profit, there is no incentive.

Profit is the primary motive.  Save the secondary bullshit for a social science class in a public school.

So you are saying that the US Constitution is somehow authorizing theft when it grants the power to the states and feds to raise tax revenue?

That's just not so. 

Taxation is not theft.  Why?  For starters, we have taxation with representation.  That's the main factor for splitting from the British way back when.

Then we have that whole "taxation is constitutional b/c it's in the constitution" thing.

[stormshadow]

So you are saying that the US Constitution is somehow authorizing theft when it grants the power to the states and feds to raise tax revenue?

That's just not so. 

Taxation is not theft.  Why?  For starters, we have taxation with representation.  That's the main factor for splitting from the British way back when.

Then we have that whole "taxation is constitutional b/c it's in the constitution" thing.

I am talking on a federal level.

If a state wants to tax people to death and fund everything under the sun, that is fine.  I have the choice to move to another state.

When the Federal government is taking from me via a direct income tax instead of apportionment from the states, that is theft.

If you read some history or the Federalist Papers, you would know what I am talking about.

The checks and balances were to prevent consolidation of power at the Federal Level.

If a state wants to legalize abortion, or have high taxes, or free education for certain races, they are given that authority by the Constitution.

You should Turn off the TV and try reading it sometime.

The Federal government was meant to be VERY limited.  Now it steals directly from the citizens and pushes around the states via Federal Funding.  States lost their representation with the 17th amendment.

[Bodvar]

Paying off debt is a good thing.  How is that a stretch?  The fact at hand is the Reagan tax increase for pre-funding Soc. Was spent and the T-bills must be paid in full.  This was Reagan’s cute maneuver to raise taxes on the poor and middle class and still claim not to raise income taxes.  He had to find some source to fund governmental spending while slashing income taxes irresponsibly.

By definition Social Security retirement benefits are not charity b/c the benefit can only be received if the worker pays into the system.

I stated that "So running astronomically high debts and then increasing taxes to pay them off is good for the economy? That's a stretch even for a socialist."

It seems all you saw here was "paying off debts" and you ignored the "running astronomically high debts" part. If you going to respond to something I say please respond to my point in it's entirety. Otherwise your just taking it out of context.

First of all, the President doesn't spend a dime or raise taxes, this is a function of Congress which the Democrats controlled during Reagans Presidency.

Reagan proposed and got through massive tax cuts across the board. During his Presidency government revenues doubled, so much for "irresponsible" income tax cuts.

Any government program that redistributes wealth is a redistribution program including the GI Bill.
SSI’s retirement benefit is supplemental not primary.  You show me a private insurance company that provides for one low cost: retirement benefits, life insurance and disability insurance for life without qualifying exams for life and then we’ll see which system is better.

SSI’s death benefit is not dependent on insurability, private LI is.  SSI wants to be inclusive.  Private LI is exclusive. 

Where do you get the notion that social security payments just stop upon the death of a spouse?  You’ve never heard of the Widow’s pension for surviving spouses?

You right, the GI Bill is also an income redistribution program, but that wasn't the issue, you claimed that Social Security is the single most successful government program in history, and I just had to point out you were wrong.

I sure have heard of the Widow's pension for surviving spouses, and it SUCKS, here see for yourself http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_050103.html

Social Security is low cost? 1 out 10 dollars I earn during my life goes to FICA and then they pay me about 11,000 dollars a year after I retire? Not only that but they're debts are going to surpass their assets before I even retire, causing them to lower these meager payments, raise the age I can receive benefits, and significantly raise my children's taxes?

Social Security is a poster child for what is wrong with government.

The trust fund is currently funded by T-bills.  That is a debt instrument of the federal government since the money was borrowed from the trust to pay other bills.  So I’m not sure what you are talking about.

“Investment in the stock market is not gambling?”  Are you serious?  Have you ever heard of options trading which, in some cases, gambles on the notion that a stock will lose money?  Are you aware that due to the stock market tanking, some people’s 401(k) individual accounts have lost up to half of the equity?

