how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
758 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| huh? has anyone looked up the estimated national debt of Spain? as a factor of % of GDP, it's estimated to be close to ours, which is about 500% debt of GDP and COMPLETELY unsustainable!
also, i fail to see where in the US Constitution it says that broadband access is a right... | |
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by Somnambul33t:has anyone looked up the estimated national debt of Spain? as a factor of % of GDP, it's estimated to be close to ours, which is about 500% debt of GDP and COMPLETELY unsustainable! Do you have a reference for US debt being 500% of GDP? The charts here indicate it's about 75%, and much lower than the 1940s.
said by Somnambul33t:also, i fail to see where in the US Constitution it says that broadband access is a right... There's nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government should be involved in environmental protection, auto safety or mileage standards, public education, regulation of the stock market and banks.
Usually folks who trot out the "it's not in the Constitution" like those things. They just can't fathom that others might like a little more. Or, how, after a few decades, some new federal oversight will be taken for granted as just a necessity of civil society.
There are always a few who honestly would get rid of all the things I mentioned above. But, they amount to about 2% of the population. Their views are irrelevant and should be considered in that light.
Mark | |
| If 98% of the people in the country like those things that the government is doing that aren't in the Constitution -- then it should be easy to amend it. Stop pretending that the government has Constitutional authority for it when it doesn't. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by mlcarson:If 98% of the people in the country like those things that the government is doing that aren't in the Constitution -- then it should be easy to amend it. Stop pretending that the government has Constitutional authority for it when it doesn't. It does have Constitutional authority. The interstate commerce and "general welfare" clauses.
Also, it's important to interpret the Constitution within its historic context: 12 years after the revolution, and the founding generation living in the relatively libertarian world of the Articles of Confederation.
The founding generation ditched the AoC because they wanted more powerful, efficient, effective government. Considering the relatively massive increase in government which they adopted, the founding generation was for "big government" like no other generation since.
It's not like they were moving away from big government to smaller government. They went to bigger government because they wanted more centralized and uniform services. Things they couldn't even foresee 12 years earlier.
As you say, if modern expansions of federal involvement are so obviously unconstitutional, you should have no problem getting a decision to that effect.
Mark | |
| said by amigo_boy:said by mlcarson:If 98% of the people in the country like those things that the government is doing that aren't in the Constitution -- then it should be easy to amend it. Stop pretending that the government has Constitutional authority for it when it doesn't. It does have Constitutional authority. The interstate commerce and "general welfare" clauses. Also, it's important to interpret the Constitution within its historic context: 12 years after the revolution, and the founding generation living in the relatively libertarian world of the Articles of Confederation. The founding generation ditched the AoC because they wanted more powerful, efficient, effective government. Considering the relatively massive increase in government which they adopted, the founding generation was for "big government" like no other generation since. It's not like they were moving away from big government to smaller government. They went to bigger government because they wanted more centralized and uniform services. Things they couldn't even foresee 12 years earlier. As you say, if modern expansions of federal involvement are so obviously unconstitutional, you should have no problem getting a decision to that effect. Mark what are you talking about? i think all the founders were against big government. certainly th key players in the Continental Congress. the AoC failed in part because it gave almost no power to the Fed gvnmt, right, but they were extremely careful to include extreme limits of power and checks and balances in the Constitution. In terms of world governments, when we ratified the Const we were probably the most libertarian government previously and since. Almost every single major founding father was a libertarian or at least in favor of extremely limited Federal power.
Founders never would have wanted Medicare, let alone this BS.
im sorry, i should have mentioned national debt + promised spending not already incurred is about 500% of GDP for both spain and USA
--
Somnambulator - t3h 5133pw41k3r
~Choosy moms choose Jif~ | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
2 edits | said by Somnambul33t:i think all the founders were against big government. certainly the key players in the Continental Congress. the AoC failed in part because it gave almost no power to the Fed gvnmt, right, but they were extremely careful to include extreme limits of power and checks and balances in the Constitution. If the founding generation was for small government, they would have remained with the relatively libertarian Articles of Confederation.
Obviously, they were willing to accept larger government in return for better, more powerful, effective, efficient, centralized and uniform services.
You can try to minimize that however you want. You can say that they didn't want unrestrained government power. I agree. But, that doesn't change the fact that they didn't want "small" government either. The Constitutional government of 1789 was a product of them being fed up with small government, wanting a more powerful government.
