Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

Senior Congressional Democrats told ABC News today it is highly unlikely that a health care reform bill will be completed this year, just a week after President Barack Obama declared he was "absolutely confident" he'll be able to sign one by then.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

cookfish

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

How much more of Obama's "absolute confidence" can this country take? LOL.

Obama is looking more and more like a one-termer. Wait till the jobs numbers come out on Friday.

It was a good idea but a bad time. They tried to hurry up and ram anything down our throats.

Something this large takes time to accomplish and Obama was in too big of a hurry to do it right.

It should be interesting how they spin this one and how the DR ass lickers handle it.

Basically it's not about what's good for America and what's good for the party.

It's every man for himself.

There's only so much room under the bus.

You bastards are crashing ABC's web site. I can't pull the page back up.

Middle Finger time.

Larry

PS I wished like hell RCADE would add a middle finger emoticon. Now THAT would rock.

I knew Pelosi would blame the Senate.

Isn't it strange that they pull the plug on healthcare at the end of the day on an election day. Hmmmm..

PS I wished like hell RCADE would add a middle finger emoticon. Now THAT would rock.


#5 | Posted by LarryMohr


yeah I know

can you see mine now.....LOL

In light of the elections Tuesday, I would guess that blue dog dems and red dog reps are getting a little nervous. I wonder why they call them dogs? They have no loyalty to their masters. They should be called cats.

"The House Democrats' backroom abortion funding deal"

"the majority is planning to evade sunlight and break its own 72-hour transparency rule by cutting a backroom deal with pro-life Democrats and leaving out language on abortion funding from the bill to be disclosed to the public. This won't violate their disclosure pledge, Democrats claim."

michellemalkin.com

Hey Obama, why don't you try using a different mop!!!!!

if only democrats had a democrat president, a democrat house and a democrat senate....hhmm, well its still bush's fault

They've fucked this up BIG TIME. This is the best chance they've had (and will have for a long time) and they are seemingly going to punt.

As glad as I am that this bill of half measures is dying, it's depressing as hell that a major political party can't even coalesce around a cornerstone of their 2008 success.

No Health Care bill this year...

And no votes the next.

Chicken Shit Mother Fuckers. They know their balls on on the chopping block if they try to jam this lousy agenda down the throats of the people.

Now or never. Guess it will be never. Too many greedy bastards making money off the current systems. The republicans here will rejoice. Hopefully they end up without insurance and get sick. I hope they can't afford the care they need and die a slow painful death because they can't even afford the pain meds that would allow them to die with a modicum of dignity.


Chicken Shit Mother Fuckers. They know their balls on on the chopping block if they try to jam this lousy agenda down the throats of the people.

#15 | Posted by bph320 at 2009-11


so can we assume that you are not a fan? LOL

Trying to campaign in an election year with a 2000 page bill.
Will be very difficult.

unless I heard it wrong earlier, it has now swelled to over that with the addition of 900 pages of something or other.

It was a good idea but a bad time. They tried to hurry up and ram anything down our throats.
Something this large takes time to accomplish and Obama was in too big of a hurry to do it right.
#3 | Posted by mysterytoy

Perhaps he'd have better success if they concentrated on this first and worried about all the payoffs after, huh? :-D
Hopefully they end up without insurance and get sick. I hope they can't afford the care they need and die a slow painful death because they can't even afford the pain meds that would allow them to die with a modicum of dignity.
#16 | Posted by jackass

How ruthless. I would never wish sickness on anyone, but in retaliation to your comment
Hopefully you'll move to a country where the government runs their health care and you can have the opportunity to give it a shot.

#20 | Posted by R0B0T at 2009-11-04 12:48 PM

You didn't know he changed his handle to "jackass" for a reason? lol

As glad as I am that this bill of half measures is dying, it's depressing as hell that a major political party can't even coalesce around a cornerstone of their 2008 success.

#13 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2009-11-04 11:54 AM

They coalesced around the hate Bush Syndrome and people were foolish enough to equate that to having a coherent agenda. Problem now is the leadership of all three Houses have proven they are not up to the task of leading.


Now or never. Guess it will be never. Too many greedy bastards making money off the current systems. The republicans here will rejoice. Hopefully they end up without insurance and get sick. I hope they can't afford the care they need and die a slow painful death because they can't even afford the pain meds that would allow them to die with a modicum of dignity.

#16 | Posted by jackass


its called medicaid douchebag

oh and it would not began covering people until when? oh yeah 2013

The Constitution does not endow the Congress with authority to enact legislation which would steal money from one person to pay the personal expenses of another person. The cost of medical care is a personal expense just as much as buying a car is a personal expense.

#25 | Posted by gluon

The Constitution does not endow the Congress with authority to enact legislation which would steal money from one person to pay the personal expenses of another person. The cost of medical care is a personal expense just as much as buying a car is a personal expense.
-------------
I agree, but Medicare and Social Security are just income redistribution scams disguised as something else, and if not mistaken they passed the muster of the Supreme Court.

Assholes.

8 med industry lobbyists for every politician. Anyone surprised about the result? Money rules the world (aka America) and your health.

#26|Posted by 90C2CAB

The Supreme Court does not always make its decisions based on the Constitution but rather makes political decisions much to its disgrace.

PS I wished like hell RCADE would add a middle finger emoticon. Now THAT would rock.


#5 | Posted by LarryMohr
.I.. ..I. Doubled up on you larry...

#29 | Posted by gluon
The Supreme Court does not always make its decisions based on the Constitution but rather makes political decisions much to its disgrace.
---------------
Sad but true

Guess this is what they meant by a public option - publically disgracing themselves and proving Democrats are a do-nothing bunch of spineless zeros, and supported by unquestioning drooling locksteppers.

GOP: "We'll say NO! block and filibuster anything and everything, and then claim Dems do nothing".

Watched the GOP Rep from Dallas argue during debate on an amendment that would have stopped credit reporting agencies from lowering credit scores of people who cancel their paid off cards, that it was egregious to do so when "we're facing a 1 trillion dollar takeover of our health care system".

He also argued against another amendment, using the same following line, that would prevent credit card companies from continuing a new fee they have for paying off your balance in full.

What planet do they send these retarded GOP sycophants from?

#32 You changed sides?

LOL. At least wait till I throw down the breadcrumbs for ya, Sporky. Your healthcare reform just went to the same smelly place your 'robust public option' went. I was really hoping to see your pathetic spin on THIS new embarrassing setback, and how you could declare 'victory'. You've run out of room to move the goalposts anymore! LOL.

GNOP is the perfect acronym. Do nothing but say 'NO!'

What did they do when they were in power? Raise the budget permanently from Clinton's last at $1.8 to Bush's last @ $3.1 ($260 Billion went to interest on the national debt in FY 2009), leave perennial expenses for new laws like Medicare Part D, more than double the national debt, changed bankruptcy laws so people could never get out from under debt, for starters.

Did it help anyone? Sure. The ones who leave fat campaign contributions on their desks. Middle class Americans? Nope.


Minced Pieces would be happy if all the sick people would just go ahead and die..... hey! .... that's the Rethug Bill!



But seriously folks, pimping for the insurance industry is about as lucrative a gig as a Long John Silver's cook can hope for.

Poor Corky and his public option have crashed and burned in humiliating style, and all he can do is parrot whatever the Huffpost tells him. Tsk tsk...

Please join me in my annual 'Hanky for Corky' drive. No shill should have to blow his nose in his own hand.


