Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Nov 13th 2012 new

www.youtube.com

This says it all....

LOCKED
Nov 13th 2012 new

www.youtube.com

Actually, for those of you who said God had anything to do with this....well, this answers that too!

LOCKED
Nov 13th 2012 new

(Quote) Florian-626971 said: Hello, James, and nice to meet you too. Perhaps the title of this thread should be chang...
(Quote) Florian-626971 said:

Hello, James, and nice to meet you too.

Perhaps the title of this thread should be changed to "Why did America choose BIG government?" Then we don't have to debate the definitions of socialism. I think the more important questions are "How big should our government be?" and "What should be the role of government?" You mentioned public goods, and I would agree that the government should only be in the business of providing public goods. Also, by government I mean our federal government, which is further restrained by the U.S. Constitution, which Michael, the one who began this thread, is worried about preserving.

Higher education is a good example of something that I firmly believe the federal gov't should not be involved in. In the first place, nothing in the Constitution says or implies that the federal gov't should be involved in education at all. Thus, the Department of Education, I think, ought to be abolished. We had no such dep't prior to 1979 and yet we thrived as a nation without it. Secondly, I am one of those few who dare deny that higher education is a public good. One can make the case that grade school education is a public good, since everyone should receive some schooling, and also, a democratic gov't has an interest in preparing kids to be voters by the time they grow up. But even so, laws about education should be taken care of by the state governments and the feds shouldn't interfere. As for higher education, though, we know that not every goes to college. So, colleges and universities serve only certain people, not the whole public. Further, college level courses in high school, the internet and distance learning may make college, or at least the college campus, obsolete. Still, we have gov't funding college students, perpetuating the idea that higher ed is a public good. If the government were not involved, society would more easily transition to whatever it is that will modify or even replace college education as we know it today.

The Morrill Act was passed by the Republicans when they took control of Congress after the Democrats left to join the Confederacy. They also passed the Homestead Act, which they had wanted to pass for many years. Back then, it was the Republicans that were in favor of somewhat big government. And I do decry them for passing the Morrill Act, which began the process of the federal gov't taking more and more control of higher education. Land grant colleges have become these huge operations where young people waste about four years of their life and waste money paying for it, or the taxpayers pay for it. College grads have a hard time finding jobs as their degrees have become more and more watered down and worthless. Yet, due to gov't contantly subsidizing college, the college degree continues to get more expensive. Clearly, gov't involvement in higher ed has led to disaster.

As for social security and medicare, I also tend to think of these as unconstitutional and un-public goods, but that's just my opinion. The courts have recognized these as constitutional; and besides, it would be immoral to abruptly end these programs now, since people have been paying into them all their life. Further, I suppose one can argue that they serve the public as insurance, under which everybody is covered. On the other hand, social programs cannot really be said to be public goods if not everyone will need them or make use them. They dispense services to one individual or one family at a time, not to the public all at one time.

--hide--

I don't disagree. But the under the health and welfare clause the Courts seem to willing to approve anything. Justice Roberts opened another avenue like this for future expansion; if what Uncle does can be, no matter how tortured, judged a tax, Uncle can do anything.

What is so sad about the Federal Government's involvement in higher ed is that all one had to do is look at what has happened since. Standards have been lowered. People who before the Feds would never have even made it into college academically are earning Doctorates. And those dunderheads end up teaching to perpetuate and accelerate the dumbing down of America.

LOCKED
Nov 13th 2012 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: I don't disagree. But the under the health and welfare clause the Courts seem to will...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

I don't disagree. But the under the health and welfare clause the Courts seem to willing to approve anything. Justice Roberts opened another avenue like this for future expansion; if what Uncle does can be, no matter how tortured, judged a tax, Uncle can do anything.

What is so sad about the Federal Government's involvement in higher ed is that all one had to do is look at what has happened since. Standards have been lowered. People who before the Feds would never have even made it into college academically are earning Doctorates. And those dunderheads end up teaching to perpetuate and accelerate the dumbing down of America.

--hide--

I think you mean the general welfare clause. I hope John Roberts ignores his ruling and comes to accept that the ruling doesn't make sense: the gov't can't violate the commerce clause by exceeding its powers under that clause, unless the gov't is taxing, in which case it can violate the commerce clause. Huh?

LOCKED
Nov 13th 2012 new
(Quote) Cheryl-409772 said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js9JCXkQQaM&feature=player_embedded <...
(Quote) Cheryl-409772 said:

www.youtube.com







This says it all....

--hide--


Yes, it sure does....
LOCKED
Nov 13th 2012 new

So, you don't believe in conservatives huh? Well I believe in idiots and my belief is confirmed every day, even in this forum. The reason Obama was re-elected is he was Barak-a-Claus. When you promise to give someone something for free, is there any wonder they will say yes?

