"Cali?"

[Joseph]

It is true, Congress appropriates the funds. However, both administrations, Reagan and Dubya, pushed hard for massive miltary expenditures that drove deficits to record levels.

Actually, Social Security and Health and Human Services, neither of which is Constitutional, outstrip defense.

Say what you will about Clinton (I voted against him twice). He balanced the Federal budget and presided over longest economic expansion the U.S. has ever known.

He did not balance the Federal budget. In fact, he vetoed it a couple of times until he finally saw the writing on the wall. The once conservative Republican Congress balanced it, only to forget why they were elected in the first place and went on to spend our money like drunken Democrats. The economic expansion was a result of Regan's policies, and by the time Dubya was elected, the country was in a recession due to Clinton's. The fact that revenues to the Fed are up (and that they doubled during the Reagan years) are proof enough.

Joseph

[Gage]

The hijack of this thread has turned it into one of the T&TTT taboo topics of discussion.

Yea, but because of who is involved, nothing will happen.

I'm back out of this discussion before I get accused of taking it off topic.
Have a good day.

[rampage]

It is true, Congress appropriates the funds. However, both administrations, Reagan and Dubya, pushed hard for massive miltary expenditures that drove deficits to record levels.

Actually, Social Security and Health and Human Services, neither of which is Constitutional, outstrip defense.

Say what you will about Clinton (I voted against him twice). He balanced the Federal budget and presided over longest economic expansion the U.S. has ever known.

He did not balance the Federal budget. In fact, he vetoed it a couple of times until he finally saw the writing on the wall. The once conservative Republican Congress balanced it, only to forget why they were elected in the first place and went on to spend our money like drunken Democrats. The economic expansion was a result of Regan's policies, and by the time Dubya was elected, the country was in a recession due to Clinton's. The fact that revenues to the Fed are up (and that they doubled during the Reagan years) are proof enough.

Joseph

Dude, You should give yourself a break from Sean Hannity for a while. You quote the guy verbatim quite often.

[TomS]

Let’s not forget that Clinton was elected following a severe recession. That recession was preceded by 12 years of Republican supply-side economic policies. To be fair, recessions and economic expansions tend to be cyclical. Presidents reap the credit and the blame for these trends whether they caused them or not.

The economic expansion of the 90’s was driven, in large part, by the technological innovations of the time. All those new gadgets encouraged businesses and individuals to go out and spend money. It also increased productivity, which helped keep inflation in check.

I also think Alan Greenspan and Federal Reserve’s careful regulation of interest rates during that period helped tremendously.

I don’t think there is any doubt, supply-side economics (cutting taxes for the wealthy) stimulates the economy thereby increasing tax revenue, at least in the short term. I can’t help but wonder about the long-term consequences, especially for the middle class. If you look at the long term trends over the last 25 years you will see that consumer debt, bankruptcies, foreclosures, etc. have increased dramatically. Manufacturing has moved overseas. Mergers and acquisitions have reduced competition and eliminated thousands of jobs. I know some will argue that excessive regulation by Democrats is responsible for some of these trends. However, corporate special interests have pretty much had their way during this period, even during the Clinton years.



Gage, Doug and Asianflava - I believe the rule is no fighting. Discussions about politics, religion and sex are discouraged. They are not prohibited outright. I promise to play nice and I'm sure others will do the same.

[madjack]

Gage, Doug and Asianflava - I believe the rule is no fighting. Discussions about politics, religion and sex are discouraged. They are not prohibited outright. I promise to play nice and I'm sure others will do the same.

...that is the admins position to a "T"....as long and guns aren't drawn and knives pulled you may discuss what you will...we are all adults here(mostly) and we(admins) expect all to act and post responsibly....
madjack

[Joseph]

Dude, You should give yourself a break from Sean Hannity for a while. You quote the guy verbatim quite often.

Frankly, I can't stand to listen to the man, so if anything, he's quoting me. But even if I were quoting him, what does that have to do with anything? If what I'm saying has merit and is supported by facts, what does it matter if I were quoting Sean Hannity or Michael Moore?

Let’s not forget that Clinton was elected following a severe recession. That recession was preceded by 12 years of Republican supply-side economic policies.

