|
Post by beth on Nov 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
I have a feeling there are going to be MANY conflicts of interest. Trump said last week that the President does not have conflicts of interest .. meaning anything the President want to do is fine. He's going to need to realize President doesn't equal Dictator.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 28, 2016 13:57:14 GMT -5
(Sorry, off topic! I'll remember to do better in future!) That's okay, it wasn't such a much.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Nov 28, 2016 14:58:56 GMT -5
I have a feeling there are going to be MANY conflicts of interest. Trump said last week that the President does not have conflicts of interest .. meaning anything the President want to do is fine. He's going to need to realize President doesn't equal Dictator. And yet, there are no rules or laws which are a must for the President follow. If he does wrong, supported by Congress we won't reelect him, or the Congress will impeach him.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Nov 28, 2016 15:12:08 GMT -5
You really misinterpreted the Constitution and the intent of the Founders. It establiished the national government for very specific functions. It do not stop any State singularly or in any groups from doing such things. This is not meant to be a country run by a singular government, rather it is a union of (then 13) 50 States which have assigned through the Constitution very specifically assigned functions. If you want a singular government controlling everything there are several other countries which operat just that way, but not here, at least not yet. Traditionally, government at the state level does not like to spend revenue on benefits or health care. They seem to like to finance showier projects for the state as a whole - not for the citizens in need. Some states are worse than others and that creates a lack of balance. When benefits are provided through the federal government things run smoother and more equally. By "singular government controlling everything", are you talking about the U. K. and Canada? Whatever you want, Cuba for example. But it is not here based on the highest law in the land. That doesn't stop the State governments from establishing such programs. Also the national government could do this, just present a constitutional amendment to do so and ratify it. If you fail at that it isn't legal. That currently some States cover more healthcare than others is their State, you may not like it, but we are not yet a socialist control government. Use in some instances some (locally defined) municipal socialist like functions but that is a far cry from a socialist government. If that is what you want you can do that, simple publish and ratify a Constitutional Amendment where the current definitions of the national government are deleted from the Constitution and replace those with wording that gives all power to the natioonal government. No one is stopping you as you can begin such an effort, right now, today.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 28, 2016 21:25:05 GMT -5
Moving in the same general direction.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 28, 2016 21:29:23 GMT -5
Whatever you want, Cuba for example. But it is not here based on the highest law in the land. That doesn't stop the State governments from establishing such programs. Also the national government could do this, just present a constitutional amendment to do so and ratify it. If you fail at that it isn't legal. That currently some States cover more healthcare than others is their State, you may not like it, but we are not yet a socialist control government. Use in some instances some (locally defined) municipal socialist like functions but that is a far cry from a socialist government. If that is what you want you can do that, simple publish and ratify a Constitutional Amendment where the current definitions of the national government are deleted from the Constitution and replace those with wording that gives all power to the natioonal government. No one is stopping you as you can begin such an effort, right now, today. There's a study group here looking at the possibilities. Hopefully, I'll get into that when I go back to work in January. I'm still curious about whether you are labeling Canada and the U.K., socialist governments.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Nov 28, 2016 22:01:30 GMT -5
Whatever you want, Cuba for example. But it is not here based on the highest law in the land. That doesn't stop the State governments from establishing such programs. Also the national government could do this, just present a constitutional amendment to do so and ratify it. If you fail at that it isn't legal. That currently some States cover more healthcare than others is their State, you may not like it, but we are not yet a socialist control government. Use in some instances some (locally defined) municipal socialist like functions but that is a far cry from a socialist government. If that is what you want you can do that, simple publish and ratify a Constitutional Amendment where the current definitions of the national government are deleted from the Constitution and replace those with wording that gives all power to the natioonal government. No one is stopping you as you can begin such an effort, right now, today. There's a study group here looking at the possibilities. Hopefully, I'll get into that when I go back to work in January. I'm still curious about whether you are labeling Canada and the U.K., socialist governments. No I don't label them as Socialist. Like the United States they have decided to have some socialist functions such as certain municipal socialist functions, i. e. fire department, police, water, sewage, some also have electric (although most cities have private companies which lease right of way from the government). In many of these there are private citizen oversight. However, these things are a long ways from a socialist government such as Cuba. I think that the bigger problem for countries such as the U.S. is when national government money is used to direct what the local government entity does. For example, public schools receive large amounts of funding but have to accept directed programs and with those programs come oversight staffs that exist only due to the national money. Much of this has become iron bound into the local public school budget. A few years ago we tried to get the board of education to refuse the federal funds, it was 6% of the total budget (larger now). They were actually afraid of the national government coming to our town and making the school take the money. I know that sounds ignorant, but true. We even had the Sheriff's department ready to arrest such federal people and remove them from the county. But the fear of Washington was too strong. Little by little the federal government is increasing the intrusion into our lives outside of the Constitutionally delegated powers and the constitutionally separation between the federal government and the State governments, of course it is always for the best of reasons. And so, a grant at a time, our freedoms diminish. Along with that is the growing acceptance of the young, as they know no other world.
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on Nov 28, 2016 23:35:39 GMT -5
No I don't label them as Socialist. Like the United States they have decided to have some socialist functions such as certain municipal socialist functions, i. e. fire department, police, water, sewage, some also have electric (although most cities have private companies which lease right of way from the government). In many of these there are private citizen oversight. However, these things are a long ways from a socialist government such as Cuba. Is that comparable to the Democratic Socialist government Bernie Sanders was touting during the primary campaign? I have no problem with that. It could work here but all the states would have to come togeter on it.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Nov 29, 2016 0:35:57 GMT -5
No I don't label them as Socialist. Like the United States they have decided to have some socialist functions such as certain municipal socialist functions, i. e. fire department, police, water, sewage, some also have electric (although most cities have private companies which lease right of way from the government). In many of these there are private citizen oversight. However, these things are a long ways from a socialist government such as Cuba. Is that comparable to the Democratic Socialist government Bernie Sanders was touting during the primary campaign? I have no problem with that. It could work here but all the states would have to come togeter on it. It is a reasonable question Sysop3. I suggest no. Bernie Sanders is an open and honest Socialist. I see no reason to demean him from what he is although I believe his philosophy is wrong. Although we talk here often (at least I do) of the Constitution and that is only right that we do so. But that is merely the end result. We, our forbearers coming into the revolution, were Englishmen and we in the Americas recognized that both philosophically as well as in fact. There in English Law was the foundation of individual rights, Life, Liberty, and property (i. e., Hobbs, Lot Paine, etc.). These are the expanding foundations of Englishmen since the time of Magna Carta of 1215. Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism"; the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish it from the Marxist–Leninist brand of socialism. Keep in mind that government by socialism (any socialism) is inclusive of a socialist approach to economics. To meet the basics of individual rights, Life, Liberty, and property there must be a supporting economic system and the best one for that is Austrian Economics, or the version we have today, the Capitalist Free Market System. Such an economic system cannot function in a socialist government. However, no matter the terms used, this is the social ownership of the means of production. This is not compatible with that necessary in Western culture, that is, individual rights, Life, Liberty, and property. To make it clear, your individual rights cannot be alienated from you, except with your consent. That consent does not exist in Democratic Socialism or any socialism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 2:02:44 GMT -5
Is that comparable to the Democratic Socialist government Bernie Sanders was touting during the primary campaign? I have no problem with that. It could work here but all the states would have to come togeter on it. It is a reasonable question Sysop3. I suggest no. Bernie Sanders is an open and honest Socialist. I see no reason to demean him from what he is although I believe his philosophy is wrong. Although we talk here often (at least I do) of the Constitution and that is only right that we do so. But that is merely the end result. We, our forbearers coming into the revolution, were Englishmen and we in the Americas recognized that both philosophically as well as in fact. There in English Law was the foundation of individual rights, Life, Liberty, and property (i. e., Hobbs, Lot Paine, etc.). These are the expanding foundations of Englishmen since the time of Magna Carta of 1215. Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism"; the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish it from the Marxist–Leninist brand of socialism. Keep in mind that government by socialism (any socialism) is inclusive of a socialist approach to economics. To meet the basics of individual rights, Life, Liberty, and property there must be a supporting economic system and the best one for that is Austrian Economics, or the version we have today, the Capitalist Free Market System. Such an economic system cannot function in a socialist government. However, no matter the terms used, this is the social ownership of the means of production. This is not compatible with that necessary in Western culture, that is, individual rights, Life, Liberty, and property. To make it clear, your individual rights cannot be alienated from you, except with your consent. That consent does not exist in Democratic Socialism or any socialism. If you can't eat, don't have a roof over your head, or medical care, I doubt that "liberty" and "property' means very much, if anything.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Nov 29, 2016 7:17:33 GMT -5
Whatever you want, Cuba for example. But it is not here based on the highest law in the land. That doesn't stop the State governments from establishing such programs. Also the national government could do this, just present a constitutional amendment to do so and ratify it. If you fail at that it isn't legal. That currently some States cover more healthcare than others is their State, you may not like it, but we are not yet a socialist control government. Use in some instances some (locally defined) municipal socialist like functions but that is a far cry from a socialist government. If that is what you want you can do that, simple publish and ratify a Constitutional Amendment where the current definitions of the national government are deleted from the Constitution and replace those with wording that gives all power to the natioonal government. No one is stopping you as you can begin such an effort, right now, today. There's a study group here looking at the possibilities. Hopefully, I'll get into that when I go back to work in January. I'm still curious about whether you are labeling Canada and the U.K., socialist governments. most people let alone socialists would fall about laughing if you mooted the idea of the UK having a socialist government we haven't had a realm socialist government ever..but did have a slight nod to the left in 45 by the way the NHS WAS A LIBERAL concept and nothing to do with socialism or the left .... socialism or what passed for a socialist government were the ones to implement the the difference in interpretations of the word left between the US and UK is quite amazing
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Nov 29, 2016 21:25:02 GMT -5
I have a feeling there are going to be MANY conflicts of interest. Trump said last week that the President does not have conflicts of interest .. meaning anything the President want to do is fine. He's going to need to realize President doesn't equal Dictator. And yet, there are no rules or laws which are a must for the President follow. If he does wrong, supported by Congress we won't reelect him, or the Congress will impeach him. Perhaps, if things are not going well, they WILL find a reason to impeach him. I feel sure there is no shortage of Republicans who would much rather see Pence in the top seat.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 29, 2016 22:29:46 GMT -5
And yet, there are no rules or laws which are a must for the President follow. If he does wrong, supported by Congress we won't reelect him, or the Congress will impeach him. Perhaps, if things are not going well, they WILL find a reason to impeach him. I feel sure there is no shortage of Republicans who would much rather see Pence in the top seat. ... and which would be better? Hard to say. Pence would likely choose Ted Cruz (shudder) for VP and the worst possibility would fall into place. cha ching!
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on Dec 1, 2016 1:05:29 GMT -5
As far as good decisions for Health Care go, Trump is a wild care but Pence is a D.C. Establishment guy and would probably go alng with Ryan.
|
|
|
Post by Dex on Dec 1, 2016 13:32:27 GMT -5
Headline This Morning A Medicare War Is Coming. What Will Trump Do? An interesting thing happened in the 2016 presidential race: There was no big fight over the politics of Medicare, seniors, and entitlements -- like there was in 2010, 2012, and 2014. (The reason why was due to Donald Trump's promise not to touch entitlements, as well as the Clinton campaign's effort to go after Trump on temperament, not policy.) But with Republicans in charge of the White House and Congress come Jan. 20, and with House Speaker Paul Ryan's long-awaited effort to privatize/voucherize/restructure Medicare, entitlement politics are coming back. "Between this nomination of an avowed Medicare opponent [Trump HHS pick Tom Price] and the Republicans here threatening to privatize Medicare, it's clear that Washington Republicans are plotting a war on seniors next year," incoming Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer recently said, per Politico. The biggest unknown, however, is whether President-elect Trump goes along with Ryan's plans. On the one hand, Trump declared that he wouldn't touch Social Security or Medicare. "I'm not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican, and I'm not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid," he said in a May 2015 interview, which is still featured on his campaign website. On the other hand, Trump's transition website includes this sentence on health-care policy: "Modernize Medicare, so that it will be ready for the challenges with the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generation - and beyond." Trump joining Ryan's Medicare efforts could achieve a long-standing conservative goal, but open up the GOP to some mighty political attacks from Democrats in 2018 (including that Trump broke his promise on Medicare and entitlements). Or Trump blocking Ryan could uphold his promise on entitlements, especially with the kinds of voters who won him the election, but it would produce a significant fissure inside the GOP and conservative movement (which Democrats could still exploit). This will be one of the most important storylines to watch next year. www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/medicare-war-coming-what-will-trump-do-n690641
|
|