Should Low-Wage Restaurant Workers Be Paid More?

[Nihil Obstat]

 

I've heard mixed things about healthcare in other countries, but so far I've seen no solid evidence that socialized medicine will help anything in the U.S.

I studied healthcare economics in some depth recently. The only thing that is undeniably true in the economics of health is that everything is broken everywhere and nobody knows what to do about it. The field itself is fairly new, compared to other disciplines, and there are not enough data or studies available yet except to begin drawing up basic hypotheses. 
That said, one thing almost every economist agrees on is that, among developed countries, the American system is probably the worst. I am not saying that with an ideological agenda or an axe to grind. It is simply a fact that by almost all metrics, the American system is the most broken of all of them.
That is not to say the answer is "socialized healthcare", whatever that actually means. Not really a term healthcare economists use anyway. Nor can one say that the American system is a capitalist one - it clearly is not. 

Couple relevant factoids. Data so far show that for-profit, not-for-profit, and non-profit health service providers do not show particularly significant differences in outcomes. For-profit seemed to perform slightly worse in some areas, but I do not think the data was comprehensive enough to draw much of a conclusion. The data does show very clearly that raising copayments on healthcare insurance plans does lead to decreased consumption (which can alleviate overcrowding), however the same data also shows that this decreased consumption does not really take need into account, so low-income high-need patients do simply go without.

Pretty much every healthcare delivery and finance model has major downsides as well as benefits.

[Peace]

 

Again, I think there needs to be more Church and voluntary giving, such as in my parish, which takes up collections for families in need.

I think that there needs to be more voluntary giving as well. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people with an abundance of wealth who disagree and choose not to. Perhaps if we cut social welfare vountary giving increases. Perhaps we end up with everyone trying to kill each other to get their piece of the pie. I mean - it is not as if the pre-New Deal USA was some kind of utopia. You had 8 year old children working in coal mines.

So - I do not have a problem with taxing wealthy people and redistributing some of that abundance to poor people. I think that the government has the right to do that because refusing to give to the poor out of your abundance is a form of theft. Taxing them and redistributing it to the poor is a form a justice that remedies the theft.

I suppose one thing I don't quite get about conservatives in the USA is this. When it comes to things like sexual morality and the sanctity of life, you seem to expect government to take a positive role, to set a moral example through its laws (for example, by limiting the definition of marriage to a man and a woman, outlawing abortion, etc.)  But when it comes to morality when it comes to things like taking care of the poor, you seem to want government to stay out of it. Only in this case should the decision be left up the conscience of each individual. Why is that?

Even though you agree that it is a good thing to provide for the needs of the poor, having the government set a moral example in that regard is seen as something that is bad. If it is desireable for the government to set an example concerning sexual morality and the sanctity of life, why not financial issues as well? It seems a bit inconsistent (and I think you can guess what I beleive the reasons for the inconsistency might be).

While perhaps at this point we can't go back immediately to all-voluntary giving, the modern welfare state has had a corrosive effect on family and civil society which make such voluntary giving possible.  Witness the disastrous affects on inner city communities, where a check from the federal government has largely replaced husbands/fathers, and helped enable a vicious cycle of illegitimacy, poverty, and crime.  We've abdicated too many responsibilities to government bureaucrats.  Seems John Paul the Great was on to something there . . .

When you say "welfare state" how do you define it? What criteria do you use to determine whether a country is a "welfare state" or not?

Regardless - if you are asserting that social programs that are aimed to support the poor have had the effect of destroying the family - I am not so sure if the evidence really supports that. But it is a nice mantra, I suppose.

In any case - I think that you can think of certain forms of welfare that could help keep families intact - such as increased financial support for new mothers, so that they are able to stay home with their children instead of having to go back to work right away to help put food on the table (like my mother did).

