Dwight -dude- you're good! Get a publisher!
I especially like the 'crooked as a dog's hind leg', yuk, yuk.
Yes, compared to most of the other founding fathers, Hamilton was for a strong central government. However, words have their meanings changed over time, especially when politicians try to implement their ideals. Which of course is the natural tendancy and actually their 'job'. (not to change the meanings of words, but to try to enact their ideals).
For example: In the 18th century, the word 'regulate' meant 'to make regular'. In terms of the 10th Amendment - where the Federal Government is to 'regulate' interstate commerce, that meant at the time, TO MAKE REGULAR. The colonies (now new States) were very independent, and the concern was that trade barriers and duties (although not legal) were going to be prevelant in the 'States'.
Since good ole 'crooked as a dog's hind leg' FDR threatened the Supreme Court in 1937, the word 'regulate' now means something altogether different.
In other words, Hamilton may have been the loudest spokesperson for a strong central government, but anyone with common sense can reason that the version of a strong central government in 1787, is much different than today's version. Therefore, with the change in the definition of a 'strong central government' Hamiltons opinions are useless as a basis.
In just 40 years -- listening to, or reading John Kennedy's opinions and speeches (without knowing his political party) you would be calling him a right -wing zealot! A disciple of Tricky Dick Armey.
Lets compromise shall we?
I'll accept Hamilton's version of a strong central government (i.e. the US Federal Government from 1787 to 1804, the year the Constitution was ratifed by the States, through the year of Hamiltons death. In other words, the only version of a US Federal Government that Hamilton knew of and experienced.
IF you'll agree that the Democrats should be defined under John F. Kennedy'sdefition. That means all of his opinions on things like, welfare, taxes, abortion, same sex marraige etc etc.
The truth of the matter -- you will not accept this compromise - therefore,since you cannot accept Kennedy's definitions that are just 40 years old!! I must disagree with your attempts to claim that you fully understand Hamiltons definitions that are over 200 years old!
(go to the icebox - fill a zippy bag up with ice, place on forehead, DO NOT watch Foxnews, maby Bill Maher)
Perhaps you think the Congressional Budget Office is lying? Do you want to believe a political group's grandstanding, or try to base your philosophy on the best non-partison information available? The best bi-partisan government organization to judge this is the CBO. If you don't trust their forecasts, you have a chip on your shoulder. This bill will save hundreds of billions of dollars in the first ten years, and over a trillion in year 20. To do nothing allows the deficit to be continually hit by our broken system, year after year.
You are part of the problem. You belong to the group on the side of the status quo, which is allowing 45,000 per year die because they don't have insurance. FACT.
This bill, while not perfect, saves lives and HELPS the federal deficit. The bill must pass now, or the chance to reform the health insurance industry will be gone for many years to come. You better wake up. You are not immune from a health catastophy and bankruptcy. Unless you are one of the rich guys that doesn't want the middle class to have a fair chance in life.
Ever hear of the 10th Amendment - The one in our constitution that protects States' Rights. You see, unlike banks and credit unions, payday lenders are already transparent in their transactions and heavily regulated in 34 states.
Of course, the purpose of the proposed CFPA was supposed to be to protect the nation and all of its citizens from the forces that have cost millions their homes, tens of millions - their jobs and almost all of us, part of our savings and investments in the future.
Yet, you would rather target payday loans, used by 19 million Americans annually and with a consumer satisfaction rate in the 90s...And, an industry that hasn't been offered or taken any government handouts.
The arguments are made that short-term loans can be made at 36% APR to those with at-risk credit...yet no one has found a model that works without significant subsidies. That's right....the Military, state employees in Pennsylvania, etc.... Those programs are taxpayer subsidized. Goodwill, a non-profit charity tried to offer a $9.99 per $100, one month loan, by the way, that's 120% APR, and couldn't make it work. Some banks are succeeding at this model, because they offer this product through their ATM machines at no additional costs and require direct deposit, so they avoid any risk of loan default. That's convenient! Of course, when your account is automatically debited, you may get hit with the overdraft protection "loan" you were attempting to avoid in the first place!
How about those golden children credit unions.... Sure, they offer flex-payment credit lines, but guess what they charge for overdraft protection "loans?" Wait...they don't call them loans, so they don't have to comply with the same rules payday lenders do....
Payday loans are continually vilified by the media when they are 1/5 the cost of bank and credit union alternatives! That's right...1/5th.
The average payday loan has a fee of about $15 per $100 borrowed for two weeks. That's $0.15 per $1.00 borrowed.
By contrast, the average bank and credit union overdraft protection "LOAN" (FDIC research) has a fee of $27 + per $36 borrowed for 3 or 4 days. That's $0.75 per $1.00 borrowed.
In some cases, banks charge up to $40 per overdraft check and after 4 days, charge an additional $8 per day. In this case, the fees on a $100, two-week "overdraft protection LOAN" from a bank equal $128. That's $1.28 per $1.00 borrowed.
It is critical that the community has a voice in public debate, but make sure it is the CUSTOMER'S, not the "self-proclaimed consumer advocates" and media, often funded by banks and credit union, who are being heard!
Link to voices of actual payday customers!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6Iy-Z0WPQA
How much money did the insurance company pay the politicians to defeat health care reform?
I suppose it must be billions.
Those politicians want their Mega Yachts.
I guess that explains the big increase in premiums.
Perhaps you think the Congressional Budget Office is lying? Do you want to believe a political group's grandstanding, or try to base your philosophy on the best non-partison information available? The best bi-partisan government organization to judge this is the CBO. If you don't trust their forecasts, you have a chip on your shoulder. This bill will save hundreds of billions of dollars in the first ten years, and over a trillion in year 20. To do nothing allows the deficit to be continually hit by our broken system, year after year.
You are part of the problem. You belong to the group on the side of the status quo, which is allowing 45,000 per year die because they don't have insurance. FACT.
This bill, while not perfect, saves lives and HELPS the federal deficit. The bill must pass now, or the chance to reform the health insurance industry will be gone for many years to come. You better wake up. You are not immune from a health catastophy and bankruptcy. Unless you are one of the rich guys that doesn't want the middle class to have a fair chance in life.
From millions of Americans who like me gave $50 to $100 to stop this change in our Health Care system and putting America deeper in debt.
Pages