Does stupidity really skip a generation?

[songsmith]

It is obvious that you are not very familiar with the Tea Party.

Ehh, what's to know? Not the most nuanced group in the country. Righty malcontents longing for the glory days of 2001-2004. Gosh, they're angry about something! Let me know when they agree on what it is. --->JMS

[Hawk]

It seems Thomas Jefferson would agree with me in that, I fear the strong corporate powers that want to (and do) run our country. Even more empowered by the recent Supreme Court ruling.

Jefferson compared "monied corporations" to the aristocracy of England. Which is brilliant and very relative to today's political environment.

Here is a sentence from Thomas Jefferson comparing his fear of monied corporations' aristocracy to his fear of England's aristocracy.

"...I hope we shall take the warning from the example and CRUSH in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

[Hawk]

lonewolf

Taxation is in the constitution for defence and general welfare of our people. Washington used "implied powers" to start a national bank. Jefferson used "implied powers" to buy land.

I would go so far as to say that we need to defend American people from the aristocracy of our monied corporations. A fear Thomas Jefferson also had and stood against.

Having all Americans insured is a way for government to defend it's people, and the government should be involved when the corporate insurance industry can deny coverage for any reason THEY see fit. It is the government's duty to protect and defend it people from such practices. And the general well being of our people is relative to the general well being of our country.

[lonewolf]

lonewolf

Taxation is in the constitution for defence and general welfare of our people. Washington used "implied powers" to start a national bank. Jefferson used "implied powers" to buy land.

I want you to finally, once and for all try to comprehend this.

Washington, at Hamilton's request, created the national bank with the argument that it was "necessary" to carry out some of the specific powers granted by the Constitution. The decision of McCulloch v. Maryland upheld the bank and the concept of implied powers to be used to implement the specific powers.

The implied powers were strictly limited for use to implement the specific powers. See McCulloch v. Maryland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

Jefferson did not use implied powers to buy land. The Louisiana purchase was never contested on Constitutional grounds and implied powers were never invoked on that subject. Bad example of implied powers, since they were not used.

However, Article I, Section 8, ppg 17 loosly provides for the purchase of land. The "state" just happened to be France:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;

[lonewolf]

Having all Americans insured is a way for government to defend it's people, and the government should be involved when the corporate insurance industry can deny coverage for any reason THEY see fit. It is the government's duty to protect and defend it people from such practices. And the general well being of our people is relative to the general well being of our country.

Having all Americans insured would help us to hurry up and get this government bankruptcy thing over and done with, so that we can have a Constitutional convention and plug up all the holes that caused the bankruptcy in the 1st place.

If it will speed up the bankruptcy process, I'm all for it. There's no sense in wasting any more time.

[JackANSI]

If this "self governing" or "smaller government, let the people sort it out themselves" thing all the conservatives always talk about on here would really have a snowball's chance in hell to work, then all political threads started by them would have "Political:" as the prefix to the rest of the threads subject.



Thats why you need "big government".


PS. Said completely tongue-in-cheek for those who have an inoperable tumor in their sarcasm detector.

[Hawk]

lonewolf

Some people disagree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers

[Banned]

lonewolf

Some people disagree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers

Hi Bill, that wiki page was probably the least sourced article I have ever seen in wikipedia. That seemed well below their normal standards in terms of references and sources.

And just because something is on a wiki page does not mean that everything in that page is true.

[lonewolf]

lonewolf

Some people disagree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers

Where?

[lonewolf]

hurry up and get this government bankruptcy thing over and done with, so that we can have a Constitutional convention and plug up all the holes that caused the bankruptcy in the 1st place.

If it will speed up the bankruptcy process, I'm all for it. There's no sense in wasting any more time.

The dawn of financial oblivion is closer than you think:

http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatcht ... downgrade/

http://www.cnbc.com/id/35204886/site/14081545

But Noooooooooooo. Not in America. Nooooooooooooooooo.

Yes. Yes in America. Be very afraid.

