“Massive misery”

21 thoughts on ““Massive misery””

1. Mrs. Mouse,

   Please point me to the article, section and clause in the United States Constitution that gives the Federal Gov’t the right to impose Federal prison sentences on people convicted of dealing and distributing narcotics domestically but between two States? Or for establishing NASA and putting all those nifty communications satellites we use into space? How about penalties for committing murder on Federal property? I suggest you start looking at I.8, which lists the powers of Congress…except you’re not going to find it explicity stated there. You’ll be happy to know, however, that it does take the time to state, in no uncertain terms, that the Federal Gov’t has the authority to combat piracy on the high seas, issue Letters of Marque to privateers, and (my personal favorite): “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” The National Endowment of the Arts has more documentation in the Constitution than the killing of a Federal judge-interesting!

   You can look in Article III if you want, too, but the only federal crime described therein is Treason–which they took the time to describe and define in some detail. For some reason they forgot to mention that you can be punished for shooting an FBI agent. For that matter, they forgot to mention explicitly establishing anything like an FBI in the first place, although the Army, Navy, and Postal Service is documented as being completely Constitutional–good news, you can Constitutionally receive mail.

   I don’t know you, but I’m guessing you’re way too smart to hide behind the “show me in the Constitution!” argument like you can’t do any better than that. And in any case, it’s the individual States healthcare plans that usually pick up the slack when people can’t pay for their healthcare, so we can stop waving about this particular piece of parchment like the be-all and end-all of American law.

2. That the federal (feral) government engages in other extra-constitutional activity, such as those you mention, does not excuse it’s engagement in the extra-constitutional activities of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. (The NEA is hardly necessary to issuing copyrights.)

   I have no problem with the states’ engaging in such activities, such as the medical program in Massachusetts. The state constitutions generally permit such activities. The federal constitution does not.

3. The answer to your question is set out in three cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1937.

   http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

   1937, Mouse. 1937. Have you considered what a waste of time and effort it is to stick up for the remaining handful of Herbert Hoover Republicans?
   Have you considered that government exists to promote the common good, and that selfish, reactionary stances like abolishing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are unlikely to resound with the general public? Have you considered that the vast majority of these benefits don’t go to the “indigent,” but to people like your late father, your widowed mother, and eventually, to you, who worked and paid taxes and earned them? I am glad that you have long-term care insurance. Many people who should have this insurance don’t get it. But if you think that you can pay health care costs in old age or in a medical crisis without the assistance of these important federal programs, you are completely out of touch with reality.

4. Note that the constitution, in Article I, Section 8, say, “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.”

   Now, as you point out, such programs provide for the welfare of specific individuals, namely those “who worked and paid taxes and earned them.” (Why, then, can we not have private accounts for our Social Security?) These programs do nothing for the general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES. The federal government does not step in and pay the debts of individuals, does it? Neither is it responsible for the welfare of individuals, but for the welfare of the UNITED STATES.

   “Have you considered that the vast majority of these benefits don’t go to the “indigent,” but to people like your late father, your widowed mother, and eventually, to you, who worked and paid taxes and earned them?”

   I have indeed. Such people should save for their retirement. Even earning minimum wage from age 18 to age 65, saving only 10% of one’s income, one would retire a millionaire, and no-one stays in minimum wage jobs his whole life.

   “I am glad that you have long-term care insurance. Many people who should have this insurance don’t get it.”

   So we should pay for their short-sightedness?

   “But if you think that you can pay health care costs in old age or in a medical crisis without the assistance of these important federal programs, you are completely out of touch with reality.”

   That is what INSURANCE is for. One cannot even get regular health insurance when one is over 65, because of Medicare. So, because of the Medicare program, I will not be able to get insurance, and so I will need the program. Medicare has done a fine job of creating its niche, but does a poor job of filling it, hence “Medigap” insurance.

   Remember also that the S.C. only reversed the lower court decision AFTER Roosevelt threatened to stack the court if they did not, and Roberts switched sides: http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria10_4.html

   Of course, the Supremes are ALWAYS rights, aren’t they?

5. 1937.

6. 1927 — Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200
   1856 — Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393

   Yup. The Supremes are always right.

Comments are closed.