What are you going to say when the Bill is signed, Aetna Boy?

The AARP will announce support for the House Bill tomorrow, btw....oh no! Will that cost you your pimp job?


Cookiee even has his own pimp logo....
laserjig.com


Ray will pay you handsomely for that tooth, Cookie.

How many more deflections can you come up with to cover up your humiliation, Corky? You're obviously shilled-out at this point, and need a vacation from these constant defeats and setbacks that Harry & Barry keep handing you. You still haven't even addressed the thread topic - you know, how Reid & company can't get the votes for this shitpile of a bill, and need to push it back into an election year. Keep on deflecting, though, as it's fun to watch you twist in the wind like a kite without a tail.

The Supreme Court does not always make its decisions based on the Constitution but rather makes political decisions much to its disgrace.

#29 | Posted by gluon


"The New Deal" being the first and most egregious example.

We will get a healthcare bill eventually and it'll be after the new year-- I wonder if Obama is even involved in the process-- I think not. You'll now see the dems include the repubs in the production of the bill and it will in all likelihood contain some of real healthcare reform that some posters have suggested and not the huge "public option" originally recommended. Obama will then have to decide which part of who he is takes over -- the ideologue or the narcissist. The narcissist will of course win out and he'll then throw the libs under the semi (in order for all to fit) and sign the bill, thus taking credit for it and telling everyone what a great bill it is-- like the stimulus he'll have had minimal involvement. Print this post out and place it on your walls, pegboard,etc. and after the new year you can tell me in your usual graphic verbiage whether I was that far off in assessment.

Once again, if my memory serves me correctly, this is usually right about where the Democrats break ranks and start throwing each other under the bus.

Sorry Harry, Nancy has bigger biceps. You're toast.


I wonder if Obama is even involved in the process-- I think not

Obama has been sitting on the sidelines as instructed, waiting for Pelosi and Reid to tell him when to pick up the pen. And now they have sucked the air out of his first year in office and left him with nothing to point to as an accomplishment but the passage of his bill on... on... on.... well maybe he'll sneak something in before Congress recesses in a few weeks. Couple the inability of the Dem-controlled Congress to deliver even one single successful initiative with the fact that the failure has occurred while ni possession of a Super Majority in the Congress, and it just makes it that much more unseemly. Obama has been snookered by two professional bait-and-switch artists and left hung out to dry.


The Constitution does not endow the Congress with authority to enact legislation which would steal money from one person to pay the personal expenses of another person. The cost of medical care is a personal expense just as much as buying a car is a personal expense.

#25 | Posted by gluon at 2009-11-04 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect TaxesDuties, 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;

en.wikipedia.org

Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[22] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.[15]




Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[22] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.[15]

A ruling that not only pissed on 150 years of Stare Decisis, but also has no firm grounding in the text of the constitution itself. It's a bunch of leftist, activist, self-flaggelation. The text of the constituion, in its entirety, so thoroughly contradicts this specious piece-of-shit of a judicial opinion, that it should be laughed out of elementary school.

As glad as I am that this bill of half measures is dying, it's depressing as hell that a major political party can't even coalesce around a cornerstone of their 2008 success.

#13 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2009-11-04 11:54 AM | Reply |

Yeah cuz that rubber stamp congress worked out great amirite?

Perhaps its just the fact we haven't seen serious debate in congress for almost a decade we are shocked when it occurs.

A ruling that not only pissed on 150 years of Stare Decisis, but also has no firm grounding in the text of the constitution itself. It's a bunch of leftist, activist, self-flaggelation. The text of the constituion, in its entirety, so thoroughly contradicts this specious piece-of-shit of a judicial opinion, that it should be laughed out of elementary school.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-04 06:57 PM | Reply

You are so full of shit. I wouldn't expect anything less or more from You JeffJ. Live it love it.

Larry

Larry,

I can quote the actual text of the Constitution and easily lambaste this opinion.

Easily.

Just little ole me and the words as they are written.

I know it pisses you off greatly, but your only argument to the contrary is that they were just joking when they went into all of their specificity regarding how treasury monies could be spent and that, going further, they didn't mean the 9th and 10th Ammendment which came about AFTER, that part of 1 sentence that they seemed to think could be easily misconstrued and thus warranted a couple of ammendments worth of further clarification - just maybe.

Pick up the fucking document and read it for yourself, Larry. Don't accept anybody else's interpretation and don't pick and choose what 'feels' good to you. Read it ALL.

Read it.

And then get back to me.

Pick up the fucking document and read it for yourself, Larry. Don't accept anybody else's interpretation and don't pick and choose what 'feels' good to you. Read it ALL.


Read it.


And then get back to me.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-04 07:07 PM | Reply

I did I have and the article 1 section 8 does not limit the General Welfare to just those listed. Show Me where if You think it does. You would be full of shit if You do however. But do carry on spewing Your balderdash rhetoric bnecause it's not based on facts. Just conservative spew. Prove Me wrong JeffJ.

Larry

I can quote the actual text of the Constitution and easily lambaste this opinion.


Easily.


Just little ole me and the words as they are written.



Read it.


And then get back to me.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-04 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


Oh and if You could have easily shredded this opinion to shreds You would have already done so by now JeffJ. Face it You have NOTHING.

Larry

Article I Section 8, Larry.

You seem to believe it constists ONLY of this:

, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States:


It's a HUGE section, Larry. It goes into all sorts of specificiy as to how federal funds can be spent. Furthermore, the 10th Ammendment specifies that anything NOT enumerated in Section 8 is deferred to the states.

You know what, here is the entire section:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

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.

"Section 8 Larry"

Yup, just remove a comma.

You know what, you're right, Larry.

They didn't mean any of that shit.

The words "general welfare" were clearly intended to nullify, in advance, anything that followed it.


You are so full of shit.

Quit swallowing what you are being fed and read this shit for yourself.

You are better than this.

Section 9 expands on it a bit as well as going off in a couple of different directions, but I don't want to tax your brain.

After you've digested this, we can discuss the role of the 9th and 10th, which you seem to believe don't even exist.

Hey JeffJ General Welfare isn't limited to just the listr and You know it JeffJ. I know it sucks to be a Conservative right abouty now but thats the truth. Show me where it only limits the list. You can not do so with any intellectual honesty. Even the Supreme COurt disagrees with You. Now THAT must suck balls.

Larry

That would be Klinger, Zat.

"That would be Klinger, Zat."

Not Corporal Klinger!

Larry,

Your entire 'general welfare' argument is completely predicated on ignoring, 100% everything that followed those coveted 5 words, of 1 sentence, in a long and specified section of the constitution.

I know it sucks to be a drone right about now, but that's the truth.

You are completely incapable of debating me on this based upon the text itself, in its entirety. You are relegated to regurgitating a bunch of bullshit promulgated from people whose opinions you tend to agree with, but with comptelte disregard for the Constitution itself.

It's not only bullshit, but it's laughable - and you know it. You are embarassing yourself.

Zat,

He was promoted to Sargent (sp?).

General Welfare isn't limited to just the listr

Then please tell me the purpose of the list.

If 'general welfare' completely nullifies it, why bother with it in the first place?

According to you, it's meaningless.


Section 9 expands on it a bit as well as going off in a couple of different directions, but I don't want to tax your brain.


After you've digested this, we can discuss the role of the 9th and 10th, which you seem to believe don't even exist.

#59 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-04 07:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Hunny I may be dumb but I have lots of common sense. Something aparently You lack JeffJ.


