Health Care In US & UK,Differences Between Left-Right Views On It & Taxes,Capitalism VS Socialism,Abuse Of Power

[Tari Landar]

10 hours ago, Phorumities said:

America was founded on the principles of certain inalienable rights, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is government's responsibility to protect and defend those rights.

Happiness was never guaranteed, neither was success, and nowhere did it even hint that it was the government's duty or responsibility to declare that some people had too much and it was their job to confiscate any excess and give it to those that didn't have enough.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

The USA founding declaration in the very first sentence contradicts you..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

The fact of the matter is the USA was founded on the Lockean principle of a Social Contract.

 

Phorumites is actually correct, not contradictory in the least(on this anyway), you even quoted the precise words he(she?, my apologies in advance) stated. The *pursuit of happiness is our unalienable right, not the successful achievement of such. One can pursue happiness and never actually obtain it. 

 

[Phorumities]

https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2011/01/12/what-our-constitution-permits-n820064

Here's the House of Representatives new rule: "A bill or joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor has submitted for printing in the Congressional Record a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution." Unless a congressional bill or resolution meets this requirement, it cannot be introduced.

If the House of Representatives had the courage to follow through on this rule, their ability to spend and confer legislative favors would be virtually eliminated. Also, if the rule were to be applied to existing law, they'd wind up repealing at least two-thirds to three-quarters of congressional spending.

You might think, for example, that there's constitutional authority for Congress to spend for highway construction and bridges. President James Madison on March 3, 1817 vetoed a public works bill saying: "Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled 'An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,' and which sets apart and pledges funds 'for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,' I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States and to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated."

Madison, who is sometimes referred to as the father of our Constitution, added to his veto statement, "The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers."

Here's my question to any member of the House who might vote for funds for "constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses": Was Madison just plain constitutionally ignorant or has the Constitution been amended to permit such spending?

What about handouts to poor people, businesses, senior citizens and foreigners?

Madison said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

In 1854, President Franklin Piece vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. (To approve the measure) would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill for charity relief, saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."

Again, my question to House members who'd vote for handouts is: Were these leaders just plain constitutionally ignorant or mean-spirited, or has our Constitution been amended to authorize charity?

Suppose a congressman attempts to comply with the new rule by asserting that his measure is authorized by the Constitution's general welfare clause. Here's what Thomas Jefferson said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Madison added, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

John Adams warned, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." I am all too afraid that's where our nation stands today and the blame lies with the American people.

Walter E Williams

[Paul Hexem]

19 hours ago, Fionalein said:

Sadly yes it is - classical humpday "Let's put the Forumites off against each other in a pitfight of believes" thread....

I wish the Fourm had a "NO POLITICS!" rule

Well.

18 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Actually,this is the only section where you are allowed to discuss other things besides second life..

 

As far as the whole deteriorating thing? We'll just have to wait and see..

I've got my popcorn at the ready,just in case..

hehehehe

 

This thread will go until people start disagreeing (and they will- it's politics), then it'll be reported and closed. Welcome to the SL forums.

[Fionalein]

10 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

Well.

This thread will go until people start disagreeing (and they will- it's politics), then it'll be reported and closed. Welcome to the SL forums.

Indeed - and when the name calling starts some wily Forumite will have tried to enrage his fellow Forum users into earning themselves a warning... it is a game of strikes played on the back of the moderators. But as intent is hard to prove they can't do much about it - we on the other hand can - by refusing to play the game.

Edited July 19, 2018 by Fionalein

[Phorumities]

4 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

Indeed - and when the name calling starts some wily Forumite will have tried to enrage his fellow Forum users into earning themselves a warning... it is a game of strikes played on the back of the moderators. But as intent is hard to prove they can't do much about it - we on the other hand can - by refusing to play the game.

Some people say that all of life is a game, but in the end we all end up in the same place.

[Callum Meriman]

16 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

we on the other hand can - by refusing to play the game.

[ellestones]

2 hours ago, Phorumities said:

 

Walter E Williams  [said some stuff]

 

what the founding fathers of the USA talked about at the time is always interesting

in a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson said:

"The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.--I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it."

from this Thomas Jefferson builds first a case against incurring debt which cannot be paid off within the lifetime of the generation that incurred the debt. As doing so empowers the dead over the living.

then Thomas Jefferson goes on to build a case against a Constitution whose meaning is determined for the living by the dead. Concluding his case by saying:

"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation."

what Thomas Jefferson said was that the US Constitution was written for his time and life, and that neither he nor his fellow founding fathers including James Madison have any authority over anything when they are dead.

a text of the letter can be found here: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html

[Phil Deakins]

14 minutes ago, ellestones said:

what Thomas Jefferson said was that the US Constitution was written for his time and life, and that neither he nor his fellow founding fathers including James Madison have any authority over anything when they are dead.

