« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama’s Blatant Disregard for the Constitution is Appalling

By: Rep. Michele Bachmann (Diary)  |  June 20th, 2012 at 06:12 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

In order to become President, Barack Obama had to swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. But three years later, I am disgusted with the disregard that the President continues to show to our Constitution. Has he forgotten about the separation of executive, judicial and legislative branches found in our founding document? Our founders gave us a system of checks and balances so that one person could never seize more power than was provided in the Constitution.

President Obama’s actions demonstrate that he thinks he’s above the law. When he doesn’t get his way, he creates new policies to his liking.

Under Obamacare, an even playing field doesn’t exist for businesses. And President Obama must have recognized that, because he ordered his Health and Human Services Secretary to provide waivers from the healthcare overhaul. Unions, universities and restaurants in Nancy Pelosi’s district received waivers so that they didn’t have to comply with the law.

Then we have the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Passed in 1996, DOMA is a federal law that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. But earlier this spring, the administration said it will no longer defend the constitutionally of DOMA. So even though this law is on the books – passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton – President Obama just thinks we should ignore it.

Last week Obama threw the Constitution out the window again. Even through Congress disagreed, the President was happy to circumvent the Constitution in order to protect younger illegal immigrants from deportation and hand them work permits. He stands resolute in this position despite the fact that, a year prior, the President said this about immigration: “Some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.” He continued, “That’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

Today, President Obama invoked executive privilege so Attorney General Eric Holder wouldn’t have to turn over documents on Fast and Furious. That is not what executive privilege was intended for!

Where will the madness end? When will the President stop blatantly disregarding the Constitution?

Sadly, I don’t think this President cares that he is ignoring the laws of our land. Nor, does he plan to curb his agenda. In fact, I expect things to only grow worse under this President. Thanks to an open mic in March, President Obama was caught telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have “more flexibility” in his second term.

The future of our country depends on making sure that the executive head of our nation knows he is subject to our laws and that he is under the Constitution.

Mr. President, I urge you, stop your autocratic reign; drop everything you are doing and read the Constitution. You will be well-served to remember the document that you swore to preserve, protect and defend.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://nextgenerationvoters.com Bethany

    Obama is hugely violating the Constitution. Thank you for being willing to stand up against his disrespect, Congresswoman Bachmannn! It’s encouraging for me to see people like you and Congressman Issa who are willing to fight against the blatant disregard Obama has shown. Keep up the good work :)

    • jlancellotti

      People seem frightened of calling a spade a spade but I’m afraid that President Obama is behaving not like an atoclrat but like a dictator. We’ve got to start using that word. He does what he pleases, regardless of congress, regardless of the Constitution. He uses “executive privilege” when he has no right to use executive privilege. He has essentially threatened the Supreme Court on several occassions. His health care law contains a proviso for a private army. The man is behaving like a dictator. That’s the word we should start using. Let the American people know what we’re facing. I’m only hoping he doesn’t suspend the next election. Best always, John R. Lancellotti

  • jude68

    When you see the world in Marxist colored glasses WHY WOULD YOU READ a document that is BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE!!! You must be kidding! Remember this Fraud has never held a job let alone been graded on his Comprehension or Reading Skills!!

    He cheer: Love Me! Love Me! Love Me! Love Me! God cannot you imagine everytime this mental midget looks in the mirror??? Boy those mirrors must be seriously fogged!!

    Rep Issa I applaud you and I urge you to please continue to hold these men accountable to the American People!!

    • trimulchio

      of the government, for teh government and by the government, rather than government of the people, for the people and by the people.

  • gekster

    It is the members of congress to hold him to the constitution,
    And I hope you and your coharts will do just that.

    • sonshine

      Not so. In her lifetime, my mother, a widow, only got ahead during Reagan’s Republican administration. How? Interest rates were high. She was frugal and saved her money in safe interest-bearing bank accounts. Today poor people have no way to safely invest to increase their savings. And, it’s lost even faster to inflation (a deceitful recording of actual inflation). Poor people aren’t necessarily the only ones on food stamps and other government handouts.

