Summer Money :D

[PrincessFiona]

constitution

One last thought:


The constitution is a piece of paper created in a very different time...It was basically an agreement to bring the North and South together....it allowed the Northerners to hold on to/protect their rights to property and the southerners to hold on to their slaves for awhile longer. It was founded on capitalist ideas that profitted the wealthy in this country and was sealed by patriotism...not fairness.

And, in the United States since the Constitution is the cornerstone of our government social programs on the federal level are antithetical to US democracy.

At one time, a woman's right to vote was 'antithetical' to the constitution. Does that mean that women shouldn't have gotten the right to vote? Perhaps oru ideas aobut social programs are wrong and need to be updated as well.

kris

pro-life

Sally and Robin,
It is very refreshing to hear that the two of you are pro-life! I also am an advocate for pro-life organizations and right to life groups!
Lauren

[Rapunzel]

Re: constitution

One last thought:


The constitution is a piece of paper created in a very different time...It was basically an agreement to bring the North and South together....it allowed the Northerners to hold on to/protect their rights to property and the southerners to hold on to their slaves for awhile longer. It was founded on capitalist ideas that profitted the wealthy in this country and was sealed by patriotism...not fairness.

But, Kris, you are ignoring the vast majority of this revolutionary document. It established an amazing system of balances between the three branches of government. It provides for the citizenry to have redress should those rights be trampled. And, although I agree that our current government is not everything it was meant to be, the fact remains that the Constitution is a contract between government and citizenry that is amazing, in short. The biggest stumbling block the United States had was the disagreement over federal vs state powers which ultimately led to a civil war. The concept of "states rights" is in and of itself a radical idea for which the Constitution can gain credit. In the end we do have a federal government for the purpose of foreign trade, treaties, regulating interstate commerce, defense, a postal service, and creation of currency. But, the Constitution is unique in that it gives the individual states of the "United" States their own limited sovereignity and powers. To say that the Constitution is a relic that no longer applies is to deny its very staying power in a volatile world where forms of government come and go at the drop of a hat. To regard it as merely a contract of greed is to ignore the fact that it sets forth rights that benefit all regardless of status or wealth.

At one time, a woman's right to vote was 'antithetical' to the constitution. Does that mean that women shouldn't have gotten the right to vote? Perhaps oru ideas aobut social programs are wrong and need to be updated as well.

kris

Actually, if one is going to read the Constitution literally it does not say a thing about women and voting - either way. When Utah was the first state to "allow" women the vote it was cultural pressures exerted by those in the Eastern US that attempted to prevent women from voting in that state. Constitutionally those who have been opposed to women or anyone else voting have really never had a leg to stand on. The ammendments added for the purpose of "allowing" others to vote were necessary due to cultural issues - not because the Constitution had banned them. In the end it wasn't the Constitution that needed to be updated - it was the American culture.

[PrincessFiona]

constitution

Well, you'll have to see my post before this last one about the constitution and our govt...you must have missed it

kris

[Rapunzel]

Re: life in America

Kris, your candor in admitting your support of a socialist form of government is refreshing but it leaves me wondering why you live in a democratic country then?

[quote:38f74]
Let me just say, that we DONT live in a democracy..and we haven't for quite some time. Let's face it, our president currently in office was not elected by the majority of the people, but by the majority of electoral college votes this time around. Our country is not run by the people's vote, and anyone who believes that is just not paying attention. Sure, we vote for politicians who profess to support the policies that we believe in and we hope that they will follow through with it.

No, we don't live in a democracy. In a democracy per se every single individual votes on every single bit of legislation. All act as their own representatives. Enter what we have - a democratic republic. We elect representatives to, well, represent us in the legislative process. Our nation's leaders are elected by the people's vote and then those leaders "run the country". Enter the electoral college - so misunderstood. Very few Americans understand that we elect representatives to vote for the President when we cast our votes in our home states. Thus, we elect representatives to represent us in the legislative branch and representatives to represent us in the executive branch. Here's a link for anyone interested in briefly brushing up on the electoral college: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/ ... =761576768
So, in part you are correct. We do not have a democracy in the purest sense. We have a democratic republic in which we elect representatives who then create laws and decide policy. This is the way it has been since the Constitution was ratified originally.

