• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support single-payer health care?

Do you support single-payer health care?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 43.7%
  • No

    Votes: 36 50.7%
  • Maybe, if

    Votes: 4 5.6%

  • Total voters
    71
Goober said:
If your interpretation of the clause is correct, then there would be no need for any of the other clauses found in the article, save the last.
If the enumerated powers where intended as a limitation, they wouldn't have granted broad authority over the general welfare, bro.
 
It is only a cheap cop-out if you arent concerned about the government violating the constitution so it can do something that you thing is a 'good idea', and it is -completely- true.

Military Keynesianism was not mentioned in the constitution, and yet the majority of right of center citizens support it to their deaths. Black or white arguments are so cliche.
 
If the enumerated powers where intended as a limitation, they wouldn't have granted broad authority over the general welfare, bro.
Please -do- try to pay attention.
 
Military Keynesianism was not mentioned in the constitution...
The power to raise and support armies, and the power to tax in order to raise rvenue to do so, necessitates that there be a certain amount of spendining on the common defense, should those armies be raised and revenues collected to that end.
 
Goober said:
The USAF was originally part of the army, and was reorganized into its own service in 1947. I have argued that it should be re-absorbed back into the army.
Why don't you start a petition demanding that Congress put the Air Force back into the army. Be sure to include a threat to sue if they don't adopt your view of the Constitution. Keep us informed of your progress.
 
The power to raise and support armies, and the power to tax in order to raise rvenue to do so, necessitates that there be a certain amount of spendining on the common defense, should those armies be raised and revenues collected to that end.

And you have just described a national defense. The US does not provide a national defense, instead we have a military industrial complex derived from the basis of Keynesian economics.
 
And you have just described a national defense. The US does not provide a national defense, instead we have a military industrial complex derived from the basis of Keynesian economics.
This is a charaterization of the function I described, and nothng more.
The function itself is clearly there.
 
This is a charaterization of the function I described, and nothng more.
The function itself is clearly there.

Nobody was attempting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Nobody claimed the absence of the "function".

I did make the claim that we use government intervention as a means of stimulating economic growth (taxation in this regard is most definitely a must!).
 
Nobody was attempting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Nobody claimed the absence of the "function".
So you agree that the constitution does allow the federal government to spend money in the private sector to raise and support armies as per its mandate to provide for the common defense -- something you describe as 'military Keynesianism".
Thank you.
 
So you agree that the constitution does allow the federal government to spend money in the private sector to raise and support armies as per its mandate to provide for the common defense -- something you describe as 'military Keynesianism".
Thank you.

Of course the constitution allows this, although you have missed the point. To what end is this achieved? If we remove military R&D, the US in in the lower tier of world R&D/GDP ratio.

The question remains: Why is government "crowding out" acceptable in some circles but not others?

Because of common defense? Highly inconsistent if you ask me....
 
Of course the constitution allows this, although you have missed the point.
No, I didn't miss anything.

You said:
Military Keynesianism was not mentioned in the constitution...
It is, as you have agreed that said term is your characterization of a function that you agree -is- mentioned in the constitution.
 
No, I didn't miss anything.

You said:

It is, as you have agreed that said term is your characterization of a function that you agree -is- mentioned in the constitution.

Not my characterization, only a simple analysis of reality. Simple national defense ceases to exist when used by government to manage the economy.

Do you also bastardize the general welfare clause? Most likely not....
 
Not my characterization, only a simple analysis of reality. Simple national defense ceases to exist when used by government to manage the economy.
However you want to describe your characterization, the fact is the function is there, stated in specific clauses relevant to same, a point to which you have agreed.
 
However you want to describe your characterization, the fact is the function is there, stated in specific clauses relevant to same, a point to which you have agreed.

So if single payer government mandated health care resembles the general welfare clause, you would be in support?

Nah.... I don't believe it for a second.
 
So if single payer government mandated health care resembles the general welfare clause, you would be in support?
I accept your concession of the point.

Moving on:
What "general welfare" clause?
 
I accept your concession of the point.

Moving on:
What "general welfare" clause?

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause]Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

You've made a point? Silly me. I assumed you were disengaging in the discussion....
 
You've made a point? Silly me. I assumed you were disengaging in the discussion....
That's OK -- you think that. It was silly of me to think you might be actually trying to have an honest conversation. MY bad, and I apoligize.
 
That's OK -- you think that. It was silly of me to think you might be actually trying to have an honest conversation. MY bad, and I apoligize.

Care to provide a source of my dishonesty? Secondly, any type of response in regards to your general welfare comment?
 
Sorry -- not feeding the trolls.

Making empty claims and then running away when someone calls you on them is unbecoming. Next time you open your mouth, beware of what comes out; that way it will prevent your foot from entering it....

The inconsistencies of the so called "conservatives" are the reasons why the RNC and "conservative" party are in decline. Government has absolutely no business intervening in peoples lives unless of course such actions support ideology. Then, government intervention is a conservatives best friend.
 
Making empty claims and then running away when someone calls you on them is unbecoming...
It's also an outright lie on your part, as I have done no such thing.

You AGREE the function that you characterize as "Military Keynesianism" is directly specified in the Constitution under the clauses I mentioned. Not sure what else needs to be said, and why you think you still have a relevant point.
 
It's also an outright lie on your part, as I have done no such thing.

You AGREE the function that you characterize as "Military Keynesianism" is directly specified in the Constitution under the clauses I mentioned. Not sure what else needs to be said, and why you think you still have a relevant point.

Military Keynesianism in regards to US military policy developed in the early 80's with the help of a fruitful dose of military spending under Reagan (which ended under Clinton). However, we have began to see a re-emergence in such a policy most recently.

And yet; the conservative political watchdogs took the bait. Which is why you argue against (with little success) health care reform.

You made a comment in regards to the General Welfare Clause. If we are to bastardize it in the fashion you bastardize national defense, why are you against a single payer system again?
 
Military Keynesianism in regards to US military policy developed in the early 80's...

And yet; the conservative political watchdogs took the bait. Which is why you argue against (with little success) health care reform.

You made a comment in regards to the General Welfare Clause. If we are to bastardize it in the fashion you bastardize national defense, why are you against a single payer system again?
Ah! I see your problem! You don't understand the argument.
Now, genuinely or willfully I cannot say, but I have my suspicions...

Apples and oranges.

As you have agreed, "Military Keynesianism" has its basis in powers directly specified by the Constitution, whereas a federal-government-as-the-single-payer system does not.
 
Ah! I see your problem! You don't understand the argument.
Now, genuinely or willfully I cannot say, but I have my suspicions...

Apples and oranges.

As you have agreed, "Military Keynesianism" has its basis in powers directly specified by the Constitution, whereas a federal-government-as-the-single-payer system does not.

So....

No comment on the general welfare clause? Shocking:shock:
 
Back
Top Bottom