Larry Kudlow: The government needs to pay 50% of healthcare costs

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I'm not saying you should be "okay" with that,  only that such taxation and expenditures are perfectly Constitutional.  ObamaCare is Constitutional and the Republicans'  AHCA proposal, if enacted into law, would also be Constitutional.  And, finally, a single payer system would also be Constitutional (and that's in fact exactly what Medicare and Medcaid are).   All Constitutional, of course, subject to the satisfaction of due process,  equal protection and other Constitutional constraints on the state.   

If you're not okay with that, then you need to elect representatives that reflect your views, and defeat those who oppose those views.   But don't insist on a deus ex machina.

Are you honestly trying to tell me Marxism is constitutional? Thank goodness for the general welfare clause. Anything goes comrade.

[r9etb]

I'm not saying you should be "okay" with that,  only that such taxation and expenditures are perfectly Constitutional.  ObamaCare is Constitutional and the Republicans'  AHCA proposal, if enacted into law, would also be Constitutional.  And, finally, a single payer system would also be Constitutional (and that's in fact exactly what Medicare and Medcaid are).   All Constitutional, of course, subject to the satisfaction of due process,  equal protection and other Constitutional constraints on the state.   

If you're not okay with that, then you need to elect representatives that reflect your views, and defeat those who oppose those views.   But don't insist on a deus ex machina.

Let's be clear, though -- just because a law is "Constitutional" doesn't mean it's a good law.  There are an awful lot of really bad laws out there, including really bad laws that are intended to address the sorts of moral obligations we've been talking about.

Obamacare is an excellent example, on the very topic we're talking about. 

Which is why if you or I make an argument defending the idea that government action is a legitimate option, we must also be careful to strictly limit the extent to the principle is applied.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Let's be clear, though -- just because a law is "Constitutional" doesn't mean it's a good law.  There are an awful lot of really bad laws out there, including really bad laws that are intended to address the sorts of moral obligations we've been talking about.

Obamacare is an excellent example, on the very topic we're talking about. 

Which is why if you or I make an argument defending the idea that government action is a legitimate option, we must also be careful to strictly limit the extent to the principle is applied.

Now that last part I can agree with 100%. 

[FS7]

The notion that a parent's responsibility to care for their child is a moral obligation is absurd unless you subscribe to the notion that all life understands moral obligations. A parent's responsibility to care for their child is a biological imperative - instinct - and exists in all animals where required for the survival of the species. Parents, whether they are fish, mammals, or birds, care for their young because they are wired to do so. Morals don't enter into it.

The "appeal to Christian guilt" argument I see being thrown around here is also incredibly condescending. My status with God is of no concern to you. Further, we in this country are free to believe in any God we wish (including none at all). Using the argument that the God of the Bible mandates moral responsibility to one's neighbors implies the government can enforce such a moral responsibility directly leads to, as some have said, a theocracy, which is expressly forbidden by our governing documents.

But then, this goes back to the crux of the argument, which is that you twist the words of the Constitution to mean whatever you want. Sometimes you just ignore them entirely.

This is statism.

[r9etb]

Now that last part I can agree with 100%. 

We never disagreed on that point.

The thing is, there are a lot of people on this thread and elsewhere who make large statements about what government must not do, and so on.  Such statements deserve to be tested: can the person who makes such a statement, formulate a compelling argument to defend it?

The problem with conservatives -- and the reason we so often lose in the public arena -- is that we too often make these large statements, and then are unable to defend them against people who do not already agree with us.  Most of the time, it seems that we lose because we're unable to reconcile our Grand Principles with the difficulties faced by actual people. 

It's like two sides of the same coin.  Whereas "progressives" fail because they let "compassion" overwhelm rational thought, we on the right seem to favor positions that sacrifice compassion to the dictates of cold rationality.  It's no accident that "zero tolerance" policies are a characteristic of both sides.

It's necessary to find a healthy balance between compassion and rationality.  It's not clean or easy to do that, and there are always mistakes. 

[r9etb]

The notion that a parent's responsibility to care for their child is a moral obligation is absurd....

And that's the end of that.  Garbage in, garbage out.

[Smokin Joe]

I asked for two reasons. 