      • gekster

        and when you think you understand it, come back.

  • lineholder

    They’re “pushing the envelope”…turning up the water temperature…selectively enforcing laws in some areas…totally ignoring them in others…constantly attempting to justify their actions by either assigning blame to anyone other than themselves…playing the race card….

    It’s a dangerous game they’re playing, ma’am. They may not know it right now, but it is. Do they think that normally good, decent, law-abiding people can’t get to the point where they no longer have any confidence that their government respects and will uphold the rule of law and then, out of desperation, begin to believe that the only way for justice to take place is to take matters into their own hands?

    Even the best of people can be tempted, Mrs. Bachmann.

    P)lease tell your fellow Republicans that we the people need for them to hold strong in protecting and preserving the Constitution and the rule of law.

    Many thanks for taking the time to post this diary at RS, ma’am.

    • larenzo

      A superb comment. I pray that it never has to come to that.

    • mrfixit10

      Jefferson noted the 2nd was inserted to protect the 1st.
      I will quote my mentor (who is 86) ” I am too old to fist fight so if you mess with me I will just have to kill you”

  • Tbone

    which the Republicans have drafted? Thank you.

    • larenzo

      Meaning what?

      • Locked and Loaded

        Now do you really need more of an explanation than that?

        • Tbone

          nt

    • littlehouse18

      Obama would survive the impeachment and waltz to election victory.

      It’s not right – he among all presidents deserves impeachment most of all and should have been removed long ago. But this is the reality we face, that it cannot be done without even more damage to our cause.

  • WmCraig

    I have heard you speak, and I know that your message resonates with many of us equally alarmed at the imperial presidency. However, I want to disagree with you about the checks and balances the founders put into the constitution. The idea of separation of powers between the three branches isn’t what the founders intended. And it depends too much on the grace of the president. This president, or another will one day simply will himself buy himself election for life.

    The problem isn’t that President Obama is abusing the power entrusted to him, but that we have allowed the checks and balances the founders wrote into the constitution to be corrupted. Replaced by the very thing they fought a revolution to escape. Direct taxation by the federal government.

    This 99 year old abomination is the 16th amendment. Ushered in almost 100 years ago, immediately after the election of 1912 that gave us another academic socialist, Woodrow Wilson. The first check on run away spending from the federal government was their inability to have a direct source of revenue. Not the relationship between three branches. Yes the Congress represented the people, as you do today, and all revenue bills begin there. But the Senate even then represented the governors, as the senators were appointed, not elected. As they should be now. That bit of check and balance was erased by the 17th amendment, like the 18th also ratified during the term of Woodrow Wilson. It didn’t take long for the people to realize the damage the nanny state was doing with the 18th Amendment. The time has come to focus on the 100th anniversary of the 16th amendment and recognize that there is no check on an imperial president that is willing to abuse the power that direct taxation has granted.

    And it is not as if the country would suffer if the 16th was abolished. The states, like your own, would do well collecting revenue, distributing resources to programs approved and embraced by the voters of your state, and distributing excess receipts to fund minimal required federal expenses, while still holding Washington fiscally responsible. There would be no continuing resolutions if Washington had to get the money from the governors. The President would be sure to get a budget passed so he could collect the federal share from the states.

    The way out of this mess for our country is to restore the balance the founders intended. The ultra-partisanship that so many complain about is the result of pushing all decisions to Washington. One size fits all never really does, so every decision comes down to a choice between two definitions of the one size, neither of which make all the supports of either side happy. All it does is perpetuate the power of Washington.

