The Federalist No. 45

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Written by James Madison in 1788, attempting to convince the people that the states would not be surrendering too much power to the new federal government under the proposed constitution.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa45.htm


The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

James, meet Barack. You two have lots to talk about.

[Jack]

Perhaps you should forward this to Andrew Jackson and every president since.

[Chronus]

Since the founding of our country the federal government has gradually gotten more and more power. It's definitely the trend of things. Definitely not saying I agree with it, just saying it's been going on for as long as we've been a country.

[JUICE]

Madison invokes '10th amendment.'
Obama cackles.
Obama invokes 'commerce clause.'
Madison chuckles.
SCOTUS chortles and rules.
Madison has been killed.

[Death Panelist]

Perhaps you should forward this to Andrew Jackson and every president since.
In other words, people who argue that seeing "shades of gray" is better than viewing everything in black & white terms are wrong.

[Wigmeister General]

In other words, people who argue that seeing "shades of gray" is better than viewing everything in black & white terms are wrong.

Bingo !!!

There are no shades of gray. There's right and there's wrong. I'm right; you're wrong.

[James Madison]

I’m right Barack is wrong.

[Wally]

Forward this to Lincoln while you're at it. If I'm reading this correctly, the South had no need to sucede from the union because the Emancipation Proclamation is unconstitutional. Am I missing something?

[daaaave]

Forward this to Lincoln while you're at it. If I'm reading this correctly, the South had no need to sucede from the union because the Emancipation Proclamation is unconstitutional. Am I missing something?

Besides the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation occurred after the South seceded and didn't free any slaves in states that remained in the Union?

[George Liquor]

Forward this to Lincoln while you're at it. If I'm reading this correctly, the South had no need to sucede from the union because the Emancipation Proclamation is unconstitutional. Am I missing something?
You mean other than the secession was before the proclamation?

fookin ninja'd

[Ron Weasley]

Forward this to Lincoln while you're at it. If I'm reading this correctly, the South had no need to sucede from the union because the Emancipation Proclamation is unconstitutional. Am I missing something?

Um . . . the war of northern agression was already on when this proclamation was made. Also, it specifically only emancipated the slaves in the states that were in rebellion at the time because Lincoln didn't feel that he had the constitutional authority to emancipate the slave by decree in the union.

[Ron Weasley]

Hmmm. Third in a row. Guess things must be different in Wally's World.

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Written by James Madison in 1788, attempting to convince the people that the states would not be surrendering too much power to the new federal government under the proposed constitution.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa45.htm


James, meet Barack. You two have lots to talk about.

We aren't in a democracy anymore. We are in a socialist dictatorship.

[Delothus]

Written by James Madison in 1788, attempting to convince the people that the states would not be surrendering too much power to the new federal government under the proposed constitution.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa45.htm


James, meet Barack. You two have lots to talk about.

First off, I applaud you for quoting the federalist papers. I read a quote some years back by the Chancellor of Harvard that he polled the incoming freshmen class by a show of hands- how many had HEARD of the federalist papers and it was around 10%.

Admittedly, for myself, it had very long stretches of difficult to read sections- with occasional priceless thoughts - such as your quote- interwoven throughout.

I assume one of the big reasons the Federalist papers aren't mentioned or read from anymore in school has a lot to do with it debunks so many prejuidices the left have about our govt and why it was set up the way it was.

We need a modern Publius...

[Wally]

Um . . . the war of northern agression was already on when this proclamation was made. Also, it specifically only emancipated the slaves in the states that were in rebellion at the time because Lincoln didn't feel that he had the constitutional authority to emancipate the slave by decree in the union.

Again, my post questioned whether the South had any need to sucede given this writing indicates Lincoln had no constitutional right to end slavery in the US.

Secondly, did the federal government have the constitutional authority to end slavery in Maryland?

[Delothus]

Forward this to Lincoln while you're at it. If I'm reading this correctly, the South had no need to sucede from the union because the Emancipation Proclamation is unconstitutional. Am I missing something?

foot meet mouth

[Herbert Hoover]

First off, I applaud you for quoting the federalist papers. I read a quote some years back by the Chancellor of Harvard that he polled the incoming freshmen class by a show of hands- how many had HEARD of the federalist papers and it was around 10%.

Admittedly, for myself, it had very long stretches of difficult to read sections- with occasional priceless thoughts - such as your quote- interwoven throughout.

I assume one of the big reasons the Federalist papers aren't mentioned or read from anymore in school has a lot to do with it debunks so many prejuidices the left have about our govt and why it was set up the way it was.

We need a modern Publius...

The Federalist papers should be required reading for all Americans.

Sadly, American's can't read (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/education/25reading.html)stuff that hard any more.

[Ron Weasley]

Again, my post questioned whether the South had any need to sucede given this writing indicates Lincoln had no constitutional right to end slavery in the US.

Secondly, did the federal government have the constitutional authority to end slavery in Maryland?

Try a non-public school reading of American Civil War history. It wasn't a single issue war.

Lincoln had so many bad generals that, in the end, he had to rely on a drunk and a maniac to win a war where the resources were rediculously one sided toward the north. He almost lost his re-election to a general that was too chicken to fight. He needed to project a moral reason to rally the union to continue the war. The emancipation proclomation filled the bill.

[figure 8]

We aren't in a democracy anymore. We are in a socialist dictatorship.

See you at the next election!

[DeadActorII]

We aren't in a democracy anymore. We are in a socialist dictatorship.

:iatp:

[Tim><]

What would Martin Van Buren have to say on the subject?

[DeadActorII]

See you at the next election!

Socialist Dictatorships have "elections"...just sayin'...

[figure 8]

Socialist Dictatorships have "elections"...just sayin'...

