Constitution Revolution: 2012

[Woodruff]

I can so call a few of the freshman honorable, as they have proven to me in the campaign they were men of honor. not holding back, saying unpopular but true things, actually digging into the issues. They did not play "the game" to get elected. If you want to point out that is all I have to judge them by, that is ok. It's all I have to judge them by. The debt ceiling vote will reveal some true colors. That's what I'm waiting for

Were these the freshmen who were illegally casting votes, or some other freshmen?

And yet they actually fixed their mistakes: the body nullified their previous votes and they took the oath properly. Seems much like Roberts and Obama messing up the Presidential Oath and redoing it the next day: feigned outrage of something that was quickly fixed.

Feigned outrage, my ass. Don't be all "FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION" and "WE'RE GONNA READ IT WHEN WE OPEN UP!" if you can't even be bothered to comprehend that which you are reading. It's evidence that those individuals making those sorts of statements didn't have any real intention behind the words.

Those two realized the oath was being done and took the oath at the same time as the general body as they witnessed it on television. The Parliamentarian ruled that their actions were not sufficient as it was not in the presence of the other members of the body, so their votes were nullified and they were sworn in properly. When Roberts fumbled the Presidential Oath to Obama, they redid it the next day "just to make sure". They FOLLOWED the Constitution by quickly fixing the areas they messed up on. They didn't have to wait years for the courts to decide that they had messed up.

I'm not surprised that you're in here defending it, of course. But if you're going to talk about how important the Constitution is and rail on about how you're even going to take the step of reading it at the opening of Congress, then that sort of mistake is really inexcusable. It's ridiculous that it could happen and, as I said, clearly shows that all of the talk about how important the Constitution is really was just that...talk. After all, the Constitution is NOT a long document, nor is it particularly confusing.

[Phatscotty]

I've been called a Liberal FAR MORE times than I've been called a Righty, and that is a fact Jack!

I keep seeing you say this. But I gotta say...I cannot possibly fathom why anyone would make that mistake.

I talked a LOT of shit about Bush, and fake ass big spending Republicans on the take. I was feeling probably the exact same way any honest liberal should have felt during the 111th Congress. "WTF, we have both houses and the executive, what the hell are you guys doing?" That was I said during the 108th, and especially the 109th. Plus I was super against the invasion of Iraq. I have been accused of licking Saddams Balls and putting him on a pedestal. I suppose I could summons some old Bush Blasts from 2003 in my old blog....

George Bush Thinks You’re Stupid

So here’s the deal. In 1982, a real republican named Ronald Reagan sent a bill back to congress because it had way too many earmarks on it. (An ear mark is pork barrel spending) The total of earmarks? 182. Last year, one bill that George Bush signed had over 6,500 earmarks on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now Bushy is insulting the American people, saying that congress needs a whopping cut on earmarks of at least 50%. Now obviously this is an attempt to make the new congress look bad, but he aint pullin the wool over this bloggers eyes. If you want my opinion, there shold be 0 earmarks. Now I know that isn’t possible for either democrats or republicrats. I’m sure Georgy will get his base all riled up cuz congress passes a bill with 4,000 earmarks on it. My only question is this…….Why didn’t you care the last 6 years? WE all know the answer to that.

Thursday, May 11, 2006
Dictatorish…Bush challenges hundreds of laws

ooh, that was a good one!

PortGate

Critics of the Dubai ports deal had some legitimate reasons to complain. One concern first raised by CNN’s Lou Dobbs was the close ties between Bush family members of and the United Arab Emirates, the country whose firm would have taken over operations at several major U.S. ports.

Bush Approval Rating
56% of people dissaprove of Bush as president. Holy shit.

Obama hanging in at 42 tho....

Monday, January 16, 2006
Brother…

When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief. He is using these “signing statements” just a wee bit too much.

You only know me under a democratic administration. You will see. I am concluding that we have to remain vigilant at all times, and can't take a break just because our guy won the white house or whatever it may be.

Only when the country comes together can we make real change.

[Night Strike]

I'm not surprised that you're in here defending it, of course. But if you're going to talk about how important the Constitution is and rail on about how you're even going to take the step of reading it at the opening of Congress, then that sort of mistake is really inexcusable. It's ridiculous that it could happen and, as I said, clearly shows that all of the talk about how important the Constitution is really was just that...talk. After all, the Constitution is NOT a long document, nor is it particularly confusing.

Of course I'd support them because the entire issue was fixed within 48 hours. Furthermore, from my reading of the Constitution, it never says the oath must be taken in the House chamber:

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

There may be some other rules that say the Oath must be administered by a certain person in their presence, which is why the Parliamentarian ruled they must redo it. But from reading the actual text, if the 2 representatives did do the oath while watching on tv, then they technically did take the oath. But overall the entire situation has already been addressed and rectified: no need to harp on this for the entire next 2 years of the 112th Congress.

[Phatscotty]

I can so call a few of the freshman honorable, as they have proven to me in the campaign they were men of honor. not holding back, saying unpopular but true things, actually digging into the issues. They did not play "the game" to get elected. If you want to point out that is all I have to judge them by, that is ok. It's all I have to judge them by. The debt ceiling vote will reveal some true colors. That's what I'm waiting for

Were these the freshmen who were illegally casting votes, or some other freshmen?

And yet they actually fixed their mistakes: the body nullified their previous votes and they took the oath properly. Seems much like Roberts and Obama messing up the Presidential Oath and redoing it the next day: feigned outrage of something that was quickly fixed.

Thanks man, I wanted someone else to bring up Obama and his oath

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm betting that the debt limit will be expanded to avoid a default on our debts and have everything come crashing down.

Some budget cuts will be done, but there's too many vested interests at work (especially with the military).

With any government, there will always be a skewed incentive system where politicians will act in their best interests (which is maintaining power by playing the rules of the game with those who give them the money to continue doing so) while giving lip service to their voters.

If the government really wanted to cut down its budget, they should experiment with more privatization.

[Phatscotty]

I'm betting that the debt limit will be expanded to avoid a default on our debts and have everything come crashing down.

Some budget cuts will be done, but there's too many vested interests at work (especially with the military).

With any government, there will always be a skewed incentive system where politicians will act in their best interests (which is maintaining power by playing the rules of the game with those who give them the money to continue doing so) while giving lip service to their voters.

If the government really wanted to cut down its budget, they should experiment with more privatization.

The debt ceiling will be raised. The only difference is this time we need to put future plans into place to cut the spending, and we might have a loud enough voice to remind people that we can not keep raising the debt ceiling every 8 months like this. It's spinning out of control.

[Barramundi Dan]

Lowering Taxes is the most certain path to riots and civil unrest. It was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said "Taxes are the price we way for a civilized society".

[Phatscotty]

Lowering Taxes is the most certain path to riots and civil unrest. It was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said "Taxes are the price we way for a civilized society".

yes, luckily we have a say via representation.

which riots have happened all because of the most recent tax cuts? starting in 2001

[GreecePwns]

Lowering Taxes is the most certain path to riots and civil unrest. It was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said "Taxes are the price we way for a civilized society".

Riots and civil unrest is a bit far fetched, but history has shown us that cutting taxes and spending or privatizing create or worsens income disparities and shrinks the middle class. These two effects are near perfect indicators of an oncoming recession or depression, and this one is no exception to the rule.

And experiment with privatizing? This isn't a game.

[BigBallinStalin]

Lowering Taxes is the most certain path to riots and civil unrest. It was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said "Taxes are the price we way for a civilized society".

Riots and civil unrest is a bit far fetched, but history has shown us that cutting taxes and spending or privatizing create or worsens income disparities and shrinks the middle class. These two effects are near perfect indicators of an oncoming recession or depression, and this one is no exception to the rule.

And experiment with privatizing? This isn't a game.

If the above was true, then why is China's middle class rapidly growing since their shift to further and further privatization?

Also, what constitutes as the "middle class?" Isn't that term defined by the government itself?

If spending and cutting taxes worsens income disparity rates, then why do so many Central American countries with such high taxes have such high income disparity rates?

You know what was a great successful experimentation with privatization? A drift away from a command economy towards a market economy.

What I'm getting at is this: It's much more complicated, and you're overlooking many other factors.

[Phatscotty]

Lowering Taxes is the most certain path to riots and civil unrest. It was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said "Taxes are the price we way for a civilized society".

Riots and civil unrest is a bit far fetched, but history has shown us that cutting taxes and spending or privatizing create or worsens income disparities and shrinks the middle class. These two effects are near perfect indicators of an oncoming recession or depression, and this one is no exception to the rule.

And experiment with privatizing? This isn't a game.

When someone starts cutting their spending, due to cuts in their income, they may very well feel a pinch. It's called "living within your means." also known as: being responsible, which can come in handy if you want people to invest in you, or borrow you money at a decent interest rate. This of course is all just a theory. However, in theory, when yo do get your wallet balanced, and you get out of debt or even just manage it responsibly, your credit will improve financially and you can gear up for growth again. The excessed of the past, and even the excesses as I speak, are unafforable, and unsustainable. If we didn't raise the debt ceiling, we would need 40% cuts across the board in every single area. That can also be interpreted as we are spending 40% more than we should be.

Given everyone of us knows the debt can't go higher forever, and must be dealt with at some future time, should we be asking whether we want to slam into that brick wall full speed? or perhaps tap a brakes a couple times? keep the proper distance between generations and plan ahead for things like, say, 2 workers per retiree concerning social security. You can't ride the ass of the Debt without rear ending it at some point.

[GreecePwns]

Lowering Taxes is the most certain path to riots and civil unrest. It was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said "Taxes are the price we way for a civilized society".

Riots and civil unrest is a bit far fetched, but history has shown us that cutting taxes and spending or privatizing create or worsens income disparities and shrinks the middle class. These two effects are near perfect indicators of an oncoming recession or depression, and this one is no exception to the rule.

And experiment with privatizing? This isn't a game.

When someone starts cutting their spending, due to cuts in their income, they may very well feel a pinch. It's called "living within your means." also known as: being responsible, which can come in handy if you want people to invest in you, or borrow you money at a decent interest rate. This of course is all just a theory. However, in theory, when yo do get your wallet balanced, and you get out of debt or even just manage it responsibly, your credit will improve financially and you can gear up for growth again. The excessed of the past, and even the excesses as I speak, are unafforable, and unsustainable. If we didn't raise the debt ceiling, we would need 40% cuts across the board in every single area. That can also be interpreted as we are spending 40% more than we should be.

Given everyone of us knows the debt can't go higher forever, and must be dealt with at some future time, should we be asking whether we want to slam into that brick wall full speed? or perhaps tap a brakes a couple times? keep the proper distance between generations and plan ahead for things like, say, 2 workers per retiree concerning social security. You can't ride the ass of the Debt without rear ending it at some point.

I don't think the solution is completely made by cutting spending. You and I agree on some things such as military bases but not on others. You can increase income and decrease spending at the same time for a much less drastic effect. You cite Social Security as an example. This is a program that doesn't need to be privatized or have the retirement age increased to be saved.

First off, let's make it clear that Social Security makes money for the government. But I disagree with the cap on Social Security taxes from both a numbers and a morality standpoint. To have a cap on it is essentially telling the poor and middle class to aid the poor. Extending Social Security taxes to all Americans would put more money in our government's wallet - which could then be passed on to the taxpayers' wallets, something you would support for sure. On top of that, the 2.5 trillion dollar fund backing Social Security up can be used for better purposes like the debt instead of just sitting there.

[BigBallinStalin]

Inflation is perhaps the biggest factor that the least amount of Americans really understand.

[Phatscotty]

Lowering Taxes is the most certain path to riots and civil unrest. It was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said "Taxes are the price we way for a civilized society".

Riots and civil unrest is a bit far fetched, but history has shown us that cutting taxes and spending or privatizing create or worsens income disparities and shrinks the middle class. These two effects are near perfect indicators of an oncoming recession or depression, and this one is no exception to the rule.

And experiment with privatizing? This isn't a game.

When someone starts cutting their spending, due to cuts in their income, they may very well feel a pinch. It's called "living within your means." also known as: being responsible, which can come in handy if you want people to invest in you, or borrow you money at a decent interest rate. This of course is all just a theory. However, in theory, when yo do get your wallet balanced, and you get out of debt or even just manage it responsibly, your credit will improve financially and you can gear up for growth again. The excessed of the past, and even the excesses as I speak, are unafforable, and unsustainable. If we didn't raise the debt ceiling, we would need 40% cuts across the board in every single area. That can also be interpreted as we are spending 40% more than we should be.

Given everyone of us knows the debt can't go higher forever, and must be dealt with at some future time, should we be asking whether we want to slam into that brick wall full speed? or perhaps tap a brakes a couple times? keep the proper distance between generations and plan ahead for things like, say, 2 workers per retiree concerning social security. You can't ride the ass of the Debt without rear ending it at some point.

I don't think the solution is completely made by cutting spending. You and I agree on some things such as military bases but not on others. You can increase income and decrease spending at the same time for a much less drastic effect. You cite Social Security as an example. This is a program that doesn't need to be privatized or have the retirement age increased to be saved.

First off, let's make it clear that Social Security makes money for the government. But I disagree with the cap on Social Security taxes from both a numbers and a morality standpoint. To have a cap on it is essentially telling the poor and middle class to aid the poor. Extending Social Security taxes to all Americans would put more money in our government's wallet - which could then be passed on to the taxpayers' wallets, something you would support for sure. On top of that, the 2.5 trillion dollar fund backing Social Security up can be used for better purposes like the debt instead of just sitting there.

I disagree 2.5 trillion dollars is sitting there. I would agree there is a suitcase with a 2.5 trillion IOU in it, just sitting there.

Income could be boosted, however we have not the gov't at the moment to entrust this to. I know this may be unrealistic, but I want to see cuts, and then I would consider the higher taxes. The bigger the cuts, the more I would pay, to a certain level. That is called trust, and they would have mine. in theory

[GreecePwns]

If the above was true, then why is China's middle class rapidly growing since their shift to further and further privatization?

The bigger reason why China's economy is growing is not privatization (though of course that's played a role in such a staunch command economy). The IMF attributes 42 percent of their growth to increasing labor productivity.

Also, what constitutes as the "middle class?" Isn't that term defined by the government itself?

Yes, but the exact definition of what constitutes middle class is less important than the correlation between lowering taxes and increased income disparities, no matter how you define middle class (as long as it actually is the middle).

If spending and cutting taxes worsens income disparity rates, then why do so many Central American countries with such high taxes have such high income disparity rates?

And why do Scandinavian countries run balanced budgets or surpluses with the lowest income disparities in the world (no coincedence they are also the happiest people in the world) while maintaining large safety net programs?

[GreecePwns]

Lowering Taxes is the most certain path to riots and civil unrest. It was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said "Taxes are the price we way for a civilized society".

Riots and civil unrest is a bit far fetched, but history has shown us that cutting taxes and spending or privatizing create or worsens income disparities and shrinks the middle class. These two effects are near perfect indicators of an oncoming recession or depression, and this one is no exception to the rule.

And experiment with privatizing? This isn't a game.

When someone starts cutting their spending, due to cuts in their income, they may very well feel a pinch. It's called "living within your means." also known as: being responsible, which can come in handy if you want people to invest in you, or borrow you money at a decent interest rate. This of course is all just a theory. However, in theory, when yo do get your wallet balanced, and you get out of debt or even just manage it responsibly, your credit will improve financially and you can gear up for growth again. The excessed of the past, and even the excesses as I speak, are unafforable, and unsustainable. If we didn't raise the debt ceiling, we would need 40% cuts across the board in every single area. That can also be interpreted as we are spending 40% more than we should be.

Given everyone of us knows the debt can't go higher forever, and must be dealt with at some future time, should we be asking whether we want to slam into that brick wall full speed? or perhaps tap a brakes a couple times? keep the proper distance between generations and plan ahead for things like, say, 2 workers per retiree concerning social security. You can't ride the ass of the Debt without rear ending it at some point.

I don't think the solution is completely made by cutting spending. You and I agree on some things such as military bases but not on others. You can increase income and decrease spending at the same time for a much less drastic effect. You cite Social Security as an example. This is a program that doesn't need to be privatized or have the retirement age increased to be saved.

First off, let's make it clear that Social Security makes money for the government. But I disagree with the cap on Social Security taxes from both a numbers and a morality standpoint. To have a cap on it is essentially telling the poor and middle class to aid the poor. Extending Social Security taxes to all Americans would put more money in our government's wallet - which could then be passed on to the taxpayers' wallets, something you would support for sure. On top of that, the 2.5 trillion dollar fund backing Social Security up can be used for better purposes like the debt instead of just sitting there.

I disagree 2.5 trillion dollars is sitting there. I would agree there is a suitcase with a 2.5 trillion IOU in it, just sitting there.

Income could be boosted, however we have not the gov't at the moment to entrust this to. I know this may be unrealistic, but I want to see cuts, and then I would consider the higher taxes. The bigger the cuts, the more I would pay, to a certain level. That is called trust, and they would have mine. in theory

EXCLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY FROM ALL BUDGETS Pub. L. 101-508, title XIII, Sec. 13301(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104Stat. 1388-623, provided that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of - (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, (2) the congressional budget, or (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

Sure the money can be invested in say, government securities, but that doesn't exactly mean it can't be touched.

I really do understand the lack of trust in government from the Tea Party and the idea that the commitment to real action will regain that trust. But let's not rule out all the options here. Where else, specifically would you cut from?

[Phatscotty]

the answer has been across the board, always and forever.

Self imposed austerity measures taken ahead of time are much more preferable to me than Foreign imposed austerity measures forced when it's too late.

[GreecePwns]

the answer has been across the board, always and forever.

Self imposed austerity measures taken ahead of time are much more preferable to me than Foreign imposed austerity measures forced when it's too late.

Across the board cuts imply that all spending is the same, when in my opinion it isn't. The benefits generated by Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid/VA need not be touched in order to balance the budget.

[Aradhus]

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan, phattalkingpointscotty

[Night Strike]

First off, let's make it clear that Social Security makes money for the government. But I disagree with the cap on Social Security taxes from both a numbers and a morality standpoint. To have a cap on it is essentially telling the poor and middle class to aid the poor. Extending Social Security taxes to all Americans would put more money in our government's wallet - which could then be passed on to the taxpayers' wallets, something you would support for sure. On top of that, the 2.5 trillion dollar fund backing Social Security up can be used for better purposes like the debt instead of just sitting there.

Social Security makes money for the government as long as more people are paying into the system then people receiving benefits from the system. As of last year, that was no longer the case, therefore the program is now on a decline.

[Phatscotty]

First off, let's make it clear that Social Security makes money for the government. But I disagree with the cap on Social Security taxes from both a numbers and a morality standpoint. To have a cap on it is essentially telling the poor and middle class to aid the poor. Extending Social Security taxes to all Americans would put more money in our government's wallet - which could then be passed on to the taxpayers' wallets, something you would support for sure. On top of that, the 2.5 trillion dollar fund backing Social Security up can be used for better purposes like the debt instead of just sitting there.

Social Security makes money for the government as long as more people are paying into the system then people receiving benefits from the system. As of last year, that was no longer the case, therefore the program is now on a decline.

Ponzi schemes do not end well. We need to make social security responsible and sustainable. This will prove difficult so long as politicians can raid it.

[BigBallinStalin]

If the above was true, then why is China's middle class rapidly growing since their shift to further and further privatization?

The bigger reason why China's economy is growing is not privatization (though of course that's played a role in such a staunch command economy). The IMF attributes 42 percent of their growth to increasing labor productivity.

Also, what constitutes as the "middle class?" Isn't that term defined by the government itself?

Yes, but the exact definition of what constitutes middle class is less important than the correlation between lowering taxes and increased income disparities, no matter how you define middle class (as long as it actually is the middle).

If spending and cutting taxes worsens income disparity rates, then why do so many Central American countries with such high taxes have such high income disparity rates?

And why do Scandinavian countries run balanced budgets or surpluses with the lowest income disparities in the world (no coincedence they are also the happiest people in the world) while maintaining large safety net programs?

Well, it seems you're really missing the point I was making about your earlier statement, so I'll reiterate: You're statement was too simplified and didn't account for other factors.

But, I'll entertain the China bit.

How do you think productivity increased?

Analysis of the pre- and post-1978 periods indicates that the market-oriented reforms undertaken by China were critical in creating this productivity boom.

"market-orientated reforms"

That involves privatization; it involves steps away from a command economy.

So, is it worth experimenting in privatization? Yes, it is.

[GreecePwns]

First off, let's make it clear that Social Security makes money for the government. But I disagree with the cap on Social Security taxes from both a numbers and a morality standpoint. To have a cap on it is essentially telling the poor and middle class to aid the poor. Extending Social Security taxes to all Americans would put more money in our government's wallet - which could then be passed on to the taxpayers' wallets, something you would support for sure. On top of that, the 2.5 trillion dollar fund backing Social Security up can be used for better purposes like the debt instead of just sitting there.

Social Security makes money for the government as long as more people are paying into the system then people receiving benefits from the system. As of last year, that was no longer the case, therefore the program is now on a decline.

So the change I proposed is moot? If anything the extra revenue is needed even more now.

[Phatscotty]

First off, let's make it clear that Social Security makes money for the government. But I disagree with the cap on Social Security taxes from both a numbers and a morality standpoint. To have a cap on it is essentially telling the poor and middle class to aid the poor. Extending Social Security taxes to all Americans would put more money in our government's wallet - which could then be passed on to the taxpayers' wallets, something you would support for sure. On top of that, the 2.5 trillion dollar fund backing Social Security up can be used for better purposes like the debt instead of just sitting there.

Social Security makes money for the government as long as more people are paying into the system then people receiving benefits from the system. As of last year, that was no longer the case, therefore the program is now on a decline.

So the change I proposed is moot? If anything the extra revenue is needed even more now.

need cuts, at least meet half way

[GreecePwns]

First off, let's make it clear that Social Security makes money for the government. But I disagree with the cap on Social Security taxes from both a numbers and a morality standpoint. To have a cap on it is essentially telling the poor and middle class to aid the poor. Extending Social Security taxes to all Americans would put more money in our government's wallet - which could then be passed on to the taxpayers' wallets, something you would support for sure. On top of that, the 2.5 trillion dollar fund backing Social Security up can be used for better purposes like the debt instead of just sitting there.

Social Security makes money for the government as long as more people are paying into the system then people receiving benefits from the system. As of last year, that was no longer the case, therefore the program is now on a decline.

So the change I proposed is moot? If anything the extra revenue is needed even more now.

need cuts, at least meet half way

Well I'm using this CBO chart as a reference and a summary of the findings here.. The decimals are % of GDP.

So here's my attempt at meeting halfway.

Increase in Revenue: Beginning in 2010, make all earnings subject to the payroll tax (but maintain the current-law taxable maximum). In the link, more information can be found in section E2.1. I strongly suggest you look at the summary graphs here.

Cuts in Benefits: Progressive price indexing of PIA formula factors beginning with individuals newly
eligible for OASDI benefits in 2016, starting at the 50th percentile of earners. In the link, more information can be found in section B1.4.

By these two provisions alone, solvency is guaranteed and profitability is more than likely for at least 75 years.