10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect TaxesDuties, 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;


9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


My Words follows.

NOWHERE and I mean NOWHERE does it forbid the US Congress to collect monies for health care insurance for the populace. Nowhere does it forbid the US Congress to collect taxes for things not on the list that You try and desperately claim that restrict congress from doing. NOTHING JeffJ sorry

Larry

The Constitution does not endow the Congress with authority to enact legislation which would steal money from one person to pay the personal expenses of another person

right... and so when you call the police or your house burns down and the fire department responds we will send you the bill.

NOWHERE and I mean NOWHERE does it forbid the US Congress to collect monies for health care insurance for the populace.

It limits that power to the states.

If Mass. wants a government-run health-care system, as a state, they are free to implement such a system.

However, on a federal level, such a system is prohibited by the constitution sans an ammendment.

Thank you for proving my point, Larry.

10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Pretty clear.

Thanks for playing, Larry.

It limits that power to the states.


If Mass. wants a government-run health-care system, as a state, they are free to implement such a system.


However, on a federal level, such a system is prohibited by the constitution sans an ammendment.


Thank you for proving my point, Larry.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-04 07:40 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Try again JeffJ for You know not what You speak about as usual. Why do You think the Federal government forces states into making the citizens in flood plains to have FEDERALLY BACKED Flood Insurance on their CITIZENS homes. The same can be done with Health Insurance. The same isn't prohibited by the US Constitution no matter how fucking de4speraqtye You get JeffJ. IT doesn't forbid it. But do carry on with Your delusions.

Larry

Larry,


Again, your entire argument is predicated upon ignoring almost all of Section 8.

Why did they write that shit, Larry?

For fun?

Continue with your delusions?


Also, the example you cited had NOTHING to do with HOW federal dollars are spent - which is what I am addressing.

Please do so try again.

NEXXXXXXXXT.

Federally ran health care systems are already here and already Constitutional.

Department of Health and Human Services.
Food and Drug Administration
United States Department of Agriculture.
Centers for Disease Control.
Medicare
Medicaid.

Shall I go on JeffJ??

Larry

Larry,

Admit it.

In order to make your arguments, you have to ignore all but a handful of words from an entire section of the constitution. No amount of spin can change that uncomfortable fact. Oh, you also have to ignore an entire ammendment as well.

But go ahead, continue forward with your emotionally-based argument and I'll continue to flout the actual text in your face. Over and over again.

Admit it.


In order to make your arguments, you have to ignore all but a handful of words from an entire section of the constitution. No amount of spin can change that uncomfortable fact. Oh, you also have to ignore an entire ammendment as well.


But go ahead, continue forward with your emotionally-based argument and I'll continue to flout the actual text in your face. Over and over again.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-04 07:54 PM | Reply


The list is only part of what taxes can be spent upon when the Founding Fathers made the US Constitution. Do You think they had every item that may need federal general welfare tax dollars in mind?? You are out of Your fucking mind if they had everything down that would apply.

Larry

Sorry Harry, Nancy has bigger biceps. You're toast.

#47 | Posted by PublicTrough


Harry 'the body' Reid??

You know he used to be a boxer..

lol

Shall I go on JeffJ??

Go ahead.


The New Deal and the Great Society were blatantly unconstitutional. As a society we are so heavily invested in both that a judicial overturn is unlikely as a result of Stare Decisis - at this stage, it would be irresponsible to do so. However, these programs' existence don't serve as a permanent green-light to rubber-stamp every other governmental infringement of our liberties - like a public option, which is merely a runway for a single-pay system. A single-pay system is not only unconstitutional, but it also violates the Shermann Anti Trust Act. The programs you cite are in existence only because the constitution was circumvented. What is sad is that these programs were feasible even if procedure was followed. Constitutional ammendments are difficult but not impossible.

But, what the hell. Fuck the constitution as long as the lefty agenda is advanced; right?

I mean seriously, you (yes you, Larry) don't give a rat's ass about the constitution when it is an inconveneint roadblock to your political ambitions. Right, Larry?

The list is only part of what taxes can be spent upon when the Founding Fathers made the US Constitution. Do You think they had every item that may need federal general welfare tax dollars in mind?? You are out of Your fucking mind if they had everything down that would apply.

Then why bother with a list at all?


Why bother with the 10th Ammendment?

bwhahahahaha He repeats Himself over and over again. G=d Your politics sucks big time JeffJ been proven over and over again. But at least You try and that NOBODY can take away from You. kudos JeffJ You are still good people.

Larry

Larry--

Jeff is right on the General Welfare and the list that follows.

If it's not on thelist--it is with the States.

That is why the states/cities run the police and fire departments.

And your list of other gov't departments are not supposed to be there either.

----------

So I have a suggestion Larry--

Read the Federalist Papers.

Start with Federalist 30 and 41.

thomas.loc.gov

Murphy both of You and JeffJ are full of shit. Even the supreme court agrees with Me. Now THAT must suck.

Larry

Don't waste your time, Murph.


Larry believes that any portion of the constitution that is remotely inconvenient to leftist dogma is to be ignored. It's a document that is to be cherry-picked. In order to advance his arguments he has to act as if HUGE portions of the text simply don't exist.

Federalist papers?

Puh!


What good are 'Federalist Papers' when General Welfare means whatever a leftist wants it to mean AND it nullifies EVERYTHING else contained within the same document.

They are so funny --those Dems...


First they concoct this monster of a HC bill 3200--1000 pages of crapola.

They shove off the repubs--denounce their ideas to fix HC insurance--call them names--say the repubs want you to die quickly..blah blah blah...

They they go into a closed room to make the bill worse and combine it with the senate bill and make the worse bill ever of 2000 pages.

Shove away the repubs who have plenty of ideas that won't cost too much, use the market and the dems again say phuck off.


And the audacity of the dems now is that they don't have enough DEM numbers to pass anything AND they blame it on the repubs!!


LOL--

Because of the dems there won't be any bill next year either.

You all can Thank Pelosi and Reid...and Obama of course.

Even the supreme court agrees with Me.


Let go of your ignorance, Larry.

For the first 150 years of this country's existence, the Supreme Court disagreed with you.

You are simply unable to state your case based upon the text in its entirety. You can't do it.

You can't.


Sucks to be you.

#82 | Posted by MURPHY


Hilarious.


The Dems have huge majorities in both houses.

For them to blame ANYTHING on the Repubs, especially when the Dems dominate the bully-pulpit is beyond whining. It's pathetic!

Larry--

I am serious in suggesting reading the Federalist papers--just a little.

It was all outlined as to the founding fathers on the Constitution.

The gov't over the years has abused our constitution and ignoring it and the principles.

The gov't is shafting the American people is taking away our freedoms and liberties--economically especially.

I think you would agree that under Bush he was taking away our freedoms and liberties under the guise of national security. Fair enough.

But the gov't is violating our rights under the constitution everyday.

Obama is doing this in record speed--trying to anyway.

JeffJ show Me where in article section 8 of the US Constitution does it limit the General welfare to just the things listed. Show Me the language and You win. if You can not then You are full of shit.

Larry

Why is that language there, Larry?

In order to advance your 'general welfare' point you have to be able to argue that:

A. They didn't mean any of that shit

and

B. The 10th was just a joke


As it stands, I've already addressed your question and have done so using the text itself.

But the gov't is violating our rights under the constitution everyday.


Larry doesn't appear to give a shit because he seems to believe that only a handful of phrases of the constitution were intended and the rest of it was meant to be disregarded.

show Me where in article section 8 of the US Constitution does it limit the General welfare to just the things listed. Show Me the language and You win.

