Slashdot Mirror
Debt Reduction Super Committee Fails To Agree
Hugh Pickens writes "VOA reports that the latest effort to cut the U.S. government's debt apparently has ended in failure as leaders of the special 12-member debt reduction committee plan to announce that they failed in their mandate from lawmakers to trim the federal debt by $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Democrats and Republicans blame each other for the collapse of the effort. 'Our Democratic friends were never able to do the entitlement reforms,' said Republican Senator Jon Kyl. 'They weren't going to do anything without raising taxes.' Democratic Senator Patty Murray, one of the committee's co-chairs, says that the Republicans' position on taxes was the sticking point. 'The wealthiest Americans who earn over a million a year have to share too. And that line in the sand, we haven't seen Republicans willing to cross yet,' Now in the absence of an agreement, $1.2 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts to domestic and defense programs are set to take effect starting in January, 2013, and the lack of a deal will deprive President Barack Obama of a vehicle for extending a payroll tax cut and insurance benefits for unemployed Americans, which expire at the end of the year." (Though the official deadline for the committee's hoped-for plan is tomorrow — the 23d — they were to have provided it for review 48 hours prior.)
Line their pockets with gaff and offer them the opportunity to screw over the public.
The committee was like having a deer convince a wolf not to eat him and the wolf trying to convince the deer that it should be eaten.
Take two polarizing political topics, put them in a room and you will get a stand still, especially when elections are just around the corner....
Previewing comments are for sissies!
Jesus really?
These aholes should just compromise. Raise taxes and cut spending. Do both. You can't agree? Well then why not fix the problem quickly by agreeing to these two points that would solve the problem in a hurry? Sure, I am not an economist, but I bet my understanding of solving the debt problem is just about as good as a senator or congressman who spends his time raising money all day, rather than trying to figure out this country's problems.
(yes I could be very wrong, and i look forward to more intelligent replies below, but at least i have proposed a solution right there! much better than 90% of our leaders....)
They can't compromise. Its like watching children argue. They only unite to give themselves a raise.
Completely taking tax increases off the table is stupid and shortsighted.
the 12 members of congress trying to make decision for 311 million Americans.
Understand that most of what they are talking about is reductions in spending INCREASES, not cuts, ala Military. In the current lingo: You spend $100 in 2011, you planned to spend $125 in 2012. If you only spend $100 in 2012, it's called a 25% cut in the military... In most cases (by default), government spending goes up by 8% per year. If it only increase 4%, every screams "cut my program by 4%". Again, all of this rests on the ASSUMPTION that we have a budget, which we do not. The United States has not passed a budget in about 3 years...
The reason they're not getting anywhere with spending cuts is the game has been rigged in favor of spending increases in the first place.
They have generous rates of increase built into the budgeting process. All of the so-called "cuts" are actually (slight) decreases to the rate of increase.
They could plug up the deficit merely by having slightly greater increase rate decreases.
Anyways, they can cut now, or they can have the universe cut for them. There's a limit to how much you can just keep spending pretend money.
A related rant is how Congress has gotten around the 27th amendment. That was supposed to say there should be an election in between Congressional pay raises. But they came up with a process whereby they get automatic cost of living increases without voting on it. Flagrantly unconstitutional. It's the same sort of thing.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
I say we all get together and agree to not re-elect a single member of Congress. We could clear the entire House next year and a decent chunk of the Senate. I don't care if the new members are democrats, republicans, blue, green, red, or purple, it just seems like the entrenched politics is completely broken.
It's too bad we can't figure out a way to just throw them into jail.
----- obSig
What gets me is that if it's not important enough to either of them to compromise and reduce spending, it seems to me that the 1.2 trillion cut is perfectly ok, or at least better than any alternatives either side could see. I would suspect that they already knew they could make these cuts and just haven't been willing to. It also makes Barry look bad of course.
Also as usual, we're clearly not hearing any truth about what's been going on in these talks. If it was this simple, they could have just looked at each other and said after 5 minutes "Fuck it, we're not gettin' anywhere. Let's go back to the bar..." instead of all this rigamaroll.
-
I don't know why everyone tries to be "fair" and blame the Republicans and Democrats equally for not "compromising." Any rational person knows that it makes no sense trying to close a budget deficit without raising taxes and undoing some of the damage of the Bush years (when he cut taxes for the wealthy, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, etc.) The Republicans were never going to agree to anything, but they get to play the blame game as usual.
It is, of course, the same picture in Europe. Governments aren't capable of delivering pain to their core supporters and therefore can't deliver rational solutions to the most serious problems they face.
The answer is to swap governments - the Dutch elect the Greek government and the Greeks elect the Dutch government, for example. The electorate is sufficiently detached to evaluate the choices more dispassionately, but have sufficient incentive to be diligent as they know if they really cock it up they'll be shafted in turn.
Anyone want to draw lots?
Consequences, shmonsequences...as long as I'm rich.
What's the loss to them with a disagreement? NOTHING, because they can just blame the other side, and the people have no way to directly hold them personally accountable. No recalls, no real challenges, and most of them are in gerrymandered districts. If anything, they have a disincentive to try, since if they did betray their base, they'd probably get a more hardcore challenger.
They should have picked 100 or so, random American citizens (2 from every state, maybe some from the territories and district), and let them decide on a proposal.
I wouldn't have even mandated they be adults, or sane, or non-criminals(Not like Congress can complain), just not politicians or lawyers.
Radical idea I know, but I would just have it a proposal, which Congress would vote on. No law says where Congress gets their ideas. Which is why the ALEC exists.
You got peanut butter in my chocolate!
The Democrats appear to have located their spines.
The game that's been going on for over a year is simple:
1. Make demands in exchange for continuing to have a functioning government after some deadline.
2. "negotiate" with the Democrats until several hours before the deadline.
3. Democrats blink, make an 11th-hour deal with Republicans to give them about 95% of their original demands.
4. Democrats declare victory and tell their constituents that the 5% that they got is worth it. Their constituents, apparently not as stupid as the Democratic politicians, don't believe them.
5. Republicans declare victory, and tell their constituents that the 5% cost was worth it, because they'll get rid of it soon enough. They then locate the next deadline they can use.
I am officially gone from
Most politicians don't make their fortunes from government checks they make it from sweetheart deals and insider trading. Taking their pay away wouldn't hurt them in fact they would have to be extra corrupt to make up for the lost income.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
What pisses me off the most about discussing the debt with most of the people I know is that they won't discuss the numbers. Why? Because they don't want to see what even Wikipedia will show them about how we spend money. The federal government spends the vast majority of its money on domestic spending, not military. The combined total spent every year on the Department of Defense and both the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are still a few billion shy of all we spend on Social Security per year.
Just Social Security. Think about that for a moment. We spend as much on that as we do on the military, which is one of the only functions of the federal government which no one disputes is a constitutionally-defined function of the federal government.
There is no getting around the fact that first and foremost, we need domestic spending cuts. As a Millennial, I don't give a rat's ass if you "paid into Social Security all of your life." I am paying into it now and it's a fact that I won't receive it. I don't mind paying for the elderly, but the program needs to be cut off at its knees now because it is the height of injustice to expect us and Generation X to fund such a horribly mismanaged program now that the Boomers want to retire. They had 1994-2008 to right the ship of state, to try to rebuild the trust fund (which was destroyed on their parents' watch) and ran one of the most irresponsible periods of American government in our history. Arguably, the worst.
As a practical matter, means test the heck out of Social Security and Medicare while cutting our military's responsibilities. We could shave hundreds of billions per year with neither a loss in our national defense nor creating any genuine inequity by cutting of access to the former for people with private retirement or other government pensions and by bring our troops home. The reason our budget is so out of control is first and foremost our inability to say "no" to anyone, be it the middle age people who want to collect a fat benefit check they don't really need or a foreign government expecting us to police the world.
Democrats want to give the working class a 1% tax cut, cut taxes on businesses by 50%, and let the tax rates for the 1% go back to where they were?!? OMFG no way! It is good that the Republicans are working so hard for "us". [/SNARK]
Obama wants to cut the payroll tax by another percentage point for workers, at a total cost of $179 billion, and cut the employer share of the tax in half as well for most companies, which carries a $69 billion price tag.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA?SITE=PAREA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Democrats, including Obama, want to extend the Bush tax cuts only to individuals making less than $200,000 a year and married couples making less than $250,000.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPERCOMMITTEE_BUSH_TAX_CUTS?SITE=PAREA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
"After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline," said a joint statement by the co-chairs, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
It's not about debt reduction, but about the budget deficit.
national debt 15 trillion
budget 2012 3.7 trillion
income 2012 2.6 trillion
deficit 2012 1.1 trillion
The problem is: there *are* no cuts. The so-called cuts are reductions in planned increases. Government spending continues to go up - just less than it otherwise might have. This is not success.
Anyway, the amount they were supposed to cut was a joke. They were supposed to trim 1.2 trillion over 10 years. That's 120 billion per year. But again - not off the current spending, but off of planned increases. The result would still have been a net increase.
Idiots re-arranging the deck furniture on the Titanic. It would be entertaining if it weren't so frustrating.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
I surprised everyone is fooled by this. The solution to the problem at hand is obvious... Cuts in both military spending as well as social programs, and ending the Bush tax cuts... in fact, we probably need even more than that. But how can the republicans raise taxes and cut military spending and then go home and get re-elected? How can democrats cut social spending and not invent some new "screw the rich" tax? It would require a diabolical plan... pass a law that says if a special committee cant agree on a plan, all these things happen... Then find people to be on the committee that are all as far left and right as possible so that, not only will they not agree, but their respective electorate will praise them for not making a deal with those evil republicans/democrats. Taxes go up, spending goes down, everyone can blame everyone else... It's perfect! The only problem? Even this wasn't enough. We're still doomed.
Completely taking tax increases off the table is stupid and shortsighted.