First: if you are religious -- particularly if you are a Christian -- your duty is ultimately to God, and the moral obligations are pretty much laid out for you.

Second: if you're not religious, then the religious argument obviously doesn't carry any weight.  But in that case, it's difficult to say precisely what constitutes right or wrong.

Then the fulfillment of those moral obligations is a personal choice, the fulfillment of  that duty is something I decide to do--not something I am forced to do. If I am made to do something, that doesn't count as having willingly and voluntarily done it.
Taking from me and then giving it away doesn't make me charitable. It doesn't make the one who did the taking charitable--it wasn't theirs to give.

For example, If someone steals your car and then gives his crippled aunt a ride to the doctor, does that make him charitable? Does it make you charitable? Has that fulfilled those moral obligations? While you are filling out the police report...

[r9etb]

Then the fulfillment of those moral obligations is a personal choice, the fulfillment of  that duty is something I decide to do--not something I am forced to do. If I am made to do something, that doesn't count as having willingly and voluntarily done it.
Taking from me and then giving it away doesn't make me charitable. It doesn't make the one who did the taking charitable--it wasn't theirs to give.

For example, If someone steals your car and then gives his crippled aunt a ride to the doctor, does that make him charitable? Does it make you charitable? Has that fulfilled those moral obligations? While you are filling out the police report...

Well, maybe.  The problem with this position is that you're not the only person in the world.  You may not even be the only person in your house, in which case you're kidding yourself if you think you run the place.

In the real world it's a certainty that you'll never have 100% agreement with anybody on matters of moral obligation.  So, either both sides make accommodations, or you or somebody else is going to be forced into doing something they don't want to do.  Is that "bad?"  It can be ... but that's life.

[Smokin Joe]

And that's the end of that.  Garbage in, garbage out.

Wow. You missed the rest. You should have read that entire post.
You missed the poster's point entirely.

[INVAR]

I'm not saying you should be "okay" with that,  only that such taxation and expenditures are perfectly Constitutional.  ObamaCare is Constitutional and the Republicans'  AHCA proposal, if enacted into law, would also be Constitutional.  And, finally, a single payer system would also be Constitutional (and that's in fact exactly what Medicare and Medcaid are).   All Constitutional, of course, subject to the satisfaction of due process,  equal protection and other Constitutional constraints on the state.

Time to shred this insidious and bastardized perverted statement about taxation.

Taxation as intended by the Framers was to provide for the absolute necessary operation of a minimalist government.  Roads, bridges, defense and the promotion of general welfare of the states, not to provide welfare generally as these arguments made by you continually illustrate.  Taxes were to be levied for the purpose of maintaining a functioning government and for defense, and that is all.

It was not intended to provide for the absolute desires and needs of constituents a representative is beholden to .

What you are arguing is using the Constitution to justify voting largesse from the national treasury to appeal and appease constituencies with sustenance and provision by the hand of producers into the hands of those who demand a hand-out and who see government as their god - and nothing more.

Anyone advocating using the government to create 'level playing fields' and 'fairness' is a tyrant and enemy of the Constitution.  Period.

National Government exists to dispense justice, uphold the law and carry out the Constitutional duties proscribed.  It was not intended to create fairness, mandate equality, redistribute wealth, and distribute charity as it sees fit upon those it arbitrarily decides are in need. 

If you're not okay with that, then you need to elect representatives that reflect your views, and defeat those who oppose those views.   

When we do, and attempts are made to end the welfare state and government imposed 'fairness' - we get to read and hear Communist nimrods arguing in favor of Statism and fomenting revolution and violence while attempting to morally shame those who support returning the government to it's Constitutional limits.

People like you.

[Jazzhead]

Let's be clear, though -- just because a law is "Constitutional" doesn't mean it's a good law.  There are an awful lot of really bad laws out there, including really bad laws that are intended to address the sorts of moral obligations we've been talking about.

Obamacare is an excellent example, on the very topic we're talking about. 

Which is why if you or I make an argument defending the idea that government action is a legitimate option, we must also be careful to strictly limit the extent to the principle is applied.

Yes, of course. 

[r9etb]

Wow. You missed the rest. You should have read that entire post.
You missed the poster's point entirely.

I didn't miss his point.  It's just that his "point," such as it is, wanders from assertion to assertion, ending with the inevitable condemnation of "statism." 

