The single most important thing that can be done to reduce the deficit is to get people back to work. As Newt Gingrich correctly pointed out a week ago (it's a shame he's a person of such flawed character; based simply on intellect, I think he'd make a good President) if unemployment goes back to 4.5% the deficit growth is cut in half....
Economic growth is always the primary way that deficit reduction is achieved. There is no conceivable combination of politically doable spending cuts and tax increases that even come close to having the same impact.
Do the right thing
Re: Do the right thing
Last edited by Lord Jim on Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Do the right thing
Your system is mad.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Do the right thing
Off the top of my head, I can give you two: Hillary Clinton and possibly John Kerry.Lord Jim wrote:One big thing Obama's got going for him, is the fact that there are damn few lefties of sufficient stature to be able to mount even a semi-serious challenge against him for the nomination...Maybe Russ Feingold....FWIW, if those on the "left" don't feel their interests are being represented by Obama, why should they vote for him; must every vote be reduced to a "lesser of two evils" sum game? Is half a loaf (or a few crumbs) grudgingly tossed at you better than none? IMHO, not always. I think Obama has to reach out to his own party at least as much as he reaches out to the repubs
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Kucinich ran again, but he doesn't even rise to the level of "semi" serious....Bernie Sanders is too old....(Maybe Al Franken will give it a shot...the libs go positively orgasmic over him....)
I would define "semi-serious" as a candidate who's capable of garnering 30% + in some primaries and gathering at least a few hundred delegates....
I would define "serious" as a challenger who was actually capable of winning some primaries and caucuses, and who would go into the convention with at least a third of the delegates....
Treat Gaza like Carthage.
Re: Do the right thing
The odds of either one of them taking on Obama are pretty small.Jarlaxle wrote:Lord Jim wrote:Off the top of my head, I can give you two: Hillary Clinton and possibly John Kerry.
I would define "serious" as a challenger who was actually capable of winning some primaries and caucuses, and who would go into the convention with at least a third of the delegates....
Re: Do the right thing
Hillary really couldn't do it. because she wouldn't appeal that much to the constituency that's disaffected from Obama; the left wing of the party...Rightly or wrongly, Hillary is perceived as being more to the right than he is...
I guess Kerry's a possibility, but I think he'd only embarrass himself if he ran....
If John Edwards hadn't melted down and disgraced himself, he might have been a possibility....
I think Russ Feingold is really the best bet....
I guess Kerry's a possibility, but I think he'd only embarrass himself if he ran....
If John Edwards hadn't melted down and disgraced himself, he might have been a possibility....
I think Russ Feingold is really the best bet....
Re: Do the right thing
I am unhappy to report that I do not have the time or level of interest to respond to Andrew's longer posts in a tit4tat manner, although I would humbly point out that his detailed and impressive (at least in volume) responses to my points demonstrate at least three things:
First, his epistles demonstrate the validity of one of my general observations over the years regarding legal writing, to wit, the more preposterous a proposition is, the more words it takes to try to prove it.
Second, Andrew cannot possibly be gainfully employed.
Third, Andrew is fundamentally dishonest, arguing for a position that he knows to be complete balderdash. If he had a Nobel Prize, he could write specious Op/Ed pieces for the New York Times.
First, to the basic point, which is, the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, specifically, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”
This statement is followed by a listing of specific Powers, all of which – coincidentally – when exercised prudently, would contribute to the “general welfare” of the United States. That is to say, they provide a broadly-based common benefit to the country as a whole and to all of the citizens thereof. A few examples: to borrow money on the credit of the United States, to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting, to establish post offices, to provide for patents and copyrights, and of course, the most abused Power: to regulate commerce among the several states.
The Section concludes by giving Congress the power to make laws which shall be necessary to implement, “…the foregoing Powers…”
For the avoidance of doubt on this subject, the Framers added the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, concurrently with the Constitution itself: “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.”
For those who speak and read English fluently, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the powers enumerated in the Constitution for Congress and the Federal Government are EXCLUSIVE: that is to say, there are no other powers rightly held by the Federal Government. All other powers are reserved to the States and the People.
Andrew would have us believe that the General Welfare clause introducing Section 8 grants plenary powers to Congress to do virtually anything it deems necessary or advisable to promote the “general welfare” of the United States.
In the legal field, there is a particular rule of interpretation that is apropos: the “four corners doctrine.” The four corners doctrine mandates that when interpreting a document the first attempt at interpretation must be confined to the words of the document itself. That is to say, you don’t go to legislative history, personal letters, anecdotes, or other outside sources until and unless you have analyzed the document itself to determine whether the meaning is clear and unambiguous. Accordingly, if the document can be clearly understood by the words and music contained within the “four corners,” then outside writings and materials are irrelevant and inapplicable.
Andrew’s reading not only ignores this rule but boldly asserts the opposite. He wants to ignore the document itself because there are other documents that say something else. His effect is to render meaningless not only the Tenth Amendment, but the concluding sentence of Section 8 itself. Furthermore, even ignoring legal niceties, he flies in the face of the most basic rules of written communication. Section 8 is CLEARLY a comprehensive listing of the powers that are delegated to the Congress (Article I pertains to the legislative branch, particularly the Congress, Article II pertains to the executive branch, and Article II the courts). If it were a listing of EXAMPLES of the Powers vested in Congress, it would use clear words to say just that.
Again, a complete reading of the Constitution and the first ten Amendments leaves no doubt whatsoever that Congress’ powers are limited to those explicitly set forth in the document.
For those who care enough about this issue, Federalist No. 41 makes a clear and cogent case for the proposition that the General Welfare clause makes no grant of the plenary power that Andrew wishes to give it. But then again, what did Alex Hamilton know?
Now it is necessary to turn to the much-abused interstate commerce clause: “The Congress shall have the Power…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
From 1787 until the 1960’s, Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce was constrained by the niggardly, if rational, concept that “commerce…among the several states,” meant commerce among the several states. For illustration, it was common for small businesses to avoid doing business across state lines, even if it might have been convenient to do so, for the specific purpose of not being subject to minimum wage and other federal laws and mandates. But beginning in the 1960’s, the United States Supreme Court, led by a group of out-of-control “progressives” began the creative, if specious, process of expanding the definition of “commerce among the several states,” to include, basically, any transaction that might directly or indirectly have an impact on any transaction that might take place across a state line. So, buying a meal or renting a hotel room in Atlanta was “interstate commerce” because someone doing so might have started their trip in another state, or some portion of the food or cleaning supplies might have been purchased in another state.
Again, this is “logic” with which Andrew would find no fault, because it leads to the result that he feels (and I do mean “feels,” rather than “thinks” or “believes”) would be “right.” The Feds can control anything they want to control. But it takes no genius to see that it is directly contrary to the clear meaning of the words in the Constitution, and it is nothing whatever like the meaning that the unfortunates who wrote the damn thing intended.
Earlier in this thread I listed several things currently done by the Federal Government that are clearly prohibited by the words of the Constitution itself, as I have explained. The Federal Government is NOT permitted to establish a compulsory retirement system, or to be in the business of guaranteeing mortgage loans, or dictating educational standards to state schools, or doing cancer research, or being in the broadcasting business, or most recently, demanding that everyone purchase personal health insurance(!).
Lefties (like Andrew) disdain the essential two-step process of evaluating the rectitude of government action, specifically, (1) Is it permitted by the Constitution?, and (2) Is it a good idea? Rather, they take the Talmudic view that if it is manifestly a good idea (in their opinion), and if an argument can be made that it is consistent with the Constitution – regardless of the absurdity of the argument – then it is not only permissible, but good and desirable.
I do not dispute – and never have disputed – that Federal Courts have found that all of the programs I mentioned are “constitutional,” thus demonstrating that “constitutional law” exists in spite of the Constitution not as a result of it. One can only hope that the modestly conservative members of the USSC can survive another two years until we have a Republican senate and a Republican President, so that in the future we can have a Court that at least looks at the Constitution when trying to ascertain whether some Gub’mint program is Constitutional.
I personally happen to think the Constitution was a pretty good guideline, but more importantly, I believe that it should not be fundamentally altered without going through the more-or-less democratic process that is stipulated in the Constitution for amending it. Allowing federal judges to manipulate the clear meaning of the Constitution in order to advance a political and social agenda – which has been going on for decades - is just wrong.
Imagine what would happen if someone introduced a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the Tenth Amendment – which would formally do what people like Andrew have done through deception and stealth over the past fifty years. The Amendment would NEVER pass. The state legislatures would reject it unanimously – because this is not what the American people want.
For anyone who has read this far, I inform you that the computer network in my company was down for all of Wednesday morning, thus preventing me from doing anything productive or accessing the internet. Nice.
First, his epistles demonstrate the validity of one of my general observations over the years regarding legal writing, to wit, the more preposterous a proposition is, the more words it takes to try to prove it.
Second, Andrew cannot possibly be gainfully employed.
Third, Andrew is fundamentally dishonest, arguing for a position that he knows to be complete balderdash. If he had a Nobel Prize, he could write specious Op/Ed pieces for the New York Times.
First, to the basic point, which is, the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, specifically, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”
This statement is followed by a listing of specific Powers, all of which – coincidentally – when exercised prudently, would contribute to the “general welfare” of the United States. That is to say, they provide a broadly-based common benefit to the country as a whole and to all of the citizens thereof. A few examples: to borrow money on the credit of the United States, to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting, to establish post offices, to provide for patents and copyrights, and of course, the most abused Power: to regulate commerce among the several states.
The Section concludes by giving Congress the power to make laws which shall be necessary to implement, “…the foregoing Powers…”
For the avoidance of doubt on this subject, the Framers added the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, concurrently with the Constitution itself: “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.”
