The fatal flaw in political Marxism

[spidergoat]

You lack the clarity of the written word that is the difference between the lazy and the literate. Your first phrase implied a comparison, using "the same rules" as the deciding factor, but the object of that comparison was unclear. Were you implying that one small business should be compared to another one, or that all the small businesses as a group should be compared to another group, say, the large- or medium-sized businesses?

Say there was a regulation that all foods should cost at least $10. You would say that would drive a supermarket out of business. But people still need to eat, and if the rule is universal, there would be no other way to eat, so the business would still thrive. As long as the regulation is universal, it will have no effect on competition between similar enterprises.

Another example is the gasoline tax. You would argue that increasing the price of gas might put a struggling gas station out of business, but that won't happen since the tax effects every station equally, and people still need gas.

I usually charge for my advice, but this tidbit is free. Preview and read what you've written before you submit something. If you can, pretend that you're reading it for the first time and you will learn how people who are reading your words for the first time will perceive it.

The only deficiency here is your intellect.

The law that requires Americans to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. It makes no difference whether the law is arbitrary or not.

No, it's not. The constitution specifically gives the federal government the power to get money from you. And it's not unprecedented:
Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

If people are greedy, then shouldn't greedy people who are in a position to confiscate other people's wealth be watched as well? When any religious leader asks his flock to contribute money to the poor, that's part of his job, because these contributions are made voluntarily, by people who care about the poor because their religious leaders told them that they should. When a government official seizes my tax refund or jails me on the grounds that I didn't buy a health insurance plan, that's NOT his job, that's governmental tyranny, the dictatorship of the proletariat..

Lawmakers do not personally benefit from Obamacare, so your argument doesn't make any sense. They do personally benefit from giving corporations tax breaks, so maybe we should outlaw lobbyists. By your reasoning, all taxes are tyranny, but that would make your beliefs unconstitutional.

You obviously don't know the first thing about capitalism. Profits, by definition, are dollars (or other currencies) that a business takes in that exceed their expenses. If a business makes a profit, it then has extra money with which to grow, perhaps by hiring another salesperson, another clerk, another manager, or perhaps by opening up a branch office, requiring even more hiring. Businesses that have profits can also give pay raises, both as a reward to employees who have helped the business make those profits and as an incentive for that employee to continue helping the business make those profits.

You missed a key step in the process, demand. Simply lowering operating costs by eliminating certain tax obligations won't increase jobs, because it doesn't increase demand. Demand comes from the bottom up.

On the other hand, any business that can't even cover their current costs is taking money from the owners. Any rational businessman will either turn this situation around quickly or close up shop.

That's the free market. Let them die. If they can't make it in an even playing field, they are incompetent. Regulations are much more strict in, for instance, Germany, and guess what, people still do business there, and do quite well. They have universal health care too, no one has to lose their life's savings because of an illness, no one has to beg for charity, they have dignity. This fact exposes your philosophy for what it is, a big lie.

Where do you keep your money? In a box under your bed? And where do you go when you need a loan to buy a car or a house? Your next-door neighbor?

In a well regulated bank.

Demand is low because the middle class doesn't have enough discretionary income to spend, and the reason why they don't have is is because of two factors:

1. large corporations won't hire middle class employees, and
2. small companies, run by the middle class, are going out of business

Demand is low because many of the largest corporations in America have written off the American worker. We aren't good for anything but flipping burgers. They have corrupted congress members and the Supreme Court so that they give up the laws and trade policies that have kept good jobs here in this country. The system you seem to be endorsing isn't Democracy, it's called an Oligarchy.

 

[Repo Man]

Uggh, font confusion.

 

[BennyF]

Say there was a regulation that all foods should cost at least $10. You would say that would drive a supermarket out of business. But people still need to eat, and if the rule is universal, there would be no other way to eat, so the business would still thrive. As long as the regulation is universal, it will have no effect on competition between similar enterprises.

Another example is the gasoline tax. You would argue that increasing the price of gas might put a struggling gas station out of business, but that won't happen since the tax effects every station equally, and people still need gas.

There's a cost that every business pays when it follows regulations. The more regulations, the more expenses that subtract from any profits that the business might have. Whether a regulation is imposed on every business the same, individual businesses have individual costs. When one bank, with 15 employees, has 18 regulators all examining their books, the cost to service this regulatory burden is too much. It drives away the customer service that a small bank needs to stay in business. If 18 regulators showed up in the corporate headquarters of Wells Fargo, they would be much more equipped to handle them without hurting their bottom line



I usually charge for my advice, but this tidbit is free. Preview and read what you've written before you submit something. If you can, pretend that you're reading it for the first time and you will learn how people who are reading your words for the first time will perceive it.
- me

The only deficiency here is your intellect.

Insults are no defense against sloppy writing.



The law that requires Americans to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional.
- me

No, it's not. The constitution specifically gives the federal government the power to get money from you. And it's not unprecedented:
Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

The 16th amendment only gives Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes on incomes." It does not give Congress the power to force any American to buy a product, whether it's life insurance or lemonade.

 

[spidergoat]

There's a cost that every business pays when it follows regulations. The more regulations, the more expenses that subtract from any profits that the business might have. Whether a regulation is imposed on every business the same, individual businesses have individual costs. When one bank, with 15 employees, has 18 regulators all examining their books, the cost to service this regulatory burden is too much. It drives away the customer service that a small bank needs to stay in business. If 18 regulators showed up in the corporate headquarters of Wells Fargo, they would be much more equipped to handle them without hurting their bottom line

To where? There is no bank that isn't regulated the same. It's just a cost of doing business. What is the cost of an unregulated bank?

I usually charge for my advice, but this tidbit is free. Preview and read what you've written before you submit something. If you can, pretend that you're reading it for the first time and you will learn how people who are reading your words for the first time will perceive it.
- me

Kindly suck it.

The law that requires Americans to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional.
- me

Which provision of the constitution does it violate?

The 16th amendment only gives Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes on incomes." It does not give Congress the power to force any American to buy a product, whether it's life insurance or lemonade.

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound;

Militia Act of 1792​

 

[BennyF]

There is no bank that isn't regulated the same. It's just a cost of doing business. What is the cost of an unregulated bank?

The equality of the laws isn't the issue. What has been a problem for U.S. businesses, including bank holding companies, is that the cost of complying with thousands of new regulations is decreasing the profits that these businesses might have had, sometimes driving them out of business, and any business that files for bankruptcy will only be hiring lawyers.

This is very explicit language. The United States Government is only granted certain specific powers. Any power that it doesn't have is either given to individual states or to "the people". Let's take a specific example. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the President, the Congress, or the courts can choose what color shirt I wear, what groceries I buy in a supermarket, what light bulb I buy and use in my own home, or the brand name of the computer I use, if I wish to use one at all.

Which provision of the constitution does it violate?

You don't understand the first thing about the Constitution. After you've read the preamble, the part that states the goal of having any constitution, start your study of the document with the tenth amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

If I want to buy an avocado today, I have the Constitutional right, under the 10th amendment, to buy one. If I don't want to buy one, today, tomorrow, or ever, no President has any authority to force me to buy one. Health insurance, like life insurance or auto insurance, is a commercial product, something that is sold by a company. If I want to buy it, I have the freedom under the tenth amendment, to buy any policy that I and my family want. If my family has savings, and we would rather pay cash for any medical bills we have, that's our choice. If I don't own a car, no government can make me buy an auto insurance policy.

Presidents must have a specific right granted to them by the people in the Constitution before they can act. Some presidents in our two-century-plus history thought they could just do whatever they wanted. When that happened, the Supreme Court sometimes stopped them in their tracks.

"After the Civil War, the Court entered a phase of judicial activism based on a conservative political outlook that further enhanced its own power. In accepting the view that the 14th amendment should be interpreted to protect corporations, the Court struck down laws that protected workers, such as minimum wage laws and laws prohibiting child labor. Critics of the Court's stand, including Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, argued that these decisions were not based on the Constitution but upon the laissez-faire theory of economics. By 1937 the Court was widely regarded by the public as an enemy of working people.

This sentiment was exacerbated by the Great Depression. In 1935-36, the Court struck down eight of FDR's New Deal programs, including the National Recovery Act (NRA) and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). Public antijudicial sentiment intensified; many critics questioned the constitutionality of the concept of judicial review itself. As a result of this reaction, several constitutional amendments were introduced into Congress in 1936, including one that would require a two-thirds vote of the Court whenever an act of Congress was declared unconstitutional; another that would permit Congress to revalidate federal laws previously declared unconstitutional by repassing them with a two-thirds vote of both houses, and even one that would abolish altogether the Court's power to declare federal laws unconstitutional."​

The National Archives: Separation of Powers

When the U.S. Supreme Court is in session again, they will strike down some or all of the health care law because there is no justification for it and because it violates the 10th amendment, part of the Bill of Rights.



The 1792 law you cite, requiring on militias to pay into a fund, was passed before the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in a famous case called Marbury v. Madison (1803), that the court had the power to review and invalidate U.S. laws.

The principle of Judicial Review

 

[spidergoat]

The government has the power to lay taxes and regulate interstate commerce. Requiring insurance has the same effect as a tax. The Social Security payroll tax is the same as requiring you to purchase old age or disability insurance, which is what it is. In fact, the requirement to buy insurance or face a fine is being enforced through the tax code.

You see? It takes 2 seconds to refute your arguments.