Social Security and Medicare finances worsen

[GaryC 7]

The federal government is out of control. It screws up everything it touches.

That's a wildly exaggerated generalization and you know it. If you want to base your views on such generalizations, that's your prerogative, but don't confuse it with reality.

Thats right, go at life with your eyes wide shut. You need a dose of reality.

Gary, it's hard to argue with you when you take a position based on generalizations.

It's hard to argue with you when you base your position on the notion that the government is going to take care of you. You seem to think that Obama and the dems are going to make everything rainbows and kittens and the nasty old reps want to tear everything down. Wake up man, neither the dems or the reps are going to fix anything. They are going to make things worse regardless of who has the power. The federal government in general is the enemy.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am not sure that I entirely disagree, although I think by farming it out to the states you face the problem of having a USA in name only but that may be because I don't entirely understand the relationship between the states and the federal government. I certainly agree that there is a problem with having this two tier system.

[GaryC 7]

I am not sure that I entirely disagree, although I think by farming it out to the states you face the problem of having a USA in name only but that may be because I don't entirely understand the relationship between the states and the federal government. I certainly agree that there is a problem with having this two tier system.

The USA was orignally meant to be a union of states. The constitution spelled out what the federal government could do and said that all other powers not given were left to the states. We have gotten away from that in a terrible way. In reality the federal government should only provide for the common defense and speak for us to other countries. Things like health care and social security are not powers given by the constitution. They are in reality unconstitutional.

[GaryC 7]

MC, I know you don't understand how things work here any more than I understand the way your Parliment works. Our constitution is our "rules of the road" so to speak. It spells exactly what can and cannot be done. Unfortunatly we have gotten away from it. If you are interested check it out.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[Peikko 1,575]

It would cause problems though Gary, it does now to a certain extent with people from the states feeling disconnected. How powerful do you think the USA would be without a strong federal government? Of course, it might not be a bad thing if the USA was not as powerful as it is now. It's really hard to say - but I would guess that big government is a product of big business, and not of socialistion.

MC, I know you don't understand how things work here any more than I understand the way your Parliment works. Our constitution is our "rules of the road" so to speak. It spells exactly what can and cannot be done. Unfortunatly we have gotten away from it. If you are interested check it out.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Thank you, I appreciate that. I will look into it. It is more complicated that it first appears, of that I am quite sure.

[GaryC 7]

It would cause problems though Gary, it does now to a certain extent with people from the states feeling disconnected. How powerful do you think the USA would be without a strong federal government? Of course, it might not be a bad thing if the USA was not as powerful as it is now. It's really hard to say - but I would guess that big government is a product of big business, and not of socialistion.

MC, I know you don't understand how things work here any more than I understand the way your Parliment works. Our constitution is our "rules of the road" so to speak. It spells exactly what can and cannot be done. Unfortunatly we have gotten away from it. If you are interested check it out.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Thank you, I appreciate that. I will look into it. It is more complicated that it first appears, of that I am quite sure.

This is the particular amendment I speak of. It is part of what we call the "Bill of Rights". It says that any power not given to the federal government by the constitution shal revert to the States.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

No where in the constitution will you find anything giving the power to make health care or social security a previue of the federal government. Therefore it is a state issue.

[scandal 951]

It would cause problems though Gary, it does now to a certain extent with people from the states feeling disconnected. How powerful do you think the USA would be without a strong federal government? Of course, it might not be a bad thing if the USA was not as powerful as it is now. It's really hard to say - but I would guess that big government is a product of big business, and not of socialistion.

MC, I know you don't understand how things work here any more than I understand the way your Parliment works. Our constitution is our "rules of the road" so to speak. It spells exactly what can and cannot be done. Unfortunatly we have gotten away from it. If you are interested check it out.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Thank you, I appreciate that. I will look into it. It is more complicated that it first appears, of that I am quite sure.

This is the particular amendment I speak of. It is part of what we call the "Bill of Rights". It says that any power not given to the federal government by the constitution shal revert to the States.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

No where in the constitution will you find anything giving the power to make health care or social security a previue of the federal government. Therefore it is a state issue.

May I jump in? (I will anyway, you know that right? )

MC - American federalism is formally entrenched in the Constitution, as Gary says.

There is an analogy in the UK which you may find helpful - the UK is also a form of federation - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Some might argue Cornwall too, although my dim memory of history is that Cornwall was annexed by England much earlier.

