Gosh golly gee, it's over ONE hundred years old. I can see how people who cannot do simple math would totally fail to understand a clearly written document.
That made me want to puke. Seriously, I would have preferred a period of projectile vomiting over listening to that.
Despite what the title of the video says, it seemed pretty clear to me his statement that "it has no binding power on anything" referred to the Republicans' decision to read the Constitution aloud, not to the Constitution itself. And his second statement isn't really that controversial either; there's little question that interpretation of the Constitution is difficult because of the room for divergent opinions. The Supreme Court's been doing it for the last two-hundred years and look at how often they disagree.
The big deal to many is that our law makers are completely disregarding the constitution in their formation of bills. I do see the concern these politicians have but we need to realize The Constitution was formed under the framework of dominant white America. A lot of the writing and wording still holds today but a few groups of society were clearly left out on some of the rights this country offers.
It's more of a read between the lines game with the constitution to realize it. We've had to enact amendments to have slavery to be repealed, allow women and African Americans the right to vote, and further take down "legal means" which prevented African Americans to vote. These groups of people weren't originally included in The Constitution by the founding fathers.
Quote: It's more of a read between the lines game with the constitution to realize it. We've had to enact amendments to have slavery to be repealed, allow women and African Americans the right to vote, and further take down "legal means" which prevented African Americans to vote. These groups of people weren't originally included in The Constitution by the founding fathers.
Technically, they were... people just needed it spelled out for them.
Again, however, I ask: Who is being neglected now? I'm pretty sure that all races, all religions, both genders are equally represented.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Comic Sans, Please stop making sense! You know that people here would rather look at the headlines and not actually what was said and meant! Other than Ezra blowing the age of the constitution, its the law of the land And the Supreme Court makes decisions based on that. I wonder when they start reading the parts about treason will the repubs continue reading, or just think that does not apply to them!
Why sure Arch, Since most of those repubs are always talking about secession from the union, or things that would be considered treasonous if they do not get their way, i wondered if they would read that portion of the constitution?? Can you explain??
Quote: GMAFB. This joker considered the constitution irrelevant. It's what he said and what he meant. It wasn't just the headlines.
You're really reaching here.
Taking a look at the transcript of the exchange, it's very clear that he's referring to the gimmick of reading the Constitution to have no binding power. The term it signifies is the aforementioned 'gimmick', 'Gimmick' is the subject of the sentence, not 'Constitution'.
Beyond that ... this is typical nonsense meant to have people like us discuss nonsense. Neither party gives a damn about the Constitution. They both try to circumvent it as best they can.
I'm not reaching at all. This guy's trying to diminish the relevance of the constitution. It's not at all clear that he meant that only the reading of it had no binding power. I'm sure that's what he'll say now that he's been called out, though.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Quote: It's not at all clear that he meant that only the reading of it had no binding power.
I thought it was pretty clear, both when heard, and grammatically when read.
Beyond what I've already stated about the 'gimmick' being the subject discussed, he also redirects to the Constitution as a different subject. From a grammatical standpoint, he's not discussing the Constitution.
I don't really know what else to say at this point ... this sounds like some Hannity/Limbaugh thing where they pick apart a soundbyte to show you how 'liberals' think.
Quote: Why sure Arch, Since most of those repubs are always talking about secession from the union, or things that would be considered treasonous if they do not get their way, i wondered if they would read that portion of the constitution?? Can you explain??
I'm not aware of "most republicans" talking about secession. Perhaps I missed it?
I am aware of states - not repubs or dems - but STATES saying "no, the constitution does NOT give every right to the federal gov't." If I'm wrong, please show me where "most" republicans want to get out of the union.
If I'm right - it simply means some states are saying to the fed. gov't. "no, you do not have the right to take over this, or mandate that..." etc.
And, truth be told, they are correct.
The fed. gov't. was not set up to baby sit.
The fed. gov't. has failed, and is still failing, at stopping illegal immigrants - republican or democrat feds' - they have failed.
The fed. gov't overstepped its authority with the health care bill.