But in your own words, you have stated:

[quote:38f74]However, it is common knowledge that currently the politician with the most financial backers is the one who generally wins. So, your money ultimately does not go where you want it to go necessarily - your money is subject to the whims of politicians wooed by special interest groups, professional lobbyists, and corporate interests.

and this is NOT democracy..see, you've said it yourself..it is a country being run by the big corporations who have their fingers in the pockets of politicians willing to open them. A country where the CEO of Tyco earns 86 MILLION dollars a year and where the CEO of Target can earn 19.5 million a year and is cutting health benefits for its hard-working (not scum of the earth, refuse to work) american citizens.
[/quote:38f74]

My point was that because of the bloated beauracracy our federal government has become through overtaxation and improper taxation of its citizenry we have created a government more interested in money than in policy. Pork is the term for the various side projects - usually social programs - that politicians pad onto bills in order to please constituents. What we need is a severe whittling away of the obesity that is our federal government in order to allow it to function the way it is supposed to - by promoting trade with foreign nations, treaties (both for facilitation of trade and for defense), defense, a postal system, etc. If someone makes tens of millions of dollars every year that does not make our Constitution some how less viable. In fact, Alexander Hamilton would probably be thrilled with that amount of enterprise! However, the federal government is given the ability to regulate interstate commerce as well as foreign trade and control of the minting of currency. All other issues regarding economic enterprises are in the arena of the states. If the Constitution was being adhered to we would see the individual states solving health insurance problems with the law of demand bringing all states into competition with one another.

[quote:38f74]You're quote: "I have a lot of problems with the way our govt spends the tax money that it gets..." says worlds.

Yes, it does say a lot..because I don't trust the government...plain and simple.
[/quote:38f74]

And neither did the original writers of the Constitution and neither do I! That is why we are not supposed to have a Federal Government with such grossly exaggerated powers that should be under the control of the states - and much closer politically to the local citizenry. Decisions on social welfare should be made close to home - not in a removed, non-emotional, compassionless atmosphere far away in Washington DC. The local citizenry knows how best to figure out its own unique social situations. Cookie cutter solutions do not work and have never worked. In fact, what federally-funded social programs have been a success? The social programs got an incredible multiplication with FDR attempting to placate the masses during the Great Depression. In the end, however, it was WWII, not the Alphabet Agencies, that dug the US out of economic ruin. The federal government is NOT to be trusted - and that is why it should be in control of only those things specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Lets face a few painful facts here:

1. the richest 1/5 in America earns 11 times as much as the poor, and the 40% of the 38 million poor in our country live like members of a third world country. This is the supposed "greatest nation in the world". We have poor people in this country without running water, without potable water, who do not have the ability to buy basic necessities like food. I disagree with a constitution that provides unlimited funds for military expenditures, that supports an economy driven by greedy CEOs who continue to raise their salaries and hide millions of dollars before filing bankruptcy, but won't support its working poor. I don't support a govt. that sticks its nose into international affairs and doesn't report all of the facts back to its people...Do you know that we killed more civilians in Afghanistan that were killed on 9/11 in the twin towers? We complained that Germany didn't join our fight in Iraq, but the major military and peace-keeping force in Afghanistan right now is German..and without them there, we could not have moved on to our next great conquest.

Yes, we have poor in this country. That's a fact which I am well aware of on a personal level. It is quite a testament to the failure of "social welfare" in this nation that we have such an incredibly large number of social programs yet none of them seem to work. The solution from various sides (depending on which major political party has which program as its pet) is to throw more money at the social programs the federal government sponsors. More money does not cause the programs to function more acceptably.

2. The fact that we are NOT the most generous nation in the world: European and arab nations give much more of their GDP in foreing aid than the US.

