Is welfare not social security?

If you were correct, Nick, we wouldn't have social security, medicare, medicade, public education, fire departments, roads,...

Supremes have ruled that the broad interpretation of General Welfare clause is okay

If you were correct, Nick, we wouldn't have social security, medicare, medicade, public education, fire departments, roads,...

Supremes have ruled that the broad interpretation of General Welfare clause is okay

-----

Yup! That is my point, we wouldn't have Government Financed or Supported social security, medicare, medicade, public education, fire departments, roads,...
- they would be privately funded and owned.

Yes, we have had bad judicial rulings. Do you thing most of these justice's are politically, philosophically, economically aligned to the vision of our founders? Or do they have an agenda? Do they legislate via the court? Why do presidents nominate justices aligned to their version of our republic? Why do we have liberal and conservative justices? Why aren't they neutral?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Sounds reasonable. So how about a gluttony tax on foods that have little or no nutritional value? It could easily be applied uniformly throughout the US...or maybe a gluttony tax on the soylent corporations that produce and market these foods.

in Nick's utopia, a contract negotiation occurs at each road intersection where the entirety of the intersection isn't under the same owner.

Aristotle would question the logic of such a system, and find reason in having the State own the roads for the benefit of all.

I agree, Nick's ideal society is not at all like mine, but diversity in ideas and discussion should be the foundations of any good government. Sadly, I don't think the US government fits the bill, and equally sadly (IMHO) is that the US government is hamstrung by a very outdated constitution.

Ok, here I go again... though generally conservative this thread has drifted into territory where I get very populist and/or liberal...

I agree that corporations should NOT be considered legal persons. The legal fiction is already imperfect- a corporation cannot vote, for instance. They also should have no freedom of speech beyond advertising their product, which is inherent in their purpose. Their individual shareholders already have broader free speech, and they are free to say whatever they like. A for-profit corporation sure as HELL should not be allowed to donate money to a politician. If one wants to support a politician then that corporation is free to petition its shareholders- actual PEOPLE- to do so. IMHO this alone would solve 70% of what is wrong with the USA.

As someone who owns stock I find it infuriating that "my" corporations give my dividends to politicians with whom I want nothing to do.

Regarding the "you can't legislate obesity" argument- well, you're right. And in fact no one is trying to do so, so your argument is specious. No one has proposed making it illegal to have a BMI greater than 30. What governments CAN do is try to alter behavior through incentives and disincentives. (As governments have been doing since there were governments.) For instance, tobacco is taxed enormously, and I'm all for it. IMO we definitely SHOULD tax soft drinks that are nothing but sugar water. AT THE LEAST we should stop subsidizing Big Sugar and whoever produces all of the damned corn syrup. The corporations- who as I have already pointed out have far too much freedom of speech- are already viciously fighting this since it would cut into their profits. And, of course, they are being dirty about it, trying to frame the issue as one that would leave the poor unable to afford beverages, which is utter crap. Other healthier alternatives exist. (Hell, if nothing else municipal water averages about a penny a gallon in the US. You'd get just as much nutrition from water as you get from Coca-Cola, without 240 empty calories per 12oz bottle.) And any drink with nutritional value- which would have to be defined- would be excluded. I'm conflicted about heavier taxes on coffee and tea- no real nutritional value, but also not 240 calories per cup. Instead I'd promote (unsweetened) tea as an alternative to soft drinks.

Why do I care if someone else is a morbidly obese glutton? For the same reason that I care if someone else smokes- because I subsidize their health care costs and disability benefits. Tobacco in the US is taxed to a point that it could fully cover the estimated increased costs of smokers' health care. That would be fair if it actually worked that way, but it doesn't.

So I say go for it.

Edited by acrosome on 02/05/2013 17:21:45 MST.

"So how about a gluttony tax on foods that have little or no nutritional value?"

I have a low BMI, why should I have to pay a tax?

Besides chocolate and things like caramel frappacinio and wonderful creations :)

Opps... what about Mountain House and all the other junk we eat on the trail. We need a tax on those too :)

"I have a low BMI, why should I have to pay a tax?"

If it reduced obesity in the U.S., and health care costs went down as a result, it would benefit you

Unless we go back to the pre-1936 "Charles Dickens" days when sick people were allowed to be sick in the gutter and eventually die

Concerning:

The Constitution is about the limitation of government, not the conduct of individuals. It is not a charter of the Government's power; but about protecting individuals from government. In regards to the conduct of individuals, see the Declaration of Independence and The Bill of Rights.

This may be nit picking but my reading of the constitution is that it IS indeed a charter of the government's power.