I reproduced the text.

Therefore I win.


Thank you!

For them to blame ANYTHING on the Repubs, especially when the Dems dominate the bully-pulpit is beyond whining. It's pathetic!

#84 | Posted by JeffJ


And all of this could be solved in 100 pages max.


Allow insurance to be sold across state lines (deregulate is a bad word--but in this case it should be allowed).

Rule that insurance companies can't exclude or deny coverage to someone with pre-existing conditions.

If someone has a codified condition that defines that person as an Assigned Risk--they are wheeled into the insurance system--all carriers must take turns accepting any person defined as an Assigned Risk. And there will be a cap on how much the carrier can charge that person. (Think of car insurance--assigned risks are wheeled into car insurance and there is a cap on the premium)

Allow HSA for everyone--that can also be rolled over year after year--but still can only be used for premiums and deductibles and co-pays.

Allow the HSA to be tax deductible for every person--just like employers.


There are some other ideas that would work and not cost 1 trillion dollars placing our grandkids into debt for generations.

Therefore I win.


Thank you!

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-04 08:24 PM | Reply

You have yet to produce a text of the US Constitution that limits the general welfare portion just to the list. You are full of shit if You think You did.

Larry

Larry--

Here is the test--

You know what, here is the entire section:


Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;


To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;


To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;


To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;


To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;


To establish post offices and post roads;


To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;


To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;


To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;


To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;


To provide and maintain a navy;


To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;


To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And


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.


#56 | Posted by JeffJ

Show Me Murphy where it limits it to only these?? You are full of shit if You think the General Welfare portion of the taxing and spending clause only is limited to the list. But do carry on with Yours and JeffJ's delusions.

Larry

Text--sorry typing too fast..


Larry--

That is the text of Section 8--those are the enumerated items that the congress is allowed by the constitution to be able to do.

You have yet to produce a text of the US Constitution that limits the general welfare portion just to the list.


Section 8, in its entirety coupled with the 10th does exactly that. I reproduced all of it for you on this thread, and now, so has Murphy. So, you have it twice.

You are full of shit if you fail to read it and acknowledge that those words actually had intended meaning.

Larry--when you read a contract or policy--the section is read as a whole.

The congress powers are limited by the Constitution.

Just as the POTUS powers are limited.

And the Judiciary is limited.


Again try reading the Federalist 30 and 41--they have to do with the constitution and the meaning of the same.

They explain the meaning of the contract written by the founding fathers for the country.

#93 | Posted by LarryMohr


It's been reproduced for you twice now, Larry.

Please point out which provision they weren't serious about and provide supporting documentation as to why they were just making shit up.

www.encyclopedia.com

In his famous Report on Manufactures (1791), Alexander Hamilton argued that the clause enlarged Congress's power to tax and spend by allowing it to tax and spend for the general welfare as well as for purposes falling within its enumerated powers. Thus, he argued, the General Welfare clause granted a distinct power to Congress to use its taxing and spending powers in ways not falling within its other enumerated powers.

The Court soon modified its holding in the Butler decision in Helvering v. Davis (1937). There, the Court sustained the old-age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935 and adopted an expansive view of the power of the federal government to tax and spend for the general welfare. In Helvering, the Court maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare. To date, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare. Moreover, since congressional power to legislate under the Commerce clause has expanded the areas falling within Congress's enumerated powers, the General Welfare clause has decreased in importance.


Larry--
Here is a link on the consitution

www.usconstitution.net


Go to Powers of the Congress and see what they are allowed to do under the constitution.

Section 8, in its entirety coupled with the 10th does exactly that. I reproduced all of it for you on this thread, and now, so has Murphy. So, you have it twice.


You are full of shit if you fail to read it and acknowledge that those words actually had intended meaning.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-04 08:32 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

No it doesn't but please do try again. For You know not what You speqak about. It's common sense. after all.

Larry

when you read a contract or policy--the section is read as a whole.


Nope.


The words "general welfare" mean whatever lefties want them to mean and everything else contained within said contract or policy is irrelevant once the lefty ideal is attained via the torture of the english language.

Laterz

No it doesn't but please do try again. For You know not what You speqak about. It's common sense. after all.

The text blatantly proves you wrong, Larry.


I cite the text in its entirety - you hang on a portion of 1 sentence as if it's a floodgate to mean anything.

Pretty pathetic.

Moreover, since congressional power to legislate under the Commerce clause has expanded the areas falling within Congress's enumerated powers, the General Welfare clause has decreased in importance.


Exactly right--the congress/POTUS because of increasing grabbing of power by FDR first and then the congress year after year--are and have made the constitution irrelevant.

"Allow insurance to be sold across state lines"

The Republican bill does just that. And allows the insurance companies to only have to adhere to the laws of their home state. What would happen? A very fast race to the bottom: in exchange for jobs, one of the fifty states will allow companies to locate there and write the most favorable laws allowable. What a nightmare scenario.

"Rule that insurance companies can't exclude or deny coverage to someone with pre-existing conditions."

That does NOTHING to stem medical inflation. Instead, it fuels it.

"Allow HSA for everyone"

They're already allowed for over 95% of the populace not already covered.

"Allow the HSA to be tax deductible for every person"

That would only benefit rich people, as there are already very high income limits before HSAs become non-deductible.

"There are some other ideas that would work and not cost 1 trillion dollars placing our grandkids into debt for generations."

Worthless argument from someone silent as Bush placed our grandkids into debt for generations. And our kids. And us.

"The words "general welfare" mean..."

...something specific, instead of something general.

Is that your argument? That when they wrote "general", they didn't really mean "general"?

Dan--why would any company need to relocate when they can sell insurance off the internet, mail or phone?

I guess you haven't heard that everyone is really pissed off that people get excluded or denied coverage for pre existing conditions.

I guess you like the assigned risk pool?

Allow medical facilities to advertise their services so people can get the price ahead of time.

Why not try these type of programs first--market scenarios--since they are not going to get the monstracity there now or ever--come up with the points that both parties can get behind.

Taxing and mandating will not be passed.

There is a GOD! We need just a little more time, like a year and we can stop this bomb from reaching it's desination.

...something specific, instead of something general.


Is that your argument? That when they wrote "general", they didn't really mean "general"?

When they followed it with a shitload of specificity then, yes, they didn't mean it as 'general' in the sense that all of that other shit is meaningless - unless you want to try and argue otherwise.

"why would any company need to relocate when they can sell insurance off the internet, mail or phone?"

Because currently, they have to adhere to the laws of the state the policy is sold in. The Republican plan only forces the insurance company to adhere to the laws of the state in which the company resides. Insurance companies would offer tens of thousands of jobs to whatever state allowed them to write the most favorable laws.

#16 | Posted by jackass

Now that's tolerance that the left is so famous for.

And again, even though the libs have the pres., the house and senate and can't pass this turd, they all blame the repubs.

You don't need any repubs to get this done. Maybe some in your own party have found some common sence (or fear after yesterday).

Put the blame where it is, with the dem. party. Not one repub. vote is needed!!!

#110 | Posted by Danforth

Correct. Half of the problem with health care is the STATE MANDATES.

"I guess you haven't heard that everyone is really pissed off that people get excluded or denied coverage for pre existing conditions."

No, I'm very aware of that. But that alone does nothing to address our biggest problem: medical inflation.

