[Blue Lion]

Well, frankly I understand her incredulity, given that the government has for a very long time possessed a lot of powers not strictly granted to it in the Constitution.

But this is clearly not some kind of exclusively liberal problem, because the Bush administration took major steps to expand government power and reinterpret the Constitution as a 'living document'.

And you are okay with the government having all those powers not granted to it by the Constitution?  Are you saying that just because it has been happening for a while, it is okay?

And yes, the Bush administration did this as well.  Do you think I am any happier about that?

Yes, things like the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause give the federal government enormous amounts of power that we not specifically stated in the Constitution. This has been going on since well before Bush or Obama.

[General Battuta]

Well, frankly I understand her incredulity, given that the government has for a very long time possessed a lot of powers not strictly granted to it in the Constitution.

But this is clearly not some kind of exclusively liberal problem, because the Bush administration took major steps to expand government power and reinterpret the Constitution as a 'living document'.

And you are okay with the government having all those powers not granted to it by the Constitution?  Are you saying that just because it has been happening for a while, it is okay?

And yes, the Bush administration did this as well.  Do you think I am any happier about that?

I didn't make any statements about my own personal feelings on the matter.

[SpardaSon21]

Well, frankly I understand her incredulity

I may have taken your statement out of context, but that statement leads me to believe that you don't care about the government expanding beyond its Constitutionally-mandated limits.  In my opinion any elected member of the federal government should be able to immediately say exactly where they are deriving their power when asked about it, since they are the ones we have elected to safeguard the Constitution.

Even Bush was able to pull off a half-assed explanation usually related to his enumerated duties as President when he was questioned about his actions.  Pelosi isn't even pretending the Constitution matters.

[General Battuta]

Well, frankly I understand her incredulity

I may have taken your statement out of context, but that statement leads me to believe that you don't care about the government expanding beyond its Constitutionally-mandated limits.  In my opinion any elected member of the federal government should be able to immediately say exactly where they are deriving their power when asked about it, since they are the ones we have elected to safeguard the Constitution.

Even Bush was able to pull off a half-assed explanation usually related to his enumerated duties as President when he was questioned about his actions.  Pelosi isn't even pretending the Constitution matters.

My statement meant that I understood what she was thinking when she responded with incredulity; as Blue Lion said, the government has had vast power assigned to it through documents more recent than the Constitution. Members of the government from both parties are accustomed to this, since the government routinely makes policies in areas not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution.

It did not reflect anything about my own opinion of this matter.

I'm slightly pissed that you feel the need to assign an opinion to me and then attack me about it. I try to understand people whether or not I agree with them, and that includes Pelosi.

This is one of the reasons I dislike GenDisc. Even a carefully neutral statement will end up being taken as a cause for argument.

[Blue Lion]

Well, frankly I understand her incredulity

I may have taken your statement out of context, but that statement leads me to believe that you don't care about the government expanding beyond its Constitutionally-mandated limits.  In my opinion any elected member of the federal government should be able to immediately say exactly where they are deriving their power when asked about it, since they are the ones we have elected to safeguard the Constitution.

Even Bush was able to pull off a half-assed explanation usually related to his enumerated duties as President when he was questioned about his actions.  Pelosi isn't even pretending the Constitution matters.

It's not her job to determine Constitutionality, or the President's

[Liberator]

Well, frankly I understand her incredulity

I may have taken your statement out of context, but that statement leads me to believe that you don't care about the government expanding beyond its Constitutionally-mandated limits.  In my opinion any elected member of the federal government should be able to immediately say exactly where they are deriving their power when asked about it, since they are the ones we have elected to safeguard the Constitution.

Even Bush was able to pull off a half-assed explanation usually related to his enumerated duties as President when he was questioned about his actions.  Pelosi isn't even pretending the Constitution matters.

My statement meant that I understood what she was thinking when she responded with incredulity; as Blue Lion said, the government has had vast power assigned to it through documents more recent than the Constitution. Members of the government from both parties are accustomed to this, since the government routinely makes policies in areas not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution.

It did not reflect anything about my own opinion of this matter.

I'm slightly pissed that you feel the need to assign an opinion to me and then attack me about it. I try to understand people whether or not I agree with them, and that includes Pelosi.

This is one of the reasons I dislike GenDisc. Even a carefully neutral statement will end up being taken as a cause for argument.

No document supersedes the Constitution in determining governmental powers.

[Blue Lion]

Well, frankly I understand her incredulity

I may have taken your statement out of context, but that statement leads me to believe that you don't care about the government expanding beyond its Constitutionally-mandated limits.  In my opinion any elected member of the federal government should be able to immediately say exactly where they are deriving their power when asked about it, since they are the ones we have elected to safeguard the Constitution.

Even Bush was able to pull off a half-assed explanation usually related to his enumerated duties as President when he was questioned about his actions.  Pelosi isn't even pretending the Constitution matters.

My statement meant that I understood what she was thinking when she responded with incredulity; as Blue Lion said, the government has had vast power assigned to it through documents more recent than the Constitution. Members of the government from both parties are accustomed to this, since the government routinely makes policies in areas not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution.

It did not reflect anything about my own opinion of this matter.

I'm slightly pissed that you feel the need to assign an opinion to me and then attack me about it. I try to understand people whether or not I agree with them, and that includes Pelosi.