This far more interesting than discussions about the various colours of politics

 

[Phorumities]

our ever growing social welfare system doesn't reflect the will of the people as much as it reflects the realization that politicians can buy votes by giving away ever larger amounts of other peoples money.

Hilary Clinton in her first presidential debate said vote for me and I will introduce a program of providing a free university education to every american that wants one.

Thank goodness enough Americans had the good sense to stand up to her socialist blathering and vote for a candidate that wants to build America up again by increasing opportunities instead of increasing handouts.

[Phorumities]

1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

This far more interesting than discussions about the various colours of politics

 

giving any government unlimited powers may be done with good intentions but it will inevitably lead to tyranny

[Phorumities]

now that the war against cigarette smoking has been largely won how soon before the war on poor eating habits and poor exercise choices be declared

*my bad, they already started*

[Phil Deakins]

2 minutes ago, Phorumities said:

giving any government unlimited powers may be done with good intentions but it will inevitably lead to tyranny

It also leads to the springing up of blatherers who just like to hear their own voices and see their own words in public.

[Phorumities]

if you can force people to buy health insurance, why not force them to join a gym and exercise regularily.

i guess the gym owners lobby needs to cough up some big campaign contributions

[Coffee Pancake]

1 hour ago, Phil Deakins said:

This far more interesting than discussions about the various colours of politics

Doing the will of the long dead seems to be a conservative thing .. even if it's only preaching and lip service.

[Klytyna]

4 hours ago, Phorumities said:

President James Madison on March 3, 1817 vetoed a public works bill saying: "Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled 'An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,' and which sets apart and pledges funds 'for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,' I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States and to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated."

That would be President Jimmy "The Warmonger" Madison, the man who used legislative trickery to force through a Bill declaring war on Britain that had failed several times to pass an actual democratic vote. A man who started a war, so that his supporters could "sequestrate" (that's government speak for steal) the property of British Canadians, and Spanish Floridians and parcel it out to Madison's supporters.

The man who granted the contract for providing supplies to the army to a member of his own war cabinet, who then failed to deliver said supplies because "sending my wagons and barges into combat zones might result in capture, and lost profits". A breach of contract that was tolerated because, the defaulter was a member of the war cabinet and a personal crony of Madison. Your troops went without rations, and ammo, because Madison wanted to make his friends rich.

The same Madison who ran at Bladensburg, demoralising his troops and leading to an ignominious defeat, followed by the sacking of his Capital, which destroyed the confidence of the international banking community to such an extent they were no longer willing to prop up his failed war effort with loans, which is why his administration was forced to sue for peace.

That President Jimmy "The Warmonger" Madison, just so we're clear who we are talking about...

4 hours ago, Phorumities said:

Was Madison just plain constitutionally ignorant or has the Constitution been amended to permit such spending?

He was a fool, a liar, a traitor, a coward, and utterly corrupt, dedicated to lining his own pocket, and the pockets of his rich friends, a fairly typical politician in fact.

It's also worth pointing out that at the time when he decided America couldn't and shouldn't have a public works program, it almost certainly couldn't afford one because it was still paying off the War-Debt he had run up, from it's rather limited governmental income.

Remember... No Taxation Without Armed Insurrection! Free-Dumb!

The Governments sole source of revenue was import/export duty at the ports. Hell he even scrimped on issuing Passports to American sailors, to prevent them being mistaken for British deserters during the Napoleonic Wars. rather than paying govt. officials at the ports to issue passports properly, one per seagoing citizen, he privatised it, customs officials could SELL American passports for personal profit.

In 1812, the American ambassador in London was selling them for $4 each. Many customs officials were selling multiple copies of passports, so the sailors could sell the spares to foreigners for a profit.

...

"This is to certify that ...Hank B. Yank... of ...Boston, MA... is an American citizen in good standing, described by me as height ...medium... weight ...medium... build ...medium... hair color ...medium... eye color ...medium... distinguishing marks ...medium...

Signed this day ...4th July 1812... ant the port of ...Buttucket...

...Phineus T. Walletstuffer... Inspector of Customs"

...

Thanks to Madison's mean spirited and short sighted policies, corruption and fraud became integral parts of the American Government.

"Father of the C*ntstitution" my arse...

