So does this make Chief Justice John Roberts a Communist / Socialist / Kenyan / Muslim / Liberal / Jobs Killer?

Oh man, why did that lousy Communist / Socialist / Kenyan / Muslim / Liberal / Jobs Killer George W. Bush and all of those lousy Communist / Socialist / Kenyan / Muslim / Liberal / Jobs Killing Republicans in Congress appoint that guy! When are we going to get a "True Conservative" (i.e., Palinbot) on the court?!?

Just out of curiosity, how many of the right-wingers on Patch would rather have seem Harriet Miers as chief justice than John Roberts? Be honest; you can't make yourselves sound crazier than you already do.

@Taoist
This has nothing to do with R or D as if you read my blog I hold contempt for all of government. This is about whether the constitution prevents the government from assuming dictatorial authority over our lives.

I see. So your exhortations to "take back our country," presumably from the Democratic President, by electing Republicans, "has nothing to do with R or D?" So who do you propose we vote for?

@Taoist
Your ability to stay mature is astounding.

Both parties have allowed this to happen. The Democrats pushed the progressive agenda and the Republican stuck their heads in the sand 85% of the time, took the progressive side 10% of the time and made lame attempts at challenging 5% of the time. I will vote for the person most willing to adhere to the what the constitutions says rather then what can be interpreted out of it to prevent the court from overturning legislation 5-4.

I just think your claim that this is not about "R or D" is laughable in the extreme. It's clear to everyone that this "revolution" stuff only comes up when Democrats win or accomplish something. What's immature about pointing out your obvious partisanship?

@Taoist
Think what you want.

JB, I would think that a Constitutional originalist like yourself would be happy that SCOTUS mostly decined to strike down the law. After all, judicial review doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution.

@Taoist
The refusal to strike down an unconstitutional law so as not to be legislating from the bench is, in fact, legislating from the bench.

Right. JB, you've arrived at a definition of "legislating from the bench" that includes BOTH striking down and upholding statutes, i.e., every possible ruling on a law that SCOTUS could make. Therefore, the court is, in your mind, incapable of acting Constitutionally with respect to laws of Congress. Therefore, you disagree with the principle of judicial review. Like I just said.

Either that, or your position is just an incoherent mess. I am, of course, open to that possibility.

@Taoist
Please point out the constitutionality of allowing congress to tax a behavior that is not done. Since that is what the mandate is, please prove you are correct that the SCOTUS just followed in the foot steps of the founders.

You're kidding, right? The point of judicial review is to settle questions of constitutionality. The question was asked, and is now answered. You can disagree with the decision, but the ruling itself is evidence of the law's constitutionality, and is currently considered settled court precedent. My proof is the following syllogism:

1. SCOTUS has the power of judicial review,
2. SCOTUS ruled that the law is Constitutional,
3. Ergo, the law is Constitutional. QED.

If you disagree with the above, then you think that the principle of judicial review is unconstitutional (this makes you an extremist in the extreme, by the way).

@Taoist
Your blind acceptance of this and assumption that SCOTUS is by default correct is disturbing. Read the opinions and come back informed. Then maybe you can answer the question I posed rather then some rubber stamp answer about how the SCOTUS is all knowing.
.

"Blind acceptance?" Get real. You just cry "Unconstitutional!" whenever you don't like a court decision, or a law, without any real understanding of US History. My answer IS the answer - a law is a law because it's passed by Congress and signed by the President, and its constitutionality, if challenged and ruled on by SCOTUS, is thereby decided. I understand that you wish the US government functioned differently, but you should start by acknowledging reality.

@Taoist
You said, "You just cry "Unconstitutional!" whenever you don't like a court decision". Could you please tell me which other court decisions I have cried unconstitutional?

If the Supreme Court is the end all to all judicial review and therefore your supreme guidance for all things constitutional, how do reconcile the court decisions the court itself has over turned? They must be fallible, correct? If they fallible, then your blind acceptance is foolish.

I was referring to arch-conservatives as a group. And as I said, you can disagree with the decision, but since SCOTUS's decision about the constitutionality of a particular law can only be overruled by SCOTUS, then SCOTUS is the authority. This is because Constitutionality cannot be determined simply by referring to the text of the constitution. Otherwise, there would be no need for a court, and SCOTUS appointments wouldn't be the holy wars that they invariably are.

I don't get what your point is. If SCOTUS doesn't decide constitutionality, in your mind, then who does? Glenn Beck?

@Taoist
"Constitutionality cannot be determined simply by referring to the text of the constitution"

You are the problem with what used to be the USA.

Uh huh. And aren't you the one who accused me of being immature?

I understand that when reality doesn't conform to your sepia-toned Gipper fantasy, you get testy, but you shouldn't let that drive you to make ill-informed statements.

It's been recognized from our nation's founding that judicial review was going to be a controversial issue, and for hundreds of years the question of constitutionality has been determined by differing approaches to interpreting the constitution, and a legacy of jurisprudence. I'm just stating the obvious; you're the one who wishes things were different than they've always been.

