As someone who's actually worked in the health care industry, you've simplified a complex situation to the point of uselessness.
That is to say, your model does not represent reality closely enough to draw any useful parallels or conclusions.
There no level of complexity implied when I say, "States should decide their own health care laws". How could that possible be to complex or not complex enough? There is nothing at all in that statement about what the states would impose, only that the states should be the one to impose them.
In other words, your experience in the health care industry has absolutely nothing to do with how well you understand the 10th Amendment. I've taught classes, but that certainly does not make me qualified to run a school district's budget.
Out of curiousity, why couldn't they agree with a bill that was mostly built on Republican ideas in the first place?
e.g., "Obamacare" looks an [i]awful[/i] lot like "Romneycare". Or, one might examine ideas John McCain had previously put forth on healthcare. Or, one might examine the ideas the Republicans put forth on healthcare during the Clinton administration. Etc.
"Romneycare" was done at a state level. No one has a problem with health care reform being run at a state level. According to the 10th Amendment, that is exactly what should happen. The Feds now decide what is best for all 50 states. The problem is that what works best for someone living in a condo in Manhattan is probably no the best for someone living in a double-wide in Big Bone Lick KY. Let NY decide what's best for NY'ers and let KY decide what is best for KY'ers. Are you in NY and like KY's plan better? Move to KY!
Boehner... is more than willing to work with President Obama... on... what he and the Republicans want
The Republicans, especially the Tea Party wing, want the United States government to spend less money. President Obama wants to end what some analysts have called an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. But are Speaker-elect Boehner and his Republicans willing to cut defense spending?
Wrong! The "Tea Party wing" wants the government to respect the 10th Amendment. They want the federal government to cut everything that the states can do and let the states do it. For example, there is no reason the states can not devise their own health care programs. The "Tea Party wing" would have no problem with a state creating its own health care plan with a public option even. Now a local branch in that particular state may have a say, but any national groups would simply say, "Don't like it? Move!"
It's not so much that the Tea Partiers want to cut spending as it is that they want the federal government to stop spending money on things that are not the responsibility of the federal government. Defense spending, as you cited, is a power granted to the feds in the Constitution. Health Care is not.
And the sad thing is that while this country drowns in debt, taxes are at their lowest in decades. Somehow the right has convinced everyone that low taxes are actually high and need to be cut even more - in an era of multi-million dollar salaries for execs. Sure can't burden those poor folk with any taxes. How could they afford that next Gulfstream jet or vacation home?
If you build Gulfstreams or vacation homes, or even work at a private airport or a convenience store in a "vacation home" neighborhood, a tax increase on the rich hurt you more than it hurts them.
ANYTHING that gives the voter the opportunity to walk out with confirmation of HOW they voted is a huge problem. In the system you describe, the voter could decide to not put their paper slip into the box, or to drop in a fake substitute (and no, you couldn't verify it was a real slip without making their vote non-anonymous in the process).
The paper "receipt" is the paper ballot. The voter does not take it with them. It goes into the ballot box after the voter verifies that it is correct.
If you are concerned that a voter might place a fake ballot in the box, you could put a system in place that scans the barcode as or before the ballot is dropped in to verify its authenticity. You could even set it up so that the vote is not officially counted until it's scanned and placed into the box.
You bring up a good issue, but not one that isn't easily resolved.
The problem I see with it is a corrupt poll worker could open the ballot box and void several "receipts" to change the votes. This would probably be detected, however, as the number of voided ballots would be quite high. Also, there could be a time limit set on how long a vote can be voided. You could even set it up so that if a vote is not scanned and placed in the box within a certain amount of time, it is voided.
Still, if a polling place is so corrupt that a poll worker can unlock and access ballot box to change votes, no amount of security measures could ensure a fair election.
Do the words "Hanging Chad" mean anything to you? Paper voting has as many problems as E-voting, and as much potential for massive screw-ups. If there were a system that was actually secure, e-voting would be great. Unfortunately, the systems out there are all closed system "black box" deals where the manufacturer refuses to reveal any of the internal workings. Because of that the only people who actually know are the hackers using them to fix elections. If they were open, and thus subjected to rigorous enough testing to consider secure and reliable, we'd be golden.
Besides, you shouldn't really assume that the machine that electronically reads your paper ballad and transmits the results are any more secure/reliable as the purely electronic solution.
Why not have both. You place your vote electronically (electronic voting), it prints a receipt clearly listing your choices with a barcode linking that receipt to your voting session. After reviewing your vote receipt, you place your receipt in a box (paper voting). If you have a problem with your vote (receipt doesn't match your choices), the poll worker can scan the barcode to remove your vote, allowing you to vote again. All voided votes should be kept in a separate box for verification.
Results would be instant as they would kept electronically. If there is an issue, you can use the paper ballots (receipts) for a recount. Ballot stuffing would be kept to a minimum as the number of votes could be electronically verified. Any electronic tinkering could be nullified by the paper ballots. Anonymity would be kept as there is nothing on the receipt or the electronic ballot that would tie your vote to you. As an added bonus, the voter can actually confirm their vote by reading the printed receipt.
Please link to actual facts, not GW statement that it is. If you bother to actual fact check, you will note in order to for that statement to even be technically correct*, it only applies to a very specific 5 months. It's cherry picking.
