• 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!

Should we pay for water?

Should we pay for water?

  • Total voters
    68
TheLastIndependent said:
You collect the water, purify it, then store/drink it.
Click to expand...

Hilarious simplification and another good example of why folks in mosquito and disease areas shouldn't be allowed to do rain catchment. You've never even seen a rain catchment system have you?
 
SocialDemocrat said:
Utah is eliminating homelessness by giving a home to those who need it. I recognize that this is different than a right to housing.
Click to expand...

are they making a law in doing this?

you cannot make laws, to give things to one group of people and not give it to another.

privileges have to be given to every citizen of the state.....that's constitutional law.

one of the reason why government cannot give you material goods and services.
 
ernst barkmann said:
are they making a law in doing this?

you cannot make laws, to give things to one group of people and not give it to another.

privileges have to be given to every citizen of the state.....that's constitutional law.

one of the reason why government cannot give you material goods and services.
Click to expand...

In order to receive Medicaid, you have to be below a certain income level. I could name numerous other programs designed to service a particular segment of the population. Are you saying that the government can't only service part of the citizenry, or that they shouldn't?
 
SocialDemocrat said:
In order to receive Medicaid, you have to be below a certain income level. I could name numerous other programs designed to service a particular segment of the population. Are you saying that the government can't only service part of the citizenry, or that they shouldn't?
Click to expand...


well according to constitutional law, the federal government has no authority in the life's liberty and property of the people...that's a state power...federalist 45

but as you can see, by federal government getting into the people life's.... they do it unfairly.

state government, must treat everyone equally they cannot make laws, that center on a particular group /faction of people.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well according to constitutional law, the federal government has no authority in the life's liberty and property of the people...that's a state power...federalist 45

but as you can see, by federal government getting into the people life's.... they do it unfairly.

state government, must treat everyone equally they cannot make laws, that center on a particular group /faction of people.
Click to expand...

Just because an economic theory did not exist at the time the constitution is written does not mean it's expressly forbidden by the constitution. And Utah's law does treat people equally, because it helps the less fortunate get on equal ground with everyone else.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
Just because an economic theory did not exist at the time the constitution is written does not mean it's expressly forbidden by the constitution. And Utah's law does treat people equally, because it helps the less fortunate get on equal ground with everyone else.
Click to expand...

when it comes to constitutional law, only those power delegated to congress, can congress act on with writing federal law.

charity is no legislative duty of congress--James Madison

if you create a law, that gives a particular group /faction of people something, and do not give it to others, that's not legal.

you cannot have black rights, Hispanic rights white rights, anything which applies to one but not the other.

that is not equality UNDER the law......you interpretation is equality BY law.
 
grip said:
The reason I brought this up, because if a major US city has half its population unable to afford basic water supply, it speaks to how broken our capitalist system is becoming.

Walmart advertises, they'll provide $250 billion worth of new US production. That's one company trying to rebuild public image, with a $.25 trillion dollars. Yet half of the citizens of Detroit can't afford freaking water, something is wrong.

A socialist gov't isn't the answer but it's going to become a necessity if corporations don't put something back in, instead of leveraging their ability to hoard money. Starbucks is going to start offering a free college education to its employees.

Paying workers more, with better benefits would be a big step in the right direction, and stimulate the economy dramatically putting funds in the hands of spenders.
Click to expand...



i have 160 employees

the lowest paid earns over $ 12 hour

but i dont hire anyone without experience, or an education

you have to have a skill to get into my door

and anything i can automate within reason, i will spend the capital to do so

you cant drop out of high school, never get any trade education, and still expect employers to pay you a "living wage"

at some point, we are going to realize that personal decisions still matter.....

and personal responsibility is a choice
 
Yes, water should be a resource provided through taxation under the welfare clause. It is necessary for everyone's survival not a luxury for only those who can afford it.
 
ernst barkmann said:
when it comes to constitutional law, only those power delegated to congress, can congress act on with writing federal law.
Click to expand...

And as I said before, how could the constitution prevent congress from doing something that had not even been thought of at the time?

charity is no legislative duty of congress--James Madison
Click to expand...