However, that was not cause-and-effect. The recession was caused by the collapse of junk bonds.

I don’t think there is any doubt, supply-side economics (cutting taxes for the wealthy) stimulates the economy thereby increasing tax revenue, at least in the short term.

Oh please. Everybody that pays taxes got a tax cut. If you pay a million dollars in taxes and I pay a thousand, does it make sense that I should keep as much of my own money as you if taxes are cut?

I can’t help but wonder about the long-term consequences, especially for the middle class. If you look at the long term trends over the last 25 years you will see that consumer debt, bankruptcies, foreclosures, etc. have increased dramatically.

IMHO that's largely because of the entitlement mentality of the children of middle class baby boomers: the concept of delayed gratification is alien to many if not most of them. Just a bit of personal social theory that I offer up for your consideration.

Manufacturing has moved overseas.

In large part because American workers (i.e.: unions) have priced themselves out of the market.

Mergers and acquisitions have reduced competition and eliminated thousands of jobs. I know some will argue that excessive regulation by Democrats is responsible for some of these trends. However, corporate special interests have pretty much had their way during this period, even during the Clinton years.

You can't regulate supply and demand: if there's no demand for your product, you can't sell it; if there's no demand for your skills, you're out of a job. And there is not a thing government can do about it except to pick the pockets of the taxpayers to subsidise workers or businesses that can't compete.

I believe the rule is no fighting. Discussions about politics, religion and sex are discouraged. They are not prohibited outright. I promise to play nice and I'm sure others will do the same.

You're doing fine and I'm doing my best!

Joseph

[Ira]

Sorry I steered this thread to politics.

I just thought that the "La La Land" and "Cali" moniker might have been the result of voting for an ex-actor for Gov...and another ex-actor.

But I forgot two others:

Clint Eastwood and Sonny Bono. (Okay--not an actor, but he was in the entertainment business.) There's also some other character actor whom I can't think the name of right now either. Bad actor, and a worse congressman.

Funny thing is, Republicans are always bashing Hollywood and the Hollywood establishment when they express their liberal views in public, as if they don't have the right. But when a Hollywood personality goes REPUBLICAN, they have no problem with it at all!

And Joseph--you HAVE to be kidding with that link with the misleading URL. My 10-year-old can create a better web site!

And since when is Social Security "unconstitutional?"

I really want to see the URL you send us to for THAT argument!!!

[Joseph]

And Joseph--you HAVE to be kidding with that link with the misleading URL. My 10-year-old can create a better web site!

The quality of the site is irrelevant as to it's content. What exactly is misleading about it?

And since when is Social Security "unconstitutional?"

Show me where it's allowed. It's not. It rests solely on a set of decisions by the Supreme Court - pretty much as does much of the Federal Government which has stomped the Tenth Amendment into the dust. Yes, that's how the system works, but the Supreme Court has been wrong before - ask Dred Scott.

I really want to see the URL you send us to for THAT argument!!!

OK, here ya go.

Joseph

[Nitetimes]

I can’t help but wonder about the long-term consequences, especially for the middle class. If you look at the long term trends over the last 25 years you will see that consumer debt, bankruptcies, foreclosures, etc. have increased dramatically.

IMHO that's largely because of the entitlement mentality of the children of middle class baby boomers: the concept of delayed gratification is alien to many if not most of them. Just a bit of personal social theory that I offer up for your consideration.

Ain't it the truth, they all think they are owed a living, a car, a nice place to live and all the toys rather than seeing the need to go out and work for what they want. Then when it doesn't work out for them they want to rely on a screwed up system to get it for them.

Manufacturing has moved overseas.

In large part because American workers (i.e.: unions) have priced themselves out of the market.

Ain't that the truth. Of course the need for a 4000sq. ft home and a couple of Hummers has contributed greatly to that.

Joseph

[mincey]

I was going to stay out of the political discussion and keep my Libertarian views to myself, but I couldn't help commenting on these two statements.

Funny thing is, Republicans are always bashing Hollywood and the Hollywood establishment when they express their liberal views in public, as if they don't have the right. But when a Hollywood personality goes REPUBLICAN, they have no problem with it at all!