The economy did pretty well under GWBush with a Republican controlled congress.It wasn't until the Dems took control of both houses of congress, the housing bubble collapsed and the economy required huge taxpayer funded bailouts to avert the next great depression..
When the GOP steers the ship towards a waterfall, just because someone else grabs the wheel right before it goes over doesn't absolve the GOP for their primary role in sending it over.
You are correct. It takes about a year for a new congress to get new legislation passed. In the beginning of 2008, unemployment was at 5%. At the end of 2009, unemployment was over 10%. That's three years of Democratic controlled congress, with one year of a Dem in the WH.
So yeah, you're right. It takes about a year for a new congress to grab the wheel and turn the ship around. The numbers reflect that.
You can claim credit for the economy growing like crazy under the GOP from 1995-2007 only if you also take the blame for the complete collapse of the economy in 2008-2009. You don't get the upside without also taking the downside.
Democrats controlled both houses of congress in 2008 and 2009. Dems took both houses in the 2006 elections. Dems held both houses for a full year before 2008. Sure, there is much more at play, but I believe you are being very naive to blame the party in the minority for an economic collapse.
Still, if you think the economy of 2009 was the fault of Republicans who lost both houses in 2006, does that mean you believe that 9-11 was Clinton's fault? After all, Bush had only been in office for less than 9 months. At the end of 2009, unemployment climbed over 10%, just under three years since the Dems took both houses. You don't get the upside without also taking the downside.
Even if it's "all congress" -- the Democrats can still claim responsibility for upswing. They already do: more jobs added in the last two years than during Bush's entire reign
Really? The unemployment rate in November of 2008 was 6.9%. Today, it's at 9.6%. So are you telling me that -2.7% is ADDING jobs? Were you a math major?
Oh, and like I've said... Bush had very little to do with the economy. Obama has little to do with the economy. It's congress. From 1995 to 2007, Republicans held the House. In that time, unemployment went from 5.6% to 4.6% with a low of 3.8% and a high of 6.3% (unemployment climbed form 9-11-2001 to June 2003 before dropping off again). The party that held the WH had little effect. It wasn't Bush's fault and it's not Obama's.
According to many polls, the number one concern this election was the economy. Somehow in the minds of many, the economy is the fault of the Democrats, in spite of the fact that the 2008 candidates left the campaign trail to focus on the rapidly failing economy.
The Republicans couldn't have timed it better. Pillage the economy, let it fail just before the Democrats take office, and two years later when the Dems have halted and begun reversal of the worst economic disaster of all time, the Republicans come in, blaming the Democrats.
Somehow people buy that rhetoric. I guess angry shouting will beat out reasonable discourse nearly every time.
Maybe it's because Democrats have held both houses of congress for past four years. In the past two, they've had the WH and a super-majority in Congress.The unemployment rate was less than 4.5% when the Dems took congress. What did the Republicans do as the minority party since 2007 to ruin the economy and raise the unemployment to over 10% at the end of 2009 (it's currently at 9.6%)?
You can place the blame wherever you like, but the numbers don't lie. Nor do they change with respect to which party has the White House.
At least during my lifetime every time that a single political party has gained the presidency and a majority in congress it crashes and burns.
You must be pretty young. The economy did pretty well under GWBush with a Republican controlled congress. However, as I've stated repeatedly, I don't think the Prez has a whole lot to do with it.
I halfway agree. The economy just seems to do pretty well with a Republican congress, but to be fair, it was slightly better under Clinton with a Repub congress than Bush with a Repub congress. I say that because the current Democratic congress has been a disaster, regardless of which party controls the WH.
My prediction: Expect the economy to improve and Obama take the credit. I believe we are about to see a repeat of the Clinton WH after Newt became Speaker of the House. Recent history has shown that the president has little effect on the economy. It's all congress.
Enthusiasm in your beliefs is no substitute for factual inaccuracy. Like GP said, unemployment under Dubya was never under 4% [miseryindex.us], while under Clinton it decreased from 7.3 to 3.9.
Thanx for the graph. It is very informative. I stand corrected. Unemployment under Bush reached under 4.5%, not under 4%. But that doesn't negate my primary point:
Stop blaming Bush. Stop blaming Obama. Don't give credit to Bush or Clinton. It is all CONGRESS.
If you take the same graph you provided and overlay who controls congress, you will find that the unemployment rate usually went up under a D controlled congress and down under a R controlled congress, regardless of which party controls the White House. When Newt and R's took the house in 1995, unemployment was at 5.6%. When Dems took the House and Senate back in 2007, unemployment rate was at 4.6%. Since the Dems took control of congress, the unemployment rate has shot up to 10+% for the final quarter of 2009 and now sits at 9.6%. Under a R controlled congress from 1995 to 2007, the unemployment rate never climbed above 6.3% with a low of 3.8% in April of 2000.
Your belief that the recent global recession was caused by the 2007 shift of a few congressional seats in the US (as opposed to - say - being the inevitable consequence of a massive irresponsible lending boom fueled by half a decade of easy credit) is equally deluded. Show your work, show the acts of congress in 2007 that have led to the housing and construction crash (that started in 2006)...
Can you show me which Republican sponsored bill caused Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac to ease lending restrictions on home mortgages? What Republican sponsored bill forced FM/FM to give loans to people who couldn't afford them? Here is what I was able to find:
So five years ago, there was one of those rare moments in Washington when the branches and personalities of government—in this case, the Bush administration—are less interested in protecting or expanding their turf than in fixing a looming catastrophe. What was Frank's response to the proposal?
"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
As Frank mentions in his press release today, two years after it was first proposed, the House finally voted on a bill reforming the mortgage giants. Alas, the legislation was watered down to the point of being meaningless—that's why it passed the House with such wide margins (122 Democrats and 209 Republicans). But even then, and despite his high regard for bipartisanship now, Barney Frank wasn't among the yeas.
If you're really simplistic enough to not understand that any economy is largely a product of recent (to that economy) history, not current activity, then you should probably read a book or two.
A one person majority in the Senate will not get bills passed. In this case, they didn't even get out of committee. See, unlike the D's who had a filibuster proof Senate until last night, the Senate in 2005 was 51-49. That's not near enough to guarantee a bill's passage. With that narrow of a lead, it's not problem for Dem's to kill a bill with 4 to 5 members on a 10 member committee.
Unless you can show me which Republican in the committee killed the bill, with nothing but Republicans supporting the bill, I'm left looking at the Dems as to why the bill never made it the floor for a vote.
No. It's completely correct. There's nothing Obama can do now to cut deficits, which right _now_ are a GOOD thing.
Oh. I get it now. When Bush was president, deficits were bad. Now that Obama is president, deficits good. I get it. I guess the D stands for Deficits Good.
or...
Are you trying to say that deficits are good _now_ because the economy is bad? If that's the case then you are saying the economy was good under Bush, right?
So either you are a partisan bitch who believes that D's are always right and R's are always wrong or you are admitting that the economy did very well under Bush until the D's took over congress in Jan 2007 (which was my original point). I'll accept either answer.
No, this is a lie. Unemployment was never under 4% under GWB, Jan of '01 it was at 4.2% and got progressively worse, until '06-'07, when it improved some before entering into the current slide. It was never under 4% under GWB
You may be right. But this graph does show it dropping below 4% early in Bush's term. I got my source. If yours is better we'll take it. It was at under 4.5% in October 2006, about 2 months before D's took control of both houses (source). Now where is it? Where was in 2008? That six year slide you turned into an outright nose dive right after D's took control of congress.
Also, as I'm sure you remember a little incident that happened 9 months and 11 days into 2001 that absolutely wrecked consumer confidence and the economy with it.
Record tax receipts are just a function of a growing GDP and inflation, nothing more.
Yes, that's it. It's all smoke and mirrors. If you don't agree with the numbers, try to make them meaningless. spin-spin-spin-spin. Of course, like we've said, with the 4.1% unemployment (your number), it makes perfect sense that with more people working and paying taxes that the government will take in less money. That is what you are saying, right?
But I have to get back to your main idiocy in your post, which is somehow thinking that the unemployment rate instantly corresponds to who controls Congress and nothing else.
Nope. Lots of things can help/hurt the economy. But if you look over recent history... say 1992 through today, you see Clinton inheriting a recession and not being able to anything with it until 1995. Then the economy boomed, giving Clinton a surplus which got handed to Bush. Bush's economy did extremely well until 2007, then tanked.
Now, pay close attention to those numbers and see if you can tell me what happened in those years. It wasn't the president, because both Clinton and Bush had roughly 6 years of boom and 2 years of bust. Maybe it's congress. Hmmm. Let's see. In 1995 Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House when Republicans took it over. In 2007, Nancy Pelosi became SotH when D's took over the House. Those years also seem to be the exact same years the economy started to boom or bust. Coincidence? Evidently you think so.
If you're really simplistic enough to not understand that any economy is largely a product of recent (to that economy) history, not current activity, then you should probably read a book or two.
You're right. What the Hell do I know? I'm just backed up by historical fact and economic performance. While you are backed up with calling me names and telling me to read a book. You obviously have the upper hand here.
Yeah. With unbalanced budget, growing real estate bubble, flat income for middle class and giant budget deficits. Otherwise, it was all OK.
Yeah... it's SOOOO much better today. I think if you are going to bitch about Republicans, using the deficit to do is not the way to go about it.
Also, look up S. 190: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 and find out who proposed it, who supported it and who kept it from ever leaving committee.
Here's a hint. Someone named McDain or something said:
If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I don't think you can blame the high unemployment and and lower tax receipts on them when they inherited a broken economy.
In October 2007, the unemployment rate was less than 4.5%. That's not what I'd call inheriting a broken economy.
So it's the 2007 Democrat Congress' fault that an unsustainable housing bubble burst...
Actually, it was Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. See, they blocked the billS. 190: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 from ever leaving committee. Here is what John McCain said about it on May 26, 2006:
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
So, um.. it wasn't Republicans.
several companies "too big to fail" failed causing the worst recession since the Depression (and arguably almost another Depression if nothing had been done about it)?
I guess you don't remember the late 70's. I don't care what Obama says, Carter's recession was much worse that we have today.
My god, you are delusional. LOOK up when the economy in the US crashed. Bush was in power. In fact Obama was elected because people couldn't believe the mess Bush had made of things. And now they get the republicans who created the mess back because Obama can't fix decades of mis-management in two years.
This is where I stopped reading. I figure that if you didn't read my post, why should I read yours?
Congress controls the economy. The economy was rocking until the Democrats too control of congress in Jan 2007. Yes, Bush was in the White House, but Pelosi and Reid wrote the budgets. Now you tell me who had more of an effect on the economy.
Oh hell. I don't know why I'm telling you this. You didn't read (or couldn't understand) the first post. I don't think you are capable of reading this one.
You do realize that it is the Executive branch is the one that writes the budget, not Congress? (Congress still has to approve it, of course).
Actually, I did not know that. I try not to know things that are not true...
From the Constitution:
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
...appropriations made by law... Who writes law? According to Schoolhouse Rock, Congress writes law.
Here is a pdf file at a.gov site. The first sentence is:
When Congress writes the Federal budget each year, we rely on a range of technical rules and conventions – called budget “concepts” – that were designed to give us a table and consistent playing field for the policy decisions we make.
Read that first part? When CONGRESS writes the budget.
What does Wikipedia have to say? (I'll bold the key words for you)
The Budget of the United States Government is the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process. Budget committees set spending limits for the House and Senate committees and for Appropriations subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills to allocate funding to various federal programs.
After Congress approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to the President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it. A vetoed bill is sent back to Congress, which can pass it into law with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Congress may also combine all or some appropriations bills into an omnibus reconciliation bill. In addition, the president may request and the Congress may pass supplemental appropriations bills or emergency supplemental appropriations bills.
In other words, the Presidential Budget is merely a suggestion that congress can take or leave. What you'll find is that when the same party controls both branches, executive and legislative, the president's budget is merely rubber stamped by congress and passed back. When the power is split between the parties, congress ignores the president's proposal and simply sends him their own version. When it gets fun is when one party controls the house and another controls the senate and the WH, much like when Newt's Republicans took over the House while the Senate was held by Democrats and Clinton was in the White House. That's when government gets shut down.... But I don't want to give you a government lesson. You can go back to Jr High for this lesson.
Again you show yourself to be a prick who can't comprehend written English. Why the hell does it matter if Rheem is a liberal? She's not in the news business. And I'm pretty sure that study wasn't CPB funded. It was another conservative attack study where everyone who was a reasonable human being was deemed liberal and everyone who believed in the infallibility of the Christian sky spirits and believed thermometers are a communist plot was considered conservative.
You may have your opinions, but you may not have your facts. The study was CPB funded. Google it if you like. Here, allow me...HERE. The whole PDF is write there, taken directly from the CPB website.
Diane Rehm hosts a news talk show, two hours a day, M-F. She is no different than Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, or Keith Olbermann. The difference is that FoxNews and MSNBC fund themselves and my tax dollars pay to pay Diane Rehm and broadcast her opinions, opinions that are different than my own. NPR has no one on their show that refelcts MY opinions, yet, I still have to pay for it.
Rehm takes up just under 10% of NPR's weekly schedule. Prairie Home Companion takes another 3hrs per week, provided it's only aired once and provided that Garrison Keller does nothing else throughout the week. And even though I've heard anything terrible partisan from Click and Clack, the CarTalk guys, NPR is liberal, period. The fact that they were supported by George Soros to the tune of millions of dollars, after Soros said he was spending his money to take Republicans down really drives the point home. Why would Soros, who stated that he wants to support liberals, give money to NPR? Doesn't that put NPR in the same camp as MoveOn.org and MediaMatters.org? Or do you not think those are liberal outfits either?
Anyway, my point is that even if Rehm is providing editorial, it is the editorial section of any news org that makes up the overriding opinion of that organization. Rehm is the Bill O'Reilly of NPR and reflects their political leanings. So to say that NPR is not liberal only proves not only your ignorance, but worse as it shows that you are not someone to accept facts that may counter your preconceived notions. Ignorance is curable and forgivable. Stubbornness is not. I am terribly sorry.
What policies did the democrat congress pass that caused the recession?
Sorry, just read that you are not American. I'm a bit shamed to admit that most Americans don't know who writes the budget. Since you are not American, it is certainly OK if you don't know.
According to the Constitution, Congress controls the purse strings. It is Congress that appropriates all funds for any federal government action. It is congress that writes the budgets. Sure, the President may veto, but that can lead to a complete shutdown of government, which is usually not a good thing.
To answer your question, I would have to say, "everything". If that's not narrow enough, I'll have to say the budgets.
But since you were so quick to blame the Republicans, and the economy was doing really when when the Republicans lost control of Congress, can you tell me what policies they are responsible for that caused the economic meltdown that started in 2007? (here's a hint... Republicans were in no condition to control any policy after 2006 and the President can't write policy.)
Slashdot Mirror
As someone who's actually worked in the health care industry, you've simplified a complex situation to the point of uselessness.
That is to say, your model does not represent reality closely enough to draw any useful parallels or conclusions.
There no level of complexity implied when I say, "States should decide their own health care laws". How could that possible be to complex or not complex enough? There is nothing at all in that statement about what the states would impose, only that the states should be the one to impose them.
In other words, your experience in the health care industry has absolutely nothing to do with how well you understand the 10th Amendment. I've taught classes, but that certainly does not make me qualified to run a school district's budget.
Out of curiousity, why couldn't they agree with a bill that was mostly built on Republican ideas in the first place?
e.g., "Obamacare" looks an [i]awful[/i] lot like "Romneycare". Or, one might examine ideas John McCain had previously put forth on healthcare. Or, one might examine the ideas the Republicans put forth on healthcare during the Clinton administration. Etc.
"Romneycare" was done at a state level. No one has a problem with health care reform being run at a state level. According to the 10th Amendment, that is exactly what should happen. The Feds now decide what is best for all 50 states. The problem is that what works best for someone living in a condo in Manhattan is probably no the best for someone living in a double-wide in Big Bone Lick KY. Let NY decide what's best for NY'ers and let KY decide what is best for KY'ers. Are you in NY and like KY's plan better? Move to KY!
Boehner ... is more than willing to work with President Obama ... on ... what he and the Republicans want
The Republicans, especially the Tea Party wing, want the United States government to spend less money. President Obama wants to end what some analysts have called an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. But are Speaker-elect Boehner and his Republicans willing to cut defense spending?
Wrong! The "Tea Party wing" wants the government to respect the 10th Amendment. They want the federal government to cut everything that the states can do and let the states do it. For example, there is no reason the states can not devise their own health care programs. The "Tea Party wing" would have no problem with a state creating its own health care plan with a public option even. Now a local branch in that particular state may have a say, but any national groups would simply say, "Don't like it? Move!"
It's not so much that the Tea Partiers want to cut spending as it is that they want the federal government to stop spending money on things that are not the responsibility of the federal government. Defense spending, as you cited, is a power granted to the feds in the Constitution. Health Care is not.
And the sad thing is that while this country drowns in debt, taxes are at their lowest in decades. Somehow the right has convinced everyone that low taxes are actually high and need to be cut even more - in an era of multi-million dollar salaries for execs. Sure can't burden those poor folk with any taxes. How could they afford that next Gulfstream jet or vacation home?
If you build Gulfstreams or vacation homes, or even work at a private airport or a convenience store in a "vacation home" neighborhood, a tax increase on the rich hurt you more than it hurts them.
That's an awful lot of trouble go to through to keep flash off the iPhone. Jobs must REALLY not want flash on the phone.
ANYTHING that gives the voter the opportunity to walk out with confirmation of HOW they voted is a huge problem. In the system you describe, the voter could decide to not put their paper slip into the box, or to drop in a fake substitute (and no, you couldn't verify it was a real slip without making their vote non-anonymous in the process).
The paper "receipt" is the paper ballot. The voter does not take it with them. It goes into the ballot box after the voter verifies that it is correct.
If you are concerned that a voter might place a fake ballot in the box, you could put a system in place that scans the barcode as or before the ballot is dropped in to verify its authenticity. You could even set it up so that the vote is not officially counted until it's scanned and placed into the box.
You bring up a good issue, but not one that isn't easily resolved.
The problem I see with it is a corrupt poll worker could open the ballot box and void several "receipts" to change the votes. This would probably be detected, however, as the number of voided ballots would be quite high. Also, there could be a time limit set on how long a vote can be voided. You could even set it up so that if a vote is not scanned and placed in the box within a certain amount of time, it is voided.
Still, if a polling place is so corrupt that a poll worker can unlock and access ballot box to change votes, no amount of security measures could ensure a fair election.
Do the words "Hanging Chad" mean anything to you? Paper voting has as many problems as E-voting, and as much potential for massive screw-ups. If there were a system that was actually secure, e-voting would be great. Unfortunately, the systems out there are all closed system "black box" deals where the manufacturer refuses to reveal any of the internal workings. Because of that the only people who actually know are the hackers using them to fix elections. If they were open, and thus subjected to rigorous enough testing to consider secure and reliable, we'd be golden.
Besides, you shouldn't really assume that the machine that electronically reads your paper ballad and transmits the results are any more secure/reliable as the purely electronic solution.
Why not have both. You place your vote electronically (electronic voting), it prints a receipt clearly listing your choices with a barcode linking that receipt to your voting session. After reviewing your vote receipt, you place your receipt in a box (paper voting). If you have a problem with your vote (receipt doesn't match your choices), the poll worker can scan the barcode to remove your vote, allowing you to vote again. All voided votes should be kept in a separate box for verification.
Results would be instant as they would kept electronically. If there is an issue, you can use the paper ballots (receipts) for a recount. Ballot stuffing would be kept to a minimum as the number of votes could be electronically verified. Any electronic tinkering could be nullified by the paper ballots. Anonymity would be kept as there is nothing on the receipt or the electronic ballot that would tie your vote to you. As an added bonus, the voter can actually confirm their vote by reading the printed receipt.
What's wrong with this system?
Please link to actual facts, not GW statement that it is. If you bother to actual fact check, you will note in order to for that statement to even be technically correct*, it only applies to a very specific 5 months. It's cherry picking.
Link:
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
Where's your link, Mr Please-link-to-actual-facts?
The economy did pretty well under GWBush with a Republican controlled congress. It wasn't until the Dems took control of both houses of congress, the housing bubble collapsed and the economy required huge taxpayer funded bailouts to avert the next great depression..
There, completed that thought for you.
FTFY
When the GOP steers the ship towards a waterfall, just because someone else grabs the wheel right before it goes over doesn't absolve the GOP for their primary role in sending it over.
You are correct. It takes about a year for a new congress to get new legislation passed. In the beginning of 2008, unemployment was at 5%. At the end of 2009, unemployment was over 10%. That's three years of Democratic controlled congress, with one year of a Dem in the WH.
So yeah, you're right. It takes about a year for a new congress to grab the wheel and turn the ship around. The numbers reflect that.
The economy did pretty well under GWBush with a Republican controlled congress.
I wonder what the deficit impact of that was.
I so agree. Deficits are bad... mmmmmkay?
BTW, how are we doing deficit wise now?
You can claim credit for the economy growing like crazy under the GOP from 1995-2007 only if you also take the blame for the complete collapse of the economy in 2008-2009. You don't get the upside without also taking the downside.
Democrats controlled both houses of congress in 2008 and 2009. Dems took both houses in the 2006 elections. Dems held both houses for a full year before 2008. Sure, there is much more at play, but I believe you are being very naive to blame the party in the minority for an economic collapse.
Still, if you think the economy of 2009 was the fault of Republicans who lost both houses in 2006, does that mean you believe that 9-11 was Clinton's fault? After all, Bush had only been in office for less than 9 months. At the end of 2009, unemployment climbed over 10%, just under three years since the Dems took both houses. You don't get the upside without also taking the downside.
Even if it's "all congress" -- the Democrats can still claim responsibility for upswing. They already do: more jobs added in the last two years than during Bush's entire reign
Really? The unemployment rate in November of 2008 was 6.9%. Today, it's at 9.6%. So are you telling me that -2.7% is ADDING jobs? Were you a math major?
Oh, and like I've said... Bush had very little to do with the economy. Obama has little to do with the economy. It's congress. From 1995 to 2007, Republicans held the House. In that time, unemployment went from 5.6% to 4.6% with a low of 3.8% and a high of 6.3% (unemployment climbed form 9-11-2001 to June 2003 before dropping off again). The party that held the WH had little effect. It wasn't Bush's fault and it's not Obama's.
Numbers don't lie. Source:
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
According to many polls, the number one concern this election was the economy. Somehow in the minds of many, the economy is the fault of the Democrats, in spite of the fact that the 2008 candidates left the campaign trail to focus on the rapidly failing economy.
The Republicans couldn't have timed it better. Pillage the economy, let it fail just before the Democrats take office, and two years later when the Dems have halted and begun reversal of the worst economic disaster of all time, the Republicans come in, blaming the Democrats.
Somehow people buy that rhetoric. I guess angry shouting will beat out reasonable discourse nearly every time.
Maybe it's because Democrats have held both houses of congress for past four years. In the past two, they've had the WH and a super-majority in Congress.The unemployment rate was less than 4.5% when the Dems took congress. What did the Republicans do as the minority party since 2007 to ruin the economy and raise the unemployment to over 10% at the end of 2009 (it's currently at 9.6%)?
You can place the blame wherever you like, but the numbers don't lie. Nor do they change with respect to which party has the White House.
At least during my lifetime every time that a single political party has gained the presidency and a majority in congress it crashes and burns.
You must be pretty young. The economy did pretty well under GWBush with a Republican controlled congress. However, as I've stated repeatedly, I don't think the Prez has a whole lot to do with it.
Historically, the economy has always done well with a Republican congress and a Democrat president...
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/245/982/Divided_we_make_money:_Why_the_stock_market_wants_a_Republican_victory.html
A more data-based representation:
http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
I halfway agree. The economy just seems to do pretty well with a Republican congress, but to be fair, it was slightly better under Clinton with a Repub congress than Bush with a Repub congress. I say that because the current Democratic congress has been a disaster, regardless of which party controls the WH.
My prediction: Expect the economy to improve and Obama take the credit. I believe we are about to see a repeat of the Clinton WH after Newt became Speaker of the House. Recent history has shown that the president has little effect on the economy. It's all congress.
Enthusiasm in your beliefs is no substitute for factual inaccuracy. Like GP said, unemployment under Dubya was never under 4% [miseryindex.us], while under Clinton it decreased from 7.3 to 3.9.
Thanx for the graph. It is very informative. I stand corrected. Unemployment under Bush reached under 4.5%, not under 4%. But that doesn't negate my primary point:
Stop blaming Bush. Stop blaming Obama. Don't give credit to Bush or Clinton. It is all CONGRESS.
If you take the same graph you provided and overlay who controls congress, you will find that the unemployment rate usually went up under a D controlled congress and down under a R controlled congress, regardless of which party controls the White House. When Newt and R's took the house in 1995, unemployment was at 5.6%. When Dems took the House and Senate back in 2007, unemployment rate was at 4.6%. Since the Dems took control of congress, the unemployment rate has shot up to 10+% for the final quarter of 2009 and now sits at 9.6%. Under a R controlled congress from 1995 to 2007, the unemployment rate never climbed above 6.3% with a low of 3.8% in April of 2000.
Your belief that the recent global recession was caused by the 2007 shift of a few congressional seats in the US (as opposed to - say - being the inevitable consequence of a massive irresponsible lending boom fueled by half a decade of easy credit) is equally deluded. Show your work, show the acts of congress in 2007 that have led to the housing and construction crash (that started in 2006)...
Can you show me which Republican sponsored bill caused Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac to ease lending restrictions on home mortgages? What Republican sponsored bill forced FM/FM to give loans to people who couldn't afford them? Here is what I was able to find:
So five years ago, there was one of those rare moments in Washington when the branches and personalities of government—in this case, the Bush administration—are less interested in protecting or expanding their turf than in fixing a looming catastrophe. What was Frank's response to the proposal?
"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
As Frank mentions in his press release today, two years after it was first proposed, the House finally voted on a bill reforming the mortgage giants. Alas, the legislation was watered down to the point of being meaningless—that's why it passed the House with such wide margins (122 Democrats and 209 Republicans). But even then, and despite his high regard for bipartisanship now, Barney Frank wasn't among the yeas.
If you're really simplistic enough to not understand that any economy is largely a product of recent (to that economy) history, not current activity, then you should probably read a book or two.
A one person majority in the Senate will not get bills passed. In this case, they didn't even get out of committee. See, unlike the D's who had a filibuster proof Senate until last night, the Senate in 2005 was 51-49. That's not near enough to guarantee a bill's passage. With that narrow of a lead, it's not problem for Dem's to kill a bill with 4 to 5 members on a 10 member committee.
Unless you can show me which Republican in the committee killed the bill, with nothing but Republicans supporting the bill, I'm left looking at the Dems as to why the bill never made it the floor for a vote.
No. It's completely correct. There's nothing Obama can do now to cut deficits, which right _now_ are a GOOD thing.
Oh. I get it now. When Bush was president, deficits were bad. Now that Obama is president, deficits good. I get it. I guess the D stands for Deficits Good.
or...
Are you trying to say that deficits are good _now_ because the economy is bad? If that's the case then you are saying the economy was good under Bush, right?
So either you are a partisan bitch who believes that D's are always right and R's are always wrong or you are admitting that the economy did very well under Bush until the D's took over congress in Jan 2007 (which was my original point). I'll accept either answer.
No, this is a lie. Unemployment was never under 4% under GWB, Jan of '01 it was at 4.2% and got progressively worse, until '06-'07, when it improved some before entering into the current slide. It was never under 4% under GWB
You may be right. But this graph does show it dropping below 4% early in Bush's term. I got my source. If yours is better we'll take it. It was at under 4.5% in October 2006, about 2 months before D's took control of both houses (source). Now where is it? Where was in 2008? That six year slide you turned into an outright nose dive right after D's took control of congress.
Also, as I'm sure you remember a little incident that happened 9 months and 11 days into 2001 that absolutely wrecked consumer confidence and the economy with it.
Record tax receipts are just a function of a growing GDP and inflation, nothing more.
Yes, that's it. It's all smoke and mirrors. If you don't agree with the numbers, try to make them meaningless. spin-spin-spin-spin. Of course, like we've said, with the 4.1% unemployment (your number), it makes perfect sense that with more people working and paying taxes that the government will take in less money. That is what you are saying, right?
But I have to get back to your main idiocy in your post, which is somehow thinking that the unemployment rate instantly corresponds to who controls Congress and nothing else.
Nope. Lots of things can help/hurt the economy. But if you look over recent history... say 1992 through today, you see Clinton inheriting a recession and not being able to anything with it until 1995. Then the economy boomed, giving Clinton a surplus which got handed to Bush. Bush's economy did extremely well until 2007, then tanked.
Now, pay close attention to those numbers and see if you can tell me what happened in those years. It wasn't the president, because both Clinton and Bush had roughly 6 years of boom and 2 years of bust. Maybe it's congress. Hmmm. Let's see. In 1995 Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House when Republicans took it over. In 2007, Nancy Pelosi became SotH when D's took over the House. Those years also seem to be the exact same years the economy started to boom or bust. Coincidence? Evidently you think so.
If you're really simplistic enough to not understand that any economy is largely a product of recent (to that economy) history, not current activity, then you should probably read a book or two.
You're right. What the Hell do I know? I'm just backed up by historical fact and economic performance. While you are backed up with calling me names and telling me to read a book. You obviously have the upper hand here.
Yeah. With unbalanced budget, growing real estate bubble, flat income for middle class and giant budget deficits. Otherwise, it was all OK.
Yeah... it's SOOOO much better today. I think if you are going to bitch about Republicans, using the deficit to do is not the way to go about it.
Also, look up S. 190: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 and find out who proposed it, who supported it and who kept it from ever leaving committee.
Here's a hint. Someone named McDain or something said:
If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I don't think you can blame the high unemployment and and lower tax receipts on them when they inherited a broken economy.
In October 2007, the unemployment rate was less than 4.5%. That's not what I'd call inheriting a broken economy.
So it's the 2007 Democrat Congress' fault that an unsustainable housing bubble burst...
Actually, it was Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. See, they blocked the billS. 190:
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 from ever leaving committee. Here is what John McCain said about it on May 26, 2006:
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
So, um.. it wasn't Republicans.
several companies "too big to fail" failed causing the worst recession since the Depression (and arguably almost another Depression if nothing had been done about it)?
I guess you don't remember the late 70's. I don't care what Obama says, Carter's recession was much worse that we have today.
My god, you are delusional. LOOK up when the economy in the US crashed. Bush was in power. In fact Obama was elected because people couldn't believe the mess Bush had made of things. And now they get the republicans who created the mess back because Obama can't fix decades of mis-management in two years.
This is where I stopped reading. I figure that if you didn't read my post, why should I read yours?
Congress controls the economy. The economy was rocking until the Democrats too control of congress in Jan 2007. Yes, Bush was in the White House, but Pelosi and Reid wrote the budgets. Now you tell me who had more of an effect on the economy.
Oh hell. I don't know why I'm telling you this. You didn't read (or couldn't understand) the first post. I don't think you are capable of reading this one.
You do realize that it is the Executive branch is the one that writes the budget, not Congress? (Congress still has to approve it, of course).
Actually, I did not know that. I try not to know things that are not true...
From the Constitution:
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
...appropriations made by law... Who writes law? According to Schoolhouse Rock, Congress writes law.
Here is a pdf file at a .gov site. The first sentence is:
When Congress writes the Federal budget each year, we rely on a range of technical rules and conventions – called budget “concepts” – that were designed to give us a table and consistent playing field for the policy decisions we make.
Read that first part? When CONGRESS writes the budget.
What does Wikipedia have to say? (I'll bold the key words for you)
The Budget of the United States Government is the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process. Budget committees set spending limits for the House and Senate committees and for Appropriations subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills to allocate funding to various federal programs.
After Congress approves an appropriations bill, it is sent to the President, who may sign it into law, or may veto it. A vetoed bill is sent back to Congress, which can pass it into law with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. Congress may also combine all or some appropriations bills into an omnibus reconciliation bill. In addition, the president may request and the Congress may pass supplemental appropriations bills or emergency supplemental appropriations bills.
In other words, the Presidential Budget is merely a suggestion that congress can take or leave. What you'll find is that when the same party controls both branches, executive and legislative, the president's budget is merely rubber stamped by congress and passed back. When the power is split between the parties, congress ignores the president's proposal and simply sends him their own version. When it gets fun is when one party controls the house and another controls the senate and the WH, much like when Newt's Republicans took over the House while the Senate was held by Democrats and Clinton was in the White House. That's when government gets shut down. ...
But I don't want to give you a government lesson. You can go back to Jr High for this lesson.
Again you show yourself to be a prick who can't comprehend written English. Why the hell does it matter if Rheem is a liberal? She's not in the news business. And I'm pretty sure that study wasn't CPB funded. It was another conservative attack study where everyone who was a reasonable human being was deemed liberal and everyone who believed in the infallibility of the Christian sky spirits and believed thermometers are a communist plot was considered conservative.
You may have your opinions, but you may not have your facts. The study was CPB funded. Google it if you like. Here, allow me...HERE. The whole PDF is write there, taken directly from the CPB website.
Diane Rehm hosts a news talk show, two hours a day, M-F. She is no different than Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, or Keith Olbermann. The difference is that FoxNews and MSNBC fund themselves and my tax dollars pay to pay Diane Rehm and broadcast her opinions, opinions that are different than my own. NPR has no one on their show that refelcts MY opinions, yet, I still have to pay for it.
Rehm takes up just under 10% of NPR's weekly schedule. Prairie Home Companion takes another 3hrs per week, provided it's only aired once and provided that Garrison Keller does nothing else throughout the week. And even though I've heard anything terrible partisan from Click and Clack, the CarTalk guys, NPR is liberal, period. The fact that they were supported by George Soros to the tune of millions of dollars, after Soros said he was spending his money to take Republicans down really drives the point home. Why would Soros, who stated that he wants to support liberals, give money to NPR? Doesn't that put NPR in the same camp as MoveOn.org and MediaMatters.org? Or do you not think those are liberal outfits either?
Anyway, my point is that even if Rehm is providing editorial, it is the editorial section of any news org that makes up the overriding opinion of that organization. Rehm is the Bill O'Reilly of NPR and reflects their political leanings. So to say that NPR is not liberal only proves not only your ignorance, but worse as it shows that you are not someone to accept facts that may counter your preconceived notions. Ignorance is curable and forgivable. Stubbornness is not. I am terribly sorry.
Oh really?
What policies did the democrat congress pass that caused the recession?
Sorry, just read that you are not American. I'm a bit shamed to admit that most Americans don't know who writes the budget. Since you are not American, it is certainly OK if you don't know.
According to the Constitution, Congress controls the purse strings. It is Congress that appropriates all funds for any federal government action. It is congress that writes the budgets. Sure, the President may veto, but that can lead to a complete shutdown of government, which is usually not a good thing.
To answer your question, I would have to say, "everything". If that's not narrow enough, I'll have to say the budgets.
But since you were so quick to blame the Republicans, and the economy was doing really when when the Republicans lost control of Congress, can you tell me what policies they are responsible for that caused the economic meltdown that started in 2007? (here's a hint... Republicans were in no condition to control any policy after 2006 and the President can't write policy.)