"Why not try these type of programs first--market scenarios--"

Because we've tried market scenarios for decades, and they don't work. Medical inflation has far outpaced general inflation for years and years and years.

True reform is eliminating state mandates, tort reform, opening state borders and ala carte plans.
The private sector will work if the gov't gets out of the way.
Health care is no different than buying technology, after the product comes out and 2 or 3 different companies start marketing simillair productts, consumers get to shop around and find their best deal, the prices will drop.

In NY, there is a dr's. office that will give you unlimited office visits, consults and some outpatient proceures for a contract of $89.00 per month. In FL, Winn Dixie, a grocery chain w/clinic kiosks has a simillaiir program for $59.00 a month.

Pretty good deal and guess what, NO GOV'T INTERVENTION!!

Well Dan--

If you have an idea(s) that uses market forces to bring down costs without a public option--which would not work either--everyone would like to hear it.


Cutting medicare 500 billion or spending one trillion will not fly.

The Dems don't have the votes--never did.

Tort reform would help bring down costs.

"When they followed it with a shitload of specificity then, yes, they didn't mean it as 'general'"

If they followed it with a shitload of specificity, they certainly knew the difference.

"'general' in the sense that all of that other shit is meaningless"

Or "general" in the sense that the Founding Fathers realized they couldn't foresee everything that would be considered good for the country, and they were crafting a spending bill.

#114 | Posted by seedeez2

Good prices there.

Our dentist offers a family of four dental coverage for the year at $144.00

Free exams and discounts on xrays and cleanings and on fillings and the rest..

OK - Please cite for me which part of the 8th they weren't serious about.

Please cite for me where they argued that the 10th was meaningless.


When we look at the text as a whole the limitations are pretty clear.


Again, for the nth time, your entire legal argument is predicated upon the notion that, "they didn't mean any of that other shit. "General welfare" was CLEARLY intended to supercede all of that other nonsense to a point where it was just inserted in there for fun.

Serioulsy.

That is your legal argument.

It's funny to watch you advance this banality.

You know better.

Or "general" in the sense that the Founding Fathers realized they couldn't foresee everything that would be considered good for the country, and they were crafting a spending bill.

#116 | Posted by Danforth


Which is why they crafted the 10th AND allowed for constitutional ammendments - but that isn't the point you are arguing.

You are full of shit, and even you know it.

"If you have an idea(s) that uses market forces to bring down costs without a public option"

WITHOUT a public option? That's like running without legs. Without a counterpoint, what will stop the insurance companies from charging double-digit increases? After 9/11, insurance rates spiked, not for any market reason, but rather due to low guaranteed returns from banks or the stock market, and annuity contracts to pay out. Without a public option, we'll see 13% jumps instead of 3%.

"Cutting medicare 500 billion or spending one trillion will not fly"

That's mostly from reduced increases, especially Medicare Advantage. And no one on Medicare today can argue they've paid in as much as they're going to be taking out. Costs have risen too far, too fast. And what's the Medicare premium these days...$94 a month?!?

"Tort reform would help bring down costs."

Yeah...by about one-half of 1%.

Which is why they crafted the 10th AND allowed for constitutional ammendments - but that isn't the point you are arguing.


You are full of shit, and even you know it.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-04 09:22 PM | Reply

The 1q0 amendment only deals with things not delegated to the US Congress by the US Constitution. Since the General Welfare of ALL of it's people is delegated to the US Congress then the 10th amendment doesn't apply to Your argument. Sorry about that.

Larry

Federalist Paper 41

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare. "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. " The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.

thomas.loc.gov

Nope.


The 10th ammendment defers all tax-payer funded spending to the states that isn't already spelled out in section 8.

Sorry.

You can not possibly use the text itself to advance your argument. You can't. Sorry.

"The 10th ammendment defers all tax-payer funded spending to the states that isn't already spelled out in section 8."

You can't possibly contend all federal spending is spelled out in the Constitution. You can't. Sorry.

The 10th ammendment defers all tax-payer funded spending to the states that isn't already spelled out in section 8.


Sorry.


You can not possibly use the text itself to advance your argument. You can't. Sorry.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-04 09:29 PM | Reply
Now You are not just being stupid You are being intellectually dishonest JeffJ. How much more fucked up can You get. You are injecting words into the 10th AMendment that aren't even there.

10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's already been delegated to the United States Article 1 section 8 but please do carry on JeffJ cause You're full of shit. TTFN Hope You get better btw.

Larry

Without a counterpoint, what will stop the insurance companies from charging double-digit increases?

How about a law barring double digit increases?

How about a law barring double digit increases?

#126 | Posted by JOE


Sound good to me--

They do it for car insurance--capped all over the placed.

Larry--did you read #122 ????

"How about a law barring double digit increases?"

Gee...so we'll get 9.9%, while inflation runs at 3%.

That'll fix...nothing.

It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

#129 | Posted by Danforth

And neither does a public option fix anything.

Certainly not inflation--damn--how does that get fixed??

How dense can you get:


10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Section 8 pretty-clearly spells out how the treasury can be spent. ALL other government expenditures are relegated to the states via the 10th Ammendment.

Jesus.

With every post you believe you've proved me wrong, but, in reality, you've only solidified my point.

Care to address section 8, Lary?

Or are you going to continue to pretend it doesn't exist?

How about the 10th - a bunch of fabricated bullshit too?

"And neither does a public option fix anything."

Bullshit. It offers a counterpoint to monopolistic insurance hikes. After 9/11, a public option would've forced providers to take it on the chin, along with the rest of America. Instead, they stuck it to the citizenry...because they could.

10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Larry--if something is not on the enumerated list in section 8 ---to the congress--then it goes to the states.

"How about the 10th - a bunch of fabricated bullshit too?"

No, but if they've already delegated power to spend for the "general welfare" then that's not a non-delegated power, is it?

And neither does a public option fix anything.

Certainly not inflation--damn--how does that get fixed??

#131 | Posted by MURPHY

Premiums have risen 130% in 10 years. Actual inflation from 1999-2009? 26.9%

No, but if they've already delegated power to spend for the "general welfare" then that's not a non-delegated power, is it?

So, they weren't serious about ANY of the limitations they spelled out after that portion of a sentence?

Gov't has no business in our health care and ruling over 1/6th of our economy.

Won't happen now--"until next year".

After the elections in NJ and VA yesterday and Obama couldn't help Corzine --who spent 24 million to get re elected--the dens in red states won't vote for this pos of a bill.

When the independents in VA swing 25 points from Obama +7 to McDonnell +18--something is going on.

And it all has to do with Obama policies.

HC is one --and it is DOA.

Now unless they want to rework the bill to address bi partisan issues that can pass--there won't be any bill at all.

#135 | Posted by Danforth


You're a smart guy, but you are going to get your ass handed to you on this if you pursue it.

Just so you know.

"Gov't has no business in our health care and ruling over 1/6th of our economy."

What a bunch of pap. Government currently insures 40% of the covered, between Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Government Employees. And that number is slated to spike as the baby boomers move into Medicare...beginning in a matter of months, not years.

"You're a smart guy, but you are going to get your ass handed to you on this if you pursue it.

Just so you know."

But not before Jeff admires it and wants to put his hands all over it Dan.

RUN!!!

LOL

"You're a smart guy, but you are going to get your ass handed to you on this if you pursue it. "

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Because "general" means "specific", and powers "delegated" are non-delegated powers.

"But not before Jeff admires it and wants to put his hands all over it Dan."

Arrrrrrrgh!!!