It is not more likely than not that people will see their benefits reduced.  I don’t know where you got that estimation.

I don't know how else I can explain this to you: There is no Social Security trust fund, the money that goes into this trust fund is wasted every single year. What is left are IOU's, and they don't collect interest, so inflation eats the value of the trust fund IOU's alive.

The stock market is not tanking, it just gained 300 points yesterday, and it still up today. The market is adjusting itself after the sub-prime loan mess we've gotten ourselves in.

The stock market on average has grown in size every year, even during the depression the stock market grew on average, just slower, look it up.

The only reason your 401(k) is going to tank is if your an idiot and put all your equity in very few companies. Some people only buy stock in the company they work for, and then if the company goes under they're screwed. That's their fault for making bad decisions.

I didn't say that benefits will be reduced (they will be though) I said you won't get back all the money you paid into the FICA system. For example, if you make 50,000 per year and work for 50 years, you'll pay about $225,000 into the Social Security system over your lifetime.   If you go by today's standards, you will get around $11,000 per year after you reach 65 years of age. At that rate, you'd have to live for 20.45 years after that in order to collect back everything you made during your life. So you'd have to live to be 85 years old, since the average life expectancy for American males is 77 years, your going to be short $36,000, on average.

With your 401(k) you get everything you paid into, plus interest and growth. I remember during 401(k) orientations when I was in the workforce, they estimated that if you have a matching 401(k) plan making about 50k per year for 50 years, you'll end up with around 1 million dollars when you retire, and it won't take 20 years for you to collect it, you get it all immediately.

Just let my put my 9% FICA tax into my 401(k), I'll think I'll live without my 250 bucks a week from the government.

Social Security retirement benefits were never ever meant to be the sole source of retirement income for anyone.  It’s always been a supplemental benefit.

If that's the case why is it mandatory? Why can't I opt out of the system? If I feel like I won't need a supplemental benefit, and I feel I can invest my FICA taxes more wisely than the government, why can't I make that choice?

 

I guess having a healthy body is its own reward?

It is for you and me, but if you look at the obesity rates in America you'll see we're the exception unfortunately.

The thing is people respond to incentives, and financial incentive to encourage people to take better care of themselves will definitely save us vast amounts of money later on.

“one” refers to Canadians seeking out of province medical care.

The timing of this survey matters because private insurance for Canadians only recently became legal due to a supreme court ruling.

Then provide a citation so I too can read the information re your claim.

Sure, here you go: http://www.newcoalition.org/Article.cfm?artId=16801

We want doctors to change their behaviors from that of careless and incompetent to careful and competent.  Let's face it, it's a field that demands a lot from its practitioners. 

"The total cost of medical malpractice insurance is less than 2 percent of all U.S. health care spending."  Do you think the author of the article is lying?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/27/sebok.edwards/index.html?iref=newssearch

So your saying all doctors that make mistakes are incompetent and should be sued? Why do you not demand any discretion from the sue happy trial lawyers? Is it not possible that they're careless and incompetent too?

Look if you going to respond to what I say at least take the time and read what I have to say.

I did not disagree with the fact that "The total cost of medical malpractice insurance is less than 2 percent of all U.S. health care spending." That may very well be true. What I was saying is that the cost of medical malpractice insurance is not the only way malpractice lawsuits affects the cost of health care.

I told you before, irresponsible malpractice lawsuits alters the behavior of doctors. The doctors perform more procedures and test due to fear of being sued. These unnecessary procedures are not free, they cost more money thus increasing all of our premiums.

[Decker]

I am talking on a federal level.

If a state wants to tax people to death and fund everything under the sun, that is fine.  I have the choice to move to another state.

When the Federal government is taking from me via a direct income tax instead of apportionment from the states, that is theft.

If you read some history or the Federalist Papers, you would know what I am talking about.

