NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[TerraSapient]

Here's a fun idea to beat to death. We have several issues in our country that need to be fixed in one form or another, as I see it. I have a partial solution we could consider. Call it "Mandatory U.S. Service" or something. I break it down like this:
At some point between the ages of 16 and 21, each U.S. citizen must complete 21 to 36 months of mandatory service...

I like the general concept and have wondered why the US doesn't have some sort of mandatory civil service period before. Now, to be clear, the punk rock teenage girl with blue hair, tattoos, and combat boots that was once me would have thought the idea was an absolute violation of my human rights. But, I do see value in it and probably could have been convinced to see value in it then, if the options were right. Especially if the type of mandatory service could be chosen by the individual within a range of service options to include a variety of opportunities, not just military in nature, such as a program to focus on homeless issues, elderly care issues, orphanages and abandoned children, environmental cleanup programs, educational reach out opportunities, etc.

2 years of mandatory community service, be it for building homes for the elderly/homeless or signing up for military service, would do a great deal for our society.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

The bigger issue is whether Palin showed her chops as a leader on how she handled the situation. To me, she punted the issue. She came across as defensive and accusing others instead of owning up to the issue. The whole blood libel issue is nitpicking. The term was used because it made a good sound bite and would rally her defenders. Further, it had become a talking point/buzz word among conservatives. However, it did not show that she could lead the county during a real crisis. This was a tempest of her own making in a teapot, not a real crisis.

 

[Mastiff]

I was referring to Mastiff's proposal of 24 months of mandatory military service or whatever as the excessive program, not a one-week class or something more reasonable which it sounds like you are alluding to.

A whole week? Wow. So if you go to an APA conference you're then a planner? You don't become responsible with a firearm with 40 hours of training. My program is nine months, six of which are in the field, and would be comprised of more than just being on a firing range. As I said previously, it would encompass other phases of martial education.

Personally, I don't want you or anyone else out in public with nothing between your pistol and me except a week in a classroom.

I like the general concept and have wondered why the US doesn't have some sort of mandatory civil service period before. Now, to be clear, the punk rock teenage girl with blue hair, tattoos, and combat boots that was once me would have thought the idea was an absolute violation of my human rights. But, I do see value in it and probably could have been convinced to see value in it then, if the options were right. Especially if the type of mandatory service could be chosen by the individual within a range of service options to include a variety of opportunities, not just military in nature, such as a program to focus on homeless issues, elderly care issues, orphanages and abandoned children, environmental cleanup programs, educational reach out opportunities, etc.

2 years of mandatory community service, be it for building homes for the elderly/homeless or signing up for military service, would do a great deal for our society.

Well first, I think it would have to be timed several years out, so anyone already in their teen years wouldn't be involved, and younger children would have years to get used to the idea.

Second, having seen what happens to people after going through boot camp, I would highly suggest the six months be used for that. Not only for the weapons angle, but physical fitness, self-esteem, respect for others... many good things.

 

[chupacabra]

Mandatory military service would weaken the military. As a veteran the last thing I would want to have to serve with is some snotty, weak-bodied puke who's there because they have no choice.

The only appreciable goal I could see coming from it would not be proficiency with weapons but would instead be a stronger sense of patriotism and community from the general public.

Mandatory service worked in previous generations but it would fail today. We've become a nation of indigo children, more in common with veal calves than with who was sent to fight the Nazis.

 

[giff57]

Mandatory military service would weaken the military. As a veteran the last thing I would want to have to serve with is some snotty, weak-bodied puke who's there because they have no choice.

The only appreciable goal I could see coming from it would not be proficiency with weapons but would instead be a stronger sense of patriotism and community from the general public.

Mandatory service worked in previous generations but it would fail today. We've become a nation of indigo children, more in common with veal calves than with who was sent to fight the Nazis.

I disagree, the mandatory service would not be used to staff our regular army. That would still be voluntary. This type of service could spark the interest in a young person who never would have thought about joining the service otherwise.

 

[Mastiff]

Mandatory military service would weaken the military. As a veteran the last thing I would want to have to serve with is some snotty, weak-bodied puke who's there because they have no choice.

The only appreciable goal I could see coming from it would not be proficiency with weapons but would instead be a stronger sense of patriotism and community from the general public.

Mandatory service worked in previous generations but it would fail today. We've become a nation of indigo children, more in common with veal calves than with who was sent to fight the Nazis.

Well...

1) If you read my posts carefully, you'll see I do not say military service. If people wanted to serve, they go through the same enlistment process as now. Basic training, run most likely by the DoD in some fashion, is what I propose. Don't want to stand a post? Go do something somewhere else.

b) Better understanding of weapons and their proper use would be inevitable. I see more of a respect for others and oneself as what you say, but those would be good, too!

III) If you think that, it's time we reversed this course and create a stronger generation. It won't fail if you time it right and make completion a condition of getting anything in the US. My son just turned 18 and signed his SS card... think he'd do that if he could get student loans without it?