This is one of the reasons I dislike GenDisc. Even a carefully neutral statement will end up being taken as a cause for argument.

No document supersedes the Constitution in determining governmental powers.

You're right, but documents elaborate on powers and restrictions not placed in the language of the Constitution itself since it was never designed to be the end all of the government.

[General Battuta]

Well, frankly I understand her incredulity

I may have taken your statement out of context, but that statement leads me to believe that you don't care about the government expanding beyond its Constitutionally-mandated limits.  In my opinion any elected member of the federal government should be able to immediately say exactly where they are deriving their power when asked about it, since they are the ones we have elected to safeguard the Constitution.

Even Bush was able to pull off a half-assed explanation usually related to his enumerated duties as President when he was questioned about his actions.  Pelosi isn't even pretending the Constitution matters.

My statement meant that I understood what she was thinking when she responded with incredulity; as Blue Lion said, the government has had vast power assigned to it through documents more recent than the Constitution. Members of the government from both parties are accustomed to this, since the government routinely makes policies in areas not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution.

It did not reflect anything about my own opinion of this matter.

I'm slightly pissed that you feel the need to assign an opinion to me and then attack me about it. I try to understand people whether or not I agree with them, and that includes Pelosi.

This is one of the reasons I dislike GenDisc. Even a carefully neutral statement will end up being taken as a cause for argument.

No document supersedes the Constitution in determining governmental powers.

Yeah but plenty of documents supplement it.

Also, why are you arguing with me when I just spent a post explaining that I myself haven't even expressed an opinion on the topic?

How do you know you're not preaching to the choir?

[Kosh]

I'm poor and have no insurance feel as il as you want

Then why do you oppose a policy that would directly benefit you?

[Liberator]

Maybe because he's not letting his compassion blind his logic?

[Nuclear1]

It's not his compassion--it's his own self-interest we're talking about here.

Which I don't know why you'd have to trade compassion for logic here anyway...the bill fits both just fine.

[Bobboau]

because I don't think it's right that someone else should be forced into paying my bill.

further I feel that having my expenses payed lessens me as a person, I derive a lot of personal satisfaction from doing things myself.

there is also the control issue, if someone else is paying my tab they effectively have control over me. in the current incarnations of the bill we are already seeing some of this, for instance there is (or was) a section that taxed tanning spa companies, I'm assuming because they increase the risk of skin cancer.

speaking of nice bits of the bill I'm particularity thrilled with the part that effectively mandates I use the new health care BS by levying an additional tax if I don't get insured, that realy ****ing helps me, thanks.

[Nuclear1]

Pride isn't going to pay your medical bills.  I like to do a lot of my own car maintenance myself, but I still pay for a couple-hundred-dollar roadside assistance package so I'm not faced with an unexpected several-thousand-dollar maintenance bill if my car breaks down.  You're letting your pride get in the way of practicality.  If you're poor and can't afford health insurance maybe it's time to let someone help you out, because if you can't afford insurance, you damn sure aren't going to be able to afford a massive bill.

And no matter how you want to twist it the healthcare bill isn't a sick power grab for control freaks in Washington.

We've been bending over and taking it from the upper 2% in this country for long enough that I think we've earned some healthcare at their expense.

[Liberator]

And they've been paying for your bull**** hippie good time banana rock-and-roll programs for longer than that.  The top 5% pays on the order of 95% of the tax burden in this country already, and you wanna milk them for more?  If you push much more, they're gonna leave and take their toys with them.  Because as you've pointed out over and over, they have the means to do so.  Then who are you going to milk for the money to run your "good intentions"?

[Ford Prefect]

bull**** hippie good time banana rock-and-roll programs

How is it that you always make my own ideologies sound way more fun than they are to me? That sounds like a music festival that makes Bonnaroo look like my senior prom.

[Nuclear1]

Oh, I'm so sorry they're not going to be able to pay off the mortgage on their 3rd mansion five years early.  

Point of ****ing fact:  people making over $200K a year aren't the ones who are going to ****ing die this year because they can't get insurance.  Seriously, **** them.  They can't be greedy assholes and sit around with their 47th big screen TV anymore while some poor kid from Fort Collins dies because he can't afford his medicine.

[NGTM-1R]

The top 5% pays on the order of 95% of the tax burden in this country already, and you wanna milk them for more?

They can afford it.

In fact, they can afford to pay all the tax burden in this country and their standard of living would barely be compromised from its already ridiculous level.

If you push much more, they're gonna leave and take their toys with them.

You said this many times, in many debates, but the historical bottom line is that it doesn't happen. The money itself might leave into offshore accounts, but the people don't.

If you say it again, I want some kind of evidence it'll actually occur.

[Spicious]

And they've been paying for your bull**** hippie good time banana rock-and-roll programs for longer than that.  The top 5% pays on the order of 95% of the tax burden in this country already

You are so caught, and complete with references too.

The problem is still that people in the US make judgements on things like this based on how much they earn in their magic fantasy land where they own some highly profitable business, rather than basing it on how crummy their actual situation is.

[General Battuta]

The top 5% pays on the order of 95% of the tax burden in this country already

Mathematically, that's a meaningless statistic without knowing what percentage of their income said burden takes up.

And in fact it's nothing crippling.

We've developed our own home-grown aristocracy. I'm surprised to hear you defending them when the top 1% controls nearly half the country's wealth.

[Snail]

Productive discussion? On this day?!