|
| Posted by: Boldwin
- [26451820] Wed, Feb 03, 2010, 13:54
 Mark Kirk who won the Illinois republican nomination to run for 'Obama's senate seat' actually voted for 'Cap-N-Trade'. But such as he is, he has a very good chance to become the next Senator from Illinois. His opponent is as slick as owl poop but this isn't the year for slick Dem party machine politicians who formerly directed a failing mob bank. |
| | | 1 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Feb 03, 2010, 14:10
|
The more moderate Republicans there are the better, as far as I am concerned. Anything which loosens the Wacky Right's deathgrip on the GOP is a good thing.
The last polling I say (about a week or two ago) showed Kirk down about 5.5 points in a PPP poll head-to-head against Giannoulias. That isn't insurmountable.
|
|
| | | 2 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Feb 03, 2010, 14:13
|
It should probably also be noted that this was not Obama's senate seat but Burriss'. (I know, it was Obama's previously, but Burriss is a much lower standard to improve upon).
|
|
| | | 3 | Tree, on lunch
ID: 570552512 Wed, Feb 03, 2010, 15:51
|
The more moderate Republicans there are the better, as far as I am concerned. Anything which loosens the Wacky Right's deathgrip on the GOP is a good thing.
I was going to say the same thing. I've got no issue with a moderate Republican winning an election.
The more of them seated, the more than can take back the party from the people hijacked, and quite honestly, the more we can get done in this country with a Democrat majority and a minority filled with sensibility.
A few weeks ago, Republicans like Scott Brown and Mark Kirk would have been maliciously called RINO's by some on the whacky right.
But now that Brown pulled off an upset victory, those same Republicans are being lauded by those same critics.
|
|
| | | 4 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Wed, Feb 03, 2010, 21:14
|
Let's not be fooled into believing the Browns and Kirks are going to move the base left. Those guys aren't preaching liberal, they are painting themselves conservative, genuine or not.
|
|
| | | 5 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Feb 03, 2010, 22:00
|
In what way, specifically, are they actually moving to the Right instead of sucking it up to the base through all-talk, no-action speeches? Brown certainly hasn't become pro-life or gotten ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome)--in fact, he's sounded downright moderate.
Where's your evidence that Kirk and Brown didn't hoodwink the base by making them gloss over their entire voting histories?
|
|
| | | 6 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 00:20
|
Those guys aren't preaching liberal, they are painting themselves conservative, genuine or not.
from an opinion published minutes ago...
When asked by ABC’s Barbara Walters whether he had presidential ambitions, he refused to rule out a run for the White House in 2012. He might want to take a long drive in that ancient pickup truck of his until the spell wears off.
Actually, a lot of what Brown told Walters in a lengthy interview sounded quite reasonable. On abortion, he supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose. On gay marriage, he believes the issue should be left up to the states — and in Massachusetts, which allows gay marriage, he says the question is “settled.”
that's hardly the brush strokes of someone painting themselves as conservative.
|
|
| | | 7 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 11:34
|
Kirk comes on the morning radio show I listen to every 3 or 4 days for a ten minute interview, at least during the primary run so I know for sure he isn't running to the left. As far as Brown goes, I'll grant he's well left of even Kirk, but promising to be the vote that halts socialist takeover of medicine was all it took to win my heart. I'll take what I can get from the people's republic. If he's made any statements derogotory of the Tea Party I haven't read it.
|
|
| | | 8 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 11:46
|
My concern (a small one, I'll grant you) is that during the campaign these politicians always speak well to the base. We saw it with Obama as well, in which Obama was *far* more moderate than the progressives are, yet he made it seem that he was one with them.
When push comes to shove, in an office with a six year term, these guys are more likely to revert to form, IMO.
|
|
| | | 9 | Tree, on lunch
ID: 570552512 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 13:51
|
but promising to be the vote that halts socialist takeover of medicine was all it took to win my heart.
and this, to me, is the essence of what is wrong with the Republican party. There is a litmus test, and that test seems to change quite often.
A Pro-Choice, pro-state's right to choose on Gay Marriage, pro-health care reform in his own state but against it on a national level Republican gets Baldwin's support strictly because of his being against the current Health Care Reform plan.
|
|
| | | 10 | Khahan
ID: 391582715 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 15:05
|
and this, to me, is the essence of what is wrong with (politics)
Fixed that for you Tree. Its not just conservatives halting the other side. Its both sides working to stop the other side.
Both sides need to realize that they are both Americans, both representing the American Constituency and start working to do just that. Represent us and lead us. Not put down the other side.
|
|
| | | 11 | chode
ID: 4744089 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 15:13
|
word
|
|
| | | 12 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 15:32
|
Absolutely, Khahan. But we simply can't overlook that a lot of the hate these days are coming from the far Right.
In fact, the spiral the GOP finds itself in these days is that it has been hijacked by people who, by and large, are putting our rhetoric which is decidedly confrontational, non-flexible and (at times) factually-challenged. It is hard, for example, to deal with people who believe that Obama should be impeached (why, it isn't clear, but 58% of Republicans nationwide believe either Obama wasn't born in the US or say they "aren't sure").
Yes, we all should strive to do better. But let's not close our eyes to the reality of politics these days, or gloss it over as though there is any kind of mean-spirited equivalency going on.
|
|
| | | 13 | chode
ID: 4744089 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 15:35
|
... and the beat goes on ...
|
|
| | | 14 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 15:39
|
No, it doesn't.