The checks and balances were to prevent consolidation of power at the Federal Level.

If a state wants to legalize abortion, or have high taxes, or free education for certain races, they are given that authority by the Constitution.

You should Turn off the TV and try reading it sometime.

The Federal government was meant to be VERY limited.  Now it steals directly from the citizens and pushes around the states via Federal Funding.  States lost their representation with the 17th amendment.

Thanks for the advice about TV.  I watch sports, Bill Moyers, and some movies.  I also read 2-4 books a week.

So you've read the Federalist Papers.  That's great.

Have you read the US Constitution?

Have a look at this amendment:

AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

How praytell did the 17th Amendment cause the States to lose their representation?

AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Thank goodness the US Constitution is a living document that changes with history.  Otherwise Strict Constructionist Originalists might rule the day...and they are just nuts.

We could go back to where blacks are property or women are second class citizens or the like.

Here's a pretty good list of things in our Constitution alien to Originalists:

Amendments to the Constitution subsequent to the Bill of Rights cover a wide range of subjects. One of the most far-reaching is the fourteenth, ratified in 1868, which establishes a clear and simple definition of citizenship and guarantees equal treatment under the law. In essence, the Fourteenth Amendment required the states to abide by the protections of the Bill of Rights. Other amendments have limited the judicial power of the national government; changed the method of electing the president; forbidden slavery; protected the right to vote against denial because of race, color, sex, or previous condition of servitude; extended the congressional power to levy taxes to individual incomes; and instituted the election of U.S. senators by popular vote.

The most recent amendments include the twenty-second, limiting the president to two terms in office; the twenty-third, granting citizens of the District of Columbia the right to vote; the twenty-fourth, giving citizens the right to vote regardless of failure to pay a poll tax; the twenty-fifth, providing for filling the office of vice president when it becomes vacant in midterm; the twenty-sixth, lowering the voting age to 18; and the twenty-seventh, concerning the compensation of U.S. senators and representatives.

http://countrystudies.us/united-states/government-2.htm

[Decker]

I stated that "So running astronomically high debts and then increasing taxes to pay them off is good for the economy? That's a stretch even for a socialist."

It seems all you saw here was "paying off debts" and you ignored the "running astronomically high debts" part. If you going to respond to something I say please respond to my point in it's entirety. Otherwise your just taking it out of context.

First of all, the President doesn't spend a dime or raise taxes, this is a function of Congress which the Democrats controlled during Reagans Presidency.

Reagan proposed and got through massive tax cuts across the board. During his Presidency government revenues doubled, so much for "irresponsible" income tax cuts.

Never in the history of the United States of America have tax cuts doubled tax revenue or even come close to paying for the tax cuts themselves. 

You’re really telling it like it ain’t. 

Ok, how’s this?:  Paying off “astronomically high debts” is a good thing.  Even if it means raising taxes.

You right, the GI Bill is also an income redistribution program, but that wasn't the issue, you claimed that Social Security is the single most successful government program in history, and I just had to point out you were wrong.

I sure have heard of the Widow's pension for surviving spouses, and it SUCKS, here see for yourself http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_050103.html

Social Security is low cost? 1 out 10 dollars I earn during my life goes to FICA and then they pay me about 11,000 dollars a year after I retire? Not only that but they're debts are going to surpass their assets before I even retire, causing them to lower these meager payments, raise the age I can receive benefits, and significantly raise my children's taxes?

Social Security is a poster child for what is wrong with government.

I’m wrong just b/c you say so?  Nope.  SS has done more for more Americans than the GI bill ever has.

That’s right, let’s get rid of the sucky widow’s pension to make sure our streets are populated with aging homeless folks.  That’s not so good.

1 out of 10 of  your dollars?  I pay 6.2% in payroll taxes for Social Security.  It’s an insurance program and not a wealth creating program…it’s always been that way.  Tinkering with the actuarial assumptions, the retirement age, the payroll tax, or benefits will leave SS in great shape.  Anyways, the 2042 number is likely to go much higher b/c SS actuaries use extremely conservative estimates in projecting costs/benefits that do not reflect the real economic growth of the US.  10 years ago the 2042 number used to be 2029.

