TheScout

Frankly, the federal government is going broke. It runs up massive debts every year. It pays its bills by selling bonds to Asians (mostly) and printing more fiat paper money. The Resulting inflation is a hidden tax on every American which hits the poor the most. Eventually the world will catch on and stop accept our paper dollars that are not backed by anything but a promise to say. The federal government must either cut back dramatically on all levels. Social programs together with the military make up most of the budget. Or increase taxes to ridiculous Scandanavian proporitions. Either that or we will simply go bankrupt. It is sad to believe so many have such little faith in the American population that suffering will be immense without government handouts.

I wouldn't advocate corporate bailouts either. Think about if we didn't have pork barrel projects, corporate welfare, social security, of medicare, the federal government would probably have enough revenue to balance the budget without the income tax. That would be nice, wouldn't it? No income tax. Not replaced with anything. Citizens would have tons of spare money. Americans, being the most generous people in the world would be able to give more money to private charity which would be more efficient at fixing the ills of society. Nobody advocates people dying on the streets. We just advocate a better more traditional way of fixing such problems. You ask why socialized health care is bad? Look at the systems in Canada and Europe. The quality of US health care is not there. Some countries with national health systems make it illegal to go to a private doctor or go overseas for treatment. Those countries that allow citizens to go overseas often have the rich go to the United States to get treatment.

Males have been considered the head of the household for thousands of years. I guess thats still true unless modern day liberals want to destroy that part of our traditional culture as well. I would like to think that a loving, caring husband in the time before women's suffrage would consult his wife and vote in the best interests of the family. If I was married I would not think of voting against the best interests of my wife if she had the right to vote or not.

Even in the pre-Hitler days the Nazis, (originally the German Workers Party) were totally opposed to the Communists and Social Democrats of Germany. Hitler later purged his leftist opponents, the Communists in particular.

New York is one of the few states to allow fusion voting. This system allows multiple parties to nominate the same person and combine all the votes. This system gives extra weight to 3rd parties here compared to other states. Usually I vote for the Republican candidate, but on the Conservative or Liberatarian party line, depending on how he is cross-endoresed.

Shouldn't it part of a wife's liberty to seek her husbands advice on who to vote for is she desires.

I don't know what that means.

Ever hear of the term "natural monopoly"? So was a hard core right wing regime - name any - Nazi Germany, Pinochet's Chile, Franco's Spain. Were they socialists since they had a military and police?

I don't know anyone who has thought women are not human beings.

I don't think you could say Liberatarians are extremists. Look at their platform. Their lack of electoral success is better described by the attributes of our system of governement which favors the formation of two broad parties.

I guess its terribly old fashioned to believe a man should be the head of his household.

The Preamble does not in itself grant any powers to the federal government. It is a mere introduction. However some believe that it can help to define the scope of other powers listed.

Very interesting piece. Washington was very unpopular in the depths of the Revolution. Madison was hated in 1812. Lincoln was not liked very much in the Civil War. Truman had dismal approval ratings during Korea. It will be interesting to see how history shows Bush. It might be very different from how he is regarded today.

Those are all traditional government functions. The whole purpose of government is to protect order and property to allow people the greatest liberty. I would consider them probably the clearest of the natural monopolies.

Parties and leaders do many things to win elections and hold power. I think most Republicans actually believe in small government and individual responsibility but the corruptions of power and the need to bribe the electorate with promises to win elections leads them away from that. I think the most Democracts in their perfect world would have, for example, a federally run national health system - thats just one example. In any way though you are correct about the similar economic views of the parties compared to Europe. I would submit that the Republicans are less socialist than the Democrats. And socialism is bad, so the less socialism the better.

There is a very interesting book on Mr. Lincoln, The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo. I think all could agree that Lincoln has been the subject of a patriotic myths to this day. DiLorenzo submits that Lincoln's real record is quite poor. Pointing out again, 700,000 deaths, violations of the 1st Amendment, suspensions of habeous corpus, the massive unprecedented expansion of executive power. Every other Western country ended slavery peacefully and at the cost of the war the US could have paid every slaveowner compensation with much left over. And of course we all know slavery was constitutionally protected under Washignton and Jefferson so I think it is improper to stain their character with condemnations of allowing slavery. I would submit that the great advanced civilizations like you mention fall because they change who they are, not because they refuse change like you submit. The Rome that fell to the barbarian hordes was nothing like the little republic that conquered the known world in the 1st Century BC. And the Eqypt that built the Pyramids was not the same as the one that was continually raped by invaders from without in the following centuries. And the examples continue. As the Mongol hordes settled among the conquered populations, they lost the skills which made built the greatest land empire in history and it disintegrated. Or the think of the great enthusiastic crusades of the Ottomans who likewise stagnated and grew complacent in victory who went the same way. I would contend that great civilizations tend to get lazy and decedant and lose the virtues which made them great in the first place. Of course the Greeks invented democracy, but it was Britannia who brought it around the world such as to the masses of India. I would still submit the United Kingdom on its tiny islands has more world clout in some respects than Indian today. And military force projection as well. Even huge India does not possess a fleet which could have carried out a Falklands-like campaign. Not to mention the the UK's formidable nuclear arsenal.

If I had to choose I would pick a facist over a socialist anyday. I just really hate socialism. : )

No insult sir, just making a statement. You called Catholic doctrine "poppycock" and accused Catholics of "blindly following false doctrines." This is not the first time you have attacked Roman Catholicism on therse forums. Maybe not a true bigot but your hatred for the one true faith is evident.

Yeah the last time we had a one term legislator from Illinois, he waged a war to kill 700,000 Americans. Not to talk about the worst civil rights record by far! Nobody else held thousands of Americans as domestic political prisoners. Just had to throw that in.

You're probably right. But there are a few of us hanging on that believe the Constitution doesn't change and still means what it did when it was written in 1787.

BadenP, And to accuse me of being ethnocentric. You are a anti-Catholic religious bigot. This is not the first time you have espoused such sentiments.

"All three branches of the currently-Republican heavy federal government seem to think federal programs like Medicaid are constitutional." I know . . . Constitutions can be interpreted wrong. Think of all the crackpot dictators and regimes with fancy Constitutions. The USSR had a very elaborate one with lots of protections. I never said a support the current Republican Party's theory of constitutional interpretation. I think we need to be where Ron Paul, Robert Taft, Grover Cleveland, Alexander Stephens, John Calhoun, or Thomas Jefferson are/were. I would submit that such wise figures from all ages of American history would be the closest to a proper original understanding of the Constitution.

I think the God-hating zeal with an ever expanding federal government to enforce it is a warped agenda that has no basis in the dreams of the founding generation or the actual text of the Constitution.

If the General Welfare Clause was meant to allow the United States to spend money for any purpose, why did the writers of the Constitution bother to enumerate the rest of the powers in Article II Section 8. And why would the Elastic Clause be needed? Madison wrote in the Federalist papers that this clause was only related to the other specifically enumerated powers. Your interpretation would support a federal establishment of limitless powers. But we all know that is what you want to promote your warped agenda.

All I know is when I read the federal constitution I don't see the word "health," "doctor," or "hospital" or anything similar in the listing of the powers granted to any branch of the federal government. But I do see the 10th Amendment which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It would seem that all such health matters would be a state of personal responsibility anyway. There is no such thing as a good idea clause in the constitution. Just because something is a good idea does not mean it is constitutional.