View Poll Results: Should the government be able to regulate this market in advance as stated below?

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 12.50%
  • No

    19 79.17%
  • Other

    2 8.33%
Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 167

Thread: Mandated Burial Plot

  1. #91
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    You have said the amendment process was bad. I think many disagree with you, and probably see your belief as just a realization on your part that the things you want done are not possible due to the amendment process, due to lack of support.
    It's not a matter of wanting any specific thing done. Take the substantive question out of it entirely and just look at it from an historical perspective...we have had no important constitutional amendments since 1920, and only three important, non-coerced, modernizing amendments in our entire history (all passed between 1913-1920). Do you believe that we figured out the perfect form of government in 1920?

    As for the policy changes which I supposedly want...clearly there *is* public support for a more modern interpretation of the Constitution. If there wasn't, the American people would stop electing presidents who appoint modernizing judges, and senators who confirm them.

    Other than that, what exactly in the constitution is so 'out of date' that it does not fit 'current times'?
    See post #87 for a brief list.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-30-12 at 10:46 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #92
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    Why is it so bad to ask for honest debate? Present your ideas to the American people and let us decide. Seems to me you are admitting single payer would never be accepted by the American people
    So that precludes the adoption of any other, lesser health care measures?

    if it was openly discussed and you are defending trying to ram a program down our throats that we don't want and would never willingly accept.
    Make up your mind. Does electing a Congress that opposes a specific law (e.g. single payer) mean that it isn't "accepted by the American people"? Or does electing a Congress that passes a specific law (e.g. the Affordable Care Act) have no bearing on whether it's wanted/accepted by the American people? You can't have it both ways.

    I would be for single payer if you could show me it would work better and less expensively than our current system, apparently your side can't do that.
    Want evidence that it works better and less expensively than our current system? For my evidence I cite the policies of every other developed country in the world, which have universal health care and far lower costs than our health care system. Done.

    Something tells me you still aren't convinced.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #93
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It's not a matter of wanting any specific thing done.
    Again we see the liberal refusal to answer any question that would cause them to be specific.


    See post #87 for a brief list.
    All bogus...

    1. We have cars, airplanes, and an interstate highway system. It is relatively easy for people to pick up and move from one state to another, whereas when the Constitution was written most people lived their entire lives without traveling more than 30 miles from their home. This means that a system of assigning primary taxing/spending responsibilities to the states, rather than the federal government, would be far less effective now than it was in 1789. Not to mention that it greatly increases both the size and scope of interstate commerce.
    Thus the CC covers interstate commerce. It doesn't matter the scope of the commerce. Was valid when written, is valid now.

    2. The concept of environmentalism was almost totally unknown in 1789, aside from maybe a few minor issues like overfishing. The Founding Fathers certainly could not have envisioned massive air pollution from smokestacks, widespread electricity consumption, the economics of the oil trade, climate change, nuclear power plants, a hole in the ozone layer (or even the existence of an ozone layer), ocean trawling, etc. Regulating some of these activities cannot easily be done on a state level, because the environmental practices of one state can affect others.
    You think the founders knew nothing about the environment? Read up on Jefferson. Again, those that effect across state lines are covered. And you seem to give little credit to a states ability to handle it's own business. Common among liberals.

    3. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, most people identified with their state first and their nation second. Today, it is the opposite. This is a profound cultural shift, that ingrains a "we're all in this together" mentality on most American citizens. This, of course, leads to comparisons of American policies with those of other nations (rather than between the states), and calls for a heavier federal role in things like health care and education. (You personally may or may not have this mentality, but that's irrelevant to the historical fact that this way of thinking is radically different from what it was in 1789).
    There just aren't the proper words to explain how stupid #3 is.

    So I will guess you will continue to not offer any specifics. Most likely because you have none, but just a general concept that the fed should have more power, because they are the only ones that can enact the change YOU want.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  4. #94
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    Other than that, what exactly in the constitution is so 'out of date' that it does not fit 'current times'?
    Quote Originally Posted by 2nd Amendment
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    ... as originally written and intended meant anything up to and including the high-dollar muskets and cannons used by the regular army. As I've posted in other places, I have no problem with someone owning a fully-functional army version of an M-16 or any other military weapon they are qualified on up to and including .50 cal machine guns, 20mm guns, and (my favorite) tanks. However, I'm willing to bet even most NRA people would balk at some of that. By strict interpretation and intent of the 2nd Amendment these should all be 100% legal. Of course, with the Gatling gun a century in their future the Founders had no clue about full automatics of any kind and a tank was well beyond their wildest imaginings.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 03-30-12 at 12:32 PM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  5. #95
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    You think the founders knew nothing about the environment? Read up on Jefferson. Again, those that effect across state lines are covered. And you seem to give little credit to a states ability to handle it's own business. Common among liberals.
    I give credit where credit is due. You can refer to this page for how much credit that is:
    Superfund Sites Where You Live | Superfund | US EPA
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 03-30-12 at 12:34 PM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  6. #96
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    WOW. Man am I glad you are not a politician. For attitudes and beliefs like that are exactly what this country does not need. It goes right into my belief that the left really does not give a crap about the constitution and will do whatever they need to accomplish their idiotic ideas.