    Of all the voices of our party yours the one I consider most capable of delivering the hard messages. The states governments would be better off if the 16th and 17th amendments were repealed. The political parties would be better off, as the action would be at the state levels where there are far more positions to be filled. The people would be better off with more influence and a realistic option of voting with their feet. Washington influence over domestic issues would be reduced to practical insignificance. Of course, it would require a lot smaller IRS to process fifty tax forms once a week, one from each state, then it takes to collect direct taxes from millions of business and individuals. And the states can get their money anyway they want, tailoring a taxation program that is as progressive, fair or regressive as the citizens fo the state will tolerate. While graft and corruption will not be eliminated, you and I Representative Bachmann would no longer be the victim of graft and corruption in California. The way we were when Speaker of the House Pelosi ran the Congress.

    Repealing the remaining two Wilson Era socialist amendments is a true tea party solution for America. One that would appeal to every variation of liberal and conservative. It puts influence and legislation back in the local communities, re-enabling the incubator of democracy that made us a great country. Regardless of where a person stands on any one issue, local control and the ability to adopt a domestic agenda that is palatable to all your fellow tax paying neighbors is far more appealing than having someone from some far away district impose their vision of good government on you. Properly presented everyone can embrace that idea. And I believe you are the person that can give proper voice to that idea. This election is an important milestone, the 100th anniversary, and President Obama is the poster child for all that is wrong with an imperial presidency. America Embraced socialism and a strong powerful and independent national govenrment 100 years ago. America is on the eve of rejecting an imperial federal government in favor of the founders vision this year on the 100th anniversary.

    That is a powerful message for the tea party and the Republican party too.

    • Dave_A

      Now, I know that for some extreme anti-federalists, the idea of states controling the entire flow of money to the US government sounds ‘cool’ because they have this fantasy-dream of their state deciding to stop paying…

      But that’s abjectly unconstitutional, and should stay that way. The federal government is supposed to have it’s own independent & even direct taxing power – as the Constitution grants. Similarly, the Federal power to apportion money to the states, exists…

      However, there is no constitutional provision for the reverse – a state-funded federal government, nor was this seriously considered after the disaster of the Articles Government.

      In the old-days, the federal government had direct sources of revenue o-plenty, via indirect taxation, primarily tariffs.

      However, tariffs are universally destructive to free markets, and as such are the 2nd-most-abominable form of tax, after the Capitation (Roman-style ‘Head Tax’, and the tax that gave birth to the apportionment clause)….

      TO CONTRAST, THE INCOME TAX, properly administered is the absolutely most fundamentally fair tax in existence, in that it taxes YOUR TIME.

      When I say properly administered, I mean a flat-tax on INDIVIDUAL (not corporate) net income, with no (or strictly limited) deductions or credits.

      Such a tax (which we unfortunately do not have) is the most fair method of funding a national government, because it requires each citizen to provide to the state an identical portion of their time, as valued by their wages & other income.

      Weather you make $10,000 or $100,000/yr, you still give the same ‘X% of your working time’ to support your country.

      There simply isn’t a better system….

      • Matthew Morris

        I had not considered income tax from that perspective before- although a process of distillation is usually how I try to evaluate things. Definitely something to think about.

        At any rate, I’d gladly take a flat income tax or a consumption tax ANY DAY over the current rigged / Dem-vote-buying mess.

        • Dave_A

          It discourages economic activity (you don’t get taxed if you stuff cigar boxes with cash), and it doesn’t tax everyone even close to equally…

          First off, the issue of freeloading:

          Under a consumption tax, those who refuse to participate in the normal stream of commerce not only pay no tax, but owe no tax…

          Under a ‘consumption tax’ If you don’t buy new taxable goods, you can skip through life as a non-contributing tax-leech, enjoying all the useful government services (And some of the ones we’d like to cut, but don’t yet have the votes for, as well) without ever paying your part…

          Second, the issue of inequality of contribution

          A consumption tax provides no relationship at all between each citizen and a ‘fair share’ of the cost of government…

          Under a consumption tax, those who participate in the economy the most, pay the most, disproportionately…

          Third, rewarding hoarding

          I use the term *hoarders* in an economic sense to describe the extreme-minority of Americans who keep their net-worth in cash, because in today’s America most normal ‘saving’ involves economic activity – either renting your money out to others (depositing it in a bank, or making loans yourself), or buying things with it (investing).