The fed. gov't. should be cut 20% this year, the tax laws should be written so that someone with a college education can read them and understand them....the fed. gov't. is killing this country. Republican, democrat - whoever.
The fed. govt starts programs that don't work, and they have no funding for. The fed. gov/t mandates states do certain things, with no funding. The states then mandate things to the citizens - ...........and it all comes down to money. The fed's want more and more and more of it.
Like I said - a 20% cut across the board in fed. spending is needed - this year. Sorry if some fed. employees lose their jobs. They need to join the real world.
Working people need help - not higher taxes - LOWER taxes.
Sorry, the fed. gov't was NOT set up to be a nanny for everyone. Do some reading.
But appeals to anything involving the concept of 'being old' and outdated is simply a straw-man demonstrating an inability to handle the application of abstract principles. The document's age is irrelevant; his inexperience also shows. A quick look at his credentials and you will realize he has no formal education in law or philosophy of law (I don't really consider political science the same as political philosophy and the philosophy of law).
Quote: I don't really see the big deal here.
Except that those divergent opinions use the very same document to diverge those opinions in the first place. Interpretation of the Constitution isn't confusing and it's not difficult either-- the Supreme Court rules, and then those case laws are the law of the land. If those decisions aren't consistent, they will be challenged through the due process and separation of power structures presupposed in the document.
So, while there may be differing opinions, the opinions will be checked and governed the same way they were over two-hundred years ago. There is an entire body of literature left behind by the signers to study if questions need answering. That's what he doesn't seem to understand-- he asserts confusion and then attempts to monopolize understanding. That's politics, not science.
I do agree that he was referring to the gimmicky bit, but he contradicts himself.
Quote: These groups of people weren't originally included in The Constitution by the founding fathers.
Which is why the document is living-- through the ammendment process. The basic principles are universal and apply to all sex, race, and religious beliefs. It's upto the legislative body to make law, it's upto the judicial process to apply law. It's upto the people to keep jurists in check through the democratic system and freedom of press.
Quote: . . .are always talking about secession from the union, or things that would be considered treasonous if they do not get their way, i wondered if they would read that portion of the constitution??
They would probably cite the Texas v. White decision where it's stated in the majority opinion that secession is permissible through mutual consent of the states in response to an over-reaching central government.
The smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.
Quote: I'm not aware of "most republicans" talking about secession. Perhaps I missed it?
I am aware of states - not repubs or dems - but STATES saying "no, the constitution does NOT give every right to the federal gov't." If I'm wrong, please show me where "most" republicans want to get out of the union.
Do a google search on seccesion on by any politician, especially over the last 2 years and guess who which party will come up??? Would you like to make that a dollar for each repub??
Quote:
If I'm right - it simply means some states are saying to the fed. gov't. "no, you do not have the right to take over this, or mandate that..." etc.
And, truth be told, they are correct.
Actually, they are not correct. That is why you have a supreme court to check how the laws are being written, to see if they are constitutional or not. And the Fed Govt has won in most cases against the states, ( more so on the matter of states stating that they have certain rights over the Fed Govt).
As far as the rest of your silly rant, before you go saying that the fed govt has failed..blah..blah blah.. you might want to check out the pending defaults that the states and cities are up against. A good number of states are in danger of going into default and there are ALOT of cities that will not be able to cover their municipal bonds. SO guess what, all that crap crowing that you did, and the states will either be BEGGING the fed for another bail out( and the so called red states are broke as hell) OR be raising taxes and cutting services.
Now as far as your taxes, you are getting a tax break, have had one for years but it has not produced the bump economically that people thought, no job creation, nothing. SO you want to cut taxes even more? Oops, can't do that because you will run up debts? And you know the states/cities are in no shape to do that.
SO really, all your stupid Fed govt rant shows you really do not know what you are talking about!
As far as the rest of your silly rant, before you go saying that the fed govt has failed..blah..blah blah.. you might want to check out the pending defaults that the states and cities are up against. A good number of states are in danger of going into default and there are ALOT of cities that will not be able to cover their municipal bonds. SO guess what, all that crap crowing that you did, and the states will either be BEGGING the fed for another bail out( and the so called red states are broke as hell) OR be raising taxes and cutting services.