I'm not sure if you can lay it all on Norquist, but he's clearly the most powerful proponent of the stupidest, most obstructive Republicans in the budget mess. Norquist, the 96.5% of the Republicans in congress (238 of 242 House, 41 of 47 Senate) who signed his pledge, and every single Republican candidate won't do anything that raises taxes by a single dollar.
And check out this:
In a debate in August, Republican presidential candidates were asked whether they would support a budget deal that bundled $10 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases. All said no. They rejected any deal that involved raising taxes.
So they hate raising taxes. We get it. These assholes still can't accept a proposal that goes in their favor 11 to 1? They reject it out of hand before even talking about what the spending cuts would be? Are they joking?!??!?
Who the fuck supports a platform, for a major party in a democratic republic, that says: "We get every single thing we want and you get nothing you want. If you don't comply, we'll watch it all burn until you give it."
That's not debate. That's not governing. It's fucking economic terrorism; it's taking hostage of 295 million people to satisfy your ideological hard-on.
From what I'm seeing it's the Republicans that are going to suffer the wrath of We The People for this failure. The sooner the stubborn idiots that are unwilling to compromise are removed from office the better.
Seeing the Department of War budget cut automatically makes me a little less disgusted with our Congress. Seeing the Bush tax cuts expire gives me the warm fuzzies. I shouldn't get too pleased, they will somehow save both from the automatic budget axe...
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
...seriously people?
F*** what I wouldn't give for the Clinton years again. Smart president, likes a little scandal, smart Republican congress, keeping each other in balance with COMPROMISE and working together. Ignoring that whole ridiculous impeachment thing (personally, I'm happier when the President is known to be getting some.)
Now? Well meaning, if weak (first term-itis), President, diametrically opposed Republican Congress who are caught between a rock and a hard place trying to embrace the Tea Party while ignoring its ridiculous 'no compromise' policies.
I remember when I first heard about the tea-party, it sounded good. People wanting common sense and a return to 'founding father' kinds of ways. Then it became popular and got hijacked by the whack jobs. The founding fathers espoused compromise and working together - the tea party? Hell no, "My way or the highway" is more their tune.
Government meant to operate in balance cannot operate when one part of the government simply will not work with the others.
Do I want my taxes to go up? F*** no. Should they go up to solve debt problems in addition to cutting spending? Of course. Make corporations making over 10 million dollars actually pay taxes? What a crazy idea...
Loading...
Two Words. TERM LIMITS.
Hit 'em where it hurts.
...to vote out the 1%.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Democrats will cut spending, but only if Republican's raise taxes on the rich.
It's not "both sides being inflexible", it's "both sides blaming each other".
The Democrats blame Republicans for not being flexible, Republicans blame Democrats for not giving in to their demands not to raise taxes on the rich.
Which is funny, because one of the first things Republicans did when they got back in in 2012, was raise taxes on the low and middle income, while extending tax cuts for the super rich.
(They removed the "Making Work Pay credit" and changed the rate of workers' FICA contributions to make - hitting almost exclusively poor and middle income families).
Did you read about that tax hike on Fox News??? I thought not.
That's the thing, Republicans always like to pretend the other guy is just as bad, but no they're not. Even in their private lobbying they admit they're a bought and paid for party of the rich:
http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/19/8896362-exclusive-lobbying-firms-memo-spells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street-video
The fact that this group was needed simply tells the American people that we not only have a dysfunctional government right now but these so-called elected "leaders" can't get the job done and it is one they are paid to do....Congress failed the minute they appointed this smaller group. In essence, they punted on the hard decision so they could wash their hands of it--plain & simple. This government is a disaster right now and while the previous administration may have caused some things leading up to Obama's term, the fact is this administration does not take ownership of anything, blames other people/events for their problems and is dividing this country by the hour and setting us back decades both on the federal level as well as personal levels. I've never seen or heard of a President causing so much hatred and divisiveness among groups within the country. I hope all the black voters out there don't simply vote this guy back in simply because he is black--he has to be the most racist and divisive President this country has had in a long time. The only difference between him and people who are outwardly racist is the fact that he practices it through policies, speaking out of both sides of his mouth and puts things in motion behind closed doors out of public eye. To me, that's more dangerous than hate groups in the streets...at least you can deal with those idiots in public and in the open. How can you fight racism and hypocrisy on this level when you don't know until it is too late? Very disappointed in our government and we may need another Declaration Of Independence to free ourselves of this current government. It is in the Constitution and DOI--when the government ceases to be in place for the people and begins to usurp too much power it is time to disband it and create a new government---that's really what we need now as this cancer has been growing for decades long before Bush was in office. We've got a do-nothing Congress, divisive President and a court system that is out of control with a "Statist" agenda. We need to turn this country around and right this ship once and for all....America was NOT built to have government interfere in our lives and tax us ad infinitum--that's why we broke with England in case anyone forgot. The government believe it can dole our rights to citizens...they forget...WE, the people, give the government its power and WE the people can take it away. Otherwise, we might as well be Socialist or worse, Communist at our core and we know how well those systems works don't we. I find it hypocritical that WE, as a nation, are supporting revolutions around the world so people can opt in to Democracy YET our government is killing our democratic way of life and taking away the very freedoms other countries are dying for....
Thank You America for letting us in Europe feel that we are not alone in being governed by a bunch of self-serving idiots
I got a better chance of winning the lottery twice then politicians voting to end their gravy train. To bad though because the day they do that is the day the US democracy starts heading down the right path again.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Increase spending.
Oh, it may not be in this year's budget in order to get the votes for budget balancing, but next year any money raised from higher taxes will be more than blown with increased spending. The politicians cannot help themselves, it's a compulsion.
Invite in 10 or 12 random Senators/Representatives, give them 2 weeks.
Their mission:
Save 120 billion from the deficit, or 120 billion a year is cut from the federal support for states the members of the Committee are from.
You should be able to do this a bunch of times. No downside at all.
They may, but they don't.
These politicians need to put their heads down and work out how to get all that money back that's been lining the panties of the 1% for the last 30 years. What do they think the end-game is here? Do they plan on just relocating to with a big fat wallet or something after the country dries up?
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Lunacy. The fix to corruption, debt, injustice and spending is oversight. Unfortunately, our (US) system of government didn't do a good enough of a job of making oversight a separate function. The legislative is expected to police itself, with the exception of the Supreme Court who has the power to oversee the constitutionality of their lawmaking. The Senate was supposed to work this way, but it got broken.
... until no bread or games are to be had anymore. Look to Greece what happens next.
Incidentally, on the actual numbers side, Greece is not doing that much worse than the US. It is just reputation that makes the difference. And reputation can change very fast indeed.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
And why do you think it needs to be a bigger part of your life ?
This is what you are asking for when you demand taxes be raised. Sure you may just want to soak the rich guy, I mean its hardly fair he has more than you do. What you really get is that money going to more bureaucracy that much more overhead in your daily life, and that much more of a boost to politicians patronage powers. That means that much less "Democracy" and that much more oligarchy in a country that has far too much of the later.
The super committee failed. Time to bring in the Super Duper Ultra Committee.
But at least they are representing the people that put them there. Its taken 30 years for the republican party to get ticked off enough with the republican office holders to make it happen, but make it happen they did.
It's about time someone used the word "efficient" in this debate.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
For this subject, it's useful to see tax revenue and expenditures in a pie chart format. Even though this data is a little old, it still provides a good view of the landscape. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
In due time the US government will stop spending so much money, specialy on wars and entitlement.
Your Congress is just opting out of an ordered halting.
Rethinking email
Don't like this Congress? Thank the people who pay for, and respond to, this kind of ad. We always elect the government we deserve.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
..and you're SURPRISED by this? >_>
with the exception of the Supreme Court who has the power to oversee the constitutionality of their lawmaking
The founding fathers didn't even think of that, that's a power it took for itself after Marbury v. Madison.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Congressional terms are specified in the Constitution. To change them, you'd need an Amendment.
Good luck with getting 2/3 of both houses to vote that in. I think the 3/4 of the State Legislatures might be possible, but the hurdle of the super-majority cut-out-own-throats vote is a biggie.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Well yes, they were realistic in thinking they couldn't do what was asked without raising taxes. And most Americans acknowledge that raising taxes is necessary and wanted you to come to a deal that was a combination of raising taxes and cutting spending. You, Mr. Kyl, and your Republican friends were the ones making unreasonable demands.
Did you not pay attention to the 2010 elections? Many were kicked out because they wanted something new. Now we have even WORSE people in office. Change for the sake of change rarely works. Quit saying this. Vote for people that back your views, or at the very least vote for the least evil if that doesn't exist.
The sensible middle of both the Republican and Democratic parties needs to withdraw from the party system and form a centrist Moderate party that can get something accomplished. That means entitlement reform AND tax reform AND some tax increases!
The Parties are no longer serving this Nation. It's time to trash them.
The Electorate will love it. "I stand before you as neither a Democrat nor a Republican but as someone who will serve the Nation before any Party." That person has MY vote.
We're living under a tyranny right now, it's a tyranny of the stupid and idealogues on both ends of the spectrum. It's time to have a revolution in Congress. And hey, no one has to die!
--PeterM
--PM
And I'd get a lot more satisfaction from a dozen Tim Horton's doughnuts than today's US Congress.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
dream of being the 1%
http://usdebtclock.org/
Chuck Norris IS a Republican. Good luck persuading him to raise taxes on anyone. He endorsed Ron Paul for 2012 FFS.
The liberal left will come in here saying that categorically taking tax increases off the table was uncompromising and stupid.
The conservative right will come in here and point out that tax increases are always the answer for the left, who have no concept of fiscal responsibility and never met a government program that they didn't love.
I'm a conservative, but I'll be as objective as I can be: BOTH sides are arrogant, petulant, moronic, asinine, worthless bunglers that should all be fired. If the postal worker walks down the street and doesn't deliver the mail - she gets fired. If the paramedic looks great in his uniform and loves tooting his siren but never actually saves anyone, he gets fired. Congress's JOB is the control of the pursestrings. Period. They haven't done their job, yet we continue to re-elect them.
Let's be clear - to claim that Republicans are solely to blame is already tendentious. The 111th Congress (2009; you know, the one with the democratic majority in both houses, and a democratic president) DIDN'T pass a budget for 2010. To suggest that was somehow purely Republican fault is staggering mendacity.
I have already complained to my Republican congressman that they suck as negotiators - that the military (20% of federal spending) gets hit by 50% of the sequestration automatic cuts - was an idiotic agreement, and is essentially giving the Democrats who are typically anti-defense no reason to come to any agreement. No agreement = they already win. Thus I'm unsurprised that they've found no result to date.
Personally (and I know this is my politics speaking) I'm sick of the infinite expansion of government programs, seemingly no incentive by government to limit their spending, and their constantly assuming I as the tax payer am an endless font of more money.
Before the leftist strawmen attack: of course I understand that some government is necessary, and that as a member of a society, I'm willing to cheerfully contribute a share of the costs. HOWEVER I don't agree with the $trillions spent on bailing out investment firms and banks, and protecting them from their bad choices. Yes, letting them collapse would have been disastrous for the US economy, but here's how I see it: we've already built a society that's trying to be capitalist on the up side, (so people can reap the benefits), and socialist on the down side (so people are protected from the results of their choices). This is logically unsustainable. The resulting economic collapse is nothing more than the resolution of this unsustainability....pretty much just like forest fires. The more we try to resist the natural forces of capitalism, the more cataclysmic are the ultimate results when these forces DO eventually succeed in breaking the levees.
I don't agree with $billions being spent to bail people out of homes that they bought and couldn't afford. Caveat emptor shouldn't be MY problem. As a homeowner that DID moderate my desires, who DID buy a home within my means (INCLUDING planning for rainy-day money, and working/saving at a level that isn't predicated on boundless optimism, an eternally-growing economy, and permanent employment), I'm the schmuck; as a homeowner that makes his payments, I'm going to be (again) the one charged to cover the losses by the banks AND taxed by the gov't to cover the giveaways by the Fed too.
I'm disappointed by the $billions (or more) apparently lost in Iraq and Afghanistan without our government apparently caring very much?
In my adult lifetime, I've heard repeatedly at the federal and state levels that whenever there's a budget problem (and let's face it, need is infinite and resources never are), elected representatives like to increase taxes today and promise to cut spending tomorrow (liberals) or cut taxes today and promise to cut spending tomorrow (conservatives). Tomorrow never seems to come.
I agree that to dig out of this hole, we WILL have to raise taxes. I complained to the Republican National committee that as a Republican I w
-Styopa
It was a power envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution, even though it wasn't explicitly spelled out. The point of ruling a law "unconstitutional" really is one of recognition: If the court system refuses to acknowledge the validity of a law and therefore doesn't even recognize that the law has been created through a constitutional process, that law really doesn't exist as far as the court system is concerned. Yes, it may appear on the books of statutory law, but effectively a single citation to a higher court judicial opinion (not even the supreme court) invalidating that law renders ineffective any prosecution under that law.
That was the whole point of Marbury v. Madison, so far as in that case even the filing of the case before the Supreme Court was unconstitutionally done and therefore it was unconstitutional for such a petition to have been granted in the first place. This was also a constitutional crises so far as the only legal means to enforce a law was to perform an act that in itself was contrary to the U.S. Constitution. The law under question in that case, the Judiciary Act of 1789, had several provisions that simply were ill advised to even be put into legislation and most significant was an unconstitutional expansion of the U.S. Supreme Court itself and its authority. To have ruled in favor of Marbury would have essentially forced the court to ignore the U.S. Constitution altogether and to have considered statutory law alone on the presumption that it was the domain exclusively of the U.S. Congress to determine the scope of the Constitution. In that sense, I think it was a very wise move for the court to have taken at the time, even if this decision might be abused in other contexts.
...Put their jobs on the line. Literally ... If they cannot come up with a consensus, the committee members are fired / impeached immediately. We'll see how deep those lines in the sand really are.
Ironically ultimatums like this also work with fighting children: "You two get along or I'll turn this car right around!"
The problem is that no amount of "oversight" will ever be enough because you are essentially asking the government to police itself. You simply cannot separate the oversight body from the rest of the government without creating a quasi-police state with a bunch of unelected people having "oversight" over the elected ones. That sounds very much like Tyranny to me.
Alternately, you could create an elected "oversight" body, but then why have the original governing body in the first place? Oversight is a black hole of ever growing government and ever disappearing money.
The solution is to shrink the size of government and take power OUT of it's hands until it is back to the teeny tiny size it was intended to be by the Founders. Most of it's current duties should be devolved back to the state, local, and personal level.
Simply put, our Government is too big. Big Governments are always inevitably corrupt. Making our government bigger (oversight) won't fix the problem of it's excessive size.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Our competing special interests have us by the balls and neither one of them wants to give up an inch.
If the idiots in congress had actually done something (other than raise taxes) back in the early 80's when the NCSSR declared that social security would become insolvent, or in 1994 when Gingrich et.al. were making noise about it, or maybe even as late as 2000 when Gore made it a core part of his platform, then we could have had serious social security reform. The baby boomers would have had time to adjust their retirement plans and deal with the changes.
It's too late now. The boomers are already retiring, and it isn't right to pull the rug out from underneath them after the government has been promising them their money back (they paid into the program after all). Raising taxes is the only option for social security now. Which sucks for my generation, but at least I have time to plan around it.
Because the people who fund the Republican campaigns have enough money that they don't need social security, medicare, etc. And then they've somehow convinced the rest of the Republican voters that because they don't need medicaid or unemployment or health insurance RIGHT NOW, that it is against their interests to fund these programs just in case they do need them. And downplay the anti-social security/medicare parts so their senior-citizen base don't realize that they're trying to destroy these programs. If they talked about eliminating social security and medicare entirely, they'd lose the senior vote, so instead they talk about "reforming" it, when by reforming it they mean removing all its value.
Should taxes not decrease?
This is a committee, guys. By definition they never get anything done.
Even if the committee had "succeeded", our spending would still be out of control.
This.
You know, I think part of the problem is how they approach it. They shouldn't be looking for places to cut spending at all! Allow me to digress...
When I moved into my current house, which is on the edge of a forest, the garden was totally overgrown. Saplings had taken over about 30 feet of the property - a huge, dense thicket you could barely force your way through. Now, I could have said "ok, I'll look for a tree to trim", and maybe taken out a couple of sickly saplings. This would have gained me exactly nothing - for every sapling I took out, another dozen would have sprouted. The only possible solution was the chainsaw - level the entire thicket down to the ground, and then decide what I actually wanted to let grow.
It's the same with the US budget. Spending is totally out of control; there are too many special interests. In the end, the only solution that might really, actually work would be to announce: in one year, *every* existing federal department will close, *every* existing federal program will terminate, and *all* federal employees will lose their jobs. Then decide: what do we actually need? Use new legislation, define new federal departments, build it up from scratch. Stop fighting about which twig to trim - mow it all down, and plant anew.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
After 3 years of Democrat leadership (2 years controlling the White House, Senate and House, and the last year still controlling the White House and Senate) we have no national budget. We've been moving forward on continuing resolutions for 36 months now. But it's "Tea Tards" keeping us from getting our national finances in order...
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Democrats: Raise taxes on the rich and we'll do the deep spending cuts
Republicans: Only the deep spending cuts, no tax rises on the rich.
One is offering a compromise (Democrats), the other is only stating their extreme view: no tax cuts for the rich (Republicans).
So the original post *would* be possible with the Democrat compromise, but not possible with the Republican inflexibility.
I've always been partial to the Death and Taxes poster for people who just want a curious at-a-glance type overview:
http://deathandtaxesposter.com/
The wiki article of course has far more in-depth information.
They are not uncompromising, just realistic.
Spoken like someone without the first clue of what the Constitution and its construction were really all about. You remind me of people like this.
The problem is that no amount of "oversight" will ever be enough because you are essentially asking the government to police itself. You simply cannot separate the oversight body from the rest of the government without creating a quasi-police state with a bunch of unelected people having "oversight" over the elected ones. That sounds very much like Tyranny to me.
Which is essentially what happened to the US under the "Articles of Confederation": 13 tyrannical states that proceeded to act like spoiled brats, impose taxes/tariffs on each other, harass each other's citizens, and so on with no legal recourse for resolving the disputes between states because the Federal government lacked any enforcement power. The solution was a STRONG federal government, with equally-powerful legislative and executive branches able to contradict each other and a judiciary with final-say veto power but who were limited to stepping in ONLY in the event of a conflict filed by affected parties (citizens or governmental bodies).
But please, go back to imagining what you think the constitution says, rather than paying attention to what it ACTUALLY says and what ACTUALLY happened and what the Founding Fathers ACTUALLY wrote and said on the matter. It'll make you feel better in your ignorance.
Deficits don't matter. This is a bunch of political ballyhoo to put on a play for the masses who think the government's bank account behaves just like their own down at the local bank. It doesn't and has not for a long time. The government got downgraded by Moody Credit Rating (McGraw-Hill) because some very rich people were upset that their bonds weren't going to yield as much (rather possibly threatened) as a result of foreign pressure. It has nothing to do with the government's actual ability to repay the actual obligations. The treasury (or Fed) can produce as much money as needed to pay anything. Taxes are taken in to trim the fat from M1, not to actually pay for anything. This is a joke.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Starve the beast in a failure, at least according to the Libertarian Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n3/cj29n3-7.pdf
The article backs up a previous Cato study that says the same thing.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
I second that. It makes sense that without strict limits people will vote themselves money. This has been covered before.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
with out medicare no health insurance will take seniors at all or make them pay like 3K-5k /mo for lowest level of care + lot's of pre existing conditions.
The Democrats keep offering more and more cuts but get nothing back from the Republicans.
We need both revenue increases and spending cuts.
The Republicans, and the Tea Party radicals specifically, are the problem.
Blar.
Which is perfectly rational of the health insurers. This customer is nearly guaranteed to be making expensive claims non-stop for the rest of his life. If the senior is expected to make claims of $X a month, the health insurance needs to cost $X + 10% (at least) /month.
We want everyone to have health coverage. But insuring everyone just isn't good business sense. That's why the government should be in the health "insurance" business. The government doesn't have to make money, an insurance company does.
Most people forget that the states have the power to amend the Constitution too. I think it's time for the people to go to their states and start asking for their states to apply for an Article V convention.
Uhm, no. An idealist is only good if you agree with their ideals.
To paraphrase Jack Sparrow: "Me? I'm a politician, and a politician you can always trust to be political. Honestly. It's the idealists you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly... stupid."
The Republicans elected a bunch of idealists. We now have presidential candidates who effectively want to disband the federal government, stating air pollution might cure asthma, vaccines cause autism, there is no unemployment just laziness and the best way to show this is to repeal child labor laws and force nine-year-olds to have jobs, etc., are now talking points.
These didn't come out of no where. The candidates are either idealists themselves or trying to appeal to the idealist part of their party in these tight primary races.
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
The Republican party has been hijacked by extremists. The Koch brothers, et. al. have been very successful in pushing big lies en masse to a voting constituency too stupid to understand the consequences of what they're being fed. This constituency elects "tea-party" candidates and vows to push out "RINOs".
Result? A de facto extremist takeover of the conservative republican wing of the party. Anyone who compromises is accused of heresy, and voted out. Compromise becomes as impossible for congress.
FYI, I'm an elitist. Since I'm not running for office, I don't have to pretend to be stupid. Nor do I pander to stupid people. So, take your best shot.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I run a company, a commodity company with little competition and a captive customer base. my profits are going down. actually, it has been running a deficit far longer than I want to admit. I've leveraged almost all my assets. how do I improve profitability?
I cut costs (variety of ways, like defer maintenance, cut spending on coffee for the rabble, etc.) executive perks are the last thing to go. hey, I can outsource! (hire contractors for everything! at least, that is what some of my advisors advise...it is coincidence they also run contracting businesses...) my input costs are relentlessly increasing...
at this point most CEOs and Boards would increase the price for their product or service.
Do you keep bailing water faster and faster, or do you just plug the hole?
"Any rational person" knows you plug the hole, because you can't just keep bailing forever. The Democrats refused to plug the hole.
Umm... The person I was replying to was referring to adding ADDITIONAL oversight to our EXISTING government framework. They were implying that our system of checks and balances as stated in the Constitution was inadequate and we needed yet another layer of oversight to make it work.
My point was that adding more layers for oversight doesn't help because it doesn't fix the central issue: Too much central government.
If you read the Constitution and the writings of our founding fathers (Do you have your copy of the Federalist Papers? Thomas Payne's "Common Sense"? The combined writings of Thomas Jefferson? I have mine right here.) you would see that while they differed on some of the specifics, the founders envisioned a LIMITED central government who's role was kept at a minimum. Defending the country, ensuring peace and unimpeded economic traffic between the states (the infamous "commerce clause") and providing for jurisprudence over country-wide legal issues. that was it.
Our modern government has grown FAR beyond the original intent of a simple framework to hold the states together and into a behemoth that reaches tentacles into every aspect of our daily lives. One literally cannot do anything that is not in some way impacted by, regulated by or taxed by our monstrous, over sized, behemoth federal government. This is what needs fixing.
Ultimately, we must come to the realization that the promise of socialism; That the central government can fill every need, take away every want and create a utopian "socially just" society is a lie. It isn't possible, and it's high time that after 100 years of it in America we need to simply stop trying for it. If we don't, we each get to personally experience the reality of socialism's "end game". Financial collapse, widespread poverty, and Tyranny. We will all be equal. Equally poor, equally oppressed, and equally lost.
Better to have the "inequality" of Capitalism and get an "unequal" share of it's blessings, than have an equal share of the misery of socialism.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Technically if the tax base increases and you don't increase the government budget, then you have an effective reduction in per-capita spending.
point of ruling a law "unconstitutional" really is one of recognition
Except that this view is incomplete, and it's weaknesses make it horribly so. By cramming this act of "recognition" into the judicial system, we end up where we are now: the government can do whatever it wants until it hurts someone. Supporting this arrangement is like supporting using an elementary school as a shooting range: sometimes you have to be able to say "no, don't do that" before someone gets hurt, because no matter how hard you petition or how hard the government redresses, some grievances can't be undone.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
The committee was like having a deer convince a wolf not to eat him and the wolf trying to convince the deer that it should be eaten.
I think it was more like 12 wolves trying to agree on which deer not to eat.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
...they DID agree... to disagree. So, that's something, right??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_hz5HFmA6A
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
that one side was willing to compromise. One side wants to cut entitlements, the other to raise taxes. Republicans say: the Democrats wouldn't compromise and do it all by cutting entitlements. The Democrats say: the Republicans wouldn't compromise and do it with a mix of taxes and entitlement cuts.
One side just sounds saner here. It's depressing.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Am I the only one who thinks that since they failed to do their mandated job they shouldn't have that job any longer? If I was given an explicit task (and not an overly abstract or vague one at that) and told to complete it by a certain date, I'd be expected to produce something at the very end. If what I provided was a list of places I could point my finger then I'd be out on my ass!
I know people here love to complain about overpopulation, but the downside to having less kids is that the welfare state becomes unsustainable.
When these entitlement programs were set up, people were actually having a fair amount of kids. Now that we are down to about 2 kids per female, you can't make the welfare state sustainable long-term without crushing young people.
If you want to have a welfare state that takes care of people, start having lots of kids. Otherwise, gets some popcorn and enjoy the show.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
"It is amazing how much the Republicans, and those same boomers, have shifted to the right." no it is no amazing. People as they age get to be more and more conservative and adverse to anything "new". An aging baby boomer population will automatically shift to the "right". Please note any way that the point is moot, because from my point of view (from EU) you have any way 2 party from the right, and nobody from what we call the left.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Fire the entire committee - Republicans and Democrats alike.
Isn't that what you do with people that can't perform their assigned responsibilities? Oh wait, these are politicians, and we don't actually attach consequences to their failures.
Never mind, carry on.
Except this is what the Republicans are actually saying:
Republicans: We need to increase spending on the military and cut everything else and we need to cut taxes on the rich.
The Republicans are actually preparing a bill which will cancel the automatic military cuts, and they were willing to raise taxes on the middle class in exchange for tax cuts for the rich. They seem to have little real interest in balancing the budget.
Why doesn't anyone recongnize that if you took every penny from the top 1% we'd still be completely screwed because we spend way too much .
Because that's not actually true. The richest Americans have about $1 trillion in cash reserves and American corporations have about $1.5 trillion in cash reserves. That's money that's not doing anything other than earning interest. There's an interesting argument to be made that that money is being kept out of the economy because taxes on the rich and corporations are actually too low.
Wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest Americans. The top 400 have about as much wealth as the bottom 50%. This means that the rewards of society are overwhelming going to the richest Americans, which probably means they aren't paying as much as they should in taxes. After all you'd expect the people profiting from the status quo to pay to maintain it, right?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The last time was 2012
Really? No wonder the Republi-shits can't get any governing done. They are too busy fucking around with a time machine.
This is where I feel bipartisan politics fails everyone. We end up fighting each other, disagreeing seemingly just for the sake of disagreeing and forget that we're all going to have to give up something to come to a solution. No one wins. A while back I suffered some cutbacks at work, so I had to drop some cable channels, quit going to the gym and use the free one at my apartment complex, and limit eating out to once (if at all) a pay check. Those weren't huge sacrifices, just luxuries, but I pulled through a difficult period of lower income until I got a better offer. Quit fucking arguing and fix the shit. Bottom line. No one that really matters will blame you if you fix the bigger picture.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Let's be fair. Most Republicans want to means test entitlements. That's roughly equivalent to a tax increase on the rich.
Furthermore, you could take 100% of the rich's income. There's not enough money there to close our deficits. They are coming for the middle class. That's where the money is.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I'm of the opinion Democracy is broken. Representation is what's important. Our current system has given us a Congress where 90% are lawyers.
How does that represent the people?
Draft people to Congress in a similar manner to jury duty. They serve two years. Most won't want to server another. But then we'd have everything from CEOs to waitresses, farmers, doctors, mechanics, Union workers, students, retirees, etc.
Then we could elect a 100 Senators from the pool of representatives. They server a second 6 year term.
From that, we elect two Senators to server as President for 4 years. 2nd place becomes VP.
Just read the two statements in the summary. Nothing else is necessary.
Republican: "Our Democratic friends were never able to do the entitlement reforms. They weren't going to do anything without raising taxes."
Democrat: "The wealthiest Americans who earn over a million a year have to share too. And that line in the sand, we haven't seen Republicans willing to cross yet."
I mean, one of those is clearly a bald-faced misrepresentation: this is made clear within the statement itself. In the first sentence he flatly claims that Democrats would not "do the entitlement reforms". In the very next sentence he makes it clear that this is simply a lie: Democrats were entirely ready to do entitlement reforms, but on the condition that they were accompanied by tax increases. You know, compromise. That thing two sides who don't agree are supposed to do for the greater good.
The Democrat, by contrast, simply states that the Republicans would not agree to anything that included tax rises - whatever entitlement cuts were involved.
I just don't see where's the room for interpretation or greyness there. From their own statements it's quite clear that the Republicans are a) fundamentally dishonest and b) utterly unwilling to compromise.
To continue the metaphor, offering to put a piece of Scotch tape across the gaping hole in the boat in exchange for much faster bailing is not really sincere bargaining.
While you were out whining about the bankers, this happened. Thanks.
why vote for a lesser of evils?
Its not my fault, someone put a wall in my way.
Why are you obsessing over the super rich, as if they are the problem? They are the ones making the money and paying taxes ALREADY.
"God, I fucking hate that asshole who buys me beer. I wish he would buy me MORE beer."
If you didn't hear about it, some polls showed higher approval of communism than this Congress which is so low that it is approaching being within the margin of error of 0% approval! (I was surprised Castro was the only one lower.)
Today's Republicans are not the same as the ones from the past, they can't compromise anymore than the Taliban can. The misinformed public is unable to see the difference or have a historical perspective so to them it seems like both sides are just acting normal. This is not the case at all. They are boxed in by the over effectiveness of their propaganda; they even have suckers getting elected who believe the hype! (that was never the intent)
Personally, I am GLAD they failed and wanted them to do so; the democrats have conveniently wimped out so much that too many people are realizing they are just the good cops in the good/bad cop scam that has been going on far too long. We need more people involved not more disillusioned non-voters! The stupid people are not smart enough to become disillusioned, they continue to vote and fall prey to the marketing tactics.
Do you think such a HUGE cut to military spending is even possible today? This failure to STEAL money from the public trusts (they are not entitlements!) at the expense of the military is a good sign that there is some limit to how far they'll go. If this is how we cut military spending then its all we can get at this point and I'd take it.
Consequences for failures? Yes they do! The modern Republicans run against government then screw it up themselves resulting in benefits for their party (and their corporate masters who are not deterred) even if they lose a little in the short term. Meanwhile, the pro-government Democrats are harmed when government doesn't function properly. The message wars are so unbalanced that the Dems stepped back from government and the word Liberal has become a dirty word. What is odd about all this is how Democracy itself has become meaningless on multiple levels; the word has died as well. (Leave it to lawyers and PR people and they'll kill the effectiveness of the common language...)
Democratic government is run by the people; therefore, if the government sucks so does the democracy and it reflects poorly on its populace. This is all OUR fault. Take some responsibility for a change, Americans.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Your significant other has a problem with spending too much money and has a massive credit card debt and doesn't work. Your significant other asks for more money and promises to spend less, you agree. Next day you see a shiny new expensive car with a 20 year service contract in your driveway. Its explained that only one was bought instead of two so you "saved" money, and only two more will be bought next year instead of three. This goes on for years - At a certain point you realize that your significant other is a liar, cheat, and stupid so you hold on to as much money as you can and don’t give up a penny more. If you do you will lose everything as every dollar you give comes back looking like a dime after all the friends get their cut.
Instant Balance Budget (not my idea)
Pass a bill that any member of Congress/Senate serving during a deficit budget cannot run for reelection. --- Problem Solved
Unfortunately these numbers aren't even close.
The wealthy American corporations are virtually all multinationals collectively hiding trillions more in offshore tax-havens. Why do you imagine they keep lobbying for a repatriation tax holiday?
>The problem is that no amount of "oversight" will ever be enough because you are essentially asking the government to police itself.
The public is supposed to be policing the government, but instead its too busy watching tv...
MABASPLOOM!
the founders envisioned a LIMITED central government who's role was kept at a minimum. Defending the country, ensuring peace and unimpeded economic traffic between the states (the infamous "commerce clause") and providing for jurisprudence over country-wide legal issues. that was it.
What you're forgetting is the WHY. They envisioned keeping things "local" where possible; more to the point, they wanted things kept to their definition of "local" in what could easily done in a week's travel. None of the original 13 colonies took more than a week to ride on horse from one end to the other, and some took significantly less.
Fast-forward to today. You can hop on a jet, and cross the country in hours. You can road-trip it in less than a week. Riding hard and trading driving shifts, you can road-trip New York to Los Angeles on the freeways in 1 day 21 hours (so assume maybe 2 and a half days to add in gas stops, pit stops, and food breaks). Communication speeds are even faster; you can get real-time communication with an amazing amount of the world over phone or internet at any time, infrastructure-wise.
The reason for the clauses of the constitution concerning interstate commerce and interstate relations grew, not because the government power was growing, but because the nation - communication and travel wise - simply "became smaller." The founding fathers would have taken an area like Texas and forcibly broken it up into multiple states, because they would never have seen it as viable to have one big "Texas State" with that much land mass - but even between 1776 and 1845, communication and travel technologies had made it viable to allow Texas to enter as a state without being broken up.
They also never considered what the march of the industrial revolution would do. Sure, they never considered the idea of something like the EPA - but they were DUMPING THEIR SHIT OUT THE WINDOW INTO THE STREETS; Thomas Crapper's company didn't start mass producing flush toilets until the 1880s. They never considered the need for something like the EPA and environmental regulations, because they never considered the idea of a factory dumping so much toxic waste into a river or down into the groundwater reservoir that the water became beyond-undrinkable and beyond-unlivable.
I could go on, but I hope the point is clear. The founding fathers envisioned "limited government" based on scale of communications. As time has marched forward, communications and travel technology have changed, industrial technology has changed, and the sheer mobility of humanity has changed, the federal government has had to take a more active role simply because the states are, by virtue of being "so close together" and interacting so frequently, in conflict more and more and more and more.
You don't believe me? Think about this: what happens if we leave environmental regulations to the states? Chances are, Illinois or Minnesota passes something really fucking lax, and the next thing you know Missouri and Louisiana are up in arms because the Mississippi and their drinking and irrigation water is being fouled.
Federal Deficit at the endy of 2009 was 419 Billion - Note lack of a T
Current federal budget deficit 14 Trillion - Note inclusion of a T
Please explain how this is all the 8 years of republican congress fault and two years of Democrat super majority does not hold any accountabiilty for the addidtional 13.5 Trillion dollars
Bush started the ball rolling, Obama put rocket boots on it. Neither deserver more tax dollars until they can stop spending.
Actually, there's enough to reverse most of the ballooning deficit strictly by reinstating the Bush tax cuts. Furthermore, the best argument is the one that every deficit hawk all over the tubes are stating: current debt levels are untenable and need to be reversed.
But yeah, it's helpful to pretend this is an intractable problem and "both sides are doing it". But it's a lie and repeating it makes you a liar.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
We all KNOW the Federal govt spends too much.
Why not start with cutting spending...do this as hard as possible, it is a tough job, and required some time and concentrated effort.
Once a good start has been made on that...THEN look at raising taxes. Frankly, why not look further into revamping the tax system entirely? Simplify and flatten it as much as possible....get rid of all the deductions, etc....that alone would likely result in lowering tax rates for everyone, and still provide enough income fo the Federal govt to continue functioning.
I don't see anything wrong with EVERYONE in the us that earns an income paying at least some tax. Everyone should have some skin in the game, and not get deductions enough to pay absolutely no net taxes. Even if the poorest person pays only $2, it would be something.
But, why not start with cutting spending, and see what we need in terms of increase tax revenues when that is all done???
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
This just in off the wire:
Greedy Americans don't want to share!
More at 11.
As a Millennial, I don't give a rat's ass if you "paid into Social Security all of your life." [...] As a practical matter, means test the heck out of Social Security and Medicare while cutting our military's responsibilities.
This. The previous generations' decisions to implement a pyramid scam do not obligate the current generations to double-down on FAIL.
As I have pointed out before, the Social Security Trust fund is a farce: there is no possible way the government could "save" any surplus payments (ie. the "lockbox" is an impossible concept). The money wasn't "stolen" because it never can be saved in the first place. Thus, even though SS receipts are in surplus at the moment, once the Boomers retire then SS payments will be made out of general tax receipts.
Also, definitions would need to be altered if SS wage basis amounts were changed. SS was always envisioned as a pension-like system, which is why the tax doesn't "go all the way up" on income. This explains why Medicare lacks a wage basis... unlike SS, it was never pitched as a system where the amount paid out is linked to the amount paid in.
It is also clear that tax increases are insufficient to fix the budget—spending cuts are absolutely necessary, especially in social programs like SS/Medicare. For example, even if we cut the ~700 billion defense budget to zero (obviously untenable), it would only cut our annual deficit by 50%, from ~1.4 trillion down to ~700 billion.
Much of the reticence to raise tax rates is that tax increases have historically taken effect immediately, and any promised "spending cuts" always manage to evaporate before they ever take effect. Therefore, a "balanced approach" of tax increases + spending cuts always ends up being tax increases only.
Personally, I advocate austerity: unfairly high taxes for the successful and cuts in social programs for the poor. These entitlement programs like SS/Medicare need to be recast as welfare for the poor only. The qualification age for SS/Medicare benefits needs to be raised, probably to age 70+. We need to severely cut defense expenditures, keep out of foreign military involvements, and generally stop footing the bill for the world's defense. To make this happen, we somehow need to make real spending cuts in absolute expenditure amounts, make those cuts stick, and also raise taxes to near-punitive levels.
If we don't made these hard decisions now, then we Millennials will just be passing the same sorry situation to our children that our parents handed to us—except with compounded interest and even more toxic debt levels.
While I can appreciate your position, your assumption that the founders set up the Republic to have limited government because of communications restrictions is specious at best.
I can prove it to you by simple extending your argument to the planet as a whole.
It used to take over a YEAR to travel around the globe. now one merely needs to hop on a plane, and with a few changes and layovers, you can circumnavigate the globe in a few days. if you have enough money, you can hitch a ride on a Russian rocket and circle the globe at several thousand miles an hour in LEO if you want.
Communications across the planet are now as instantaneous as talking across the room. I regularly have online discussions with complete strangers that I will probable never meet from foreign lands that I have never visited. Something the Founders could not have imagined even in their wildest dreams.
And yet, I hear no rational calls for One World Government. If the speed of communications and travel is the ONLY reason for a limited American government, why not extend that to the entire world? It's not as though the various countries of the world aren't in constant conflict with one another. Why not a large, strong central government to rule the whole world?
Of course, we already tried that. It was called Fascism, and then Communism. (Brother ideologies, really.) and both have been roundly defeated and are rightly now ridiculed as monstrous and evil.
Then of course, there are the actual writings of the Founders, who frequently stated their desire for a LIMITED government. Not because of communications, but because it was wise.
Behold their words:
I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Ludlow, September 6, 1824
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare⦠The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America." - Alexander Hamilton
"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.
It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated.
There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
You didn't do a very good job staying objective.
One rather major item you missed:
If the defense sequestration goes into play defense spending levels will be cut to unsustainable and "hollowed out" level of 2007. Yes it would absolutely gut our millitary to decrease spending to 2007 levels. Many people fail to remember that Clinton and the Republican congress balanced the budget in the 90's by cutting defense spending. Social security has and always will be self funded and it's doubtful that even in the worst possible projections that it will go bankrupt more than 40 years from now (unless you declare the 2 Trillion in debt SS holds as insolvent). Medicare on the other hand is bankrupt right now because GW Bush and the Republican congress shoved a prescription drug program through that was 100% unfunded. In addition they dramatically increased millitary spending and cut taxes substantially on the basis of the coming surplus taxes. Those three items along with the recession's reduction in taxes are the entire basis for the deficit.
If you want to fix the federal deficit you do three things. You cut defense spending dramatically, back to inflation adjusted 1998 levels. Secondly, you increases taxes to support the Medicare prescription drug coverage or you do away with it. Third you eliminate the bush tax cuts. At a point down the road social security needs to cash in those 2 Trillion worth of Bonds it holds and we need a balanced budget with a surplus to cover that time.
"After a first meeting on September 8, the next three weeks were taken up with discussions over how many meetings should be held, and when and where. Murray and congressman Jeb Hensarling, her Republican co-chair, had to resolve who got to hold the gavel. In the end a compromise - something very rare in Washington - was agreed. They were to alternate it."
I don't think I've ever read anything that epitomized why our government is fatally broken than this short paragraph. Our government is filled with children.
That may be, but the person who holds the gavel in a parliamentary committee has extra powers. Who doesn't like extra powers?
It's kinda like being in charge of pouring out the cereal. YOU get the decoder ring.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
For myself, I don't see the harm is using the physical facilities of an elementary school as a shooting range or for that matter even teaching elementary school-aged children about the proper use and handling of firearms, so I fail to see your point here in the first place. It can be done safely and nobody has to be hurt, although safety procedures do need to be established (are established BTW) and strictly observed when such activity is taking place. Indeed I've seen very effective firing ranges being created with reasonable procedures taking place which involved the use of elementary school aged children. The decision as to if that should happen should be up to the parents and/or residents near that school, usually in the form of local school board elections and policy decisions made by that local school board, and is also one of the reasons why school districts ought to be small in order to keep this kind of decision making as local as possible.
BTW, in terms of "recognition" of a law, I agree it is quite weak. It would have been very useful to have in the U.S. Constitution something explicit in terms of defining the exact scope as to what the constitutional authority of the judiciary to limit legislation in the court system ought to be, but that unfortunately isn't the case in the U.S. Constitution. That scope, however, is spelled out in some state constitutions and the national constitutions of other countries, often with mixed results. Or you have governments like the United Kingdom which has no single formal document spelling out the scope of its government with the legislative branch (particularly the "lower house") having at the moment almost total authority to do whatever it wants to accomplish. Tradition and precedence are the main things that keep the UK from spiraling out of control, and even that can be argued to some fashion as not working very well, although it does work mostly to the satisfaction of its citizens.
The problem in U.S. federal courts is when they take Marbury v. Madison and extend that constitutional review principle far beyond the scope of that decision and do more than simply "ignore" statutory law, but instead invent new law out of whole cloth (aka "legislating from the bench") or have even gone so far as to impose taxes not specified in any tax code or to perform tasks like drawing redistricting maps which really are the exclusive domain of the legislative branch of government. I understand the frustration that some judges have when legislators are deliberately vague on some piece of statutory legislation or when there is something that should be done to "address grievances against the government", but the scope of authority of the judiciary can and ought to be extremely limited.
The wiki article does have a criticism section that addresses some of the legitimate concerns about this decision, and even points to potential legal and/or constitutional issues that even Chief Justice John Marshall had where technically even he exceeded his constitutional scope of authority and perhaps even should have recused himself from the decision before it was made. This is also one U.S. Supreme Court decision that I think is very highly unlikely to be overturned in the future, and any attempt to even address the issue by another branch of government is likely to get the general concept and philosophy of judicial review instead enshrined in the constitution through an amendment instead. If you disagree, I'd be curious why you might have a contrary opinion.
Republican on the committee who was the first (as far as I know) to draw a line in the sand about no new taxes.
You both are saying the same thing. Republicans will not raise taxes before spending is cut. The Democrats have only offered promises to make cuts in the future, promises they have no power to keep. But they want the tax increases now. Any smart person who has payed attention to the workings of governments knows that if you give them a tax increase, they will not decrease spending, no matter what they promise. So how do you compromise with someone who has a long track record of never living up to their end of the deal? You make them live up to it by never giving them another inch until they do. As far as I'm concerned, all the spending cuts we need have already been promised to us in the past in exchange for tax increases. We'd paid the increase, the increase on the increase and even the increase on that, it's time we get our cuts. I, for one, am not willing to give the Government another dime until it actually goes one year spending less than it did the year before.
The 1% and large corporations aren't the only ones who need to pay their fair taxes like the rest of us normal folk, churches don't pay any taxes and its strait up unconstitutional. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Other non-profits have no problem paying their taxes.
"Consider that for every tax dollar a religious organization does not pay, you and I pay it on its behalf. Many are among the wealthiest organizations in the world: by 1971, the amount of real and personal property owned by U.S. churches was approx. $110 billion. In New York City alone, the amount was $3 billion in 1989. A 1986 estimate showed religious income in that year of approx. $100 billion, or about five times the income of the five largest corporations in the U.S. All tax free." http://taxthechurches.org/
"I'm pretty sure you meant "Agrees to Fail".
I just want to take a moment to thank you for you the time you've taken to post such well-written and thoughtful comments.
Bravo, sir. Please continue.
Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
Let me explain - he does not have, in his family tree, anyone who, in generations past, was captured by slavers, transported across an ocean, and sold into slavery.
Instead, his father was an actual, born in Africa, African. He is an American, with one parent American and one African (by birth).
Get it? Slavery does not apply - why do so many people try bringing that up? Makes no sense what-so-ever!!
I have news for you. Everything is corrupt: small government, big government, big business, small business, pplice, your neighbors.....
Self awareness - try it!
Let's be generous and call it $3 trillion.
~$15 trillion (the "ballpark" amount of US national debt) minus $3 trillion leaves ~$12 trillion in debt and a collapsed economy because of no capital on which to run the economy.
Oops.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The number of far Left Democrats on this commission made the commission's failure entirely predictable.
Realistically, they couldn't cut $200Bn a year from yearly spending that was expanded by more $1000Bn? President Obama has said that raising taxes during a resession is stupid and that's the only proposal the Democrats had! Wouldn't it have been nice if the Democrats raised the passed a budget or raised the debit ceiling wen they controlled the House, Senate and the Presidency? Harry Reid still won't pass a budget.
How many times did this commission actually meet? Where was Obama on this? The Democrats took money out of Medicare to fudge numbers on Obama care, now they have to pretend to fight to get it back just like they pretended to fight to cut the debt. The net result is that Kerry, Murrey, et all got a ton of special interest funding for being there and the American people got hosed.
It would help if you actually read the founders. They explicitly wanted most things to be state and local. Even the people we think of as wanting 'big central' government like Hamilton recognized the the need for state and local government.
"The States can never lose their powers till the whole
people of America are robbed of their liberties"
- Alexander Hamilton
States rights and local rights are explicitly tied to liberty as even the most central government type like Hamilton acknowledged. Let's not get into what Jefferson would say about the role of the federal government.
To suggest anything that limiting the federal government had to do with practical communication and travel problems is well.. plain silly and not supported by a single quote from any of the founders.
You spend a lot of time on Jefferson and Madison; the quote from Franklin really is inappropriate in its entirety given that it was written long before the Constitution, as part of a letter to delegates advocating secession, and tarring British loyalists as "giving up liberty" for the "security" of the British empire. Jefferson was off in France and had absolutely shit-all to do with the writing of the Constitution. Madison, meanwhile, is MUCH more in favor of centralized government than you give him credit for; the bulk of his writings (which come from the Federalist, not the ANTI-Federalist) are a defense of vesting power in a centralized, federal government and not a call to strip the federal government of power and simply re-create the old Articles of Confederacy.
But, since you've proven only an ability to pull quotations out of context and absolutely zero understanding of the process in which the Constitution let me clue you in: the basics of it, including the separation of powers, were the production of the Virginia delegation led by Edmund Randolph. The bicameral legislature was pulled from British tradition, while the idea of power-against-power as checks and balances came heavily from the philosophical writings of John Locke. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were heavy proponents of "proportional only" representation in both houses, and were ruled down by the smaller states before the compromise of the Senate/House division. William Paterson, a STRONG federalist, proposed the competing unicameral "two representatives per state" option that eventually became the Senate. Gouverneur Morris, who wrote the preamble, was also a strong federalist who had roundly decried the antisocial behavior of the states towards each other under the Articles - he had previously been a congressional representative during the Articles, but was defeated for reelection when anti-federalism became popular in New York.
When you want to look over the creation of the Constitution, you need to look at the writings of those who were actually there. You've misquoted James Madison, you've barely done justice to Ben Franklin (who was almost a freaking anarchist, as evidenced by his speech from the final day of the convention), and your other "founding fathers" weren't even participants in its creation.
In short: it is you, sir, who is uneducated, ill-informed, and completely wrong about the Constitution.
Correct. Non-corrupt government isn't possible. Trying to fix the problem of government corruption by adding more government is just stupid.
However, a small corrupt government does less damage than a large one. The minimium possible government that provides basic physical and commercial infrastructure, defense, and protects indivdual liberty is the optimal choice. Instead we have the worlds largest pension and medical plan, which almost accidentally does governance as a sideline.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Your correction of the GP is appropriate, but if I can interject, the question isn't just "What did the founders envision?" but "Was it correct, and does it still apply?"
To take their words as gospel is no less a religion than any other. They had many insights, but they had faulty reasoning and prediction of consequences as well, just as any human. They had personal agendas and ulterior motives just like anyone else. They realized this, and made the Constitution amendable, so that if and when their theories weren't borne out in practice, they could be corrected.
There's no question the government has been extended beyond what was originally envisioned, but that doesn't, in and of itself, mean that such extensions are necessarily harmful, despite what some of the founding fathers may have believed. Moreover, I don't think it's worthwhile to argue whether bigger government or smaller government is "better," especially without some useful metric, but rather to address issues individually. Small or big government isn't, or shouldn't be, a goal in and of itself; it's just the means of achieving a goal.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
See my response to the other person above.
And for god's sake, get an actual education on the writers of the Constitution beyond fetishizing just one or two men.
The problem with you right wing boobs is simple: you don't read a goddamn thing, except for the quotes you can strip from the back of the dust jacket of the latest hate screed from Gingrich or Palin or Beck.
Alexander Hamilton was a STRONG FEDERALIST - leader of the Federalist Party in fact, against the Democratic-Republican party of Jefferson. His accomplishments, among other things, include the creation of the national bank and federal agencies to oversee the collection of tariffs. He also negotiated the Jay Treaty to accomplish a lasting peace with Britain and avoid the economic collapse of going to war against one's largest trade partner. Jefferson meanwhile was a warmongering fool who, after spending too much time and drinking too much wine with the French, felt that another war with the British was in order.
The quote that you took out of context above was intended, not to say that the federal government should be weak, but to mollify those like Benjamin Franklin who felt that the government created from the constitution would be so strong that it would eliminate state governments entirely and reduce the entire nation to a mere collection of House districts.
But this is the entire problem with having this sort of debate; the side whipping out quotes left and right doesn't know the context of what they are quoting, they don't understand the history, and they're uninterested in actually learning about it, because that might run the risk of encountering information and facts that are directly contradictory to their distorted, bizarre, uneducated worldview.
Yeah, try reading Hamilton once in a while.
He wanted a strong federal government no doubt. No one doubts that. I believe I said that in my original post. This is especially... I would say mainly true of economic matters and trade. But he also recognized the needs for local and state government.
Certain things about bound to cross state lines and end up with the federal government. Common currency... probably needs a central bank. Rivers and pollution in general need some kind of regulator to handle externalities. Whereas a central government micro-managing healthcare or education or urban planning other such policies does.
I suppose in your world, you know Hamilton's heart and what he wrote was just to placate the others. I on the other hand, go by what they put on pen and paper as that is all we have to go by.
I also note... you mention nothing of limits on communication as the reason for states rights at the time of the constitution. That of course is entirely in your imagination of the founders. But of course... you know what was in their heads instead of what they actually wrote and said.
If there's no money, you stop spending.
That's the way it works for you or me, but that's not actually how it works when you can print the money. There is no connection now between how much they bring in, and how much they spend. Whatever they don't get in taxes, they just borrow or print to make up the difference. I agree that they need to stop spending. Let's start by cutting the defense budget in half. See how many republicans you can get to agree to that.
Repeat a lie often enough...
Roughly half of the founders believed in this. They went on to form the Democratic-Republican party. The other half believed in a strong, centralized federal government with a particularly strong Executive branch.. They were called the Federalists. Bet that's a little fact you'll never hear on O'Reilly or Glen Beck.
I don't need Jefferson's "writings". I have his presidential record. Please show me where in Article II of the Constitution the President is given the power to acquire or purchase new Territory for America with nothing more than a swipe of a pen? Kind of makes his "limited executive powers" arguments kinda hypocritical, don't you think?
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
It's like right having money trouble and borrowing some money from your rich uncle. Now: he's retiring and needs some of it back.
No, it's more like your father and grandfather borrowed money from your rich uncle. Your father and grandfather spent all the money they made and more, and so now your uncle is hitting you up to pay back their debts, most of which were created before you were born. His rationale is that your father and grandfather told him that you would be liable for their debts, even though they never asked you.
Furthermore, the rest of your extended family gasps in horrified disbelief when you suggest that it might not be your responsibility to pay your uncle back. Instead, your family demands that you, your uncle, your father, and your grandfather vote about this issue to determine what is the "fair" solution.
AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUDGET.
Ah, but it does. Social Security and the general budget are inextricably linked because there can never be any concept of a "savings account" or "lockbox" at this scale. Thus, the SSA never had any choice but to dump their surplus into the general federal budget (albeit via indirection), and any redemption of the debts in the Trust Fund must always come from general tax income.
The Trust Fund itself has never been anything but a notional, bookkeeping entity created to confuse, inveigle, and obfuscate.
Then you, sir, are part of the problem.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
Every time Wall Street stops freaking out there's some budget emergency in DC that highlights the inability of our current government to function. Right now it's not taxes or regulations that are killing jobs, it's business owners wondering if they should just liquidate everything and move to Cambodia now to avoid the rush. It's investors and little people wondering if the Government will actually default and destroy their savings again. It's awfully fucking hard to plan on buying a house or a car, even if you're in reasonably good shape, if you're worried that the economy is going to go down the shitter tomorrow because Congress can't do it's job!
There's more than enough blame to go around here. All those guys there are more concerned with scoring political points than with the well being of America and Americans! We need a steady flow of idealistic new people being sent to Washington, and then being kicked out before they become the dessicated husks of humanity that we have up there today.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I suppose in your world, you know Hamilton's heart and what he wrote was just to placate the others. I on the other hand, go by what they put on pen and paper as that is all we have to go by.
No, you cherry pick one quote out of a very large speech, take it out of context, and completely misrepresent it because you're just dishonest.
Please mod parent up
You're no more objective.
The major parts of the budget are:
-debt service
-medicare
-medicaid
-social security
-defense
Every one of these needs cuts. The only one that probably can't sustain them is debt service, if we ever want to get out from under this debt, period.
I entirely agree that defense can sustain major cuts. Personally, I'd like it if our military were a little less 'available' to be thrown at whatever cause celebre happens to occupy the pigeon-like brains of whoever is the current administration.
I'd agree with your military cutting.
Medicare and medicaid are badly in need of belt tightening. End the prescription drug benefit, and let people buy cross border as much as they like.
Social security is NOT self-funded; it's self-evidently a ponzi arrangement where the workers today pay for the retirees of yesterday. The only way that it's going to stay solvent is if it floats with lifespan, such that it's only available for the final 6 years of life (as it was originally intended).
By the way, your example is badly flawed: the budget was balanced in the 90s on the surging tax revenues of a false dot-com boom. It's much easier to balance a budget in a boom than a recession.
-Styopa
I don't see the harm is using the physical facilities of an elementary school as a shooting range or for that matter even teaching elementary school-aged children about the proper use and handling of firearms, so I fail to see your point here
I was thinking more along the lines of those old training courses where bad guys and civilians pop up and you gotta shoot the right ones without hitting the kids or the little old ladies. Only with more screaming.
It can be done safely and nobody has to be hurt
"Can it" versus "Will it". If the national guard will be doing live fire training in the playground during recess, what can you do about it before the first shot is fired?
If you disagree, I'd be curious why you might have a contrary opinion.
I think it has to either be done outside of the judicial branch or if it's done in the judicial branch, done all the way. I'm rather in favor of the Haiti Method (violate the constitution = forcibly expelled from the country), but I'll settle for Foo v. Some Dumb Law being carried out the same way we carry out Foo v. $50,000 cash, if the $50,000 cash doesn't have the right to defend itself why should some dumb law? Solving it outside of the Judiciary means adding more layers to the cake with no guarantee that it'll taste any better, but it gives us an opportunity to deal with things that haven't gone through the judicial system, like holding citizens in prison for years without charge, welfare, or that one state I remember Pudge once whined about for allowing just anyone to come along and call themselves Republican on the ballot (where the courts ruled that the issue wasn't "ripe" until after an election was fucked up by it, i.e. the guardsmen haven't pulled their triggers yet).
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Because that's not actually true. The richest Americans have about $1 trillion in cash reserves and American corporations have about $1.5 trillion in cash reserves. That's money that's not doing anything other than earning interest. There's an interesting argument to be made that that money is being kept out of the economy because taxes on the rich and corporations are actually too low.
Ok, lets say we take it all and give it to the feds. By your calculation that's $2.5 Trillion going directly to paying down our debt.
Only $12.5 Trillion to go....
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
It doesn't seem to help, actually. Here in California we've had term limits for over a decade. The result was that lobbyists get more power, because they know what they are doing, they gain experience and stick around, but the politicians are all new and green, and thus get easily influenced by the lobbyists.
Term limits give more power to lobbyists.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You've confused the debt and the deficit, please stop posting until you actually understand the issues.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
You've confused the debt and the deficit, please stop posting until you actually understand the issues.
No, I chose to use the debt numbers as the debt is what really does the damage, not a single years' deficit.
But, let's play it your way.
From the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703361904576143253522341850.html
Mr. Obama is proposing $3.73 trillion in government spending in the next fiscal year
So, forcibly confiscating the entire $3 trillion of wealth from the top-1% wealthiest still leaves a $730 billion deficit.
Then after that, there's nothing left to collect for following years.
Oops.
Again.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I am simply beside myself even trying to comprehend whatever it is you are saying here. What keeps guardsmen from pulling the trigger on a bunch of kids in an elementary school yard is that their commander-in-chief is subject to elections and an incident like that would either get him/her fired from his job or see the entire chain of command relieved of their duties and possibly (very likely if deaths were involved) prosecuted for 1st degree murder. If you don't believe me, just look at what is happening at UC Davis with the pepper spraying incident, where the school chancellor is barely holding on to her job at the moment and may be replaced real soon for a similar kind of incident. The guy with the gun doesn't always win, even if that guy is holding a badge at the time.
As for "solving the problem outside the judiciary", I think you need a crash course in constitutional law. The courts are not the only people who decide what is and what isn't the law, and the judiciary is not the only part of the government.
Yet last year the federal government brought in over 2 trillion in tax receits. Did they confiscate over 50% of the "wealth" of the rich?
You also don't seem to understand the difference between "cash reserves" and "wealth".
You would greatly benefit from educating yourself before trying to participate in conversations that are so clearly beyond your ability to understand. Your attempts at participation are only making you look ignorant and stupid.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
even trying to comprehend whatever it is you are saying here
The only way I can see for you to fail to comprehend is if you have absolute, unfailing, and complete trust in the government, that you view this world as a place where the government will never do anything that someone can say, in advance, "no! that's wrong! bad government!" because everything the government does is perfect and benevolent.
What keeps guardsmen from pulling the trigger on a bunch of kids in an elementary school yard
Obviously, I chose the wrong example since in your world the military has 100% accuracy and their weapons never misfire. Half of the problem is that the "unintended consequences" that our politicians claim they couldn't possibly have foreseen tends to have been foreseen and complaints about them have been dismissed as coming from crackpots.
their commander-in-chief is subject to elections and an incident like that would either get him/her fired from his job
But then the person with the wrong view on abortions would get in!!1! Besides, I thought the whole point of the experiment was to evade the tyranny of the majority. If the majority is OK with violating the Constitution, we're back where we are.
If you don't believe me, just look at what is happening at UC Davis with the pepper spraying incident, where the school chancellor is barely holding on to her job at the moment and may be replaced real soon for a similar kind of incident.
Yes, the system sometimes works after the damage was done (unless the government gets to declare that the issue is "moot"). Now imagine that you knew the Constitution was going to be violated in advance, but you did nothing to stop it because the issue was "not ripe". Now imagine if you wanted to do something to stop it, but the government will not allow you to because the issue was "not ripe", so you are forced to sit on your thumbs, wait for the inevitable, and hope it doesn't hurt any of your loved ones. Wouldn't you be frustrated?
I think you need a crash course in constitutional law.
You asked if I disagreed with your thought that changing the Constitution to include a 4th branch would just be judicial review all over again. I made two suggestions, either making the supreme law of the land have penalties for violating it (providing a disincentive for doing it so openly, if not not violating it in the first place), or provide for a fourth branch of government (another layer on the cake) to review all laws and regulations for Constitutional-ness before they are put into force so that citizens would not have to waste time, money and possibly lives to deal with it after the fact (ie not the current judicial review). Clearly the other two branches aren't always doing their job, and as I implied, there's no guarantee that a fourth would make it any better, but at least I wouldn't be standing around expecting that doing the same thing will yield different results this time.
Now that I'm re-reading it, maybe I misunderstood you, and you were saying "no matter what might be a better way of doing it, if we try to change it we'll just get the same thing over again" which I'd have to admit is certainly a possibility.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
That is a good point, but I think your analogy makes it unclear. I would like to clarify for anyone else reading this.
By cramming this act of "recognition" into the judicial system, we end up where we are now: the government can do whatever it wants until it hurts someone.
This is true because if the government passes an unconstitutional law, it can only be challenged in court by someone who has "standing." Standing is gained only once you are the victim of the law. And with some laws like the Patriot Act, the legislation actually forbids you from bringing suit. So who can challenge the law? Someone who was affected by it, but who is not bound by the secrecy clauses. That's no one. So there is no way to challenge the law. The wiretapping laws were that way too - a citizen could not sue the government or AT&T for spying on them until after it happened, and only then if they could prove harm. As a result, unconstitutional laws tend to stick on the books for a very long time, and many people can be repressed by them until they make it to the Supreme Court and have it changed.
sometimes you have to be able to say "no, don't do that" before someone gets hurt,
The implication being that there needs to be a way to prevent unconstitutional laws from being passed. I'm not sure how to do that though. Did the authors of the constitution figure that government officials would be honest enough people that such laws would never be passed, or that they would be quickly removed from office for even trying? That would be nice if it were so. I wonder what they would say if they were here today. Having a constitution is pointless if there is no one to enforce it. I for one would like to see it a crime to vote on a law that is deemed unconstitutional by the courts. It still would take too long to get to that point and the damage is already done, but it might help.
You would greatly benefit from educating yourself before trying to participate in conversations that are so clearly beyond your ability to understand. Your attempts at participation are only making you look ignorant and stupid.
No, your attempts to insult and somehow discredit me to distract from your lack of understanding of how capitalism works is the typical reaction I see from those on the Left. You can't dispute my posts, so you make feeble attempts to attack and discredit me rather than reply to the actual meaning and content of my posts.
I'm sure you'll be in a better mood after the holidays are over, and you're not as frustrated by having been relegated (again) to the "kiddy table" during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
In short: it is you, sir, who is uneducated, ill-informed, and completely wrong about the Constitution.
I appreciate the context you added, but there was no need to insult the original poster, especially when you said nothing that disagreed with his point. His point was:
While I can appreciate your position, your assumption that the founders set up the Republic to have limited government because of communications restrictions is specious at best.
The context you provided only amplified that point. The fact that Madison was a Federalist and he still believed in limited government goes to show how far we have gone from the original intent.
When someone quotes a bunch of smart people and provides relevant insight, you are welcome to provide additional context, clarification, and correction - but don't insult them.
You should seriously take my advice and stop parading your ignorance for all to see. You're embarrassing yourself.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The solution is to shrink the size of government and take power OUT of it's hands until it is back to the teeny tiny size it was intended to be by the Founders. Most of it's current duties should be devolved back to the state, local, and personal level.
Simply put, our Government is too big. Big Governments are always inevitably corrupt. Making our government bigger (oversight) won't fix the problem of it's excessive size.
So, tell me now how the shrinking of government is going to make anything less corrupt.
Seriously, your perception is wrong on so many levels. Including the one that I bring up to everyone who wants to shrink government to a size small enough that they can drown it in their bathtub.
Institutions are not inherently in themselves corrupt or not corrupt. People are corrupt or not corrupt. Your presumed cure would merely shift the corruptness from one sector to another. And unless you haven't been paying attention, the private sector is at least as or more prone to corruption as the public sector. Bernie Madoff, Enron, sub-prime loans, and many more. Enough to say that if "Big Goverment" is always corrupt, so is "Big Business".
This idea that the cure for our present ills is a return to late 19th century America needs to explain how it will be different this time. And I have to laugh at your assertion that big governments are always corrupt. Might as well make the statement that big businesses are always corrupt. The profit motive in itself can motivate and enable corruption.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
In other words: The US should switch to Socialism, because I want other peoples money without having to work for it.
Oh, working for it! Like all the CEOs who suck at their job but still get their dream exit packages? Or the fund managers who throw darts at a board and get six-figure bonuses?
No. You can't use "hey, they earned their money" as an excuse. Successful small businessmen, ones who worked hard to get where they are, aren't even close to the pinnacle.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
The concept of "the rule of law" as opposed to "might makes right" is a tricky and precious thing when it actually happens. Especially the concept of "common law" where all citizens are held (supposedly, I'll admit that is not always true) to the same standards of conduct so what you do if you harm somebody under the law will be prosecuted equally regardless of if you are wealthy or poor, the color of your skin, or what "position" in society you may hold (either elective office or some elite family of some sort).
Yes, I know in practice such concepts are usually not really followed, and often the judiciary or even any branch of government (legislative or executive for that matter), and sadly throughout human history a system of tyranny and oppression is the normal expectation rather than any sort of real justice or equal treatment under the law. Indeed one of the founding documents of the United States of America spells this out quite clearly in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence, which states:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed."
In other words, any attempt at reform of a government often ends up backfiring and making the situation worse along the way. It is for that reason where even an imperfect system should be celebrated for at least making some progress along the way of righting what is wrong and making sure that quite possibly ordinary people will be able to get their perceived and actual injustices fixed and corrected.
As for a "4th branch of government", it really doesn't exist except for "we the people" in a democratic society. The largest problem with that is when ordinary people are apathetic towards any power or authority they may wield and in essence acquiesce all authority to tyrants rather than taking charge of the governance process in society on their own terms. That is the ultimate check on tyranny, if ordinary people will but take that step to keep the government in check. If you give up, the battle is lost.
BTW, I never suggested that a 4th branch needed to be created, but pointed out that the judiciary can always be kept under control through the constitutional process of amending the document via legislative committees. In the state where I live (and indeed most other states in America too), the state constitution can only be changed in a general election through a referendum or plebiscite. Major changes in foundation documents indeed should be spread out to as many people as possible before such changes become law, and I think that is a good thing. My question was more towards why anybody would think judicial review and "setting aside" of laws passed by the legislative branch was a bad thing.
My question was more towards why anybody would think judicial review and "setting aside" of laws passed by the legislative branch was a bad thing.
I'm perfectly fine with setting aside of laws and regulations. It's waiting until after the judicial review to do it that is the problem. We're already executing American citizens without trial, though I suppose where al-Awlaki and Samir Khan went, they'll have no shortage of lawyers to appeal their cases.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
This is a group of people who took it upon themselves to come up with a compromise amongst parties with the simple goal of coming up with a solution to the debt problem (OK not so simple but still). If this group of supposedly bipartisan individuals could not reach an agreement what measures must be take to reach a true agreement?