          In a consumption-tax economy, those who hoard cash are improperly rewarded for their contrarianisim, while those who spend are forced to pay their way….

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            Consumption taxes actually make freeloaders pay a whole lot more than they do under an income tax

            It can be designed so that it is fair even to the poor.

            No one hoards their money, at least not many people. the money is either used for purchase or to invest. By the way a higher savings rate would not be such a bad thing. But I am not even sure it would happen if you used consumption taxes to replace income taxes. Because people would have more cash.

            As long as nothing was exempt it would indeed be a “fair” tax because the more you buy the more you pay. Further, there is nothing saying it could not be made progressive. You could have a progressive sales tax where large purchases pay slightly more than small ones.

            And last of all your assertion that it hurts economic growth. Just the opposite is true. It is the most efficient type of tax having the least negative effect on the economy much less than income taxes. That is well accepted by economists for a long time..

          • jonedanger

            http://www.amazon.com/FairTax-The-Truth-Answering-Critics/dp/0061540463/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340274120&sr=1-1&keywords=fair+tax+the+truth

          • edintexas

            Fat chance that we’d ever see a consumption tax with nothing exempt. The politicians would be under siege for taxing food or health care (or even health insurance). Once there is one exemption, the floodgates of exemption would be opened.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            most of all because you would have to repeal the Income tax amendment. But I was just answering the criticisms of a sales tax vs an income tax. To me it is preferable in almost every way.

            But I don’t really like the Fair tax with it’s rebate scheme. much better to just have a tax with no exemptions at all, that starts at a low rate and rises with very large purchases.

          • Dave_A

            Except for certain titled property (think cars)….

            So it’s very, very possible to pay almost no tax – just buy second hand.

            If we make it apply to second-hand products, then you’d have to file an even longer tax document (list everything you bought, but were not charged at point of sale)…

            So the ‘freeloading’ issue is still there…

            Remember: I am comparing the ‘Consumption Tax’ option to a theoretical flat-net-income tax, NOT to the current mess…

            So under the theoretical ‘income tax’ plan, everyone pays X% of their income, until their income gets so low that the cost per-capita to tax them is equal to the taxes they pay.

            As opposed to ‘Screw the Man, Shop Craigslist’…

            Another issue with the consumption tax? It dumps 100% of the compliance costs on business – and makes those costs much greater than they would be under the flat-income system

          • Matthew Morris

            I have long thought this would be a nice way to enlists environmentalists to help take down a significant chunk of their beloved state power. But then a bunch of freeloading hippies does sound rather annoying at the same time.

            Equal skin in the game is quite appealing. I don’t want income tax withheld though! I want them all to SEEEEEEE it as much as is possible every pay period.

          • Dave_A

            The problem is, almost all leftists LOVE the government to have power when it serves THEIR interests… The ‘reduce reuse recycle’ crowd would never let a ‘consumption tax’ reduce total revenue…

            They’d just turn up the screws on everyone who bought new, to finance their freeloading… And justify it by saying it’s punishing the ‘sin’ of consumerism…

            As for withholding, I used to agree with the idea that everyone should make quarterly payments… BUT

            A) Paycheck withholding reduces enforcement costs & ensures reliable revenue collection…. By withholding, we ensure that everyone pays tax before they blow their paycheck on (whatever), rather than allowing them to spend it all & not have the money when it’s time to pay the tax man – or just refuse to pay & say ‘come get me’… Given how horrid most Americans are with paying their normal bills – cell phone, TV, etc – and how indignant they get when the wronged business tries to collect, can you IMAGINE the absurd costs the government would incur trying to get taxes out of these same idiots who rant at the phone company for cutting their cell service over 3 months of non-bill-payment

            There are a huge number of people who WOULD be tax-evaders, if they ever got the money in their hands…

            B) Under a flat-tax system, the need for a significant refund disappears – since there aren’t any appreciable deductions, the money withed is the money owed…. So under that system, you CAN look at your paycheck and go ‘UGH, that’s how much .gov cost me this month’….