Well, if Obama wins the next 2 elections, I'll believe you...

[figure 8]

Wow, I really can't believe people think we live in a socialist dictatorship. Surely they're joking, right? I mean, I can understand people being unhappy with the government due to some tendencies which lean towards socialism, but to actually say we live in a socialist dictatorship? I'd like to hear you say that to the face of someone who has actually lived in a socialist dictatorship.

[PriceControl]

Wow, I really can't believe people think we live in a socialist dictatorship. Surely they're joking, right? I mean, I can understand people being unhappy with the government due to some tendencies which lean towards socialism, but to actually say we live in a socialist dictatorship? I'd like to hear you say that to the face of someone who has actually lived in a socialist dictatorship.

China has elections... just sayin'.

On topic: The Great Obama does not concern himself with the views and wishes of the founders.

[DixieFlyer]

Besides the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation occurred after the South seceded and didn't free any slaves in states that remained in the Union?

Lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery...what he wanted was the tariffs that the southern states refused to collect

[figure 8]

China has elections... just sayin'.

Wow, now we have people comparing the American government to China's? Do you realize how extensively China censors the criticism of its government? Or how not everyone is allowed to have as many kids as they want? Or how China handpicks kids to become athletes of certain sports? Or how China treats religion? Or the sweatshops? Or what about the school that exploded a few years ago, where the parents claimed that the kids were forced to make fireworks? Or that in China they only have direct elections in two basic forms: for leaders in villages and for local congresses.

Seriously, find someone who immigrated here from a socialist dictatorship, and explain to them why America is a socialist dictatorship. I'd love to hear their response.

Edit: Actually, if someone could explain to me why America is a socialist dictatorship, I'd love to hear it.

[2pac Shakur]

Madison approved of the Louisiana Purchase which wasn't ok by the Constitution.
He felt that if the action was important enough, necessary and implied powers were ok.
Maybe Barrack feels healthcare reform is as important as the Louisiana Purchase.
And Bush felt invading Iraq was just as important.

It is our fault for electing these tools.

[2pac Shakur]

Wow, now we have people comparing the American government to China's? Do you realize how extensively China censors the criticism of its government? Or how not everyone is allowed to have as many kids as they want? Or how China handpicks kids to become athletes of certain sports? Or how China treats religion? Or the sweatshops? Or what about the school that exploded a few years ago, where the parents claimed that the kids were forced to make fireworks? Or that in China they only have direct elections in two basic forms: for leaders in villages and for local congresses.

Seriously, find someone who immigrated here from a socialist dictatorship, and explain to them why America is a socialist dictatorship. I'd love to hear their response.

Edit: Actually, if someone could explain to me why America is a socialist dictatorship, I'd love to hear it.

WE have like 1/10 the population of China and more people in prison.

[Ron Weasley]

WE have like 1/10 the population of China and more people in prison.

. . . because they weren't executed.

[figure 8]

WE have like 1/10 the population of China and more people in prison.

China also executes more people than any other country too, I think.

Not sure what your point was though... having a lot of prisoners makes us a socialist dictatorship?

Edit: Also, it's pretty irrelevant, but we have more like 20-25% of China's population.

[PriceControl]

Wow, now we have people comparing the American government to China's? Do you realize how extensively China censors the criticism of its government? Or how not everyone is allowed to have as many kids as they want? Or how China handpicks kids to become athletes of certain sports? Or how China treats religion? Or the sweatshops? Or what about the school that exploded a few years ago, where the parents claimed that the kids were forced to make fireworks? Or that in China they only have direct elections in two basic forms: for leaders in villages and for local congresses.

Seriously, find someone who immigrated here from a socialist dictatorship, and explain to them why America is a socialist dictatorship. I'd love to hear their response.

Edit: Actually, if someone could explain to me why America is a socialist dictatorship, I'd love to hear it.

Well I'd like to think that I know a fair amount about China, considering I lived there several times, am pretty good at mandarin, and have many contacts in China. All of these things are true, but you are vastly overestimating the impact that the Chinese government has on everyday life. They vote, they live, and can for the most part speak freely about the government as long as they don't directly challenge it. Some of your points are vast overstatements.

I also happen to have friends that immigrated from social dictatorships... some are very unhappy with our movement in that direction.

I was simply pointing out that China has elections.

[PriceControl]

Also, taxation isn't nearly as severe in China. Less regulation. Easier to start a business. Barter system is everywhere. Economically the little guy is much bigger than he is here in the US.

[figure 8]

Well I'd like to think that I know a fair amount about China, considering I lived there several times, am pretty good at mandarin, and have many contacts in China. All of these things are true, but you are vastly overestimating the impact that the Chinese government has on everyday life. They vote, they live, and can for the most part speak freely about the government as long as they don't directly challenge it. Some of your points are vast overstatements.

I also have to have friends that immigrated from social dictatorships... some are very unhappy with our movement in that direction.

I was simply pointing out that China has elections.

Yes, I know that's all you were pointing out, but it seemed like you might have been implying more based on some of the previous posts that had just been made. Maybe you weren't though.

I also think there are a wide degree of socialist dictatorships... and I think China is probably a much more pleasant place to live than some other places throughout the past century that could have been labeled as a socialist dictatorship, especially for people in urban areas in China.

[George Liquor]

Madison approved of the Louisiana Purchase which wasn't ok by the Constitution.
Can you be a bit more precise?

[figure 8]

Also, taxation isn't nearly as severe in China. Less regulation. Easier to start a business. Barter system is everywhere. Economically the little guy is much bigger than he is here in the US.

Agreed that some things are better in China.

My main point, which perhaps shouldn't have been directed towards you, is that we have way too many freedoms here, not to mention the lack of a dictator, to be a socialist dictatorship. While certain things may be trending socialist, I still think we have a really, really long way to go before we can be considered a socialist dictatorship.