    Pathetic stuff.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    You have said the amendment process was bad. I think many disagree with you, and probably see your belief as just a realization on your part that the things you want done are not possible due to the amendment process, due to lack of support.

    Other than that, what exactly in the constitution is so 'out of date' that it does not fit 'current times'?
    Does this not say it all?

    Mandated Burial Plot-madison-jpg
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  7. #97
    Student
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 04:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    152

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    So talking ot my relatively apolitical wife about the health care law last night and the arguments made in court, she brought up an analogy that I actually thought was rather on point and one I wanted to expand on.

    People die. When people die, if there is no family or no one able to provide for their burial we do not simply leave the dead decaying body to lie out and about. Someone bears the cost to go forward with disposing of the body either thorugh burial or cremation. And when that's ont a family member its putting an unnecessary financial burden on portions of society. Everyone, in some fashion, will enter into this market place at some point. There is no an individual who at some point in their life will be involved in some fashion with this particular market. We don't know when an individual may enter this market, and the entrance to it could be sudden and without any forthought.

    As such, should the government be able to regulate this market in advance by mandating that every individual do one of the following two things or be levied a tax penalty?:

    1. Purchase Life Insurance, assuring that everyone who dies will have some money doled out that will cover after-death costs. To go along with this, regulation will be put on Life Insurance that it must cover ALL forms of death at least to a minimum amount, including suicide.

    2. Purchase a burial plot and coffin or pre-purchase cremation services.
    This is not making a scene Purchasing of Burial plot it 's better to purchase of health insurance or pay tax properly.

  8. #98
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,880
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It's not a matter of wanting any specific thing done. Take the substantive question out of it entirely and just look at it from an historical perspective...we have had no important constitutional amendments since 1920, and only three important, non-coerced, modernizing amendments in our entire history (all passed between 1913-1920). Do you believe that we figured out the perfect form of government in 1920?
    What ammendment do you think we need to add to the Constitution?

    I disagree that the amendment process is "impossible" to achieve now adays. It may seem impossible but it is not. As always you just need something that is acceptable to put into the Constitution. Right now I don't see anything worth having.

    Also you might want to expand on what you mean by "no important constitutional amendments since 1920, and only three important, non-coerced, modernizing amendments in our entire history (all passed between 1913-1920)." Because we have certainly had amendments added to the constitution since 1920. The newest one was put into the Constitution in 1992.

    In point of fact the 27th Amendment, though ratified in 1992, was originally proposed by some of the founding fathers to be included in the original Bill of Rights but it was never ratified so was not included.

    Amendment 27 - Limiting Changes to Congressional Pay. Ratified 5/7/1992. History

    No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
    The United States Constitution

    27th Amendment
    The 27th Amendment was originally proposed on September 25, 1789, as an article in the original Bill of Rights. It did not pass the required number of states with the articles we now know as the first ten amendments. It sat, unratified and with no expiration date, in constitutional limbo, for more than 80 years when Ohio ratified it to protest a congressional pay hike; no other states followed Ohio's lead, however. Again it languished, for more than 100 years.

    In 1978, Wyoming ratified the amendment, but there was again, no follow-up by the remaining states. Then, in the early 1980's, Gregory Watson, an aide to a Texas legislator, took up the proposed amendment's cause. From 1983 to 1992, the requisite number of states ratified the amendment, and it was declared ratified on May 7, 1992 (74,003 days).
    The United States Constitution ~ History of the 27th Amendment

    I find it funny that you are proposing the Constitution is outdated and basically irrelevant and yet our newest amendment which was ratified relatively recently originally came from our fouding fathers.

    Anyways you also might want to note that we have had 7 Amendments that I think are important that has been added to the Constitution since 1920.