As I pointed out in post #1, I welcome moderate candidates from any party. What I don't welcome is hateful, confrontational speech (which is where we agree). Where we don't agree is some belief that both parties are equally guilty of such speech.
|
|
| | | 15 | Tree, on lunch
ID: 570552512 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 15:51
|
i think post 12 nails it.
extremism on any side is bad, be they far left or far right. or even so Centrist they're afraid to stick their neck out on either side.
i think it's pretty obvious the loud, hate-filled rhetoric coming from the far right easily drowns out the equivilent coming from the far left.
|
|
| | | 16 | Building 7
ID: 471052128 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 16:08
|
A Pro-Choice, pro-state's right to choose on Gay Marriage, pro-health care reform in his own state but against it on a national level Republican gets Baldwin's support strictly because of his being against the current Health Care Reform plan.
The Massachusetts plan is Constitutional and the Senate plan is not. Sometimes this is taken into consideration by politicians. Perhaps that is his thinking. ................................... You can drone on with how only the Republicans are evil, but nobody is believing you except your fellow Kool-Aid drinkers.
|
|
| | | 17 | Biliruben movin
ID: 358252515 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 16:17
|
Can I get description of this uncostitionality reflecting the last 200 or so years of supreme court decisions?
|
|
| | | 18 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 18:28
|
6-Actually, a lot of what Brown told Walters in a lengthy interview sounded quite reasonable. On abortion, he supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose. On gay marriage, he believes the issue should be left up to the states — and in Massachusetts, which allows gay marriage, he says the question is “settled.” Do you really think the majority of the people really care about abortion issues or gay right issues right now. I think there are more important things on peoples minds right now, to think they are thinking of those issues is a "psychic break with reality."
|
|
| | | 19 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 18:30
|
9-Dont forget my vote also.
|
|
| | | 20 | biliruben
ID: 461142511 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 18:36
|
Since B7 doesn't appear too eager to defend what I assume are his tentherist beliefs, because if he tried, he might look a bit foolish calling anyone else Kool-Aid drinkers, I figure I'd share what I know about the crazy-ass tentherists here in Washington State.
A Bill Legalizing Cop Killers in a state that has had two cop ambushings in the last few months.
A Bill Threatening armed insurrection against the Federal Government.
A Bill banning collection if Income Taxes by the Federal Government.
And on and on.
And sadly, B-7 is completely correct. This isn't fringe stuff for the Republican party here. The wackos are in some cases getting the entire Republican Caucus to sign these things.
Succession and insurrection. It's the new black for the Republicans.
|
|
| | | 21 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 18:44
|
You can drone on with how only the Republicans are evil, but nobody is believing you except your fellow Kool-Aid drinkers.
never called the Republicans evil. don't put words in my mouth please.
Do you really think the majority of the people really care about abortion issues or gay right issues right now.
yea, i do. you don't think there would outcry if the Supreme Court suddenly declared gay marriage legal and abortion illegal?
|
|
| | | 22 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 19:54
|
lol yeah like thats going to happen in my life time.
|
|
| | | 23 | Building 7
ID: 43735169 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 20:09
|
I like how "The Senate health care plan is unconstitutional" is twisted into "A bill legalizing cop killers", which I have nothing to with.
|
|
| | | 24 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 20:17
|
I actually spent a bit of time on that question, B7, but concluded it was not. What makes you think it is?
|
|
| | | 25 | Biliruben movin
ID: 358252515 Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 20:39
|
They have thAt in there too.
How is the reasoning different?
|
|
| | | 26 | Building 7
ID: 471052128 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 09:17
|
Here is a letter from the Attorney General of my state that explains the Constitutional problems. Mainly the Nebrasks Compomise and the individual mandate to buy health insurance.
|
|
| | | 27 | biliruben
ID: 16105237 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 09:24
|
I think you are mistaking a political opinion for a legal one.
AG = aspiring governor.
Just working the teaparty vote.
|
|
| | | 28 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 10:50
|
Where do you see the federal government's power to order citizens to buy particular things, in the constitution, bili? How is that not a legal question?
|
|
| | | 29 | Biliruben movin
ID: 358252515 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 12:45
|
It's a legal question. One I think is pretty much settled by 220 years of legal precident, though I admit I'm no constitutional law scholar.
He linked to an opinion which was more political than legal.
|
|
| | | 30 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 13:28
|
SCOTUS has given Congress wide latitude in taxation policy, which is what this boils down to. The penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. And taxing is entirely within the purview of Congress.
|
|
| | | 31 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 13:50
|
Here is your government specified daily regimen broken down into five minute segments. Failure to comply will result in a tax, which as you know is well within the purview of congress.
|
|
| | | 32 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 13:55
|
With all due respect, Baldwin, that is a response but not a rebuttal of the point.
The question is: Is the health care bill in the Senate (not the House bill, but the Senate one) constitutional? I've said yes (I have, in fact, tried to read up on this very question quote a bit, and was the first on this forum to express my reservations on this question in the health care bill many many months ago). Your post doesn't advance the argument at all, nor advance the thread in any way.
|
|
| | | 33 | biliruben
ID: 461142511 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 14:00
|
You know that these are elected officials, not despots, right?
If they do despotic things, we just elect someone else. You know: Democracy.
The power to tax might not thrill you, but it's the essence of how we are able to function as a cohesive society, much to the chagrin of Anarchists, tax-evaders and Colorado Springs.
More than a third of the streetlights in Colorado Springs will go dark Monday. The police helicopters are for sale on the Internet. The city is dumping firefighting jobs, a vice team, burglary investigators, beat cops — dozens of police and fire positions will go unfilled.
The parks department removed trash cans last week, replacing them with signs urging users to pack out their own litter.
Neighbors are encouraged to bring their own lawn mowers to local green spaces, because parks workers will mow them only once every two weeks. If that.
Water cutbacks mean most parks will be dead, brown turf by July; the flower and fertilizer budget is zero.
City recreation centers, indoor and outdoor pools, and a handful of museums will close for good March 31 unless they find private funding to stay open. Buses no longer run on evenings and weekends. The city won't pay for any street paving, relying instead on a regional authority that can meet only about 10 percent of the need.