Also, about your friends... while they may be unhappy with certain movements towards that direction, I highly doubt that any of them would rationally consider the country to currently be a socialist dictatorship. Would you agree?

[DixieFlyer]

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

those two sentences say it all about how far we have strayed

[PriceControl]

Agreed that some things are better in China.

My main point, which perhaps shouldn't have been directed towards you, is that we have way too many freedoms here, not to mention the lack of a dictator, to be a socialist dictatorship. While certain things may be trending socialist, I still think we have a really, really long way to go before we can be considered a socialist dictatorship.

Also, about your friends... while they may be unhappy with certain movements towards that direction, I highly doubt that any of them would rationally consider the country to currently be a socialist dictatorship. Would you agree?

I'd agree with that... but I think we are definitely socialist at this point in time. As far as being a dictatorship... the government seemingly attempting to seize control of the financial, automobile, and insurance industries without a vote or consideration of voter opinion is very disconcerting. This perception is only enhanced by monolithic news agencies, the interaction between banks and the Federal Reserve, and the favorable lending standards granted to oligpolies. No, I don't think we have a dictatorship at this point in time, but I find the intracacies of the situation and unintended consequences that may come to pass incredibly disturbing.

[figure 8]

I'd agree with that... but I think we are definitely socialist at this point in time. As far as being a dictatorship... the government seemingly attempting to seize control of the financial, automobile, and insurance industries without a vote or consideration of voter opinion is very disconcerting. This perception is only enhanced by monolithic news agencies, the interaction between banks and the Federal Reserve, and the favorable lending standards granted to oligpolies. No, I don't think we have a dictatorship at this point in time, but I find the intracacies of the situation and unintended consequences that may come to pass incredibly disturbing.

Fair enough. I had mistakenly lumped you with the other 2 who were suggesting our country is a socialist dictatorship.

As far as the other stuff you say, I agree with you to a certain extent... I think it largely depends on your definition of socialism... but I think I've ruined this thread enough that I'll leave that discussion to another day.

[DixieFlyer]

My main point, which perhaps shouldn't have been directed towards you, is that we have way too many freedoms here, not to mention the lack of a dictator, to be a socialist dictatorship.

that's what the Republicrats want you to believe, and most braindead, non-thinking masses of serfs believe all of the lies that they have been told...people think that we have a choice come election time, but there is no real choice...who was Clinton's Treasury Secretary? Bob Rubin. Where was Bob Rubin from? He was the vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs. Who was GW Bush's Treasury Secretary? Hank Paulson. Where was Hank Paulson from? He was Chairman of Goldman Sachs. Who is o'bamas Treasury Secretary? Tim Geithner, who's Chief of Staff is Mark Patterson. Where is Mark Patterson from? I'll give you a hint: Goldman Sachs

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03242010.html

Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it.

Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded “anti-American,” “anti-semite” or “conspiracy theorist.”

Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government.

Americans, or most of them, have proved to be putty in the hands of the police state.

Americans have bought into the government’s claim that security requires the suspension of civil liberties and accountable government. Astonishingly, Americans, or most of them, believe that civil liberties, such as habeas corpus and due process, protect “terrorists,” and not themselves. Many also believe that the Constitution is a tired old document that prevents government from exercising the kind of police state powers necessary to keep Americans safe and free.

Most Americans are unlikely to hear from anyone who would tell them any different.

[Guerilla poster]

Anything that is not pure capitalist is socialist. All countries with a functioning government are socialist, imo.

[figure 8]

Anything that is not pure capitalist is socialist. All countries with a functioning government are socialist, imo.

See, at least you have a solid definition of socialism. I personally do not define socialism in that manner, as I think there are probably a few different valid definitions. The thing that bugs me is that I hear a lot of people call us socialist... but knowing how ignorant we as Americans tend to be, I just wonder how any of them have a solid grasp on what socialist means.

[figure 8]

that's what the Republicrats want you to believe, and most braindead, non-thinking masses of serfs believe all of the lies that they have been told...people think that we have a choice come election time, but there is no real choice...who was Clinton's Treasury Secretary? Bob Rubin. Where was Bob Rubin from? He was the vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs. Who was GW Bush's Treasury Secretary? Hank Paulson. Where was Hank Paulson from? He was Chairman of Goldman Sachs. Who is o'bamas Treasury Secretary? Tim Geithner, who's Chief of Staff is Mark Patterson. Where is Mark Patterson from? I'll give you a hint: Goldman Sachs

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03242010.html

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. It's no secret that we're run on propaganda. I think the 24/7 news channels and the related propaganda are a pretty major factor in why the two sides (not just the voters, but the elected people too) have been so divided over the past decade. Honestly, the 24/7 media is what scares me the most about our country. But just because we've had some recent treasury secretaries from Goldman Sachs be in high power means that we have no real choice? No one's stopping you from getting into politics and working your way up to run for President... pretty sure such a thing wouldn't be possible in a dictatorship. Okay, that's probably not practical, but still, we as Americans get to vote on lots of issues, including statewide and local issues, besides getting to directly elect local, statewide, and national leaders (okay, nat'l is through the electoral college... it's kind of direct). Sure it's not a perfect system, but saying we have absolutely have no choice at election time seems a little over the top.

[2pac Shakur]

Can you be a bit more precise?

What do you mean?

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Fair enough. I had mistakenly lumped you with the other 2 who were suggesting our country is a socialist dictatorship.

As far as the other stuff you say, I agree with you to a certain extent... I think it largely depends on your definition of socialism... but I think I've ruined this thread enough that I'll leave that discussion to another day.

