Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie Sanders | The Young Turks Interview (FULL) May 27, 2016" video.
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" Point out anywhere in our constitution that says government can't take taxpayers money and provide a service to the taxpayers"
The 10th amendment is one. If the constitution does not directly state something then it falls to the responsibility of the states. Also Article I Section 9
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion
to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
Now the 16th amendment changed that (and since then we have seen two depressions). So the taxes they created were constitutional, but the programs they fund aren't.
"it is our government responsibility to protect the general health and well being of it's citizens. "
Protect but not guarantee. Just like you have the right to pursue happiness, you are not guaranteed it. You have the right to free speech, but if a newspaper company refuses to publish your opinion then your ideas are not heard by others. Also the government has nothing to begin with. In order to have something it has to take, in this case the people. With healthcare they will have to force doctors to offer their services to others which violates the 13th amendment.
" You are aware we have less people living in poverty now, than before food stamps was first introduced, right? "
That is not true. Food stamps became a permanent thing in the 60s, around the time the war on poverty was enacted. Before the war on poverty was enacted poverty rates were dropping perceptibly. Since then poverty rates have been stagnate. So with food stamps poverty rates have not been improving. So apparently food stamps don't work.
Social Security is a pay as you go program. It is running out of money because when it was enacted the retirement age was higher than the average life expectancy. Now life expectancy is almost 20 years higher than the retirement age. People try to push for raising the age bu that has been met with a roadblock.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"sorry but reducing the federal income tax won't have much of an impact in sales tax funded state like florida."
Yes it would. More money in the hands of consumers to spend locally. They will have more money due to zero federal income taxes.
"Why cause food prices would rise if you reduced federal income tax."
How would food prices rise? Food prices have been dropping due to technology. That has nothing to do with taxes.
" Its the federal governments money, "
No, it's our money. You (assuming you work) and I earned it. The federal government took it. That is our money, period.
"they have the authority to use the budget how they wish."
No they don't, there are restrictions in the constitution. That is why they can't expand medicaid without state's consent.
"The federal government is backed by the Constitution "
Which has the 10th amendment.
"and the Supreme Court"
Which has made incorrect rulings in the past, see Kelo vs City of New London and how the states reacted after that.
" Congress their current powers over commerce, "
Which has been misinterpreted.
" the Supreme Court fought over the agencies for over 4 decades starting when FDR "
FDR threaten to stack the courts with his judges to get his polices of pass. Some of his polices were ruled unconstitutional in the past, such as the min. wage. But after FDR abused his power things changed. That is corruption. It isn't surprising that under FDR we also had a depression.
" Now we have an FDA that is funded by the Congress and by extensions the taxpayers. "
The FDA is listed as "other" in the budget. That is how insignificant it is.
"does not conflict with the Bill of Rights"
It does because it violates the 10th amendment.
"Its not a violation of the 10th Amendment because it is not taking a State's ability to form their own health agencies "
And nowhere in the constitution does it say that the federal government is supposed to run health agencies, thus only the states run it.
" The Supreme court debated the powers of administrative agencies in a variety of cases throughout fdr's presidency. "
And they ruled in favor of FDR due to FDR threatening the courts with his judges.
"You can't call the 16th Amendment Unconstitutional."
I never did.
"Also it isn't unconstitutional to make a person buy a product or service, so long as it is a police power"
It is unconstitutional. Say that the federal government forced you to buy guns? Would you agree? Or forced you to buy a car or a home?
"Hence why states can force everyone to have car insurance "
That falls within their 10th amendment right. If states force citizens to buy healthcare insurance then fine, but the federal government can't. The powers of the fed are clearly listed in the constitution. What isn't listed means it falls to the states.
"Which is also legal for the government to do so long as the compensate
the original owner. Why? Because if the government properly compensates
you for your property,"
The compensation wasn't just though. They ruled in favor of a business owner. The government ruled in favor of a business. The business could have offered more money but instead used government force to get what they want. This sounds familiar. Almost every state changed their law after that ruling.
"You didn't read Kelo at all."
I did, it is clear you didn't.
1
-
1
-
"You are ignorant about how law is interpreted and applied."
I can start with that because clearly you are ignorant in how the law is interpreted and applied. The constitution sets a standard in what laws governments can create and what actions governments can and cannot do. In Kelo vs New City of London the 5th amendment was clearly violated. You clearly don't understand that and feel that the ruling of 5 justices is all we need despite 4 feeling that the 5th amendment is being violated. You clearly have no problem removing standards set by the constitution. I suggest you read some more on the history of the constitution and its design beyond the lesson I am giving you now.
Now that we are done with correcting an error you said about me trying to be condescending, I will break down how you are incorrect.
"echnology has only done so much too food. At the moment, the amount of
resources needed to produce plant food is very high, particularly water
costs. In the case of meat its even higher and has higher food cost
because an animal has to eat to grow large enough for us too eat it. You
are greatly underestimating the cost of growing the amount of food
necessary to feed the U.S. We subsidize farms to cover portions of their
operational costs so they can sell the food cheaper."
States can run subsidizes if needed. There is no reason for the fed to run it. States can run it by collecting taxes and at the local level they can run it more efficiently. Even at that we are a nation that produces too much food. We throw a lot of it away (at work we just threw away 5 sandwiches). We produce so much food because we advanced so much in technology. I know the cost of producing food growing up in a farming community. Subsidizes are not necessary at the federal level. I find it ironic, though, that you are pushing subsidizes while supporting FDR. FDR literally killed off crops and livestock during the great depression.
"More money in hands of people locally. Again, my argument holds weight
because the basic need of food is greatly subsidized by the federal
government."
Food is produces in mass quantities. There are no reasons for subsidizes. There are other basic needs as well such as shelter that is harder to obtain.
"Yes it is your money, mine too, but we elect people to decide what to do
with our money in the federal government just like we do with the state
governments. Presuming you are okay with a republic, then this
shouldn't be an issue and is once again constitutional."
We the people only have 2 senators and a handful of representatives from our state. I can't vote for Nancy Pelosi or Bernie Sanders, so why should they pass policies that effect the economy domestically? The answer is that they can't. The federal government represents us to other foreign nations, they are not supposed to be involved in domestic policies outside the bounds of the constitution. I don't like it if a politician like Nancy Pelosi passes a law, takes my tax dollars, and spends it on the other side of the country. That is literally stealing from me. At the state level the state takes my money and invests it in my state when I can benefit from it more. I can also see if I am getting my money's worth or if my money is being wasted and vote out the politicians that spent my money. I can't vote out the federal politicians that I felt wasted my money.
"Their current powers over commerce are not minterpreted"
Yes they are
"FDR threatened to expand the size of the Supreme Court,'"
Which is corruption in itself. He used it to convince judges to change their ruling on things they already deemed to be unconstitutional. That is a problem.
"The Congress is allowed to make any law that does not violate the constitution."
I agree
"Creating and running a health agency is within their power "
No it isn't. That is not listed anywhere in the constitution. There is an entire section listed in the constitution on what Congress can do for your information.
"Why? Because once again, the Health agency does not deprive states the rights to run their own health agencies. "
Yes it does because it takes more tax dollars meaning less at the state and local level.
"The FDA created basic protocols and standards that are set in stone. "
Which shouldn't be the case. Why do we need an FDA? The answer is that we don't. Take the department of education for example. While we have one all 50 states set their own standards. As is 4 states don't follow CCSS and NGSS and several states are starting to reconsider using CCSS. That makes the department of ed a waste of money just like the FDA.
"You are calling Federal Income Tax unconstitutional.."
I am not. I am saying it is not the best approach and used to be unconstitutional for a reason.
"The courts have interpreted car insurance as something that state
government can force all their citizens to have or face hefty fines and
even prison. Why? Because for the welfare of people in accident they
need those who caused the accident to have insurance so their property
isn't destroyed with no compensation. Again, Constitutional."
I agree, because it is a state law. It follows the 10th amendment. Obamacare is a federal law thus it violates the 10th amendment. I am not arguing that state and local governments can't force people to buy something. I am arguing that the federal government can't. It is clear that you did not read what I wrote.
You clearly need to study the constitution more. Your problem is that you don't question anything. You just assume that what the government does is constitutional an twist words around until you can justify government's actions. Kelo vs New City of London clearly violated the 5th amendment, but you twisted words around until you can justify it. The Patriot Act violates the 4th amendment but the SC ruled it didn't. The constitution is pretty clear, all you have to do is read it.
1
-
"Their view that it was a 5th amendment violation"
And they were wrong, end of story.
"The Constitution sys the majority of the court will make the rulings"
Actually no it doesn't but thanks for showing again you don't know what the constitution says.
I can easily end there, and should, but I will continue.
"The federal government subsidizes american farms because Congress decided too"
Which is not covered anywhere in Article I, thus it violates the constitution.
"Once again, its not a 10th amendment violation "
Yes it is because this is not a federal government issue.
"I understand the historical framework of the Constitution and agree with your argument that the Constiution sets the standard.."
No you don't.
"Hence why amendments have been passed and expanded the powers"
Which is one thing. If they want to pass amendments saying that the US government can subsidizes farms then fine. They never did though.
"You need 2/3rds of the House and Senate to agree and then 3/4's of the states to agree to it"
I agree, which was never done in farm subsidizes.
"BECAUSE BEFORE YOU WERE BORN AND WHEN THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED YOUR
STATE AGREED TO MAKE A COMPACT WITH THE OTHER STATES IN THE FORM OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! FIRST THROUGH THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND
FINALLY THROUGH THE CONSTITUTION WHICH EVERY STATE IS BOUND TOO TODAY
BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE ONE HAD ITS CITIZENS CHOOSE TO JOIN THE COMPACT AND
BECOME SUBJECT TO THE CONSTITUTION IN THE PAST."
I agree, what are you getting at here?
"IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU LIKE AND DO NOT LIKE MATE. YOU HAVE TO
UNDERSTAND THAT PART. YOUR STATE MADE A COMPACT WITH EVERY OTHER STATE
TO BE SUBSERVIENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS CONGRESS
TO ALLOCATE WHATEVER MONEY THEY HAVE TO WHATEVER THEY WANT. YOU AS A
CITIZEN OF YOUR STATE GET A PIECE OF THAT REPRESENTATION AND BY
DEFINITION HAVE A SAY IN WHERE THAT MONEY GOES. LETS SAY YOU ARE FROM
FLORIDA. YOU WOULD BE A FLORIDIAN, YOU HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM FLORIDA
THAT ARE IN CONGRESS THAT FIGHT FOR YOUR INTERESTS, BUT YOU ARE STILL
AN AMERICAN. A GEORGIAN IS AMERICAN. A NEW YORKER IS AMERICAN. WE ARE
PART OF A COMPACT THAT MAKES US AMERICAN. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD."
What I don't like is the constitution being violated. I was showing to you why the federal government was not supposed to get involved in domestic policies such as farm subsidizes. Money from one citizen, say Maryland, has money going to CA in farm subsidizes. That person in Maryland now doesn't see if their money is being spent well or in a a way they like. The representatives in CA will love it, but that person in Maryland can't vote for any of them. That is why the constitution was designed to have strict limitations on government and more powers to the states. The more local the government is the more one can see if their money is spent well and if their government is working for them. Also, they have more control of the government.
The founding fathers ran into the same problem on what the federal government should and shouldn't do. Policies were proposed that would benefit one state at the expense of the other. That is why they came up with the 10th amendment. Every state get representation his the 2 senators and whatever representatives. But the powers of the federal government and congress were limited. Basically limited down to foreign affairs and seeing that every state gets along. Not take money and spend it to benefit other states.
""You can't claim the commerce clause has been misinterpreted. "
Yes I can.
" You don't have that authority,"
So I should just bow down and not question? You do know how this country was developed?
" ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DEAL WITH IT."
Wow, that is a pretty sad way to think about. Yep, don't question. Just bow down and deal with it.
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and with the Indian Tribes;
Clearly you didn't read this part if you think the fed only manages
affairs with foreign nations. You can't give me a lesson on this I study
this.
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;"
Yes, there are some domestic policies they deal with that are clearly listed in the constitution. And you can't give me a lesson on this, I study this and take a test on it to ensure I know what is in the constitution. You may study it, I actually get tested on it.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.
NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE
(If Congress deems it necessary to have a Department of Health, they can
make it mate. Its existence does not conflict with the state
governments ability to have its own Department of Health,
CONSTITUTIONAL)"
So if congress deemed it necessary to ban all cars, or create a nation wide curfew, would you agree? If congress felt like it was necessary to run all K-12 schools, would you agree? That is federal overreach at it's finest, and violates the constitution. They make create departments to ensure one state does not hurt another state in anyway, but that is it.
"It doesn't matter that Obamacare is federal law.. it doesn't force every citizen to get insurance."
If you don't buy insurance you get fined. That is forcing them to buy something.
"Have you even read the Affordabel Care Act?"
I have, clearly you haven't.
You are clearly a sad individual. You will excuse the government on anything. If the government spied on you or took your property away without just compensation, you would just say "well, they were allowed to". You really need to learn how to question the government and what the constitution says.
1
-
" You are a moron and have no clue how the constitution allows itself to
be interpreted. Everything is not enumerated in the Constitution because
the Constitution does not require every law to be attached to the
Constitution as an amendment. Do you not understand this?"
I understand you have no clue what you are talking about. The constitution is the standard. We have to stick to the standard. If we don't then it allows for the development of a government that is tyrannical.
"That any federal government power must be enumerated through amendments. "
Any power must be distinctly listed in the constitution. If not then it becomes a state issue, period.
"The necessary and proper clause for example. Or the Commerce Clause."
Both which have been misinterpreted.
"You argue that your money has the potential to be misused in the federal
government. You take the same risk by paying taxes to you state when
they spend part of your money in other districts. You make a fair and
reasonable point, but it is a systemic trait of how we run our
governments from the local, state, and then federal level."
At the state and local level I have a greater ability to see if I am getting my money's worth. I also have the greater ability to control the government at the state and local level. I can vote for all of the representatives in my city. I have met the governor of my state. I personally knew both candidates for sheriff. At the local level you have more control of the government to ensure that it remains the servants as opposed to the masters. You can also see if you are getting your money's worth in government spending.
"If you are being tested on this and giving these answers you are either a shit law student or an even shittier law school. "
If you can justify your opinion then you will do well.
"This entire time you have been misinterpreting how the Constitution and Congress have gotten their powers"
No I haven't.
"The first rule of being a lawyer, don't argue what the law should be, "
Not really.
" It does not matter if they should or should not, they have the Constitutional power to do so "
No they don't. Point to me where in the constitution it says they can. That is my point. You are saying they can just because some SC justices say so. I want you to point to me in the constitution they can.
"So if congress deemed it necessary to ban all cars, or create a nation
wide curfew, would you agree? If congress felt like it was necessary to
run all K-12 schools, would you agree? "
No, and no.
"
Yes the government can spy on you. Why can they? Because you don't have
explicit privacy rights to begin with and only have Prenumbra Privacy
rights through the 9th Amendment. If they took your property without
Just compensation its the fault of your state for not requiring just
compensation. Based on the Kelo decision it is possible for government
to do so. The state governments passed laws following Kelo requiring
themselve to pay you justly for your property... so no I am not worried
in the slightest. "
The government can't spy on your because it violates the 4th amendment. The government can't take your property without just compensation because that violates the 5th amendment.
I have a question for you, why don't you ever question any of these laws? And why don't you point to where in the constitution these laws are justified? Your only response is "the SC ruled it that way". And you move one without any questions. Why? Why don't you question it or read the constitution to see if those powers even exist?
"Once again. The Affordable Care Act does not require you to have insurance."
Yes it does, or you have to pay a fine. I will link the law to you. It is in sec. 1501.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1