The C*ntstitution was written for the benefit of rich New England landowners, people who owned almost all the land, and imposed their will on the peasants in a Feudal Landlord/Tenant Vassal basis, people who didn't want any kind of progress, social, economic  or technological, to disturb their "Status Quo".

The C*ntstitution says Americans can bear arms as part of a "properly constituted militia", but that wasn't profitable enough for some wealthy gun factory owner, so... an Amendment!

The whole history of the C*nstitution and it's amendments is one of wealthy vested interests twisting the pro-stagnation policy of dead men to make themselves richer.

Corruption and Fraud, Madison style!
 

[Ceka Cianci]

Forefathers,Never cared for them that much..But then again, they never cared for us that much either..

The bastages..

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by Ceka Cianci

[Prokofy Neva]

Socialism kills.

[Phorumities]

2 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Socialism kills.

Thank you.

In the end it destroys everything it touches.

[Luna Bliss]

On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 11:55 AM, Phil Deakins said:

On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 8:48 AM, Luna Bliss said:

I was reading a website referenced on another thread, and some of the comments explained the reason the NHS in the UK is having problems is because the Tories are underfunding it. It seems the conservatives are trying to trash the system so they can privatize it. Is this true? Is this an example of the 1% trying to control too much so they can profit more?

No it's not true. All parties here spend our taxes on unnecessary things. And all parties don't consider the NHS as a top priority - except during elecyion times, of course. No party would dare to privatise it. They may use private businesses to supply some services. They probably do that now. But the NHS is safe from privatisation. It sound like you've read a very biased article - probably Labour party allegance.

A few weeks ago, the Conservatives announced that they'd be putting an extra £20 billion into the NHS when we're out of the EU.

The Labour party may very well put more money into it, but they only do it by borrowing more. All parties here borrow, and the national debt is horrendous, but the Labour party seem to have been the biggest borrowers of the two though the decades.

It sounds like your conservatives in the UK aren't as extreme as the ones in the US. Here, the push is to eliminate as many social service programs as possible. Do you trust that they'll actually put that 20 billion into the NHS though if you leave the EU?

[Luna Bliss]

On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 11:21 AM, Phorumities said:

On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 10:42 AM, Luna Bliss said:

How should we help those who are disabled, or how should we fund the building of roads and such?

The thing is, most people are selfish and have trouble looking beyond their own needs, and so some force is needed. Hell even I get upset when I have to write a check for my estimated quarterly tax payment...I'm thinking I need this money for myself and wonder where it might be going to, or if I'd approve who it goes to.

the common refrain of socialists everywhere is that some people are just too greedy and it is governments responsibility to force the well off to share their excess with those that are less well off.

if this is wrong explain how it is wrong

Phorumities, millions of children go to bed hungry each night IN THE US. Homeless people freeze to death in the streets. I think of my little 2-year old grandson and imagine if he felt the pain of hunger day after day and it tears me up. Yet in the US we just increased tax breaks to the wealthy and the Republicans have been doing everything they could since Trump came into office to cut services to the needy.
Let's say you had a million dollars and could live comfortably the rest of your life...can you tell me why your need for freedom and control regarding paying taxes is more important than the suffering of these people? Freedom is important yes, but there are greater values than freedom...'love' is greater.

[Luna Bliss]

On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 3:42 PM, Phorumities said:

So it's okay to keep spending money we don't have to prop up failing socialist ideals? How big can the debt become before it all comes crashing down?

Sure people can keep yammering on about making the rich pay more, they still aren't paying their fair share, but what happens when the rich are bled white and there's nothing more to take?

There has to be an end at some point.

Unfortunately it will end as it always ends, in misery, death, and destruction

There is no danger of the rich "being bled white", as you described.
After the depression the highest tax rate was 90% and the country thrived, but the tax rate on the wealthy today is pathetically low.
1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth, and the disparity is getting greater by the year. It's the disparity between rich and poor that has caused major explosions throughout history as the disadvantaged eventually revolt.
Capitalism has a number of flaws, and one of them is that money is too easily funneled up to the wealthy...money buys more money through influence and interest. Society has always attemped to remedy or minimize the disparity:

Redistribution of wealth info from the Wikipedia:

In many societies, attempts have been made, through property redistribution, taxation, or regulation, to redistribute wealth, sometimes in support of the upper class, and sometimes to diminish economic inequality.

