Some Perspective on Massive Gulf Dead Zone: Agriculture

[JohnStOnge]

He's been stoked by this victory of Republicanism:

Its' more a matter of wanting to see the tide of decay fostered by the Democratic Party slowed for a time. It's a lesser of two evils type of thing.

House Republicans Block Bill Aiming to Prevent Child Marriage

This week, House Republicans blocked passage of a bipartisan bill to protect women and girls in developing countries from child marriages. The bill needed a two-thirds majority of the House to pass, but fell short by the count of 241-166.

The International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act, a bill championed in the Senate by the chamber's No. 2 Democrat Dick Durbin and moderate Maine Republican Olympia Snowe, would require the federal government to develop a plan to combat child marriage with the goal of eliminating the practice worldwide.

Why would we want our Congress spending time on worrying about the age at which people in other countries get married?

[Cap'n Cat]

John St. Wronge,
You're fvcked. Decay is the sole province of Conks. They look backward, Progressives look forward.

[JohnStOnge]

John St. Wronge,
You're fvcked. Decay is the sole province of Conks. They look backward, Progressives look forward.

I'll post one of my favorite C.S. Lewis quotes:

"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."

The fact that you're changing things does not necessarily mean you're making them better. Sure, making things better requires change. But that doesn't mean any change makes things better.

[JohnStOnge]

I'll give you an example: The way in which Progressives worked throught the Supreme Court to extend the power of the Federal government way beyond its intended bounds by abusing the commerce clause. They did it with the case of Wikard vs. Filburn in 1942.

I'll be lazy and quote Wikipedia because in this case its summary of the situation is accurate:

"Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed his chickens. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government."

Do you think it was "progress" to abuse the commerce clause like that...to say that the Federal government can tell a farmer that he can't grow wheat to feed his own chickens; who isn't engaging in commerce at all...based on the fact that the Constitution says Congress can regulate commerce between the states?

That's the kind of thing we're dealing with with "progressives." It's disgusting. And to this day we're dealing with the aftermath. The commerce clause is being used as an excuse to give the Federal government any power it decides it desires. It's being used to claim that the Federal government has the power to order you and me to buy health insurance.

To me, if anybody can't see that the Federal government has stepped way beyond its intended bounds, they're blind.

[kalm]

I'll give you an example: The way in which Progressives worked throught the Supreme Court to extend the power of the Federal government way beyond its intended bounds by abusing the commerce clause. They did it with the case of Wikard vs. Filburn in 1942.

I'll be lazy and quote Wikipedia because in this case its summary of the situation is accurate:

"Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed his chickens. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government."

Do you think it was "progress" to abuse the commerce clause like that...to say that the Federal government can tell a farmer that he can't grow wheat to feed his own chickens; who isn't engaging in commerce at all...based on the fact that the Constitution says Congress can regulate commerce between the states?

That's the kind of thing we're dealing with with "progressives." It's disgusting. And to this day we're dealing with the aftermath. The commerce clause is being used as an excuse to give the Federal government any power it decides it desires. It's being used to claim that the Federal government has the power to order you and me to buy health insurance.

To me, if anybody can't see that the Federal government has stepped way beyond its intended bounds, they're blind.

A progressive would get rid of for profit health insurance coverage for basic healthcare, thus reducing the cost.

Your analogy would be like me saying that conservatives hate conservation, or an honest wage for an honest days work.

[JohnStOnge]

A progressive would get rid of for profit health insurance coverage for basic healthcare, thus reducing the cost.

Your analogy would be like me saying that conservatives hate conservation, or an honest wage for an honest days work.

I didn't intend to make an analogy. I was just referring to the point at which progressives succeeded in opening Pandora's Box and taking any semblance of real restraint off of the Federal government. The Constitution gives the Federal government to power to regulate commerce between States. The ridiculous "conclusion" that Congress has the power to regulate behavior that has an effect on interstate commerce means there are no limits. Just about anything significant that anybody does can be construed as potentially having an effect on interstate commerce. And so we are left to the whim of the Federal Courts. If they happen to like the idea of a law that regulates some behavior they can say "yes that affects interstate commerce." If they don't they can say "no it doesn't."

It's just as catch all invented by the Court in the early 20th Century that bestows powers upon the Federal government that aren't really in the Constitution. Another example of the circumstance we have in which, due to the role we have allowed the Court to assume, we might as well not even have a Constitution.

And it's also the "progressive" view of how things should be. Unlimited Federal power as long as the ends are perceived by "progressives" as justified.

[JohnStOnge]

or an honest wage for an honest days work.

An honest wage is a wage paid voluntarily by someone who wants to purchase labor and considers the labor to be worth what they are paying for it. As soon as a third party (i.e., government) interferes and forces the person who wants to purchase the labor more than they would voluntarily pay on their own, it is no longer an honest wage. It is then an inflated wage.

The true value of labor, like anything else, is based on what someone is willing to pay for it. People should be free to ask a certain price for their labor and those considering purchasing it should be free to decline that price. If one person wants $40 per hour for labor and the prospective employee can find someone else willing to do it for $5 per hour the prospective employer should be free to decline the first offer and hire the person offering the lower price just like if I want to buy bread at one store because it is cheaper there I am and should be able to.

And government should have no part in it.