 

[chupacabra]

It's an interesting idea and certainly has some merit (excellent, and often missed, point about the many positive outcomes of the whole boot camp experience) but I can't see it working. Think about how much it would cost to set up and run a program like that. How would it be funded and then administered? And to be honest, I prefer more personal freedom. The veal/indigo children don't bother me so much as that's my competition for jobs and such.

And what about the millions of people who simply cannot afford to spend two years volunteering? Peace Corps and Ameri-corps volunteers don't exactly represent a true cross section of our society's socio-economic spectrum. I don't mean to knock either program or the participants in any way but volunteering is a luxury I associate with relative wealth of time and resources. And if you make it a paid program so lower income folks can participate is it then just a job and we would loose the whole self-sacrifice/public service aspect?

 

[Richmond Jake]

Mandatory service

Sounds like an indentured servant to me. I wouldn't want my sons to forced to perform that "service".

 

[illinoisplanner]

A whole week? Wow. So if you go to an APA conference you're then a planner? You don't become responsible with a firearm with 40 hours of training. My program is nine months, six of which are in the field, and would be comprised of more than just being on a firing range. As I said previously, it would encompass other phases of martial education.

Personally, I don't want you or anyone else out in public with nothing between your pistol and me except a week in a classroom.

Well, unfortunately, it's not all about what you want. And I think this would just give you a false sense of security anyways, since many would still go around the system anyways, or ignore what they learned for 9 months, 2 years, whatever number you are using. Currently, there are plenty of veterans that come out of the ranks after so many years of weapons training and "martial education" and then go on to commit heinous crimes with guns or leave unsecured firearms lying around their home, so I think this disproves your whole point. The bottom line is good people are already doing what's right, and bad people are going to do what's wrong no matter what they learn.

 

[Mastiff]

Well, unfortunately, it's not all about what you want. And I think this would just give you a false sense of security anyways, since many would still go around the system anyways, or ignore what they learned for 9 months, 2 years, whatever number you are using. Currently, there are plenty of veterans that come out of the ranks after so many years of weapons training and "martial education" and then go on to commit heinous crimes with guns or leave unsecured firearms lying around their home, so I think this disproves your whole point. The bottom line is good people are already doing what's right, and bad people are going to do what's wrong no matter what they learn.

Actually, in this portion of the thread, it is about what I want. And, you use a fallacious argument that you say disproves my point. You exclude the middle with your example that trained people still do bad things. Then, you falsely assume that because someone is good, they do things right. The incident that brought about this discussion was the armed man not drawing and discharging his weapon. (He did the right thing, but who knows how he was trained.) Horrible things can happen when good people trying to do the right thing end up making mistakes. In my scenario, training is for the "good" people who want to do right... have success.

 

[Maister]

There are certainly civic and political merits to be argued for mandatory military service, but the thing I want to point out is that fielding the most warm bodies, band aids, bullets, and beans may in the past have required mobilizing a national populace and been a recipe for success in a conflict like WW2, but the way wars are fought has been changing. The role of conscripted citizen armies will likely continue to diminish in the future as technology marches along. Smaller numbers of extensively trained 'professional' combatants equipped with high tech communications and weapons systems is where we've been moving towards for the last generation, and I think we'll continue to see this trend for the forseeable future.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Mandatory military service would weaken the military. As a veteran the last thing I would want to have to serve with is some snotty, weak-bodied puke who's there because they have no choice.

The only appreciable goal I could see coming from it would not be proficiency with weapons but would instead be a stronger sense of patriotism and community from the general public.

Mandatory service worked in previous generations but it would fail today. We've become a nation of indigo children, more in common with veal calves than with who was sent to fight the Nazis.

AGAIN WITH THE KRANKY OLD MAN CRAP!

You've gone FULL GRAN TORINO!

Whats the point of doing anything in the Roman Empire if we've already lost it to those damn nasty barbarians of the rhine!

Seriously, the kids today are OK. You have just forgotten what you were like. You have illusions that you were the smartest, most wonderful teenager... EVAAHRRRR!

AND GET OFF MY LAWN!

 

[TexanOkie]

Anyone else catch the President's speech last night? I thought it was about as perfect a way to address the situation as is possible. He rose above the rancor of the post-shooting debates and finger-pointing, honoring the victims and directing us all forward, recapturing some of the tone and poise from his career-making 2004 convention speech. Thank you, Mr. President.

 

[beach_bum]

Anyone else catch the President's speech last night? I thought it was about as perfect a way to address the situation as is possible. He rose above the rancor of the post-shooting debates and finger-pointing, honoring the victims and directing us all forward, recapturing some of the tone and poise from his career-making 2004 convention speech. Thank you, Mr. President.

I was very moved by the President's speech, it struck the right balance between memorializing the victims and bringing us all together in the face of tragedy. I especially liked how he addressed many of the issues that have come to light in the aftermath and gave us clear direction.

