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

[Wingnut]

This thread is dead Fred.  Time to put it out with the trash!

 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

This thread is dead Fred.  Time to put it out with the trash!

 

Tis but a flesh wound. Come back here and I'll bite your kneecaps.

[r9etb]

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.

Uh, no.  You clearly understood neither the context nor the content of what I said.

The context of the conversation in question (with I_C) was the source of moral obligations (such as duty and honor) -- nothing more or less than that.

The question can be answered a couple of ways, depending on whether or not one has religious belief.

If one is religious -- and in particular a Christian -- our duty is to God, and our moral obligations come from Him. 

If one is not religious, the question of where fixed moral obligations, or even "right and wrong," come from is a much more difficult question, and likely impossible to answer. 

In that context, the discussion of parenthood came from consideration of why Ayn Rand's philosophy fails according to its own precepts.  The example of parenthood refutes it comprehensively, for at least two reasons.  One: by observation of evolution in nature, it's far more rational to argue that we're a means to our children's ends through natural selection.  Two: it is generally evident in nature that parents take care of their offspring until their offspring can fend for themselves; and thus again, observation of nature suggests that we are a means to our children's ends.  It could be argued that the latter is just a different description natural selection, but as a matter of sufficiency it is enough to note that the behavior is observable in itself, and natural selection is not a necessary addition.  Either way, Rand's central tenet collapses.

At a real-life level, however, you cannot possibly believe that it is "absurd" to claim that parents have a moral obligation to their children. 

[Sanguine]

Uh, no.  You clearly understood neither the context nor the content of what I said.

The context of the conversation in question (with I_C) was the source of moral obligations (such as duty and honor) -- nothing more or less than that.

The question can be answered a couple of ways, depending on whether or not one has religious belief.

If one is religious -- and in particular a Christian -- our duty is to God, and our moral obligations come from Him. 

If one is not religious, the question of where fixed moral obligations, or even "right and wrong," come from is a much more difficult question, and likely impossible to answer. 

In that context, the discussion of parenthood came from consideration of why Ayn Rand's philosophy fails according to its own precepts.  The example of parenthood refutes it comprehensively, for at least two reasons.  One: by observation of evolution in nature, it's far more rational to argue that we're a means to our children's ends through natural selection.  Two: it is generally evident in nature that parents take care of their offspring until their offspring can fend for themselves; and thus again, observation of nature suggests that we are a means to our children's ends.  It could be argued that the latter is just a different description natural selection, but as a matter of sufficiency it is enough to note that the behavior is observable in itself, and natural selection is not a necessary addition.  Either way, Rand's central tenet collapses.

At a real-life level, however, you cannot possibly believe that it is "absurd" to claim that parents have a moral obligation to their children.

@r9etb, I don't understand why you are arguing this.  We have an agreement under which this nation was formed, and providing health care for others is not in it.  Doesn't matter whether one is a Christian or not. 

[Jazzhead]

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.

Not so for humans.  A human child isn't raised merely to the point where he/she could biologically survive on its own.  To prosper in the human community,  the child must be educated, become literate, and imbued with moral values.   To do those things as a parent isn't a matter of instinct, but of moral obligation.   Humans are, unlike animals, capable of making moral decisions.   And when a parent sacrifices to send his kid to a good school,  he is exercising his sense of moral obligation.   

[Jazzhead]

@r9etb, I don't understand why you are arguing this.  We have an agreement under which this nation was formed, and providing health care for others is not in it.  Doesn't matter whether one is a Christian or not.

Absolutely untrue.   The Constitution permits the federal government to provide for the general welfare.   The federal government chooses to do so by means of decisions made by your and my elected representatives.   There is nothing in the Constitution that precludes the federal government from establishing the Social Security system or, as here,  setting the rules for the market in private health insurance.   

Your issue is with your elected representatives.  So vote  'em out.  But do not rely on the Constitution as a deus ex machina.   It's not.   