I don't know how else I can explain this to you: There is no Social Security trust fund, the money that goes into this trust fund is wasted every single year. What is left are IOU's, and they don't collect interest, so inflation eats the value of the trust fund IOU's alive.

There is a trust fund.  That’s a fact. 
The bonds do accrue interest:  The trust funds hold special issues (SI) sold only to the trust funds. These SI securities are of two types: short-term certificates of indebtedness and long-term bonds. The certificates of indebtedness are issued on a daily basis for the investment of receipts not required to meet current expenditures, and they mature on the next June 30 following the date of issue. Special-issue bonds, on the other hand, are normally acquired only when special issues of either type mature on June 30. http://www.socialsecurity.gov/cgi-bin/transactions.cgi

Here’s a list of the nominal interest rates:  http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/newIssueRates.html

Tell Warren Buffet that the T-Bills he holds are just “IOUs” That’s just flat out untrue.

The stock market is not tanking, it just gained 300 points yesterday, and it still up today. The market is adjusting itself after the sub-prime loan mess we've gotten ourselves in.

The market is at a 2005 rate in 2008 thanks largely to a subprime meltdown, an end to cheap credit and rising oil prices which have brought U.S. consumer spending to a halt. 

The only reason your 401(k) is going to tank is if your an idiot and put all your equity in very few companies. Some people only buy stock in the company they work for, and then if the company goes under they're screwed. That's their fault for making bad decisions.

You’ve just described the average retirement account investor.  They are not pro’s and they do not understand how to invest.  B/c of fiduciary liability, most retirement plans are 404(c) compliant meaning that self-directed investments are the responsibility of the investor and the participant is left with useless prospectuses.

I didn't say that benefits will be reduced (they will be though) I said you won't get back all the money you paid into the FICA system. For example, if you make 50,000 per year and work for 50 years, you'll pay about $225,000 into the Social Security system over your lifetime.   If you go by today's standards, you will get around $11,000 per year after you reach 65 years of age. At that rate, you'd have to live for 20.45 years after that in order to collect back everything you made during your life. So you'd have to live to be 85 years old, since the average life expectancy for American males is 77 years, your going to be short $36,000, on average.

50,000 x 50 years x 6.2% = 115,000.  The retirement age is 67 not 65 and the life expectancy 81 or 82 not 77.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/AnypiaApplet.html

DOB 1927; NRA 67 Avg Career Ann. Earnings: $50,000
Average monthly benefit: $1192.00; 81-67 = 14 years x 12 = 168 months x 1192 = $200,256 total which is greater than the $115,000 paid in for a gain of $85,256.

With your 401(k) you get everything you paid into, plus interest and growth. I remember during 401(k) orientations when I was in the workforce, they estimated that if you have a matching 401(k) plan making about 50k per year for 50 years, you'll end up with around 1 million dollars when you retire, and it won't take 20 years for you to collect it, you get it all immediately.

I know what retirement plans can do, I’m a pension tax lawyer.

Just let my put my 9% FICA tax into my 401(k), I'll think I'll live without my 250 bucks a week from the government.

Again, you are funding a social insurance program to keep our elderly off the streets and out of poverty and not for you to open your money to risk in the market for your own personal gain.

If that's the case why is it mandatory? Why can't I opt out of the system? If I feel like I won't need a supplemental benefit, and I feel I can invest my FICA taxes more wisely than the government, why can't I make that choice?

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=435&p_created=974129735&p_sid=S-iYjaJi&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MjMsMjMmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPTMsMSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PTIuMSZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc2VhcmNoX25sJnBfcGFnZT0x&p_li=&p_topview=1

SS retirement benefits are a form of social insurance for the good of the country.  You cannot opt out.