Unfortunately, too many in the Hollywood establishment are way left liberals, and spout off their opinions as if their views are right because they are "famous" and should be listened to. But how many of those spouting off, for example Leonardo Di Caprio and Barbara Streisand, have you seen actually running for office and winning? They can talk, but they don't follow through with running for public office to implement their ideas. You never really heard Fred Grandy or Fred Thompson expressing their views in the media, but instead they felt they could accomplish something and Fred Grandy became a congressman from Iowa and Fred Thompson was a senator from Tennessee. Words mean nothing without the action and responsibilty to back them up.

You know, I am not a fan of Brad Pitt at all, but I really appreciate a quote of his on IMDB:

"You shouldn't speak until you know what you're talking about. That's why I get uncomfortable with interviews. Reporters ask me what I feel China should do about Tibet. Who cares what I think China should do? I'm a f---ing actor! They hand me a script. I act. I'm here for entertainment. Basically, when you whittle everything away, I'm a grown man who puts on makeup." - Time, October 13, 1997

And since when is Social Security "unconstitutional?"

I have read the Constitution several times over, and not once have I found anything that required the government to provide for us in our retirement. So in my view, Social Security is not a Constitutional right. The Constitution is a document that limits the control and intrusion of the government.

[Joseph]

Unfortunately, too many in the Hollywood establishment are way left liberals, and spout off their opinions as if their views are right because they are "famous" and should be listened to. But how many of those spouting off, for example Leonardo Di Caprio and Barbara Streisand, have you seen actually running for office and winning?

Woo hoo! Thanks for the reminder of John McCain on SNL - still a riot!

Joseph

[TomS]

Oh please. Everybody that pays taxes got a tax cut. If you pay a million dollars in taxes and I pay a thousand, does it make sense that I should keep as much of my own money as you if taxes are cut?

The middle class got a couple of bucks. The wealthy got mega-bucks. It wasn't an across the board cut of cut of X%. The tax tables were restructured to give huge tax cuts to to the rich and token cuts to the middle class.

The idea behind supply-side econimics is that wealthy folks invest most of their income. Therefore, if you give a huge tax break to the wealthy, they will invest that money thereby stimulating the economy.

One of the downsides is all that money hitting the financial markets tends to fuel speculative bubbles that eventually colapse. Which brings me to my next point.

However, that was not cause-and-effect. The recession was caused by the collapse of junk bonds.

And the last one was preceeded by the dot-com bust. In both cases you had periods of what Greenspan called "irrational exuberance" in the financial markets. Personally, I don't think colapse of junk bonds or the dot-com bust were the sole cause of either recession. They were simply the matches that started the fire. Recessions are usually fueled by broader factors such as excessive inventories, weak consumer confidence, etc.

Regarding bankruptcies, consumer debt etc...

IMHO that's largely because of the entitlement mentality of the children of middle class baby boomers...

Let's not forget there are two sides to this equation. It takes a debtor and creditor to make a loan. The banking and financial services industries have been flush with cash; a condition that makes them all to willing to loan money to people who can't afford it. After a few years, these very industries whine and cry for bankruptcy reform when too many people get in over their heads.

When my daughter was in college she constantly recieved unsolicited credit card offers. I intercepted most of them and tore them up before she ever saw them. IMHO if you are stupid enough to loan money to an 18-year old with no income you deserve to lose it.

Unfortunately, debtors don't have lobbyists. But bankers do. The result is tighter bankruptcy laws with no reform of the questionable lending practices that created the problem in the first palce.

I'm not totally trashing conservatism or supply side economics. However, I just don't see it as the economic cure-all that some folks make it out to be. If it was, the Federal Reserve woudn't have had to prop up the economy with record low interest rates the last five years.

I used to hold conservative/libertarian views very similar to Joseph. I've moderated those beliefs in the last few years. I'm not advocating a return to Kensyian economics and the welfare state. However, I recognize that there needs to be a balance between econimic interests of business and middle class consumers. Consumer spending is responsible for 70% of all spending. If you elimnate the middle class, who is going to buy those goods and services needed to keep the economy going?