The ghost of Fabio!!!!!

And I'm wearing jeans!!!!!!!!!

Please Jeff, don't ever mention ass again, ok??

LOL

Causes me fits of laughter and I wake everyone up!!

#140 | Posted by Danforth


And not only is that shit flagarantly unconstitutional, but it's also pathetically over-budget - 9 -times so. But that doesn't matter. You don't appear to give a shit. As long as its government that's fleecing the taxpayer, Danforth cheers them on and demands more.

You are clamoring for more. You are almost begging for it.

You are the problem.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Because "general" means "specific", and powers "delegated" are non-delegated powers.


The text of the document itself contradicts you, asshole.

Sorry.


You have yet to articualte otherwise.

"You're a smart guy, but you are going to get your ass handed to you on this if you pursue it.

lol. Jeff's become a real debate stud, in fact, a legend in him own mind. Either he's just handled some body's ass, or is threatening to handle some ass.

#140 | Posted by Danforth

And look how well gov't is handling those programs!

And you want to give the gov't more power over our lives--phuck that!

"And look how well gov't is handling those programs!"

Pretty well; how many people are clamoring to get off them?

What a bunch of pap. Government currently insures 40% of the covered, between Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Government Employees. And that number is slated to spike as the baby boomers move into Medicare...beginning in a matter of months, not years.

#140 | Posted by Danforth


The fact that the constitution was circumvented then doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to use the same specious reasononing to circumvent the Constitution today.

They are broke Dan!!!!!

And they deny claims, make people wait for treatment and it's a mess!!!

"The text of the document itself contradicts you"

I am in on meetings where we craft rules a lot. Non-specific terms are included all the time so as not to shackle the future administrators. The word they used is "general".

Pretty general, I'd say.

lol. Jeff's become a real debate stud, in fact, a legend in him own mind. Either he's just handled some body's ass, or is threatening to handle some ass.


Horace-essque critique notwithstanding, please argue against my point using the text of the constitution itself.

You can't.

"They are broke Dan!"

Mainly because they've been underfunded.

For example, in the last decade, while workers' health costs rose 131%, Medicare taxes rose...ZERO.

"please argue against my point using the text of the constitution itself."

"General" welfare.

Not general enough for you?

I am in on meetings where we craft rules a lot. Non-specific terms are included all the time so as not to shackle the future administrators. The word they used is "general".


Pretty general, I'd say.

#152 | Posted by Danforth

Read the text.

Section 8 was reproduced twice above.

Pretty specific, I'd say - unless you want to argue that they didn't mean any of that pesky shit.

It say general and then lists the things they are allowed to deal with!!!

There is a semi-colon to start the list!!

Then you have more stated in the 10th--the states get everything else!

That is why the

Dept of Labor
Dept of Education
HUD
Dept of Interior

Name any department in the gov't--they are outside the constitution of what the gov't is allowed to be in charge of--

"Pretty specific, I'd say"

Yeah...especially that "general welfare" shit.

Go read #122 Dan

Not general enough for you?

#155 | Posted by Danforth

In context, not general at all.


Or were they just joshing us with all of that other shit.

Seriously, In Danny's world, why did they bother with that pesky shit when "General Welfare" was intended to mean whatever leftist elitists' deemed relevant in terms of monies spent???


Jesus, my 8-year old boy could kick the shit out of you on this based upon the strenght of your premise.

What's sad is that I've repeatedly questioned you on this and you've ALWAYS run away. Always. When taking the text as a whole, your argument is absurd and quite honestly an embarasssing thrust for someone of your intelligence and education.

Yeah...especially that "general welfare" shit.

#158 | Posted by Danforth


Uh huh.

They meant that shit, a part of 1 sentence, to be all encompassing and ALL of the rest that followed, parapraph upon paragraph, was intended to be meaningless.

What a fucking tool you are!

For Halloween did you dress up as a screwdriver or a wrench?

This is pathetic, even for you.

You can't cite ANY text other than 5 torrtured words to support you point - yet I have the entirety of an entire section behind me.

How much do you want to embarass yourself?

"Jesus, my 8-year old boy could kick the shit out of you"

"I'm right and you know it"

"I'll handle your ass"

--JeffJ


Go read #122 Dan


#159 | Posted by MURPHY


You're wasting your time, Murph.

Danny is a hard-core lefty. History, words, text, definition - NONE of that shit has meaning to a tool like him.

#163 | Posted by nullifidian


I used to call you a poor man's Rob.


Nowadays, you'd make Rob blush.


Seriously, how did you do it?

How did you become one of this site's best trolls?


I laugh constantly at your shit even when I don't want to.

"When taking the text as a whole, your argument is absurd"

Posts the guy who claims the word "general" is "not general at all". These guys were wordsmiths; why didn't they say "specific welfare, limited to the following:"

"you've ALWAYS run away."

GBIOYA; I've never run away once. Your position always boils down to the stupid March Hare argument: the words mean what YOU WANT them to mean, not what the actual words say. I get tired of your repetitious bullshit. Watch...you're going to repeat -- again -- that "general" doesn't mean general.

#166 | Posted by Danforth


Your interpretation of "general welfare" requires you to COMPLETELY ignore EVERYTHING that follows it in the same section.

That is reality, and you know it.

law.onecle.com

We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."594

By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the "general welfare." The Court accords great deference to Congress's decision that a spending program advances the general welfare,595 and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable.596 Dispute, such as it is, turns on the conditioning of funds.



Gee...so we'll get 9.9%, while inflation runs at 3%.

My one-sentence post wasn't the final draft of the legislation. You could cap healthcare cost increases at inflation if you wanted to address the issue of healthcare cost increases. Pretending that the primary intention of the public option is to create some sort of "competition" in the industry is a roundabout way of addressing what you claim to be the problem.

Danforth rules of logic:

If I use the word "General" I am completely facetious when it comes to anything prior to the use of that word AND anything AFTER the use of that word. In short, by utilizing that word, all of my other text is meaningnless - well, not meaningless - but meaningful in whatever sense it can be twisted to advance the 'progressive' agenda.

"Pretending that the primary intention of the public option is to create some sort of "competition" in the industry is a roundabout way of addressing what you claim to be the problem."

What would the primary intention be, if not to ultimately curb bottom line costs the government will be paying?

GBIOYA; I've never run away once. Your position always boils down to the stupid March Hare argument: the words mean what YOU WANT them to mean, not what the actual words say. I get tired of your repetitious bullshit. Watch...you're going to repeat -- again -- that "general" doesn't mean general.

#166 | Posted by Danforth

And your argument is that all of that other shit meant nothing whatsoevever - they were just joshing us.

You are a fucking asshole!

JeffJ rules of logic:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

Great Larry - you found a jurist who supports your specious anlyzation of the text itself.

You are still 2 steps ahead of Danforth though.

"And your argument is that all of that other shit meant nothing whatsoevever "

Not at all...it's that they knew they weren't omniscient, and didn't want to completely shackle posterity.

"You are a fucking asshole!"

Awwwww.....poor widdle Jeffie.

#173 | Posted by Danforth


Your legal construct has to almost exclusively ignore Section 8 AND the 10th Ammendment.

You can't defend that bullshit no matter how much you try and defend to the contrary.

Not at all...it's that they knew they weren't omniscient, and didn't want to completely shackle posterity.

Then craft a fucking ammendment, asshole and then pick up a civics101 book and bone-up on the basics.

You are embarassing yourself.