In any event, to this day you have separatist elements in Scotland and Wales who wish to pursue greater autonomy from Britain. Scotland has its own Parliament. And there are disputes occasionally about jurisdiction between Parliament in London and in Edinburgh.

I would add two things to Gary's comments. First, some history. Second, the evolving interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court in particular as it relates to Congress and federal powers.

The (brief) history lesson is that when the Constitution was being drafted there were (naturally) those in favor of a tighter union of the states (so called Federalists) and those who wished much greater states' autonomy - some to the point of not wanting a federal government at all (as Gary seems to advocate today). There were other debates - whether there should be an Administrative branch at all, with an Executive (the President)? Or was Congress sufficient? Should Congress be unicameral (as it had been in colonial days), or a bicameral system (as they eventually agreed - with the House of Representatives and the Senate having distinct powers and rules for election from the states). Amazingly, there was even some talk at the time of having an American King, and instituting royalty (Alexander Hamilton was widely believed to be a royalist). In short, debate was as heated then as it is today about the proper role of government. The Constitution is really a compromise document that tried to satisfy everyone's needs. When it first emerged from Philadelphia in 1787 most people were very leery of it. It needed to be ratified by a plurality of states, and there was great concern amongst federalists that they would not get enough states to sign on, and it would be doomed. The biggest tussle was really over the question of how much power the federal government should have. Keep in mind that the new American states after the Revolution had recently been quasi-independent colonies with their own self-rule on most matters.

All right - history lesson over, for now anyway.

Moving to modern times, what we find over the course of American history is that the federal government has accumulated great powers it initially did not have. Taxation powers, regulatory powers, and more. The federal government is much larger and intrudes into the day to day life of Americans far far more than Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Monroe and the other drafters of the Constitution and the US government ever would have imagined.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has increasingly ruled that Congress has the right to those powers, and can enact the expansive legislation it has sought. Some times the Court knocks it down, and rules against government expansion (they ruled the Income tax unconstitutional in the 1890s). Sometimes Congress overcomes that by getting a Constitutional amendment to extend the federal powers (they got an Income tax amendment during World War I).

Where I disagree with Gary is his very strict "well, it doesn't say healthcare in the Constitution, so Congress can't legislate it. That's patently ridiculous (sorry Gary). The Constitution was always intended to be a living document. The Framers knew full well that they could not anticipate future changes in American society. They purposefully gave the Constitution an Amendment forumula to allow its change, and the empowered the Supreme Court with the power to interpret all laws (by Congress and the States) in light of the Constitution. If the Court has not ruled Medicare unconstitutional - then guess what - it's perfectly legal. Other than radical legal opinions, it's commonly accepted by liberals and conservatives that this is so. I dare say you'll find Judges Scalia and Thomas, the most conservative on the Court today, agreeing that this is so.

On a practical level, I also disagree with Gary about the "goodness"/"badness" of a strong and expanding federal government. Over the past 200+ years, America has gone from a small insignificant country to the world's largest superpower. It's an economic colossus with consistently the world's highest productivity rates and GDP. The standard of living of Americans is admired worldwide. None of these things would have been possible with a weak or non existent federal government. The separate states on their own had tariff barriers and even border skirmishes over trade prior to the formation of the US. Nothing like the American miracle would have happened had it not been for the emergence of the US as a distinct, powerful and unified country, culture, and economy. We pay a price for that - a large expansive government that does not always have its citizens best interests at heart. We certainly need to be vigilant about the size, growth, and intrusion of government. But we should not throw the baby out with the bath water.

I hope this is helpful to you as a new resident of America.

As a personal note - I find this subject fascinating. It's actually the key reason I chose to live in the USA rather than the country of my youth (Canada) - I'm enthralled by the modern experiment that is America, and I simply love being part of it.

[GaryC 7]

Where I disagree with Gary is his very strict "well, it doesn't say healthcare in the Constitution, so Congress can't legislate it. That's patently ridiculous (sorry Gary). The Constitution was always intended to be a living document. The Framers knew full well that they could not anticipate future changes in American society. They purposefully gave the Constitution an Amendment forumula to allow its change, and the empowered the Supreme Court with the power to interpret all laws (by Congress and the States) in light of the Constitution. If the Court has not ruled Medicare unconstitutional - then guess what - it's perfectly legal. Other than radical legal opinions, it's commonly accepted by liberals and conservatives that this is so. I dare say you'll find Judges Scalia and Thomas, the most conservative on the Court today, agreeing that this is so.