And, that happened after just 12 years of living under their libertarian, revolutionary rhetoric. Every generation since has followed their example, that more government (judiciously executed) is beneficial.
said by Somnambul33t: Almost every single major founding father was a libertarian or at least in favor of extremely limited Federal power. And they became less libertarian as they ditched the Articles of Confederation for the relatively vastly more powerful federal government of 1789. They became less libertarian more than any generation since (relatively speaking).
said by Somnambul33t:Founders never would have wanted Medicare, let alone this BS. You don't know that. Jefferson was for public education. Communities commonly engaged in welfare. And, the libertarian Thomas Paine advocated this nation's first Social Security pension plan in 1795:
quote:
In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity . . . [Government must] create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property. And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.
-- »www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/agjst.html
Heck, taking the land of Native Americans was one of the largest wealth transfers in the history of this planet.
And then, remember, they couldn't even forsee their own needs (drastically different needs) just 12 years down the road (when they needed a vastly more powerful government!).
They didn't have a government-created monopoly on health care like we do today, (at a time when blood-sucking leaches were considered the top cure for everything).
So, you have absolutely no idea how they would view our social challenges today. All we know is that, after 12 years living their libertarian, revolutionary rhetoric under the Articles of Confederation their own social challenges were such that they preferred something vastly more powerful, efficient and effective. And, with lots of loopholes such as "general welfare" and "interstate commerce," and "reasonable searches and siezures" (as well as "takings" of property as long as the price is right).
I don't care how you try to minimize it. That was a huge embrace of government compared to what they had. If they believed in "less government" they would have stayed exactly where they were under the Articles of Confederation.
said by Somnambul33t:im sorry, i should have mentioned national debt + promised spending not already incurred is about 500% of GDP for both spain and USA Do you have a reference to support that claim. I've never heard of "promised spending" appearing in a different column than debt.
It sounds like you're saying the debt will reach 500% of GDP. Which, of course, nobody can predict. For example, our healthcare currently consumes more than twice the percentage of GDP as other nations with universal health care and the ability to set prices of the healthcare monopoly. that's expected to grow much higher. If our healthcare were reformed drastically enough (which it surely would be if we faced debts equal to 500% of GDP), we could see tremendous savings similar to other industrialized nations.
You might not like such potential changes. But, it's disingenuous to act like the debt will be 500% of GDP.
Mark | |
| That is so utterly silly. What inane sophistry -- to claim that the American Founders were in favor (!!!) of large government! Comical!
The Articles of Confederation were understood as an interim step that needed to be replaced by a sustainable Constitution that would allow the states of the new country to exist as a single Republic.
The interstate commerce clause exists to ensure that there could be a single national currency, and that the individual states wouldn't erect tariffs and other barriers to domestic trade.
The Founders today would certainly be disturbed by the abuses heaped upon, and conducted in the name of, their Constitution. | | |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
4 edits | said by DufiefData:The Articles of Confederation were understood as an interim step that needed to be replaced by a sustainable Constitution that would allow the states of the new country to exist as a single Republic. (Chuckle). It was understood after they found the Articles of Confederation to be ineffective. The founding generation wanted a larger, more powerful government which could coerce the states into compliance with their agreements and obligations (including coercion of individuals, hence the need for a bill of rights which was previously unnecessary since there was no such power at the federal level to affect individuals.).
There was absolutely no understanding in 1777 that a federation would replace the confederation. Federalists pushed for such an expansion of power, and the public finally supported it after Shay's Rebellion. Those (like Jefferson) who opposed federation lost.
The bottom line is: If the founding generation's primary principle was "less government" they would have remained a confederation. The fact that they ditched the confederation for a federation (with vastly larger powers which hadn't existed previously) demonstrates that they were for balancing society's needs with libertarianism (with, in their case, society's needs winning.).
said by DufiefData:The interstate commerce clause exists to ensure that there could be a single national currency, and that the individual states wouldn't erect tariffs and other barriers to domestic trade. The power to coin money is a different, seperate clause.
The commerce clause was given very little intent demonstrated during the debates. If it had the limited meaning that you ascribe to it (due to the silence of the debates), they would have simply said "power to prohibit state tariffs."
I agree with you that the Supreme Court expanded the Commerce clause in the early 1900s, giving it more practical application. However, that is consonant with the intent of the founders, and the drastic change of the role of the Federal government after the Civil War.
In Federalist 42, Madison says that the ultimate goal of the commerce clause was to promote public tranquility.[1]
The Civil War and 14th Amendment (1865) significantly altered the role of the Federal government, the supremacy of states, and the importance of individuals. No longer was this a serial relationship (fed to state, state to individual). The federal role went beyond facilitating conduct between states (which affected individuals as a secondary matter), and affecting individuals directly.
Therefore, it is no surprise that when the Supreme Court undertook to give the 14th Amendment meaning (through selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights) that it would also find it necessary to give the broader constitution greater meaning (in this new, expanded role affecting individuals).
