Poverty Is Hazardous to Your Health - page 14

The patient, mother of a month-old baby, was crying on the phone because for the past two days she had been tormented by head lice (Pediculosis capitis, if you really want to know). A simple problem,... Read More

  1. by   banditrn
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    The ability to collect an income tax does NOT relieve the gov't of it's cage, it's enumerated, limited powers. All that ill-conceived amendment does is allow direct taxation to pay for its enumerated powers. And. Nothing. Else.

    I'm not a fan of objectivism. Rand was an athiest; I am not. I think morality IS at issue. Nevertheless, the free market is better than gov't. Everytime it's tried.

    How can gov't be the solution when, much more often than not, gov't IS THE PROBLEM?

    To compel an individual to regard the collective needs of the community, and to force them to share a portion of their labor against their will, is slavery for whatever portion of labor the gov't takes by force. Slavery is evil. Holding people down with just enough aid to keep them in place is economic enslavement. Slavery is NOT a necessary evil. Neither is it a necessary good.

    Nowhere in the enumerated powers does the Federal gov't have the right to take from me and to give to somebody else. It's forbidden.

    And by the way, we are NOT a Democracy. We are a Republic, so designed to prevent the mob from determining the appropriate amount to steal from the other 49% of the population. . . The Constitution was designed to prevent just that kind of mob rule.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Yeah, man! TIMOTHY for President!!!
  2. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Of course modern socialists don't want to get completely rid of capitalism. First, they need an engine of economy and socialism certainly isn't a workable economic system. Second, after removing the key supports from capitalism, 'social capitalists' want to keep the idea around of capitalism so they have something to blame for the manifest failures of socialism.

    See, it's all the fault of the evil capitalists.

    Look at healthcare: our healthcare system is currently devastated by gov't interference at every turn - the problem with healthcare IS gov't interference. But the socialists bang their drums that capitalism is the cause of our current problems even though it's difficult to find capitalists markets in healthcare today. Lasik and other cosmetic surgery, orthodontics, over the counter meds, and that's about all the capitalism left in healthcare. Of course, those particular fields are thriving, but I digress. It's all capitalism's fault, even though NONE of you are allowed to directly pay or barter for such services (the definition of capitalism). Due to gov't regulation and tax breaks for business to provide you care, NONE of you are free to choose your own care. You aren't your insurance's customers - your employers and Uncle Daddy are. OF COURSE that's capitalism's fault.

    See, the problem with this is that capitalism IS freedom to choose. The fact that you no longer have any choice about your care is the evidence that your gov't has interfered with your freedom. So, of course, the solution is to give the gov't complete control.

    Poverty IS hazardous to your health. However, it's not nearly as hazardous as the gov't's solutions have been.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  3. by   EmmaG
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    The ability to collect an income tax does NOT relieve the gov't of it's cage, it's enumerated, limited powers. All that ill-conceived amendment does is allow direct taxation to pay for its enumerated powers. And. Nothing. Else.

    I'm not a fan of objectivism. Rand was an athiest; I am not. I think morality IS at issue. Nevertheless, the free market is better than gov't. Everytime it's tried.

    How can gov't be the solution when, much more often than not, gov't IS THE PROBLEM?

    To compel an individual to regard the collective needs of the community, and to force them to share a portion of their labor against their will, is slavery for whatever portion of labor the gov't takes by force. Slavery is evil. Holding people down with just enough aid to keep them in place is economic enslavement. Slavery is NOT a necessary evil. Neither is it a necessary good.

    Nowhere in the enumerated powers does the Federal gov't have the right to take from me and to give to somebody else. It's forbidden.

    And by the way, we are NOT a Democracy. We are a Republic, so designed to prevent the mob from determining the appropriate amount to steal from the other 49% of the population. . . The Constitution was designed to prevent just that kind of mob rule.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    I notice you speak of this in generalities. I'd like to narrow it down a bit.

    What I hear you saying is that you want a far leaner Federal government. If I've misunderstood you, please clarify.

    Assuming that is what you want, what current functions of government would you get rid of, what (if any) cabinet departments would you abolish? What departments or programs within those left would you abolish? What would be your justification for doing so, and (again assuming from your prior posts) what specifically makes these programs/departments unconstitutional?

    Since income tax is constitutional, on what specifically should taxes be spent?

    For the time being, I'm interested in your issues with the Federal government, if you wouldn't framing your answers with that in mind.

    Just trying to get a handle on what exactly it is you want done.

    Thanks
  4. by   HM2VikingRN
    Congress can quite legitimately exercise the following:

    Section 8. The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    ...
    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....html#section1

    Pretty clearly the text of the constitution gives congress the legitimate power to design the government as needed to meet the needs of the country. To bring this back into focus of the original post. Undoubtedly poverty leads to conditions and environments that lead to poor overall health and shortened life spans. If we are truly interested in improving the lives of our citizens than we need to ask how we can accomplish this goal. Part of the solution involves giving people the tools to effectively participate in society. The "get a job argument" works only if we have people who have the educational, health and vocatonal resources to work at living wage jobs and are then financially able to access health care, child care etc.. We are doing something dramatically wrong as a country when 25% of our children are growing up in poverty with associated rates of chronic illnesses. (eg asthma).

    Market based solutions in practice do not always deliver optimal results. (Medicare is administered for 3-5% vs 25-30% for private insurance companies.) The post office delivers a first class letter anywhere in the US for 42 cents while fed ex would charge 7-10 dollars or adjust costs by delivery distance.

    And despite assertions to the contrary our public schools do a good job overall in delivering high quality education. From Jamie Vollmer:

    The facts </STRONG>
    Today's young people know more and can do more than the young people of any previous generation, and public schools are chiefly responsible. Only a tiny handful of elite teenagers in the past knew as much most high school students know today.
    More students than ever are taking and passing tough courses. The number of students taking the Advanced Placement courses has risen from 98,000 in 1978 to over 500,000 today and the test scores have remained stable.
    The high school graduation rate is at an all time high and the dropout rate continues to decline, despite most states’ recent establishment of tougher curriculum requirements.
    Violent acts in American schools declined between 1991 and 1999 despite all headlines to the contrary. Schools are statistically one of the safest places in the community.
    Scores on most standardized tests, when disaggregated, show improvement for all categories of test-takers over the last fifty years. Reading, math and science scores are up. The gender gap in math and science courses is shrinking.
    The IQ scores of young Americans average 7.5 points higher than their parents and 15 points higher than their grandparents. More and better schooling is the most likely reason for the increase in these scores.
    The diversity and the number of students taking the SAT and ACT is unprecedented. Nationally, the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) math scores reached their highest level in 27 years in 1999. The average SAT math score of America's college freshmen rose to 512, while the verbal score remained steady at 505.
    The percentage of American students going on to college is unequalled in the world, and the vast majority of students at America’s top colleges and universities are public school graduates.
    More minority students are going on to college than ever before.
    More than 84% of Americans between the ages of 25 and 64 have completed secondary education. Only 70% of the population can make that claim in Japan, 68% in the United Kingdom, and 52% in France.
    http://www.jamievollmer.com/success.html
    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Feb 7, '08 : Reason: spelling
  5. by   EmmaG
    Thanks. Whenever someone claims what our government is doing is 'unconstitutional' or not in line with what the framers wanted, I have to consider what was quoted above

    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
    Clearly, this gives Congress very broad powers.
  6. by   caroladybelle
    Quote from bollweevil
    Accidents happen. Rape, too. Failed contraceptive measures. Religion, customs, social mores, ignorance. Yes, silliness, immaturity, carelessness, self-indulgence, all do play a part in populating the world, not to mention just plain being in love and actually wanting children.

    And there are alternatives to raising a child that is the result of those issues....there is adoption and there is legal abortion (at least in some areas).

    There are parents that are begging for children to raise. There is no need to raise an "accident" unless one wishes to. And as far as I know, there are no major religions, moral objections that prohibit adoption.
  7. by   HM2VikingRN
    While the following story from Mr. Vollmer applies to education you could change education to addressing poverty/poor health and it would be just as accurate.

    The Blueberry Story: The teacher gives the businessman a lesson
    "If I ran my business the way you people operate your schools, I wouldn't be in business very long!"
    I stood before an auditorium filled with outraged teachers who were becoming angrier by the minute. My speech had entirely consumed their precious 90 minutes of inservice. Their initial icy glares had turned to restless agitation. You could cut the hostility with a knife.
    I represented a group of business people dedicated to improving public schools. I was an executive at an ice cream company that became famous in the middle1980s when People Magazine chose our blueberry as the "Best Ice Cream in America."
    I was convinced of two things. First, public schools needed to change; they were archaic selecting and sorting mechanisms designed for the industrial age and out of step with the needs of our emerging "knowledge society". Second, educators were a major part of the problem: they resisted change, hunkered down in their feathered nests, protected by tenure and shielded by a bureaucratic monopoly. They needed to look to business. We knew how to produce quality. Zero defects! TQM! Continuous improvement!
    In retrospect, the speech was perfectly balanced - equal parts ignorance and arrogance.
    As soon as I finished, a woman's hand shot up. She appeared polite, pleasant - she was, in fact, a razor-edged, veteran, high school English teacher who had been waiting to unload.
    She began quietly, "We are told, sir, that you manage a company that makes good ice cream."
    I smugly replied, "Best ice cream in America, Ma'am."
    "How nice," she said. "Is it rich and smooth?"
    "Sixteen percent butterfat," I crowed.
    "Premium ingredients?" she inquired.
    "Super-premium! Nothing but triple A." I was on a roll. I never saw the next line coming.
    "Mr. Vollmer," she said, leaning forward with a wicked eyebrow raised to the sky, "when you are standing on your receiving dock and you see an inferior shipment of blueberries arrive, what do you do?"
    In the silence of that room, I could hear the trap snap.... I was dead meat, but I wasn't going to lie.
    "I send them back."
    "That's right!" she barked, "and we can never send back our blueberries. We take them big, small, rich, poor, gifted, exceptional, abused, frightened, confident, homeless, rude, and brilliant. We take them with ADHD, junior rheumatoid arthritis, and English as their second language. We take them all! Every one! And that, Mr. Vollmer, is why it's not a business. It's school!"
    In an explosion, all 290 teachers, principals, bus drivers, aides, custodians and secretaries jumped to their feet and yelled, "Yeah! Blueberries! Blueberries!"
    And so began my long transformation.
    Since then, I have visited hundreds of schools. I have learned that a school is not a business. Schools are unable to control the quality of their raw material, they are dependent upon the vagaries of politics for a reliable revenue stream, and they are constantly mauled by a howling horde of disparate, competing customer groups that would send the best CEO screaming into the night.
    None of this negates the need for change. We must change what, when, and how we teach to give all children maximum opportunity to thrive in a post-industrial society. But educators cannot do this alone; these changes can occur only with the understanding, trust, permission and active support of the surrounding community. For the most important thing I have learned is that schools reflect the attitudes, beliefs and health of the communities they serve, and therefore, to improve public education means more than changing our schools, it means changing America.