Sounds like your type of town.
|
|
| | | 34 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 14:29
|
The penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. And taxing is entirely within the purview of Congress. - PD Do I really need to rebutt this further? #31 devastates that logic abundantly? You want more?
|
|
| | | 35 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 14:32
|
It devastates as much as me saying "Toyota's cars don't brake because they are made of green cheese".
You seem to be confusing "Constitutionally legal" with "stuff I like or don't like". I think we'd readily stipulate that the insurance tax falls under the category of "stuff you don't like". That doesn't make it unconstitutional.
If it were, Brussels sprouts, income taxes, and my toilet clogging would also be unconstitutional.
|
|
| | | 36 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 14:32
|
Yes. An actual rebuttal. Your posts are merely written scoffs. Show me why this tax is unconstitutional.
|
|
| | | 37 | biliruben
ID: 461142511 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 14:35
|
#31 is plucked directly from your vision of the Randian fantasy you think we are inevitably headed for. It's hard for us to equate that with some sort of devastation without the requisite mass-hypnosis required to insert us into that fantasy with you.
I'll pass.
|
|
| | | 38 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 14:47
|
PD Your logic such as it is, is 'if there is a tax attached to it, it must therefore be constitutional' or 'as long as the enforcement mechanism is taxation, it must be constitutional'. However this can easily be seen to be fatuous: 'Citizens will become Secular Humanists or face a levy' 'Citizens must buy a rifle or pay a penalty' [works for Switzerland admittedly] 'All householders will upon demand provide temporary room and board to [redcoats, batf agents, americorp volunteers, supply your own example] or pay a fine. ...and so on. You can nullify the entire Bill of Rights if simply enforcing the unconstitutional action by taxation makes it constitutional. Since taxation will not transmute this Bill into constitutional please show me some other constitutional rationale for the federal government demanding us to make a specific purchase, in this case probably what would be our largest monthly expense.
|
|
| | | 39 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 14:56
|
The question is: Why is that tax unconstitutional? In other words, how does it go outside the bounds of that SCOTUS has typically allowed?
The opinion pieces all say that the thing is unconstitutional because Nebraska got a deal. Or the government is requiring citizens to buy insurance. Or all sorts of things without addressing the taxation question.
And you aren't either, except to say that Congress' ability to tax is not unlimited. No kidding. Now show how this particular tax is unconstitutional.
|
|
| | | 40 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 15:07
|
Show me in the constitution where it is among the powers set aside for the federal government to demand purchases.
|
|
| | | 41 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 15:13
|
Don't get me wrong, I am not predicting the SCOTUS will shoot it down. If I were PD and this were a debate I didn't care about I would point out that the states already demand we buy auto insurance. That's a pretty strong circumstantial argument, however I fail to see how it's technically constitutional and I'd love to see a constitutional scholar explain it to my satisfaction.
|
|
| | | 42 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 15:18
|
Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
There, they have the right to impose a tax to provide for the general welfare.
Now show me how that doesn't apply.
|
|
| | | 43 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 15:20
|
See #38 *yawn*.
|
|
| | | 44 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 15:40
|
The first and third "examples" you gave are specifically prohibited by the Bill of Rights, as you know.
The second one would probably be technically constitutional. Absurd, but constitutional.
So, now show me the section of the Constitution where taxation on insurance is specifically excluded from Congress' powers. You know, like the other examples you gave.
*yawn*
|
|
| | | 45 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 15:43
|
While you're at it you might read up on South_Dakota_v._Dole, where Congress has the power to discriminate against certain states by withholding funding (implicit in the power to tax is the power to spend).
Easy enough to extrapolate that to withholding finding from individuals that don't behave in a certain way (instead of states).
So if you would prefer that Congress merely withhold certain spending from anyone that doesn't get insurance, instead of taxing them, I'm sure that can be arranged. I have a hunch that you won't like that any more.
|
|
| | | 46 | Guru
ID: 330592710 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 16:04
|
[41] Actually, the state doesn't require everyone to buy auto insurance. If I didn't own or drive a car, I would have no such requirement. The requirement for auto insurance is a condition of the state granting you the privilege of driving. The state does not require you to drive. And many people don't.
I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I think the Constitution grants states certain rights that the federal government doesn't have, anyway. So citing a state mandate probably has no direct bearing on the constitutionality of a federal mandate.
|
|
| | | 47 | Coach Building 7
ID: 471052128 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 16:47
|
So, now show me the section of the Constitution where taxation on insurance is specifically excluded from Congress' powers.
10th 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.
There, they have the right to impose a tax to provide for the general welfare.
When 49 states have to pay for Nebraska's taxes, that is not for the general welfare.
Nobody that signed the Constitution would be in favor of this bill.
|
|
| | | 48 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 17:04
|
"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. "
Taxation is a delegated power under the Constitution. This is irrelevant.
"When 49 states have to pay for Nebraska's taxes, that is not for the general welfare."
You likely have a point there, and I don't think most people are defending that particular move. However, read up on SD vs. Dole (link above) and go from there. I'd love to have this particular provision declared unconstitutional or at least really really frowned upon.
"Nobody that signed the Constitution would be in favor of this bill."
If you're referring to the sweetheart Nebraska deal (hard to tell), I'd say you are almost certainly right, and I'd agree with them.
If you're referring to the entire concept, I don't agree with you and there's nobody left to ask, and it's a pretty irrelevant point anyway.
|
|
| | | 49 | bibA
ID: 01116297 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 17:09
|
Nobody that signed the Constitution would be in favor of this bill.
Most would not have been in favor of the 13th or 19th amendments either, not to mention many of the others. We grow....we change and evolve.
|
|
| | | 50 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 17:22
|
I really don't think we want to get into the slippery slope of trying to figure out if the Founding Fathers would be for or against something.
|
|
| | | 51 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 17:27
|
Nor do I think it matters. All due respect to them, it's our country now, just they way they intended it to be.
|
|
| | | 52 | biliruben
ID: 461142511 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 18:19
|
The Commerce Clause gives the federal government substantial leeway in enacting national legislation.
The only time we see the Supreme Court striking down legislation using the 10th is when they ask the states to actually administrate a program legislated federally.
Understand the level of distrust of all branches of government, and given some of the Supreme Court's recent rulings, I have my doubts about their ability to appropriately rise above politics in interpreting the constitution, but I am not ready to take the step toward insurrection or succession because of it.
We have to have to provide faith, support and, if certain circumstances warrant it, modification of our governing bodies. Work within for change. Don't try to tear the system down as the teapartiers are doing.
|
|
| | | 53 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 20:30
|
The Commerce Clause has been shamelessly abused and expanded beyond all recognition. It's just a figleaf .
|
|
| | | 54 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 20:36
|
True. But it isn't unconstitutional.
|
|
| | | 55 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 20:45
|
Here is a very rigorous and scholarly look at the constitutional problems this bill [to the extent we know it] has. It is interesting to note that congress' own Congressional Research Service warned them that the provision requiring the purchase of insurance probably would not pass constitutional muster.
|
|
| | | 56 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 21:06
|
Thank you. Many of these arguments I've seen, though it is probably worth noting that the Senate version does not have the same mandates the 1994 bill had, nor even the House bill (it is one of the main differences between the two). That article doesn't differentiate itself between them, but your posting it does require a more measured response which I will do over the next day or two.
But let me just point this out, which is somewhat typical: The Supreme Court has invalidated congressional action on the ground that such action employed unconstitutional means to an end that Congress could have constitutionally accomplished in another manner.
The reason this is off is that the entire article takes pains that there is no way to constitutionally accomplish this action. Therefore, this particular argument could not possibly be engaged.
More later.
|
|
| | | 57 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 21:25
|
there is no way to constitutionally accomplish this action. Therefore, this particular argument could not possibly be engaged. You could give up.
|
|
| | | 58 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 21:30
|
Or, not be cowed by people who cry "unconstitutional" for things they don't like only when proposed by Democrats.
|
|
| | | 59 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 23:33
|
Just 'engage' the points in the Heritage Foundation's analysis.
|
|
| | | 60 | Building 7
ID: 471052128 Tue, Feb 09, 2010, 17:38
|
Taxation is a delegated power under the Constitution. This is irrelevant.
Then why did they pass an amendment to the Constitution to allow income taxes?
|
|
| | | 61 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Feb 09, 2010, 17:41
|
Income taxes are a subset of taxes. The late inclusion of income taxes under Congress' authority doesn't mean that they didn't already have taxation authority.
B: I'm slowly making my way through that piece. Hard to do an analysis when you have a SCOTUS which came down as they did on Kelo.
|
|
| | | 62 | boldwin
ID: 441481016 Thu, Feb 11, 2010, 05:51
|
Although the American colonists fought for independence from British rule and British taxes, once the United States government formed, its main source of revenue was derived from placing customs and excise taxes on the same items that were taxed by Great Britain. In 1812, in an effort to support an expensive war effort, the U.S. government imposed the first sales tax, which was placed on gold, silverware, jewelry and watches. In 1817, internal taxes were terminated and the government relied on tariffs to support itself. It wasn't until 1862 [to pay for the civil war -B] that the United States imposed the first national income tax. - I did not know that Wow! They raised a tax to pay for the War of 1812 and then repealed the tax once it was paid. Tell that to today's pols who never eliminate a tax or a program once implimented.
|
|
| | | 63 | biliruben
ID: 16105237 Thu, Feb 11, 2010, 09:50
|
The evils of a standing army.
|
|
| | | 64 | boldwin
ID: 481371112 Thu, Feb 11, 2010, 16:49
|
Welcome to ranks of the believers in a well regulated citizen militia, bili.
|
|
| | | 65 | biliruben
ID: 16105237 Thu, Feb 11, 2010, 17:32
|
I'm all for disbanding the military. Yesterday.
You?
|
|
| | | 66 | boldwin
ID: 481371112 Thu, Feb 11, 2010, 17:49
|
Quick, you go get the militia up and running while the Tea Party movement pries Obama out of the WH and the Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting.
|
|
| | | 67 | biliruben
ID: 16105237 Thu, Feb 11, 2010, 18:11
|
Why do we need a militia?
|
|
| | | 68 | WiddleAvi
ID: 44025819 Thu, Feb 11, 2010, 19:39
|
Where do the Militia park their B52 bombers ?
|
|
| | | 69 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Thu, Feb 11, 2010, 20:28
|
Anywhere they want to.
|
|
| | | 70 | boldwin
ID: 481371112 Thu, Feb 11, 2010, 22:10
|
Now there was a nice DWetz post. 8]
|
|
| | | 71 | boldwin
ID: 481371112 Thu, Feb 11, 2010, 22:11
|
bili
Where do the Swiss citizen militia park theirs?
|
|
| | | 72 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Feb 11, 2010, 22:42
|
The Vatican, silly.
|
|
| | | 73 | boldwin
ID: 481371112 Thu, Feb 11, 2010, 22:45
|
There's just gotta be a James Bond script in there somewhere.
|
|
| | | 74 | boldwin
ID: 481371112 Thu, Feb 11, 2010, 22:46
|
Secret Alpine valleys, private ski resorts and whatnot.
|
|
| | | 75 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Feb 15, 2010, 22:21
|
Evan Bayh drops a bomb in Indiana. It goes from a safe seat for a Blue Dog Dem to a pretty certain Republican pickup.
|
|
| | | 76 | Frick
ID: 54152814 Tue, Feb 16, 2010, 08:50
|
I wouldn't be so sure PD. I was talking to a college this weekend about how most Hoosiers are content with having 1 Dem and 1 Rep.