Despite recent elections, Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusettes. The joker in power has rammed through socialist legislation despite voter disapproval. There is nothing voters can do until 2012. We live under a dictator until 2012.

Also, you have the idea that Obama has said he will alter the current legislation via executive order. If executive order trumps legislation then how do you not call the system a dictatorship?

Another point, a country is defined by it's customs and borders. The current administration, in an attempt to maintain its dictatorship will redefine the definition of citizenship. It will grant citizen status to illegal aliens thereby buying power away from existing citizens. It can buy the allegiance of the new citizens by giving away free healthcare and free government benefits by seizing the property of legitimate citizens (you know the people who actually make more than $250K per year).

A socialist scheme to disenfranchise the current citizens by diluting their vote and seizing their assets in the grand wealth redistribution socialist plan. Step two will be more wealth redistribution from America to other countries via carbon credits and cap and trade.

[figure 8]

Despite recent elections, Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusettes. The joker in power has rammed through socialist legislation despite voter disapproval. There is nothing voters can do until 2012. We live under a dictator until 2012.

Also, you have the idea that Obama has said he will alter the current legislation via executive order. If executive order trumps legislation then how do you not call the system a dictatorship?

Another point, a country is defined by it's customs and borders. The current administration, in an attempt to maintain its dictatorship will redefine the definition of citizenship. It will grant citizen status to illegal aliens thereby buying power away from existing citizens. It can buy the allegiance of the new citizens by giving away free healthcare and free government benefits by seizing the property of legitimate citizens (you know the people who actually make more than $250K per year).

A socialist scheme to disenfranchise the current citizens by diluting their vote and seizing their assets in the grand wealth redistribution socialist plan. Step two will be more wealth redistribution from America to other countries via carbon credits and cap and trade.

At this hour of the day, I don't have time to respond to everything here right now... but I'm just curious... when do you think was the last time our country didn't have a dictator?

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

At this hour of the day,

The hour of the day is late. The sun is setting on the America we once knew.

[figure 8]

The hour of the day is late. The sun is setting on the America we once knew.

Haha, that made me laugh quite a bit. I know you're probably being at least semi-serious, but the unexpectedness of that response made me laugh.

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Haha, that made me laugh quite a bit. I know you're probably being at least semi-serious, but the unexpectedness of that response made me laugh.

At a time like this, you either laugh at the absurdity of our current direction or cry. It is sad, but at the same time you can laugh at the idiocy of the current government and the people who deserve what they get. Every dictator who came to power, ascended to that postion through the promise of hope and change. And once the people have surrendered their freedom to the ever expanding government control they ultimately sufficate under the oppression they allowed to take hold until the wind of change again blows toward freedom, but revolution comes at a heavy price to regain that hard fought freedom taken for granted by naive generations and surrendered much too easily to power hungry politicians, lying to the masses that they will provide what you are too lazy to provide for yourself.

[Descalzo]

Lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery...what he wanted was the tariffs that the southern states refused to collect

Lincoln from the very beginning followed the Republican party platform that opposed the spread of slavery into the new territories, and into the North.

He was willing to let the South keep it if it would save the union. This is a far cry from not caring about slavery. He obviously thought it was bad. We wanted it gone, but was willing to settle for it not growing.

[Descalzo]

At a time like this, you either laugh at the absurdity of our current direction or cry. It is sad, but at the same time you can laugh at the idiocy of the current government and the people who deserve what they get. Every dictator who came to power, ascended to that postion through the promise of hope and change. And once the people have surrendered their freedom to the ever expanding government control they ultimately sufficate under the oppression they allowed to take hold until the wind of change again blows toward freedom, but revolution comes at a heavy price to regain that hard fought freedom taken for granted by naive generations and surrendered much too easily to power hungry politicians, lying to the masses that they will provide what you are too lazy to provide for yourself.

You make it sound as though Obama is no more nor less a dictator than, say, Eisenhower or John Adams.

[Baron Von Raschke]

The Federalist papers should be required reading for all Americans.

Sadly, American's can't read (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/education/25reading.html)stuff that hard any more.

If only we had a public option for education!

Wait, we already do?

http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/facepalm1.jpg

[DixieFlyer]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. It's no secret that we're run on propaganda. I think the 24/7 news channels and the related propaganda are a pretty major factor in why the two sides (not just the voters, but the elected people too) have been so divided over the past decade. Honestly, the 24/7 media is what scares me the most about our country. But just because we've had some recent treasury secretaries from Goldman Sachs be in high power means that we have no real choice? No one's stopping you from getting into politics and working your way up to run for President... pretty sure such a thing wouldn't be possible in a dictatorship. Okay, that's probably not practical, but still, we as Americans get to vote on lots of issues, including statewide and local issues, besides getting to directly elect local, statewide, and national leaders (okay, nat'l is through the electoral college... it's kind of direct). Sure it's not a perfect system, but saying we have absolutely have no choice at election time seems a little over the top.

the 2 parties are basically the same -- they differ on abortion and gun control, but that's just a smokescreen to make us think that there are real differences...the Republicans rail about govt control of heathcare, but what was Medicare Part D that Bush and the rest of the Republicans were for: government control of prescription drugs for senior citizens that's what...and o'bamas health control package wasn't some bold, new initiative...did it allow prescription drug imports from Canada? no. do you wonder why? Surely all the big campaign donations from big pharma to both the republicans and democrats didn't have anything to do with that!...and does the health control package put restrictions on medical malpractice? no....and I wonder if all the big campaign contributions from the ATLA had anything to do with that?...but obamas health control package was all about bribes to congressman, bribes to senators, payoffs to labor unions, and payoffs to big pharma...the thing is doomed to fail, in which case they'll find a boogyman -- and the boogyman will be the insurance companies...and once they get rid of the insurance companies, we'll have a single payor system, which is what they want in the first place...unless the country is totally broke by then

[rekrap]

...the thing is doomed to fail, ...