[Wingnut]

Tis but a flesh wound. Come back here and I'll bite your kneecaps.

Bite me?  Well,  I never!   lol

Nudge Nudge

[r9etb]

@r9etb, I don't understand why you are arguing this.  We have an agreement under which this nation was formed, and providing health care for others is not in it.  Doesn't matter whether one is a Christian or not.

It started right away with a question of where I think Kudlow is coming from -- the idea that we as a nation ought to do something about those who cannot afford to pay for medical care, especially really expensive medical care. 

Kudlow's position tacitly depends on the idea that we have a moral obligation to help such people -- ways and means being a separate question.

As for the Constitution, we do a lot of things that aren't explicitly spelled out in it, including paying for things like the Louisiana Purchase, or Alaska, or building and maintaining roads and bridges that have nothing to do with the post office. 

These non-explicit sorts of things are most comfortably located in the Constitution under the "general Welfare" clause, about which the USSC ruled (US vs. Butler, 1936) that it was within Congress' discretion to decide what is covered under that clause.

The objection to Kudlow's suggestion boils down to a couple of things: first, whether it's in the scope of Congress' authority to fund some level of health care for those who can't afford it; and second, whether there's any compelling reason why we as a nation should be willing for Congress to do so.

As to the first, yes -- it's now settled law that it's within Congress' discretion.  As to the second -- that's where all the rest of this stuff comes in.

[INVAR]

The Constitution permits the federal government to provide for the general welfare.

That's the argument all Communists and Leftists in this country make to justify imposing the tyranny of the Welfare State via confiscatory taxation and punitive regulation to benefit those that empower politicians to lifetime political careers.

You're a parrot of everything Marx and Engels wrote.

[Cyber Liberty]

Not so for humans.  A human child isn't raised merely to the point where he/she could biologically survive on its own.  To prosper in the human community,  the child must be educated, become literate, and imbued with moral values.   To do those things as a parent isn't a matter of instinct, but of moral obligation.   Humans are, unlike animals, capable of making moral decisions.   And when a parent sacrifices to send his kid to a good school,  he is exercising his sense of moral obligation.

Interesting observations.  So, how does one answer the accusation that sacrificing to send one's child to a good school is elitist and should not be allowed because it tilts the playing field away from disadvantaged children, who didn't get lucky in the lottery of life?

[Cyber Liberty]

That's the argument all Communists and Leftists in this country make to justify imposing the tyranny of the Welfare State via confiscatory taxation and punitive regulation to benefit those that empower politicians to lifetime political careers.

You're a parrot of everything Marx and Engels wrote.

I suppose it's the same as applying the interstate commerce clause to a fellow selling corn to his next-door neighbor. 

[Sanguine]

It started right away with a question of where I think Kudlow is coming from -- the idea that we as a nation ought to do something about those who cannot afford to pay for medical care, especially really expensive medical care. 

Kudlow's position tacitly depends on the idea that we have a moral obligation to help such people -- ways and means being a separate question.

As for the Constitution, we do a lot of things that aren't explicitly spelled out in it, including paying for things like the Louisiana Purchase, or Alaska, or building and maintaining roads and bridges that have nothing to do with the post office. 

These non-explicit sorts of things are most comfortably located in the Constitution under the "general Welfare" clause, about which the USSC ruled (US vs. Butler, 1936) that it was within Congress' discretion to decide what is covered under that clause.

The objection to Kudlow's suggestion boils down to a couple of things: first, whether it's in the scope of Congress' authority to fund some level of health care for those who can't afford it; and second, whether there's any compelling reason why we as a nation should be willing for Congress to do so.

As to the first, yes -- it's now settled law that it's within Congress' discretion.  As to the second -- that's where all the rest of this stuff comes in.

As several other members have noted, Kudlow is dead wrong.  All arguments from that point onward are, by dint of being based upon a fallacy, also wrong.  It really is that simple, hyperbole, emotion and verbiage regardless.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Interesting observations.  So, how does one answer the accusation that sacrificing to send one's child to a good school is elitist and should not be allowed because it tilts the playing field away from disadvantaged children, who didn't get lucky in the lottery of life?

Hey those kids will have to work for somebody.   

[r9etb]

As several other members have noted, Kudlow is dead wrong.  All arguments from that point onward are, by dint of being based upon a fallacy, also wrong.  It really is that simple, hyperbole, emotion and verbiage regardless.

See, you don't get to just say such things and expect others to just accept them.  You're making testable statements, and they ought to be tested. 

To begin with, those arguing against Kudlow's suggestion on Constitutional grounds are demonstrably wrong, unless and until the USSC overturns Butler.

Which leaves the other objection, concerning the question of whether or not Congress ought to enact Kudlow's suggestion, given that it has the discretion to do so.  And that comes down to the question of moral obligations and how best to discharge them.

This thread demonstrates why conservatives never seem to win when it comes down to a real battle.  It's because we just say things, and don't know how to recover when the other side doesn't accept our assertions.

[INVAR]

It started right away with a question of where I think Kudlow is coming from -- the idea that we as a nation ought to do something about those who cannot afford to pay for medical care, especially really expensive medical care. 

Should we not therefore also as a nation do something about those who cannot afford to own a home? Especially really expensive homes?

How about as a nation, doing something about those who cannot afford a car?  Especially really expensive cars?

How about as a nation, doing something about those who cannot afford to go out to eat once a week?  Especially really expensive restaurants?

How about as a nation, doing something about those who cannot afford cable or internet?  How far do you want to take this stupid argument about moral obligations to provide for those who cannot or will not provide for themselves?  The aforementioned 'necessities' being cited by the Welfare Class as vital items necessary for a decent life.

The ONLY THING we as a nation should be doing, is to ensure that the government is of no obstacle to the promotion of opportunity for everyone to seek and find/or aspire to achieve the kinds of care and service they desire from the service and marketplace.

Government has NO ROLE in parceling out charity and provision - because if we accept the idea that government is there to provide that function - Liberty and a Republic are incapable of existing in such an environment.  We will simply arrive back where all Republics do in their collapse into despotism and tyranny.

But that apparently is what the people want - Socialism, Marxism and Statism - wrapped up in the language of moral obligation.

[roamer_1]

@Smokin Joe

Hold on Joe.  I think you've got the wrong idea from what I said.

My religious obligations are mine, not the business of the entire Country. We are told that separation exists, that Congress shall make no law with respect to religion (no official religion) nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. That is the 'separation of church and state' the Liberals hammer us with.

Well, yes and no. Two things:

First, CONGRESS shall make no law. The same is not stated to governors and state bodies (unless otherwise stated in their own constitutions). So this mythical veil described as the 'separation of church and state' as embodied in the US Constitution does NOT go all the way to the ground.

And congress is 'making law' right now against the free practice of religion. When a Christian baker can be sued out of existence for merely not baking a cake against his faith, congress has made a law (in absentia, by inaction).

And secondly, in the nearly prophetic words of Bob Dylan, "You've got to Serve Somebody"...
There is no such thing as a moral vacuum. There is no philosophical neutral. If we are not willing to be guided by the moral sense embodied in the Judeo-Christian Ethic (Fancy words for the Law of Moses and the testimony of Yeshua the Messiah), we will, of a necessity, be guided by something else (one might say, someone else).

In that, I am not only speaking to you as a person (albeit that the same applies) I am speaking on a grander scale, to We, the People. America is founded upon Individualism, and I embrace that, probably more than most. But that does not discount the will in aggregate. Yahweh does judge nations (not only persons), and We, the People ARE a nation. There is no question that a mere generation ago, we were a Christian nation. That is very much in question now. And that question is paramount, lest we forget from Whom our rights are endowed...  And in the moment we forget, the great American experiment is over.

We, the People, have lost our way. In large part that is because of the fallacy known as the separation of church and state, because while the state is no longer adhering to the Christian principles it was founded upon, there is no question that it now teaches a different religion. And with a different religion comes a different ethic, necessarily. There is no moral neutral. Which do you prefer?

Now I am being told to support a Liberal program because, well, WWJD?

Not by me, you're not. I rose precisely because words were put in Yeshua's mouth. WWJD? I can tell you: He would keep the laws of His Father's House. He came to us with no doctrine of His own, but with the doctrine of Him from whom he was sent. That doctrine (the Law of Moses) stands against liberalism.

My friend, this is no theocracy, even though most of our laws are based on Judeo/Christian ethos.

I understand what you mean, but there is in fact, an unbridgeable dichotomy in that statement. Our government cannot protect the rights we are endowed with without recognizing Him from whom that endowment derives. End of story. And that need not mean 'theocracy'. The American system is patterned in parallel to Torah - There is a separation of church and state embodied in Torah. The priests did not run things. The Sanhedrin did. Politics and religion distinctly demarcated. Yet there was no doubt who 'the People' belonged to.

In my family, when we can get the meddlers of government out of the way, we take care of our own. My wife and I have had as many as four grandchildren living under our roof at the same time, and have provided for their needs with never a dime from the government, in fact paying our taxes the whole time. That obligation, however, is one of family. It is how things are done, in both the Chippewa culture my wife was raised in, and in the Southern influenced English/Irish/Scots culture I was raised in dating back to the colonial era (1600s). That, in both sides of the family, is just how things are done. Those moral obligations are not binding on anyone else, that is very much a personal matter.

That's right. And how it should be. And were it so, there would be little for government to do with regard to welfare. That does not negate the responsibility to do that little bit. And I am of the opinion that if it were so, the taxes would not be begrudged. As an example, there has long been county-run orphanages, county and state hospitals... That is in keeping with the American way. They were not a burden then, and should not be a burden now... IF, IF, IF it was as it was before, and that is in keeping with 'as it should be' in your statement above.

What makes it a burden is the destruction of the family (largely endorsed by the government).

The compact between the States that formed the Constitution, however, is the law by which we have all agreed to live. In that law, there are no moral obligations (despite the apparent codification of some) only legal ones. The government is not The Almighty, though His Law is the main basis of our government, not just at the Federal level, but at the State level (if you don't like the rules in one state, you can move, trust me), and even local law governs the day to day actions of most folks.

Agreed in large part. The moral obligations are left to the states and the people, as everything is, not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution. My one caveat in that would be the care and keeping of the soldier, and the widow of the soldier... From wound and from loss, I mean.

However, that law, whether we would judge it to be moral or not, is not a question of morality so much as legality, of ethics, not morals [...]

That's a mighty fine line, friend, and a distinction without a difference. Ethics are morals, or couched therein, as is law.

and without an eternal soul, Government, as an entity is not morally bound whatsoever aside from the individual moral influences of the governed, raised in unity on the law, whether those morals are heartfelt or just a cheap emotional mechanism to make people feel guilty to screw them once again.

Eloquent, but false. The single guiding moral/ethical compunction of our government is specifically and succinctly described in our Declaration of Independence. It is there to safeguard our rights as endowed by our Creator. That sole purpose cannot be at odds with that endowment or it's Creator, by it's very definition... That is an ethical/moral aegis.

The mechanisms are in place to take care of those who CANNOT care for themselves, from the Social Security tax, which many would argue is unconstitutional in and of itself, which is going to be in serious fiscal trouble because the Congress looted those funds to buy votes. Yet Americans paid into it, having been promised a return or survivor benefits for their family, and even disability payments should they become injured. It is already a mess. Yet those looted funds often went to programs for 'the poor', and an entire industry of Social Workers and counselors was created and supported, employing a multitude of officers, "for the poor".

You are misguided if you think I would disagree with you here. You are preaching to the choir.

Government "charity" has been a dismal failure overall.

Yes it is. But it is not right to say that the malformed federal behemoth discounts what was before... And there has long been state and county run charitable services.

So I will ask, by what Constitutional Authority does the House of Representatives (or the Congress, in toto) vote to contribute from the public monies to the benefit of a few?

They have no such authority.

In fact, it robs the people of the means by which they might have exercised their free will to engage in charitable acts, and of any choice to do so in that particular matter, unless they dig even deeper in their pockets for more money. 

There's the money shot. Right there. Let people do for themselves and their own, and there will be damn little left to worry about.

However the funds collected by government are increasingly being used to provide the ordinary means of life to the multitude, be that three meals a day in school, day care (after school programs), housing, food, even phones.
Again, by what Constitutional Authority?

Does anyone think it wise to add yet another program, to eliminate the personal fiscal reasons for living cleanly, and staying healthy, as if that will reduce cost? It did not work with being 'poor'.

Right, exactly. Do not assume I am in any way advocating for any of that.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@Smokin Joe
And congress is 'making law' right now against the free practice of religion. When a Christian baker can be sued out of existence for merely not baking a cake against his faith, congress has made a law (in absentia, by inaction).

What kind of garbage is that?  A state judge makes a judgement and it means Congress is passing laws because they did not pass a law to protect the couple?

Where did you get that information? 

That is as twisted an argument I have seen in quite some time.

[INVAR]

What kind of garbage is that?  A state judge makes a judgement and it means Congress is passing laws because they did not pass a law to protect the couple?

Where did you get that information? 

That is as twisted an argument I have seen in quite some time.

On the surface perhaps... but we have arrived at the point where Congress does not have to make a law, the Judiciary can make defacto law by Activism and Precedent - establish a law by ruling rather than by legislation.

It's why Democrats Judge-shop to enact their agenda when Congress doesn't pass omnibus packages in the middle of the night without a single legislator having read the bill.

[Cyber Liberty]

On the surface perhaps... but we have arrived at the point where Congress does not have to make a law, the Judiciary can make defacto law by Activism and Precedent - establish a law by ruling rather than by legislation.

It's why Democrats Judge-shop to enact their agenda when Congress doesn't pass omnibus packages in the middle of the night without a single legislator having read the bill.

Democrats are Circuit shopping with Trump's refugee pause actions.  Every case they bring is in the Ninth Circuit, which is guaranteed to find against Trump. Since the SCOTUS is down a seat, it's 4-4 Communists who will back up the Ninth (a tied 4-4 judgement finds to affirm the lower court).  If that happens, the precedent become carved in stone.  It's best to fight it tooth and nail in the local courts until Trump gets his pick on SCOTUS.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Democrats are Circuit shopping with Trump's refugee pause actions.  Every case they bring is in the Ninth Circuit, which is guaranteed to find against Trump. Since the SCOTUS is down a seat, it's 4-4 Communists who will back up the Ninth (a tied 4-4 judgement finds to affirm the lower court).  If that happens, the precedent become carved in stone.  It's best to fight it tooth and nail in the local courts until Trump gets his pick on SCOTUS.

There's no precedence when it's a tie.

[Cyber Liberty]

There's no precedence when it's a tie.

Wrong.  It's a precedence as strong as if it were a 5-4 decision.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Wrong.  It's a precedence as strong as if it were a 5-4 decision.

Google it. There's no precedence if it's a tie.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Google it. There's no precedence if it's a tie.

Isn't the lower court's judgement precedent unless overturned? 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Isn't the lower court's judgement precedent unless overturned?

I believe so. The lower court has precedence except for scotus who can hear it again.

[Cyber Liberty]

Isn't the lower court's judgement precedent unless overturned?

Exactly what I'm saying, to many boos.  The Ninth Circuit's decision would be precedent because a 4-4 ties defaults to "uphold," no overturn.  That's why it can't be allowed to go to SCOTUS.