THE NEXT 40 YEARS!!!!

i dont mean, any hate in this.

but one of the problems with your post is, "you feel"  check your feelings at the door, we are dealing with literal objects, (money)   this is not a feeling type situation. this is a number situation. 

what if i said, i "feel"  like giving every american a million dollars, that sounds great, but when you work out the details,(numbers)  it doesnt look so good, does it?

bumper cars

what, my posts wasnt a sufficient conclusion to this thread?

do you even know how our system of law works?  its based on precedent, buddy.  they werent upholding anything.  they interpreted existing amendments and expanded upon them.

liberal doesnt mean giving the government more power.  god you are dumb.  just the fact that you blame everything on liberals.  grow the fuck up and maybe youll realize not everything is a partisan issue

anyways I am done arguing with you, cause its pointless.  plenty of conservatives in this country have increased gov power

no, youre done arguing with me because its taking you longer and longer to come up with a response. Im not the idiot here who thinks that this is a non-partisan issue. Im not the idiot here who cant seperate liberal from democrat and conservative from republican.

Ok first of all, no fucking shit the system of law is based on precedent. Actually to articulate further, its our interpretation and enforcement of law that is based on precedent not the creation of law.
Secondly, the Earl Warren plus gideon v. wainwright were upholding things. They interpreted existing amendments period. they didnt expand on anything. All they did was further reinforce what was already in plain and simple writing. They didnt come up with any new implied powers or powers that, "should just be."

And whos the dumb one now? Liberal by definition means giving the government more power. Liberal doesnt JUST mean giving the government more power, but increasing government size and power is a characteristic of liberalism. Grow the fuck up and realize everything, ESPECIALLY this issue is heavily influenced by affiliation.

Anyways im done arguing with you cuz youre a cut below my league.

Ok and just to further clarify the issue because i dont think you truly understand your own statement here.

In the three cases you mentioned, gideon v wainwright, miranda v arizona, and brown v board of education, the ruling had no expansion to any amendments. That is, they did not create new precedence on what a law fundamentally means. Its one thing to set the precedence as to how a law is interpreted. It is another to create a new fundamental meaning of a law; in other words, liberal justices often create new powers or new additions to existing laws. In your cases, all they did was uphold existing parts of the constitution in direct contradiction towards newly passed, state level, liberal rulings.

Compare and contrast:

In gideon v wainwright, gideon was denied counsel, correct? The ruling made by a liberal judge was that counsel should only be given to those who commited capital offenses. This ruling is in direct contradiction with the sixth amendment which states,
" In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

You see, not to name call or take partisan sides, but by definition that is a liberal ruling. It implies certain meanings of the constitution and applies them in court rulings. The implication here was that provided counsel is only necessary for those accused of a capital offense.

The conservative supreme court overturned the state of florida (i believe?)'s liberal ruling of this case and upheld the plain and simple words of the constitution (bill of rights).

dont make me list out all of the cases. they all follow the same model.

In miranda v arizona, liberal arizona decides miranda doesnt deserve 5th and 6th amendment rights, conservative supreme court upholds.

Brown vs board of education, liberal Kansas decides Oliver brown et al falls under the precedence of Plessy v ferguson in which a liberal panel decided that from now on the 14th amendment means bull. Conservative Earl Warren led the charge with the NAACP to decide plessy v ferguson was an abomination to the constitution and to return to the classic, conservative interpretation.

dude the 6th amendment guarantees the right to counsel, as in you can hire a lawyer.  it doesnt say the gov has to pay for it

dude, when madison wrote the bill of rights, he meant that counsel was required in the court otherwise, there would be no due process. This was upheld in Powell v Alabama. Then liberals modified the 6th amendment with Betts v Brady where it said the court had the right to decide whether or not counsel was necessary on a case by case basis.

So your proposing that we get rid of social security and welfare systems? I Don't even wanna get into this but i'm just gonna say that this would be ridiculous. mind elaborating on what you would do with the remaining budget or how you would help ensure a livable lifestyle for the old and impoverished? im sure your against immigration to because it takes away americans jobs and they take away from our government programs right? seems like you know about government history and policy but i think you need to read up a little more on economics.

wow youre actually questioning my economics now? Ive had to take both micro and macro economics twice now thanks to some nigga ratting me out. Im positive my understanding of economics is far superior to yours. In fact, i am a business major. And for the record none of the stuff you mentioned has anything to do with economics really. It really has to deal with the philosophical assignment of responsibility for the sustenance of poor people.

If you knew anything about economics at all, you'd know that programs such as social security and welfare are detrimental to the maximum efficiency of the free market. Ever heard of the invisible hand? Everyone whos ever read an economics text book knows that equilibrium price on any given product is the best possible situation for both producers and consumers. Price ceilings, price floors, subsidation, rent control blah blah are all detrimental to market efficiency. However, there must be a balance because those who are not as gifted become the ass end of the market. And those people should be in some way or another supported for the time being so that the rest of the country doesn't have deal with their homeless asses. In short, human condition must strike a balance with market efficiency.

Now im not gonna pretend like i know enough to know what to do with the  1.5  trillion dollars being  drained through health and human services every year.  My stance on Medicare and Medicaid and whatnot is rather indifferent. I personally would rather see nothing subsidized by the government but in certain situations, it is actually beneficial to everyone for that to happen. Ok back to the point, the remaining 900 billion dollars in welfare and social security could most definitely be much better spent.

The nearly 600 billion being spent annually on social security is the dumbest thing ever. Social security is basically the government taking money for you, then giving equal to (or in most cases less than how much you gave) back to you when you retire because the government doesn't trust average people to save their money until retirement. It is going to collapse eventually and all that money will be wasted. Even if it is sustainable, which it is not, it is not the most efficient way of doing things with almost no one as a benefiter. If people can just save their own money, we'd pay less taxes. A whole lot less taxes. My family alone would save maybe $20,000 a year in taxes! Same with your families too!

Welfare is one of the dumbest systems in our government. A country more socialist than ourselves, Canada, doesn't even have welfare. Instead they have the welfare prevention system. a system we should look into instead of sinking roughly 300 billion dollars into annually.

Social security is a old age insurance basically. Sure we pay out 600 billion a year, but all of this money goes to people who are mainly on a fixed income. People who cannot provide for themselves at such an old age, so these people are normally very reliant on this and have a marginal propensity to consume of about 1. So although we do pay all this money out to people who have paid into the system, the money usually is spent right away so some part of it is recouped through taxes. So in essence social security although it gives money to the elderly pumps a large sum of money through the economy. Also benefits are adjusted to for wage inflation so in most cases you are earning a substantially larger amount then you paid in. I just think that social security is a way to ensure the welfare of elderly citizens. I know when im nearing 70 i will not want to work.

You seem to have a big problem with socialist services such as this. Do you not think that we have any obligation to the elderly, poor, disabled, disadvantaged citizens of this country? Sure i dont like paying extra taxes, but i grew up in a most white middle class area and had plenty of opportunities to be successful. Those who are born in the ghetto with parents barely able to support themselves are of course not going to have the same chances i had of attending a major university. The odds are just against them and i believe that we do have a moral obligation to help people in situations like this. Just imagine if you were born to a fast food worker and lived in the ghetto. The odds are just against you, if we let the poor, elderly, and disabled fend for themselves i think that it will eventually lead to a shitty economy. I understand you know your economics but i think the way you think about things has gone awry.

Rawlsian's Veil of ignorance talks about being still in the womb, unborned and decided policy and society from their. So how would you want the us government to be set, how would you want the rich and poor to be taxed, how would you want society to be. This is all assuming that you do not know to what situation you will be born. You dont know if you'll be born with aids, to a rich white familly or to a lower class familly, if you will be smart or not. Think about the situation like this and what do you think about these programs?

Finally, theres somebody whos putting up an intellectual argument that considers the well being of the people as well as the economy, rather than just what's best for the economy. It's good to see somebody posting that isn't super selfish.

True old people need money nearing retirement but just take a moment and think about it seperated with a little common sense. The reason there is 600 billion being spent on social security annually is because 600 billion is collected from every citizen annually for this purpose. Why doesn't everyone just save their own money? Sure some people get jipped in life, so maybe we could pay some sort of tax, perhaps about 30 billion dollars total to help those who've been disenfranchised in their lives. That would be a better system and leave a collective 570 billion fucking dollars left to the american people to spend and boost the economy. If people were smart, they would save the same money they pay to social security in taxes, and save it themselves.

And how can most people receive more from social security than they put in? That's simply impossible. The average collective social security money you receive from retirement till death is about 1/2 of the amount you've paid in your whole life. That is because you retire for far less than you work and pay taxes. The fact of the matter is, a lot of people are receiving money due to disability (which is fine unless youre faking) and the sustainability of social security is not conceivable for the next 15 or so years. Eventually the entire system will collapse because old people are living longer. And when that happens, all those taxes will go to waste.

If you read my post, you'd realize im not some cold hearted idiot. I believe there should be help for the poor. But just for a little fyi, my dad grew up in the cultural revolution in China. This means he was yanked out of school around our middle school years and sent to work on farms to industrialize China. Some of his friends were shot and he made about $1 USD a day at the time. He played his cards right as did a lot of his friends, and came to america with literally less than $100 USD. He bussed tables in brooklyn and delivered chinese food. He eventually put himself into queens college and worked hard enough to go to NYU. now he makes significant 6 figures annualy. My mom had the same exact story pretty much and she makes 6 figures for IBM too. I believe that is far worse than the worst situation any american can be born into. Neither of my parents were able to see their parents much. My grandparents on my fathers side were imprisoned for no reason for the cultural revolution, and my grandparents on my mothers side were sent to a semiconductor and nuclear materials processing plant. They later developed cancer and parkinsons and died. Sad story huh? In the end they still surpass maybe 90% of all americans and they came from the bottom bottom of the barrel. So dont give me your opportunities bullshit.

I didnt say we dont need some sort of help for the poor, but it also doesnt have to be controlled by the government either. Why should my parents, who have worked arguably harder than anyone else to get to where they are have to may a significant chunk of their hard earnings so that friggin sheniqua johnson can continue feeding her 6 kids while being unemployed and smoking crack all day? Now does that sound fair to you?

Obviously there are people who were born into bad situations and htose people need some help. Theres good peopl out there who have been dicked on by the world. But the responsibily of helping them out lies within the private sector. Charities could help. At worst, the government should provide some sort of help but not our current welfare situation.

i guess this is the problem..people arent able to plan like that.

but anyways good debate, its nice to see that people can have discussions on ns with the typical trash talking and jibber jabber. And i definitly agree with your views, i guess i just sympathize with the poor and elederly a little to much maybe. But anyways cool story about your parents, in a class i have current economic problems, we just went over immigration and its interesting because over the past like 3 generations immigrants have increase their educatation as well as finnancial security so much more than people who have been here. I guess shitty situations can give you the drive you need sometimes huh? take it easy man.