For those who speak and read English fluently, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the powers enumerated in the Constitution for Congress and the Federal Government are EXCLUSIVE: that is to say, there are no other powers rightly held by the Federal Government. All other powers are reserved to the States and the People.
Andrew would have us believe that the General Welfare clause introducing Section 8 grants plenary powers to Congress to do virtually anything it deems necessary or advisable to promote the “general welfare” of the United States.
In the legal field, there is a particular rule of interpretation that is apropos: the “four corners doctrine.” The four corners doctrine mandates that when interpreting a document the first attempt at interpretation must be confined to the words of the document itself. That is to say, you don’t go to legislative history, personal letters, anecdotes, or other outside sources until and unless you have analyzed the document itself to determine whether the meaning is clear and unambiguous. Accordingly, if the document can be clearly understood by the words and music contained within the “four corners,” then outside writings and materials are irrelevant and inapplicable.
Andrew’s reading not only ignores this rule but boldly asserts the opposite. He wants to ignore the document itself because there are other documents that say something else. His effect is to render meaningless not only the Tenth Amendment, but the concluding sentence of Section 8 itself. Furthermore, even ignoring legal niceties, he flies in the face of the most basic rules of written communication. Section 8 is CLEARLY a comprehensive listing of the powers that are delegated to the Congress (Article I pertains to the legislative branch, particularly the Congress, Article II pertains to the executive branch, and Article II the courts). If it were a listing of EXAMPLES of the Powers vested in Congress, it would use clear words to say just that.
Again, a complete reading of the Constitution and the first ten Amendments leaves no doubt whatsoever that Congress’ powers are limited to those explicitly set forth in the document.
For those who care enough about this issue, Federalist No. 41 makes a clear and cogent case for the proposition that the General Welfare clause makes no grant of the plenary power that Andrew wishes to give it. But then again, what did Alex Hamilton know?
Now it is necessary to turn to the much-abused interstate commerce clause: “The Congress shall have the Power…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
From 1787 until the 1960’s, Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce was constrained by the niggardly, if rational, concept that “commerce…among the several states,” meant commerce among the several states. For illustration, it was common for small businesses to avoid doing business across state lines, even if it might have been convenient to do so, for the specific purpose of not being subject to minimum wage and other federal laws and mandates. But beginning in the 1960’s, the United States Supreme Court, led by a group of out-of-control “progressives” began the creative, if specious, process of expanding the definition of “commerce among the several states,” to include, basically, any transaction that might directly or indirectly have an impact on any transaction that might take place across a state line. So, buying a meal or renting a hotel room in Atlanta was “interstate commerce” because someone doing so might have started their trip in another state, or some portion of the food or cleaning supplies might have been purchased in another state.
Again, this is “logic” with which Andrew would find no fault, because it leads to the result that he feels (and I do mean “feels,” rather than “thinks” or “believes”) would be “right.” The Feds can control anything they want to control. But it takes no genius to see that it is directly contrary to the clear meaning of the words in the Constitution, and it is nothing whatever like the meaning that the unfortunates who wrote the damn thing intended.
Earlier in this thread I listed several things currently done by the Federal Government that are clearly prohibited by the words of the Constitution itself, as I have explained. The Federal Government is NOT permitted to establish a compulsory retirement system, or to be in the business of guaranteeing mortgage loans, or dictating educational standards to state schools, or doing cancer research, or being in the broadcasting business, or most recently, demanding that everyone purchase personal health insurance(!).
Lefties (like Andrew) disdain the essential two-step process of evaluating the rectitude of government action, specifically, (1) Is it permitted by the Constitution?, and (2) Is it a good idea? Rather, they take the Talmudic view that if it is manifestly a good idea (in their opinion), and if an argument can be made that it is consistent with the Constitution – regardless of the absurdity of the argument – then it is not only permissible, but good and desirable.
I do not dispute – and never have disputed – that Federal Courts have found that all of the programs I mentioned are “constitutional,” thus demonstrating that “constitutional law” exists in spite of the Constitution not as a result of it. One can only hope that the modestly conservative members of the USSC can survive another two years until we have a Republican senate and a Republican President, so that in the future we can have a Court that at least looks at the Constitution when trying to ascertain whether some Gub’mint program is Constitutional.
I personally happen to think the Constitution was a pretty good guideline, but more importantly, I believe that it should not be fundamentally altered without going through the more-or-less democratic process that is stipulated in the Constitution for amending it. Allowing federal judges to manipulate the clear meaning of the Constitution in order to advance a political and social agenda – which has been going on for decades - is just wrong.
Imagine what would happen if someone introduced a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the Tenth Amendment – which would formally do what people like Andrew have done through deception and stealth over the past fifty years. The Amendment would NEVER pass. The state legislatures would reject it unanimously – because this is not what the American people want.
For anyone who has read this far, I inform you that the computer network in my company was down for all of Wednesday morning, thus preventing me from doing anything productive or accessing the internet. Nice.