The fundamental philosophy behind our founding is that governments have no inherent rights. All rights flow to individual people ("human rights").

But having 3 million sovereign citizens (1780's), much less 300 million (now) presents some major problems. The preamble implicitly acknowledges both the human rights and the practical difficulties. In the rest of the document, we (or the founders) proceed to address the difficulties by ceding some of our rights to the government ... hence a charter of government rights.

The first set of amendments (13 were proposed, 10 adopted) get more explicit about which rights we did not cede.

"Regarding the "you can't legislate obesity" argument- well, you're right. And in fact no one is trying to do so, so your argument is specious."

Ah, Dean, do you need a step stool to get on that horse? ;-)

My argument is not specious since, well, it's not an argument. Perhaps a careless throwaway line, but I'm okay with that.

We agree that 'we' should stop subsidizing big sugar and corn, et. al. Where we might part ways (I'm not sure) is that I don't want government to protect me from myself. As I see it, we've been heading down a road of less and less personal responsibility, and the more we encourage legislation that protects us from ourselves, the further down that road we go. And that's not a good direction to keep heading in.

I appreciate legislation that protects me from the 'evil' doings of others, but I don't want any that protects me from me. That's my job. And that's what I meant by not being able to legislate obesity.

"We agree that 'we' should stop subsidizing big sugar and corn, et. al."

Yeah - I hate when we subsidize high fructose corn syrup, then tax soda drinks which are a consequence, better to just cut the subsidies

Same thing with how we subsidize oil and coal, then subsidize alternate energies so they can compete, better to cut the oil and coal subsidies

Given the political reality that we can't cut corn, oil, and coal subsidies, are we better off also taxing soda drinks and subsidizing alternate energies?

"Yeah - I hate when we subsidize high fructose corn syrup, then tax soda drinks which are a consequence, better to just cut the subsidies"
-------------
I agree.


"Same thing with how we subsidize oil and coal, then subsidize alternate energies so they can compete, better to cut the oil and coal subsidies"
--------------
I agree (dang 3rd time today I agree with Jerry. Must make an appointment with a shrink :)



"Given the political reality that we can't cut corn, oil, and coal subsidies, are we better off also taxing soda drinks and subsidizing alternate energies?"
--------------
Disagree. We need to take our country back from the politicians. It is our fault, we elected them.

""Given the political reality that we can't cut corn, oil, and coal subsidies, are we better off also taxing soda drinks and subsidizing alternate energies?"
--------------
Disagree. We need to take our country back from the politicians. It is our fault, we elected them."

I agree..... (a twofer, disagreed with Jerry and agreed with Nick in one neat, easy post. Without subsidies.....)

"I appreciate legislation that protects me from the 'evil' doings of others, but I don't want any that protects me from me. That's my job. And that's what I meant by not being able to legislate obesity."

Doug,

You need to stop thinking rationally.

OK, I'm pretty good at protecting me from me. I get it. I don't like that sort of legislation either.

But what if some other guy can't protect himself from himself. And he's gone and procreated and passed this trait on to his children. And now we have a whole family of people that cannot protect themselves from themselves, causing all sorts of mayhem in the neighborhood, in our justice system, in our schools, in the society we all share.

I had to call the cops to come move a guy that passed out dead drunk in my driveway and blocked my car in the other day. Not the type of thing I want to deal with personally. Who paid for that?

Be it in education, health care, law enforcement, social services, prison...I'm going to pay for the irresponsibility of others in some way, shape, or form. Part of that is being personally subject to "lowest common denominator" legislation like soda taxes (which I do believe is idiotic).

If you can show me a way out, a way I won't have to pay some form, I'd love to see it.

"But what if some other guy can't protect himself from himself. And he's gone and procreated and passed this trait on to his children. And now we have a whole family of people that cannot protect themselves from themselves, causing all sorts of mayhem in the neighborhood, in our justice system, in our schools, in the society we all share."

Isn't that how we ended up with Australia?

Put 'em on an island...

So simple, so elegant...I wish I'd have thought it up.

You're the man Mr. Ide.

"But what if some other guy can't protect himself from himself."

The Soylent Green corporations spend a lot of money figuring out to get us to eat bad stuff.

Hire Taylor Swift to hawk it

If they put HFCS in your hamburgers and french fries they'll be more addictive so we'll eat more

Same stuff they did to get people to consume more tobacco

I think the government should protect us from enemies foreign and domestic

> Isn't that how we ended up with Australia?

Null question. You did not end up with Australia. Nyah!

Cheers