    Copyright 2002, by Jamie Robert Vollmer
    Change educators to health care providers
    Change receiving dock to ER or hospital unit....
    Change school to hospital....

    The lesson is that we are in the profession of helping people improve their health or promote adaptation to illness. Poverty is an illness that leads to poor educational achievement and health challenges.
  8. by   HM2VikingRN
    I don't think that the following even sounds like any definition of socialism.

    A community has high social capital if people say they trust one another and help each other out, and if they belong to local groups (service groups, tenant associations, unions, etc.) which have an impact; the community has an atmosphere of cohesiveness.
    The researchers were speaking to the idea of communty involvement and sacrifice to improve the climate of the community. I believe that when we give of our time and talents to others that we enrich ourselves by building a better community.
  9. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Emmanuel Goldstein
    I notice you speak of this in generalities. I'd like to narrow it down a bit.

    What I hear you saying is that you want a far leaner Federal government. If I've misunderstood you, please clarify.

    Assuming that is what you want, what current functions of government would you get rid of, what (if any) cabinet departments would you abolish? What departments or programs within those left would you abolish? What would be your justification for doing so, and (again assuming from your prior posts) what specifically makes these programs/departments unconstitutional?

    Since income tax is constitutional, on what specifically should taxes be spent?

    For the time being, I'm interested in your issues with the Federal government, if you wouldn't framing your answers with that in mind.

    Just trying to get a handle on what exactly it is you want done.

    Thanks
    The Federal Gov't is only allowed limited powers. They do NOT have broad powers. I can show you, when I have more time, that the Federalist Papers support this, and the entire operation of our gov't until 1920's support the concept of limited, enumerated powers.

    Besides, it is specifically stated within the Constitution that the gov't only has those powers listed, and nothing more. The 10th Amendment specifically reserves ALL OTHER POWERS to State gov't, and to the people. If it isn't listed as an enumerated power, the gov't is NOT empowered to spend money or legislate on the subject.

    Charity is NOT an enumerated power.

    These are enumerated powers
    U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8:

    The Congress shall have 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

    To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

    To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

    To establish post offices and post roads;

    To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

    To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

    To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

    To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

    To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

    To provide and maintain a navy;

    To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

    ~~~~
    There are a few more places, within the amendments, where Congress is given additional enumerated powers, specifically, to pass legislation to enforce those amendments, and nothing more.

    ~~~~
    When the constitution speaks of 'general welfare', it then directly defines that general welfare as limited to these things, and only these things.

    This is your Constitution. It is our 'social contract'. The essence of it is designed to tell the gov't, "NO".

    NO.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  10. by   ZASHAGALKA
    "This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted."

    Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  11. by   ZASHAGALKA
    "To consider the [general welfare clause]...as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they [Congress] please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up strictly within the enumerated powers." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." - President Thomas Jefferson

    "[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

    "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

    "shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms [i.e. the terms "general welfare" and "necessary and proper"] be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions [i.e. the specific Art.1, Section 8 delineations of power] be denied any significance 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. 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." - James Madison, Federalist #41.

    "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one." - James Madison, 1792

    "The Constitution allows only the means which are 'necessary,' not those which are merely 'convenient,' for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

    "Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

    "This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

    "No legislative act ... contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

    "I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. . . We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity." - Congressman Davy Crockett, 1830

    "[I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those ... who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." - President Franklin Pierce, 1854

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  12. by   bigreddog1934
    i am a modern socialist and i do want to get rid of capitalism, to be sure. the market and "unseen hand" method of decision making has run its course, and currently offers no solutions for any significant modern problems. it cant solve the health care crisis, it cant solve the environmental crisis, and it has never been able to eliminate poverty. its fundamental cornerstone is that nothing can take place without a profit being made. the system has become the biggest middleman between people and their needs in human history.

    the markets days will ultimately be numbered, and any solutions to these issues will take place by stripping power from the market and giving economic democracy to the people. this will one day be the way the world is run. hopefully it will not be too late.
  13. by   EmmaG
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    "...and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
    You didn't answer my questions.

    Thanks.
    Last edit by EmmaG on Feb 8, '08

close