"Your legal construct has to almost exclusively ignore Section 8 AND the 10th Ammendment (sic)."

WTF are you talking about? Section 8 delegates spending powers, and the 10th amendment talks about powers NOT delegated.

C'mon, Humpty Dumpty, you're going to have to better than that.

"Then craft a fucking ammendment, asshole and then pick up a civics101 book and bone-up on the basics."

Are you drunk, dude? You're making no sense.


Great Larry - you found a jurist who supports your specious anlyzation of the text itself.


You are still 2 steps ahead of Danforth though.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-04 10:30 PM | Reply


Better than what hath spewth out ofeth Thouist Body JeffJ.


JeffJ rules of logic:


"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

#173 | Posted by Danforth


Nope


JejjJ rules of logic:

read the document, in its entirety, and interpret it from there.

Danforth logic?

Ignore 97% of the document. Read a vague 5-word phrase, declare those 5 words to mean whatever the fuck a lefty shit wants them to mean, and act as if the rest of the text doesn't exist and THEN proclaim to be 'enlightened' when challenged on such obviously specious reasoning.

Wow

Things are getting pretty nasty on this thread.

You are embarassing yourself.

#177 | Posted by JeffJ

Just when did you become a constitutional scholar, Professor? During your doctoral work in political science, or was it in law school? Or is your background basically just having read a few rtard articles in the National Review? Just curious.

WTF are you talking about? Section 8 delegates spending powers, and the 10th amendment talks about powers NOT delegated.


Exactly - when taken together clear limitations are placed upon federal speding sans an ammendment and any additional spending powers are deferred to the states - we actually seem to be in agreement on this.


Wow


Things are getting pretty nasty on this thread.

#182 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-11-04 10:38 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Sorry Lisa I am just as much at fault as anyone on this thread. I do apologize.

Larry

Null,


The honest-to-God-truth - it came when I decided to reread the Constituion for myself. No filters. No profs. No pundits. Nothing. Just re-read it again and again.


Right or wrong, this is why I am arguing from such a strong point of conviction - it's my own interpretation of the text in its entirety.

"Things are getting pretty nasty on this thread."

Seems like JeffJ is drunk. That's the problem with alcohol. It fuels aggression. I would recommend that Jeff work for medical marijuana in his state. He could use some.

LIsa,

actually, I think things are going just fine.

Pretty good discussion IMO.

Exactly - when taken together clear limitations are placed upon federal speding sans an ammendment and any additional spending powers are deferred to the states - we actually seem to be in agreement on this.

#184 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-04 10:39 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with spending and everything about what the United States doesn't have the power to do. Article 1 section 8 clearly spells out the power of the United States to provide for the general welfare of this great nation through taxation. Negating Your 10th AMendment claim to the contrary.

Larry

Article 1 section 8 goes into considerable detail as to what treasury monies can be spent on - what ISN'T covered is deferred to the states via the 10th.

"when taken together clear limitations are placed upon federal speding sans an ammendment "

And Section 8 allows spending for the "general welfare".

The tenth amendment only covers things NOT covered prior, and federal spending has already been covered.

Are you actually trying to claim ALL FEDERAL SPENDING is listed in the Constitution? Or that if it's not what you consider "general welfare" (but not really general), it's unconstitutional?!?


Article 1 section 8 goes into considerable detail as to what treasury monies can be spent on - what ISN'T covered is deferred to the states via the 10th.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-04 10:46 PM | Reply


No it aqctualy doesn't JeffJ but do carry on. General welfare of the Union is uptop CONGRESS to decide at that particular moment in time. How hard is that to understand JeffJ.

Larry

Seems like JeffJ is drunk. That's the problem with alcohol. It fuels aggression. I would recommend that Jeff work for medical marijuana in his state. He could use some.

#187 | Posted by nullifidian


That was funny is a 'Jackass' sort of way. Now, don't take that as an insult, I personally find Jackass to be pretty funny.

That was funny is a 'Jackass' sort of way. Now, don't take that as an insult, I personally find Jackass to be pretty funny.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-04 10:47 PM | Reply

Now that is a disheartening statement coming from You and Your knowledge of how Jackass has behaved. I am very disapointed in You JeffJ. I think I shall make My leave of this thread for now. That seriously hurt Jeff. TTFN Seriously.

Larry

Look at the last phrase of Section 8:

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.

There's the caveat. Spending to provide for the "general welfare" was one of the foregoing powers. That's how and where the authors left the powers up to posterity.

Danforth and Larry,


Again I must remind you both that your arguments collectively rest on the premise that the 'general welfare' portion of one sentence was intended to pre-emptively nullify everyting that followed within the same section. Furthermore, the 10th was just a joke too - inserted for fun but was never intended to mean anything because even though federalists like Adams favored a far more limited central government than what we have now - they were ALL just joking around - "general welfare" was intended to mean whatever the times dicated, for you see, they weren't serious with any of that ammendment bullshit either. The entire document means whatever lefties want it to believe because with the words "general welfare" the founders, desptie the federalist papers, 150+ years of legal precedence, et al. really structured a central government that is granted unlimited powers.

I've gotta run - I have to be at work in less than 2 hours.


Later all.

There's the caveat. Spending to provide for the "general welfare" was one of the foregoing powers. That's how and where the authors left the powers up to posterity.


Your argument STILL hinges upon the notion that they weren't serious when comprising almost all of Section 8 AND the 10th. But go ahead and ignore all of that pesky shit in order to make a "point".

"your arguments collectively rest on the premise that the 'general welfare' portion of one sentence was intended to pre-emptively nullify everyting"

If viewed in the absolute, yes.

States have no ability to spend for the "general" welfare; only the Federal Government can do that.

Someone has to have that power. Certainly the authors didn't intend for NO ONE to have that power.

Where, for example, is the authority in Section 8 to spend money on the swine flu vaccine?

""Your argument STILL hinges upon the notion that they weren't serious""

And yours hinges on the ludicrous concept that if it isn't listed in that narrow litany, it's unconstitutional, even if it promotes the general welfare, because "general" didn't really mean general.

Also, if the litany were meant to be a complete list, they would have used a word like "herewith" at the end of the first paragraph. Instead, they're ADDING ON to the concept of the general welfare; the punctuation at the end of the first paragraph says as much: it's a semi-colon, not a colon. The litany is by no means a complete list of what comprises the general welfare.

#113--- "because we have tried market forces for decades"-- I would beg to differ; there are few if any market forces in healthcare today and I would proffer that it is indeed another socialistic system among many in this country-- the big lie is that this is a capitalistic, free enterprise system when about the only area that truely operates under market forces is probably small business.Danforth please list how our healthcare system operates under market forces.

Dan--check out Federalist Paper 41

linked on post #122

It goes into detail on the meaning of 8 and general welfare.

"check out Federalist Paper 41"

That has all the power of a dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court.

Madison was one writer. Without knowing how all the others felt, or why a semi-colon was inserted instead of a colon, we're just guessing what was in the minds of all the contributors. Other writers included John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe.

wiki.answers.com

"there are few if any market forces in healthcare today "

What there are, are out of whack. Insurance companies have seen their profits skyrocket, while -- as you've mentioned -- the ones actually delivering the health care have seen their pay stagnate. How do you explain that? And why wouldn't that cry for...something?

"Danforth please list how our healthcare system operates under market forces."

Monopolies charge monopolistic prices, and pocket the ever-increasing profits.