It's too big to fail. :rimshot:

[MathinTucson]

If you haven't read anything by Napolitano, this one is a good one to start with.

http://www.amazon.com/Constitution-Exile-Federal-Government-Rewriting/dp/1595550704/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269601373&sr=1-3

[figure 8]

Despite recent elections, Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusettes. The joker in power has rammed through socialist legislation despite voter disapproval. There is nothing voters can do until 2012. We live under a dictator until 2012.

The voters voted in a Democrat President, House, and Senate. Having Congress ruled by Democrats makes things a lot easier for Obama... that might be why it seems he's "ramming" his legislation through. There is never anything the voters can do until an election year. Since when can voters vote in a President and Congress, and then have a say in what gets done until the next election? I don't understand how the voters not having a say in what Congress and the President do until the next election is something unique to the current administration.

Also, you have the idea that Obama has said he will alter the current legislation via executive order. If executive order trumps legislation then how do you not call the system a dictatorship?

This is the first time I've heard that Obama will alter the legislation via executive order. Where did you hear this from? Anyway, there have been executive orders since almost the beginning of our country. I'm not saying it wouldn't be an abuse of power if such a thing were to happen, but to say that means we're in a dictatorship seems to be taking it a little far. If we are under a dictatorship where executive order trumps legislation, then why aren't we seeing things like the President abusing his power to trump legislation to make things more pro-choice, more pro-gay, more pro-gun control, etc.?

Another point, a country is defined by it's customs and borders. The current administration, in an attempt to maintain its dictatorship will redefine the definition of citizenship. It will grant citizen status to illegal aliens thereby buying power away from existing citizens. It can buy the allegiance of the new citizens by giving away free healthcare and free government benefits by seizing the property of legitimate citizens (you know the people who actually make more than $250K per year).

Besides that I don't think you've yet proven how we're currently under a dictatorship, it sounds like here you're basing your logic on things that you think will happen... not on things that have actually happened. Plus, it sounds like you think anyone who makes less than $250k is not a legitimate citizen... but that's more alarming than relevant to the argument. I'd like to hear an argument on why we're a dictatorship based on things that have actually happened... not on things you think will happen.

A socialist scheme to disenfranchise the current citizens by diluting their vote and seizing their assets in the grand wealth redistribution socialist plan. Step two will be more wealth redistribution from America to other countries via carbon credits and cap and trade.

I'm not sure if you're saying that the current citizens (people who make $250k plus, right?) have already had their vote diluted and assets seized or that you think this will happen. If you're saying you think it will happen, that's just another point you're making based on your own predictions, not actual events. If you think it already has happened... I'm not quite sure where this has already happened... unless you're talking about taxes... but those are something we've had since the beginning... nothing new and unique to the current times.

[figure 8]

At a time like this, you either laugh at the absurdity of our current direction or cry.

One can laugh or cry... but you forgot a very important third option... one can also simply not share your viewpoint that things are all doom and gloom right now. You could probably go back to any point in American history and predict imminent doom and gloom if you wanted to be pessimistic enough... and I'm not talking about simply being discouraged and upset about the direction of the country... I'm talking about thinking that end of America is imminent... you could probably think such a thing at any time in American history if you really wanted to.

[DixieFlyer]

Perhaps you should forward this to Andrew Jackson and every president since.

this should be forwarded to the socialists trying to control the US:

"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the Bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst yourselves, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank... Beyond question this great and powerful institution has been actively engaged in attempting to influence the elections of the public officers by means of its money...

You tell me that if I take the deposits from the Bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin. Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin. You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, I will rout you out."

Andrew Jackson on the Second National Bank of the US, which was the central bank of his day...Jackson let the charter of the Second National Bank expire in 1836, thus ushering in the most prosperous period in US history

[figure 8]

the 2 parties are basically the same -- they differ on abortion and gun control, but that's just a smokescreen to make us think that there are real differences...

Don't you think that a third party, or at least, strong third party/independent candidates could emerge though? I'd agree that the 2 parties are very similar now. But the more discouraged people get with at least one party (if not both parties), the more likely it seems that a third party, or at least strong third party/independent candidates would emerge. I guess we're kind of seeing that already with the tea party people (although I don't know if their ultimate plan is to form a new party or to redefine the Republican party). Speaking as someone who doesn't associate himself with a political party, I'd really like to see a lot more independent candidates at the next election. Regardless, it's probably only a matter of time until we see at least one party redefine itself or a new one emerge (and that statement is based on nothing but my opinion... well, and I guess my opinion's based on that significant parties have come and gone and evolved throughout our nation's history).

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

There is never anything the voters can do until an election year. Since when can voters vote in a President and Congress, and then have a say in what gets done until the next election? I don't understand how the voters not having a say in what Congress and the President do until the next election is something unique to the current administration.

So you don't think representatives should represent the people and what they want? Really? Polls showed people were not in favor of THIS healthcare reform and yet it was rammed through anyway. I guess you place no significance on recent elections in New Jersey and Virginia and most importantly Massachusttes. When a state as liberal as Mass elects a republican to the senate that ought to tell you something.

I'm not quite sure where this has already happened... unless you're talking about taxes... but those are something we've had since the beginning... nothing new and unique to the current times.
Since the begining? Maybe you should study your history. Furthermore maybe you should read about the powers reserved for the federal government and the powers reserved for states. Somehow adding new federal taxes for something other than international politics or interstate commerce like for a socialist welfare program has not been something we had since the begining and frankly it is unconstitutional.