I think a tremendous amount of money will be sent for the seat and I'm already dreading the number of ads that will be forthcoming. I'm curious to see who runs for both parties. If the Republicans put up a right wing radical candidate against a moderate Democrat like Bayh, I think the Democrat wins fairly easily. The reverse of that is also true. If both parties go moderate or extreme it becomes a coin flip. While Indiana has historically voted Rep in the Presidential elections, state and even more so locally, Dems have traditionally dominated.
|
|
| | | 77 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Tue, Feb 16, 2010, 09:11
|
NYT article on Tea Party "Rebellion"
Interesting article. I know they did not interview tons of folks, but reading the quotes of the folks they did interview, does not give me the feeling that these folks are highly informed. Ron Paul could maybe ride this wave if hes' got enough in the tank for another run.
|
|
| | | 78 | boldwin
ID: 481371112 Tue, Feb 16, 2010, 09:13
|
Indiana has a situation similar to Illinois. Dem machine greater Chicago in their NW and a generally but not overwhelmingly conservative downstate.
Of greatest interest is whether the Dems can gather the 1000 signatures today to meet the deadline for fielding a candidate. It's so critical I don't believe they will fail, but pretty dramatic situation just the same.
There is no question the MA. election shook him up bigtime. His quote at the time was quite strong. He now gets to retire undefeated as an elder statesman instead of a shocking upset.
Reps had a very very strong opponent lined up in Dan Coats and Bayh was going to be fighting both an energized republican base and great enmity from his own party over his leading the blue dog opposition to Obamacare.
|
|
| | | 79 | boldwin
ID: 481371112 Tue, Feb 16, 2010, 09:28
|
Walk
Told'ya so.
|
|
| | | 80 | Frick
ID: 54152814 Tue, Feb 16, 2010, 09:53
|
Bayh wouldn't have lost his Senate seat. Straight ticket voters wouldn't have voted for him, but he is well known and respected by even hard core Republicans. The friend that I talk to is a hard-core Republican and works for the Republican party in Indianapolis, they had no serious ideas of taking his seat. Would they have tried, I'm sure they would have, but they would have known they wouldn't win.
If Mitch Daniels runs on the Republican ticket, it will be an easy Dem win. He's made changes and upset people with the changes. I think he's done a good job, but people don't like change.
|
|
| | | 81 | boldwin
ID: 481371112 Tue, Feb 16, 2010, 09:56
|
Coats had a chance as many an expert will validate if you check around the internet. The greatest verification is Bayh's withdrawal.
BTW the deadline for the Dems to field a candidate with the requisite signatures is NOON today.
|
|
| | | 82 | boldwin
ID: 481371112 Tue, Feb 16, 2010, 10:13
|
The take on this at the communist 'The Nation'".
|
|
| | | 83 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Feb 16, 2010, 10:47
|
#78: Actually, Indiana is a lot more conservative, as a state, than Illinois. Indianapolis (while more liberal) simply doesn't have the hold that Chicago does in Illinois.
Bayh was doing well against Coats, but was not polling well against Mike Pence before Pence pulled out. It'll be interesting to see if Pence goes back into the race--I'd think he would be the odds on favorite.
BTW the deadline for the Dems to field a candidate with the requisite signatures is NOON today
That's not exactly the case. Noon today is the deadline for a Dem to enter the primary (I understand one candidate might make that deadline) If no candidates enter, the Party will choose a candidate to run in November.
The timing is just screwy, however. Last week it was full speed ahead for Bayh, and it seems his entire staff was completely out of the loop on his decision.
|
|
| | | 84 | boldwin
ID: 481371112 Tue, Feb 16, 2010, 11:01
|
Well Indianapolis wasn't what I was talking about. It's Gary. It's greater Chicago. Back when steel was going great for all appearances Chicago just slid all the way around far into Indiana and the blue politics followed. Don't look at the area, look at the population density.
|
|
| | | 85 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Feb 16, 2010, 11:36
|
That's a good point. My understanding is that Gary is actually losing population, however. I don't think it's got much hold onto statewide races anymore, but your closer to the scene than I am.
|
|
| | | 86 | Tree
ID: 23143812 Tue, Feb 16, 2010, 11:38
|
Walk
Told'ya so.
told him what? that you and your fellow Tea-Partiers are highly uninformed? that *is* what he said.
|
|
| | | 87 | boldwin
ID: 481371112 Tue, Feb 16, 2010, 11:51
|
Those people took their MSM blinders off, looked at the evidence and found out what I have been pointing out for a decade or two.
|
|
| | | 88 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Feb 16, 2010, 12:57
|
Re #77: I don't know about that--there are actually three Tea Party candidates running against Ron Paul.
No one is safe...
|
|
| | | 89 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 07:25
|
Bayh says a lot and shows courage with his retirement
...Bayh had apparently become increasingly frustrated in the Senate. In this morning's interview he noted that just two weeks ago, Republicans who had co-sponsored a bill with him to rein in the deficit turned around and voted against it for purely political reasons. He also stated repeatedly that members of his own party should be more willing to settle for a compromise rather than holding out for perfection.
"Sometimes half a loaf is better than none," Bayh insisted.
|
|
| | | 90 | Frick
ID: 54152814 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 08:24
|
I can't remember where I read it yesterday, but in one of the Bayh articles it said that Democrats have voted straight down the party line 91% of the time this session.
The Republicans have attempted 100 Filibusters, up from the prior record of 61.
Both sides are to blame in my opinion. The upside side is that fewer new laws are being passed.
|
|
| | | 91 | biliruben
ID: 16105237 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 08:33
|
When our country is in the biggest crisis since the 30s, the corporate carrion are in desperate need of regulation as they gnaw the bones of our once great country, and we are in double digit unemployment, the last thing we need is any leadership.
|
|
| | | 92 | Mith
ID: 58136177 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 08:37
|
Whats the average percentage at which members of the congressional majority vote with their own party?
|
|
| | | 93 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 11:30
|
We need a dictator!
|
|
| | | 94 | Boldwin
ID: 2155174 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 11:33
|
Liberals and conservatives both are happy to keep score of how often members vote their way.
See Conservative Union.
And Liberals do the same thing.
|
|
| | | 95 | Boldwin
ID: 2155174 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 11:35
|
The upside side is that fewer new laws are being passed. - Frick
They say that the only time your wallet is safe is when congress is in recess, but gridlock is even better!.
|
|
| | | 96 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 11:44
|
Liberals and conservatives both are happy to keep score of how often members vote their way.
This seems a little self-evident, yes?
They say that the only time your wallet is safe is when congress is in recess, but gridlock is even better
Let's keep in mind that when Republicans voted in lockstep for gridlock when the Stimulus Bill came up, they were voting against billions of dollars in tax cuts, a program which helped keep our economy from completely tanking, and keeping millions of people employed who otherwise would have lost their jobs. Yeah, "gridlock" is better.
|
|
| | | 97 | Boldwin
ID: 2155174 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 12:04
|
I am sure there is an audience for your point, PD, but keep in mind that the choir to which you preach is a very tiny one."six percent of Americans believe Obama's Stimulus plan created jobs".
|
|
| | | 98 | Tree
ID: 23143812 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 15:46
|
six percent of Americans believe Obama's Stimulus plan created jobs
what someone believes to be true, as opposed to what is true, are entirely different things, however.
|
|
| | | 99 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 15:46
|
That doesn't mean it isn't true, Boldwin. And it is, of course. Your point is very similar to the George Packer column I linked to a few days ago: The reduction of politics from one involving the debating of fact to one involving the debating of perceptions.
I care a lot less about the latter when I know I have the former on my side of this argument. And I think, as usual, you feel the opposite.
|
|
| | | 100 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 15:59
|
That's an education/marketing thing, Boldwin. The stim program is pretty widely regarded as a successful endeavor that avoided further economic ruin. Many jobs were created, but net-net, we still lost jobs during that time. We just woulda lost more jobs had we not done the stim (and perhaps gone into a depression).
Obama Starts Stimulus Campaign
Even after Obama's campaign, I still think that most Americans will think the stimulus bill did not work, and that it was literally the bank bailout. We have a pretty ignorant mass of folk who don't take the time to read anything more than the scroll at the bottom of Fox News or the headlines in the paper. I have friends who think just this: That the stimulus bill was done by Obama to bail out the banks. Of course, Bush bailed out the banks, and Obama did the stimulus bill, which should have been 2x-3x larger than it was.
It's funny to see the Maddow video calling out like 20 different republican congressfolks who bashed the stim bill and then posed with stim bill checks boasting about local programs and services for their districts or states as a result of stim funds, complete with quotes indicating how many jobs and savings the stim $ is creating. Obama is about the only recent pol who has the guts to say: "We cannot get out of the recession without having some pain" (e.g. spending or tax increases). Even governing republicans know this, but they will never say it publicly...only the one's who are not in office say it. They are playing the waiting game cos they know the ignorant populist view is that we should all have everything we want without having to pay for it (e.g. teabaggers), and that the governing party in bad times will invariably get voted out. So, when the republicans take over, they will then have to make the hard decisions and face the consequences...so stupid. Sooner or later our country is going to have to raise taxes and/or mess with sacred programs.
The Dems will not attack the republicans on any of this stuff cos they either don't have the guts or don't know how, or both. The libertarians can try and seize the day and take advantage of teabagger sentiments, but they have no answers other than radical changes to the government that are not practically feasible given our sheer size and involvement in international and various domestic initiatives.
|
|
| | | 101 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 16:32
|
The stim program is pretty widely regarded as a successful endeavor that avoided further economic ruin.
really? I must have missed that widely reguared memo.
We just woulda lost more jobs had we not done the stim (and perhaps gone into a depression).
really? evidence, at least global warming has evidence.
|
|
| | | 102 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 16:40
|
really? I must have missed that widely reguared memo.
Kind of the problem here. You didn't really look. You're just guessing. Give it a look and there is a consensus on this, and you're on the other side of it.
|
|
| | | 103 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 16:43
|
really? evidence
Allow me to borrow from Walk's #100:
20 different republican congressfolks who bashed the stim bill and then posed with stim bill checks boasting about local programs and services for their districts or states as a result of stim funds, complete with quotes indicating how many jobs and savings the stim $ is creating
Maybe that's not exactly evidence, but it's pretty good indication as to why there are so many who are quick to believe what they hear, not what they see.
|
|
| | | 104 | Biliruben movin
ID: 358252515 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 16:58
|
What evidence would be sufficient?
|
|
| | | 105 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 17:27
|
Re: 103 everyone likes to stand in front of checks not sure what that says.
Kind of the problem here. You didn't really look. You're just guessing. Give it a look and there is a consensus on this, and you're on the other side of it.
consensus on what that stimulus saved us or it created jobs or what?
What evidence would be sufficient?
good question since we can not rerun the past 2 years without the stimulus, evidence is hard to come by. So really all we have is speculation that this would have happened or that would have happened with out the stimulus. I guess the answer would be any evidence that is not based on speculation. show me examples of other economies in similar situation that did not have stimulus, how did they fair? Or show me models that that say had the X number of jobs created by stimulus not happened then Y would have resulted.
My problem with the stimulus is that it does not address the basic problem with the US economy and that is that it is based on service industry jobs catering the consumption of products made in other countries. It does not address a population that needs to do with less not more.
|
|
| | | 106 | biliruben
ID: 461142511 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 17:38
|
I don't know if the CBO's models qualify as sufficient for you, but here they are anyway.
See: USA, 1937 for what happens to an economy that has stimulus taken away prematurely.
And see: USA, WW2 for the effect of massive stimulus and it's effect on employment and GDP.
|
|
| | | 107 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 18:32
|
The conservative American Enterprise Institute is hardly a fan of Obama, and yet states that their analysis is that the Stimulus package boosted the US economy by 4%.
Yeah, we can't turn the clock back. But we aren't without some good educated guesses.
My problem with the stimulus is that it does not address the basic problem with the US economy
I think your perception on the economy is dead on. But the stimulus isn't intended to address the long term economic problems. It was intended as a short term stimulation to keep the economy from tanking, coupled with long-term tax cuts for the middle class to put a little more money into the pockets of people.
A jobs bill would be a better long-term strategy.
|
|
| | | 108 | Mith
ID: 58136177 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 19:40
|
106 is an exceptional post.
|
|
| | | 109 | Boldwin
ID: 2155174 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 21:08
|
Does anyone here actually know someone who acquired a private sector job attributable to the stimulous bill. [or porkulous bill as Rush calls it]
My impression is that it was purely everyone in a new class of congress with their hand out for pork, with the perfect cover story as to why they were overspending this time.
I'm sincere when I say, show me some real private sector jobs that were created. Where are all the construction workers busy completing all those advertised 'shovel ready projects'?
Yes Razor, it's a perception thing, but it's each person's network of friends getting or not getting jobs that builds that perception as much as it is the MSM, healthy media or politicians.
|
|
| | | 110 | biliruben
ID: 16105237 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 21:55
|
Does anyone here actually know someone who acquired a private sector job attributable to the stimulous bill.
Several, not that anecdotes mean danky.
Gotta send your boys out here where the expansive-minded are building transit, alt. energy, ferries, bike paths, windmills etc...
Get em' out of small-minded small-town bumblefuk Conservativeville, Il, and out where people live and think for the future and prosper.
|
|
| | | 111 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 22:39
|
Does anyone here actually know someone who acquired a private sector job attributable to the stimulous bill.
What is the way Republicans believe that jobs are best created? Perhaps by cutting taxes so private industry can hire some good ol' Americans! YES!
Oh, yeah, one third of the stimulus bill was tax cuts.
So, either cutting taxes does not lead to private industry creating new jobs or perhaps a bunch of new jobs HAVE been created by those tax cuts and if the Republicans had their way, we would have more tax cuts and even MORE JOBS!
So, did the tax cut create new jobs (just not as many as have been lost) or should we raise taxes since lower taxes don't do anything for job creation?
|
|
| | | 112 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 22:47
|
As for Sen. Bayh, I can't really say that America will be missing much. From Baldy's link:
He won office not because of his positions on the issues but because he is a affable campaigner with a magic name — his far more liberal father, Birch Bayh, was one of the great senators of the 20th century and remains an iconic figure among Indiana Democrats.
Is there really any difference between Sen. Bayh and Patrick Kennedy? Neither did very much while in office and were well known because of their father.
|
|
| | | 113 | Boldwin
ID: 2155174 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 23:29
|
Get em' out of small-minded small-town bumblefuk Conservativeville, Il,
Um, they live in Minneapolis.
|
|
| | | 114 | Boldwin
ID: 2155174 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 23:35
|
The town I live in was involved in some of the earliest coal miners' union activism in this country. We have a real card carrying communist in the house district to the west, boundary a mile from Peru. Debbie Halvorson in my district is about to lose her seat for voting for the healthcare bill tho. Not too many reliably conservative districts in B....k, Illinois.
|
|
| | | 115 | biliruben
ID: 16105237 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 23:47
|
No offense meant, B. Hopefully that was obviously tongue-in-cheek.
I do think we need to look to the future and attempt to anticipate what's going to be driving our economy and the world economy 10, 20, 50 years from now.
The dudes I am friends with who are getting stimulus money are pretty old-school economy dudes. Laying concrete, Heavy machinery operators building public works... that sort of thing. Not doing great, but they are pretty nimble and taking what work they can get. Bidding projects pretty close to the bone.
Went down and spent a weekend down in rural Clark County down near St. Helens a couple weeks ago, close to where Zen had been plying his trade. Now that is a depressed land.
Spent some time in the bars around there. Sons of lumberjacks who enjoyed the boom times contracting until the bubble burst. Smart, proud dudes, but with little work, just functional alcoholics losing their self-confidence and veering towards non-functional. Plenty of guys, boozing, fighting, getting the guns out, looking for an early grave.
That area sorely needs stimulus. Massive unemployment. It's really hard on a man being unemployed for 15-18 months.
|
|
| | | 116 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, Feb 17, 2010, 23:55
|
It's really hard on a man being unemployed for 15-18 months.
amen. i was out of work 14 months before getting a job a few weeks back. i had 13 weeks of unemployment left.
i was already wondering what i would do when that unemployment ran out. i can't imagine the mental drain of being out of work for even longer than i was.
it's a cliche that money doesn't buy happiness, but when you have a good work ethic and you're not working, it is difficult in so many ways.
so anything that creates jobs, i'm all for.
|
|
| | | 117 | biliruben
ID: 16105237 Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 00:01
|
No doubt, Tree. No doubt.
Just the first whiff of downsizing at my last gig scared me enough to jump ship to a safer job.
|
|
| | | 118 | biliruben
ID: 16105237 Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 00:02
|
Looking for work is 10 times easier when you are still employed.
|
|
| | | 119 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 07:21
|
amen. the difference between wanting another job and needing another job, is vast.
|
|
| | | 120 | sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 08:15
|
the difference between wanting another job and needing Another job, is vast.
Indeed it is Tree.
|
|
| | | 121 | Frick
ID: 54152814 Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 08:35
|
Re: 112
I wouldn't disagree SZ. That is one of the reasons that I disagreed with Baldwin that Bayh wasn't going to be seriously challenged in the election.
I do disagree that America won't be missing much. So, because Bayh was a Blue-dog Democrat, he won't be missed? I applaud a Senator that follows his constituents. Bayh not have been as liberal as his father, but I think that is a matter relativity. I'll admit that I don't a great deal about Birch Bayh, but my impression is that they were fairly similar in their stances.
How many7 Senators do "much" while they are in office?
|
|
| | | 122 | bibA
ID: 01116297 Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 08:47
|
We have a real card carrying communist in the house district to the west
Only one in the area? Holy moly, that must be one hell of an extreme right wing bastion, considering that a majority of those in national office seem to fit your definition of communist.
|
|
| | | 123 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 10:31
|
I don't know if the CBO's models qualify as sufficient for you, but here they are anyway.
I stand corrected it worked, but lets actually run some numbers here, predicted increase in GDP 1.1 to 3.0% using the 270 billion as the amount spent and GDP of 14.2 trillion then the expected increase in GDP would be 1.9 trillion. so on the high side the stimulus had rate of return of 59% not bad, but on the low side you get rate of return of -42%. So, I stand corrected it worked, it boosted the economy. It still does not say that the economy was saved from a depression by stimulus.
See: USA, 1937 for what happens to an economy that has stimulus taken away prematurely.
I never said take the stimulus away I said they never should have had it in the first place. Of course you can expect bad things when you take away a stimulus. Ask a drug addict how with drawls feel. the point is never get addicted in the first place.
And see: USA, WW2 for the effect of massive stimulus and it's effect on employment and GDP.
I guess the fact that the US was pretty much the only industrial nation that had the capacity to produce goods at the end of the world had nothing do do with that. I think when you are given a monopoly on production capacity your economy better grow.
|
|
| | | 124 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 10:45
|
To be technical, boikin, we are in a depression. The government changed the name after the Great Depression so that smaller economic downturns wouldn't bring back memories of the Great Depression--now the smaller downturns are "recessions" even though the exact same activity pre-1929 was called a "depression.
As to your point, a contracting economy vs one growing at 3% means fewer jobs, less economic demand, shrinking savings, and even more stress in the labor market. Virtually everything would be worse. Would it be disastrous? Probably not (unless it was your job that was lost). But it would be much, much worse, and make recovery that much more difficult to take root.
|
|
| | | 125 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 10:53
|
The stimulus was just one tactic in a strategy that needed to be employed to save the economy. The bank bailout was another. An upcoming jobs bill is yet another. Looking at just the stimulus and trying to determine if it, in and of itself, helped stave off the second Great Depression is an incomplete analysis. You need to look at all the government intervention that took place. Once you do, the picture is pretty clear. We were headed for a recession much worse than this one and the massive spending, as objectionable as it seemed at the time, saved us from that.
|
|
| | | 126 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 11:16
|
Exactly.
I've got some buddies of mine here, proud teabaggers to a man, who are loudly complaining about the size of the deficit and posting articles about how we're setting records and the government is out of control and so on. I liken it to when you lose your job and have to charge groceries on your credit card. It is a good thing? No. Do you want to do it long-term (or even medium term)? No way. But you do what you have to do to survive first.
Some of these tea baggers want us to pay off the debt with food money.
|
|
| | | 127 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 11:28
|
After raiding our fridge, of course.
|
|
| | | 128 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 11:34
|
PD to be technical there is no official definition for a depression. so yes we could be in depression right now and technically we are not in recession as it ended months ago.
PD have you ever considered that maybe things would be better if they were worse now? which would be better long term stagnation or bad now and good later. I understand that human mind has problems correctly discounting future values by over weighing present value, never mind.
thanks Razor for your opinion but that is not evidence that economy was going to fail with out government intervention. I mean had I not put my lucky socks on this morning I would have been hit by a car. The point still is all you have conjecture and opinion on what would have happened. That is all anyone has, so do not treat things as facts, when they are not.
|
|
| | | 129 | Tree
ID: 23143812 Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 11:42
|
proud teabaggers to a man
eh, i'd rather be a proud teabagger to a woman, but to each his own.
I liken it to when you lose your job and have to charge groceries on your credit card. It is a good thing? No. Do you want to do it long-term (or even medium term)? No way. But you do what you have to do to survive first.
this was absolutely the worst part about being out of work for so long. I screwed my credit up in my 20s and my early 30s. i spent a long time slowly but surely whittling that credit card debt down to where i actually saw the end in sight, projecting my credit cards to all be zeroed out within the next 14 to 18 months.
then i lost my job, and most of my cards are right back there, higher than they ever were before.
|
|
| | | 130 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Thu, Feb 18, 2010, 11:56
|
Some of these tea baggers want us to pay off the debt with food money.
Tea baggers are only concerned with the debt because Obama and the Democrats hold sway over the government.
Otherwise they'd be applauding Obama's efforts in this area.
Determined to have a deficit commission with or without Congress' backing, President Barack Obama plans to announce on Thursday that he is establishing a panel similar to — although weaker than — the one lawmakers rejected.
Former White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles and former Republican Senate Whip Alan Simpson would lead the panel, a senior administration official said Tuesday. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the president's executive order creating the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform had not been announced.
Obama's version of the commission is a weak substitute for what he really wanted: a panel created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.
As rejected, the bipartisan 18-member panel would have worked for much of the year and, if 14 members agree, report a deficit reduction blueprint after the November elections that would be voted on before the new Congress convenes next year. The 14 would have to include at least half of the panel's Republicans.
That idea crashed in the Senate, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans — some of whom initially supported the idea.
Of course one of the main principles of tea baggers is to not support Obama on anything, regardless of whether it makes sense for the country or not. And these people have the gall to paint themselves as patriotic. They're simply ultra-partisans whose real leaders are Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, cult of personality pundits whose main goal is to make as much money as possible before their 15 minutes of fame is up.
|
|
| | |
|
|