Interesting. So, the states are bankrkupt, or close to it.........because they spend too much. But we are supposed to rely on the 100% bankrupt federal gov't. to bail them out? Wow. That's a genius thought.
Quote:
Now as far as your taxes, you are getting a tax break, have had one for years but it has not produced the bump economically that people thought, no job creation, nothing.
No. Every tax paying person in this country got a "tax break". (as if the gov't. allowing working people to keep more of their money is a "break"). As for not producing a "bump" in hiring, a couple of things: what's the economy like? And, honestly - do you think if you RAISE taxes it will help in the hiring realm? Honestly??????????
Quote:
SO you want to cut taxes even more? Oops, can't do that because you will run up debts? And you know the states/cities are in no shape to do that.
No, states, cities.......they spend too much as it is. The fed. gov't.? Hell, they have no clue how bankrupt they are. Face it, the country is screwed over in debt. Thanks to gov't., from the local, to the state, to the fed. level. If you can't see that, good luck on your next vision test.
Also, does the fact that almost half of the county pays no federal income tax mean anything to you? Anything at all? Does the fact that most of that half that pay nothing in income tax receive a monthly check of some sort from the fed. gov't..........does that mean anything to you?
I thought not.
Quote:
SO really, all your stupid Fed govt rant shows you really do not know what you are talking about!
I know more about what I'm talking about than you would care to listen to.
In fact, based on your statements, it would appear you have no clue what you are talking about - thinking the fed. gov't. is going to bail out states and cities.........idiotic at best. How can a bankrupt entity bail anybody out? You have an answer for that?
Arch, Do u just make this stuff up or do you ever have facts/links/graphs/ anything at all to support your claims? Or are u just biased beyond belief and spoon fed too much Glen Beck.....LOL
You argue about country going into debt. but support the party that reduced taxes for companies and richest 1% of the country and inflated the budget beyond belief. Yet you chastise the lower ranks and get all hype up over extending unemployment benefit, which only gives an extra $25/week to the individual. While backing tax break extensions for of 3% for the rich.
As usual, your arguments are factless and biased beyond belief. When given proof that contradicts your argument. You change topics/focus of convo some meaningless point or GOP mythical chant.... "He's a Muslim"
You are the funniest person on here when talking about politics... and the most closed minded.
Quote: Why sure Arch, Since most of those repubs are always talking about secession from the union, or things that would be considered treasonous if they do not get their way
Seceding from the Union and treason are not the same thing.
The "problem" with the Constitution is people want the document to conform to their paradigm and not the other way around. So they make crap up and try to get folks to buy into their dogma by twisting the meaning of the Constitution to fit their agenda.
And as for Ezra Klein . . . you all need to go deeper than that lousy soundbite
This morning, I gave a quick interview to MSNBC where I made, I thought, some fairly banal points on the GOP's plan to honor the Constitution by having it read aloud on the House floor. Asked if it was a gimmick, I replied that it was, because, well, it is. It's our founding document, not a spell that makes the traitors among us glow green. It's also, I noted, a completely nonbinding act: It doesn't impose a particular interpretation of the Constitution on legislators, and will have no practical impact on how they legislate.
The rather toxic implication of this proposal is that one side respects the Constitution and the other doesn't. That's bunk, of course: It’s arguments over how the Constitution should be understood, not arguments over whether it should be followed, that cleave American politics. The Constitution was written more than 223 years ago, and despite the confidence various people have in their interpretation of the text, smart scholars of good faith continue to disagree about it. And they tend to disagree about it in ways that support their political ideology. I rarely meet a gun-lover who laments the Second Amendment's clear limits on bearing firearms, or someone who believes in universal health care but thinks the proper interpretation of the Commerce Clause doesn't leave room for such a policy.