This could be interpreted multiple ways. Madison did not know the concepts of Keynesianism, the welfare state, socialism, or social democracy. The economy didn't look anything like it did today, so to assume that the founding fathers would support the same policies today as they did in the 1700's is naive. Also, I wouldn't worship every word that comes from the mouth of a man who supported slavery.

if you create a law, that gives a particular group /faction of people something, and do not give it to others, that's not legal.

you cannot have black rights, Hispanic rights white rights, anything which applies to one but not the other.
Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing focusing on a certain segment of the population with equality under the law. If the government decides to build a highway parallel to the Mississippi River, the west coast population does not benefit from that. Is that discrimination? In addition, this isn't putting those who already have a home below those who do not in any way. It's giving aid to people who are already less fortunate.

that is not equality UNDER the law......you interpretation is equality BY law.
Click to expand...

What part of that is illegal or unconstitutional?
 
SocialDemocrat said:
And as I said before, how could the constitution prevent congress from doing something that had not even been thought of at the time?



This could be interpreted multiple ways. Madison did not know the concepts of Keynesianism, the welfare state, socialism, or social democracy. The economy didn't look anything like it did today, so to assume that the founding fathers would support the same policies today as they did in the 1700's is naive. Also, I wouldn't worship every word that comes from the mouth of a man who supported slavery.



You seem to be confusing focusing on a certain segment of the population with equality under the law. If the government decides to build a highway parallel to the Mississippi River, the west coast population does not benefit from that. Is that discrimination? In addition, this isn't putting those who already have a home below those who do not in any way. It's giving aid to people who are already less fortunate.



What part of that is illegal or unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

the constitution is a document which sets up the federal government, and delegates to them few powers, it creates federalism a separation of powers between the feds and the states,, with the states have numerous powers.

all powers which are not delegated to the federal government by the constitution, are to remain the power of the states and to the people.


just because people want the federal government to do things they think are a good idea, does not give government the authority to do them, the constitution must be amended.

the founders did not create a democracy, and they created a government to stop collectivism, as stated in the federalist paper 63.

any powers that the government were to exercise which are not in the constitution is illegal unless an amendment granting them a new power to the constitution is ratified.

I do not understand your highway example, please rephrase it

by your own words you are using law, to make people equal... this is not legal, it is equality under the law, not by law.
 
grip said:
As I've already stated if you let half the population go without an essential element for survival, they will riot and fight for it.
Click to expand...

I haven't been seeing a lot of that lately but I do live in the United States. We haven't dealt with that since the coal miner strikes.
 
clownboy said:
Yeah, except it's not and never has been, anywhere on the globe.
Click to expand...
Electricity was free in Libya during Gadaff regime.

______________

All resources close to a human right would never be free in a democracy regime.
 
gdgyva said:
i have 160 employees

the lowest paid earns over $ 12 hour

but i dont hire anyone without experience, or an education

you have to have a skill to get into my door

and anything i can automate within reason, i will spend the capital to do so

you cant drop out of high school, never get any trade education, and still expect employers to pay you a "living wage"

at some point, we are going to realize that personal decisions still matter.....

and personal responsibility is a choice
Click to expand...


Personal decisions seems to only matter for the poor, if you're wealthy and screw everyone (bankers), then all is forgiven and you get billions in bailout funds.


vasuderatorrent said:
I haven't been seeing a lot of that lately but I do live in the United States. We haven't dealt with that since the coal miner strikes.
Click to expand...

It's not to that point of organized mobs, at least not since the LA riots, which were about racism but also about class warfare. Crime is on the uptick though and I expect as the Recession drags on it'll get worse, hopefully not to the point of riots.
 
grip said:
Personal decisions seems to only matter for the poor, if you're wealthy and screw everyone (bankers), then all is forgiven and you get billions in bailout funds.




It's not to that point of organized mobs, at least not since the LA riots, which were about racism but also about class warfare. Crime is on the uptick though and I expect as the Recession drags on it'll get worse, hopefully not to the point of riots.
Click to expand...



i am not an expert in economics

i have read a lot about the position we were in, and i still am not sure what i would have done...if it would have been my decision

but does your animosity go to all bankers, or only the entities that received bailouts?

and does it matter whether or not a particular bank or two were strong-armed into taking the money even though they didnt want it?

as a whole, i dont believe in bailouts......for people, or corporations

i didnt like the gm or chrysler bailouts either....and i am in the car business

you make bad decisions, you should have to live with them

but destroying the world's economy was at stake.....