In my college days I interned with my local congressman and understand the 'variety' of constituents that you come in contact with on a day-to-day basis in the district. If you think a local government office attracts its share of nut-jobs...you should see a federal office, especially one like a congressional office that does nothing but provide constituent services. While this event was tragic, I'm not completely shocked.

 

[Hink]

Anyone else catch the President's speech last night? I thought it was about as perfect a way to address the situation as is possible. He rose above the rancor of the post-shooting debates and finger-pointing, honoring the victims and directing us all forward, recapturing some of the tone and poise from his career-making 2004 convention speech. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thought he did well, but was disappointed about the crowd. Although I know many will say he was making a speech that was political, I honestly thought he did a great job of making it unpolitical. The crowd cheering though, will get most the news...

I hope that everyone takes heart to what he said though. There is nothing political about it. It was more of a human nature request.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

I thought he did well, but was disappointed about the crowd. Although I know many will say he was making a speech that was political, I honestly thought he did a great job of making it unpolitical. The crowd cheering though, will get most the news...

People were not disrespectful of those that were injured and killed. It was a memorial, and part of that process is to know that life goes on. That the whole sordid mess is supposed to have some meaning.

The dead don't care any more. These events are for the living. The presidents speech did what it was supposed to do. Provide context and to start looking toward a future... whatever that is.

 

[Hink]

People were not disrespectful of those that were injured and killed. It was a memorial, and part of that process is to know that life goes on. That the whole sordid mess is supposed to have some meaning.

The dead don't care any more. These events are for the living. The presidents speech did what it was supposed to do. Provide context and to start looking toward a future... whatever that is.

I agree. I was more or less stating my displeasure with the media and how I assume they will run with the crowd reactions. Instead of focusing on the issues, they find something to make an non-issue out of.

 

[Bear Up North]

Anyone else catch the President's speech last night? I thought it was about as perfect a way to address the situation as is possible. He rose above the rancor of the post-shooting debates and finger-pointing, honoring the victims and directing us all forward, recapturing some of the tone and poise from his career-making 2004 convention speech. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thought it was one of the better moments of the Obama Administration. It only slightly touched on politics, it was (at times) quite moving, and just a tad longer than it should have been. Most folks on either side of the so-called "aisle" gave the memorial speech a thumbs up. It reminded me a little of George W. Bush's address to the nation after the 9-11 tragedy. Dubya was magnificent on that night, voicing all of the right things with the proper tone.

Not sure how Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck reviewed the memorial speech. I do work with a couple folks who mumbled, ".....more political BS.....".

Sometimes I just wonder about people.

Bear

 

[TexanOkie]

I thought it was one of the better moments of the Obama Administration. It only slightly touched on politics, it was (at times) quite moving, and just a tad longer than it should have been. Most folks on either side of the so-called "aisle" gave the memorial speech a thumbs up. It reminded me a little of George W. Bush's address to the nation after the 9-11 tragedy. Dubya was magnificent on that night, voicing all of the right things with the proper tone.

Not sure how Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck reviewed the memorial speech. I do work with a couple folks who mumbled, ".....more political BS.....".

Sometimes I just wonder about people.

Bear

Both Beck and Limbaugh liked it except for the pep-rally aspect, though to both of their credit they acknowledged that it did not look like the President or First Lady had expected it to have that kind of atmosphere. Both of them expressed a desire that the President should have tried to wave off the applause in an attempt to keep the event a solemn memorial. Also, Limbaugh was a little snarky about parts of speech, but it was actually pretty tame considering it was Limbaugh. I haven't heard Hannity's take, though on his website he has a listener poll about the speech, and has the following breakdown currently: He [Obama] was terrific 23.82%, I was disappointed 20.34%, Somewhere in between 14.27%.

 

[illinoisplanner]

I thought President Obama did a great job with the speech. He focused primarily on the victims and the tragedy itself. I especially liked him quoting Job about how bad, evil things just happen and sometimes we just don't know why.

However, I do think that better communication should have been made to the crowd about this being a solemn memorial service rather than a pep rally. I think they could have taken a few lessons from the memorial services for NIU (attended by Obama and featuring a speech by Blagojevich) and Virginia Tech (featuring a speech by Bush). But that was the responsibility of whoever put on the memorial service, and not the President. Additionally, sometimes these sorts of events lean more towards the upbeat/celebratory, while some are more solemn in nature. I guess that's just the way things go. I think we're just used to these types of events being more solemn, that's all.

Unfortunately, I was disappointed in Laura Ingraham, who spoke about the speech on The O'Reilly Factor tonight. She said it was a carefully-crafted campaign event with political overtones and also attacked Bill O'Reilly saying he was only defending President Obama because he was going to interview him in a few weeks. I thought she was completely out of line.

 

[Hink]

Both Beck and Limbaugh liked it except for the pep-rally aspect, though to both of their credit they acknowledged that it did not look like the President or First Lady had expected it to have that kind of atmosphere. Both of them expressed a desire that the President should have tried to wave off the applause in an attempt to keep the event a solemn memorial. Also, Limbaugh was a little snarky about parts of speech, but it was actually pretty tame considering it was Limbaugh. I haven't heard Hannity's take, though on his website he has a listener poll about the speech, and has the following breakdown currently: He [Obama] was terrific 23.82%, I was disappointed 20.34%, Somewhere in between 14.27%.

The talking heads of the right are still attacking it. Hannity said yesterday that it was good, but Obama has always been a good speaker and he is always flip floping and he is so hypocritical - who is he to talk about hate speech or heightened rhetoric...

It is sad but expected. Limbaugh is being attacked, so I can see why he would be more hostile. Beck is just an idiot. I still do not understand how this guy has a career....

 

[TexanOkie]

The talking heads of the right are still attacking it. Hannity said yesterday that it was good, but Obama has always been a good speaker and he is always flip floping and he is so hypocritical - who is he to talk about hate speech or heightened rhetoric...

It is sad but expected. Limbaugh is being attacked, so I can see why he would be more hostile. Beck is just an idiot. I still do not understand how this guy has a career....

Which talking heads are those? Admitting they liked it is usually a sign of not attacking it, at least not in full. The Fox News crew generally liked it, if not loved it, including Bill O'Reilly. Beck liked it. Limbaugh accepted it with caveats. Considering who all this "criticism" is coming from, it doesn't sound like attacks at all, IMO. There are a few folks who are (like Laura Ingraham, as ip noted), but for the most part, it's gotten as rave a review as possible considering the ideological divide. I've actually read more disappointment (as far as content of the speech) from the left than I have the right.

 

[Hink]

Which talking heads are those? Admitting they liked it is usually a sign of not attacking it, at least not in full. The Fox News crew generally liked it, if not loved it, including Bill O'Reilly. Beck liked it. Limbaugh accepted it with caveats. Considering who all this "criticism" is coming from, it doesn't sound like attacks at all, IMO. There are a few folks who are (like Laura Ingraham, as ip noted), but for the most part, it's gotten as rave a review as possible considering the ideological divide. I've actually read more disappointment (as far as content of the speech) from the left than I have the right.

I only heard Limbaugh and Hannity yesterday. I didn't hear Beck... just commenting on the fact that whatever Beck says it is usually idiotic. I just hate that you can't admit something without caveats. And saying that the President shouldn't tell people to tone down things because of his own rhetoric is attacking it. I think Bill O'reilly has toned down what he used to be a ton, and is the most sane of the Fox News people. I don't respect him, but I at least I can stand him. I guess I would have liked the "criticism" to be zero. But I understand that it is tough to do in this climate. We can't have people liking the President now can we?

I am sure this will end up like 9/11 where everyone was calm for a bit, then went back to attacking Bush, but it just is so obviously disingenuous to do. The R's hated that the D's went after Bush again - so don't do what you hate.

I don't blame the R's really. It is the talking heads. But they don't discredit them. They actually go on their shows. Boy it would be nice to have no more talking heads.... what would we do with civil discourse? Or at least reasonable discourse?

 

[arcplans]

[OT]

Beck is just an idiot. I still do not understand how this guy has a career....

I heard him on the other day in the City car. This guy spent 5 minutes talking about how Obama tried to sound "french like" when he said Nicloas Sarkozy's name while accenting the proper vowels and then completely reverting back to "normal English". I completely understand where Obama was coming from because 90% of people butcher my Spanish last name (the two "L"s sound like a "y"), where the other 10% get it correctly, or at least try, and to me that is a lot more respectful and should be complimented as the chief head of our nation.

He (beck) truly represents the ignorant american imo
[/OT]

 

[chupacabra]

AGAIN WITH THE KRANKY OLD MAN CRAP!

You've gone FULL GRAN TORINO!

Whats the point of doing anything in the Roman Empire if we've already lost it to those damn nasty barbarians of the rhine!

Seriously, the kids today are OK. You have just forgotten what you were like. You have illusions that you were the smartest, most wonderful teenager... EVAAHRRRR!

AND GET OFF MY LAWN!

Let me get my cane and I'll show you!

 

[Hink]

I dislike Gibbs most of the time... but this time he was right to be confrontative... damn Russians

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecu...-tangles-with-russian-journalist-over-freedom

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Let me get my cane and I'll show you!

Seriously! Your really going to fund some silly voyage by that I-Talian wannabee? :-{

He's been talking to those damned pasty Norwegians who claim there is land to the west.:-o He is going to take your money and you will never see those three boats... or him again! Besides, why would any body listen to those people. They must be the dirtiest people in all of Europe. They bathe like, every day!8-!

This science stuff like latitude and longitude is just silly talk! Anybody who knows any better KNOWS the world is FLAT! Torquemada would never stand for this! It's blasphemy!:-@

The King and Queen are illegitimate in the eyes of the lord for supporting this voyage! The captain is probably a Free Mason in league with the Knights Templar or something!:not:

Opens tower window, yells "go home", closes window and sits down again. Mutters to self, Damn kids are on my lawn again! Freaking little vandals!:s:

 

[imaplanner]

I thought it was one of the better moments of the Obama Administration. It only slightly touched on politics, it was (at times) quite moving, and just a tad longer than it should have been. Most folks on either side of the so-called "aisle" gave the memorial speech a thumbs up. It reminded me a little of George W. Bush's address to the nation after the 9-11 tragedy. Dubya was magnificent on that night, voicing all of the right things with the proper tone.

Not sure how Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck reviewed the memorial speech. I do work with a couple folks who mumbled, ".....more political BS.....".

Sometimes I just wonder about people.

Bear

Agreed. Seems that almost everyone agreed it was a good speech and not political BS. But some of the more looney partisan types would attack Obama for using a salad fork for his chicken. I don't recall whether anyone attacked Bush for giving his address after 911. Did anyone? If so- sickening. just as its pretty disgusting to hear people attacking Obama for this.

 

[Hink]

I find it interesting that Texas is going after a company for taxes...

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/cont..._state_seeks_audit.html?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss

How interesting for a state that prides itself in having no personal or corporate income tax. I guess the internet isn't a person. Like corporations...

 

[TexanOkie]

I find it interesting that Texas is going after a company for taxes...

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/cont..._state_seeks_audit.html?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss

How interesting for a state that prides itself in having no personal or corporate income tax. I guess the internet isn't a person. Like corporations...

The State is in the right here for expecting sales taxes. However, the State is also in the wrong for not releasing the audit that led to the assessment, and Amazon's lawsuit was aimed directly at that - so good for them.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

I find it interesting that Texas is going after a company for taxes...

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/cont..._state_seeks_audit.html?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss

How interesting for a state that prides itself in having no personal or corporate income tax. I guess the internet isn't a person. Like corporations...

You should see their proposed budget to cover the $27B shortfall. They may not raise taxes, but they are taking unfunded mandates and fees to a whole new level.

I agree with TxOk that Texas is in the right to go after the sales tax, but that Amazon is also right for pushing back for Texas not releasing the audit and direction that led to that conclusion.

 

[imaplanner]

Health insurance mandates violate the intent of the founding fathers! oops let's just keep this one quiet

 

[TexanOkie]

Health insurance mandates violate the intent of the founding fathers! oops let's just keep this one quiet

Don't keep it quiet. This latest round of left-blogosphere "Gotchya, Repubs!" facts/sentiment will be quieted when everyone finds out the bill was for merchant mariners, who are an incredibly different animal from the general public even though a majority of them have always been privately employed. Merchant mariners have their own Federal service academy, have veterans status (if served during wartime), and have a long history of serving as an auxiliary to the US Navy.

 

[imaplanner]

Don't keep it quiet. This latest round of left-blogosphere "Gotchya, Repubs!" facts/sentiment will be quieted when everyone finds out the bill was for merchant mariners, who are an incredibly different animal from the general public even though a majority of them have always been privately employed. Merchant mariners have their own Federal service academy, have veterans status (if served during wartime), and have a long history of serving as an auxiliary to the US Navy.

While I agree, you miss the principal point that the founders felt that requiring people to have health insurance was constitutional.

 

[TexanOkie]

While I agree, you miss the principal point that the founders felt that requiring people to have health insurance was constitutional.

I was not disputing that point. One of the key provisions of the bill in the article you posted was federally-operated medical facilities in key ports - in other words, true "socialized" medicine. However, due to the nature of the work in the merchant marine, which always has tended to hug the line between a service of the federal government (by law) and a product of the private sector (by employment), the merchant marine aren't just "people". They never have been. They've always been a US Navy auxiliary (and acted as such since before the US Navy was actually formed), they have veterans status if they've served during wartime, they have their own Federal service academy - the list goes on. They are not the general public, and have never been treated as such, and while they are also not technically federal employees, the federal government has always had a much larger hand in their operations and professional standards than just about any profession (and have for a longer time than most of the other professions that are as highly regulated) due to the nature and importance of the work to national security and interests.

In other words, it's much more complex than "oh, they're privately employed".

 

[TexanOkie]

Daily Kos: President John Adams DID NOT sign a law mandating sailors to purchase healthcare insurance

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

I was not disputing that point. One of the key provisions of the bill in the article you posted was federally-operated medical facilities in key ports - in other words, true "socialized" medicine. However, due to the nature of the work in the merchant marine, which always has tended to hug the line between a service of the federal government (by law) and a product of the private sector (by employment), the merchant marine aren't just "people". They never have been. They've always been a US Navy auxiliary (and acted as such since before the US Navy was actually formed), they have veterans status if they've served during wartime, they have their own Federal service academy - the list goes on. They are not the general public, and have never been treated as such, and while they are also not technically federal employees, the federal government has always had a much larger hand in their operations and professional standards than just about any profession (and have for a longer time than most of the other professions that are as highly regulated) due to the nature and importance of the work to national security and interests.

In other words, it's much more complex than "oh, they're privately employed".

Your argument of a semi-federal service is incorrect. If the article is true, the requirements held war or no war.

Also, if it was mandated and not challenged in court, the robes will have to look at original intent WITH appropriate scope of precedent. Apparently, there is precedent. The Supreme Court might not even take the case.

The merchant marine surely falls under the interstate commerce clause. So truckers should be covered, as well as those in the railroad business, and air freight industries.

Being in the merchant marine is surely not any more dangerous than being a:
2. Pilot
3. Fisher
4. Iron/Steel Worker
5. Garbage Collector
6. Farmer/Rancher
7. Roofer
8. Electrical Power Installer/Repairer
9. Sales, Delivery, and Other Truck Driver
10. Taxi Driver/Chauffeur

Surely then, Taxi Drivers should be able to be covered WAY before those who are part of the merchant marine.

I can see allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines as long as they have to abide by health rules enacted by individual states.

 

[TexanOkie]

Your argument of a semi-federal service is incorrect. If the article is true, the requirements held war or no war.

Also, if it was mandated and not challenged in court, the robes will have to look at original intent WITH appropriate scope of precedent. Apparently, there is precedent. The Supreme Court might not even take the case.

The merchant marine surely falls under the interstate commerce clause. So truckers should be covered, as well as those in the railroad business, and air freight industries.

Being in the merchant marine is surely not any more dangerous than being a:
2. Pilot
3. Fisher
4. Iron/Steel Worker
5. Garbage Collector
6. Farmer/Rancher
7. Roofer
8. Electrical Power Installer/Repairer
9. Sales, Delivery, and Other Truck Driver
10. Taxi Driver/Chauffeur

Surely then, Taxi Drivers should be able to be covered WAY before those who are part of the merchant marine.

I can see allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines as long as they have to abide by health rules enacted by individual states.

Why are there no Federal Trucking Academies, Garbage Collector Vocational Schools, etc? My point was that the Merchant Marine has always been treated differently - whether in our common law traditions, legislative history, or administrative action - than other professions. Heck, there's been more and longer-lived interest in regulating the merchant marine than there has been medical and engineering industries...

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Daily Kos: President John Adams DID NOT sign a law mandating sailors to purchase healthcare insurance

From the KOS article quoting the ACT itself:

"to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or disabled seamen"

That is called health insurance by any other name. We now can establish that work related health care started in 1798.

If the ACT was made into law, the President had to sign it.

The term "temporary" implies that in 1798, you would not need "permanent" care because you would get better, no longer be a sailor (after whatever maimed you healed enough so you could walk out the door), or you died. That was not a bad deal for 1798.

The KOS article does not help the conservative case.

 

[TexanOkie]

The KOS article does not help the conservative case.

Perhaps not in terms of popular sentiment*. It might not have helped if Congress has passed a single-payer direct healthcare system, either. It does, however, help our Obamacare repeal efforts greatly.

*I'd still argue that the Merchant Marine is an vastly different animal, qualitatively, than the general public, and this sentiment has been expanded and shared throughout our national history.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Why are there no Federal Trucking Academies, Garbage Collector Vocational Schools, etc? My point was that the Merchant Marine has always been treated differently - whether in our common law traditions, legislative history, or administrative action - than other professions. Heck, there's been more and longer-lived interest in regulating the merchant marine than there has been medical and engineering industries...

Your "merchant marine" example based that the US developed schools for it is a straw man argument. There was no need for such school for anyone but the officers of ships in 1798.

You are adding a sham argument. The argument is really this, is the 1789 ACT close enough to the recent law enacting a mandate to buy health insurance, sufficiently close enough to each other to pass constitutional muster?

Conservatives have claimed that mandates, user fees, license fees, etc.. have been taxes forever. So, calling it a health insurance mandate or a health insurance tax shouldn't matter so much.

The fact would be that the health insurance mandate, would be a part of a different law that does the same thing, only expands the pool of who is covered.

Its constitutional.

Personally, I am hoping the mandate gets overthrown. 10 years from now we will have single payer, which would be WAY BETTER than what we just managed to get.

 

[TexanOkie]

Your "merchant marine" example based that the US developed schools for it is a straw man argument. There was no need for such school for anyone but the officers of ships in 1798.

You are adding a sham argument. The argument is really this, is the 1789 ACT close enough to the recent law enacting a mandate to buy health insurance, sufficiently close enough to each other to pass constitutional muster?

Conservatives have claimed that mandates, user fees, license fees, etc.. have been taxes forever. So, calling it a health insurance mandate or a health insurance tax shouldn't matter so much.

The fact would be that the health insurance mandate, would be a part of a different law that does the same thing, only expands the pool of who is covered.

Its constitutional.

Personally, I am hoping the mandate gets overthrown. 10 years from now we will have single payer, which would be WAY BETTER than what we just managed to get.

My argument may turn out to be a sham. However, based on my limited knowledge on the nature of maritime law and maritime labor law, the guaranteed parallels everyone seems to be making - including your outright claim that the mandate is constitutional - seem dubious. Ultimately, persons who are much more knowledgeable in such legal issues will bring about the decision, not us know-it-all internet planning site posters.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

My argument may turn out to be a sham. However, based on my limited knowledge on the nature of maritime law and maritime labor law, the guaranteed parallels everyone seems to be making - including your outright claim that the mandate is constitutional - seem dubious. Ultimately, persons who are much more knowledgeable in such legal issues will bring about the decision, not us know-it-all internet planning site posters.

Its the precedent that is important, not the occupation. The question is then, weather or not the new mandate is sufficiently close to the 1789 ACT. Not that hard of a question, but still a question.

Its nice to know that in 1789, The Founders weren't apposed to manipulating the markets by providing an incentive to be a sailor. See? Communists were at work in our nation from its very begging!

 

[TexanOkie]

Its the precedent that is important, not the occupation. The question is then, weather or not the new mandate is sufficiently close to the 1789 ACT. Not that hard of a question, but still a question.

Its nice to know that in 1789, The Founders weren't apposed to manipulating the markets by providing an incentive to be a sailor. See? Communists were at work in our nation from its very begging!

Precedent takes into account the contexts. If the content and context do not match, there is no precedent here. Like I've been saying all along - it is a completely different animal.

The Founders have never been opposed to manipulating markets. Hell, Adam Smith was not opposed to manipulating markets, and he wrote the book on capitalism. How the hell is that communist? It sure as hell isn't espousing any Marxist principles or worldviews I've ever studied - not to mention this was 20 years before Karl Marx was born and ~50 years before communist ideology and thought started to spread outside of the narrow confines of Karl Marx's mind and personal conversation

[OT]Man, if it weren't for all these political topics in the forums, I would probably not even have joined the one-B Clube yet...

Also, it seems no one in these political threads has a tendency to ruffle my feathers more than you, Duke. I find myself keeping my inner Chet-like rage from surfacing quite often. I'm not sure if it's what you're saying or how you present it. I'm thinking it's more the latter.[/OT]

 

[btrage]

As I posted on FB a few weeks ago...

I thinks it's silly that one of the House GOP's primary objectives is a repeal of the health care reform legislation. I'm not saying it's perfect, but there are far more fundamental areas that are affecting the national deficit. Pentagon budget? Medicare and Social Security long-term solvency? These are the real issues.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Precedent takes into account the contexts. If the content and context do not match, there is no precedent here. Like I've been saying all along - it is a completely different animal.

The Founders have never been opposed to manipulating markets. Hell, Adam Smith was not opposed to manipulating markets, and he wrote the book on capitalism. How the hell is that communist? It sure as hell isn't espousing any Marxist principles or worldviews I've ever studied - not to mention this was 20 years before Karl Marx was born and ~50 years before communist ideology and thought started to spread outside of the narrow confines of Karl Marx's mind and personal conversation

[OT]Man, if it weren't for all these political topics in the forums, I would probably not even have joined the one-B Clube yet...

Also, it seems no one in these political threads has a tendency to ruffle my feathers more than you, Duke. I find myself keeping my inner Chet-like rage from surfacing quite often. I'm not sure if it's what you're saying or how you present it. I'm thinking it's more the latter.[/OT]

He He He, what gets me about you free trader types, is your complete lack straight talk. Either you are for manipulating the markets or your not. Preventing market manipulation only seems to apply when a worker might get a decent wage. 8-!

I am well aware that marx hadn't been born yet The fact remains that weather you manipulate a market a little or a lot makes no difference. HO HO HO :lmao:

In this case, you have a semantic difference between a tax and a mandate.

Your Merchant Marine argument is a silly sham. The Merchant Marine Academy was established in 1942 with an enabling ACT in 1938.

This to! "Between 1874 and 1936, diverse federal legislation supported maritime training through schoolships, internships at sea and other methods. A disastrous fire in 1934 aboard the passenger ship SS Morro Castle, in which 134 lives were lost, convinced the U.S. Congress that direct federal involvement in efficient and standardized training was needed."

Not only is your argument that the merchant marine is a special class sham! but it was nearly 85 years AFTER the 1789 act. :lmao:

So again, we get stuck at the fact that the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT decided to intervene in the PRIVATE MARKET by ensuring a steady stream of workers by GUARANTEEING HEALTH CARE THROUGH A FEDERAL MANDATE/TAX! :6:

I can see why you get your dander up. Your position on this is so weak, its laugh inducing! :a::a:

 

[TexanOkie]

He He He, what gets me about you free trader types, is your complete lack straight talk. Either you are for manipulating the markets or your not. Preventing market manipulation only seems to apply when a worker might get a decent wage. 8-!

I am well aware that marx hadn't been born yet The fact remains that weather you manipulate a market a little or a lot makes no difference. HO HO HO :lmao:

It makes a huge difference! Now who's showing a weak position? A simple knowledge of economics, let alone advanced study, will inevitably make this statement laughable.

In this case, you have a semantic difference between a tax and a mandate.

Which, in legal matters and precedent, is huge!

Your Merchant Marine argument is a silly sham. The Merchant Marine Academy was established in 1942 with an enabling ACT in 1938.

This to! "Between 1874 and 1936, diverse federal legislation supported maritime training through schoolships, internships at sea and other methods. A disastrous fire in 1934 aboard the passenger ship SS Morro Castle, in which 134 lives were lost, convinced the U.S. Congress that direct federal involvement in efficient and standardized training was needed."

Not only is your argument that the merchant marine is a special class sham! but it was nearly 85 years AFTER the 1789 act. :lmao:

Just because the USMMA wasn't founded until the 1930's doesn't negate what I previously said about the nature of their work and their special status, in the historical eyes of the US Congress and judicial system. There was a USMM long before they had their own Federal service academy - that's just an illustration of one of the ways the relationship has budded in it's 240-year history.

So again, we get stuck at the fact that the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT decided to intervene in the PRIVATE MARKET by ensuring a steady stream of workers by GUARANTEEING HEALTH CARE THROUGH A FEDERAL MANDATE/TAX! :6:

Difference between mandate/tax, and issue with the private market/federal service ties with US civilian merchant marines are still at play here.

I can see why you get your dander up. Your position on this is so weak, its laugh inducing! :a::a:

According to you, every position I take is so weak it's laugh-inducing. You're a pretty effective patronizing personality in your arguments. Too bad it rarely gets a point across other than the fact that you're an arrogant, belittling guy who is forced to use such tactics to mask his own weak arguments. Displaying confidence only goes so far in a debate. Eventually you still have to prove your point.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

It makes a huge difference! Now who's showing a weak position? A simple knowledge of economics, let alone advanced study, will inevitably make this statement laughable.

Which statement would that be? You happen to be the free market crazy around here. "Lets use the Austrian Model", cause there are 40 people who know about it and are cheapskates that want to use it.

Which, in legal matters and precedent, is huge!

I agree that precedent is huge! :6: In this case, we have precedent for covering workers in an industry with mandated health care by the US Federal Government. I agree the nuance between tax and mandate will be adjudicated now. The precedent still remains. :a:

Just because the USMMA wasn't founded until the 1930's doesn't negate what I previously said about the nature of their work and their special status, in the historical eyes of the US Congress and judicial system. There was a USMM long before they had their own Federal service academy - that's just an illustration of one of the ways the relationship has budded in it's 240-year history.

Its worse than your argument there. There was NO GOVERNMENT PROGRAM of ANY TYPE prior to 1874!

Make up any excuse you want to about the Merchant Marine being special. Its all IN YOUR OWN HEAD! :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Difference between mandate/tax, and issue with the private market/federal service ties with US civilian merchant marines are still at play here.

A.G.A.I.N... S.l.o.w.l.y. t.h.i.s. t.i.m.e:

"Between - 1874 - and - 1936, - diverse - federal - legislation - supported - maritime training - through - scholarships, - internships - at - sea - and - other - methods." :-x

See your two last quotes. No, not really. 85 years after the fact does not a special attachment make!

Your word for the day is: CONFLATION
Combining or blending of two or more versions of a text; confusion or mixing up. Conflation algorithms are used in databases. :6:

According to you, every position I take is so weak it's laugh-inducing. You're a pretty effective patronizing personality in your arguments. Too bad it rarely gets a point across other than the fact that you're a belittling jerk who is forced to use such tactics to mask his own weak arguments. Displaying confidence only goes so far in a debate. Eventually you still have to prove your point.

Maybe I just like to argue :a: :a:


Naaah! I think there are 9 justices who will have to decide the semantics of tax/mandate and apply it towards an existing precedent. Considering they will screw the conservative side of the political spectrum one way or the other with this trap, it is going to be interesting!

 

[TexanOkie]

[OT]

Maybe I just like to argue :a: :a:

There's a difference between arguing and fighting, and I'm not so sure you like the former so much as the latter.

You should join your local ISO chapter, if you haven't already. You're just the type of candidate they need to *advance* their cause. [/OT]

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

[OT]

There's a difference between arguing and fighting, and I'm not so sure you like the former so much as the latter.

You should join your local ISO chapter, if you haven't already. You're just the type of candidate they need to *advance* their cause. [/OT]

Don't know what an ISO chapter is.

Fighting isn't so bad either, but it always seems to hurt the next day!:a: Even if I am pretty good at it!