The guy's a joke.  I just cannot take seriously a person who won't even admit that we have a moral obligation to our kids.

[Sanguine]

I didn't miss his point.  It's just that his "point," such as it is, wanders from assertion to assertion, ending with the inevitable condemnation of "statism." 

The guy's a joke.  I just cannot take seriously a person who won't even admit that we have a moral obligation to our kids.

Now, see there, that's where it starts to read like trolling.  You take the one phrase, ignore all the rest of the post and then tell us how wrong the poster was for saying just the one little part that you extracted and misused. 

[r9etb]

Now, see there, that's where it starts to read like trolling.  You take the one phrase, ignore all the rest of the post and then tell us how wrong the poster was for saying just the one little part that you extracted and misused.

How so?  Do you see anything useful in that post?  I sure don't.  He either doesn't understand what other people are saying, or he deliberately misrepresents what they say.  The screed in question is no exception.

[Sanguine]

How so?  Do you see anything useful in that post?  I sure don't.

I knew YOU didn't.

[r9etb]

I knew YOU didn't.

I added to the previous post.  He's not an honest person, Sanguine.

[Sanguine]

I added to the previous post.  He's not an honest person, Sanguine.

I honestly don't know one way or the other.  And, I wasn't commenting on his statements.  Just that when you take one phrase out of context and then beat the writer over the head with it, it doesn't reflect well on you.

[r9etb]

I honestly don't know one way or the other.  And, I wasn't commenting on his statements.  Just that when you take one phrase out of context and then beat the writer over the head with it, it doesn't reflect well on you.

Whatever.  If you want to defend his position to me, feel free to do so.

[FS7]

I added to the previous post.  He's not an honest person, Sanguine.

You were the one who brought up parenthood and its moral obligations more than once. You are the one who doesn't follow your own line of thinking. If you are going to claim that human parenting is moral, then you need to explain what about it is moral by differentiating it from other parenting in the animal kingdom. To me, if there exists an analog in the animal kingdom, then, as animals do not understand morals, that aspect of human parenting is not moral but biologically necessary. Parenting, to me, is about raising and providing for your young until they are capable of doing so themselves. This includes more than simply biological maturity - it includes the academic and social skills necessary to thrive in this world. This, however, is ALSO true in the animal kingdom, so it is not necessarily moral.

You are also the one who brought up Christianity and its implications on our moral obligations more than once. I am representing your point as fairly as possible and illustrating why it's contradictory at worst and irrelevant at best with regards to our form of government. How that makes me dishonest isn't something I can discern, but I don't expect civility from you.

[Sanguine]

Whatever.  If you want to defend his position to me, feel free to do so.

Now, why do you say that?  I wrote:  "I wasn't commenting on his statements." and you come back and accuse me of defending his position.  How come?

[r9etb]

Now, why do you say that?  I wrote:  "I wasn't commenting on his statements." and you come back and accuse me of defending his position.  How come?

Huh?!?  You seriously misread what I said.

I was suggesting that if you felt like it, you might give a try to defending what he said.

As for me, I figured GIGO was all it deserved.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

You were the one who brought up parenthood and its moral obligations more than once. You are the one who doesn't follow your own line of thinking. If you are going to claim that human parenting is moral, then you need to explain what about it is moral by differentiating it from other parenting in the animal kingdom. To me, if there exists an analog in the animal kingdom, then, as animals do not understand morals, that aspect of human parenting is not moral but biologically necessary. Parenting, to me, is about raising and providing for your young until they are capable of doing so themselves. This includes more than simply biological maturity - it includes the academic and social skills necessary to thrive in this world. This, however, is ALSO true in the animal kingdom, so it is not necessarily moral.

You are also the one who brought up Christianity and its implications on our moral obligations more than once. I am representing your point as fairly as possible and illustrating why it's contradictory at worst and irrelevant at best with regards to our form of government. How that makes me dishonest isn't something I can discern, but I don't expect civility from you.

Apparently he'd rather argue about you than argue with you.

[r9etb]

Apparently he'd rather argue about you than argue with you.

Actually, I just didn't see his post.  But feel free to cast stones.

[mountaineer]

 

[Sanguine]