But my inbox suggests that my comments weren't taken that way: The initial interpretation was that I'd said the Constitution is too complicated to understand because it was written a long time ago, and then, as the day went on, that I'd said the document itself is nonbinding. I went back and watched the clip -- or at least the part someone clipped and sent me, which is above -- and thought I was clear enough. But when a lot of people misunderstand you at once, the fault is usually yours. So if I was unclear: Yes, the Constitution is binding. No, it’s not clear which interpretation of the Constitution the Supreme Court will declare binding at any given moment. And no, reading the document on the floor of the House will not make the country more like you want it to be, unless your problem with the country is that you thought the Constitution should be read aloud on the floor of the House more frequently. In which case, well, you're in luck!
Quote: Yet you chastise the lower ranks and get all hype up over extending unemployment benefit, which only gives an extra $25/week to the individual.
I admire you for not being on unemployment. This statement makes it obvious you've never seen an umployment check.
LOL funny....
No I just think that it's hypocritical for the GOP to shutdown the gov't and do nothing until they extended the 3% to the richest of the richest. Yet they constantly fight unemployment benefits for those who lost their jobs cuz the richest of the richest messed up the economy. How much money went to bailing out these banks and companies? Billions And How much is the unemployment benefit... millions? All they want is a tax break for their balloon end of the year bonuses... even though the gov't just bailed them out.
Corporate America runs this country. We the people no longer do.
Quote: Corporate America runs this country. We the people no longer do.
Not to seem harsh, but this statement is flat wrong.
Corporate America is comprised of "the people." Corporate America resides in the private sector, and again, is comprised of people who work for private entities. The people who work in corporate America get taken advantage of by the US government by way of taxation at city, state, and the federal level.
To put it simply, People who work for Wal Mart get money taken out of their checks each month and this money is given to the cities that the Wal Mart resides in. The problem is, as seen by this example, is that the people who work at wal mart are getting paid 8.50 an hour and are getting taxed so that their counterparts that work for the city can make 20.00 an hour.
To expand on this, take the recent mortgage crisis for example. - The mortgage crisis led to people losing their homes, after these people lost their homes, obviously they discontinued to pay their property taxes. So, with fewer taxpayers, politicians have to figure out ways to keep paying themselves 80-100,000/yr and they had to figure out a way to keep their government gas and government vehicles running. So they place levies on ballots, and when levies fail, they turn to the private sector. - People who work at places like Wal Mart. Politicians raise taxes on people who work in the private sector so that politicians and their cronies can rake in nice paychecks without having to do any real work.
So, you can see how taxation takes it's toll on the "people".
Since you brought up Corporate America, and you're so big on "facts" maybe you should do some research of your own. Go read about what some of the "people" are doing to Corporate America. You'll find ridiculous workers compensation claims, ridiculous gender and racial equity quotas in the workplace, and ridiculous lawsuits brought on by people who were fired for neglecting to do their jobs but claim they are the victims of racism or sexism.
I don't know your story man, but let me tell you, when I was in my early twenties, I harbored the same feelings of resentment towards corporate America that you have. Then one day I realized that there was nothing wrong with the system, rather, the system gets manipulated and taken advantage of by lazy people who get carried by people who are not lazy.
Essentially, corporate America features two kinds of people, those who believe in the system and work hard to advance, and those who are lazy and don't believe in the system because the system calls for hard work. What ends up happening is the hard working people carry the lazy people and when management tries to get rid of lazy people, often terms like "racist" and "sexist" and "republican" get thrown at them.
America is getting ruined by neoliberal social and political doctrine. We are a melting pot, I get that. But I do not believe corporations or any other successfull business entity should be taxed more to subsidize overpaid, lazy government workers, and I also don't feel that corporate America should be forced to support and employ people on account of gender or race. - Because this is the case lately, and look at the state of our country.
Quote: Why sure Arch, Since most of those repubs are always talking about secession from the union, or things that would be considered treasonous if they do not get their way, i wondered if they would read that portion of the constitution?? Can you explain??
Any state can legally seceed from the union as long as their populace votes for it. This is why CSA leaders were never tried for treason. Please read up on Civil War history.
Quote: cuz the richest of the richest messed up the economy. How much money went to bailing out these banks and companies? Billions And How much is the unemployment benefit... millions? All they want is a tax break for their balloon end of the year bonuses... even though the gov't just bailed them out.
