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,.
Respectfully, I answer to this as an exercise in expounding my views on this matter on a public forum rather than let this sit unchallenged.
1) Section 8 indeed says exactly what you say at the very beginning of it regarding laying and collecting taxes for those pursuits. However, it then goes on to spell out exactly how to carry out those duties rather than let it lie as some nebulous document to be misused as cannon as documents before had done.
Additionally, the purpose of Article III was to spell out the duties of the Supreme Court for the purposes of upholding the Constitutionality of laws passed by the other two branches. It was not laid out to create new law through precedent as activist judges have been wont to do for quite some time now. Also, bad precedent has been overtuned through the years. Justice Roberts' assertion that the ACA is Constitutional based on government's charge to lay and collect taxes is not correctly interpreted as it makes this an avenue for an open run for the federal government to take whatever it likes for the purposes it sees as fit.
Again, Madison and Hamilton discussed this at lengths to lay out exactly how such things were to be construed in the Federalist Papers.
2) Again, trying to fix a broken system by adding to what broke it in the first place is a foolish endeavor. Understanding how human nature works to these ends is precisely why the founders made the Constitution as they did. The rights laid out were put there as democratic societies before underwent a very real phenomenon that has played out several times before them as it did after them. That phenomenon is majoritarian tyranny. That is the reason that America was designed to be a republic rather than a democracy. Regardless of the wants of the majority, there are rights that cannot be simply voted out regardless of generational whims.
3) One bank alone would not be able to do it. There would not be a vacuum big enough to swallow what a free market could correct within a generation's time. Instead of trusting in freedom, big government high minded ideals have presided to assert their will on the rest of the world at the rest of the world's expense. This is yet another premise laid out false assertions that a populace cannot function without centrally controlled and tightly gripped infrastructure. What is now being pushed is a fallacy that everyone can live at the expense of everyone else while maintaining some fairy tale assumption that those in power would never be incorruptible in spite of a litany of failed politicians showing otherwise.
If you ask a politician, they will of course point the finger at someone other than themselves. The concept of introducing an entity that cannot fail in a free market immediately breaks how a free market works. Failure is a discipline that people cannot accept. There are more failures in the most advanced societies because we are allowed to fail. Those societies that are not allowed to fail end up following the rest as failure is reliably shown to be part of a process of improvement. An overbearing and centrally controlled government hold future successes hostage at the expense of everyone else for basis in a falsely laid comfort of safety. It may work for a generation, but little longer than that. The evidence of this is all around us every day in facets both large and small.
5) This is a concept rooted in a "right to education" that is not afforded in the federal Constitution. The States should be allowed to conduct their endeavors in what I feel is a worthy cause. This would make it immediately answerable to a failing policy of "educating our youth". More money has clearly NOT fixed this issue. The federal government continues to take it at record rates irregardless. Policies of "No Child Left Behind" are another joke in a long line of bad jokes that have been perpetuated since Dewey's assertions.
6) My views on this have come directly from speaking to medical professionals ranging from board members to triage nurses in addition to my own personal experience confirming what was brought to my attention. Mr Paul was and continues to be right. His personal inside knowledge of the system bears out the truth on this matter pretty clearly.
Liberty and freedom are not concepts up for debate for what they are. It is simply analyzed by this question: "am I allowed to live my life as I see fit so long as I do not violate the rights of others?" The Bill of Rights clearly lays out what is protected with respected to this question. This isn't a soap box. There is maximum room for people of all kinds to exist and thrive in such a society that I don't personally agree with in such a world view.
The more constraint one puts on liberty, the more such people are squeezed out of what is deemed as acceptable with respect to the law. Community may be a different story, but they are beholden to the law with respect to individual rights.
The beauty of such a system is that any manner of person can exist in this society AND seek out like-minded individuals as they have the freedom to do exactly that. For instance, Zod owns this board. He can kick out whomever he likes for whatever reason as this is his house. He is answerable to the community insofar as who comes on the board on a regular basis to make this place what it is. If he does something that offends enough of us badly enough, then we will engage in a mass exodus much like what happened with the Charlotte Observer many years ago. This is how community works. You are free to speak your mind, but there are community consequences to what we say and do.
Conversely, any society that seeks to exclude unlike-minded voices risks themselves in a truly free society. If I decide to not hire women for my business for whatever reason, I am hurting myself in the marketplace by immediately excluding FULLY HALF of the talent pool available to me. We are free to do that, but if we are prevented from failing due to this choice, then free market principles are not allowed to exist to push the very discipline of failure that would render this philosophy in a fraction of the time that a centrally controlled body would not undertake for its own assertions of ITS views on what should be liberty and what should not.
Liberty is hard. Responsibility is a facet of that concept that MUST be allowed to exist in turn. If one is turned down for the other, the both suffer. Benjamin Franklin was succinct and elegant in this understanding. It hold just as true today as it did then. To dismiss it simply because of its longevity rather than its efficacy is every bit the mistake of zeitgeist as is any fleeting sense of fashion, sheikh, etc.