Actually, there is only one nation that gives a higher AMOUNT of their GDP in foreign aid that the US - and that is Japan. Percentage-wise the US does not give as high a percentage to foreign nations as some other nations. But, how does this relate to the Constitution? :

3. The fact that we have in the recent past avoided going into conflict or gone into conflict purely based on pressure from big companies like Gulf Oil and ITT.

That is a highly debatable topic and delves into issues of whether or not our "general welfare" applies to protecting our economic interests. It is also debatable in that those arguing for or against your statement generally have their views clouded by political ideology from one of the two major political parties.

4. OH...our repeated assasination attempts against Fidel Cstro...the US cops to 8 attempts....if someone attempted to assasinate our president 8 times because we didn't like him or his policies...ummm..it would be a reason for war....

I guess you forgot about the Cuban missile crisis. How many of these assassination attempts were ordered on or around the time period that Castro was allowing the USSR to point nuclear warheads at America just a few hundred miles off of the US coastline? I'd be curious to find out more on those timeperiods. At the time we were at war with Fidel Castro - the modern "Cold War".

5. Lets see...we RIGGED (ahhh, democracy) the 1957 election in Lebanon which led to civil war there...eventually, we "had" to send in our marines to fight against the very people we had cheated out of a fair election.

A very good reason we should stay out of the politics of all nations. But, then again, those good, kind-hearted social engineers who believe the federal government's responsibility is to fund every social program conceivable in the US and around the world probably thought it was a good thing to meddle in another nation. The damage done by Madeleine Albright (Clinton's secretary of state) caused enormous suffering in Kosovo and Iraq for instance. She actually said on 60 minutes that it was "worth it" when asked directly about the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children while she was Secretary of State! Such are the "social engineers" willing to sacrifice people and nations in order to save them.

6. Lets not forget Guatemala....when the govt decided to plan a highway and railroad to help themselves out economically we got up in arms because it went through the middle of land that United Fruit Company was using...they didn't want to lose their monopoly and so our CIA threatened their president with an armed invasion and eventually overthrew his govt...and found a replacement that we handpicked.

[/quote:38f74]

My brother in law has actually been living in Guatemala for the last year and a half - funny you should mention that country! As I said above, the US needs to cease and desist from attempting to make the rest of the world a democracy - we need to stay out of other nations' policies except for their direct affects on international trade and our defense. Many of our "foreign aid" programs, well most of them if not all, are used as political leverage to make deals with foreign nations on trade and such. Every other nation in the world does the same - particularly the European nations. If the US is going to rise above the crowd it needs to stop this practice in my opinion.

[Rapunzel]

Re: life in America

These are things that you absolutely will not hear about in a "hoo-ha, aren't we #1" high school history course...and are likely not to hear at the college level as well...depending on your teacher. I don't think we need to know every dirty deed...but come on...a little critical thinking as opposed to blind patriotism would be refreshing....Blind patriotism, btw is not something that is good for a democracy.

I completely agree! We should always cast a highly critical eye at what our government is doing. That is why my critical eye realizes the social programs the federal government runs are contrary and beyond the scope of the Constitution. Unfortunately there are too many people with blind patriotism who just nod their heads in agreement every time the federal government adds more to its powers and takes another step beyond its appointed authority.

A true democracy would have educated voters who are told the truth by their media (not they hyper-spin, half truths that we are spoon fed in little soundbites). At this point in our country, many people are apathetic and are so stressed out and busy with their lives that they don't have time to check up on the politicians that they have voted into office and see how they have voted on key issues. They don't have the time or ability to fight against corporate greed and fraud. They feel that they have few choices...and they do. Until we have a massive overhall of our political system, change will not come...and until people are educated about the truth behind many of our actions, the outrage will not happen...and our choices will be limited. NO wonder the govt. continues to support our military and our schools continue to get less and less money. The less we know, the better off our "democratic" leaders are

No disagreements here!