some have written we would have been better off letting it all implode, and then picking up the pieces

they could be right....i dunno

just trying to determine if ALL bankers are on your list, or only the bailout kings
 
gdgyva said:
i am not an expert in economics

i have read a lot about the position we were in, and i still am not sure what i would have done...if it would have been my decision

but does your animosity go to all bankers, or only the entities that received bailouts?

and does it matter whether or not a particular bank or two were strong-armed into taking the money even though they didnt want it?

as a whole, i dont believe in bailouts......for people, or corporations

i didnt like the gm or chrysler bailouts either....and i am in the car business

you make bad decisions, you should have to live with them

but destroying the world's economy was at stake.....

some have written we would have been better off letting it all implode, and then picking up the pieces

they could be right....i dunno

just trying to determine if ALL bankers are on your list, or only the bailout kings
Click to expand...

I don't have animosity towards bankers or any wealthy institution, only the people who call for personal responsibility strictly from the unfortunate, who have made some bad decisions, but not from the elite who use their power to leverage the system unfairly for profit and gain. Though the rich have always done that to some degree, never to the level that they do now. The reason for more poverty and a growing unemployed lower class isn't just because of personal decisions, it's because of lack of wage increases, benefits, increased cost of education, medical and living expenses.

I think it's disgustingly uninformed or biased to place all the blame for societies ills on the poorest, who have the least control and power, than on the ones who make the decisions and have most the money.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the constitution is a document which sets up the federal government, and delegates to them few powers, it creates federalism a separation of powers between the feds and the states,, with the states have numerous powers.

all powers which are not delegated to the federal government by the constitution, are to remain the power of the states and to the people.


just because people want the federal government to do things they think are a good idea, does not give government the authority to do them, the constitution must be amended.

the founders did not create a democracy, and they created a government to stop collectivism, as stated in the federalist paper 63.
Click to expand...

Federalist Paper 63 addresses the necessity of the senate, and the concept of collectivism was not existent at the time of the constitution's creation. As I previously stated, one cannot simply state that the constitution does not mention an issue, so we cannot do it. The founding fathers were not aware of this concepts.

any powers that the government were to exercise which are not in the constitution is illegal unless an amendment granting them a new power to the constitution is ratified.

I do not understand your highway example, please rephrase it

by your own words you are using law, to make people equal... this is not legal, it is equality under the law, not by law.
Click to expand...

You said all people must be treated equally under the law to prevent discrimination. If a highway is built in one section of the country in order to serve the one segment of the population that lives in that area, is that not discrimination against those who do not live near the highway and will never use it?
 
SocialDemocrat said:
Federalist Paper 63 addresses the necessity of the senate, and the concept of collectivism was not existent at the time of the constitution's creation. As I previously stated, one cannot simply state that the constitution does not mention an issue, so we cannot do it. The founding fathers were not aware of this concepts.

You said all people must be treated equally under the law to prevent discrimination. If a highway is built in one section of the country in order to serve the one segment of the population that lives in that area, is that not discrimination against those who do not live near the highway and will never use it?
Click to expand...
I am impressed by your ability to be so consistently wrong.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
Federalist Paper 63 addresses the necessity of the senate, and the concept of collectivism was not existent at the time of the constitution's creation. As I previously stated, one cannot simply state that the constitution does not mention an issue, so we cannot do it. The founding fathers were not aware of this concepts.



You said all people must be treated equally under the law to prevent discrimination. If a highway is built in one section of the country in order to serve the one segment of the population that lives in that area, is that not discrimination against those who do not live near the highway and will never use it?
Click to expand...

then i shall provide the text for you.

"The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former"

the senate is created to block the collective capacity of the people, because the senate is in the hands of the state legislatures...not the people


i said everyone must be treated equally under the law, ..........meaning ALL LAWS PASSED must apply to everyone, no one is exempt from them.

example...... government cannot give you a ticket for overtime parking, ............but exempt other people from the law, you just got ticketed for.........that is illegal...and not equally under the law.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
Hey, you're that guy that thinks I'm a fascist. Cool. But back on topic, do you mean factually incorrect, or interfering with your opinion? I have a strong feeling that it is the latter.
Click to expand...

Historically, fascism is the totalitarian extreme of conservatism. It'd be a much more reasonable stab to call you a communist.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
Hey, you're that guy that thinks I'm a fascist. Cool. But back on topic, do you mean factually incorrect, or interfering with your opinion? I have a strong feeling that it is the latter.
Click to expand...
Are you not on record desiring that the government control businesses through regulations? If so you are a fascist. You are also a liberal. That is why you rely upon your strong feelings.