Corporate America runs this country. We the people no longer do.
The ONLY way an economy can be messed up is if a governing body intervenes and regulates it for reasons other than protecting life and property. If the governing body consumes the wealth, they consume the consumer's political and economic freedom with it.
What you seem to forget is how corporations have bullied politicians for years into dictating policy. This has caused excess rider's in bills to appease these entities and water down any legislation that is passed. It has also allowed special interest groups (many funded by large corporations) outright lobby/bribe politicians for years, with only limits on how much each politician can recieve.
Now that corporate funding for elections is legal... things are gonna get even more ridiculous. Watch how much both sides spend in the next elections. Afterwards the winner will be ultimately obligated to those high dollar corporations that funded their elections. Just because people work and run a corporation, doesnt mean that they should use the power and money of a corporation to dictate law or fund a candidate. They support what is best for that corporation and not the people. And I do believe its of the people, for the people, by the people. Not for a Corporation.
You speak of frivolous lawsuits and I agree completely. But I have no sympathy for these CEO's and board members who have incentive packages and balloon bonus payments that in the last 10 years have increased by 300%.
You argue about country going into debt. but support the party that reduced taxes for companies and richest 1% of the country and inflated the budget beyond belief.
The country isn't "going into debt", it is so far beyond that it's scary. And here's a fact - BOTH parties have done it.
Also - you show your ignorance about the tax cuts when you say "...reduced taxes for the richest 1%". Seriously - it shows you have no clue about what taxes were cut.
Quote:
Yet you chastise the lower ranks and get all hype up over extending unemployment benefit, which only gives an extra $25/week to the individual.
Seriously? Do you know anything about the unemployment extensions? Anything?
Quote:
While backing tax break extensions for of 3% for the rich.
Wait - was it 1%, or 3%? Oh, that's right - everyone that pays taxes got a break. Those pesky little facts are annoying, aren't they? Or do you not have a clue about the tax breaks?
Quote:
As usual, your arguments are factless
No - they are not. It is not my fault you don't know what you are talking about. Seriously - educate yourself just a bit - you look foolish when you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.
Quote:
and biased beyond belief. When given proof that contradicts your argument. You change topics/focus of convo some meaningless point or GOP mythical chant.... "He's a Muslim"
????? What are you talking about?
Quote:
You are the funniest person on here when talking about politics... and the most closed minded.
The country isn't "going into debt", it is so far beyond that it's scary. And here's a fact - BOTH parties have done it.
What do you base this on? Obama trying to fix whats wrong now or how we got to this point? Last democrat before that I believe had balanced the budget and we had a SURPLUS. I guess we can blame everything on Carter.
And you can't seriously say that our country is not in a better situation economically, diplomatically, and war status then 2 years ago? We not there yet but atleast things slowly getting better and not deteriorating.
Quote:
Also - you show your ignorance about the tax cuts when you say "...reduced taxes for the richest 1%". Seriously - it shows you have no clue about what taxes were cut.
Quote:
Wait - was it 1%, or 3%? Oh, that's right - everyone that pays taxes got a break. Those pesky little facts are annoying, aren't they? Or do you not have a clue about the tax breaks?
Um ... comprehension is key when reading and critiquing others... top 1% of the country= PPL who make the most money, 3% = the amount of additional extended tax cuts at 36% instead of 39% that the GOP basically stopped everything til they got. What about that is incorrect? Again you chastise with no facts just biased opinions. Oh yeah read the last line. This bill is projected to add 900 billion to our debt.
No - they are not. It is not my fault you don't know what you are talking about. Seriously - educate yourself just a bit - you look foolish when you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.
I always provide links or vids to authenticate or provide proof of information. In this case I believe its more common knowledge and a link shouldnt be needed when the news has been covering it for the last month.
Quote:
You are the funniest person on here when talking about politics... and the most closed minded.
The country isn't "going into debt", it is so far beyond that it's scary. And here's a fact - BOTH parties have done it.
What do you base this on? Obama trying to fix whats wrong now or how we got to this point? Last democrat before that I believe had balanced the budget and we had a SURPLUS. I guess we can blame everything on Carter.
Balanced budget means nothing - we're talking about the debt. 2 different things. Educate yourself. Plus, Clinton only had a "PROJECTED balanced budget". That means nothing.
And you can't seriously say that our country is not in a better situation economically, diplomatically, and war status then 2 years ago? We not there yet but atleast things slowly getting better and not deteriorating.
Yes. I can say that. Seriously. Economically we are worse off. Diplomatically I have seen 0 improvement. Perhaps I missed something? War status? We still have troops being killed. While war status is def. improving, the other 2 are NOT.
Quote:
Quote:
Also - you show your ignorance about the tax cuts when you say "...reduced taxes for the richest 1%". Seriously - it shows you have no clue about what taxes were cut.
Quote:
Wait - was it 1%, or 3%? Oh, that's right - everyone that pays taxes got a break. Those pesky little facts are annoying, aren't they? Or do you not have a clue about the tax breaks?
Um ... comprehension is key when reading and critiquing others... top 1% of the country= PPL who make the most money, 3% = the amount of additional extended tax cuts at 36% instead of 39% that the GOP basically stopped everything til they got. What about that is incorrect? Again you chastise with no facts just biased opinions.
And what about the tax cuts for the others?
Quote:
Oh yeah read the last line. This bill is projected to add 900 billion to our debt.
No - gov't. spending is adding that - not tax cuts. Believe it or not - the money Americans earn is THEIRS - not the gov'ts. It is up to the gov't. to live within their means - it is NOT up to the taxpayers to work for the gov't. - gov't. works for us. If they don't have the money - tough. That's what my life is like, and yours, and everyone else's.
Kinda proves my point - thanks. According to the first sentence of your link, the tax cut extension will save the average tax payer (remember, tax PAYER) $2000 per year. I don't care what it saves some multimillionaire - his/her percentage is the same - make more? You save more. Fairly simple math.
Quote:
Quote:
No - they are not. It is not my fault you don't know what you are talking about. Seriously - educate yourself just a bit - you look foolish when you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.
I always provide links or vids to authenticate or provide proof of information. In this case I believe its more common knowledge and a link shouldnt be needed when the news has been covering it for the last month.
I don't follow this - don't know what you mean.
Quote:
Quote:
You are the funniest person on here when talking about politics... and the most closed minded.
Whatever.
Proved my point once again.
No - you proved my point.
You focus on one group of people that get tax breaks - but you totally ignore that everyone that pays taxes get's a break. You focus on the rich - while ignoring me and every other working class person that got a break.
Here's a clue for you: the rich spend money - they buy goods and services that you and I and the vast majority of Americans sell, or manufacture, or produce. Middle class Americans do that also. so do poor americans. The more money the gov't. confiscates, the less we ALL have to buy the goods/products/services of other working Americans.........does any of this common sense stuff make sense to you?
One other thing I'd like to say to you - you call me a republican. That's fine, if the choice is republican or democrat. What you don't understand is I am not a died in the wool republican - I AM a died in the wool, true believer in conservatism. I believe in spending less than you take in - be it on a personal level, a local gov't. level, a state level, or a fed. gov't. level.
If you can comprehend that statement, perhaps you will understand me a bit more. We all need to live with in our budgets. What I see local gov't. doing, state gov't. doing, and especially the fed. gov't. doing is saying "hey, we have more programs that need funding, so we're going to take more and more from you." Meanwhile, more and more of us get sucked into dependence on the gov't..........and it is unsustainable and we are now seeing that (hopefully).
I'm tired of seeing gov't. grow, yearly. And they say "but we have contracts - we have to pay more to the employees".....meanwhile, I see non gov't. employees losing jobs, or taking pay cuts.
I see multitudes of new "programs" come out - and I see the number of poor people increase, while the dependence on gov't. increases.
Look at Greece, Spain.....heck, many European countries.........they are bankrupt. And what happens? The masses rebel and say "no way in hell you're taking away my benefits".
This country is screwed unless we get back on the right path - now. Republicans aren't going to do it. You can call me a republican - that's fine, as it fits your stereotyping of me.
By the way - what about the unemployment benefit extension? Have you read anymore about that? Have you read what it used to be? And what it currently is? And what they wanted it to be?
Exactly how many years do we pay people to not work? Bet you won't answer that.
Call me an evil SOB, I don't care.
Oh, and your comments about spending - republicans spending this country into debt, etc........what about the health care thing? That won't cost trillions?
Quote: What do you base this on? Obama trying to fix whats wrong now or how we got to this point? Last democrat before that I believe had balanced the budget and we had a SURPLUS. I guess we can blame everything on Carter.
Blame it on all of them.... R's and D's.. Paco if you traditionally make $80K per year and spend $100K per year you are going into debt, correct? Then if some unforeseen income comes along (say a grandpa passes away and leaves you a trust that pays you $30K/year for 5 years) and all of the sudden you are making $110K per year so without really doing anything you are able to balance your personal budget... The problem was that you made no adjustments to your spending, even though you KNEW that at the end of the trust, your income was going back down... well that is exactly how we treated the tech bubble, as if it was going to last forever, and that is exactly why the Clinton surplus was an accounting sham that was totally unsustainable...
Quote: And you can't seriously say that our country is not in a better situation economically, diplomatically, and war status then 2 years ago? We not there yet but atleast things slowly getting better and not deteriorating.
Economically we are being propped up on deficit spending, the ramifications of which are not being felt yet but they will be for many generations to come. If I loaned you $500K tomorrow and allowed you to spend it however you want it would be easy for you to say your lifestyle was way better than it was 2 years ago.. but eventually you would have to pay me back, then your life would suck again.
Diplomatically... Who loves us now that didn't like us 2 years ago?
War... what exactly has Obama done other than to follow the plan that Bush had laid out?
Quote: Corporate America is comprised of "the people."
In terms of those who make the decisions and collude with the state and federal governments ... no, not at all.
Not even close.
I've said for awhile now that I'm baffled by the 'public'/'private' split that A.M. radio and such have conjured up ... it makes no sense. Both factions operate relatively similar - like bloated bureaucracies.
You speak of frivolous lawsuits and I agree completely. But I have no sympathy for these CEO's and board members who have incentive packages and balloon bonus payments that in the last 10 years have increased by 300%.
Then don't buy their products or vote morons into office. It's really that simple.
Don't like corporation x handing public official z a particular amount of money? Don't vote official z into office and coporation x won't have public official z to give it to. Do they do it anyway? Write them a letter or writer your representative and speak your mind.
Don't like bonuses that corporation x is handing out to their CEOs (which is not your money, by the way)? Don't purchase their products and boycott their economic policy. If you educate your friends, family and somehow create change through the democratic process, that business will self-destruct... as long as uncle Sam doesn't bail them out.
The real bullying occurs when the government, the monopolized institution of legal force [a position starting from a positive], is being used as a tool for your boycott to interfere with consumer business [a position starting from a negative].
The smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.
With that reasoning, you might as well take away all charity as well and consider them bribes. Unless you have direct evidence that actor x took money from corporation z for agreed services, there's no legal standing behind your interpretation of bribe. A corporation, if charitably, donates to a political official's campaign, it's that corporation's business and not yours. Your business is self-education and the ballot box.
Whether they are celebrities, CEOs, large corporations, small business, etc., it's irrelevant because they are entitled to the same rights, as free individuals, to distribute their property as they see fit, as ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Don't like it? Challenge it. You're free to collaborate a case and do so. What you're proposing is guilty until proven innocent, which is poor application of constitutional law and a denial of due process-- both principles underlining the rule of men/on whim.
The smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.
Arch, Maybe you should use the internet to learn instead of your usual blubbering!
Quote: Interesting. So, the states are bankrkupt, or close to it.........because they spend too much. But we are supposed to rely on the 100% bankrupt federal gov't. to bail them out? Wow. That's a genius thought.
Hey.. you might even want to check out that Third paragragh:
Quote: he states have been getting by on billions of dollars in federal stimulus funds, but the day of reckoning is at hand. The debt crisis is already making Wall Street nervous, and some believe that it could derail the recovery, cost a million public employees their jobs and require another big bailout package that no one in Washington wants to talk about.
Lets see here, make cuts and possibly tax increases and states will still be short on their deficits... hummmm, wonder where they will get the money???.. Ask Arch, he knows..LMAO!!
Quote: No. Every tax paying person in this country got a "tax break". (as if the gov't. allowing working people to keep more of their money is a "break"). As for not producing a "bump" in hiring, a couple of things: what's the economy like? And, honestly - do you think if you RAISE taxes it will help in the hiring realm? Honestly??????????
Actually, The Pres and congress should have been responsible and let the Bush tax cuts go away, maybe keeping them for the middle class but not anyone making 250/500k plus. Just cannot afford it and they have not created one job during this time. Help businesses(small) but someone gotta start paying to control the debts what the US is racking up.
Even though that article talks about a few cities around the world, the US states and cities are in trouble. Can't cut your way out of all that debt!! Hey how about lowering taxes.. LMAO!!
Quote: In fact, based on your statements, it would appear you have no clue what you are talking about - thinking the fed. gov't. is going to bail out states and cities.........idiotic at best. How can a bankrupt entity bail anybody out? You have an answer for that?
Because the Fed can float debt where as the states cannot. The states will NEED some cash and they will go to the Fed for it. NO amount of cuts will just do it, they need some type of revenue increase and cutting state taxes will not do it. The states/cities will either raise taxes and ask for money!
Quote: How did Ohio get into this fiscal mess? A national recession cut deeply into general fund tax revenues at the same time the state was implementing business and individual income tax reductions enacted in 2005. The state's income tax rates, for example, are now 30 percent lower than they were just 25 years ago.
To balance the General Revenue Fund budget in this biennium, there was virtually no increase in spending last year, a reduction of about $1.7 billion this year and the postponement of the final phase of a scheduled income-tax reduction. The state also drew more heavily on ''one-time money,'' or nonrecurring revenue, much of it federal stimulus funds.
Humm.. getting money from where??
Boy Arch, you really do not know what you are talking about nor what is really going on. ... I would just say typical repub but the problem is worse than that, your just clueless!
Audit our gold reserves, adjust inflation accordingly and suddenly we are no longer in a deficit; states can't ask for money that's not there. Federal government cannot give money that's not there. Our dollar's value becomes fixed, international trade becomes equal, citizens begin to acquire wealth through economical stability = higher GDP = lower debt = better credit = prosperity.
The smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.
Quote: With that reasoning, you might as well take away all charity as well and consider them bribes. Unless you have direct evidence that actor x took money from corporation z for agreed services, there's no legal standing behind your interpretation of bribe. A corporation, if charitably, donates to a political official's campaign, it's that corporation's business and not yours. Your business is self-education and the ballot box.
Whether they are celebrities, CEOs, large corporations, small business, etc., it's irrelevant because they are entitled to the same rights, as free individuals, to distribute their property as they see fit, as ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Don't like it? Challenge it. You're free to collaborate a case and do so. What you're proposing is guilty until proven innocent, which is poor application of constitutional law and a denial of due process-- both principles underlining the rule of men/on whim.
Um... they do keep records of it and there is a cap how much in value of donations and gifts they can receive.
The problem is that the same ppl who voted on this are the same ppl who are the benefactors. All politicians right and left.
And is it my business as well as it's yours. I dont like the idea that we are electing officials who have obligations to these companies and not their constituents. I believe this is a major flaw in our gov't and now Presidential elections are going to be tainted by this. A normal person may give $100- $1000 maybe more. A company will give 10's of thousands and these politicians have to feel some type of indebtedness to these companies and will be thinking about the next election and financing. I dont want that to influence our representation.
![[Linked Image from i26.tinypic.com]](http://i26.tinypic.com/30vow7m.jpg)
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
... I would just say typical repub but the problem is worse than that, your just clueless!