It’s for the good of the country as a whole.  The same country that has given you the opportunity to be all you can be.  You are not an island nor should you want to be.

 

It is for you and me, but if you look at the obesity rates in America you'll see we're the exception unfortunately.

Sure, here you go: http://www.newcoalition.org/Article.cfm?artId=16801

UHC costs are rising, according to your source, b/c you are taking the word of a member of a "think tank" who did a survey.  Thinktanks are generally unreliable when their income depends on coming to a certain conclusion like with our Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and so on.  I would like to see some numbers rather than the survey of a slanted organization.

So your saying all doctors that make mistakes are incompetent and should be sued? Why do you not demand any discretion from the sue happy trial lawyers? Is it not possible that they're careless and incompetent too?

Look if you going to respond to what I say at least take the time and read what I have to say.

I did not disagree with the fact that "The total cost of medical malpractice insurance is less than 2 percent of all U.S. health care spending." That may very well be true. What I was saying is that the cost of medical malpractice insurance is not the only way malpractice lawsuits affects the cost of health care.

I told you before, irresponsible malpractice lawsuits alters the behavior of doctors. The doctors perform more procedures and test due to fear of being sued. These unnecessary procedures are not free, they cost more money thus increasing all of our premiums.

No doubt that malpractice cases affect medical costs.  I don't deny that.  I just misread what you wrote.

Lawyers are held in check regarding frivolous lawsuits--the courts can censure, fine and disbar a lawyer for bringing a frivolous malpractice suit.

[Decker]

What does the government "give" corporations? More like what the corporations "give" the government.

The personhood of the corporations? What does that even mean? Does that mean if you don't like a company you can punish it at will?

I'm sorry if I had a company and people like you were in charge, I'd leave and take my tax revenues and jobs with me. Which is what will happen.

The thing is you probably think your pro-job. But the thing is that you can't be pro-job and anti-business at the same time.

Government gives coporations tax breaks, exemptions, personhood, subsidies and more..

Personhood for a corporation means that corporations have the same rights under the US constitution as a person does.  But a corporation can live into infinity, doesn't feel pain, doesn't need clean air, doesn't need potable water, and doesn't need edible food.  A corporation is a fiction.  We are not.

Who is anti-business?

[stormshadow]

How praytell did the 17th Amendment cause the States to lose their representation?

You have proven yourself to be nothing but opinionated with a nearly ZERO understanding of how our government was originally designed to work.  You probably call it a democracy...

Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof,

Do you really read? Or do you just verbalize words in your mind?

Before the 17th amendment the US Senate was elected by the state legislature.  Therefore the states had a voice to compete with that of the people who elect their respective US Congressmen.  The 17th amendment handed the Senate over to the people so instead of the people just controlling one house by electing those that promise them the most, they now control BOTH.

I will not even bother to respond to the rest of your post as you have just embarrased yourself with your lack of understanding of the 17th amendment, and proven you cannot read, let alone have an intelligent discussion.

To add, I never said that I was against every amendment made since it's original ratification.  I was arguing the principles of Life, Liberty, and Property.  Principles that Socialists pay alot of lip service to, but see the public not as people with individual rights, but a bunch of babies that need taken care of by government.

I am against the 16th amendment as well, which added the income tax to go along with the creation of the Central Bank in 1913.  The Federal Income tax was created to guarantee that interest payments would be made on the Credit created by the Private Bank we call the Federal Reserve.

[Decker]

You have proven yourself to be nothing but opinionated with a nearly ZERO understanding of how our government was originally designed to work.  You probably call it a democracy...

Translation:  You were wrong about SS from the beginning—from how it’s funded to how the Trust corpus works to how benefits are calculated to what the applicable payroll tax amount is.  Other than all that, you were dead on.  Come on, part of being a man is admitting when you’re wrong. 

I do call it more Democracy--one person and one vote in the mix--the rule by the people.

Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof,

Do you really read? Or do you just verbalize words in your mind?