We have become a fascist nation.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Historically, fascism is the totalitarian extreme of conservatism. It'd be a much more reasonable stab to call you a communist.
Click to expand...
Actually this is not true. The liberals became embarrassed when the fascist A. Hitler was discovered to have killed millions of people not in combat. Prior to that the liberals all flocked to Mussolini and the favored harbinger of the future.

The US has had several fascist presidents as well as many that were fascistic. W. Wilson was fascist. So was FDR. Theodore was fascistic. So was JFK. Fascism is a tactic of the totalitarians, the Progressives, the liberals, the socialists, the Marxists, in short statists.

Communism is just one form of totalitarianism based on international socialism. Many fascist regimes are based on national socialism.

Totalitarianism is one one side of the equation. Individual freedoms and liberty stand opposed. Left and Right are almost meaningless terms.
 
ernst barkmann said:
then i shall provide the text for you.

"The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former"

the senate is created to block the collective capacity of the people, because the senate is in the hands of the state legislatures...not the people
Click to expand...

First of all, you're talking about collective power of the people to have a say in what their government is doing, not economic collectivism. Secondly, the idea that the people should not have a say in electing the governmental body that represents them is disgustingly elitist.


i said everyone must be treated equally under the law, ..........meaning ALL LAWS PASSED must apply to everyone, no one is exempt from them.

example...... government cannot give you a ticket for overtime parking, ............but exempt other people from the law, you just got ticketed for.........that is illegal...and not equally under the law.
Click to expand...

So schools cannot create classes specified for the mentally or physically disabled? Equality under the law refers to preventing government enforced discrimination. It doesn't mean we can't address issues that affect segments of the population. This is the flaw in constitutional literalism.

Jesse Booth said:
Historically, fascism is the totalitarian extreme of conservatism. It'd be a much more reasonable stab to call you a communist.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it "reasonable." I'm not a communist nor a fascist, but you're correct that Misterveritis has a very odd definition of fascism.

Misterveritis said:
Are you not on record desiring that the government control businesses through regulations? If so you are a fascist. You are also a liberal. That is why you rely upon your strong feelings.

We have become a fascist nation.
Click to expand...

You can't just make up your own definitions. Find me a source that agrees with your claim.

Also, I find it funny that you say I rely upon my feelings, and then you don't come up with a source to back up your claims that I'm a fascist.
 
SocialDemocrat said:
I wouldn't call it "reasonable." I'm not a communist nor a fascist, but you're correct that Misterveritis has a very odd definition of fascism.
Click to expand...
It is, however, a correct definition.

"Are you not on record desiring that the government control businesses through regulations? If so you are a fascist. You are also a liberal. That is why you rely upon your strong feelings.

We have become a fascist nation."

You can't just make up your own definitions. Find me a source that agrees with your claim.

Also, I find it funny that you say I rely upon my feelings, and then you don't come up with a source to back up your claims that I'm a fascist.
Click to expand...

I believe I have already done so. Fascism is complicated because it claims to be the middle way between communism and conservatism.

Fascism seeks to control businesses for the sake of the people. But really it is for the sake of the state. It is a totalitarian concept. You embrace it.
 
Misterveritis said:
It is, however, a correct definition.

"Are you not on record desiring that the government control businesses through regulations? If so you are a fascist. You are also a liberal. That is why you rely upon your strong feelings.

We have become a fascist nation."
Click to expand...

According to whom?

I believe I have already done so.
Click to expand...

No you haven't. Post a link.

Fascism is complicated because it claims to be the middle way between communism and conservatism.
Click to expand...

That assumes that politics is measured on a linear scale, which is obviously false.

Fascism seeks to control businesses for the sake of the people. But really it is for the sake of the state. It is a totalitarian concept. You embrace it.
Click to expand...

I embrace it? How can you possibly come to that conclusion? Unless you've been reading more of my posts, all you know about my ideology is that I support paid parental leave and water as a right, along with other basic needs. I don't seek to benefit "the state" in any way. The state has a role to play, just like any part of a society. You also assume that I want total control of the economy, controlled by the state. Even if I did support that, I would not be a fascist. But I don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom