exactly and one of the powers stated is to promote the general welfare. Are we reading the same words here? being that it says promote the general welfare one can infer that this is has intentionally been made ambiguous. They couldn't forsee our future needs but gave themselves bre... why am I repeating myself. Fine believe what you want. For you its not there. apparently they used ink that only half the people can read

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

You are both reading half the document.
Promote the general welfare is the reason they can act.
What things they can act on to do that is the strict list.

---

The powers of congress are laid out in the constitution (article 1, section 8). All other powers are reserved to the states (Amendment X).

Further explanation:

At the heart of the American idea is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for government, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today's Americans. Some of the founders' distrust is seen in our Constitution's language such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given rights, they would not have provided those protections. After all, one would not expect to find a Bill of Rights in Heaven; it would be an affront to God. Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances and the several anti-majoritarian provisions such as the Electoral College and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes in the Constitution. The three branches of our federal government are no longer bound by the Constitution as the framers envisioned and what is worse is American ignorance and acceptance of such rogue behavior. Look at the current debate over government involvement in health, business bailouts and stimulus packages. The debate centers around questions as whether such involvement is a good idea or a bad idea and whether one program is more costly than another. Those questions are entirely irrelevant to what should be debated, namely: Is such government involvement in our lives permissible under the U.S. Constitution? That question is not part of the debate. The American people, along with our elected representatives, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, care less about what is and what is not permissible under our Constitution. They think Congress has the right to do anything upon which they can secure a majority vote, whether they have the constitutional or moral authority to do so or not." --George Mason economics professor Walter E. Williams

Didn't read your post only who wrote it. George Mason U Isn't the stellar University you'd think a founding fathers name would imply. It is however a very very very Conservative University. Unfortunately, this university is more of a Neocon think tank than actual university. people go there to not learn but reaffirm what they assume they already know about the world. Sadly the information provided is severely tainted and highly unreliable

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The powers of congress are laid out in the constitution (article 1, section 8). All other powers are reserved to the states (Amendment X).

It could be argued that a national healthcare plan is a regulation of commerce between the States, Healthcare is a commercial enterprise afterall. Would that qualify such a proposal under the enumerated powers of Congress?

Regulate

to control or direct by a rule, principle, method

To control a commercial enterprise that spans the several states does appear to be implicit in the language of Article 1 Section 8, or am I willfully misreading it? "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;", surely the most control of commerce is achieved by owning the enterprise?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

just remember that by owning it it means that we are taking control of it ourselves. Remember that we are the Gov't much to the folks in DC's dismay. So I'd rather have a universal health care as an option.
Honesty I just did my annual insurance renewal at work yesterday and they've increase the cost and reduced services again. the only thing that got better was the generic prescription cost which dropped from $10 to $5. unfortunately this becomes moot when you consider many pharmacies are selling major name generics at $4. My non generics went from $30 to $35. They also listened to my complaints about "non formalary drugs" drugs that are being used as intended but not what they want me to use. they changed the legal name to "non-Preferred"... Jerks.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The powers of congress are laid out in the constitution (article 1, section 8). All other powers are reserved to the states (Amendment X).

It could be argued that a national healthcare plan is a regulation of commerce between the States, Healthcare is a commercial enterprise afterall. Would that qualify such a proposal under the enumerated powers of Congress?

Regulate

to control or direct by a rule, principle, method

To control a commercial enterprise that spans the several states does appear to be implicit in the language of Article 1 Section 8, or am I willfully misreading it? "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;", surely the most control of commerce is achieved by owning the enterprise?

You have a point if the current plan in congress could be called regulation. I am not convinced creating a public option could be called regulation (or whatever they plan on providing the public). Perhaps what is needed is more effective regulation? There is no doubt costs are out of control.

Almost forgot, you cannot sell health insurance across state lines (unfortunate).

just remember that by owning it it means that we are taking control of it ourselves. Remember that we are the Gov't much to the folks in DC's dismay. So I'd rather have a universal health care as an option.
Honesty I just did my annual insurance renewal at work yesterday and they've increase the cost and reduced services again. the only thing that got better was the generic prescription cost which dropped from $10 to $5. unfortunately this becomes moot when you consider many pharmacies are selling major name generics at $4. My non generics went from $30 to $35. They also listened to my complaints about "non formalary drugs" drugs that are being used as intended but not what they want me to use. they changed the legal name to "non-Preferred"... Jerks.

At least we agree on one thing: insurance companies are JERKS!

Pretty much sums it up: "[Democrats] are trying on every front to increase the role of government." --Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)

Since corporations influence everything that is spat out of DC is it any wonder that the Gubberment wouldn't be involved in more things

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

After 30 years of destructive deregulation--
we NEED more goverment (re)involvment in MANY areas...

---

I agree that deregulation has harmed more than helped. What is clearly needed is substantial regulation that actually works. We don't need voluntary reporting of industry. It's become plainly clear that when a corporation is in trouble the exec's lie through their teeth until the moment they get caught or the company goes belly up.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

After 30 years of destructive deregulation--
we NEED more goverment (re)involvment in MANY areas...

Yeah, like regulate who gets elected! lol

Since corporations influence everything that is spat out of DC is it any wonder that the Gubberment wouldn't be involved in more things

An admission that Obama is a corporate slave just like the republicans were!

---

After 30 years of destructive deregulation--
we NEED more goverment (re)involvment in MANY areas...

Yeah, like regulate who gets elected! lol

Repuglicans already tried that--
via the Supreme Court...

---

I agree that deregulation has harmed more than helped. What is clearly needed is substantial regulation that actually works. We don't need voluntary reporting of industry. It's become plainly clear that when a corporation is in trouble the exec's lie through their teeth until the moment they get caught or the company goes belly up.

Like that is a surprise. Their personal pay check is directly tied to what they say about the company. Can you say embezzlement via fraud? Regulation doesn't solve criminal greed.

---

In order to protect us from banks, congress in it's wisdom has passed several laws to restrict what banks can earn on loaned money. So banks are looking at credit cards for a new improved source of income before the laws take effect. Save us from regulations. Read about it here

---

orange county california?? OMG my uncle lives there. he says being liberal there is like being the only gay eskimo in... anyhoo. credit card rates are insane when you consider what the Fed's base loan rate is(virtually nothing) and the card companies turn around and hit you with 20+% interest rates on top of the mystery fees and any fees they decide they want to hit you with at any given time. I remember when a bank savings account got you 5% annual interest. Now you'll be lucky to get 0.25% Why's this? probably greed again.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I think the low interest rates on savings can be blamed on the Federal government. If banks couldn't get money so cheap from the federal government, they would have to offer the public better interest rates. On the other hand, I pay 0% interest on credit cards because I don't like to run a balance. However, a credit card in today's society is something you almost can't live without because it's the best way to start building a credit history. The banks have you over a barrel if they start charging membership fees, you have to give up the card if you don't want to pay them.
Orange county is not that conservative, here is the proof. On the other hand, if you don't like it, you can move a few miles north to LA county and you will be in a different world.

---

orange county california?? OMG my uncle lives there. he says being liberal there is like being the only gay eskimo in... anyhoo. credit card rates are insane when you consider what the Fed's base loan rate is(virtually nothing) and the card companies turn around and hit you with 20+% interest rates on top of the mystery fees and any fees they decide they want to hit you with at any given time. I remember when a bank savings account got you 5% annual interest. Now you'll be lucky to get 0.25% Why's this? probably greed again.

Greed and the expectation of greed. Remember to be an ordinary company on Wall Street you must grow your revenue by 10% every reporting period. If you don't your stock price tanks. The CEO is paid in stock not cash so he doesn't have to pay the IRS. The new tough regulations force the bank to write off credit card debit to zero unless the card owner maintains an 849 or better FICO score which they now have to check monthly. Does wonders for the bottom line. Add in the fact that banks now play the stock market and you will see that it is all a house of cards. The big banks are going to collapse just like the investment banks did and for the very same reason. The we must make 10% more than last period, send out those loans no matter their qualifications. Boss we had to write off all those loans, what shall we do? We have a few customers left right? Stick them with every fee you can dream up!

Advice. If you got one of those FU letters, walk into your local credit union and move all your accounts. When it is finished, if you feel so inclined write the CEO of big bank and tell him to stick it where the sun don't shine.

---