[figure 8]

So you don't think representatives should represent the people and what they want? Really? Polls showed people were not in favor of THIS healthcare reform and yet it was rammed through anyway. I guess you place no significance on recent elections in New Jersey and Virginia and most importantly Massachusttes. When a state as liberal as Mass elects a republican to the senate that ought to tell you something.

So... what you want is for us to elect people, but then instead of letting them make their own decisions, they have to do whatever the polls say? Why even have elections for representatives then? Why not base every law on a popular vote (maybe this is what you want?)?

The representatives represent the people and what they wanted at the time of the last election. It would be nice if there was a way to have elections every 6 months to have the representatives stay "up-to-date" on what the people want, but that sort of turnover doesn't seem practical. The representatives can vote however they want. They were elected. If the people don't like what a representative has done throughout their term, then they can elect a new person at the end of the term. Plus, hindsight is 20/20 and people tend to change their minds too... so they might not like what Senator X does in year 3 of his term, but when the 6 years are up, they might decide that he still best represents what they want... and/or that they now like that decision he made in year 3.

Since the begining? Maybe you should study your history. Furthermore maybe you should read about the powers reserved for the federal government and the powers reserved for states. Somehow adding new federal taxes for something other than international politics or interstate commerce like for a socialist welfare program has not been something we had since the begining and frankly it is unconstitutional.

Okay, I'll admit I don't know the complete history of federal vs. non-federal taxes in our country. I was just saying we've had taxes since the beginning. I wasn't specifically talking about federal taxes on welfare programs... I was being vague... mainly because (as I said in my response before) I couldn't quite tell what you were saying. Anyway, we've had federal taxes on things other than int'l politics or interstate commerce for quite awhile (and if you think federal taxes on a welfare program = socialism, that's fine... that's just your definition of socialism)... so do you think we've been disenfranchised since, say the New Deal or something... or do you think that's something that's just happening now? The point I was trying to make before was that I didn't understand how you think this "disenfranchising" is something that's just happening right now and wasn't going on before.

I'm just curious, are you one of those people who refuses to pay income taxes?

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

So... what you want is for us to elect people, but then instead of letting them make their own decisions, they have to do whatever the polls say? Why even have elections for representatives then? Why not base every law on a popular vote (maybe this is what you want?)?
... The representatives can vote however they want. They were elected.
No, I don't think a representative should vote however they want. Yes, they are given that power. But I also think they have a responsibility and to purposefully ignore the will of the people on an important issue is an abuse of power. Simply because you were elected to office does not mean you should ignore that your job is to still represent the will of the people. And if the will of the people changes then hell yes they should take that into account while doing their job.


Okay, I'll admit I don't know the complete history of federal vs. non-federal taxes in our country. I was just saying we've had taxes since the beginning.
Yeah, I can tell there is a lot that you don't know.

I'm just curious, are you one of those people who refuses to pay income taxes? Not yet. I probably pay more in taxes than you make. But I'm thinking of taking my money and leaving. Or I may just stop working and collect unemployment and free healthcare for a few years. Maybe start a business in switzerland or monaco.

[figure 8]

No, I don't think a representative should vote however they want. Yes, they are given that power. But I also think they have a responsibility and to purposefully ignore the will of the people on an important issue is an abuse of power. Simply because you were elected to office does not mean you should ignore that your job is to still represent the will of the people. And if the will of the people changes then hell yes they should take that into account while doing their job.

But wasn't the nation fairly split on health care? It's not like 99% of the people were against it. Even though Mass. had an R elected (in a close race, by the way), weren't the nationwide polls generally fairly split?

Yeah, I can tell there is a lot that you don't know.

Um, okay. I've never met someone who doesn't have a lot they don't know.

Not yet. I probably pay more in taxes than you make. But I'm thinking of taking my money and leaving. Or I may just stop working and collect unemployment and free healthcare for a few years. Maybe start a business in switzerland or monaco.

What sort of business?

[Delothus]

It's too big to fail. :rimshot:

agreed

17701

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Um, okay. I've never met someone who doesn't have a lot they don't know.


People are specialized. But the difference between people with common sense and those without is that those with common sense know what they know and know what they don't know. They speak up in the areas where they know something and keep quiet, listen and learn in the areas where their knowledge is not so strong. The ones without common sense speak as if they know something when they haven't a clue. For example, claiming things have always been a certain way when actually they have not.

Good day.

[figure 8]

People are specialized. But the difference between people with common sense and those without is that those with common sense know what they know and know what they don't know. They speak up in the areas where they know something and keep quiet, listen and learn in the areas where their knowledge is not so strong. The ones without common sense speak as if they know something when they haven't a clue. For example, claiming things have always been a certain way when actually they have not.

Good day.

Agreed. And if one was to claim we are under a socialist dictatorship, then have someone else attempt to refute his points using logic to try to make a conversation, and then turn to make seemingly arrogant comments and insults... is that common sense or something else?

(By the way, all I said was we've had taxes from the beginning... I didn't know you were talking about federal taxes, much less federal taxes on welfare programs... like I disclosed in my response, I couldn't quite tell what you were talking about, so I was vague... not sure how this reflects a lack of common sense on my part... my admission of not knowing the history of federal vs. non-federal taxes wasn't even relevant to what I was saying... not even sure why I bothered to say that since it wasn't relevant besides the fact that you brought up studying history... if you want to have a logic-based discussion, let me know... if you want to continue by talking about making more money than me and how I don't know a lot of things, I'm not going to waste any more of my time...)

[Maphisto's Sidekick]

Agreed. And if one was to claim we are under a socialist dictatorship, then have someone else attempt to refute his points using logic to try to make a conversation, and then turn to make seemingly arrogant comments and insults... is that common sense or something else?


It's just a sad artifact of the education system gutted by the current socialist dictatorship and the preceding fascist dictatorship.