Liberalism breaks 3 of God's Commandments.

1) When Liberals decide that someone has too much of what God gave him, then they set themselves up as God judging him and breaking the first commandment.

10) When Liberals say that someone has too much and it isn't right, they are coveting someone else's property and breaking the tenth commandment.

6) When Liberals conspire with government to take what isn't theirs because of greed and give it to someone else when that person could not have acquired that money any other way than by theft, they are steeling and breaking the sixth commandment.

Please don't bother with the tripe about roads and water. I gladly pay for those, but when you decide that I have too much and need to take it from me, you have gone far beyond supporting government and have become greedy. When you give the money you took from me to someone else, you make them slothful.

Liberalism is nothing but the sowing of sin and we now are reaping its harvest.

LOCKED
Nov 13th 2012 new

Very interesting article...

Real Danger Of “Obamacare”: Insurance Company Takeover Of Health Care

www.zerohedge.com

LOCKED
Nov 13th 2012 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: Hi William et alia,Yes, okay. I must admit I was a little confused. The problem is...
(Quote) James-17080 said:



Hi William et alia,

Yes, okay. I must admit I was a little confused. The problem is that Steve decided to interject his own opinions into a definition, thus muddying the waters. And linking Obama to fascism is really muddying the waters, a fault which might very well be laid at the feet of Jonah Goldberg.

Several years ago, we had a young firebrand conservative here who just graduated college. He was a doctrinaire conservative, a lover of Bush and the Iraq War, and so on. But he was a liberal in on very peculiar aspect: he was all in favour of student loans. When I asked him about this, he said, "Well, uh, I couldn't have gone to college without them". He was a liberal only when it suited his interest. Why do I bring this up? Because in this case, my young friend was a socialist. The student loan program was administered by the federal government, who distributed the money to the students.

Let's take another example. Water, and the distribution of water. Here in Chicago, water is secured from Lake Michigan and purified, and all of this is done by the city on the cheap. In other places, private firms do this sort of thing, for considerably more money. Why? Private firms have an incentive, (and a legal obligation if the firm is publicly traded) to put profits over services. Clearly letting the state handle the water is a better option. Or what some here might classify as "socialism"

James ☺

--hide--
Regarding the issue about student loans, again "student LOANS" meaning it is a loan and not a "dole out." Being a loan, the student who got the loan privilege will have to pay it back. If you are referring to GRANTS which don't need to be paid, grants are given as a reward or incentives for deserving students who are capable of success in their chosen professions, Both are not socialistic. To my understanding financial aids as in scholarships, loans or grants are "Investments" with the projection that these students will one day be employable, self-sufficient (not depending on government dole outs) and also become tax paying citizens of the country. Tax collection is necessary for a capitalistic society in order that the government can provide services necessary to support the exchanges of wealths. But to impose heavy taxes to its citizenry with the purpose of giving the money for social services is killing the "goose that lays the golden egg." and it encourages lazy citizens to take advantage of the concept. I was shopping grocery one time, and at the cashier I was next to a well-dressed couple paying their purchases with three (3) different food stamps cards. We followed them to the parking lot and the woman loaded her groceries to a Jaguar and the guy loaded his groceries to an expensive pick up truck. This is not an isolated case because when I told the story to some friends, they also did have that kind of observation while they were shopping, and these are the people that voted for socialism. How many news have we read about affluent families using food stamps? The problem America will have to face in the future would be the source of these dole outs. What woukd happen if the wells run dry?

LOCKED
Nov 13th 2012 new

(Quote) Florian-626971 said: (Quote) James-17080 said:I didn't notice the italicization. I have ...
(Quote) Florian-626971 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:

I didn't notice the italicization. I have weak vision. As you correctly pointed out, he could have added a break between the two.

I made a small omission. Back when this lad was in school, Federal loans were administered through the banks. Why? I don't know, but they were, and they added to the load overhead. Since Obama took office, students now get loans directly from the government. I didn't point this out to him, he brought the whole topic up on his own. I didn't say a word.

True, in the Great Lakes region, water doesn't have to be produced, but it does have to be made potable. Water has to be refined to make it drinkable. If you're getting water from the ocean, then water has to be distilled to remove the salt.

Here's another example. In 1867 the Merrill Act was passed that provided land and money for the establishment of land-grant universities. These universities were set up to train the engineers, scientists, and businessmen that would run the country. Few of us would deny that this is a public good. I also doubt that anyone would consider tbis "socialism". But here's a question to ponder. What would happen if such a bill were passed today? Do you believe that there would be no outcries from one side that the government was "trying to control higher education?