Ratification of the constitution in 1789 wasn't a single event occurring in a vacuum. It was the result of the founding generation's experience with minimal government, and desiring larger, more effective government. Likewise, the role of the federal government changed significantly 70 years later when it was given a more direct relationship to the individuals of states (not a predominate relationship with states as intermediaries).
said by DufiefData:The Founders today would certainly be disturbed by the abuses heaped upon, and conducted in the name of, their Constitution. As mentioned previously to another poster, you have absolutely no way of knowing that. The founding generation lived in an era of never-ending frontiers (at the expense of Native Americans, who's property rights received no respect). Their largest social problem was some guy with a six-foot-long single-shot rifle. And, the extent of their medical regulation was that "quacks" would be tarred-and-feathered (after the fact).
One of the most libertarian writers of the period argued for Social Security in 1795 (see Thomas Paine quote posted earlier).
And, even under such simple challenges the founding generation couldn't foresee its own needs just 12 years into the future. What they did by ditching the Articles of Confederation for a relatively massive government (with loopholes) was the same thing future generations have done as they find that new social challenges call for more effective use of government.
Mark
[1] "We may be assured by past experience [Articles of Confederation], that such a practice [interstate tariffs] would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility." | |
| reply to Somnambul33t
im not even going to bother replying. you're an idiot. i dont see how anyone could interpret these events in a more unrealistic way.
promised debt is not a hard concept to understand. it's spending that has not yet been incurred but is promised to certain entities. social security is just one example. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Somnambul33t:im not even going to bother replying. you're an idiot. i dont see how anyone could interpret these events in a more unrealistic way. How is it unrealistic? The founding generation had less government. They wanted larger government due to the inefficiencies of less government.
That's the reality. To say the founding generation believed in "less government" is incorrect. If they did, they would have remained with the Articles of Confederation. Instead, the wanted "bigger government," just like every generation since.
Nothing could describe reality better. But, it doesn't support your worldview.
said by Somnambul33t:promised debt is not a hard concept to understand. it's spending that has not yet been incurred but is promised to certain entities. social security is just one example. But, "promised debt" isn't debt until it's debt. Over the past 100 years anyone could forecast debt to be 500% GDP. The problem with forecasts is that they are based on current revenues (such as when revenues were good, and Bill Clinton had a projected surplus, or today when revenues are bad). They also don't take into account the political will to affect deficits either through more progressive taxes, greater nationalization of healthcare, cutting waste.
Near the end of WWII the debt was close to 120% of GDP. At that time, it would have been easy to project 10000%
Spending (or insufficient, poorly targeted taxes) are something to get under control. That's definitely a reason to have healthcare like other industrialized nations (which spend on average 1/2 the percentage of GDP that we do, with our costs rising far faster than inflation, and expected to consume 20% of GDP in a decade).
Mark | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to DufiefData
said by DufiefData:The interstate commerce clause exists to ensure ... that the individual states wouldn't erect tariffs and other barriers to domestic trade. BTW: this may be related to the topic of national broadband.
You have to remember that the founding generation's view of commerce was land and sea. 85% of the cites in the constitutional debates concerning commerce involved Atlantic shipping.
We would be absolutely nowhere today if we believed that their words were limited explicitly to their world. (That the right to arms was limited to a single-shot musket.).
With commerce today taking varied forms (air travel, internet shopping, etc.) we have to apply the founding generation's goals to these larger challenges.
One of their goals was, plainly speaking, fairness. The union (Continental Congress) needed revenues to pay off the war debt. It's attempt to levy a tariff on shipments entering ports was vetoed by New York and Rhode Island. This led to states such as New Jersey refusing to pay their apportioned levy (for the confederation), claiming it had already paid it's portion to New York (in the form of New York's tax on imports).
During debates, Hamilton argued that "uncommercial" states would not be able to pay their portion of federal levy because they would have already paid commercial states an "impost."
The quality of that argument is strikingly similar to today's argument that those who benefit from imrpoved commercial conditions (developed cities) owe a greater burden of the cost of social infrastructure than those in rural areas.
It also shows that the Federal government has an interest in furthering a commercial infrastructure from which taxable activities occur.
Another aspect of the debate over interstate commerce was the federal desire to give preference to all export shipping to US ships. A social goal which placed national (collective) interests ahead of the interests of a state, or any merchant in a state who might have saved money by using a foreign shipper.
The quality of that argument is similar to modern arguments that, nationally, we have an interest to be competitive in the global market, not merely to respect "free market" ideology as a Theory of Everything.
Mark | |
|