[figure 8]

It's just a sad artifact of the education system gutted by the current socialist dictatorship and the preceding fascist dictatorship.

Ha, nice.

Honestly, I think it's just politics as we now know it.

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Agreed. And if one was to claim we are under a socialist dictatorship, then have someone else attempt to refute his points using logic to try to make a conversation, and then turn to make seemingly arrogant comments and insults... is that common sense or something else?


I guess it is something else when you turn to making arrogant comments and insults, and in order for you to make logical arguments you have to be familiar with facts.

Obama did not campaign on the specifics of this health deform. This health deform was not what the people wanted which is why a heavily democratic state like MA voted for a republican. The legislation was pushed through via threats and bribes. To me, if unpopular legislation is pushed through via threats and bribes that sounds more like a dictatorship than a democracy.

Now, some of the people who voted for health deform (probably without reading it) claim that is only unpopular because people don't understand it. Now they have to educate the voters to explain to them why it is good. Sounds to me like the cart before the horse, if you can't sell it ahead of time then it should not be put into law.

What the bill will do: it will cut Medicare, it will increase taxes on employers, individuals, industries, it will increase insurance rates on young people, it will increase individual and small group rates (look at what happened in MA and other states). It will increase Medicaid by 40% by extending eligibility to 133% of the FPL. So who wins? People who don't work and are poor who did not have insurance before. Who loses: Everyone else, Medicare beneficiaries, people who buy insurance today whose rates go up, employers and workers. Simple wealth redistribution to those who don't want to work and merely want entitlements. Populist dictatorship.

[figure 8]

I guess it is something else when you turn to making arrogant comments and insults, and in order for you to make logical arguments you have to be familiar with facts.

Obama did not campaign on the specifics of this health deform. This health deform was not what the people wanted which is why a heavily democratic state like MA voted for a republican. The legislation was pushed through via threats and bribes. To me, if unpopular legislation is pushed through via threats and bribes that sounds more like a dictatorship than a democracy.

Now, some of the people who voted for health deform (probably without reading it) claim that is only unpopular because people don't understand it. Now they have to educate the voters to explain to them why it is good. Sounds to me like the cart before the horse, if you can't sell it ahead of time then it should not be put into law.

What the bill will do: it will cut Medicare, it will increase taxes on employers, individuals, industries, it will increase insurance rates on young people, it will increase individual and small group rates (look at what happened in MA and other states). It will increase Medicaid by 40% by extending eligibility to 133% of the FPL. So who wins? People who don't work and are poor who did not have insurance before. Who loses: Everyone else, Medicare beneficiaries, people who buy insurance today whose rates go up, employers and workers. Simple wealth redistribution to those who don't want to work and merely want entitlements. Populist dictatorship.

I think the issue is giving too much power to one party. We have a country where a lot of people are independents. A majority are not R's, and a majority are not D's. So when we have a Congress/President combo that is overwhelmingly one party, right there we have a misrepresentation of the people. Most people in this country are not D's, yet we are being represented primarily by D's. We had the same issue when the R's were control.

It is a flaw in our democracy that allows such a thing to happen. I wish there could be no parties (not practical given the way things are now though) or at least a system with more than 2 significant parties (to reflect the make-up of the country more accurately).

I see what you're saying with the term "populist dictatorship," since the people voted one party into a significant majority that just passed a significant piece of fairly unpopular legislation. However, in my mind a dictator is someone with complete authority... while the D's do have the power right now, I still don't think they have complete authority. If it were a true dictatorship, why doesn't the health care reform bill have a public option (just one example)? In my mind, under a Democrat dictatorship, the R's would be a complete non-factor in day-to-day legislation, which isn't the case. True that the health care reform is fairly unpopular, but I don't think that should be a huge surprise since, as I mentioned before, despite being voted into office, the D majority did not accurately represent the country to begin with. It's an unfortunate result that can occur under our 2-party system. But the whole dictator argument is really just an argument of semantics at this point.

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

However, in my mind a dictator is someone with complete authority... while the D's do have the power right now, I still don't think they have complete authority. If it were a true dictatorship, why doesn't the health care reform bill have a public option (just one example)? There is a public option. Each state will have a state plan and if the state chooses not to offer a state plan then the federal government will offer a plan. I'm not sure what you would call a state plan or a federal plan but those sure sound like public options to me.

In my mind, under a Democrat dictatorship, the R's would be a complete non-factor in day-to-day legislation, which isn't the case. It's not? How many of the R's voted for the HCR? They were a complete non-factor.

But the whole dictator argument is really just an argument of semantics at this point. Every argument of words is a semantic argument. We live in a dictatorship when the dictator imposes his will over the people. When the people disapprove of the dictators policies and he takes away their freedom and rights. When the dictator enacts unconstitutional laws via threats and bribery to countravene the will of the governed then we are in a dictatorship.

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Julius Obama has definitely crossed the Rubicon. You may wonder if he crossed it sooner or later by taking over the banks, the auto industry or healthcare. Our only hope is that the American people would rise up and play the role of Brutus to take back the democracy, but given that the media is controlled by the same bankers who control the puppet dictator, and that they control elections with fradulent registrations via ACORN and SEIU, not likely. Time for us to welcome the new dictator overlords.

[figure 8]

There is a public option. Each state will have a state plan and if the state chooses not to offer a state plan then the federal government will offer a plan. I'm not sure what you would call a state plan or a federal plan but those sure sound like public options to me.

I was talking about "the" public option that got dropped and was not in the final signed bill. The public option that many D's (particularly the progressive ones) wanted the final bill to include. I don't think a dictator would have dropped something out of the bill that he really wanted in there.

It's not? How many of the R's voted for the HCR? They were a complete non-factor.