As for St. John Paul II and the "welfare state" - you are referring to Centesimus Annus are you not? Yeah - he does talk about the the negative things that can happen as the state takes more and more power concerning the public welfare. But I do not think that he goes so far as saying that the state does not have a legitimate role in helping serve the poor through its polices and otherwise. For example:

8. The Pope immediately adds another right which the worker has as a person. This is the right to a "just wage", which cannot be left to the "free consent of the parties, so that the employer, having paid what was agreed upon, has done his part and seemingly is not called upon to do anything beyond".²³ It was said at the time that the State does not have the power to intervene in the terms of these contracts, except to ensure the fulfilment of what had been explicitly agreed upon. This concept of relations between employers and employees, purely pragmatic and inspired by a thorough-going individualism, is severely censured in the Encyclical as contrary to the twofold nature of work as a personal and necessary reality. For if work as something personal belongs to the sphere of the individual's free use of his own abilities and energy, as something necessary it is governed by the grave obligation of every individual to ensure "the preservation of life". "It necessarily follows", the Pope concludes, "that every individual has a natural right to procure what is required to live; and the poor can procure that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work".²⁴

A workman's wages should be sufficient to enable him to support himself, his wife and his children. "If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accepts harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice".²⁵

Would that these words, written at a time when what has been called "unbridled capitalism" was pressing forward, should not have to be repeated today with the same severity. Unfortunately, even today one finds instances of contracts between employers and employees which lack reference to the most elementary justice regarding the employment of children or women, working hours, the hygienic condition of the work-place and fair pay; and this is the case despite the International Declarations and Conventions on the subject²⁶ and the internal laws of States. The Pope attributed to the "public authority" the "strict duty" of providing properly for the welfare of the workers, because a failure to do so violates justice; indeed, he did not hesitate to speak of "distributive justice".²⁷

^{. . .}

10. Another important aspect, which has many applications to our own day, is the concept of the relationship between the State and its citizens. Rerum novarum criticizes two social and economic systems: socialism and liberalism. The opening section, in which the right to private property is reaffirmed, is devoted to socialism. Liberalism is not the subject of a special section, but it is worth noting that criticisms of it are raised in the treatment of the duties of the State.³² The State cannot limit itself to "favouring one portion of the citizens", namely the rich and prosperous, nor can it "neglect the other", which clearly represents the majority of society. Otherwise, there would be a violation of that law of justice which ordains that every person should receive his due. "When there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the defenceless and the poor have a claim to special consideration. The richer class has many ways of shielding itself, and stands less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back on, and must chiefly depend on the assistance of the State. It is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong to the latter class, should be specially cared for and protected by the Government".³³

These passages are relevant today, especially in the face of the new forms of poverty in the world, and also because they are affirmations which do not depend on a specific notion of the State or on a particular political theory. Leo XIII is repeating an elementary principle of sound political organization, namely, the more that individuals are defenceless within a given society, the more they require the care and concern of others, and in particular the intervention of governmental authority.

In this way what we nowadays call the principle of solidarity, the validity of which both in the internal order of each nation and in the international order I have discussed in the Encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis,³⁴ is clearly seen to be one of the fundamental principles of the Christian view of social and political organization. This principle is frequently stated by Pope Leo XIII, who uses the term "friendship", a concept already found in Greek philosophy. Pope Pius XI refers to it with the equally meaningful term "social charity". Pope Paul VI, expanding the concept to cover the many modern aspects of the social question, speaks of a "civilization of love".³⁵

That is not exactly hardcore conservatism, is it? I think you'll have a tough time finding support for a strict conservative agenda in Catholic Social teaching. . . just as a socialst will have difficulty finding support for a strict socialist agenda.

 

Regarding Obamacare, it seems foolish to believe that if the effects of a little socialism is bad, more socialism will be the solution.  The so-called "Affordable Healthcare Act" (which most Americans oppose) is doing nothing to make healthcare more affordable, and is already causing the closure of many rural hospitals.

Universal Health Care systems reduce cost because the government puts a price cap on medical procedures. I have had the same exact surgery done in the USA and in Japan. I do not remember the exact costs in each country, but the difference in price was remarkable. From what I recall it was about 3 times more expensive in the USA.

Of course - when you put a price cap on a good or a service, naturally demand for the good or service will increase, making it more difficult to obtain the service. I think that is where the concerns about the "death panels" and "having to wait 3 months for a surgery" and so forth come up. Also, when you put a price cap on a good or service, the quality of the good or service that is offered will decrease. Those are definitely some of the drawbacks of Universal Health Care.

But notwithstanding those drawbacks, I think that the Universal Health Care systems that have been implemented in every civilized nation except the United States are better than the system that we have in the USA. The thing about demand, I think, is that medical treatment is not exactly the same as a buying an automobile or some other product. I don't think that medical treatment follows the supply-demand curve in exactly the same way that you would see with most goods. If the governmet puts a $10 price cap on heart surgeries it is not as though I am going to rush out to my local hospital to sign up for a heart surgery to take advantage of the low price. It's not like you are going to have this mad rush among the public to have a doctor pry open your chest if an artificial price cap is put on the procedure.

