The Democrat Thread

[Jake]

I think part of signing it was with the knowledge that it would be malleable and the government might look rather different, even without amending, based on what people wanted. They'd certainly be flattered at the religious fervor with which most Americans see it today, but it really is sad. Americans don't ask "what is the best way to run the country?" They say, "what is the most constitutional?" This is not to say that we should go directly against the Constitution, but rather we should seek to make the Constitution run the country correctly. If it doesn't allow that, we should try to amend it. If we can't amend it, we'll have to wait until we can. Whether or not anything we do is in the "spirit" of the Constitution is really irrelevant though. That was just too long ago.

[farmteam]

I think part of signing it was with the knowledge that it would be malleable and the government might look rather different, even without amending, based on what people wanted. They'd certainly be flattered at the religious fervor with which most Americans see it today, but it really is sad. Americans don't ask "what is the best way to run the country?" They say, "what is the most constitutional?" This is not to say that we should go directly against the Constitution, but rather we should seek to make the Constitution run the country correctly. If it doesn't allow that, we should try to amend it. If we can't amend it, we'll have to wait until we can. Whether or not anything we do is in the "spirit" of the Constitution is really irrelevant though. That was just too long ago.

I'd rephrase those questions, and combine them. "What's the best way to run the country that's also constitutional?"

 

I don't think it is irrelevant. The Hamilton/Jefferson arguments that SS was talking about are still happening today, are still relevant to the constitution, and are still relevant to the best way to run the country.

 

You are right that if the Constitution doesn't allow the way we've determined is the best way to run the country, we could amend it -- but good luck on getting everyone to agree on what to amend it to. Every society necessarily has a rules structure; the Constitution is the backbone of ours. If you're unable to amend it (or create an entirely new one), I think it's better to work within the existing structure than discard it entirely, which is the logical end of your argument if I understood you correctly.

[farmteam]

I'm saying that those disagreements did continue. Jefferson and Hamilton (and the factions they represented) were at each other's throats for years. The easiest example was Hamilton's push for a US Mint and national bank and Jefferson's and Madison's opposition to it on Constitutional grounds.

 

I don't think we're really disagreeing much here. The people who wrote and signed the documents couldn't even agree to its limits. So as you said, it's foolish to say "This is what the Constitution means" as if there is or ever was some singular, objective meaning.

You're right. I think I'm just placing more weight than you on the fact that both Hamilton and Jefferson ended up agreeing to and signing the same Constitution, even if reluctantly.

[StrangeSox]

Ugh Democrats are openly talking about raising the Medicare age as part of a "grand bargain"

 

http://boldprogressives.org/democratic-sen...anced-and-fair/

 

Never mind that the CBO has studied this and found that it's impact would be negligible because you're cutting out the group that tends to be the healthiest. This would be terrible for most seniors.

 

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, raising the eligibility age to 67 would cause an estimated net increase of $5.6 billion in out-of-pocket health insurance costs for beneficiaries who would have been otherwise covered by Medicare. Seniors in Medicare Part B would also face a 3 percent premium increase, the study found, since younger and healthier enrollees would be routed out of Medicare and into private insurance. Beneficiaries in health care reform’s exchanges would see a similar spike in premiums with the addition of the older population.

[Jake]

Ugh Democrats are openly talking about raising the Medicare age as part of a "grand bargain"

 

http://boldprogressives.org/democratic-sen...anced-and-fair/

 

Never mind that the CBO has studied this and found that it's impact would be negligible because you're cutting out the group that tends to be the healthiest. This would be terrible for most seniors.

 

Those two sentences don't seem to pair well.

[StrangeSox]

The actual impact on the federal budget is negligible because the group for Medicare is more-or-less 65-100+. If the Medicare group was 20-66, then cutting out the 65 and 66 year olds would mean dropping your most expensive members. But by cutting out the lowest end of your group, you're not going to impact your costs that much.

 

Private insurance isn't really affordable for people who are 65, though, so they're going to be taking the hit (or be forced to keep working, if they can, to maintain healthcare, if they have it).

 

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42683

 

If the Medicare eligibility age was raised above 65, fewer people would be eligible for Medicare, and federal outlays for the program would decline relative to those projected under current law. CBO expects that most people

affected by the change would obtain health insurance from other sources, primarily employers or other government programs, although some would have no health insurance. Federal spending on those other programs would increase, partially offsetting the Medicare savings. Many of the people who would otherwise have enrolled in Medicare would face higher premiums for health insurance, higher out-of-pocket costs for health care, or both.

Edited November 15, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

I think his main point was that there is a general movement towards the strengthening of federal government. This isn't authoritarianism or communism (which, by the way, is meant to be zero government) but rather reflective of our changing world. There are fewer and fewer things that only concern the local. This is why the Constitution had to settle the issue of every state having their own currency -- states' rights, woo!! No -- some things can't be left to the states to decide not because Illinois can't make decisions, but because 51 different decisions are not compatible in a world where even national boundaries are easily crossed. State and local governments play an integral role in implementing national policy and can still make decisions that it actually makes sense to make. Does my hometown, Pontiac, need to boost funding to fill in some potholes? Sure, we won't run that one by the President.

 

In 1850, interstate travel was near crazy talk unless there was a very particular and important reason. Now, the federal government necessarily manages the interstate highway system because we cross state borders all the time and honestly, nobody outside of Texas really gives a s*** about what state they live in.

 

The most irksome part of this is that states' rights arguments are almost always made in context of social regulations. We continually leave civil and human rights arguments to the states, like the rights of racial minorities, women, gays, etc. should really vary locally. Bulls***! Likewise, we have a complete clusterf*** with the marijuana issue now. Not only are we now allowing states to make decisions on this, we are letting them make decisions that directly contradict the federal law. In this case, we need to first remove the federal restriction and yield to the states. Further down the line, the federal government needs to make a decision on it once people are more comfortable with the idea. Unfortunately, given the current setup, the only legal thing the federal government can do is crack down on all these violators of federal law in the states. The system is s***. This also applies to all this BS like alcohol regulations -- in one state, kids can drink under parent supervision, in another you can have an open container in your car, in another you can't buy it on Sunday, somewhere else you can only sell certain types of alcohol in certain locations. That's stupid, there is no good reason for that to be different every place you go.

 

Etc.

 

There are better ways to govern efficiently over a collective group of states than to just cede all power to a centralized government. Yes, things like defense, inter-state travel, currency, etc. are all things that are more easily handled on a national scale. But i completely disagree that we HAVE to nationalize every issue, especially by law. If Colorado wants to legalize pot and keep homosexuals from being a protected class, why the hell can't they do that? If you don't like the laws, move out. I don't like Illinois' tax laws, and I should move out if I don't like them.

 

There's no reason that national views (of a select group of people) have to suppress local ones. The EU doesn't work like that. France can be France, Germany can be Germany, etc, even though they are a collective economic and political "nation."

Edited November 15, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

There are better ways to govern efficiently over a collective group of states than to just cede all power to a centralized government. Yes, things like defense, inter-state travel, currency, etc. are all things that are more easily handled on a national scale. But i completely disagree that we HAVE to nationalize every issue, especially by law. If Colorado wants to legalize pot and keep homosexuals from being a protected class, why the hell can't they do that? If you don't like the laws, move out. I don't like Illinois' tax laws, and I should move out if I don't like them.

 

There's no reason that national views (of a select group of people) have to suppress local ones. The EU doesn't work like that. France can be France, Germany can be Germany, etc, even though they are a collective economic and political "nation."

 

We fought a war over States' Rights to treat people unequally, amended our constitution, passed additional laws and sent in troops to enforce it. I see absolutely no reason civil rights should be federalized.

 

"Vote with your feet" is a method that those with the resources and ability to move can use and only if their political dislike trumps all sorts of other life issues like friends, family and employment.

[mr_genius]

We fought a war over States' Rights to treat people unequally, amended our constitution, passed additional laws and sent in troops to enforce it. I see absolutely no reason civil rights should be federalized.

 

"Vote with your feet" is a method that those with the resources and ability to move can use and only if their political dislike trumps all sorts of other life issues like friends, family and employment.

 

along with other free stuff, i would like to see the GOP push to have the hard working middle class become a protected class. With all the entitlements that go along with such a designation.

 

do you think the Democrats would be against it? i am counting on that they will be.

Edited November 15, 2012 by mr_genius

[Jenksismyhero]

We fought a war over States' Rights to treat people unequally, amended our constitution, passed additional laws and sent in troops to enforce it. I see absolutely no reason civil rights should be federalized.

 

"Vote with your feet" is a method that those with the resources and ability to move can use and only if their political dislike trumps all sorts of other life issues like friends, family and employment.

 

Yep, homosexual discrimination is TOTALLY the same as hundreds of years of slavery. The EXACT same.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

along with free stuff, i would like to see the hard working middle class become a protected class. With all the entitlements that go along with such a designation.

 

do you think the Democrats would be against it? i am counting on that they will be.

 

Everyone should be a protected class. That would be the most equal thing to do, right?

[StrangeSox]

It's not, but it's still a civil rights issue. There's still no reason to move civil rights to the state level.

[StrangeSox]

Everyone should be a protected class. That would be the most equal thing to do, right?

 

Do you reject the idea of constitutionally protected classes?

[mr_genius]

Everyone should be a protected class. That would be the most equal thing to do, right?

 

perhaps in time

 

but the middle class receiving that designation should be a front and center issue next election. it will be very popular with the voting demographic we need to win.

[Jake]

My class (the middle) is already protected, provided I'm not gay (I'm not, sorry). The point isn't to make homosexuals and other alternative sexualities protected, but instead to boost their rights up to mine. They should be able to get married, not be discriminated against in hiring, etc

 

Nashville TN recently passed a local law to prevent sexual orientation-based discrimination in the workplace and the state found a way to overturn it on a technicality. Just another reason civil rights issues aren't best left to the states. Even when a small group tries to do the right thing, another small group shuts it down.

[Reddy]

Yep, homosexual discrimination is TOTALLY the same as hundreds of years of slavery. The EXACT same.

um... the details aren't but the concept IS exactly the same. treat someone as inferior to you because of the way they're born.

[Jenksismyhero]

Do you reject the idea of constitutionally protected classes?

 

My response didn't go through last night for some reason.

 

In part, yes I do. I see the historical need for some of those classes (gender and race/ethnicity specifically) and think the rest are rather arbitrary (national origin, religion and sexual orientation in some states). If you're going to have homosexuals as a protected class, might as well add the obese, the ugly and day walkers/gingers. I mean, at what point does it end? Yes, there's a history (and ongoing) discrimination of homosexuals, but the same crap has happened to a lot of groups of people over the years.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

um... the details aren't but the concept IS exactly the same. treat someone as inferior to you because of the way they're born.

 

And again, that concept can be applied in millions of cases. Chicago needs to pass a law that protects north side white sox fans from being discriminated against in north side bars. They need to pass a law protecting smokers from being discriminated against in every business establishment in the city, and on and on. Why is it so bad that local governments/communities get to decide who gets that protection and who doesn't?

[StrangeSox]

My response didn't go through last night for some reason.

 

In part, yes I do. I see the historical need for some of those classes (gender and race/ethnicity specifically) and think the rest are rather arbitrary (national origin, religion and sexual orientation in some states). If you're going to have homosexuals as a protected class, might as well add the obese, the ugly and day walkers/gingers. I mean, at what point does it end? Yes, there's a history (and ongoing) discrimination of homosexuals, but the same crap has happened to a lot of groups of people over the years.

 

It ends when class-based discrimination ends.

 

As you admit, there's a long history of discrimination against and oppression of homosexuals. Why on earth shouldn't they be legally protected against this discrimination and violation of their civil rights? What possible social benefit does delegating civil rights to the states bring, especially in light of what this has historically meant?

[StrangeSox]

And again, that concept can be applied in millions of cases. Chicago needs to pass a law that protects north side white sox fans from being discriminated against in north side bars. They need to pass a law protecting smokers from being discriminated against in every business establishment in the city, and on and on. Why is it so bad that local governments/communities get to decide who gets that protection and who doesn't?

 

It is bad because it often ends with minority groups having their rights violated or denied, often violently. Why is it so good that local governments should be able to violate someone's civil rights?

[StrangeSox]

Monopoly Is Theft

 

Monopoly's origin story often attributes a Depression-era man, but it was really invented by a woman a few decades earlier to teach Georgian economics/philosophy which holds that no person can claim ownership of land. The goal of the game is to become a rent-seeking monopolist, extracting resources from others simply by virtue of claiming ownership of land.

[mr_genius]

My class (the middle) is already protected

 

nope. they will get official designation and special entitlements under my 'gettin more votes' strategy. originally i had looked at getting 65% of a certain demographic. with our (GOP) new tax cut (middle class tax rate drops to 15%), additional middle class exclusive entitlements, and protected class designation i now think 80% is very likely.

Edited November 16, 2012 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

Hostess to close up shop if the strike doesn't end by 5PM tomorrow:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-hoste...0,4641555.story

 

Bakers union thinks it's a bluff. Turns out it wasn't. Hostess brands to go up for auction. All factories closed.

[StrangeSox]

For now, until someone buys them up and re-opens them and needs to find a skilled labor force to staff them.

[mr_genius]

For now, until someone buys them up and re-opens them and needs to find a skilled labor force to staff them.

 

very unlikely.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/compa...ostess-closing/

 

But even if those brands are bought and restarted, the Hostess workers will not get their jobs back.

 

"The industry has overcapacity. We're overcapacity. Our rivals are overcapacity," said Rayburn in an interview on CNBC. Asked if the shutdown decision could be reversed if the Bakers' union agreed to immediately return to work, he responded, "Too late."