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            The freeloading issue really is not a real issue at all, and I don’t even understand why you think it important. You need to read the economic literature on this subject.

            Most economists are in agreement (unless they are of the marxist/keynesian variety) that low income people, criminals, illegal aliens and such would end up paying much much more to the government than they do now under income taxes.

            In fact, if we went with consumption taxes and eliminated both income and property tax Much of the opposition to immigration would disappear. BUT it wont ever happen because the REAL reason that government likes the income tax is because they use it as a method to coerce the citizens into doing what they want them to do with various tax loopholes and credits. It is even used as a form of welfare right now with people getting back more than they paid.

            I don’t know why you think that is a good thing. I am for more freedom and less government meddling.

          • JSobieski

            Once you start having sales/transaction taxes that are above a certain %, problems of administerability and enforcement arise.

            Most people engage in at least hundreds and probably thousands of transactions in a year, while having only W-2.

            Income can be investigated/monitored in the aggregate, which is less intrusive than trying to police transactions on a per transaction basis.

            If the US ever depended primarily on consumption taxes, we would have an IRS on steroids.

            In most states, there are a lot of transactions not subject to sales taxes. Services for example are not subject to sales taxes.

            Far easier and less intrusive to make sure that a landscaper pays income taxes on April 15th than it is to make sure that sales taxes are collected with each lawn cutting.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            Compliance would still be better under high sales taxes than it is under high income taxes.

          • JSobieski

            not federal consumption tax rates that would be over 20%.

            Most state sales taxes do not include taxes on services, which would be taxed under the FAIR tax.

            Taxing services on a transactional basis is very difficult because both parties have an incentive to cheat.

            Without an income tax in place (the buyer would in that case want to account for the expense), both sides have every incentive to avoid the tax.

            Compliance isn’t so much about economics as it is administertability and common sense.

            Supporters of consumption taxes repeatedly point to state sales taxes which for the reasons I state above are NOT analogous.

          • JSobieski

            That, and the substantially higher rate are why I disagree with “most of the economic literature”.

            Sales taxes work in part because income taxes provide the buyer with the incentive to keep things on the books.

            I live and work in the trenches of small businesses, and while it may be counterintuitive in some ways, I have reached the conclusion that a flat income tax is better than any kind of consumption tax.

            Sales taxes work best in high volume low margin retail environments because the cost savings of cheating are on any particular transaction are outweighed by the cost of getting caught.

            They dynamics are different outside that context, and the absence of an income tax would make it even worse.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            but I don’t think it would be as dire as you think. It is so easy to do this and monitor this by electronic transfer now in days. And remember, there would be higher prices, but there would be a lot more money in people’s pockets.

            And it is not like we don’t have a HUGE compliance problem right now with the income tax.

          • JSobieski

            The government already monitors money transfers due to terrorism issues.

            Business bank accounts record how much is deposited each month—and you don’t need a warrant for 3rd party records.

            Few people are going to exist on a cash economy. Modern banking makes the IRS role fairly easy to perform and less intrusive than you would think.

            The IRS has various algorithms, and if the ratio of bank deposits to reported income is too high, etc. you get audited.

            Far easier to monitor one persons W-2, than it is to monitor the THOUSANDS of transactions that they enter into each year. A move to consumption taxes would make cash king once again.

            There is no way a small landscaping company is going to pay sales taxes. But the owners of such companies do pay income taxes now.

            If the US went to a consumption based system, I would investigate off shore offices to provide services outside the US. Maybe Windsor?

      • jayjefferson

        Republicans tried replacing fuhrer Wilson’s PROGRESSIVE income tax with a national sales tax in the 30′s, but the “greatest human being who ever lived” FDR, had it shot down. All bow down and praise him.

        Think of it this way: in order to transport goods and services, or to get around, we need roads, railroads, ports, airports, highways, etc…, most of which are public.

        Since government exists to protect us from each other, which extends to protecting these things, we, the citizens, would be paying them to protect and upkeep such essentials.

        It’s more humane than a system where the government decides what you keep of your income, and that an IRS owns you. Can someone please point out where in the Constitution, Declaration, Federalist or Anti-Fed Papers, or notes and thoughts of the founders where they devised a system that owns the individual? Cuz’ last I checked, involuntary servitude was outlawed 150 years ago in this country.

        The tax would have to be non-compulsory. Now, before people lynch me as an anarchist, which I am not, here me out on this. If a business refused to pay their share, say 10%, 9%, or whatever, then they wouldn’t be allowed to use public services to ship their goods OR to recieve goods from elsewhere, similar to me not paying my electric bill and the company shutting the lights off. Unless they had a private jet or helicopter to ship goods out, and a private runway in their backyard, the renegade business would have a hard time staying in business without selling goods on foot. And all the crap of building a runway and using a private jet anyway would cost them a heck of a lot more than it would’ve cost them just to pay the damn tax in the first place.

        Would this jack up prices? See, this is where other economic policies gotta play themselves out at the same time. The Mets can’t win a ballgame without a good bull pen or a good pitcher. If the Fed’s responsibilties were transferred back to the Treasury, where they constitutionally belong, then inflation rates would drop overnight. So even though goods would be taxed at stores, we the consumers wouldn’t notice much of a price increase, if any at all. If anything we’d probably see a sharp decrease.

        • renl57

          How are you going to stop a non-paying business from driving their truck onto an Interstate highway–unless you turn America into a totalitarian police state?

          And are you going to shut off his TV and Internet service, so he can’t contact the National Weather Service for a weather forecast?

          And you’re going to stop him from getting a flu shot as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control?

          Your idea is ridiculous. The fact that our taxes pay for public goods that are freely accessible to everyone means that no one can realistically be banned from using them.

          • jayjefferson

            Are you living in a police state because you can’t legally drive without a driver’s license? Are you living in a police state because you can’t legally drink and drive on state owned highways? It’d be the same deal with refusing to pay a flat national sales tax. You get a DUI, you can’t drive. Refuse to pay natl. sales tax as business owner above lemonade stand or farmer stand, you don’t drive. It’s a much better incentive for business owners to pay the tax than the IRS cartel we’ve got now.

            No, no one’s gonna shut off your electricty as long as you can afford to pay it. Don’t worry, you could still surf the web as much as you want at your business as long as you can afford it, just like you can now. If for some reason you can’t, battery powered radio still exists, believe it or not. You wouldn’t miss out on your global warming armageddon reports from the Weather Channel.

            Would you stop an ambulance from going 80 in a 40 zone? Would you stop a husband from rushing their pregnant wife in labor to the hospital? There’re obvious exceptions to speed limits, just as there’re obvious exceptions to a tax code. Also, just because you might refuse to pay a national sales tax as a business owner doesn’t mean you don’t pay one grabbing a milkshake at McDonalds on your way home.

            Look, all this is just an idea. Nothing’s set in stone here.

            “-banned from using them.”

            So had the Columbine shooters lived, they should’ve been welcomed back into a public school with open arms because it should be “freely accessible to everyone,” as you claim?

            “Oh no, they’re gonna be without a flu vaccine.”

            Never underestimate the natural immune system. Don’t know about you, but I haven’t gotten a flu shot in years. Remember the swine flu scare, Obama’s “national emergency?” More people die per month on a regular basis than died from swine flu at all in this country.

            Remember, you can always get a ride to get a flu shot if God forbid you’ve got multiple DUIs.

            Should a convicted child sex-offender be allowed to walk around a grade school playground because it should be “freely accessible to everyone?” Or, is it realistic that if some people violate a public service that they shouldn’t be allowed to use them?

        • tnfriendofcoal101368

          because the thought just crossed my mind that Timothy Geitner (and thus by fiat King Barack, First of his Name) would have control of monetary policy and not Ben Bernacke. The recovery is basically a result of a credit crunch caused by the politicians through regulations on the banks like Dodd-Frank and it’s evil cousin Sarbanes-Oxley that hamper lending. No lending means no credit for small business startups, little credit for business expansion, no credit for home building. All of this results in slow private sector economic growth. All of this is done with the full throated support of that idiot Timothy Geitner (though honestly Geitner knows better) because the Treasury is part of the Executive and as such Idiot Geitner serves at the pleasure of his majesty, King Barack, First of his Name. The politicians don’t have oversight over the Fed which frees Ben Bernacke (an extremely competent economist – really the best of his generation) to do what is necessary to encourage lending unfortunately he is even in a crunch because the politicians won’t get out of his way. Bernacke outlined what should be the concern of every citizen in “Deflation: Making Sure It Doesn’t Happen Here”. Bernacke knows that of all the worst possible outcomes deflation is the worst (basically it is the destruction of wealth/value). Bernacke also is one of the a prominent economist with the guts to rail against the coming funding crisis in entitlements. Short of it is, the solution is not to take monetary policy away from the guy who is right and knows what he is doing (Bernacke) and give it to an executive that is amateur hour at best (King Barack and his court jester Idiot Geitner).

          • jayjefferson

            Want to know the real national unemplyment rate? Around 12-16%. The Clinton administration stopped counting people who stopped looking for jobs, and it’s been policy ever since! Sound like recovery to you? What was the price of gasoline four years ago? How much could you buy with that dollar in your pocket four years ago? What was the housing market REALLY like four years ago? What’d the national debt look like four years ago?

            Four years ago, I had a stable job, a good home, lived in a great community, and my kids went to great schools. We lived in rural smalltown CT for 20 years.

            The last four years have seen a mass exodus, of Biblical proportions, of people from high tax states like CT because there is no job growth! Name one new business that’s come to CT these last four years without handouts from the libtard moron governor Dan Maloy. My company couldn’t keep me, and couldn’t find a job at all in the Northeast because nobody’s hiring! Not Boston, not New York, nowhere! And no, if I settled for a job below my calibre, it would’ve meant no food for one or two of my four kids, no car, no home, or anything. That’s Bernankenomics for you. A human resources management job, field I was in, finally opened up in VANCOUVER, WA, of all places; on the other side of the country. It was either relocating my whole family, including my 90 year old mother in law, and my eldest son who was a senior in high school, all the way across the country, or to live in a gutter in Waterbury somewhere. Why Washington state? As much as their weather sucks the life out of you most of the year, they have no state income tax! IThey believe in this novel idea where people can keep money they earn, AND TO SAVE IT! Californians flock up here too for that. Unfortunately, I was out of work again when another company bought out this company, and I was out of work again for another year. A small business we’ve opened up in Battle Ground now is a huge hit with the locals, but my wife and I had to drain all of our life savings to get it afloat. We’re slowly making up for it.

            Had we tried to open a business in socialist New England, we wouldn’t've been able to do it outside New Hampshire. That’s where power hungry zealots like that Barney Frankenstein, that criminal Chris Dodd, and that Dick Blumenthal come from.

            If we ended the Fed, Geithner would obviously have to go. A ballgame can’t be one with one star slugger with everyone else asleep. We’re out of the Great Recession alright, cuz we’ve entered a second Great Depression, and Osama Bin Bernanke’s not gonna bring us out of it. To anyone says otherwise, today might be a good day to lay off the Miami bath salt.