[songsmith]

This we agree on. Over the last few weeks, I've been listening to both sides' partisan media, and the sum of it is that it all seems like a diversion. China is now the 3rd largest economy in the world, they own vast amounts of US debt, and this week, they started attempts at dictating what the US does in Taiwan, as well as re:Obama's meeting with the Dala'i Lama. Their economy is cooling, but still hotter than practically any other country in the world. Remember all that outsourcing to China in the 2000's? There are numerous items within 5 feet of you right now that could not be manufactured immediately, here in the U.S.
I don't think it's the apocalypse for America, but we may have to accept the fact that we are no longer the world's benefactor, and maybe not THE big player anymore.--->JMS

[lonewolf]

This we agree on. Over the last few weeks, I've been listening to both sides' partisan media, and the sum of it is that it all seems like a diversion.--->JMS

They can't divert it anymore...the truth is now starting to hit the markets and subsequently, the business channels. It seems like CNBC spent the last 2 days talking about Greece & Portugal, two of the "smaller European debtor nations" I was referring to in the post from last Sunday. It hasn't gotten as far as in my projection yet, but the events of the past week lend it a bit of creedence (Bad Moon Rising) and we have plenty of complacency to go around. Here is the relevant cut & paste from last Sunday:

"I believe we are past the point of government solvency, especially when I still see abundant partisan rationalizations for deficit spending. We will get one more dollar rally against other even worse off debtor nations like most of Europe. This will have a calming effect because of the "strong dollar." Sorry, its not a strong dollar, its a weak euro. When compared to unpegged creditor nations, the dollar is still dropping. For now, the dollar is the only international game in town...for now.

This will go on until we see an early warning sign on the news that the euro has dropped to near par with the dollar. The credit rating of many smaller European debtor nations will be reduced to junk status. At this point, gold will be under $1000/oz for the last time--buy some GLD if you can. All will seem OK here in the states until the 2nd warning sign that a major European country (probably Great Britain) has their credit reduced to junk status and is unable to secure financing. At first, there will be a "flight to quality" to US securities and there should be a brief opportunity to buy the Chinese Yuan cheap with CYB. At this point, European interest rates must rise significantly to secure new debt. Competition for capital will drive US bill & bond interest rates up much higher than their present artificially low levels of 0-4%. The interest payment on the debt will mushroom well beyond the present level of $1/2 trillion per year to an unmanageable level....

Once the creditor nations see that the US cannot possibly finance our way out of this downward spiral, they will finally withdraw funding and unpeg their currency from the dollar, causing it to drop thru the floor. We will have crashed headon into a credit brick wall and fallen into financial armageddon.

Argue all you want about history, but we are on a path to restore health care to what it once was...4 chickens for a checkup."

[songsmith]

I see what you meant by that earlier... you were speaking in a wider sense than just healthcare. I thought you meant that healthcare in itself would bankrupt the US, which has kinda been debated enough for me.
Perhaps all the hubbub about obscene corporate salaries is moot. They may be adjusted by the market. Mine, too. I think I'm better prepared for it than they are, though. Sometimes it pays to grow up hardscrabble. If you told me I'd have to live in a one-room cabin in the woods, I'd say, "Kickass!" Country boy can survive, Bocephus!--->JMS

[PStl]

. Of course people are concerned, and rightly so, as to how easy it was for an extremely liberal, and socialist ideolog, to be cast into power. .

The so-called socialist ideologue was cast into power by a popular election. People were given a choice between more fumbling, dangerous rightwing cluelessness, and anything else. They were so fed-up with the authoritarian status-quo, they easily chose "anything else." The ideologue part about Obama seems to be true, and simply having an opposing ideology isn't a crime. The "socialist" part is pure Rovian spin, and gets reinforced by Obama's detractors every time he takes aim at the top 2% of wage-earners who control 50% of the wealth. If there's a class war, like Warren Buffet says, "the aristocracy is certainly winning." When 50% of the population controls 50% of the wealth, maybe things will really be "fair and balanced."--->JMS