How about Social Security and Medicare? Are these forms of "socialism" ?

Nobody, including me, wants the government controlling every facet of our lives. But where does this "non-socialism" end and "socialism" begin?

James ☺


Hello, James, and nice to meet you too.

Perhaps the title of this thread should be changed to "Why did America choose BIG government?" Then we don't have to debate the definitions of socialism. I think the more important questions are "How big should our government be?" and "What should be the role of government?" You mentioned public goods, and I would agree that the government should only be in the business of providing public goods. Also, by government I mean our federal government, which is further restrained by the U.S. Constitution, which Michael, the one who began this thread, is worried about preserving.

Higher education is a good example of something that I firmly believe the federal gov't should not be involved in. In the first place, nothing in the Constitution says or implies that the federal gov't should be involved in education at all. Thus, the Department of Education, I think, ought to be abolished. We had no such dep't prior to 1979 and yet we thrived as a nation without it. Secondly, I am one of those few who dare deny that higher education is a public good. One can make the case that grade school education is a public good, since everyone should receive some schooling, and also, a democratic gov't has an interest in preparing kids to be voters by the time they grow up. But even so, laws about education should be taken care of by the state governments and the feds shouldn't interfere. As for higher education, though, we know that not every goes to college. So, colleges and universities serve only certain people, not the whole public. Further, college level courses in high school, the internet and distance learning may make college, or at least the college campus, obsolete. Still, we have gov't funding college students, perpetuating the idea that higher ed is a public good. If the government were not involved, society would more easily transition to whatever it is that will modify or even replace college education as we know it today.

The Morrill Act was passed by the Republicans when they took control of Congress after the Democrats left to join the Confederacy. They also passed the Homestead Act, which they had wanted to pass for many years. Back then, it was the Republicans that were in favor of somewhat big government. And I do decry them for passing the Morrill Act, which began the process of the federal gov't taking more and more control of higher education. Land grant colleges have become these huge operations where young people waste about four years of their life and waste money paying for it, or the taxpayers pay for it. College grads have a hard time finding jobs as their degrees have become more and more watered down and worthless. Yet, due to gov't contantly subsidizing college, the college degree continues to get more expensive. Clearly, gov't involvement in higher ed has led to disaster.

As for social security and medicare, I also tend to think of these as unconstitutional and un-public goods, but that's just my opinion. The courts have recognized these as constitutional; and besides, it would be immoral to abruptly end these programs now, since people have been paying into them all their life. Further, I suppose one can argue that they serve the public as insurance, under which everybody is covered. On the other hand, social programs cannot really be said to be public goods if not everyone will need them or make use them. They dispense services to one individual or one family at a time, not to the public all at one time.

--hide--


I do want to debate the definition of "socialism. "Big Government" is not the topic of this thread. If you wish, you may start a new thread with that idea.

Somehow, The Morrill Act of 1862became the misnamed "Merrill Act" . When we get through with this thread, maybe we should investigate how my brain mangled the name of the law. I thought only the beautiful Representative Michele Bachmann did that. But let us move on.

You're against the Morrill Act. I'm curious. Where did you go to undergrad and grad school?

When we talk about the Morrill Act, let us talk about it within the framework of the definition of socialism, and not "big government". Likewise, when we discuss Social Security and Medicare, let us talk about it in the context of Socialism, and nothing else.

I've seen far too many wizards here over the years bandy about the word "socialism". And then when you ask them for a definition of socialism, you never get one. I get the impression that they hear this on Fox News, where perhaps the motto should be changed from "Fair and Balanced" to "We make up your minds for you". But that again is perhaps another story.

To sum up, let us answer the questions I've put forth. I eagerly await your responses.

James ☺

LOCKED
Nov 13th 2012 new

(Quote) Florian-626971 said: I think you mean the general welfare clause. I hope John Roberts ignores his ruling and comes t...
(Quote) Florian-626971 said:

I think you mean the general welfare clause. I hope John Roberts ignores his ruling and comes to accept that the ruling doesn't make sense: the gov't can't violate the commerce clause by exceeding its powers under that clause, unless the gov't is taxing, in which case it can violate the commerce clause. Huh?

--hide--

Thanks for the correction on the general welfare clause.

There is no doubt that your thinking about this is right on. But that is the wacky it seems to be going despite common sense, which is very rare in our society today.

Incidentally, we should all hope that the anti HHS mandate law suits reach the Court before Obama gets to pack it with more wacky liberals. Even Justice Ginsberg has said words to the effect that she would have to vote for the protection of religious freedom. So even if Roberts stays on the wrong side, if we can believe Ginsberg, the HHS mandate would go down in flames.

LOCKED
Posts 41 - 50 of 200