I think that you do sacrifice the top level of quality in a Universal Health Care system. I would guess that people who have the money to pay for the best of the best might come to the USA to get a procedure done. There is no denying that our system has been able to produce some of the world's best institutions, and that some of that quality (particularly at the top) might be sacrificed if we switched over to a Unviersal Health Care system. What do you get in return for giving the best of the best (if you are one of the people that can afford it)? You get much more security. You get the security that if you lose your job and need a surgery you will be able to obtain it without having to risk bankruptcy. If you were ever out of work and in need of insurance or a medical procudure then I bet you could agree that it was not very good place to be. If you are in a country that has Universal Health Care, you would have gotten pretty much the same care that you would have gotten if you were working when you got sick.

It is a matter of choice between the two systems I think. Do you want a system where everybody has access to medical care that is pretty good but not the best possible, or do you want a system where some people get access to health care that is superb, while others are not able to obtain any access at all or subject themselves to financial ruin in the process of trying to get it?  Most people in the civilized world have chosen the latter option. And having tried out both systems for myself, I would choose the latter as well.

It's not just certain provisions of Obamacare that I have a problem with.  The entire idea of the federal government being able to essentially force citizens at gunpoint to buy a certain product is wrong, and outside its powers enumerated in the Constitution.  (And yes, I've heard Robert's weaseling on that one, and it's b.s.)

As opposed to the federal government being able to essentially force citizens at gunpoint to spend money on warships and fighter aircraft? Why is it OK for the federal government to tax people to support the military but it is not OK for the government to tax people to support a health care system? Both serve a public need.

As a Catholic, I'd think you'd at least be somewhat concerned about the contraception mandate (you may recall the U.S. Bishop's "Fortnight for Freedom"), which remains in place to a large extent, despite some legal rulings against it in certain restricted cases.  I realize it may not be a necessary component of socialized medicine in general, but this is exactly the kind of problems you can expect when we grant the government the power to dictate what private employers' healthcare plans must cover.  Who's to say that in the future it won't dictate that actual surgical abortions be covered (since our almighty Supreme Court has ruled killing babies in the womb to be a "constitutional right")?

Those things concern me, which is why I think we need to focus on winning back the public debate on those issues. You can get judges on the court that will overturn those decisions, and you get elect politicans who will change those laws. But not if you have lost the public debate.

I'd leave it basically to those powers enumerated in the Constitution at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights.

LOL. Then you agree that everything the Federal Government is currenlty doing is a legitimate function of government.

That is because the powers that the Federal Government currently exercises are enumerated in the Constitution, according to the Supreme Court, which is the body that we have chosen to interpret the Constitution.

If you disagree with the interpretation of the Supreme Court you can get involved in politics and try to get judges elected that agree with your own private interpretation of what the Constitution does or does not allow, or you can become a Supreme Court justice yourself.

Your answer just seems to be a version of "I beleive in the Constitution." Well. So do I. But I don't think that gets us anywhere productive, because we might disagree as to what it allows and disallaows. . . .

[Didacus]

I don't quite understand how people get into that mindset, but I suppose you can't fault them because they don't know any better.

I've been to 20+ countries and lived overseas for 5+ years. I love the US and there is nowhere else I would rather live. But yeah, to start making assertions that we are the only country that has contributed things of significance is incorrect, not to mention extremely arrogant.

I am a US patent lawyer by the way - so I know that is plainly not true. 5 or 6 out of the top 10 companies that are granted US patents every year are foreign companies.

Everyone knows the greatest contributions to humanity and civilization including inventions come from the islamique world. 

[Peace]

Everyone knows the greatest contributions to humanity and civilization including inventions come from the islamique world. 

Well. The place where our Lord lived is now pretty much in the Islamic world. If you are referring to His contributions to humanity and civilization as being the greatest then I might have to agree with you.

[Socrates]

I studied healthcare economics in some depth recently. The only thing that is undeniably true in the economics of health is that everything is broken everywhere and nobody knows what to do about it. The field itself is fairly new, compared to other disciplines, and there are not enough data or studies available yet except to begin drawing up basic hypotheses. That said, one thing almost every economist agrees on is that, among developed countries, the American system is probably the worst. I am not saying that with an ideological agenda or an axe to grind. It is simply a fact that by almost all metrics, the American system is the most broken of all of them.
That is not to say the answer is "socialized healthcare", whatever that actually means. Not really a term healthcare economists use anyway. Nor can one say that the American system is a capitalist one - it clearly is not. 

Couple relevant factoids. Data so far show that for-profit, not-for-profit, and non-profit health service providers do not show particularly significant differences in outcomes. For-profit seemed to perform slightly worse in some areas, but I do not think the data was comprehensive enough to draw much of a conclusion. The data does show very clearly that raising copayments on healthcare insurance plans does lead to decreased consumption (which can alleviate overcrowding), however the same data also shows that this decreased consumption does not really take need into account, so low-income high-need patients do simply go without.

Pretty much every healthcare delivery and finance model has major downsides as well as benefits.

Good points.

But rather than getting dragged into an endless debate on the real or potential pros and cons of Obamacare or "socialized medicine," I'll say I'm primarily opposed to Obamacare, and similar proposals, on the grounds that it is an unnecessary violation of basic freedoms and another unconstitutional power-grab by the federal government.

Even if Obamacare were "good economics" (and I definitely don't think it is), it would be wrong on those grounds.  (Just as it would be wrong for the government to force people off their land and out of their homes to make a strip mall or business/industrial park, even if doing so would be "good economics.")

We've seen immoral abuses of freedom right from the get-go.  We should be extremely cautious before giving up more freedom and handing more power to the federal government.  Tyranny always justifies itself by claiming to act in our best interests, or "for the common good."

[Socrates]

As opposed to the federal government being able to essentially force citizens at gunpoint to spend money on warships and fighter aircraft? Why is it OK for the federal government to tax people to support the military but it is not OK for the government to tax people to support a health care system? Both serve a public need.

The power to raise and support a military is specifically enumerated in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 12).

The federal government is given no such power to force people to buy insurance for themselves or tell them what insurance for their employers must cover.

As James Madison wrote in Federalist 45:  "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

Contrary to the Father of the Constitution, so-called liberals (as well as RINOs like yourself) apparently think the powers of the federal government should be indefinite and numberless (just so long as somewhat declares them to "serve a public need").

 

LOL. Then you agree that everything the Federal Government is currenlty doing is a legitimate function of government.

That is because the powers that the Federal Government currently exercises are enumerated in the Constitution, according to the Supreme Court, which is the body that we have chosen to interpret the Constitution.

If you disagree with the interpretation of the Supreme Court you can get involved in politics and try to get judges elected that agree with your own private interpretation of what the Constitution does or does not allow, or you can become a Supreme Court justice yourself.

Your answer just seems to be a version of "I beleive in the Constitution." Well. So do I. But I don't think that gets us anywhere productive, because we might disagree as to what it allows and disallaows. . . .

LOL.  The Founding Fathers, including framers of the Constitution such as Madison and Jefferson disagreed with you, and were strongly opposed to unchecked "judicial tyranny."  Jefferson and Madison actually supported nullification of federal laws by the state which they deemed unconstitutional.

You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

~Thomas Jefferson

You can read some lists of relevant quotes here and here.

LULZ.  Hardy-har.

While you may disagree with them, it is clear that the Constitution's framers did not support the Judicial branch of the federal government having absolute final power regarding the Constitution.

(See my more complete reply on a similar topic in another thread here: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/139346-kentucky-clerk-)

 

[Peace]

The federal government is given no such power to force people to buy insurance for themselves or tell them what insurance for their employers must cover.

Agreed. But the Constitution does give the government the power to tax. The individual mandate does not force people to buy insurance. It levies a tax on them when they do not. But don't take that up with me - take it up with the Justice who wrote the opinion. I read the opinion and I thought that the majority decision made more sense. But I can see how some other people believe otherwise.

Contrary to the Father of the Constitution, so-called liberals (as well as RINOs like yourself) apparently think the powers of the federal government should be indefinite and numberless (just so long as somewhat declares them to "serve a public need").

I do not recall having written that the federal government should be indefinite and numberless. As you may recall, in another thread I agreed with you that the size of the Federal government should be reduced.

Also, if it is not too much trouble for you, I would prefer that you not call me a RINO. The reason for that is because I do not consider myself to be a Republican, nor have I ever claimed to be a Republican here on this website. As I have stated before, I agree with Republicans on some issues, I agree with Democrats on some issues.  And I disagree with both parties on some issues. I do not care about being a Republican or a Democrat or any other kind of party poltics. I just do my best to advocate for things that I believe are consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches.

LOL.  The Founding Fathers, including framers of the Constitution such as Madison and Jefferson disagreed with you, and were strongly opposed to unchecked "judicial tyranny."  Jefferson and Madison actually supported nullification of federal laws by the state which they deemed unconstitutional.

 . . .

While you may disagree with them, it is clear that the Constitution's framers did not support the Judicial branch of the federal government having absolute final power regarding the Constitution.

I think I responded to this in the other thread.

[Socrates]

Agreed. But the Constitution does give the government the power to tax. The individual mandate does not force people to buy insurance. It levies a tax on them when they do not. But don't take that up with me - take it up with the Justice who wrote the opinion. I read the opinion and I thought that the majority decision made more sense. But I can see how some other people believe otherwise.

 

Yeah, that's the John Roberts line.  (And I've said on this site plenty of times that Roberts is a two-faced weasel.)

Prior to that SCOTUS decision, Obamacare's own architects and promoters insisted it was not a tax.  Persons must pay a heavy punitive fine (or "tax" as it was re-termed) if they do not comply, which most would not be able to afford to pay..

 

The problem is, using that logic, Congress can mandate that citizens do absolutely whatever it wants, and punish them with a crushing fine (or tax) if they don't abide.  ("Hey, we're not forcing you to do anything, but we'll fine--sorry, I meant "tax"--you out of house and home if you don't do what we say.  And if you don't pay the fine/tax, we'll throw you in prison!")

 

I do not recall having written that the federal government should be indefinite and numberless. As you may recall, in another thread I agreed with you that the size of the Federal government should be reduced.

If the federal government can demand whatever it wants of the people, then punish them with a crushing and crippling fine/tax if they don't comply, its powers become in practicality unlimited.  "Do as we say, or else we'll make you pay through the nose" is hardly a prescription for limited government and a free society.  One can only imagine what Jefferson and Madison would have to say about this garbage.

Following that pattern, the size of government will never be reduced, but will continue to grow indefinitely.

Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, need to actually follow the Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment, in their rulings, rather than endlessly seek out "clever" loopholes to bypass constitutional restrictions and expand the powers of federal government.

 

Also, if it is not too much trouble for you, I would prefer that you not call me a RINO. The reason for that is because I do not consider myself to be a Republican, nor have I ever claimed to be a Republican here on this website. As I have stated before, I agree with Republicans on some issues, I agree with Democrats on some issues.  And I disagree with both parties on some issues. I do not care about being a Republican or a Democrat or any other kind of party poltics. I just do my best to advocate for things that I believe are consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches.

Okay.  I won't call you a "RINO" if it makes you feel bad.  (Though most of the politicians I've seen you voice support for, I would characterize as RINOs, or liberal/"moderate" Republicans, and you seem to largely share their views.)  I don't particularly care about your party affiliation or lack thereof, but about liberty and constitutionally limited government, which both major parties have largely abandoned.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2015 by Socrates

[Winchester]

This should be a poll thread. That way, all the people who believe restaurant workers should be paid more could pool their resources and run a restaurant where the workers are paid more. It's obviously a simple task. I mean, if Congress can make it happen, it must not be any harder than operating a roll of toilet paper.

[Peace]

Prior to that SCOTUS decision, Obamacare's own architects and promoters insisted it was not a tax.  Persons must pay a heavy punitive fine (or "tax" as it was re-termed) if they do not comply, which most would not be able to afford to pay..

If I call my cat Fido it does not change the fact that my cat is a cat.

I am not sure how the mandate is substantively different than the tax deduction for people who have children. If I do not have children I pay a certain amount of tax. If I have children I get a deduction and the amount I have to pay in taxes is reduced. Is the government forcing me at gunpoint to have children?

It is the same thing with the mandate. If I do not buy a health care plan I pay a certain amount in taxes. If I buy a heath care plan I get a deduction and the amount I have to pay in taxes is reduced.

Whether you call it a tax or a fine or something else it is substantively the same.

The problem is, using that logic, Congress can mandate that citizens do absolutely whatever it wants

Unless, of course, the Congressmen are voted out of office and replaced with politicians who reverse the law.

If the federal government can demand whatever it wants of the people, then punish them with a crushing and crippling fine/tax if they don't comply, its powers become in practicality unlimited.  "Do as we say, or else we'll make you pay through the nose" is hardly a prescription for limited government and a free society.  One can only imagine what Jefferson and Madison would have to say about this garbage.

Following that pattern, the size of government will never be reduced, but will continue to grow indefinitely.

Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, need to actually follow the Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment, in their rulings, rather than endlessly seek out "clever" loopholes to bypass constitutional restrictions and expand the powers of federal government.

OK. That's cool. I am not sure what it has to do with what I wrote though.

Okay.  I won't call you a "RINO" if it makes you feel bad.  (Though most of the politicians I've seen you voice support for, I would characterize as RINOs, or liberal/"moderate" Republicans, and you seem to largely share their views.)  I don't particularly care about your party affiliation or lack thereof, but about liberty and constitutionally limited government, which both major parties have largely abandoned.

Thanks. Much appreciated. It does not make any more sense to call me RINO than it does to call N.T. Write a "CINO". He is not Catholic. He is Anglican. Likewise - I am not a Republican and do not claim to be.

But if you absolutely must have an acronym to refer to me by please use the following: NARP - Not a Republican Period.

Thanks in advance.

[little2add]

 

[Socrates]

If I call my cat Fido it does not change the fact that my cat is a cat.

I am not sure how the mandate is substantively different than the tax deduction for people who have children. If I do not have children I pay a certain amount of tax. If I have children I get a deduction and the amount I have to pay in taxes is reduced. Is the government forcing me at gunpoint to have children?

It is the same thing with the mandate. If I do not buy a health care plan I pay a certain amount in taxes. If I buy a heath care plan I get a deduction and the amount I have to pay in taxes is reduced.

Whether you call it a tax or a fine or something else it is substantively the same.

So, in other words, Congress has the power to demand whatever the hell it wishes from the people regarding whatever the hell it wishes, so long as the penalty for non-compliance is monetary.

So much for the powers of the federal government being "few and defined."

 

Unless, of course, the Congressmen are voted out of office and replaced with politicians who reverse the law.

The reality is, politicians are loathe to voluntarily relinquish power.

 

OK. That's cool. I am not sure what it has to do with what I wrote though.

You're a smart enough guy.  I'll let you connect the dots.

 

Thanks. Much appreciated. It does not make any more sense to call me RINO than it does to call N.T. Write a "CINO". He is not Catholic. He is Anglican. Likewise - I am not a Republican and do not claim to be.

But if you absolutely must have an acronym to refer to me by please use the following: NARP - Not a Republican Period.

Thanks in advance.

I think I'll be straightforward and just call you a plain ol' statist.  You seem pretty happy with the bi-partisan status quo of big, centralized government.

[Winchester]

 

 

 

I think I'll be straightforward and just call you a plain ol' statist.  You seem pretty happy with the bi-partisan status quo of big, centralized government.

RDA of irony achieved.

[Peace]

So, in other words, Congress has the power to demand whatever the hell it wishes from the people regarding whatever the hell it wishes, so long as the penalty for non-compliance is monetary.

I do not recall having written that.

The reality is, politicians are loathe to voluntarily relinquish power.

Agreed.

You're a smart enough guy.  I'll let you connect the dots.

I attempted to connect the dots, and what I concluded was that your response was irrelevant to what I wrote. That will remain my conclusion unless you care to explain otherwise. If you do not care to do so that is fine, of course.

I think I'll be straightforward and just call you a plain ol' statist.  You seem pretty happy with the bi-partisan status quo of big, centralized government.

I do not recall having written anything about being pretty happy with big, centralized government.

When you call me a statist I am not sure exactly what you mean. I looked on Wikipedia and this is how it defines statism:

In political science, statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.^[1] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism,^[1] an individual who supports the existence of the state is a statist.

If you mean that I am a person who believes that the state should control economic or social policy to some degree, then yes, I fit that definition. Do you not believe that the state should control economic or social policy to some degree (such as banning abortion, for example)?

[CrossCuT]

 

How quickly the world would change if this was reality haha