Take constitutional issues that come about due to technological developments that the founders could only have dreamed about. Is it more correct to take the Constitution literally on these issues (i.e., to suggest that the Constitution is irrelevant to questions relating to internet privacy), or is it better to try to interpret the founders' intent? The fact that you ignore these basic questions is evidence that your relationship to our nation's founding documents is ill-informed and over-simplified.

Then again, the Republican Party depends for its very existence on you remaining unreflective and easily goaded into an anti-intellectual and anti-historical frenzy, so I don't expect you to acknowledge the factual legitimacy of the points I'm making. I'll just shut the lights off as I leave.

J.B., how blessed you are to be living in a free country, which allows you to write statements that you hold "contempt for all of government" without being arrested and sent, perhaps with your family, to a labor camp. Or shot. Perhaps if you spent some time in countries where this occurs, you might return home with some respect for the country in which you were born and which provides you freedoms according to the U.S. Constitution.

@Bren
That is a dumb statement. You, like Mr. Crocodile, are willing to blindly accept this ruling simply because this court has been given the title of Supreme. I thank God daily that I live in this country; but the country that millions of men have shed blood to protect is not the same country that currently exists.

I hold contempt, not for the structure of government as established in the Constitution, but the perverted structure of government that 100 years of progress policy has given us. The founding fathers would have written the same Declaration to the Obama Administration as they did to King George.

JB, love it or leave it. It you're not happy about the rule of law, I'm sure you'd find Pakistan or China more to your liking.

@Mr. Crocodile
The rule of law was invented for this judgement. That is how they do it in China.

How can you make that statement with a straight face? Tell me - what, in the formulation, passing, and now validation of this law, do you consider illegal? Just because you disagree with it, that doesn't make it wrong or unconstitutional.

You've got sour grapes, and they're fermenting into a bitter white whine.

@Mr. Crocodile
This law was not written as a tax, reported to the American people as a tax or argued as a tax by the lawyers for the government. Instead, the supreme court opted to change the meaning of this legislation to say it was a tax. Not to mention that a tax cannot be challenged until it has been paid (Tax Anti-Injunction Act); therefore the mandate as a tax should never have been up for decision before the court. Hence, a new rule of law was invented for the sake of this judgement and supreme court failed to be the custodians of the constitution; rather they disregarded the constitution at the expense of American freedoms.

J.B., you wrote it, not me. I love my country and respect the government/Constitution. I also believe that service provision is the appropriate role of government and health care is a service. Right now it's a luxury commodity.

An oil change is a service too.

Greg, how about trying a germane response? ; )

Mein Deutsch ist schlecht.

skinnyDUDE, listen to JB - it's not about R and D, man. It's about freedom and liberty. Republicans are just as bad as Democrats. We need a revolution, DUDE, and it can't start with Romney - after all, he's the granddaddy of the mandate. Just listen to my man JB, and don't vote for any Democrats or Republicans.

Its about the R and D for me . The Democrats are now the party of Waste, Fraud and abuse . They need Victims as a base. They need Fraud as a strategy to victory. They need to overcome the true will of the people for they're failed agenda to cripple this nation. I wont vote for another DemWit in my lifetime.

Sounds pretty much like King Obama and his hench man Eric Holder. Don't like a law, don't enforce it; or better yet, declare it by the King's decree as invalid.

Greg,
Yes, insurance is expensive and yes there are people who can't afford it. But rather than have me pay for your insurance, why didn't the big O work on creating jobs so people could afford healthcare and reform the health care system which is totally out of whack (ie 10.00 for an aspirin and 275.00 for a consultation with my doctor for all of 20 mins.)? That would have been met with a nod from both sides. My insurance doesn't cover much and costs a lot...but I make it work. It sickens me that I see and personally know of people who intentionally don't work because they say that they could never afford the type of insurance they get through the state! So while I get up every day and go to work to pay for my insurance, others laze about all day doing what they want....just so they don't have to pay a dang thing for eyeglasses, dental care, routine check-ups...etc... This country wasn't founded on hand outs...it was founded on hard work and a "do what it takes" attitude. Most Dem's I know (not all, but most) want to change those founding beliefs to gimme, gimme, gimme. That's where the anger over this comes into play.

Greg .. So by forcing people by gunpoint to help your "cancer victim" is love your neighbor .. your an idiot

You arent actually trying to say Dems are more charitable . Mitt Romney gave 1 of every 3 dollars he earned to charity last year. Obama almost nothing. John Kerry ...that billionaire when running for president gave about 1000 bucks the year before he run to charity. Conservatives volunteer there time and treasure far more than Liberals whom basically believe in giving away someone elses money. I have to say GIVE ME A BREAK as the ME ME ME party is the liberals. The party of personal responsibility is the conservatives. WAKE UP!