Before the 17th amendment the US Senate was elected by the state legislature.  Therefore the states had a voice to compete with that of the people who elect their respective US Congressmen.  The 17th amendment handed the Senate over to the people so instead of the people just controlling one house by electing those that promise them the most, they now control BOTH.

I’m not sure what you are objecting to here.  Are you saying that more Democracy is a bad thing since The People and not the state legislators picked the Senators or that Senators do not represent the interests of their constituency and require some indirect voice of the people as articluated by their state congress?  No matter how you dice it, We The People are the government at both the State and Federal level.  If we do not care for our representatives, we vote them out of office.

I will not even bother to respond to the rest of your post as you have just embarrased yourself with your lack of understanding of the 17th amendment, and proven you cannot read, let alone have an intelligent discussion.

You sure ‘embarrased’ yourself by misspelling ‘embarrassed’.  You haven’t shown any erosion of State’s rights by simply listing your ill-conceived objection.

This is a discussion forum.  Please enlighten me if I'm in error about Social Security or the 17th Amendment.  Don't run away crying that I'm the one with the problem.  I'm here.

To add, I never said that I was against every amendment made since it's original ratification.  I was arguing the principles of Life, Liberty, and Property.  Principles that Socialists pay alot of lip service to, but see the public not as people with individual rights, but a bunch of babies that need taken care of by government.

I like John Locke.  You take his notion of life, liberty and property to a degree of selfishness that is extreme.  Me, me, mine and no other.  I don’t see Socialists paying lip service to Locke. 
What’s wrong with a Safety Net Society?  No one’s asking anything from you except for your tax dollar.  And why not?  You prosper b/c of  the achievements of others.

[stormshadow]

I was not debating SS with you...  I don't know why you are bringing that up with me.

Yes there is a big difference between the state legislature electing the senators and the people electing them.

A democracy is not even close to a Constitutional Republic.

Democracy = Mob Rule

Democracy does not protect the rights of the minority.

The Founders were very aware of the difference.  The infusion of Socialism has erased the word Republic.  Even the president uses the word democracy.

Do we pledge to the Republic for which it stands, or to the Democracy for which it stands?

Thanks for pointing out the spelling error.

[stormshadow]

I also question voting.  I will not say which way is right or wrong because I do not know, so save the argument. 

I will ask some questions:

1. Maybe there was a reason the founders felt that only landowners had the Constitutional right to vote?

2. Should someone that recieves a check at tax time, someone that pays no taxes, have a Constitutional right to vote for the government they are not funding?

3. What criteria is used for voting when someone is getting a check from the government?  Will they have a tendency to vote for the person that promises them the most?

4.  Would it not create an incentive for production to be a tax paying citizen in order to have a voice in the selection of government?

Again these are just questions, I am not arguing that only White landowners should have the right to vote, so please do not start a strawman argument.

[candidizzle]

A democracy is not even close to a Constitutional Republic.

Democracy = Mob Rule

Democracy does not protect the rights of the minority.

good point...i always laugh to myself when i hear politicians talk about spreading  democracy.   

[Hedgehog]

Democracy = Mob Rule

Democracy does not protect the rights of the minority.

You're, of course, wrong.

In a democracy, the minority is represented by several outlets.

Eg, the media and ombudsmen.

There are daily examples of how minorities, such as gays and muslims, have their rights protected in democracies.

If the minority didn't have any rights in a democracy, muslims would obviously not be cared for so viciously in democracies.

You are not just wrong, you are totally wrong. In the most democratic countries, the rights of the minorities are most protected.

Countries like North Korea, that rank at dead bottom on the democracy index, give the least protection for minorities.

Or Saudi Arabia, what rights does a gay person have there?

[Nordic Superman]

Or Saudi Arabia, what rights does a gay person have there?

They have a right to be murdered by the oppressive islamic regime.

Rhetorical question I assume tho?

[stormshadow]

You're, of course, wrong.

In a democracy, the minority is represented by several outlets.

