Interstate highways were built by federal funds and used two clauses, the interstate commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause to justify the expenditures. In the 1950's. a very core group of conservatives were against the highway bill because it was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution like postal roads are. For railroads, after the Civil War, the US federal government funded the transcontinental railway. Prior to the Civil War, states funded and authorized railroads. The first was the Granite Railroad. After that, several states followed. After the transcontinental railway was completed, the railroad companies were very powerful in the West were town were either made or destroyed depending on that path of the railway. It is also where some of the greatest Wild West Gangs, like the James brothers, got their start. The railroads were the modern day equivalent of the uber rich. It was there that the American version of Robin hoods came about.
Instead of abolishing the safety net why not make it unnecessary? Reducing poverty reduces the necessity to mitigate the effects of the poverty. While I'm not a Bernie Sanders supporter I agree with him in principle because he believes that "no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty." I also agree with FDR when he stated, "No business which depends for existance on paying less than living wages to it's workers has any right to continue in this country. By living wages I mean more than subsistance level, I mean the wages of a decent living." As a Libertarian I value the labor of a person. During my working career I had many jobs from being a janitor pushing a mop to a highly paid professional in aerospace and I don't disparage anyone working for a living. Everyone that's working for someone else deserves the compensation necessary for their basic support and comfort and if they have that then they are not living in poverty and don't require assistance from anyone. As a Libertarian I understand that poverty imposes a financial burden on society. There is a hierarchy for meeting the financial burden imposed by poverty. It starts with family, charity, local government, state government, and finally the federal government. We have federal welfare today because of the inability and/or unwillingness of family, charity, local government, state government to fully mitigate the effects of poverty that, for working people, is created by enterprises that don't provide enough compensation for the worker to live on. If enterprise provides adequate compensation then the poverty for the workers ceases to exist and we've eliminated the primary source of poverty that places a burden on society to provide assistance to mitigate the effects of the poverty. As long as we allow the poverty to continue then we must mitigate it with welfare assistance which is why I agree with both Sanders and FDR when it comes to the private sector ensuring that there's no poverty for workers in America. The employers can do this voluntarily (many do) or by mandate but it's critical for it to happen if we want to reduce the financial burden poverty imposes on society. If all enterprises provide a "living wage" then the immigrant will not impose any financial burden on our American society because they're really coming here to work (or be with family that's working).
No, I'll pass on that one, but I can imagine you will be able to get it off with a couple good licks Try Charmin, it's triple ply
Well, to some extent this makes sense. We already know that it costs more to treat someone in an emergency situation as opposed to preventative health care. A hospital cannot turn anyone away, regardless of imigration status, and cannot refuse to treat them. ( this is due to the EMTALA laws ). So, unless you want to make the argument that we should not allow EMTALA to cover illegals, and that we should let them die in the street if thats what it comes down to, thats a different argument all together. So in the long run, its cheaper to provide preventative care ahead of time than it is to provide emergency care. That is unless again we want to make the argument that we shouldnt treat them at all and let them die if thats what it comes down to.
"Postal roads" ARE federal roads highways included. And yes Amtrack should be sold off and the Government no invested in high speed rail.
Why TF would we give preventative care to illegals when legals and citizens already have problems getting preventative care in many areas?
Again, you missed the point. The REASON why conservatives in the 1950's were against the Federal Highway Spending Bill was because that the word highway was not mentioned in the Constitution, it expanded the government with the creation of a new Administrative, executive agency, and increased taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. And we see the same arguments with the 2015 Interstate Highway bill that is before Congress now with conservatives, namely Tea party members, who oppose the bill for the very same reason conservatives opposed the bill in the 1950's. As for AMTRAK, high speed rail should be developed and built. It would simply improve the transpiration infrastructure by providing more choices to the consumer.
Because its cheaper than paying for emergency care, which, due to EMTALA, a hospital can not turn away anyone in need of emergency treatment regardless of immigration status or ability to pay. Now, again. If you want to get into the discusion of repealing EMTALA, then thats another story. At that point, hospitals would be allowed to refuse treatment and let people die in the streets if they so choose to do so.
Using what Bernie said as the truth in a debate is nonsense. A liberal news article I read said they were getting Obama care.
Yeah...*:#? them thar illegals. We all know they shouldn't be receiving any healthcare. Let 'em die I say... What kind of *#ing society are we?
Ohhhhhh that makes sense. Let's give them the most expensive medical care we can possibly give them so the rest of us have to pay even more to make up the difference. How dumb is that. Besides there infinite number of illnesses that CANNOT be treated by emergency medical care. Illnesses which left chronic and untreated kill people. So your solution is to treat people the most expensive way possible for acute care and for chronic illness just let 'em *#ing die. Good plan.
Yes Illegals will be paying for that expensive medical care. Really? Also lol, Obama care is a government program for citizens, if youw ant to take care of those UNRELATED to the conversation illnesses ER can't somehow magically help you out with or refer you (lol wut) Be a citizen or do what Illegals have been doing for all these years BEFORE Obamacare (hint it wasn't dropping and dying despite your imagination)
Please how is a strawberry picker making $40/day going pay $15,000 or more ER bill. Don't be asinine. Yes they are dropping and dying. Please feel free to educate yourself... http://nfwm.org/education-center/farm-worker-issues/health-safety/ http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5724a1.htm http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2009/usimmigrantsriskyjobs.aspx http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11675631 amongst many, many other research articles. It is not my imagination, they have been dying for years from otherwise preventable/treatable medical problems. It is your imagination that they have not been. You and many people like you just turn a blind eye and think they are somehow less than human because they crossed some imaginary line without the proper paperwork. Again what kind of #;?*ing society are we?