I'm not going to pick apart every article of the Constitution...because I think that things have changed so much in the last 200+ years and because I think things are written in such a way as to be open to interpretation. Lets just focus simply on the preamble for a second...the very reason that our constitution was written:

[quote:b0965]We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So do we have justice in this country? Is it justice that our poor live in abject poverty, that hard working americans often can not get health coverage? Is it justice that the rich continue to get richer and take from the poor....and that nothing is done about it? I still have yet to see an Enron exec in jail...but let me tell you that if you or I had done it, the poop would have hit the fan! The constitution wanted to provide for common defense, but it also wanted to promote general welfare. Does that mean healthcare for hardworking americans. ?
[/quote:b0965]

Perhaps we have very different views of "justice". Justice as I have always defined it:

Main Entry: jus·tice
Pronunciation: 'j&s-t&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English & Old French; Old English justice, from Old French justice, from Latin justitia, from justus
Date: 12th century
1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b : JUDGE c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity
2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS c : the quality of conforming to law
3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : CORRECTNESS

The fact that there is a difference in wealth between people in our nation does not mean justice is not served. I'd argue that our justice system with its failings is the best in the world. It is in constant need of improvement - most definitley! However, to argue that differences in financial situations means there is something wrong with our justice system is incongruous to say the least. So, since your husband probably makes about twice what my parents make does that mean the justice system does not work? See how ridiculous that is!

If we are going to mince words and start throwing around the constitution, then how about The Declaration of Independence that guarantees Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness:

The Declaration of Independence guarantees nothing. It is not the law of our land. It is a statement of rebellion against the British Crown detailing the crimes the King of England and Parliament committed against the American colonies. The Constitution was then written to spell out exactly what the powers of the new-found government were. The Declaration of Independence does say, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...." So, government is instituted to protect the lives of its citizens which the Constitution elaborates upon by making way for a national defense. Government is instituted to protect liberty ergo we have the Bill of Rights. Government is instituted to to allow the citizenry the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it say happiness is guaranteed or a right. Merely the pursuit of happiness is a right bestowed by their Creator. It is admirable and correct to want all mankind to be happy, but they must all find their happiness on their own. This last "right" is purely philosophical and highly subjective from person to person. The government is only in place to protect each individuals right to PURSUE happiness.

[quote:b0965]Why not move to the Netherlands or another nation steeped in socialism?

Because even though I don't agree with our government, I believe in the American people...I believe in the spirit of the people in this country and I think that change is imminent . I don't see myself as a socialist either. I stated before that I do not think that the govt needs to be involved in every aspect of our lives...I also think that saying that socialism is basically the downfall of other governments is a bit out there...there were many historical factors that figured into the downfall of these countries. It's easy to blame socialism, but it isn't the source. [/quote:b0965]

Oh, really? Then could you elaborate on what you believe caused the fall of the USSR - the leader of world socialism in the modern world?

[quote:b0965]the Constitution is the cornerstone of our government social programs on the federal level are antithetical to US democracy.

Oh Please...the constitution is the cornerstone of our government? Big business interests are the cornerstones of our government now! WE the people have no control over our government.[/quote:b0965]

Well, as long as people behave as sheep they won't have control of their government. As long as people allow the federal government to run roughshod right over the Constitution (which IS the cornerstone of the US government whether you like it or not - that is a simple fact of world history) we will not have "the People" controlling the government.

[quote:b0965]
The fact is when the federal government taxes you, you no longer control where that money goes.

Well, if this was a democracy, I would! [/quote:b0965]

Well, the US has never been a pure democracy as I have already explained. Once you pay your taxes your elected representatives effectively control where the money is distributed - not you. That is the way a democratic republic works.

No apoligies needed.

I know..I think the only reason that I apologize is that my views can be seen as being offensive...and I get excited when I argue them...When you and I battle issues, things can become heated and people tend to get a tad...upset So here is the disclaimer...Jennifer and I tend to have big political/social arguments and we are doing this all in fun and for the sport of it. Please don't take offense and know that we aren't attacking each other really...we're learning from each other

Anyway...I've written enough as it is....I'm curious about your thoughts.

kris

Kris is right. I may violently disagree with her politically but I am not screaming at her. We will not be meeting in a dark alley to have a knife-fight - although I am sure we could make a killing in selling tickets to the event!

[Rapunzel]

Kris, you and I just need to set aside an entire section for lengthy political debates that are probably putting everyone else to sleep (or getting them all "riled up" )! I think I've written enough information for a mid-term in the last evening!!!

[PrincessFiona]

the fact remains that the Constitution is a contract between government and citizenry that is amazing, in short.

OK....some facts about our constitution...the "cornerstone" as you put it. Its founders did not beilieve in equality for people and for years shyed away from the term "democrat". The contract that they wanted to make..and appear to have been successful at was keeping those who 'have' as the 'havers' and those that 'have not' as the 'hasnots'. Both Madison and Jackson refused to publically identify themselves as "democrat" or "democracy". The word democracy/democrat was used to smear opponents. Jefferson refused to ever call himself a 'democrat'.

The most shocking thing about our constitution is that there was a lot of debate about ratifying it. There was a great deal of opposition by the anti-federalists. In order to get what they wanted (ratification) the federalists actually went into a tavern one night and had the anti-federalists physically dragged out to the Pennsylvania legislature building. They then locked the dooors and blocked the men from leaving until they had approved a measure to establish a ratifying convention. Hardly the heart-warming, tears of joy story of the birth of our "cornerstone"....ha...seems like things haven't changed much at all!

As if that weren't bad enough, the

Pennsylvania Herald

that had been reporting about the debates caught wind of this and was going to report it...so the Federalists bought them out until the Constitution was ratified.

Actually, if one is going to read the Constitution literally it does not say a thing about women and voting - either way.

No...but women couldn't vote until the ammendment was passed....

As to the electoral college: The issue was that the founding fathers didn't want the president to be elected direcly. They also didn't want the electoral college to decide. They hoped that the electors would deadlock and that the House of Representatives would get to decide. James Madison predicted this would happen 90% of the time...and George Madison suggested that it would happen 49 out of 50....

No, we don't live in a democracy. In a democracy per se every single individual votes on every single bit of legislation. All act as their own representatives. Enter what we have - a democratic republic. We elect representatives to, well, represent us in the legislative process.

And we don't really live in a democratic republic...for the reasons that I oultined in my prevous post about us being ruled by big business. That's just mincing words, really.

My point was that because of the bloated beauracracy our federal government has become through overtaxation and improper taxation of its citizenry we have created a government more interested in money than in policy.

I don't know that I completely disagree with this statement. I would say that there has been extremely poor management of our taxes and that there is a great deal of 'bloated beauracracy'...also in terms of military spending, btw. What I disagree with is that we have therefore created a govt. more interested in money than policy. Our govt. leaders are more interested in voting for policies for which they can now get the greatest corporate pay-offs....and campaign contributions. Though our beurocracy is a problem, it is probably separate from our politicians interest in money.

What we need is a severe whittling away of the obesity that is our federal government in order to allow it to function the way it is supposed to - by promoting trade with foreign nations, treaties (both for facilitation of trade and for defense), defense, a postal system, etc.

agreed

If someone makes tens of millions of dollars every year that does not make our Constitution some how less viable.

It does if the wealthy elite are the ones controlling our government and the votes of our politicians...and if there are no consequences for their misbehavior because our politicians are dependent on them for their toys, votes, etc.....

If the Constitution was being adhered to we would see the individual states solving health insurance problems with the law of demand bringing all states into competition with one another.

Giving states control is not really a bad thing...the US is so vast that it would be virtually impossible for the federal govt. to step in and do the job...but the problem today is that the federal govt. continues to cut payments to the states....the state budgets have less and less money to fund the basic important essentials today...like quality education, etc.