Eg, the media and ombudsmen.

There are daily examples of how minorities, such as gays and muslims, have their rights protected in democracies.

If the minority didn't have any rights in a democracy, muslims would obviously not be cared for so viciously in democracies.

You are not just wrong, you are totally wrong. In the most democratic countries, the rights of the minorities are most protected.

Countries like North Korea, that rank at dead bottom on the democracy index, give the least protection for minorities.

Or Saudi Arabia, what rights does a gay person have there?

Wow... I did not think people could be this dumb.  Please refrain from replying to anymore of my posts.

Minority means the MINORITY VOTE

I'm not talking about race or sexual orientation.

Democracy is two lions and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

[Decker]

I was not debating SS with you...  I don't know why you are bringing that up with me.

Forgive me, I'm going in and out of threads and my work is really interfering with my posting so I lose track of whom I speak with.  Sorry.

Yes there is a big difference between the state legislature electing the senators and the people electing them.

A democracy is not even close to a Constitutional Republic.

Democracy = Mob Rule

Democracy does not protect the rights of the minority.

The Founders were very aware of the difference.  The infusion of Socialism has erased the word Republic.  Even the president uses the word democracy.

Do we pledge to the Republic for which it stands, or to the Democracy for which it stands?

Thanks for pointing out the spelling error.

You're one of the first people I've encountered that recognized that the very flower of Democracy is the Lynch Mob. 

That's why we don't have a direct Democracy, we have democratic republic.  The People choose the politicians but the politicians make the laws....not the people.  That way mob rule does not directly determine our laws b/c we have the politicians as a buffer or filter.

Like with most of the things in our form of government:  It's a balance.  We want to encourage democracy to effectuate the will of The People without trampling the minority position.

I have no use for the pledge...I think it misses the point that our political system is a democratic republic.

[Decker]

I also question voting.  I will not say which way is right or wrong because I do not know, so save the argument. 

I will ask some questions:

1. Maybe there was a reason the founders felt that only landowners had the Constitutional right to vote?

2. Should someone that recieves a check at tax time, someone that pays no taxes, have a Constitutional right to vote for the government they are not funding?

3. What criteria is used for voting when someone is getting a check from the government?  Will they have a tendency to vote for the person that promises them the most?

4.  Would it not create an incentive for production to be a tax paying citizen in order to have a voice in the selection of government?

Again these are just questions, I am not arguing that only White landowners should have the right to vote, so please do not start a strawman argument.

Every citizen has a stake in the government--from welfare recipients to tax subsidized oil men.  A democratic republic is inclusive b/c our Constitution is predicated on 'We The People and not 'We The Landowners'.

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union (not perfect, but more perfect) establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE,....

So the Constitution comprehends a general welfare in which all citizens have a stake/part.  From that principle, it follows that everyone should have a say.  But thanks to the republican form of government, that 'say' does not carry the day.

[Hedgehog]

Wow... I did not think people could be this dumb.  Please refrain from replying to anymore of my posts.

Minority means the MINORITY VOTE

I'm not talking about race or sexual orientation.

Democracy is two lions and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Again, the minority right in a majority rule is protected through laws and institutions, and countries that rank high on the democracy index, also have good protection for the minority.

Since you seem to have a problem understanding, I will try to make it a little easier understanding, by examplifying with a political minority group this time:

If a grass roots movement of eg anti-violence activists forms, that wants a legislative change, they can sway a national opinion, and get enough people behind their cause to either get a referendum or a legislative change.

Even though they never won an election.

And the tyranny of the majority, is also the blessing of the majority. You won't see any crazy shit done against the will of the majority.

When the ruling parties legislates, they have been elected.

Look at GWB and the past mid-term elections. How much support do they have? How many of the eligible voters voted for them?

[War-Horse]

So anyway, Warhorse can lift heavy objects...







I gotta say you guys amaze me with youre knowledge and eloquent words......I need to go the gym....