I'll believe he's not a socialist when he:
Drops the federal health care talk,
Stops attacking the free market, all the while taking care of select portions of it (I know that's a blanket statement, but I think we'll know more as inside information about the TARP, etc comes to light),
Cleans up his cabinet,
Takes back the "fundamentally changing America" speeches,
Stops the "spend our way out" philosophy,
I know, not gonna happen.
So he is what he is, and I don't expect him to change, but I think as he gets closer to 2012, he'll have a decision to make. Stay with the far left, and go down with the ship, or pretend he's going down the middle, and go for the win! We'll see.
On the Tea Party; haven't been to a local yet, but generally speaking, I'm not sure a Tea Party (3rd) Party, with a platform, is neccesarily the way to go. People are frustrated, and do not trust the government.
As for cutiing Government agencies, etc; how about just not inventing any more for a spell! Just backing off the states would be a good start. And to even think about another entitlement program right now is insane! That's why the health care numbers went down so fast (and why they tried to shove it down our throat), people started realizing the cost/benefits.
My comment on why this is Obama's fault is the fact that from Day 1, he sets the agenda. What was it?
Say we do get a Libertarian next time. Day 1, he reassures the public that we will now start a real path back to prosperity. Personally, I think we need a 50-year plan. Will America buy in, we are awefully spoiled! And the fact that very soon, people will be able to vote themselves more of the "pie". It took 100 years for the progressives to "lead us" to where were are today, we can get it back!

[songsmith]

It took 100 years for the progressives to "lead us" to where were are today, we can get it back!

See, I think the real damage was done from 1980-2008. Reaganomics was, is, and always will be detrimental to real growth and prosperity for anyone in the middle and lower classes; Clintonomics was more prosperous as far as living standards and getting people working, but his gifts to Corporate America were ultimately what sent bread-and-butter work overseas; and G-Dub and the far-right did everything they could to bring America to it's knees in the name of "capitalism."
If anyone on the right had bothered to watch the president's meeting with the Republican congressional caucus, they'd know that Obama, indeed, inherited the most serious fiscal crisis since the Great Depression (blaming him for stuff that happened prior to Feb'09 is really ludicrous, if you think about it) and a majority of the govt spending that happened around that time was as a result of automatic measures enacted years ago to manage the economy in the event of such a crisis.
Govt healthcare is certainly nothing new, it's been brought up by liberals for a generation, and the US is the last Western nation to cling to the idea that sickness or injury is a huge profit-generator, that getting sick should financially destroy you.
"Fundamentally changing America," while something of a lightning-rod, is admirable to me. The silly notion that enriching the rich, forcing white Christian "morality," and privatizing everything from the Army to the penal system would be comical, were it not so destructive and dangerous. Besides, the Right wants to "change it back" which seems antithetical to any forward momentum. Their way didn't work the first time, and led us here.
Now, I think it's obvious that single-payer govt healthcare right now is a bad idea (I said last summer there aren't enough votes to pass it), BUT we MUST have some relief from a predatory industry where price inflation is many times that of actual overall inflation. We MUST have more regulation of banks when they "need" us to bail them out, then take huge bonuses. There MUST be controls in place when Americans struggle to fill their gas tanks to get to work, but oil companies post the largest profits in business history. There's your culprit: the insane idea that corporate bloat, graft, and influence on govt is not just a good idea, but THE good idea. An idea posed by, uhh, the corporate interests.--->JMS

[PStl]

I will give credit to the President for criticizing the "cardboard check" representatives who also criticize the spending.

One of the reasons why Congress can have a 10% approval rating, but the local guy can be very popular!

Most important thing right now is: Americans are waking up, becoming involved, learning about thier government, and making them be accountable (hence, incumbent R's & D's will be OUT come November, that's a good thing!).

[PStl]

It took 100 years for the progressives to "lead us" to where were are today, we can get it back!

See, I think the real damage was done from 1980-2008. --->JMS

You need to pay more attention in Beck's American History class!


Pop quiz: Who was Woodrow Wilson? And how important was his role in the modern progressive movement?
Extra credit: Who was Silent Calvin Coolidge?

[songsmith]

Sorry, nothing Glenn Beck says or does benefits anyone but Glenn Beck, and I flatly refuse to play into it. You want to blame someone? What about an extremist media whose only role is to push rightwing agenda? In the decade I've been listening in, they sold us:
Saddam has WMD's
Saddam supports Al Qaeda and bin Laden
We actually WON the Vietnam War
Reagan felled the Berlin Wall and dismantled the USSR
Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, and Mark Foley are moral role models
John Kerry lied about his military service, not Bush 43
Tapping phones, suspending habeus corpus, and awarding no-bid contracts to Cheney business interests are GOOD for America
The Bush tax cuts and other gifts were beneficial to US govt fiscal stability
Presidents must work unilaterally (during Bush reign)
Presidents must NOT work unilaterally (now)
Obama is a terrorist-sympathizer
Obama is a communist
Obama does not understand the Constitution (though he studied constitutional law at Harvard, and taught same at U. of Chicago... those who didn't do those things don't really have much authority on the subject)
Obama wasn't born here
Obama wants to dismantle the US
Obama care authorizes death-panels to decide who lives and who dies (now the domain of insurance agents)
Two million people showed up at the Tea Party March
Sarah Palin is a viable presidential candidate
...and on and on and on.

Yeah, Beck is a
TALK-SHOW HOST
and nobody elected him for anything. He has no more authority or knowledge than you or I. He, like so many in the partisan media, sells political rhetoric for money, and I'm surprised you'd subscribe to it. You're easily smart enough to figure things out on your own.--->JMS

[PStl]

I just don't have enough time to do all the research.

[Banned]

John, you need your own show on MSNBC. No one would listen to you there either.

[lonewolf]

It took 100 years for the progressives to "lead us" to where were are today, we can get it back!

See, I think the real damage was done from 1980-2008.

You couldn't be more wrong. Please stop thinking and start knowing.

During the period from 1980-2002, Congress did not legislate any significant spending legislation that was permanent and harmful. On a positive note, during the latter half of the 90s, Congress did manage to pass significant public assistance reform and a few balanced budgets, to which W.J. Clinton affixed his signature. Clinton's involvement in these accomplishments was not unlike King Casiodorus thrusting his sword into the already slayed, dead dragon and declaring himself "Dragonslayer".

Although Congress enacted some significant tax reform during this period, it did not affect the year to year tax revenues collected by the federal government. The only times federal revenues dropped year over year during this period was as a result of recession. Lower GDP means lower revenues.

The real damage can be traced to:

FDR's "Revolution of 1937" extortion of the Supreme Court which opened the floodgates for:

The FDR agenda
Johnson's Great Society
Bush's Medicare Modernization

The creation of the departments of:
Agriculture
Labor
Health & Human Services
Housing & Urban Development
Energy
Education

Until we get a modern Supreme Court decision overturning the extorted decisions of the late 30s, we are doomed to bankruptcy.

[tornandfrayed]

I Know that none of this really matters. You think that anyone is going to do the right thing?

When you are laying on your deathbed looking at your loved ones think about the term "Debt" and the concept of "Money" and see what they really mean.

We have created a false reality that focuses on the "Things" rather then the people. Until that changes we are doomed to be what we are.

[lonewolf]

We have created a false reality that focuses on the "Things" rather then the people. Until that changes we are doomed to be what we are.

You got it! That is what must be removed from government. Not just the "Things", but also the government's power to dangle them over a political chopping block.

A bankrupt government cannot hope to do any good for its people.

[songsmith]

Riiiiiiggght. FDR only kept people from starving to death (well most of 'em) after the robber-barons gutted the banking and other financial systems. I can understand how Social-Darwinists would just say that those who lost everything in the Great Depression didn't deserve to live, via the survival-of-the-fittest mantra, but FDR placed the needs of the many over the needs of the elite. Had FDR's policies not been enacted, we would have lost WWII a few years later, and thanks to the Dust Bowl and corporate predation, hundreds of thousands would have died. Funny how when the talkshow-hosts all need someone to compare Obama to, all the sheep pick the same person to compare. FDR only reacted to Big Business's rape of the system.
Also, Reagan's tax cuts for the rich didn't result in a reduction in tax revenue? That makes no sense at all, assuming your assertion that the top 2% percent pay 90-something percent of the taxes. If you cut the top 2%'s taxes, revenues would HAVE to decrease. Add Reagan's doubling or tripling (depending on who you ask) of defense spending, and social-program cuts that led more people to welfare, and you get THE LARGEST DEFICIT BY ANY PRESIDENT up to that time.
And note that I included Clinton in the damage years, even though he presided over the greatest peacetime expansion of the economy in the 20th century. He gave Big Business (and the far right) NAFTA in exchange for congressional votes on other issues, that he never got. Apparently, Republicans cheat if they can't win fair. Anyway, NAFTA opened the floodgates for the mass exodus of jobs under the G-Dub admin, and eventually resulted in China's vault to the top of the world foodchain.
Stop "knowing" and start knowing.
As for the latest right-wing fad of hating "big government," that will come to a screeching, smoking halt when they retake Congress, and you can take that to the bank.
A local bank who didn't take TARP funds. --->JMS

[lonewolf]

Riiiiiiggght. FDR only kept people from starving to death (well most of 'em) after the robber-barons gutted the banking and other financial systems. I can understand how Social-Darwinists would just say that those who lost everything in the Great Depression didn't deserve to live, via the survival-of-the-fittest mantra, but FDR placed the needs of the many over the needs of the elite. Had FDR's policies not been enacted, we would have lost WWII a few years later, and thanks to the Dust Bowl and corporate predation, hundreds of thousands would have died. Funny how when the talkshow-hosts all need someone to compare Obama to, all the sheep pick the same person to compare. FDR only reacted to Big Business's rape of the system.
Also, Reagan's tax cuts for the rich didn't result in a reduction in tax revenue? That makes no sense at all, assuming your assertion that the top 2% percent pay 90-something percent of the taxes. If you cut the top 2%'s taxes, revenues would HAVE to decrease. Add Reagan's doubling or tripling (depending on who you ask) of defense spending, and social-program cuts that led more people to welfare, and you get THE LARGEST DEFICIT BY ANY PRESIDENT up to that time.
And note that I included Clinton in the damage years, even though he presided over the greatest peacetime expansion of the economy in the 20th century. He gave Big Business (and the far right) NAFTA in exchange for congressional votes on other issues, that he never got. Apparently, Republicans cheat if they can't win fair. Anyway, NAFTA opened the floodgates for the mass exodus of jobs under the G-Dub admin, and eventually resulted in China's vault to the top of the world foodchain.
Stop "knowing" and start knowing.
As for the latest right-wing fad of hating "big government," that will come to a screeching, smoking halt when they retake Congress, and you can take that to the bank.
A local bank who didn't take TARP funds. --->JMS

I see that you have been successfully diverted from the crux of the problem and are toeing the populist line with references to all the tangential past issues that get people going, but reveal no solutions.

Its a simple problem with a near impossible solution: As long as Congress has the power to fuck things up, they will continue to fuck things up. The solution is to remove that power and restore Congress to pre-1937 powers.

Your defense of FDR is the typical mythology that sprouted up around the "Father of American Socialism". This is especially true about 1937. 8 years into the depression and one-term into FDR's presidency and still, no improvement in the economy. FDR failed at just about everything except getting Congress near unlimited power. You need to look up the "Revolution of 1937" and see what despicable lengths Roosevelt went to subvert the Constitution.

FDR never lived to see prosperity because most of his policies didn't (and still don't) work. They were completely ineffective against the depression. Hell, his Mother didn't even like them! Under FDR, the state of our military was pathetic and he left us completely unprepared for war. It was only after Pearl Harbor that America's industrial might was transformed into a war machine capable of defeating the axis.

I'm afraid you are right about the R's retaking Congress, although it might take until the 2012 election for their spots to change. Dancing round & round on the deck of the Titanic.