My point is this, the constitution is the law that our country is based upon. If we want to give these powers to the federal government that is fine, just follow the rules and ammend the constitution to allow it. But to just hand the power over without the ammendment is in effect breaking the law. If we ignore the basic laws that govern us then why have a constitution at all?

[scandal 951]

Where I disagree with Gary is his very strict "well, it doesn't say healthcare in the Constitution, so Congress can't legislate it. That's patently ridiculous (sorry Gary). The Constitution was always intended to be a living document. The Framers knew full well that they could not anticipate future changes in American society. They purposefully gave the Constitution an Amendment forumula to allow its change, and the empowered the Supreme Court with the power to interpret all laws (by Congress and the States) in light of the Constitution. If the Court has not ruled Medicare unconstitutional - then guess what - it's perfectly legal. Other than radical legal opinions, it's commonly accepted by liberals and conservatives that this is so. I dare say you'll find Judges Scalia and Thomas, the most conservative on the Court today, agreeing that this is so.

My point is this, the constitution is the law that our country is based upon. If we want to give these powers to the federal government that is fine, just follow the rules and ammend the constitution to allow it. But to just hand the power over without the ammendment is in effect breaking the law. If we ignore the basic laws that govern us then why have a constitution at all?

Gary, that's an inaccurate understanding of the role of the Constitution (Capitalized 'C') in this country. The Constitution is the basic law, that's true. But it's hardly the only law, and was never intended to be such! By your super-strict interpretation, Congress has no right to pass ANY laws!!!! Clearly that was never the intent.

Congress HAS the powers to make law - that's explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. To make a new law, both Houses must pass identical bills (after agreeing on common language in bicameral committee), and then the President signs bills into Law. Once a bill is duly signed - it is the Law of the Land. Immediately. On that day that the President puts ink to paper. That's fully compliant with the Constitution.

If someone (anyone at all - a citizen, a state government, a lobbying firm, ...) decides they don't like that law and wants to challenge it, they are free to go to that third Branch of government - the Judiciary. If you feel strongly about it, file a federal lawsuit that you feel Medicare or Social Security are unconstitutional and see if you can get a federal circuit court to agree with you. If so, you're doing well... now file appeals up through the Appellate courts until you convince the Supreme Court to put your case on the docket. If you convince them, bam! You've done it. You've overturned federal powers to legislate Medicare, or Social Security.

That's how the system was set up to work. That's how it does work. Social Security has been law since the New Deal in the 1930s. Medicare has been a federal statute since 1965. They have not faced any serious challenges in that time. They are the law of the land. Fully and entirely constitutionally so.

The amendment process was intentionally made very difficult - the Framers did not want people to willy-nilly tamper with the Constitution. That is most emphatically NOT how anyone ever intended the evolution of American government to occur. The role of the government changes by passing laws (the Legislative), implementing those laws (the Executive), and interpreting those laws in light of the Constitution (the Judiciary).

I think someone has forgotten his high school civics classes.........

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

The federal government is out of control. It screws up everything it touches.

That's a wildly exaggerated generalization and you know it. If you want to base your views on such generalizations, that's your prerogative, but don't confuse it with reality.

Thats right, go at life with your eyes wide shut. You need a dose of reality.

Gary, it's hard to argue with you when you take a position based on generalizations.

Yeah Gary! You just watch. Obama's gonna fix it! Steve is lookin for s free ride and a fvckin box of govament funded oreo cookies. As soon as he gets his free ticket in the mail, all will be blissful.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Steve is gonna sit on the fvckin welfare rocket and go zoom!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Steve is gonna sit on the fvckin welfare rocket and go zoom!

More like a big bag O crack!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steve is gonna sit on the fvckin welfare rocket and go zoom!

Bring extra lube, son!

Steve is gonna sit on the fvckin welfare rocket and go zoom!

More like a big bag O crack!

Crack whores ridin on the Obama bus! Fvckin libs!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Steve is gonna sit on the fvckin welfare rocket and go zoom!

Bring extra lube, son!

Steve is gonna sit on the fvckin welfare rocket and go zoom!

More like a big bag O crack!

Crack whores ridin on the Obama bus! Fvckin libs!

I think someone foresees homelessness. Santa claus is comin to town!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Fvckin Steve be ridin' Santa's crack all the way to the shoe factory!