They were still a factor in that they got a lot of the public on their side. They helped get the public option taken out. They were the minority in Congress, but they still had a say. They proved rather powerless in the final vote on the health care reform, but they still legislate on other bills and are still a factor in the government.

Every argument of words is a semantic argument. We live in a dictatorship when the dictator imposes his will over the people. When the people disapprove of the dictators policies and he takes away their freedom and rights. When the dictator enacts unconstitutional laws via threats and bribery to countravene the will of the governed then we are in a dictatorship.

That's pretty much true (on the first line). It just comes down to how you want to look at the world. If you want to view it as a dictatorship, "that's just, like, your opinion, man." :)

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

I was talking about "the" public option that got dropped and was not in the final signed bill. The public option that many D's (particularly the progressive ones) wanted the final bill to include. I don't think a dictator would have dropped something out of the bill that he really wanted in there.

Oh so now YOU want to have a semantic debate on "the" public option that was in the house bill vs the "other" public option that was in the senate version that got passed. An option that is either a state plan or if the state opts out a federal plan is still A public option. There is a public option in the exchange. End of story. He really didn't compromise on that issue.



They were still a factor in that they got a lot of the public on their side. They helped get the public option taken out. They were the minority in Congress, but they still had a say. They proved rather powerless in the final vote on the health care reform, but they still legislate on other bills and are still a factor in the government.

Other bills? Seriously? What other bills? I can't name any other bills they passed in the last six months, can you? If they participated on some irrelevant bills but not on the meaningful relevant ones that still makes them irrelevant and a non-factor. Looks like you are trying a semantic argument again rather than a meaningful one. R's are non-factors.

That's pretty much true (on the first line). It just comes down to how you want to look at the world. If you want to view it as a dictatorship, "that's just, like, your opinion, man." :)
Yep, just my opinion. Just like your twisted semantic view that disagrees with my opinion. When the government goes rogue and ceases to represent the people they work for they have moved into "dictating" against the will of the people. I guess it's only words, but when the government is dictating its will over the people's will that sounds a lot like a dictaorship to me. I guess you can call it democracy gone wrong or some other sugar-coated euphamism.

[figure 8]

Oh so now YOU want to have a semantic debate on "the" public option that was in the house bill vs the "other" public option that was in the senate version that got passed. An option that is either a state plan or if the state opts out a federal plan is still A public option. There is a public option in the exchange. End of story. He really didn't compromise on that issue.

But wasn't the public option that was in the House bill dropped from the Senate bill in order to make sure the bill got through? If the D's are almighty dictators as you suggest, why would they drop something they want from a bill just to decrease resistance and increase the chance that the bill goes through? That sounds like a compromise to me (also showing that R's are factors).

Just imagine if every single person in Congress was a D (in other words, the D's would truly have complete power and the R's would be nonexistent/non-factors). Do you honestly think that the health care reform bill would have turned out the same?

[Shlomo]

But wasn't the public option that was in the House bill dropped from the Senate bill in order to make sure the bill got through? If the D's are almighty dictators as you suggest, why would they drop something they want from a bill just to decrease resistance and increase the chance that the bill goes through? That sounds like a compromise to me (also showing that R's are factors).

Just imagine if every single person in Congress was a D (in other words, the D's would truly have complete power and the R's would be nonexistent/non-factors). Do you honestly think that the health care reform bill would have turned out the same?

If I may jump into the fray, the democrats in the senate had a different vision then the democrates in the house. If there was any compromise it was among the democrats themselves and not with the republicans who were irrelevant or marginalized by the democrats who chose not to compromise with R's and chose not to create a bipartisan solution. A bipartisan solution that could have been less about wealth redistribution and more about improving the cost and quality of healthcare for everyone. More to the point, sure it could have included some wealth redistribution but it could have also included something-anything to address cost and quality. The health care reform bill turned out exactly the way the dems chose it to turn out and had absolutely nothing to do with any republican influence. Most of it was negotiated and written behind closed doors where republicans were not invited or allowed.

[figure 8]

If I may jump into the fray, the democrats in the senate had a different vision then the democrates in the house. If there was any compromise it was among the democrats themselves and not with the republicans who were irrelevant or marginalized by the democrats who chose not to compromise with R's and chose not to create a bipartisan solution. A bipartisan solution that could have been less about wealth redistribution and more about improving the cost and quality of healthcare for everyone. More to the point, sure it could have included some wealth redistribution but it could have also included something-anything to address cost and quality. The health care reform bill turned out exactly the way the dems chose it to turn out and had absolutely nothing to do with any republican influence. Most of it was negotiated and written behind closed doors where republicans were not invited or allowed.

Yea, actually, after I made my last post I was thinking about this and that the R's weren't really part of the compromise. The compromise was really among the D's and more of a way to decrease resistance from the more conservative D's than anything else. The point I made about how the compromise shows that the R's are factors wasn't really a good one. I'll admit that.

However, I still think that the R's, through their resistance of the bill, have had a significant hand in increasing the public's disapproval. If over the past year Congress was 100% D's, I find it hard to believe that everything that's happened in Congress over the past year would have turned out the same (the reason being that having as many R's as there are in Congress provides resistance to the D's, and the fact that most of these D's will have to face re-election against R's in the future keeps many of them in check from acting "more left" than they do now). Of course this is all theoretical since we've never had a 100% D Congress... but I think that that would be more of a dictatorship and that results would be different than they are now since D's really would have complete power then.

Ah, I think this discussion's been worn out, BEWD. I don't think you're going to change your thinking that I live in a sugar-coated world, while I'm probably not going to change my thinking that you live in a bit of a sludge-coated world. Anyway, I appreciate the discussion and the fact that you ultimately didn't resort to insults and arrogant comments, as is often the case in political discussions.