[Ira]

Since when does something have to be MENTIONED in the Constitution? Or otherwise it's unconstitutional?

I seriously don't understand this argument at all.

We have TONS of laws affecting important issues that are not mentioned at all in the Constitution.

Isn't this the same argument that says the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional, as is the Federal Government's power to wage certain wars unless certain conditions are met?

This is my whole problem with conservatism in general--the belief that people in need shouldn't receive help because it's all their fault.

Putting aside the fact that we would have hundreds of thousands of homeless OVERNIGHT without SS, and that they would be camping in EVERYONE'S backyard and destroy the very fabric of this country in no time at all, do you not believe that the vast majority of people receiving SS would perish without it? And that they DESERVE it because they worked hard their entire lives, but simply didin't earn enough or for other reasons couldn't put together the nest egg for retirement that others were able to?

Like disability, spousal disability, an illness without health insurance, raising disabled children, other life circumstances that were no fault of their own?

Man, what the Republican Party stands for on these issues really takes the CAKE!

"Give the tax breaks to Halliburton and Enron and THEY'LL take care of the people."

The philosophy is pitiful, and the evidence of its results has been more than crystal clear this past 30 years.

[Joseph]

Since when does something have to be MENTIONED in the Constitution to be considered unconstitutional?

Since the 10th Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I seriously don't understand this argument at all.

Hope that clears it up.

We have TONS of laws affecting important issues that are not mentioned at ALL in the Constitution.

Usually courtesy of the Interstate Commerce clause - Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 which empowers Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." This has been twisted beyond belief to get around the 10th Amendment.

Isn't this the same argument that says the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional,

No. It used to be until the 16th Amendment was passed and ratified in 1913. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

as is the Federal Government's power to wage certain wars unless certain conditions are met?

Sorry, you lost me there. Congress has the power to declare war according to Article 1. "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."

Shouldn't you be shopping for a generator? Seriously, our differences aside I hope all goes well for you guys over the next few days.

Joseph

[Ira]

I'm never going to able to make these quoted quotes work right, so I'll do it this way:

Ira:
Since when does something have to be MENTIONED in the Constitution to be considered unconstitutional?

Joseph:
Since the 10th Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Ira:
But the Constitution can be changed. And the "or to the people" part? What does that mean? Voting for Roosevelt who brought SS in? That's pretty vague stuff. And State's rights? About federal budgets? Since when has THAT been the case?

You've illustrated the main flaw in Constitutionalist's arguments--those that believe the Constitution has to be literally interpreted, except that interpretation is subject to so much VARIANCE! For goodness sakes-- IT'S 2006!!! This isn't Tsarist Russia.

---------------------------------------

Ira:
We have TONS of laws affecting important issues that are not mentioned at ALL in the Constitution.

Joseph:
Usually courtesy of the Interstate Commerce clause - Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 which empowers Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." This has been twisted beyond belief to get around the 10th Amendment.

Isn't this the same argument that says the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional,

No. It used to be until the 16th Amendment was passed and ratified in 1913. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

as is the Federal Government's power to wage certain wars unless certain conditions are met?

Sorry, you lost me there. Congress has the power to declare war according to Article 1. "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."

Ira:
What does stem cell research have to do with interstate commerce? How is a 3-day old fetus determined to be afforded protections under the Constitution?

BUT HOW IS SS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!? IT'S A TAX, AND YOU STATE ABOVE THAT CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO COLLECT TAXES ON INCOME AFTER AMDT. 16! (Which is still being debated.)

Joseph:
Shouldn't you be shopping for a generator? Seriously, our differences aside I hope all goes well for you guys over the next few days.

Ira:
Seriously, thanks for the good wishes. But I simply can't die in this hurricane until the glorious truth bursts from my lips to an eager, hungry-for-knowledge world.

I HATE REPUBLICANS! NOT JOSEPH--BUT REPUBLICANS IN GENERAL!

(As a matter of fact, you sound more Libertarian--I think.)

AND I CAN'T AFFORD A GENERATOR BECAUSE THE "MAN" HAS BEEN KEEPING ME DOWN ALL OF THESE YEARS!

--------------------------------

Addendum:

----------------------------------

I TOLD you I would screw up those quote thingies.