    Amendments 20 and 21 were passed in 1933
    Amendment 22 in 1955
    Amendment 23 in 1961
    Amendment 24 in 1964
    Amendment 25 in 1967
    Amendment 26 in 1971
    Amendment 27 in 1992
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  9. #99
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    What ammendment do you think we need to add to the Constitution?
    If we were following an "originalist interpretation" of the Constitution we would need a lot of them. I'm actually in the process of writing my own proposed US Constitution just for fun...I'll post it on here and/or on my website when I'm finished with it. But in the mean time, here are a few that I would propose, if we were to seriously adopt an originalist interpretation of the Constitution:

    - Fixing the amendment process itself to make it a bit easier to amend the Constitution (although still hard enough that it can't easily be done for short-term political gain).
    - "The Supreme Court shall have the power of judicial review. This Constitution shall be treated as a living document."
    - Changing the 10th amendment to give all powers to Congress which are not delegated to the states, the people, or the other branches, as long as Congress does not use them to violate anything in the Constitution.
    - "Congress shall pass no law imposing trade barriers on any foreign nation, except as needed for national security, health and safety, or quality control."
    - Supreme Court justices shall have 17-year term, and shall only serve one term.
    - Senators shall have a 6-year term, and shall only serve one term.
    - Representatives shall have a 6-year term, and shall only serve one term.
    - Explicitly create an independent Federal Reserve as a fourth branch of government.
    - Explicitly create an independent Elections Branch which would be tasked with redistricting after the census, establishing campaign finance regulations for federal offices, establishing congressional ethical standards, and shall have the power to remove any congressperson from office for violating these rules. Congress would also keep the power to impeach its own members.
    - Possibly take away routine budgetary responsibilities from Congress and put them in the hands of an independent committee and/or the executive branch. If Congress wants to alter the amount of money we spend on entitlements and/or discretionary spending, that's fine. But in the absence of any action from Congress, entitlement spending will continue to do whatever it's going to do, and all discretionary departments/agencies/spending shall receive the same amount of funding as it did the previous year by default (indexed for inflation). This will prevent budget stalemates, debt ceiling debacles, and other self-inflicted fiscal crises.

    I disagree that the amendment process is "impossible" to achieve now adays. It may seem impossible but it is not. As always you just need something that is acceptable to put into the Constitution. Right now I don't see anything worth having.
    But that may be BECAUSE we interpret the Constitution to fit the times. If we actually followed an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, you might feel otherwise. I think that the idea that ANY country is capable of using an incredibly old Constitution (written in 1788 and last seriously amended in 1920) and have it work just as well in 2012, is impossible. Heck, Thomas Jefferson himself thought that the entire Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years so that each generation could have a form of government that best corresponded with its own circumstances and needs.

    Also you might want to expand on what you mean by "no important constitutional amendments since 1920, and only three important, non-coerced, modernizing amendments in our entire history (all passed between 1913-1920)." Because we have certainly had amendments added to the constitution since 1920. The newest one was put into the Constitution in 1992.
    None of the ones passed since 1920 have been particularly important, in that they fundamentally changed the nature of our government. They've just been trimming around the edges.

    In point of fact the 27th Amendment, though ratified in 1992, was originally proposed by some of the founding fathers to be included in the original Bill of Rights but it was never ratified so was not included.

    The United States Constitution

    The United States Constitution ~ History of the 27th Amendment

    I find it funny that you are proposing the Constitution is outdated and basically irrelevant and yet our newest amendment which was ratified relatively recently originally came from our fouding fathers.
    Actually that was because a college kid made a major push for it in the 1980s by writing to state legislatures encouraging to have it passed. It's not as though there was a political contingent (other than Congress itself) opposing it on ideological grounds. But that's my point...the only amendments we've been able to pass in the last 92 years have been minor things like that.

    Anyways you also might want to note that we have had 7 Amendments that I think are important that has been added to the Constitution since 1920.

    Amendments 20 and 21 were passed in 1933
    Amendment 22 in 1955
    Amendment 23 in 1961
    Amendment 24 in 1964
    Amendment 25 in 1967
    Amendment 26 in 1971
    Amendment 27 in 1992
    But we had three very important amendments between 1913-1920 which fundamentally changed the nature of our government: The direct election of senators, the power of Congress to levy an income tax, and the right of women to vote. Nothing since then really compares in terms of its significance...we have the repeal of Prohibition, three amendments dealing with presidential terms and/or succession, three dealing with voting rights (for 18-year-olds, DC residents, and despite the failure to pay a poll tax), and the congressional pay raise amendment. None of those really compare in importance to the 16th, 17th, and 19th amendments...the newer amendments are just minor housekeeping, and our government would work more or less the same way without them. Maybe not exactly the same, but pretty close.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-31-12 at 09:19 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #100
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mandated Burial Plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    But in the mean time, here are a few that I would propose, if we were to seriously adopt an originalist interpretation of the Constitution:
    Other than term limits so there are no lifelong politicians any longer, the rest looks like a recipe for disaster.

    But we had three very important amendments between 1913-1920 which fundamentally changed the nature of our government: The direct election of senators, the power of Congress to levy an income tax, and the right of women to vote. Nothing since then really compares in terms of its significance...
    So?

    Is there some reason why there must be an amendment every so often that appeases you in order for things to be 'right'? That makes no sense to me. When things need fixing you fix them, when they don't, you don't mess with them.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •