1) It isn't the federal government's job to protect people from themselves, nor is it the federal government's job to provide a life savings plan. It is the federal government's job to protect the rights of its citizens as outlined in its structure and enumerated powers. To do more than that is picking and choosing which segments of the populace are important and which are not. That automatically introduces an institutionalized preferential treatment/exclusion that is the antithesis of liberty.
2) Insisting on having a permit to exist is an anathema to liberty. Of course it is understandable to want to fix a broken system of irresponsible people breaking a system built on the insurance model. My contention is that putting the band-aid of Obamacare (or Romneycare, or anything else that would bear a different name but the same system) to address irresponsible behavior is addressing a symptom, not the problem. The problem is allowing irresponsible behavior to exist without consequences (anyone that's worked in the ER can tell you exactly how this plays out). Responsibility is the flip side of the coin of liberty. That is a simple fact of existence no matter how one tries to make it otherwise.
3) False... patently. I happen to work for one of the fiscally responsible banks that would have thrived where the others should have failed. The answer to fixing cronysim isn't "more and better" cryonyism. The Great Depression was not a singular event caused by banking institutions. It was a series of events that exacerbated a number of issues. Like almost all things for the 20th century American federal government, a fix for what was supposed to be a temporary solution ended up being a permanent program.
4) The Affordable Housing Act incentevized risky loans to introduce a non-free market entity into an already favored system. To compete with your peers, you now had to take advantage of this wonderful new program or be hung out to dry by your competitors. What you are arguing is an academic view on a real-world issue. If you'd worked in the field, you'd know the difference.
5) State-sponsored loans are the reason why tuition prices are so high today. No one seems to question why the cost of tuition rose exponentially with the advent of government assistance. The value of a collegiate degree is reduced to almost nothing in the real-world today as a direct result of the lowering of standards for said degrees. Again, rather than slapping a band-aid on the symptom, we need to address the actual issue at hand.
6) Medical assistance cost has risen dramatically for a number of reasons over the past few decades. One prime example of how it is broken is how the ER is abused and the costs incurred due to frivolous litigation. For a simple diagnosis, thousands of dollars of tests now have to be run for a condition that runs less than 1/10th of 1 percent of cases coming into the door. Moreover, if you don't have health insurance, the hospital has to pick up the tab as they are not allowed to refuse service. Moreover, that is why people without insurance go to the ER for a cracked nail. Hyperbole? Yeah... but actually not that far off. If you doubt that, ask a triage nurse to get the straight skinny. Another example is GPs fleeing the state of NC because they cannot afford malpractice insurance largely brought on due to frivolous lawsuits. Another example is the concept of "pre-existing conditions" allowed to defeat the purpose of insurance to begin with. At that point, it is no longer insurance, but an entitlement program for merely existing at the expense of everyone else. Not necessarily a bad idea in concept, but ultimately doomed to fail due to a demonstrated history of abuse.
Again, these are the reasons that such things are not the purview of government, but of community. That is a key factor in what distinguishes libertarians from democrats. A governmental program invokes "charity" by forcing it at the barrel of a gun for what it deems to be "charity worthy". An actual charity allows the people to actually decide not only what is worthy of charity, but holds its institutions accountable for its actions. I challenge you to find any such accountability in DC.
What is disastrous for an economy is institutionalized governmental cronyism, not the antithesis of it (an ACTUAL free market).
1) First of all,your argument is ideological and hyperbolic. It may have been an argument to use in 1935 when social security was being publicly debated, passed by a democratically elected legislative branch, signed by a democratically elected President, and upheld by the Constitutionally created Supreme Court, but it is useless now because social security is
a part of our government and our economic system. My point was your vision for it would be disastrous to the US economy and quality of life based on the current system.
But to your larger point of what the government is and isn't supposed to do; section 8 of the constitution explicitly says:
The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense, and general welfare
of the United States.
And the Constitution also created the Supreme Court for a system of checks and balances. So with that in mind check out the Supreme Court rulings on Helvering vs. Davis, Steward Machine Company vs. Davis, and Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke Co. and Gulf States Pape
2) That is as high minded and detached from reality as the democratic utopia. It is also weird that you think that 62% of our bankruptcies being contributed to or caused by illness and health care is "no consequences". If someone is poor and has a catastrophic medical event and is in need of immediate medical care, what should their "consequences" be for going to the ER? Death? Imprisonment? Again that isn't liberty or freedom, that is plutocracy.
3) It isn't false. Your bank, if it was truly "responsible", would not have had the capital, capacity, or desire to buy all the toxic loans that caused the 5 largest investment banks in the world to fail. If the 5 largest investment banks in the world plus AIG failed all at once, our nation's wealth would have evaporated and credit markets would have froze and we would be third world status and looking at 50% to 60% unemployment virtually overnight.
If you need that to be false for your own mental well being then so be it. Continue to believe that if the ten financial institutions that held 77% of our nation's assets were allowed to fail some little guy would just step up and everything would be okay.
I don't like the bank bailout and I don't like the fact in the past we deregulated to allow these mega banks that control so much of our nation's assets to even exist, but the reality is that the bank bailout had to happen or else the US economy would have cratered.
4) You lose credibility on this when you don't even know what act you are talking about. It was the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) that incentized banks to make loans available to more people.
But by incentivize you must mean "The Act instructs the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation
"Consistent with safe and sound operation". The subprime lending was in direct violation of CRA not because of it.
The government does not set lending standards to the banks. The banks set their own lending practices Lets get one thing straight, the banks gave risky loans because it made them a sh!t ton of money
. And the consumers they gave loans to may have been risky but the free market had devised a plan that they thought
would alleviate themselves from any risk, by packaging them in derivatives and getting insurance on those loans.
The derivative market was actually a great and sustainable idea, but then the banks were given more and more rope and ended up hanging themselves chasing profits instead of insuring consumer protections.
Again, almost every study has shown that CRA did not
create the housing bubble or the mortgage meltdown. As a matter of fact, 50% of the subprime mortgages held were by private mortgage companies that were not under the CRA umbrella.
5) None of what you posted takes away from the fact that without government loans you are taking away the prospects of higher education away from those who cannot afford it. Taking away government loans and grants only ensures that people from the wealthiest families get access to higher education. That is again plutocracy.
6) Some of what you are saying I agree with especially in regards to frivolous lawsuits and liability insurance. I wish that the government would have seized the opportunity during the debate on Obamacare to include tort reform. Obama said he would be open to it if it were included in the Affordable Health Care Act but no one really even attempted to include it.
BUt I am not sure what you are trying to say when you lament the fact that hospitals are not allowed to refuse service. Are you saying that they should refuse service if someone is dying in the hospital? When the ambulance races to your house because you are having a heart attack should they run a credit check first? Do you need to bring bank statements with you to the ER?
Or should you have $30,000 on hand and readily available "just in case something catastophic happens?"
As far as people going to ER for basic care, if they were insured no one, especially hospitals, would give a poo what they were coming for because it would actually result in higher revenue and profits. The lack of insurance amongst so many Americans is the problem
, not the symptom (to borrow a phrase from you).
And here is my main problem with all of your arguments
You soap box about liberty and freedom, but you actually hate liberty and freedom. You only like your idea of what liberty and freedom means. And if someone else doesn't agree with what you believe it to mean, you view them as opponents to liberty and freedom or in violation of the constitution as you understand it.
The truth is that freedom doesn't mean we always get our way, we vote for the candidates that we feel upholds our vision of America, but in a democracy your vision isn't always majority opinion. And when our ideals are no longer the majority we feel like our freedoms and liberties are being taken from us, but the truth is that it is the result of freedom and democracy not the antithesis of it
The Constitution that you have expounded upon is the document that set up this system of democracy. You love the Constitution just not what the Constitution has created in terms of current governance. But that is freedom,.