Examples of this practice go back at least to the Roman republic in the third century B.C.,[26] when laws were passed limiting the amount of wealth or land that could be owned by any one family. Motivations for such limitations on wealth include the desire for equality of opportunity, a fear that great wealth leads to political corruption, to the belief that limiting wealth will gain the political favor of a voting bloc, or fear that extreme concentration of wealth results in rebellion.[27] Various forms of socialism attempt to diminish the unequal distribution of wealth and thus the conflicts and social problems (see image below) arising from it.[28]

[Phil Deakins]

4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

It sounds like your conservatives in the UK aren't as extreme as the ones in the US. Here, the push is to eliminate as many social service programs as possible. Do you trust that they'll actually put that 20 billion into the NHS though if you leave the EU?

Can any political party, anywhere in the world, be trusted? No. What can be trusted in the UK is that no polical party would dare to sell the NHS off or get rid of it altogether. That is cast in stone here, at least for foreseeable future.

[Luna Bliss]

On ‎7‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 5:40 AM, Phorumities said:

Again, my question to House members who'd vote for handouts is: Were these leaders just plain constitutionally ignorant or mean-spirited, or has our Constitution been amended to authorize charity?

Societies have structured their living arrangements differently throughout the ages. I don't see why the founding fathers and laws set down at that time are so important -- did God flow into the continent when the US was beginning and set the course for all people forever? But if you must be connected to a founding father for security, as ellestones pointed out, Jefferson didn't think that was a good idea and realized the arrangements made were only for that time period.
I more like the living arrangements of tribes, maybe Native Americans. Imagine the stongest brave going out on the hunt -- he would never keep the meat only for himself but instead brought it back for everyone. If a tribe member was disabled, or if someone was elderly, the stronger members took care of them. And when the strong ones became weak through ageing or injury there were others to help them. There was never any individual hoarding excess resources for themselves -- this would have been frowned upon.
Of course the problem with the modern era is that society is too large and we can't see and care about others outside our immediate circle, and so feel less empathy for those who are disadvantaged.
Anyway, the reality is that we set the arrangements according to what we deem as important in any time period. There is nothing written in stone that says you are entitled to whatever you can take from this world.
Hmmmm...Phorumities whining because some money was taken from his paycheck via force VS children going to bed hungry -- whose side should I come down on? It's a no-brainer for me.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 8:55 PM, ellestones said:

whats wrong is labeling everything to the political left of us as socialist. When we do this it shows our lack of education

the socialist refrain is not to force the well off to share their excess with the less well off. Taxing the rich to pay for the less well of is a tenet of centrist capitalism. As are all taxpayer-funded social services. The tenet of centrist capitalism is that in a market-driven society then at any given time some people are doing well, and others are not. Centrist capitalism taxation systems are designed to ameliorate the excesses

socialism puts the means of wealth generation into co-operative common ownership. When so then there is no taxation system

within the socialist model of common ownership, wealth distribution is according to the tenet: The labourer is worthy of their hire. Some hires, leading hand for example is worth more than a hammer hand. The leading hand is compensated accordingly

stepping left to the communist model. Wealth distribution is according to the tenet: Each according to their needs. This is a different wealth distribution value proposition to the socialist tenet

an explanation of socialism in a functioning realworld case. My bank is socialist. The ownership of the bank is vested in the account holders, we own the bank in common. There are no bank shares as found in the capitalist model. We pay our CEO more than we pay the bank tellers

if you want to dispute socialism vs capitalism then do so with the understanding that the difference isn't about who gets what share of the wealth. Its about ownership

 
i would suggest a book to you @Phorumites, and anyone else reading who does want to brush up on their general knowledge: 'Sapiens' by Yuval Noah Harari. It explores pretty much every aspect of the development of humanity since the beginning up to the present generation. Is a good read, is thought provoking, and is written with the layperson reader in mind

then read the followup book: 'Homo Deus' by the same author, which posulates what the alternate futures for humanity might be. Including topics which quite a few SL residents are interested in. Stuff like singularity, human-machine interfaces, human-nonhuman biological interfaces, machine intelligence, auomation, etc. And the structural and social implications which might result from these
 

 

Worth quoting!

[Luna Bliss]

5 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

15 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

It sounds like your conservatives in the UK aren't as extreme as the ones in the US. Here, the push is to eliminate as many social service programs as possible. Do you trust that they'll actually put that 20 billion into the NHS though if you leave the EU?

Can any political party, anywhere in the world, be trusted? No. What can be trusted in the UK is that no polical party would dare to sell the NHS off or get rid of it altogether. That is cast in stone here, at least for foreseeable future.

That's probably true of Medicare here for the elderly. Now if we can just provide for all ages. I'm afraid this will require reining in the obscene prices Big Pharma charges for drugs -- not an easy task.