I would say that most big business (and insurance companies) have sucked on the teat of big government (and vice versa) for years-- this is corporate welfare and I would say that is an example of a socialistic state not of a free market where a true capitalist would say "let it be " and would want to separate from government by not influencing it (lobbying etc.) or having it regulate it. This socialism has been increasing over the years and one of the reasons we're in the trouble we are---- e.q. investment banking and it's relationship to past administrations and the current one. The most competitive thing you could do to insurance companies in health care reform would be to not mandate their coverage and allow them to compete across state lines-- you would see premiums drop like a stone. Other non-market forces in healthcare are the number of physicians coming out of med schools. the numbers are controlled by the AMA. In a true free enterprise system there is a free movement of competitors into and out of a market-- in medicine there are a limited number of physicians graduated each year and VOILA a lack of competition. Another area of this socialistic system is the pricing of services and I won't get into that since I'm getting cts. My point is that the system has never had market forces applied to it and it's time to bring competition into it instead of adding more socialistic practices that will cost us more.

"a socialistic state not of a free market"

Socialistic?!? How does government own the means of production?

"The most competitive thing you could do to insurance companies in health care reform would be to not mandate their coverage and allow them to compete across state lines-- you would see premiums drop like a stone."

Why? They either get to flock to a friendly state and pay them in jobs to write the most favorable policies imaginable, or cherry-pick across state lines.

Look at banks: they get to compete across state lines, and their fees have been going nowhere but up.

#205--- "why----"-- Within the legislation it would be legislated in a way where you would put up firewalls between the insurers and states to ensure true competition. We need to as a nation do the same thing nationally between the feds and big business or nothing will change in the future. The same thing has to be done with the military/industrial complex which Dwight Eisenhouwer so poignantly warned us about in his farewell speech.

What would the primary intention [of the public option] be, if not to ultimately curb bottom line costs the government will be paying?

A number of things. To create another entitlement program? To provide health insurance? Ask a democrat politician - they probably won't say "to lower the amount the government spends on healthcare."

"A number of things. To create another entitlement program?"

Oh...ebil gub'mint.

BTW, it's already an 'entitlement' program: Gov't is currently on the hook for 40% of the insured nationally, and that number is just headed higher. It's in everyone's best interest some counterpoint to unbridled insurance rate-jacking. Even a few percentage points saved will translate into billions.

"Within the legislation it would be legislated in a way where you would put up firewalls between the insurers and states to ensure true competition."

That's certainly not what the Republican plan proposes. The companies would only be subject to the laws of their home state.

Guess what that will lead to?

It's in everyone's best interest some counterpoint to unbridled insurance rate-jacking. Even a few percentage points saved will translate into billions.

Again - if that is the main concern, then why not pass a law forbidding rate hikes past a certain percent?

You honestly think the government wants to form a Trillion-dollar bureaucracy, all to create competition against insurance companies and drive costs down?

Passing a law forbidding increases in insurance rates and healthcare costs would literally cost the government nothing, would require zero speculation regarding the effects of government-forced "competition," all without the trillion dollar pricetag.

Not sure why I would even discuss this with you. If this bill passes and ten years later, costs have still gone up at the same rate, you'll be on a futuristic computer blogging about how it's the fault of conservatives. Later buddy.

And all of this could be solved in 100 pages max.


#90 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-11-04 08:26 PM | Reply |

LOL By all means shorten it up for them and give them a better bill.

How about just point out the pages that are just filler that could be done away with?

I read a bit of it, first thought that occured to me is they could use a smaller font. That would cut down a few hundred pages at least.

And we could also just go ahead and not write out text that changes what would otherwise be conflicting laws with this new legislation. I mean what the fuck congress has better things to do right? Let the courts sort out the mess, and just tell them we doin things the new way, and just forget about that old stuff and move on with life...

Could also toss all the document formatting that makes it at least somewhat easy to read and instead justwwriteitlikethis.

Do those things I'm pretty sure we could cut it down to a few hundred pages at least.

"Again - if that is the main concern, then why not pass a law forbidding rate hikes past a certain percent?"

It smacks of economic ignorance. For one, medical inflation is coming with the increase of users vs the drop of payers. For another, not all sectors are going to hike at the same rates. And finally...you're cure for a relatively small plan is controlling everything?!?

"Not sure why I would even discuss this with you."

Feeling's mutual, braniac.

"If this bill passes and ten years later, costs have still gone up at the same rate, you'll be on a futuristic computer blogging about how it's the fault of conservatives."

And you'll still be waiting for your first libertarian to be elected, still trying to figure out parliamentary procedure, and still pretending if you haven't experienced it, it doesn't exist.

Passing a law forbidding increases in insurance rates and healthcare costs would literally cost the government nothing, would require zero speculation regarding the effects of government-forced "competition," all without the trillion dollar pricetag.

#212 | Posted by JOE at 2009-11-05 01:06 AM | Reply |

LOL? Oh really? Yeah I'm sure that would work. LOL. About as much as pissing on a light socket.

#200 | Posted by Danforth

Your constitutional 'reasoning' is hilarious.

You cherry-pick the text and torture the language to make it mean what you want it to mean.

You act as if Section 8 consists of 1 sentence and the rest of the shit is meaningless.

I've called you on it several times now and you've danced around it.

You are unable to argue based upon the text itself.

It'd both funny and pathetic.


The WH said last night that there will be a Bill on the Pres desk by Christmas. Period.

#212----"why--- Because price controls never ultimately work (look at history) and if you want more corruption in Washington you ain't seen nothing yet--- why do you think both dems and repugs don't want to really consider deregulation and competition by the insurers?--- duh.

#218-- I'll take that bet.

The WH said last night that there will be a Bill on the Pres desk by Christmas. Period.

Hahaha! Where have we heard THIS bullshit before? Oh yeah:

Scare tactics by the GNOPers have frightened the Obama Indies, but that was to be expected. Obama did the right thing letting Congress go first on health care this time, but between now and October he will own this issue and no, I wouldn't bet against him.

After all the scare tactics, the final product will sound tame, and Dems will force the final Bill through.

Posted by Corky at 2009-07-20 10:22 AM | Reply | Flag (X) Stupid

It's November, Sporky. How many times can you keep moving the goalposts? And where's that 'robust public option' you were crowing about? LOL.

And wasn't all this SUPPOSED to be finalized by the August recess? Nancy even said you guys had all the votes needed. LOL.

August ---> October -----> Christmas ----> Never

Pelosi and Reid have fucked this up and despite her (surgically-induced) wide-eyed delusions, Pelosi is becoming the poster child for Fritter & Waste. Pelosi touting today that the bill will come out of committee for a vote is one step up from "Yeah, me and Bob ran into each other over by the coffee machine just now and we agreed that Washington should have beaten the Saints on Sunday and, oh, we also figured we should probably get together and talk about that bill sometime when we get a chance". She still has to hope the recent Dem losses in key governor races won't send Dems who are on the fence running away from the bill (but they will) before she gets it through the full House (which she can't), and then get Reid to get his act together (why would he start now?) and get it through the Senate (he can't). And then Obama has to look things over and decide if he really has the balls (he doesn't) to sign it in its current bloated, porked-out, half-assed state, and stand losing 2012 in the process.

Other than that, I'd say it's a shoo-in.

I hope they can't afford the care they need and die a slow painful death because they can't even afford the pain meds that would allow them to die with a modicum of dignity.

#16 | Posted by jackass

Oh, why don't you just STFU. The only reason you want this to happen is so you can get something for nothing. That's your mantra and it's pathetic.

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable