Paul Ryan’s plan to phase out Medicare is just what Democrats need

[Bethere]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/15/paul-ryans-plan-to-phase-out-medicare-is-just-what-democrats-need/

Are you ok with deep sixing medicare and medicaid by block granting them back to the states to be privatized and voucherized?

Do you think that the gop's elderly tea party demographic will approve once they realize what is actually in the Ryan budget?

To my democratic friends: who is scarier, ryan or trump?

16632

[Captain Obvious]

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!

xxx

[Captain Obvious]

It's already insolvent thanks to establishment dems.

[birddog]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/15/paul-ryans-plan-to-phase-out-medicare-is-just-what-democrats-need/

Are you ok with deep sixing medicare and medicaid by block granting them back to the states to be privatized and voucherized?

Do you think that the gop's elderly demographic will approve once they realize what is actually in the Ryan budget?

To my democratic friends: who is scarier, ryan or trump?


The scary ones are the idiotic ones who believe the implications of the Washington Post!

[Cigar]

I love it, all those people 60 and above in Red States who's ONLY Source of Medical Insurance is Medicare, can now look forward to a F'cking Voucher :grin:

Beautiful ... how's the for Change ...

Now go get your Nails Done

[Bethere]

It's already insolvent thanks to establishment dems.

Medicare Is Not “Bankrupt” | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicare-is-not-bankrupt&ved=0ahUKEwjh_qfy1rDQAhVCPiYKHbnoC_YQFggoMAE&usg=AFQjCNHu2rCiKF1WNfMNcumoYgx87GbOvg

[Cigar]

It's already insolvent thanks to establishment dems.

Only Morons Believe that ...

[Bethere]

The scary ones are the idiotic ones who believe the implications of the Washington Post!

What would happen to you without medicare, hero?

[Bethere]

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!

xxx

I've seen the pictures you posted of your obese family. Without medicare you and yours would be uninsurable.

May I repost your pictures so I might illustrate my point?

[ripmeister]

This could be real interesting watching Ryan go up against the Champion of the people.

[Bethere]

This could be real interesting watching Ryan go up against the Champion of the people.

Talk about death panels!

16633

[Bethere]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.nationalmemo.com/poll-clear-majority-want-no-medicare-social-security-or-education-cuts/&ved=0ahUKEwihyvuk27DQAhXG6iYKHUIqDtIQFghyMAs&usg=AFQjCNGHalFM5lFpP6N4AMKWgYEVn6jCsw

POLL: Clear Majority Want No Medicare, Social Security Or Education Cuts

[birddog]

What would happen to you without medicare, hero?

I won't be without Medicare. only an ignoramus would believe that. Plus, I have VA.

[Cigar]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.nationalmemo.com/poll-clear-majority-want-no-medicare-social-security-or-education-cuts/&ved=0ahUKEwihyvuk27DQAhXG6iYKHUIqDtIQFghyMAs&usg=AFQjCNGHalFM5lFpP6N4AMKWgYEVn6jCsw

POLL: Clear Majority Want No Medicare, Social Security Or Education Cuts

Too Bad ... better have HUGE 4O1k or some Pension Benefits ...

Oh wait, don't tell me those Red States don't have either one of those life savers :laugh:

Enjoy that Voucher

[Croft]

Paul Ryan is a sack of shit across the board. I hope Trump just hammers him. And for the record Trump has never said anything against any medical program except Obamacare and even that he's only partially repealing.

[Cigar]

I won't be without Medicare. only an ignoramus would believe that. Plus, I have VA.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/b5/2c/c0/b52cc03e28309afae143cd78665b81d6.jpg (https://www.pinterest.com/pin/418131146631493078/)

[Bethere]

I won't be without Medicare. only an ignoramus would believe that. Plus, I have VA.
Good news for you! Ryan would like to privatize the evil VA, too! Truly, it sounds as if you are screwed by your own triumphant 2016 election!

Veterans Groups Criticize Secret Proposal to End VA Healthcare | Military.com

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/04/02/veterans-groups-criticize-secret-proposal-to-end-va-healthcare.html&ved=0ahUKEwiPpNip3bDQAhWG6SYKHeu5BwEQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNGwneVtUTJH4jNrmDOg_R8nOqG6uw

[Bethere]

Paul Ryan is a sack of $#@! across the board. I hope Trump just hammers him. And for the record Trump has never said anything against any medical program except Obamacare and even that he's only partially repealing.

For the record, no one mentioned trump in this thread until you did in post #15.

[Bethere]

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!

xxx

I take that as a, "No, you may not post my pictures of my obese and uninsurable family."

Why not explain to us the advantages of vouchers?

I direct you to milton friedman's, "capitalism and freedom. "

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211&ved=0ahUKEwjwsL3V4LDQAhXCTCYKHbMoBtAQFghhMA0&usg=AFQjCNEo9Iv5zwnnKI8oXt5VhmBNlq01aQ

Educate yourself and then share that vast knowledge with the rest of us.

[Croft]

For the record, no one mentioned trump in this thread until you did in post #15.

Fair enough on that.

Anyway I just loathe Ryan.

[birddog]

Good news for you! Ryan would like to privatize the evil VA, too! Truly, it sounds as if you are screwed by your own triumphant 2016 election!

Veterans Groups Criticize Secret Proposal to End VA Healthcare | Military.com

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/04/02/veterans-groups-criticize-secret-proposal-to-end-va-healthcare.html&ved=0ahUKEwiPpNip3bDQAhWG6SYKHeu5BwEQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNGwneVtUTJH4jNrmDOg_R8nOqG6uw

I have mixed emotions about all this, I do use the VA to an extent. I am also aware of how the VA overspends for construction all over the country. There needs to be better management, and that will take time.

I am active in The American Legion, and am familiar with their thinking. They prefer the VA be maintained, but be more proficient. There probably should be more of a happy medium where private care can be used when the VA is not available in a timely fashion.

Medicare is a program where overspending and waste is rampant also. I don't think there is an easy answer for this stuff, but improvement is needed. It seems the more government is involved, the more it is screwed up, and the costs are always way higher than projected.

[nic34]

I won't be without Medicare. only an ignoramus would believe that. Plus, I have VA.

Since you got your free stuff now you want to pull up the ladder..... typical

[Ethereal]

How does block granting Medicare to the states phase it out? Why do Democrats like Bethere hate local democracy so much? A little too close to the people, perhaps?

[nic34]

I have mixed emotions about all this, I do use the VA to an extent. I am also aware of how the VA overspends for construction all over the country. There needs to be better management, and that will take time.

I am active in The American Legion, and am familiar with their thinking. They prefer the VA be maintained, but be more proficient. There probably should be more of a happy medium where private care can be used when the VA is not available in a timely fashion.

Medicare is a program where overspending and waste is rampant also. I don't think there is an easy answer for this stuff, but improvement is needed. It seems the more government is involved, the more it is screwed up, and the costs are always way higher than projected.


Medicare Has Controlled Costs Better Than Private Insurance

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/

[Bethere]

Fair enough on that.

Anyway I just loathe Ryan.

Me, too.

The most cogent argument against trump is that he puts the ryan budget in play.

[Common Sense]

Next up...The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

...because people don't need protection from scammers.

[Bethere]

How does block granting Medicare to the states phase it out? Why do Democrats like Bethere hate local democracy so much? A little too close to the people, perhaps?

16635

[Croft]

Me, too.

The most cogent argument against trump is that he puts the ryan budget in play.

Well I certainly pray not. Trump beat the Repub establishment. I don't want him empowering any of their usual sociopathic stuff.

[Ethereal]

16635
Are you going to explain how block granting Medicare to the states phases it out? Are you going to explain why you hate local democracy so much? Or can I expect more feckless responses like the above?

[Bethere]

Next up...The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

...because people don't need protection from scammers.

Yep, and soon banks will be allowed to do the same stupid stuff they did leading up to the great recession.

Thanks, Republicans!

But that is off topic.

thanks.

[Ethereal]

Next up...The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

...because people don't need protection from scammers.

Of course. Because if the government makes an agency that claims to protect people from scammers, then that's what will actually happen.

[Scerab]

To even touch social security or Medicare is political suicide. The reds will on the hunt both politically and literally.
The most probable change the reds will try to do to both social security and Medicare is to increase the enrollment age. Which makes sense. Because the life expectancy has increased and so did the retirement age.
The blues want to leave it the way it is and decrease funding else where.
Both parties are merely a distraction. Give the masses a show and let the overlord billionaires do what ever they want.
People in America like to believe that they are free, but in reality Americans are serfs. Their shackles are debt and their masters are the debtors.

[Bethere]

Are you going to explain how block granting Medicare to the states phases it out? Are you going to explain why you hate local democracy so much? Or can I expect more feckless responses like the above?

Your voucher might cover costs initially, but the cost cutting gop would never ever keep those vouchers up to date.

[Bethere]

To even touch social security or Medicare is political suicide. The reds will on the hunt both politically and literally.
The most probable change the reds will try to do to both social security and Medicare is to increase the enrollment age. Which makes sense. Because the life expectancy has increased and so did the retirement age.
The blues want to leave it the way it is and decrease funding else where.
Both parties are merely a distraction. Give the masses a show and let the overlord billionaires do what ever they want.
People in America like to believe that they are free, but in reality Americans are serfs. Their shackles are debt and their masters are the debtors.

What the ryan plan does is guarantee medicare for those who have it in order to protect their base and then gut it for everyone born after 1958.

[birddog]

Since you got your free stuff now you want to pull up the ladder..... typical

Not true. The dimocrats need to give the republicans the freedom to correct what the dims have screwed up.

[Ethereal]

Yep, and soon banks will be allowed to do the same stupid stuff they did leading up to the great recession.

Thanks, Republicans!

But that is off topic.

thanks.
Fannie May and Freddie Mac were government entities and the USD is a government money.

Like virtually all massive recessions and depressions, what happened in 2008 was a government manufactured bubble.

And even though you and other big government types blame the banks for what happened, you insisted on bailing out those banks with taxpayer money.

Yet "liberals" like you present yourself as some kind of populist scourge against Wall Street.

How comical.

[Bethere]

Well I certainly pray not. Trump beat the Repub establishment. I don't want him empowering any of their usual sociopathic stuff.

Good luck with that.

[Ethereal]

Your voucher might cover costs initially, but the cost cutting gop would never ever keep those vouchers up to date.
Your speculation is worthless, friend. I doubt anyone is interested in it. I know I'm not. So try again. How does block granting Medicare to the states phase it out? The money will still be spent on Medicare, just at the state level where it is closer to the people it's supposed to be helping. Why do you have such disdain for local democracy?

[Ethereal]

One of the benefits of block granting the money is that it will reduce federal bureaucracy which will increase the overall cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the program. That must be why Bethere is opposed to it, because it improves things. You can always count on partisan Democrats to stand in the way of improvements.

[Bethere]

Fannie May and Freddie Mac were government entities and the USD is a government money.

Like virtually all massive recessions and depressions, what happened in 2008 was a government manufactured bubble.

And even though you and other big government types blame the banks for what happened, you insisted on bailing out those banks with taxpayer money.

Yet "liberals" like you present yourself as some kind of populist scourge against Wall Street.

How comical.

When dodd frank is canceled banks will be able to gamble your cash reserves on peanuts and wildly leveraged false investments like the toxic assets in 2008.

You and your party's ignorance is dangerous and cyclical.

[Scerab]

What the ryan plan does is guarantee medicare for those who have it in order to protect their base and then gut it for everyone born after 1958.
This will bankrupt the states and plunge America back from a top developed nation into a developing nation.
Do you even know how many doctors and hospitals depend on Medicare and Medicaid?
if what you propose, actually happens then this country as we know it will no longer be a dream but a nightmare.
I suppose the evil and twisted Koch brothers and their ilk would love to see that.
And so would all the inbred, moon shine consuming red necks. They don't care about their health.

[Bethere]

Your speculation is worthless, friend. I doubt anyone is interested in it. I know I'm not. So try again. How does block granting Medicare to the states phase it out? The money will still be spent on Medicare, just at the state level where it is closer to the people it's supposed to be helping. Why do you have such disdain for local democracy?

Seriously, I am not your friend. I think that you are dangerous.

[Bethere]

This will bankrupt the states and plunge America back from a top developed nation into a developing nation.
Do you even know how many doctors and hospitals depend on Medicare and Medicaid?
if what you propose, actually happens then this country as we know it will no longer be a dream but a nightmare.
I suppose the evil and twisted Koch brothers and their ilk would love to see that.
And so would all the inbred, moon shine consuming red necks. They don't care about their health.

I agree with you 100 %.

except.

The states will cut services because they are required by law to balance their budgets.

[Ethereal]

When dodd frank is canceled banks will be able to gamble your cash reserves on peanuts and wildly leveraged false investments like the toxic assets in 2008.

You and your party's ignorance is dangerous and cyclical.

Yes, keep pretending like those toxic assets were not being originated by government entities like Fannie and Freddie. That way, your anti-market extremism will seem reasonable and evidence-based instead of dogmatic and irrational.

[del]

Next up...The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

...because people don't need protection from scammers.


the market will take care of it

ask anyone who invested with bernie madoff

[Ethereal]

Seriously, I am not your friend. I think that you are dangerous.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how block grants will phase out Medicare, pal. All you've offered up so far is empty speculation.

I'm also waiting for you to explain why you have such disdain for local democracy. We are supposed to be a federalist system, after all.

Perhaps you do not have an explanation and are just spewing forth your typically asinine, DNC talking points? That would be shocking.

[Bethere]

One of the benefits of block granting the money is that it will reduce federal bureaucracy which will increase the overall cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the program. That must be why Bethere is opposed to it, because it improves things. You can always count on partisan Democrats to stand in the way of improvements.

False. Block granting would create 50 new and expensive bureaucracies.

I encourage you to look up the term, "economy of scale."


Report back with your findings.

[Ethereal]

the market will take care of it

ask anyone who invested with bernie madoff

What was stopping the SEC and other government agencies from putting a stop to Bernie Madoff? Aside from their own incompetence and ineffectiveness, of course.

And am I supposed to feel sorry for a bunch of rich people who stupidly invested their life savings with a too-good-to-be-true pyramid scheme? I suppose personal responsibility has no role to play there?

[Bethere]

I'm still waiting for you to explain how block grants will phase out Medicare, pal. All you've offered up so far is empty speculation.

I'm also waiting for you to explain why you have such disdain for local democracy. We are supposed to be a federalist system, after all.

Perhaps you do not have an explanation and are just spewing forth your typically asinine, DNC talking points? That would be shocking.

I don't take orders from people I do not respect.

[del]

What was stopping the SEC and other government agencies from putting a stop to Bernie Madoff? Aside from their own incompetence and ineffectiveness, of course.

And am I supposed to feel sorry for a bunch of rich people who stupidly invested their life savings with a too-good-to-be-true pyramid scheme? I suppose personal responsibility has no role to play there?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS2nWLz-AbE

[Common Sense]

What was stopping the SEC and other government agencies from putting a stop to Bernie Madoff? Aside from their own incompetence and ineffectiveness, of course.

And am I supposed to feel sorry for a bunch of rich people who stupidly invested their life savings with a too-good-to-be-true pyramid scheme? I suppose personal responsibility has no role to play there?
A lot of the investors in Madoff's scheme were hedge funds that represented normal working people, not to mention the many charities that invested.

[Cletus]

Providing for your health care is not a legitimate function of the federal government. If such programs are to exist, they should do so at the state level.

[birddog]

I don't take orders from people I do not respect.

So, do you tend to ignore that still small voice coming from within yourself? :smiley_ROFLMAO:

[Ethereal]

False. Block granting would create 50 new and expensive bureaucracies.

State governments are not new. They've actually been around longer than the federal government you worship.

And they already have agencies in place that administrate healthcare-related programs.

The biggest change would be the elimination of massive amounts of wasteful and inefficient federal bureaucracy, which is probably why you are opposed to it.

Democrats like you love nothing more than a sprawling, imperious bureaucracy. It's what you live for.


I encourage you to look up the term, "economy of scale."

And I encourage you to look up the law of diminishing returns.

[Bethere]

Providing for your health care is not a legitimate function of the federal government. If such programs are to exist, they should do so at the state level.

GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE. Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

[Ethereal]

I don't take orders from people I do not respect.
In other words, you cannot explain your position and are merely spewing forth DNC talking points.

Cool beans.

[Cletus]

GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE. Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

Wrong answer.

Don't post about things you don't understand. The General Welfare Clause has absolutely NOTHING to do with any kind of welfare or social programs.

I can easily see why you are ashamed to be who you are.

[Bethere]

In other words, you cannot explain your position and are merely spewing forth DNC talking points.

Cool beans.
You are ill prepared to interpret and reword my posts.

[Ethereal]

A lot of the investors in Madoff's scheme were hedge funds that represented normal working people, not to mention the many charities that invested.

People should be more careful. What seems pretty clear is that the government did little if anything to stop him. In fact, the government probably contributed to the investors' false sense of security. They assume (wrongly) that because Madoff and others like him are subject to government regulations and oversight, that it must be safe to invest with him. What they fail to realize is that clever people can simply circumvent those regulations in any number of ways.

[Bethere]

Wrong answer.

Don't post about things you don't understand. The General Welfare Clause has absolutely NOTHING to do with any kind of welfare or social programs.

I can easily see why you are ashamed to be who you are.
I am not ashamed to be me. I am ashamed of my fellow white males.

As for the general welfare clause you aren't arguing with me. Rather, you are arguing with 227 years of American jurisprudence.

[Peter1469]

Medicare Has Controlled Costs Better Than Private Insurance

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/


How many doctors have started not taking new Medicare patients because they can't afford it?

[Cletus]

I am not ashamed to be me. I am ashamed of my fellow white males.

You really should be ashamed to be you. In fact, you said you were. Were you lying?

[resister]

Wrong answer.

Don't post about things you don't understand. The General Welfare Clause has absolutely NOTHING to do with any kind of welfare or social programs.

I can easily see why you are ashamed to be who you are.
Must agree, I notice a distinct lack of the word"health care"

[Peter1469]

Federalism does not mean the federal government seized all powers from the states.


Next up...The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

...because people don't need protection from scammers.

[Bethere]

People should be more careful. What seems pretty clear is that the government did little if anything to stop him. In fact, the government probably contributed to the investors' false sense of security. They assume (wrongly) that because Madoff and others like him are subject to government regulations and oversight, that it must be safe to invest with him. What they fail to realize is that clever people can simply circumvent those regulations in any number of ways.

What does that have to do with medicare?

Don't hijack my thread.

[resister]

I am not ashamed to be me. I am ashamed of my fellow white males.Why be ashamed?Never apologize for being white....or black

[Ethereal]

GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE. Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

Of course you would interpret that clause in the most elastic way possible. But your interpretation of the general welfare clause would render the ensuing enumeration of powers totally superfluous.In other words, why would they bother enumerating a power to establish post offices and post roads when they've already empowered the government to legislate in direct furtherance of the "general welfare"? Do you suppose that the framers were simpletons like you?

[del]

Of course you would interpret that clause in the most elastic way possible. But your interpretation of the general welfare clause would render the ensuing enumeration of powers totally superfluous.In other words, why would they bother enumerating a power to establish post offices and post roads when they've already empowered the government to legislate in direct furtherance of the "general welfare"? Do you suppose that the framers were simpletons like you?


was hamilton a simpleton?

[Bethere]

Must agree, I notice a distinct lack of the word"health care"
Gosh, and the 2nd amendment has a distinct lack of examples of using the word, "individuals."

[Ethereal]

You are ill prepared to interpret and reword my posts.
You cannot defend your position otherwise you would do so. Like most Democrats, you fold under the slightest bit of pressure and resort to juvenile evasion. How amusing.

[Bethere]

Of course you would interpret that clause in the most elastic way possible. But your interpretation of the general welfare clause would render the ensuing enumeration of powers totally superfluous.In other words, why would they bother enumerating a power to establish post offices and post roads when they've already empowered the government to legislate in direct furtherance of the "general welfare"? Do you suppose that the framers were simpletons like you?

It's not about me, nor is it my interpretation.

[Cletus]

was hamilton a simpleton?

Pretty much. However, Madison was nothing short of brilliant and he says Bethere and those who think like him about the General Welfare Clause are idiots.

[del]

Pretty much. However, Madison was nothing short of brilliant and he says Bethere and those who think like him about the General Welfare Clause are idiots.
i didn't ask if you disagreed with him, aptly.

try to keep up

[resister]

Gosh, and the 2nd amendment has a distinct lack of examples of using the word, "individuals."Apples to oranges,the 2nd am. say's right of the people

[Ethereal]

I am not ashamed to be me. I am ashamed of my fellow white males.

As for the general welfare clause you aren't arguing with me. Rather, you are arguing with 227 years of American jurisprudence.

And you're arguing with Thomas Jefferson who explained quite succinctly why your elastic interpretation of the general welfare clause makes absolutely no sense.

But one thing I've noticed about "liberal" jurisprudence is that it need not make any sense as long as it promotes the expansion of state authority.

[Peter1469]

Sadly, you are wasting your time with that one.


I'm still waiting for you to explain how block grants will phase out Medicare, pal. All you've offered up so far is empty speculation.

I'm also waiting for you to explain why you have such disdain for local democracy. We are supposed to be a federalist system, after all.

Perhaps you do not have an explanation and are just spewing forth your typically asinine, DNC talking points? That would be shocking.

[Ethereal]

What does that have to do with medicare?

Don't hijack my thread.

You're the one who started talking about financial regulations and banks. I merely responded. The fact that I'm thrashing you on two fronts in your own thread must sting.

[Cletus]

i didn't ask if you disagreed with him, aptly.

try to keep up

You asked if he was a simpleton. I answered you.

It seems you and Hamilton had something in common.

[Cletus]

And you're arguing with Thomas Jefferson who explained quite succinctly why your elastic interpretation of the general welfare clause makes absolutely no sense.

As did Madison.

[Bethere]

And you're arguing with Thomas Jefferson who explained quite succinctly why your elastic interpretation of the general welfare clause makes absolutely no sense.

But one thing I've noticed about "liberal" jurisprudence is that it need not make any sense as long as it promotes the expansion of state authority.

Again, it isn't about me, nor is it my interpretation.

You are arguing with 227 years of settled law.

Way to tilt at windmills!

[Ethereal]

was hamilton a simpleton?
Not in the least. But his lust for power blinded him to the truth.

[Cletus]

Again, it isn't about me, nor is it my interpretation.

You are arguing with 227 years of settled law.

Really?

Cite the decision.

[Ethereal]

Gosh, and the 2nd amendment has a distinct lack of examples of using the word, "individuals."
The only rights the founding fathers believed in were individual rights.

[Newpublius]

A lot of the investors in Madoff's scheme were hedge funds that represented normal working people, not to mention the many charities that invested.

Indeed, I'd suggest it doesn't matter who the investors were. Its still a fraud, and the victims, whether they were Joe Six Pack or the Wilpons.....they're both victims of fraud in that circumstance.

[Peter1469]

GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE. Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."


Why did you cut out the rest of the clause- dishonest or uneducated?

[Ethereal]

It's not about me, nor is it my interpretation.
Whoever's interpretation it is, it does not stand up to logical scrutiny.

[Bethere]

The only rights the founding fathers believed in were individual rights.

Cool! So we can toss the whole state's rights bit!

good times!

Way to thrash me, hero!

[Ethereal]

Sadly, you are wasting your time with that one.
It's not a waste of time if others are edified by it... :cool2:

[Newpublius]

Whoever's interpretation it is, it does not stand up to logical scrutiny.

It doesn't of course, but that is the usurped paradigm we have been working under sonce the New Deal.

[Ethereal]

Again, it isn't about me, nor is it my interpretation.

You are arguing with 227 years of settled law.

Way to tilt at windmills!
I've noticed that "liberals" like to claim things are "settled" even though judicial precedents can and do change all the time.

Either way, it wouldn't matter if this precedent had existed for a 1,000 years. It would still be nonsensical and therefore indefensible on its merits.

[Bethere]

It doesn't of course, but that is the usurped paradigm we have been working under sonce the New Deal.

Do you mean that I didn't make it up?

Ethereal the impaler will be heartbroken.

[Newpublius]

Cool! So we can toss the whole state's rights bit!

good times!

Way to thrash me, hero!

States rights is a misnomer, its really the powers delegated to the state by the people of the state. It is said in the Federalist Papers that the powers delegated to the Federal Government are 'few and defined' and the powers left to the state are 'numwrous and indefinite'

The 'police power' of the state is typically thiught of as the state's power to legislate for 'health, welfare and safety'

[Newpublius]

Do you mean that I didn't make it up?

Ethereal the impaler will be heartbroken.

Well the part about centuries is surely contrived. It was a power recognized by the Supreme Court only after FDR threatened to pack the court.

[Bethere]

I've noticed that "liberals" like to claim things are "settled" even though judicial precedents can and do change all the time.

Either way, it wouldn't matter if this precedent had existed for a 1,000 years. It would still be nonsensical and therefore indefensible on its merits.

Look up, "stare decisis."

We didn't make that up either.

[Ethereal]

Cool! So we can toss the whole state's rights bit!

good times!

Way to thrash me, hero!
As Jefferson so wisely noted, the rights of society can only be derived from the rights of individuals.

So "state's rights", such as they are, are merely the conceptual label we attach to individual rights in the aggregate.

[Peter1469]

I've noticed that "liberals" like to claim things are "settled" even though judicial precedents can and do change all the time.

Either way, it wouldn't matter if this precedent had existed for a 1,000 years. It would still be nonsensical and therefore indefensible on its merits.

SCOTUS most often relied on the Commerce Clause to destroy federalism. That is in the enumerated powers of Art 1 sec. 8. From 1937 until 1995 if Congress said Commerce Clause the court said OK. In Lopez, the Court said no- your no gun zone law has zero to do with the Commerce Clause. It is unconstitutional. In one of the Obamacare cases, the Court said, no, the Commerce Clause does not allow the federal government to mandate the people to enter into insurance contracts with private companies. (It did twist logic to point to the tax power- which Congress specifically said they were not using; and how can you divorce the taxing power from Art. 1 sec. 8?)

[Ethereal]

Do you mean that I didn't make it up?

Ethereal the impaler will be heartbroken.

You precious thing.

I know the interpretation you're asserting isn't your own. That would require you to think for yourself on occasion and we both know that has never happened before.

All I know is that you cannot defend it and are merely regurgitating it as many "liberals" are wont to do.

[Bethere]

States rights is a misnomer, its really the powers delegated to the state by the people of the state. It is said in the Federalist Papers that the powers delegated to the Federal Government are 'few and defined' and the powers left to the state are 'numwrous and indefinite'

The 'police power' of the state is typically thiught of as the state's power to legislate for 'health, welfare and safety'

The federalist papers are not legal documents. But since we are referencing the founders try reading "Report on Manufactures (1791)," by Alexander Hamilton.

Thanks.

[Newpublius]

As Jefferson so wisely noted, the rights of society can only be derived from the rights of individuals.

So "state's rights", such as they are, are merely the conceptual label we attach to individual rights in the aggregate.

I'd suggest its the narrow sense of a state's 'right' (really power) to legislate on a topic vis a vis the federal government. Ignoring concurrent jurisdiction, the state has a right to do something the federal government doesn't have the right to do.

Just a different sense of the word 'right' entirely.

[Common Sense]

People should be more careful. What seems pretty clear is that the government did little if anything to stop him. In fact, the government probably contributed to the investors' false sense of security. They assume (wrongly) that because Madoff and others like him are subject to government regulations and oversight, that it must be safe to invest with him. What they fail to realize is that clever people can simply circumvent those regulations in any number of ways.
So because it sometimes fails to catch all offenders, what...get rid of it?

That's like getting rid of seat belts because they don't work 100% of the time and give people a false sense of security.

[Ethereal]

Look up, "stare decisis."

We didn't make that up either.

Precedents can be overturned and have been overturned numerous times in our history.

They are not divine mandates handed down by gods, as you seem to believe.

[Bethere]

You precious thing.

I know the interpretation you're asserting isn't your own. That would require you to think for yourself on occasion and we both know that has never happened before.

All I know is that you cannot defend it and are merely regurgitating it as many "liberals" are wont to do.

If a thoughtful poster asked those questions I'd be happy to respond.

And no, conning pete into asking for you won't get it done.

[Newpublius]

The federalist papers are not legal documents. But since we are referencing the founders try reading "Report on Manufactures (1791)," by Alexander Hamilton.

Thanks.

They are cited frequently by the Supreme Court. They were written by the people who wrote the Constitution itself to explain to the people of NY what they meant by it. So, when you ask what something in the Constitution means, its difficult not to give weight to a writing of the very person who wrote the thing writing, "this is what we meant by that"

[Ethereal]

The federalist papers are not legal documents.

Nevertheless, they are indispensable in the interpretation of the US Constitution.

[Bethere]

Precedents can be overturned and have been overturned numerous times in our history.

They are not divine mandates handed down by gods, as you seem to believe.

Well your party has had total continuous control of the Supreme Court since 1969 and nothing has changed.

What do you suppose that means?

[nic34]

SCOTUS most often relied on the Commerce Clause to destroy federalism. That is in the enumerated powers of Art 1 sec. 8. From 1937 until 1995 if Congress said Commerce Clause the court said OK. In Lopez, the Court said no- your no gun zone law has zero to do with the Commerce Clause. It is unconstitutional. In one of the Obamacare cases, the Court said, no, the Commerce Clause does not allow the federal government to mandate the people to enter into insurance contracts with private companies. (It did twist logic to point to the tax power- which Congress specifically said they were not using; and how can you divorce the taxing power from Art. 1 sec. 8?)

Right.

And we are about to get us a brand sparkly new really cool SCOTUS real soon, to twist it to the GOPERS liking once again.

[Ethereal]

I'd suggest its the narrow sense of a state's 'right' (really power) to legislate on a topic vis a vis the federal government. Ignoring concurrent jurisdiction, the state has a right to do something the federal government doesn't have the right to do.

Just a different sense of the word 'right' entirely.
I agree. As you said before, "state's rights" is a misnomer. The correct term would be "state sovereignty" or "state powers".

[del]

You asked if he was a simpleton. I answered you.

It seems you and Hamilton had something in common.
you're not qualified to judge, aptly.

[Bethere]

Nevertheless, they are indispensable in the interpretation of the US Constitution.

A misleading source in that it is just one side's argument.

[Newpublius]

The federalist papers are not legal documents. But since we are referencing the founders try reading "Report on Manufactures (1791)," by Alexander Hamilton.

Thanks.

Indeed, the Report on Manufacturers is written by Hamilton. Hamilton clearly supports the concept, supported strong central government going into the Philadelphia Convention. Its not surprising that Hamilton says this after ratification.

Cardozo himself cites to this in his decision in Helvering v Davis, the second case recognizing General Welfare as an independent substantive power but the first to uphold the exercise of government power in the case.

The problem of course is Hamilton's words in the federalist papers where he acknowledges that General Welfare is NOT an independent substantive power.

Cardozo's opinion bootstraps legal authority in a way that is genuinely pernicious.

[Peter1469]

Right.

And we are about to get us a brand sparkly new really cool SCOTUS real soon, to twist it to the GOPERS liking once again.
1 to 4 justices.

[Ethereal]

So because it sometimes fails to catch all offenders, what...get rid of it?

I doubt it's much of an improvement over doing nothing. And if it is improvement, it's hardly worth the financial and cultural costs that go with it.


That's like getting rid of seat belts because they don't work 100% of the time and give people a false sense of security.
Seat belts work the overwhelming majority of the time. Where is the evidence that financial regulations have a similar record of success?

[Bethere]

I agree. As you said before, "state's rights" is a misnomer. The correct term would be "state sovereignty" or "state powers".

State sovereignty is never mentioned in the constitution.

You are confusing the constitution with the trashed articles of confederation.

[Ethereal]

If a thoughtful poster asked those questions I'd be happy to respond.

And no, conning pete into asking for you won't get it done.

Your excuses are quite lame. I doubt anyone is convinced by them.

[Bethere]

1 to 4 justices.

You have controlled the supreme court continuously for the last 47 years.

Oops! We both forgot! You are an independent!

[Ethereal]

Well your party has had total continuous control of the Supreme Court since 1969 and nothing has changed.

What do you suppose that means?

I don't have a party, friend.

I prefer to think for myself.

You should try it sometime.

Anyway, precedents are not divine mandates set in stone. They can be changed, ergo the issue is not "settled" as you claimed earlier.

You really ought to put more effort into your arguments because refuting them is entirely too easy.

[Bethere]

Your excuses are quite lame. I doubt anyone is convinced by them.
Or so you say with the 114th post on this thread in the last hour.

[Ethereal]

A misleading source in that it is just one side's argument.
You think the people who are mostly responsible for the US Constitution's existence are a "misleading" source.

No wonder you are so confused.

[resister]

Right.

And we are about to get us a brand sparkly new really cool SCOTUS real soon, to twist it to the GOPERS liking once again.Find a pool and hold your breath

[Ethereal]

State sovereignty is never mentioned in the constitution.

State sovereignty is necessarily implied within a federalist system. If you need me to explain what federalism means, just let me know. I'd be happy to educate you.

You are confusing the constitution with the trashed articles of confederation.
Nope. I'm talking about the constitution and the FEDERAL system it established. Some day, you will pick up a dictionary and come across the word "federalism" and then you will understand what I'm talking about.

[Ethereal]

Or so you say with the 114th post on this thread in the last hour.
Is that the best you got? I certainly hope not.

[Bethere]

Indeed, the Report on Manufacturers is written by Hamilton. Hamilton clearly supports the concept, supported strong central government going into the Philadelphia Convention. Its not surprising that Hamilton says this after ratification.

Cardozo himself cites to this in his decision in Helvering v Davis, the second case recognizing General Welfare as an independent substantive power but the first to uphold the exercise of government power in the case.

The problem of course is Hamilton's words in the federalist papers where he acknowledges that General Welfare is NOT an independent substantive power.

Cardozo's opinion bootstraps legal authority in a way that is genuinely pernicious.
Has medicare or 42 U.S.C. § 1395 ever been successfully challenged?

And of course stare decisis demands that in order to overturn existing law it would have to be proven to be wrongly decided.

Do you think that the devoutly roman catholic Chief Justice Roberts would volunteer to be a party to jeopardizing the health of tens of millions of senior citizens based on ideology?

[Newpublius]

Has medicare or 42 U.S.C. § 1395 ever been successfully challenged?

And of course stare decisis demands that in order to overturn existing law it would have to be proven to be wrongly decided.

Do you think that the devoutly roman catholic Chief Justice Roberts would volunteer to be a party to jeopardizing the health of tens of millions of senior citizens based on ideology?

Medicare amends Social Security and Social Security was upheld in Helvering. That doesn't change the nature of the conversation we are having. General Welfare WAS ruled by the Supreme Court to be an independent sibstantive power in the New Deal, clearly under duress from FDR and ckear contrary to the history that preceded that ruling.

Why didn't the Helvering court follow precedent?

The issue of originalism transcends what the Supreme Court will do. Few have any doubt that this will be overturned. Roberts even upheld Obamacare through the prefatory clause's inclusion of the power to tax.

You can say and think what you like but its difficuot to reconcile what exists today with a 'limited government of enumerated powers' -- clearly the original design, with what exists today.

This is truly a shame because the true sense of federalism restores flexibility to a system where now 120mn voters are playing electoral tugbof war to make the losing 60mn do what they want them to do.

Its controversial because both sides hate each other. Proper federalism this is NOT an issue. California can have its denocratic socialism without forcing Tennessee to do likewise.

[Archer0915]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/15/paul-ryans-plan-to-phase-out-medicare-is-just-what-democrats-need/

Are you ok with deep sixing medicare and medicaid by block granting them back to the states to be privatized and voucherized?

Do you think that the gop's elderly tea party demographic will approve once they realize what is actually in the Ryan budget?

To my democratic friends: who is scarier, ryan or trump?

16632
Opinion blog?

Where is the legislation? Also, it would never pass.

[Bethere]

Medicare amends Social Security and Social Security was upheld in Helvering. That doesn't change the nature of the conversation we are having. General Welfare WAS ruled by the Supreme Court to be an independent sibstantive power in the New Deal, clearly under duress from FDR and ckear contrary to the history that preceded that ruling.

Why didn't the Helvering court follow precedent?

Gregory v Helvering was a ruling about tax status that also had a holding, in passing, concerning the constitutionality of their use of the general welfare clause two years earlier in 1935 with Helvering v Davis.

So Gregory v Helvering upheld a lower court ruling, and didn't contradict the 1935 ruling--Helvering v Davis.

The parallels between Gregory v Helvering and NFIB v Sebellius are interesting.

[Bethere]

Opinion blog?

Where is the legislation? Also, it would never pass.

Thanks for asking.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/%3FIssueID%3D9974&ved=0ahUKEwjfrIrl97DQAhUKQyYKHWriD9sQFgg1MAI&usg=AFQjCNHWBG5puyiS9t3xm_iXa5DayzFihQ


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-medicare-ryan-20161114-story.html&ved=0ahUKEwiAu4uG-LDQAhUKOyYKHSoBCQkQFghEMAU&usg=AFQjCNHYISa19fcmgv_KP8_Zek-lQc0_tg

[Newpublius]

Gregory v Helvering was a ruling about tax status that also had a holding, in passing, concerning the constitutionality of their use of the general welfare clause two years earlier in 1935 with Helvering v Davis.

So Helvering v Davis upheld a lower court ruling, and didn't contradict the 1935 ruling--Gregory v Helvering.

This is nonsensical. US v Butler held GW an independent power but then they struck the statute anyway. Helvering is the case that upholds Social Security, naturally the challenge comes to the court with a person challeneging the scheme including the tax imposed. That is a footnote to our conversation here.

[Bethere]

This is nonsensical. US v Butler held GW an independent power but then they struck the statute anyway. Helvering is the case that upholds Social Security, naturally the challenge comes to the court with a person challeneging the scheme including the tax imposed. That is a footnote to our conversation here.

Butler was about agricultural taxes.

But you knew that.


The holding of Helvering v Davis:
The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.

[Archer0915]

Medicare






Quick Links

Overview (http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9969#1)
Medicare Reimbursements for Physicians (http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9969#2)
House Proposals to Reform Medicare (http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9969#3)
Additional Information (http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9969#4)



Medicare is the cornerstone on which all other government health care programs rest. Unfortunately, the deteriorating financial conditions of this program are threatening beneficiary access to its benefits. In their most recent report, the Medicare Trustees projected that the account that funds Medicare’s hospital benefit will be exhausted in 2028. Reports like this illustrate that we can no longer let politicians in Washington deny the danger to Medicare – it is all too real, and the health of our nation’s seniors is far too important. We have to save Medicare to avoid disruptions in benefits for current seniors and to strengthen the program for future generations.
Medicare Reimbursements for Physicians
As you may know, Medicare reimburses health care providers for various procedures they perform. These reimbursements are made according to a fee schedule, which is updated annually by a formula called the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR). If spending exceeds the established targets, payment rates to providers are cut; if spending is below the target, payment rates are increased. The intent of the formula is to place a restraint on overall increases in Medicare spending for physicians' services. However since 2003, Congress has chosen to override current law in order to prevent reimbursements from being cut as a result of the formula. These temporary patches have resulted in spending nearly $170 billion to avoid the unsustainable cuts imposed by the SGR.
Rather than passing temporary fixes, I have long preferred to address the more important matter of wholesale reform to the Medicare reimbursement system. Physicians should not have to wait on Congress to act every year in order to prevent pay cuts that are arbitrarily determined by an outdated formula. Fundamental reforms to Medicare and our broken health care system are urgently needed. That is why I was pleased to support H.R. 2, the Medicare Access and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2015.
H.R. 2 would provide stability for seniors, foster a more patient-centered system, and provide structural reforms that would strengthen Medicare.
In part, this legislation would start to move us to a patient-centered system. It would cancel the cuts and instead give doctors a modest increase for the next five years. Every year after, doctor payments would grow to depend more and more on results. Our plan would set up one streamlined program that would reward doctors who met performance goals and improved seniors' health. Over time, Medicare would reward quality over quantity, and seniors would get better care because of it.
Our plan would also achieve savings by making two other structural reforms. First, we would ask higher income seniors to contribute more to their care—something we have called for in the House Republican budget for years. Starting in 2018, seniors who make more than $133,000 a year would pay a higher premium for their doctor and prescription-drug coverage. Secondly, our plan would discourage unnecessary doctor visits and give seniors the incentive to seek out the most effective care. Many seniors have "Medigap" insurance—a private plan that helps pay for costs that Medicare does not cover, such as co-payments and deductibles. These plans insulate people from costs and, experts believe, encourage the overuse of health care. Beginning in 2020, this agreement would prohibit Medigap plans for covering the first $147 of out-of-pocket spending, so cost is once again a consideration in health care decisions.
Further, this legislation continues the extenders included in the Protecting Access to Medicare (PAMA) Act of 2014 and provides funding for Community Health Centers through 2017. These provisions ensure that individuals will have easier and more affordable access to their healthcare. Additionally, it reauthorizes the Child Healthcare Insurance Program (CHIP), a program that provides health care coverage to more than 8 million children and pregnant women, for two years.
On March 26, 2015, the House passed H.R. 2 in bipartisan fashion and with my support by a vote of 392 to 37. The bill was subsequently passed in the Senate and signed into law by President Obama on April 16, 2015. I was happy to join my colleagues in this important step toward patient-centered health care. After years of manufactured crises, this bill will give doctors the certainty they need and seniors the security they deserve. And although we have a lot more work to do to save Medicare, this plan is a firm step to strengthen the program.
House Proposals to Reform Medicare
With approximately 10,000 “Baby Boomers” turning 65 every day, Medicare’s structural imbalance threatens beneficiaries’ access to quality, affordable care. Currently, Medicare reimburses health care providers for services, creating a perverse incentive to order more tests and perform more services than may be necessary as a way to maximize one’s share of the program. By basing payment on volume, not quality, costs rise and efficiency is reduced. Ultimately, this flaw in the structure of the program is driving up health care costs, which are, in turn, threatening to bankrupt the system – and ultimately the nation.
Unless Congress fixes what’s broken in Medicare, without breaking what’s working, the program will end up causing exactly what it was created to avoid – millions of American seniors without adequate health security and a younger working generation saddled with enormous debts to pay for spending levels that cannot be sustained.
It is morally unconscionable for elected leaders to cling to an unsustainable status quo with respect to America’s health and retirement security programs. Current seniors and future generations deserve better than empty promises and a diminished country. Current retirees deserve the benefits around which they organized their lives. Future generations deserve health and retirement security they can count on. By making gradual structural improvements, Congress can preserve America’s social contract with retired workers.
Recognizing the problems facing Medicare, last year’s House Budget Proposal:

Strengthens health and retirement security by taking power away from government bureaucrats and empowering patients with control over their care.

Repeals the new health care law’s unaccountable board of bureaucrats empowered to cut Medicare in ways that would jeopardize seniors’ access to care.

Saves Medicare for current and future generations, with no disruptions for those in and near retirement.

For younger workers, when they become eligible, Medicare will provide a premium-support payment and a list of guaranteed coverage options – including a traditional fee-for-service option – from which recipients can choose a plan that best suits their needs.

Premium support, competitive bidding, and more assistance for those with lower incomes or greater health care needs will ensure guaranteed affordability for all seniors.
Letting government break its promises to current seniors and to future generations is unacceptable. The reforms outlined in the budget passed by the House protect and preserve Medicare for those in and near retirement, while saving and strengthening this critical program so that future generations can count on it to be there when they retire.
This approach to strengthening the Medicare program — which is based on a long history of bipartisan reform plans — would ensure security and affordability for seniors now and into the future. In September 2013, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed illustrative options of a premium support system. They found that a program in which the premium-support payment was based on the average bid of participating plans would result in savings for affected beneficiaries as well as the federal government.
Moreover, it would set up a carefully monitored exchange for Medicare plans. Health plans that chose to participate in the Medicare Exchange would agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking, and to ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.
While there would be no disruptions in the current Medicare fee-for-service program for those currently enrolled or becoming eligible before 2024, all seniors would have the choice to opt in to the new Medicare program once it began in 2024. This budget envisions giving seniors the freedom to choose a plan best suited for them, guaranteeing health security throughout their retirement years.
These reforms also ensure affordability by fixing the currently broken subsidy system and letting market competition work as a real check on widespread waste and skyrocketing health-care costs. Putting patients in charge of how their health care dollars are spent will force providers to compete against each other on price and quality. That’s how markets work: The customer is the ultimate guarantor of value.
Reform aimed to empower individuals — with a strengthened safety net for the poor and the sick — will not only ensure the fiscal sustainability of this program, the federal budget, and the U.S. economy. It will also guarantee that Medicare can fulfill the promise of health security for America’s seniors.
Additional Information
Related Documents:
Press Releases - Ryan: “These are the stakes of this generation defining moment” (http://paulryan.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=398455)

Documents and Presentations - 2015 Annual Report to Taxpayers (http://paulryan.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=398451)

Articles - Q & A: Paul Ryan on the Challenges and Opportunities of Chairing the House Ways and Means Committee (http://paulryan.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=398288)

Press Releases - Ryan Statement on Senate Passage of Permanent 'Doc Fix' (http://paulryan.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=398263)

Press Releases - Ryan Wraps Up Listening Session Tour (http://paulryan.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=398261)


More Documents... (http://paulryan.house.gov/News/DocumentQuery.aspx?CatagoryID=9969)

Related Files:
2013/03/16 - Rep. Paul Ryan Delivered the Weekly Republican Address and presented the balanced House Republican budget, inviting the President to join the common-sense effort. (http://paulryan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/weekly-ryan-3-16-13.mp3)

2013/01/03 - Paul Ryan speaks out on fiscal cliff compromise (http://paulryan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/11313CS.mp3)

2012/06/29 - Paul Ryan joins Tim Bremel on “Your Morning Show” (http://paulryan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/62912WCLO.mp3)

2012/03/27 - A conversation with Paul Ryan about restoring economic prosperity, upward mobility, and job creation (http://paulryan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/32712Ricochet.mp3)

2012/03/21 - Rep. Ryan describes the choice of two futures and the $5 trillion in spending cuts in the Path to Prosperity. (http://paulryan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/321BBMiA.mp3)


More Files... (http://paulryan.house.gov/Files/?CatagoryID=9969)





- See more at: http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9969#sthash.8qmh12Mf.dpuf

[Safety]

So, states rights is a misnomer....

Interesting, all this time the cry about the civil war being about states rights is now dismissed as a misnomer.

Well, there goes that argument.

[resister]

Fatal system overload...all full up,gotta get a lawyer to refute that

[resister]

So, states rights is a misnomer....

Interesting, all this time the cry about the civil war being about states rights is now dismissed as a misnomer.

Well, there goes that argument.
It's 2016, join us finally

[donttread]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/15/paul-ryans-plan-to-phase-out-medicare-is-just-what-democrats-need/

Are you ok with deep sixing medicare and medicaid by block granting them back to the states to be privatized and voucherized?

Do you think that the gop's elderly tea party demographic will approve once they realize what is actually in the Ryan budget?

To my democratic friends: who is scarier, ryan or trump?

16632

SS and Medicare money is ours, not the governments. Taken from us a knifepoint and earmaked for our retirement. Thay have no right and us old fuckers vote

[Bethere]

SS and Medicare money is ours, not the governments. Taken from us a knifepoint and earmaked for our retirement. Thay have no right and us old $#@!ers vote

Our courts disagree.

You are tilting at windmills.


And although you did vote for trump, your kind will scream bloody murder when they start dismantling social security and Medicare.

[exploited]

Indeed, the Report on Manufacturers is written by Hamilton. Hamilton clearly supports the concept, supported strong central government going into the Philadelphia Convention. Its not surprising that Hamilton says this after ratification.

Cardozo himself cites to this in his decision in Helvering v Davis, the second case recognizing General Welfare as an independent substantive power but the first to uphold the exercise of government power in the case.

The problem of course is Hamilton's words in the federalist papers where he acknowledges that General Welfare is NOT an independent substantive power.

Cardozo's opinion bootstraps legal authority in a way that is genuinely pernicious.

Interesting post.

One thing that has always bothered me is why the general welfare clause was included at all. It seems to me that anybody tasked with writing a Constitution would understand that the language could be used to expand the power of the federal government. It is a very foreseeable problem. Indeed...

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s27.html


On January 19, 1788, prior to ratification of the Constitution, Madison authored The Federalist No. 41 to advocate for ratification. In The Federalist No. 41, Madison stated that the General Welfare Clause refers only to other enumerated powers. He wrote, in part:

"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. 13
Some were aware of the confusion that surrounded it, and raised alarm. The people who Madison accuses of "stooping to such a misconstruction" have since been proven right, because that is exactly how the phrase was interpreted. This was a very glaring mistake on Madison's part, IMO.

Anyways, the only way you're actually going to limit the federal government to enumerated powers is by passing a Constitutional Amendment to clarify that language. I really don't see that happening in the Courts. I could be wrong, but that seems more implausible than an Amendment.

[Bethere]

Interesting post.

One thing that has always bothered me is why the general welfare clause was included at all. It seems to me that anybody tasked with writing a Constitution would understand that the language could be used to expand the power of the federal government. It is a very foreseeable problem. Indeed...

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s27.html


Some were aware of the confusion that surrounded it, and raised alarm. The people who Madison accuses of "stooping to such a misconstruction" have since been proven right, because that is exactly how the phrase was interpreted. This was a very glaring mistake on Madison's part, IMO.

Anyways, the only way you're actually going to limit the federal government to enumerated powers is by passing a Constitutional Amendment to clarify that language. I really don't see that happening in the Courts. I could be wrong, but that seems more implausible than an Amendment.

Very good!

[resister]

Our courts disagree.

You are tilting at windmills.


And although you did vote for trump, your kind will scream bloody murder when they start dismantling social security and Medicare.
Come on, dude ,we pay into the shit, it belongs to the people, regardless of if they claim it, we paid in

[Bethere]

Come on, dude ,we pay into the $#@!, it belongs to the people, regardless of if they claim it, we paid in

And, in turn, you will get the benefits that you were promised provided that Republicans like trump and ryan don't sell the system for scrap in order to line the pockets of their friends.

[Common]

I've seen the pictures you posted of your obese family. Without medicare you and yours would be uninsurable.

May I repost your pictures so I might illustrate my point?

Your a piece of shit bethere, mentioning his family. I hope you get cancer in your ass

[Peter1469]

You have controlled the supreme court continuously for the last 47 years.

Oops! We both forgot! You are an independent!

Trolling your own tPF thread. :shocked:

[Newpublius]

One thing that has always bothered me is why the general welfare clause was included at all.

Madison says responding to Anti-Federalist objections: "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."


Some were aware of the confusion that surrounded it, and raised alarm.

Well, the Anti-Federalists were simply opposed, generally, and they were looking for fault. As it turned out, they were correct, but in that day and age, if you read Madison's response, essentially he's saying, "Excuse me, but as to your objection, can you simply NOT read?"

And he's right in the sense that going ahead to list the enumerated powers would then be completely nugatory.



The people who Madison accuses of "stooping to such a misconstruction" have since been proven right, because that is exactly how the phrase was interpreted. This was a very glaring mistake on Madison's part, IMO.

Not quite in the way you'd imagine, it took the threat of a constitutional crisis. FDR lost the question, he just didn't want to take 'no' for an answer so he threatened to pack the court. The switch in time that saved nine saw a justice flop on a minimum wage law (which at the time would have violated the Contracts Clause). But up until then the New Deal was losing in the courts and unequivocally should have lost in the courts. They didn't just 'stoop' to the misconstruction, they kind've bootstrapped it with garbage.

"Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare". Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been greatstatesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded." (Cardozo in Helvering)

The logic underpinning this decision is simply bad. Its not a misconstruction, it truly is a deterministic ruling.

The ruling does two things that are simply inaccurate:

1. It bootstraps Hamilton's post-ratification position and wholly ignores Hamilton's acknowledgment of the nature of the General Welfare clause contemperanous with the ratification where he acknowledges that it is not in fact an independent substantive power.

2. It also attempts to boostrap its logic by pulling Joseph Story onto Hamilton's side. That's just false:

See, Story, Commentaries on the Constitution:

Sec. 909. The constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be a frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not general and unlimited powers. This is apparent, as will be presently seen, from the history of the proceedings of the convention, which framed it; and it has formed the admitted basis of all legislative and judicial reasoning upon it; ever since it was put into operation, by all, who have been its open friends and advo*cates, as well as by all, who have been its enemies and opponents. If the clause, ‘to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,’ is construed to be an independent and substantive grant of power, it not only renders wholly unimportant and unneces*sary the subsequent enumeration of specific powers; but it plainly extends far beyond them, and creates a general author*ity in congress to pass all laws, which they may deem for use common defense or general welfare. Under such circum*stances, the constitution would practically create an unlimited national government. The enumerated powers would tend to embarrassment and confusion: since they would only give rise to doubts, as to the true extent of the general power, or of the enumerated powers. “Sec. 910. One of the must common maxims of inter*pretation is (as has already been stated), that, as an exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enu*meration weakens it in cases not enumerated. But, how could it be applied with success to the interpretation of the constitu*tion of the United States, if the enumerated powers were neither exceptions from, nor additions to, the general power to provide for the common defence and general welfare? To give the enumeration of the specific powers any sensible place or operation in the constitution, it is indispensable to construe them, as not wholly and necessarily embraced in the general power. The common principles of interpretation would seem to instruct us, that the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded as to give meaning to every part which will bear it. Shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power ? Nothing is more natural or common than first to use a general phrase, and then to qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which no one ought to charge on the enlightened authors of the constitution. It would be to charge them either with premediated folly or premediated fraud.
“Sec. 911. On the other hand, construing this clause in connection with, and as a part of the preceding clause, giving the power to lay taxes, it becomes sensible and operative. It becomes a qualification of that clause, and limits the taxing powers to objects for the common defense or general welfare. It then contains no grant of any power whatsoever; but it is a mere expression of the ends and purposes to be effected by the preceding power of taxation.”

[Newpublius]

Anyways, the only way you're actually going to limit the federal government to enumerated powers is by passing a Constitutional Amendment to clarify that language. I really don't see that happening in the Courts. I could be wrong, but that seems more implausible than an Amendment.

The Amendment is the least likely, the Courts are slightly more likely and both are rather unlikely to occur. At this juncture, actually, the only mode that I see that has a (low) probability, is simply legislative abandonment, ie the Republicans actually hand these things to the states and say, "We're done with this"

[Bethere]

Your a piece of $#@! bethere, mentioning his family. I hope you get cancer in your ass

"You're."

[Bethere]

Fatal system overload...all full up,gotta get a lawyer to refute that
Day one of our experiment has passed. I think we did well. I am proud of you.

Looking forward, am I, to day two.

[resister]

Day one of our experiment has passed. I think we did well. I am proud of you.

Looking forward, am I, to day two.

I did not insult you dude.If you talked about dudes family WTF is wrong with you?My word is good is yours?

[Bethere]

I did not insult you dude.If you talked about dudes family WTF is wrong with you?My word is good is yours?
That's between me and him. If he wants a separate peace he can have it. As for you? You did great.

You are gold.

[resister]

That's between me and him. If he wants a separate peace he can have it. As for you? You did great.

You are gold.
I don't know if i'd say gold, i'm gust shootin 4 a little higher than I was B4

[resister]

Yeah I know, gust is just

[Chris]

I've seen the pictures you posted of your obese family. Without medicare you and yours would be uninsurable.

May I repost your pictures so I might illustrate my point?


Your a piece of shit bethere, mentioning his family. I hope you get cancer in your ass



TBed for insulting family and for calling names.