"thats a bogus argument....when you put a human element in anything...its gonna be riddled with human error.....that doesnt mean you *** do it.."
Exactly my point. Why should bureaucrats be the be-all and end-all when they're just prone to mistakes? Except laws and regulations they enact affect over 330 million Americans. Free market allows for competition where businesses that are prone to mistakes do not last very long. If the government makes a mistake, they're still around. And in our crony-capitalistic society, business are (and have been) propped up, bailed out, and showed special favors. The unholy marriage of big-business and big-government. Our government employees receives private health insurance offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. I think we're making a similar point, I do want the government to stop giving privileges to these monstrous multi-national corporations (but what is the likelihood of that? Members of Congress receive great health benefits and pay (coincidence that they can vote to for this type of stuff?) whereas veterans at government VA hospitals get crappy care. Do you believe the government can all of a sudden start offering cheap, quality healthcare at competitive prices? Why haven't they done that before? Is any government program prone (and inevitable) to degenerate to an unsustainable and low quality service?
You are certainly stretching the meaning of "Life, Liberty, and Happiness". What if I, as a member of Congress, think a PC, cell phone, and car are part of happiness? And I believe everyone should get those, so I pass the legislation that everyone should get these things. What if I argue that everyone needs 5 meals a day to have a good life and that alcohol is too bad for you, so I pass laws that everyone needs to eat 5 times a day and that we need to ban alcohol. And what if I think liberty means not being forced to buy something I do not want to buy and have the ability to enter contracts that trade in commodity based money and not paper Fed notes?
As far as the Commerce (and General Welfare) clause, you know as much as anyone that there has been a long history of what was specifically meant by the people who wrote it, with Madison and Hamilton taking very different views on how broad or how narrow that it. We can argue ad nauseum about this, but I believe this is something we'll have to agree to disagree to.
I will agree that education is important, but not everyone does/want to go to school. And government involvement in school has resulted in obscene tuition and plummeting rankings on the global scale in education. I will say this though, you are a fan of big government. And if you want big government, you need to be willingly to accept big government programs from both the left and the right, because that's the only way big government will work. I'm advocating small government and let the states and people decide what's best for their states.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the US Constitution. If the power is specifically granted to the Federal government, then the power is reserved to the states. Article 1, section 8 is as clear as day on this issue (and lsits the powers they do have). If there is nothing about Federal healthcare or Federal education or Federal banks, than there should not be any of these (yet we have them
And I'm afraid a treaty with Afghanistan does not supersede our own national sovereignty and Constitution and violates the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, clause 2). If you think international treaties do trump our sovereignty, you are no different than the other neo-Cons and warmongers out there. We just marched, and we can just march out. Nothing prevents us from this. And *** of a President not having the backbone to save American soldiers' lives by withdrawing them and saving hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, Congress and simply choose not to fund these wars; but they don't. Obama asks and Congress provides.
Oh, and I saw this yesterday (although I can't link it on the board). Obama's administration is having their lawyers fight a judge's ruling overturning the indefinite detention of American citizens in a bill he signed into law. Why would he do that?
Again, how do Obama and Romney differ on healthcare, foreign policy, and monetary policy?