It’s time

Posted by Vivian J. Paige ⋅ Wednesday, July 15, 2009 ⋅ 20 Comments

About Vivian J. Paige

A former candidate, I've learned a lot about politics, both good and bad. I'd prefer more of the former and a lot less of the latter and I'm trying to do my part!

View all posts by Vivian J. Paige »

Discussion

20 Responses to “It’s time”

Posting clips from YouTube without any summary about what the clip is about is not especially helpful.

From a logistic standpoint, it is simply impossible to download and watch all of the video that is posted on a given day.

A real, value-added step, that bloggers can apply to this process is to include a brief summary in writing along with the video. That way, people seeking information can quickly scan the summary and decide whether or not to take the additional time to watch the video.

I didn’t watch the video, so I still do not know what “It’s Time” for.

Posted by J. Tyler Ballance | Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 12:20 pm
- It’s a 30-sec ad on health care – and self-explanatory. Sorry that you cannot view videos where you are.
  
  Posted by vjp | Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 12:27 pm
It’s past time. Thanks for posting this video.

Posted by spotter | Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 5:36 pm
You’re right. It IS time. You know, except for the complete lack of constitutional authority for government-mandated health insurance.

What it’s really time for is a little more constitutional literacy and adherence.

Posted by James Young | Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 5:55 pm
- You are absolutely right. It is time for Republicans to come out for abolishing Social Security and Medicare.
  
  Posted by tx2vadem | Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 7:35 pm
  - That’s the liberal logic: since A and B are unconstitutional, it’s OK to do C, which is also unconstitutional.
    
    Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 10:11 pm
After the dishonest way (“trust funds,” ha ha!) that they’ve been sold to the sheeple?!?! Not likely. Unfortunately.

Posted by James Young | Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 8:30 pm
- So, out of curiousity, have there been any cases that have decided or at least sought to question the constitutionality of OASDI and Medicare?
  
  Posted by tx2vadem | Thursday, July 16, 2009, 9:44 am
  - Yes, OASDI (Social Security) went to the Supreme Court. The ruling is a complete joke. Let me give you a summary of the logic. Unemployment spreads from State to State, and thus, by the General Welfare clause, unemployment benefits are constitutional, because they help prevent that spread. (How’s that been working lately?) Since a person is just as unemployed when he loses his job to old age and disability as when the job disappears, OASDI is similarly constitutional.
    
    The logical fallacy is two-fold. First, while unemployment due to the disappearance of a job might conceivably spread from State to State, unemployment due to disability or old age will not, because the job still exists and will be filled by someone else. Second, as we are doing now with health care, is the jump from the general welfare of the States to the welfare of specific people.
    
    Also note that the SC handed down these rulings under Roosevelt’s court-stacking threat. He had enough backing in Congress to add seats to the Court and put in socialist judges. If these parts of the New Deal were not approved by the courts, he was simply going to stack the court with socialists and bring the cases back before the Court.
    
    The current crop of socialists has a similar disdain for the Constitution.
    
    Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Thursday, July 16, 2009, 2:09 pm
Translation: “It’s time to stop making people be responsible for themselves and their families. The government should take care of us.”

Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 10:44 pm
Being a health care provider, can someone explain to me how anyone comes to have a “right” to my labor?

I thought we had this big war around here some 150 years ago to put an end to the notion that anyone could have a right to anothers’ labor.

Is there some hidden clause in the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to become the sole purchaser of any commodity or service?

I can’t find that in my copy.

Posted by Don Tabor | Thursday, July 16, 2009, 2:34 pm
- Or to make you work for someone else?
  
  Everyone has a right to eat, too. The farmer works to grow his crop, and the government takes the crop to feed someone who does not or will not work. Is that right?
  
  Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Thursday, July 16, 2009, 3:24 pm
I suggest that all the brilliant legal minds on this thread just go ahead and stop paying their income taxes, since I’m sure you think it plainly unconstitutional, too. I’m sure that the Supreme Court will be bowled over by your keen insight.

In the meantime, the rest of us will be doing something useful for this country and our society.

Posted by MB | Thursday, July 16, 2009, 7:47 pm
- Like taking other people’s hard-earned money?
  
  Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Thursday, July 16, 2009, 10:00 pm
- MB. There actually is an amendment to the Constitution that permits the income tax. Big mistake that one.
  
  When we substitute our wants and our emotions for careful and honest consideration, we usually don’t achieve our desired end. How do we know that? From a hard and unforgiving teacher. From experience we learn the end does not justify the means.
  
  Any serious student of history knows socialism has been tried repeatedly, and it does not work. We also know why socialism does not work. The means are in direct contradiction with the ends.
  
  For example, one of the goals of socialism is to empower the people. Yet socialist methods require either government ownership or intense government regulation. If the government eliminates competition and eliminates alternative choices, how then are we empowered?
  
  Unfortunately, most people do not study history. Instead, they would rather believe politicians will solve all their problems — until experience teaches the futility of believing such lies.
  
  I fear this sort of nonsense goes in cycles. The Great Depression started about 80 years before this one started. The FDR introduced his legislation…. 80 years is about as about as long as most people live and about as far back as living memories go.
  
  Posted by Citizen Tom | Thursday, July 16, 2009, 10:03 pm
  - Better Know Your Wingers, Tom. (Lots more out there, too.)
    
    I’m sure you consider yourself a learned student of history. Can’t say that I do, though.
    
    Posted by MB | Friday, July 17, 2009, 6:03 pm
    - Well, MB, is Cryer right? If not, can you show us the law?
      
      Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Friday, July 17, 2009, 6:44 pm
      - Anon E. Mouse – This is a ridicule intended as a distraction. The 16th Amendment to the Constitution is unambiguous.
        
        The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
        
        Congress would have to work to break that law. A 100 percent income tax would be perfectly constitutional. As I said, “big mistake that one.”
        
        Apparently, MB prefers to counter logical argument ridicule and disdain. I suppose it is because such “debate” requires less intellectual effort.
        
        Posted by Citizen Tom | Friday, July 17, 2009, 11:13 pm
It’s a bit of a switch for MB, though — he generally goes straight for the ad hominem attack. I guess he’s trying to expand his repertoire of issue avoidance tactics.

Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Friday, July 17, 2009, 11:58 pm
- I supposed that could be true. However, it is best to forgive MB. Although it may be habitual with MB, avoiding the issue is something we all do from time to time.
  
  Avoiding the issue is the crucial difference between argument and debate. When we are unwilling to concede the possibility we might not have the answer or that we might be wrong, we argue. Instead of striving for the truth, we fight for our pride.
  
  We each fight images of ourselves. Because we are all made in the image of God, there is a bit of the same spirit in each of us. When we look at anyone else, we see is another aspect of ourselves. When we criticize or shame anyone else, we can at best only damn a trait that in some portion also lies within each of us.
  
  Posted by Citizen Tom | Saturday, July 18, 2009, 6:52 am