@Lyle
"The nation will survive, adapt and change as required." Your right we will continue down the rocket sled to socialism burdening our children with ever more debt and taking from them the freedoms once bestowed on this country by our founding. Will the sky fall this year or next year, no. However, the government no has the tools to control every behavior or lack of behavior.

@J.B. Schmidt...I disagree with you that we are on a "rocket sled to socialism". Each generation takes up the committment made by the previous generations. This provides continuity from generation to generation. What amazes me is that your generation seems to be having a problem with stepping up to the plate and taking on your generational responsibilities. I don't think I have ever seen, in my lifetime, such self obsessed people.

We can't continue on with healthcare cost going into double digit per year, real spendable earning declining 20% and a population of somewhere around 16 to 17 percent without healthcare coverage at all. The first premise that must be accepted is that access to affordable healthcare is a right and not a privilege. We can't continue to argue that it isn't a right.

Given that it is a right, then we must find the most efficient and effective means of providing such. We have allowed a system to develop that is neither efficient, effective nor affordable. Only a very small minority are in a financial position to be able to successfully participate in the healthcare system as it is currently designed.

Just like any other major project that the nation has taken on in the past; the Manhattan Project, going to the moon or the interstate highway system; the nation takes on the committment for the greater good and accepted the cost for the benefit gained. Solving the healthcare issue is of equal magnitude for the well being of the nation.

@Lyle
Your premise is wrong. My generation is not failing to step to the plate. My generation is being forced to inherit the national debt and the perverted constitution. The day my children received an SSN (much like the day I did) they owned money for entitlements created 60 years prior to their birth. Now you have the gall to tell me that they or I should 'step up'.

We want to step up and return it to a something sustainable. Something that makes people responsible for their own actions. Unfortunately, liberals don't like personal responsibility and as such would rather lay claim to the earnings of generations still to come.

@Lyle -

The biggest problem isn't Obamacare, but rather the precedent that the Court created to uphold its constitutionality. Up until now, all of the taxes imposed by the federal government have been premised in engaging in voluntary activities - purchasing certain goods / services, earning an income via employment or investing, etc. The government did not force anyone to purchase/procure certain goods / services that it taxes, nor did it force anyone to earn an income via employment or investment. We all had a choice as to whether to engage in such activities whereby we would be subjected to taxation, thus we at least had a limited freedom of choice.

However, under this new precedent, the government can now force a person to do anything those in power want them to do or penalize them with a tax! There is no way to opt out or avoid this tax unless one is Amish or Native American. Instead of a limited freedom of choice, we now have no choice. It is essentially a tax upon life itself, which the Court has previously struck down as being unconstitutional.

This GREATLY expands the power, size, and scope of the federal government. As Justice Scalia argued, under this new precedent, if those in power decided that everyone should be eating broccoli, the federal government could now mandate that everyone buy broccoli or suffer a tax for noncompliance. And where would it end? The potential for abuse and the slippery slope created by this ruling is monumental and mind-boggling. It represents the greatest antithesis to the principles of freedom that the Court has ever presented us with and is judicial activism to the extreme.

@J.B. Schmidt...Claiming that all liberals are against self responsibility is not only an incorrect statement but disingenuous. Liberals are just as responsible as anyone else, plus they acknowledge the responsibility that we have to others.

You fail to understand that we pay for the sins of previous generations and our children and future generations will pay for our sins. If you, I or our progeny fail to live up to our social responsibilities, not only will this grand experiment in democracy fail, but this nation will no longer exist. We can solve these problems but we all must be willing to work and sacrifice to make it work. Everyone talks with reverie concerning the "Greatest Generation", what defined them was their willingness to sacrifice and make it better for future generations. Part of making it better for future generations was to eliminate as much social injustice as humanly possible. Now you and other conservative extremists want to take all of the work that they did and pile it on the trash heap and claim you are justified because you don't want to pay for it or support their sacrifice and wisdom. You and yours are the first generation to break the covenant established so long ago. I am sure that when historians look at this period in our nation's history they will judge it to be one of our darkest periods because the political right put their own self interest ahead of the nation's.

Sorry to tell you Lyle, but JB is right!

@Lyle
You identified the Greatest generation and those, "willingness to sacrifice and make it better for future generations". I accept that from the stand point of protecting freedom from tyranny. However, they have failed when it comes to social issues. Your attempts to cure social injustice have only created non sustainable systems (college loans, equal pay via taxation and entitlements). I think your time has past and the next generation needs to clean up the mess. There will be short term pain, but that will save the country from bankruptcy in the long term.

@J.B. Schmidt...You claim the greatest generation failed because they attempted to implement social justice. Isn't that what they fought and died for? Didn't they have a vision for the future that included making everyone equal. It was the greatest generation who passed the legislation to institute social justice and paid for it. All I can say is your position is one of the ungrateful spoiled child.

@Lyle -

"Didn't they have a vision for the future that included making everyone equal."

Are you honestly trying to sell us on the notion that the so-called greatest generation is comprised of nothing more than a bunch of radical communists?

Again, it's about equality of opportunity - not equality of outcome. Whenever I point to a specific isolated example, you howl about how that example represents the exception and not the norm. But if the opportunity wasn't there and wasn't equal, then how would I be able to cite to such examples in the first place? No one said that pulling oneself up from the gutter would be easy or wouldn't require loads of hard work, did they? The difference is that the exceptions were willing to put in the work and not give up despite obstacles, unlike those that you call the norm, that in reality are really the foolish and lazy.

But, if the goal of that generation was actually for equality of outcome, as you appear to be arguing, then clearly, that generation was very anti-American wasn't it? Thus, instead of fighting and sacrificing for American principles and foundations, they must have been fighting to transform America into a pure communist state. However, I don't think that was the case, regardless of how hard you'll try to argue it was.

@Lyle
The Greatest Generation fought for the freedom to fail. They fought for the right of individual to put every last penny into a life's dream with a chance of becoming the biggest and best. They fought for the rights of the wealthy live in big houses, drive fancy cars and play on big yachts. They did not fight for the right of the government to tax on whim in order to take from a guy in one state and give to a guy in another because his fat butt must be forklifted out of his house. They did not fight for an altruistic dream that all men would live equally.

No Lyle, they fought that all men COULD make it big, not that all men WOULD make it big. Country after failing country has proven that creating a society where outcome is equal (thanks JRH) creates a poorer society with less freedoms and the same if not greater level of poverty.

We assume that the healthcare industry is a "free market," but the reality is that it is not. Sustainability is often called into question because we often don't want to carry the burden of caring for others, but we are. The law says hospitals have an obligation to stabilize patients. I'm not making a judgement about the law, but rather saying this is the reality. I've reported extensively on issues regarding medicare and medicaid. We're seeing hospitals that have higher percentages of uninsured patients move to hospital-based billing, which means they are containing those costs. This means, if you get a blood test at a hospital with a higher level of people who don't have insurance, you pay more than if you went to a hospital that was in an area that didn't have a high level of people with insurance. So they costs are being shifted to people who have insurance.
From the AMA:
"Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) [1] in 1986 to address the growing concern that hospitals were discharging patients before stabilizing them and refusing to care for poor people with medical emergencies. Although a general duty for hospitals to provide emergency care had been established a few decades prior to the passage of EMTALA, Congress believed that the common law rule, as well as various state statutes mandating care, did not go far enough to prevent “patient dumping” practices."
http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2006/11/hlaw1-0611.html

I recently ran into an example of just that, Denise. Had an injury, went to CSM on the east side of Milwaukee and was hit up immediately for $250 once they verified I was insured. When I needed further treatment for the same injury a week later I went, instead, to CSM in Ozaukee County. No such charge. Talking to one of the nurses there about the service I received on the East Side I was told I had been put into an area that predominantly serves people who walk in with cold and flu symptoms and have no ability to pay for the service. A good number just get up and leave before they're discharged.

This is part of the problem I have with further intrusion into the healthcare field by the government. There is very little realistic concern for the unintended consequences of what seems, on the surface, to be the right thing to do. "Stabilizing" a patient now includes, apparently, treating anything and everything that walks in the door, whether it needs treatment or not. Nobody in a position to make decisions on this stuff is held accountable for negative results and the expenses associated with them. Just stick it, once again, to those whom it is assumed can afford to pay.

Sounds almost too good to be true, doesn't it?

Jason, You wife had to contribute just a small amount to your health care benefits and you went ape-poop for months.
Oh the humanity!!!

@Jason
What good is health care if you destroy the constitution in the process?

What am I saying? The ends justifying the means has been the protocol of liberals forever.

An analogy to the univeral healthcare program is the helmet law in many states for motorcylces, etc. Do not wear a helmet, have a bad accident, and you end up as a quadriplegic on a respirator for the rest of your life. The taxpayer and/or others on the same insurance plan pay for that very expensive lifetime care, and/or the creditors of the individual suffer when bankruptcy is declared.
The helmet law actually protects the taxpayers/other policyholders/creditors, similar to the individual mandate in universal healthcare, requiring paying a price to buy a helmet, a fine if you do not, and a certain loss of freedom to go bare-headed.at 70 miles/hr. Everyone benefits financially.

Dirk- Bad example, because that is a states issue, not a federal. The federal government was never given that type of power, until now.

Jason, and now a $70,000 bureaucrat decides. No difference other than who is gouging you. Meantime, another freedom is denied us under the Democrats.

@Dirk -

Your analogy is premised upon clearly faulty logic. The problem is that our government has agreed to cover the costs of caring for an individual's poor life decisions, thus there's little incentive to exercise personal responsibility when you know that in the end, the taxpayers will foot the bill for the potentially consequential results of your actions.

If a person chooses not to wear a helmet and suffers injury that requires a lifetime of highly specialized and expensive care, I'm sorry, but it's that person's own fault and they alone should have to suffer the consequences of their actions. If they can't afford a lifetime of highly specialized personal care, then they don’t get it - it's just that simple.

Engaging in risky activity is a choice - if one makes such a choice, then they should suffer the potential consequences of that choice. No one else should be required or forced to pay for the consequences of poor individual choices.

All you're doing is punishing and taking away the freedoms of the righteous to kowtow to the idiots. That's not what this county is all about!

Dirk you hit the nail on the head, I posted this on Tommy's blog, but it applies her as well:
I think the next logical step is the HAA, Healthy Action Act. This will basically make massive expansion of the sin tax. It's "good for us" and it's a tax, the democrats will love it. The HAA will place a fine on any action that is not good for you. The caloric count on drive-thru menu boards, that is required by the ACA is useless. But a fine will do the trick.
The fines would be levied for such things as smoking or eating ice cream. They may also include things like extreme sports or job stress. But since the consumption actions are easier to enforce, we should start there.
Since the majority of preventable illnesses, such as heart disease or obesity, are found in the elderly and poor, I think we should help them first. The Act would outlaw the purchase or consumption of tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs, junk food, fried food, large portions of meat, etc., by any person included in any government subsidized food or health care program.
A healthy America will save us all money and universal health care is more reactive than proactive. The down sides are there, big corporations like Coke and McDonalds will take a major hit, but they supported ALEC so tough beans. The American farmer will need to plow under his ethanol corn and plant some broccoli and bean sprouts. I imagine the HAA will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, but for a good cause.

@JRH....You are smarter than what your latest rhetoric would suggest. I also think you are more of a humanitarian. You know as well as I do that it is human nature that we can't foresee all the potential risks that may be present, especially long term risk. Also there is always chance at play in the matrix. You write more like a hard determinist than someone who thinks there is free will at work.

@Brian Dey....What ideological black hole did you crawl out of to suggest revolution and not just a revolution at the ballot box, but an armed insurrection. What is wrong with you to take such an extreme position. We are no longer a nation of 4.5 million, as at our founding, but a diverse nation of 311 million. What may have been possible in the past is no longer feasible. For those of us who have walked in harms way and survived, we know the horror of what you speak. To suggest such a thing is unthinkable.

In order to work our way through these problems we need to work together and not place ourselves in positions that we can't back away from. Are you prepared to put your wife and children at risk over some ideological principle? That's just not rational. The last civil war we fought in this nation cost over 600,000 lives and it has only been in the last quarter century that the south has approached a full financial recovery. What you are suggesting will not only create chaos, but surely be the demise of the United States and our great test of liberty.

The health care system during the Civil War was nothing compared to what we have now.

I don't think a revolt would require an armed insurrection or conventional warfare. In a barter system, the banker and lawyer are pretty much at the mercy of the farmer and plumber. The $5 million dollar penthouse turns from a palace to a prison. Parents went from spanking their children to the time-out, the same could be done with our government. Could and should are two different things.

@Taoist Crocodile -

"the demographic base of the Republican party dies off"

And what exactly is the demographic base of the Republican Party - people that believe in the concepts and principles of liberty, freedom, and personal responsibility espoused by our founding documents?

Hoffa, I'm not going to do your homework for you. Look up the word "demographics" yourself.

The groups that currently and in recent history have supported the Republican party are either shrinking in absolute terms (old white people dying off) or as a share of the electorate (rich people, white people, racists, homophobes, etc.). The writing's on the wall for the "take our country back" crowd - they're destined to become a marginal, and likely violent, group of extremists.

TC- Couldn't be further from the truth. Look at a red/blue map of the U.S. (I won't do your homework) and you will see the majority of red areas is growing, not shrinking. Go to any Rep. GOTV center and you will find the majority of your volunteers are 20 and 30 yr olds.

And unblanced? Look at your Occupy crowd and one already sees that the left is the aggressor.

Brian,

Facts are facts, and you're allowed to be wrong - it is, after all, your party's funeral.

But you bring up an interesting point, and one I'd like you to clarify - are you and JB trying to promote violence against the government, or against those of your fellow citizens who disagree with you? Hoffa, just out of curiosity, who do you think Brian and JB want to -literally- (per Brian's comments above) revolt against? Are you going to be joining in the violence?

Rich people, white people, racists, homophobes....please stand.
Check, no Democrats here.

@Taoist -

Your perceived demographics of the Republican Party show just how partisan, closed minded, racist, and influenced by propaganda and rhetoric you truly are.

As for a violent uprising and/or revolution, that's a little too Turner Diaries for my taste. But I don't see Mr. Dey or J.B. advocating for such. What I do see are rhetorical references to revolution. The only 'demographics,' to use your word, that I've seen taking to the streets, getting violent, and causing mayhem and anarchy in our recent history have been those that comprise the participants of the LA Riots, the State Fair and other similar flash mob style uprisings, and the Occupy movement. I wouldn't call any of those people conservatives or right-wing extremists, but rather liberals / leftists.

You're clearly ignoring reality to suit your own partisan purposes.

That's what I thought - you and your kind are happy to insinuate and echo the threats of "other people," but when the question is posed directly, your testosterone evaporates. Incidentally, that's why the "revolt" that you clearly wish for, but are afraid to endorse, will never happen.

If anything, we'll see a bunch of lone wolf right wing psychopaths killing their fellow Americans in terrorist attacks. If so, then when you and the rest of the internet blowhards see it happening you'll realize just how foolish and irresponsible your rhetoric has been.

Is an internet blowhard with a differing opinion still an internet blowhard? I think so.

Brian, all of that back-pedaling is bad for your knees.

@Brian Dey....Ad hominem attacks when you are backed into a corner. You are avoiding personal responsibility for your position. You are currently walking a very fine line between advocating and reporting. Why kind of people do you associate with that advocate open rebellion that would lead to murder and mayhem? You are such a strong critic of helping others, yet you do it yourself. Actions speak louder than words. No responsible person advocates fora cradle to grave nanny state, but to assure social stability and the welfare for all, we must extend certain benefit guarantees. No one in this nation should ever go hungry, lack clean drinkable water, clean air, access to healthcare and the other rights guaranteed by our constitution. You may advocate personal responsibility but you certainly don't practice it if you are willing to kick people to the curb to preserve your wealth, power and lifestyle. You have been on a rhetorical rant for well nigh on a year and half that government workers and others must share the sacrifice for the benefit of all, but when it comes to healthcare for all, you change your position and cry out personal responsibility. You are showing just how disingenuous and hypocritical you are.

Lyle- We have had an experiment in our country that has failed and have tried to create the Great Society, Johnsonism if you will. Safety nets yes, but as a way of life, I don't think so. I will not do the homework for you, but take a look on the internet. A lot of people, good hard working people are fed up with attitudes of entitlement that you share with the social pariahs you associate with.

@Brian Dey....What is wrong with trying to eliminate poverty and create equal opportunity for all? The "Johnson experiment" as you call it was making headway when Nixon and Ford cut the funding. I won't give you a history lesson, but I will say this; no one wants to maintain people on government dependence. However, our system has created a permanent underclass; about 5.5% of the total population. The social safety net was designed for people who found themselves in temporary hard times. Now I ask you, what do you do with people who are permanently in this underclass? Do we toss them under the bus and walk away? What I want to know from you and the political right, what do we do with these people? We as a people must stop all this polarization and create a collaborative environment to solve, not only this issue, but all the other issues. The Simpson - Erskine Bowles Commission was the right approach, but neither political party was ready to adopt this sensible plan.

One thing you and others are going to have to realize is that the political right is not the only ones who are made up of honest hard working people. This is a quality that is shared by the political left. To continue to paint the left as somehow non-working societal leeches is disingenuous and politics at its worst. That is equal to the political left painting all members of the right as simplistic selfish troglodytes.

BTW, you need to broaden your internet reading, this nation is clearly divided.

@Lyle -

"However, our system has created a permanent underclass; about 5.5% of the total population."

The system didn't create this situation - those people did it to themselves by giving up and refusing to better themselves and their situations. The Chicago public housing projects are a perfect example. As you already know the situation, I'll spare you but ask that you watch this documentary by lefty liberal Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., as I believe this documentary fully exposes the situation.

http://digital.films.com/play/DGDUWS

Instead of using the government handouts as intended, as a stepping stone, and working hard to achieve a life of modest self dependence, as the Italian immigrants that came before them did, these people demand that they should either be paid lots of money to do very little work right off the bat or else they prefer to live off the government. As seen by the interviews in the documentary, that's the mindset of these people - 'It's the gangs and police's fault,' or 'I want the government to pay for my home in a nice neighborhood,' or 'even though there's mouse holes in the public housing unit that I'm allowed to live in, I can't fix or plug the holes myself - the government should do it for me,' or 'work is too far away so it's easier to complain than to find a way to get to the work,' or 'I'd rather deal drugs and live off the government than work hard at Popeye's Chicken.'

We've already thrown trillions of dollars at helping these people, and instead of taking advantage of the help that we've given them, like the housing projects, they've trashed and abused them. And instead of working to better their own situation, they just sit around and blame everyone else. And some of these people realize that it's their own fault, as seen in the video, but still refuse to accept personal responsibility for the life they've chosen to make for themselves.

You can't help people that refuse to help themselves. And those that are footing the bill are getting fed up with it! Maybe if we actually saw effort from these people…

@JRH...What is your solution to the 5.5%?

@Lyle
Why must there be a solution? If you are capable of giving back to society and you choose not to, then society chooses not to assist you.

@J.B. Schmidt...I ask you for a solution and you parse the question. So if I understand you correctly, we must abandon all who we think are unable to take care of themselves? Do we just let them live on the streets, starve and die of diseases? Does this include the children too?

You do realize that they will find ways of surviving even if it means preying on the rest of society? What then, build poor houses and prisons? Or, better yet, wide spread eugenics. C'mon, don't beat around the bush with your answer; say what you mean and mean what you say!

@Lyle -

You have very little fate in the so-called under-class, don't you? To presume that if we took away their government benefits that what they would do to survive would be to prey upon others instead of working hard, living modestly, and bettering themselves, and that such a presumption is coming from you - well, it's just mind boggling. But if what you're saying is that the only way that these people would be able to care for themselves is to prey upon others, well, isn't that the problem right there? If they're capable of preying upon others, then certainly, they're capable of asking people if they want fries with their order, aren't they? But they refuse to start at the bottom. And in the fairness of justice, the working shouldn't have to subsidize their starting anywhere else. So, we come to the inevitable impasse.

According to statistics, over 95% of what you call the 5.5% are somehow able to live a life not unlike millionaires, with cell phones, pay television programming, dvd players, cars, etc. The only difference is that they didn't have to work or sacrifice for any of it. And yet, you're saying that these people are disadvantaged and need our help - sorry, but I'm not buying it anymore.

If you watched the video, then you'd realize that these people clearly don't want to help themselves, even after some of them are truthful enough to admit that they are causing their own problems! We gave them homes - they trashed them. We gave them an education - they skipped out or didn't take it seriously. We gave them money for food - they buy booze, cigs, and narcotics. We give them money to care for their children - they spend it on other things. We give them access to medical care - they abuse their bodies. We've thrown trillions at the problem over the last 50 plus years! And again, things get worse - not better. What more can we do? How much more money from the working class do you want?

In reality, only .275% of our population honestly needs help, is deserving of help, and should receive help. And most people are willing to help those in real honest need.

If people simply exercised common sense and stopped having children that they couldn't afford - well, our problem would be solved, wouldn't it? But those people have to want to solve it, we can't do it for them, unless we started administering forced reversible sterilization and only allow those that demonstrate a willingness to help themselves to procreate. Is that what it has come to?

@JRH...It's not that I don't have enough faith in the underclass, but there aren't enough jobs already for those who want to work. Where do you suggest these jobs come from? In any case, you pretty much answered the question and in such a way as to not take any responsibility for what will happen to them. Pontius Pilot anyone!

@Lyle -

Just because I speak the truth I'm now equated to the man who tried and convicted Christ?

That's an outright lie - you're ignoring reality, as the jobs do exist:

http://www.mcstate.com/careers/jobs?stateid=48&type=all&locales[]=48%3AMilwaukee&Search=

And that's just one employer in one city! But as I've already stated, these people refuse to take such jobs under the mistaken belief that they're entitled to something more or better than starting at the bottom. Didn't you watch the video - why work at Popeye's Chicken when the government will give you most of what you'd otherwise have to work for? And if you want a little more than what the government will give you, just deal drugs - after all, it's easier than working a legitimate bottom level job and paying taxes!

Bottom line - these people refuse to help themselves because they think they deserve more/better than starting at the bottom. That's the wrong attitude to have.

You also never answered any of my questions about what more we could do or how much more it would cost us to try to help these people. Everyone started at the bottom at some point in time, either themselves or prior generations of their lineage. Why shouldn't these people?

Why do you advocate that those who worked hard/sacrificed/saved/etc to pay for these people's false perceptions of fairness/equity/justice?

What is your solution?

The CCC concept may work again. It may be more expensive than having them just sit around, but it may provide incentive to get out of the system. The massive amounts of single parents would require local projects and/or education. The stigma of being on public assistance is gone. There needs to be something that can be done to get the next generation to want education and a career.
I know I will get attacked for my generalizations, I do not think that all disadvantaged people fit in a single category and many are good people who need a foot up, not a handout.

@The Anti-Alinsky..."Or, we could undo 80+ years of Democrat Party brand Socialism and fight for the country we grew up to believe in." What you really mean is the mythology that you have come to believe in.

Both sides are selling a mythology, Lyle. One side uses Greek characters, the other Roman. Neither side can point to concrete, measurable, sustainable results as a function 'their legislation';both are guilty of traveling a bridge too far.

On the right, we moved from a 70% marginal tax rate to 28%;we know that neither of these rates are sustainable;the high rate kills incentives and the low one does not generate enough revenue to support our governmental needs.

The left has multiplied the social programs,especially since the mid-60's, and fortunately, now, very few live in poverty. Do you think people today or those at its inception would think Social Security was a good idea if they knew that 75 years later, people were going to pay 21 times more(inflation stabilized;for the Retirement,Disability,Survivors programs;the numbers on Medicare are much worse) than they were paying in 1935?

@Jay Sykes...I can't disagree that both positions rely on a mythology. What I want to know is how would you define poverty? I also understand the marginal tax rate, yet the political right generally doesn't acknowledge that it has been too low for too long largely contributing to the under funding of government, thus increasing the debt. We will probably have to exceed the marginal tax rate for an equal amount of time to restore the solvency of the government.

I had the opportunity to speak with some of the people who worked on legislative staff during the debate and adoption of the Social Security Act. I posed a question which mirrors the one you just raised and essentially they didn't envision the rates climbing to what they had at the time (prior to 1983). The original plan was to build the trust fund for four years before begin any payment of benefits. Congress changed the program and began paying out after only two years and the fund's principle did not build to a great enough level. Also, the program was based on a longevity of an average of 68 years. The other issue causing the rise in contribution rates based on longevity was the change in the nature of employment. Hard physical labor was one of the greatest contributors to short life spans and early onset of disabilities. In short, the ones who developed the program couldn't see far enough in the future to plan for every contingency that would come. Good comment on your part, I appreciate it.

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" - Thomas Jefferson

I like TJ. Simple question for you Saul. Are you willing to back your words up with your life and livlihood because the "non-violent" ballot doesn't get it done? The French, American colonists, Russians, etc. all resorted to shooting to make things happen because the status quo didn't work. Are you willing to take on the system with your bare hands and not your words?

@$$andNonSense -

We all know that you're still mad about Walker's second triumph over Barrett. So, here's something that should make you smile a little -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC_ult6-Tb4

Hoffa, who was that, Mike Tate?

Lyle, did you mean the mythology of the Declaration of Independence?

$$andSense, I don't need to use violence to make the right change. I just need to appeal to enough people's intelligence and logic.

@$$andNonSense -
“We all know that you're still mad about Walker's second triumph over Barrett. So, here's something that should make you smile a little.”
JRH
What kind of slander are you posting? I never posted anything about the recall other than it was a waste of time and tax dollars, that I would not partake in the recall and that I voted for Walker in the actual legal election. Is memory your weak point? I see you have not lost your high school craft of name calling, just like your bed mate Saul. Am I supposed to come back with some stupid name for you to prove “I am better than you”? Anyone using the name of a union gangster that claims to be anti-union is a wide open door.
Saul
“ $$andSense, I don't need to use violence to make the right change. I just need to appeal to enough people's intelligence and logic.”
Yeah, the French, American colonists and Russians tried to avoid violence too. History is what it is and will be repeated. The 2nd Amendment exists for a reason. Are either of you proficient with firearms? I doubt it. Probably would shoot yourselves. Maybe not such bad thought after all.

LOL, LMAO, history repeats :)

@The Anti-Alinsky...The political right mythology that I am speaking to is the mythology of American Exceptionalism carried to the nth degree. It begins with the tenants of Calvin Christianity and the principles that financial success and wealth are the determinate of who is in a state of grace. Also part of the right's mythology is that we should be led by the wealthy since the success in one area means success in another. Yet another myth is that the founders of our nation were special men who were inspired by G-d and that the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are divinely written and are too sacrosanct to be changed. The final major myth is that each individual is wholly responsible for what happens to them. The political right wants to narrowly interpret the constitution and the founders intent, making the document immalleable and fixed in the 18th century.

Lyle, I had to do a little research on American Exceptionalism. Do you really think using a Stalinist term really is the right way to describe your opposition?

The Conservatives I know do not believe that just because you have "success in one area means success in another". What we do believe is that if you are a successful businessperson that has created jobs and wealth, that you are capable of creating more jobs if egregious regulations are lifted and you are allowed to make logical, productive choices in your business. And I do believe if you are successful in business, then you are likely to be successful in public service.

If the founding father's truly believed "the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are divinely written and are too sacrosanct to be changed", why did they build in a mechanism for change?

You may believe the American dream is a myth, but I believe that despite being kicked in the teeth, it is alive and just waiting to be unchained by the Feds!!!

@Brian Dey...I don't disagree that we'll always have a certain segment that always will be in poverty. However, we don't have to accept that it is a continuous generational condition that force and maintain an underclass culture. People do go through bad times and if those conditions don't change then the problems persist. For those who criticize the culture of poverty, need to begin to understand the complexity of the problem. Bettering themselves has to be a process with the proper incentives and penalties closely supervised. The very minimum that all citizens are entitled to is healthy food, adequate shelter, clothing, an education and healthcare. There is nothing wrong with demanding that the healthy and able work in exchange for their benefits. Most likely in community work projects.

Your bandying about this notion that everyone who finds themselves in this underclass is because of their bad choices is just plain incorrect. People find themselves in these circumstances for all sort of reasons. You claim that everyone who are in this group are part of the undeserving poor, this couldn't be further from the truth.

The approach that you and others that share your view is like the immature adolescent who wants absolute freedom to make decisions and to take actions based on only their desires and wants. The government works as a super parent to contain those actions that are detrimental to society.