As to social programs...don't misunderstand me and label me as a total socialist. I think that all able-bodied americans should work. However, we also have to have an economy that supports this...A recent report that I read suggested that raising the wages in this country for fast food workers would only raise the cost of food by less than .10$. We are willing to pay more for our burgers and fries when the 'economy' dictates it...ie...the CEOs want to take in a bit more dough...but not to ensure that the working poor in our country have access to a living wage? I don't want our government to step in and 'save the day'....they wouldn't have to if there was a little more corporate responsibility going on here.

How on earth can we complain about teachers (who are one of the most important assets that we have) earning a measly 30k when our Tyco CEO is out there earning a wopping 86 million? That is not justice...and that, is an example of my definition of justice.

It is quite a testament to the failure of "social welfare" in this nation that we have such an incredibly large number of social programs yet none of them seem to work.

No..it is a testament to a society that chooses to blame its poor for their predicament, that cuts funding for social programs and then calls these half-hearted programs failures because they don't work. Perhaps the failure lies not in the establishment of the programs but in the funding of the programs or in the particular programs themselves....instead of crying out that they are failures, and seeking to rid ourselves of them, we should be analyzing what went wrong and try to fix them.

Actually, there is only one nation that gives a higher AMOUNT of their GDP in foreign aid that the US - and that is Japan.

The most recent book that I read said europe and the arab nations....hmmm...I'll have to reread it.


OK...I'm exhausted. I absolutely can't write another word.

I agree that we need a political debate forum

kris
[/quote]

[Rapunzel]

OK...I'm exhausted. I absolutely can't write another word.

I agree that we need a political debate forum

kris

When I have a spare two hours I'll respond because your points are definitely worthy of a thoughtful response. But, I'm a bit exhausted from my own writing marathon last night! Maybe we should just drag out the knives and have an amicable fight to the death in a back-alley. (Which raises the point - can one have an amicable knife-fight? )

Anyway, a political debate forum would need some fairly stiff rules. Perhaps you could only allow people to post in it if they accepted an agreement first? (Kind of like when you buy something on the internet or join certain sites- you have to accept an agreement first and are held to the terms of that agreement?) I guess my round-about point is if you ever decide to do this I'm game. What would you call such a forum?

Good lord ladies!! This is a hot topic....I haven't the time to sit and digest all the information (or read each post...I had to scan for time sake!). I will have to come back here!

[Meenah]

I'm with you Matt. I would have to ask that if we do have a political forum, no filibusters be allowed!!!!
Luanne

I think in one of the posts there was a quote of a quote, of a quote of a quote!! Maybe we have some budding politicians right before us......

[Rapunzel]

You guys crack me up. We really should have a "Dueling Princesses" political forum. Truly I'm all pooped out from this. I will be the first to cry "Uncle" as my short attention span will not allow me to respond further on the subject - I just keep trying but all of my passion has died down. Give me a couple of weeks though and I'm sure I'll be ready to continue this subject (and put a quote of a quote in quotes) or I'm sure we'll find another subject worthy of battle. Come to think of it I think the only political/moral subject Kris and I agree on is abortion! :P

[PrincessFiona]

crying uncle

Well, Jennifer...if you'd made one more argument, I would have cried uncle as well. Isn't it amazing how much shorter our attention spans are post-baby?

Just to add a littel fuel to a new fire...though maybe everyone will agree with me and so there will be nothing exciting to discuss...Has everyone heard about how we will be fighting our newest 'target', Iran?

The Bushies have decided that instead of going to 'war' with Iran, that we are going to give money and arms to the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (or MEK)...this is the Iranian opposition group opposed to the Shah. We have decided that the best way to make things better there is to help an organization that we have labeled TERRORIST...can you say US supporting Terrorism?

The real fun part of this is that we Saddam Hussein supported the MEK and we had a real problem with that....as we should have. Now, it appears that because it is to our benefit, it's ok......

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmm.

kris

[Auspicious]

Wow.

I actually went away for the weekend thinking I wonder if that thread has been added to . . .