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            Slowest “recovery” in history, Geitner is only the court jester, the King remains. You move Fed responsibilities to Treasury the politicians are in charge (namely the guy in the Oval Office). Barnacke is the guy who was right, get the banks loaning again. The politicians closed the credit markets, no credit means no small business startups, no finance for expansions, no credit for home building (construction killed). The politicians in Washington passed those short sighted regulations like Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley that made it difficult for banks to provide the capital needed for small business startups, expansions, and home building. Barnacke provided the banks with ready access to the capital and the politicians passed the backwards laws that prevent them from using it. Barnackeanomics would have money flowing into small businesses, capital expansions and housing startups. It is Obamaenomics that crunched the credit markets. The proposal to move monetary policy from the Fed to Treasury moves the power from the competent economist who is right about both the main issues of this recession and how to move out of it to the pandering amateur politicians who have no idea what they are doing.

          • jayjefferson

            Several private tyrants, if given monopoly over your money, can be just as destructive, if not more so than just one at the Treasury Department.

            And that’s why we shouldn’t elect the Treasury Secreatary either. There’d have to be much more congressional oversight over the Treasury issuing currency period, or anything they do. Although competing currencies, another idea being floated around, would get the politicians out of issuing money period, it would cause complete chaos to savings, assets, prices, and some places excepting one currency over another. A dollar backed up by gold or silver would be better, as also suggested by Steve Forbes, Milton Friedman, and others. It’s not a Ron Paul idea.

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            But a Central Bank goes all the way back to the founders, the US has only been without a Central Banking System for 40 years of it’s history. We don’t elect the Treasury Secretary; we elect his boss the President of the United States. Milton Friedman called a return to the Gold Standard as neither desirable or feasible. He did give an academic argument as to under what conditions, we could return to the Gold Standard but went on to say why those conditions don’t exist in the real world and therefore a return to the gold standard was neither feasible or desirable. “Let me emphasize that this note is not a plea for a return to a gold standard…. I regard a return to a gold standard as neither desirable nor feasible?with the one exception that it might become feasible if the doomsday predictions of hyperinflation under our present system should prove correct.” – Milton Friedman. In other words, Friedman is saying if you already had conditions where things have no value, then sure a gold standard would work but we aren’t there. The idea that we could take the global money supply from fiat money to hard currency is akin to saying everyone should give up their cars and walk just like they did long ago. The problem is they won’t likewise not too many people or governments are going to sign up for instant deflation of wealth (for that truly is a depression). Fiat money is the way things are done and fiat money requires a central control of the monetary supply. It is insanity to turn that control over to the same politicians who thought Dodd-Frank was a good idea.

          • jayjefferson

            “Let me emphasize that this note is not a plea for a return to a gold standard…. I regard a return to a gold standard as neither desirable nor feasible?with the one exception that it might become feasible if the doomsday predictions of hyperinflation under our present system should prove correct.” Before he said that, he also mentioned this: “A real gold standard is thoroughly consistent with (classical) liberal principles and I, for one, am entirely in favor of measures promoting its development.”

            Make no mistake, Milton was no fan of the Fed. In a 1993 letter to Robert Auerbach, U. of Texas economics professor and former House Banking Committee investigator, he wrote:

            “I cannot disagree with you that having something like 500 economists is extremely unhealthy. As you say, it is not conducive to independent, objective research. You and I know there has been censorship of the material published. Equally important, the location of the economists in the Federal Reserve has had a significant influence on the kind of research they do, biasing that research toward noncontroversial technical papers on method as opposed to substantive papers on policy and results. “

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            This is not really a discussion for this diary and I apologize to Representative Bachman. I am also convinced I won’t convince you so there is no reason to continue.

          • jayjefferson

            But the first thing you should apologize to the Congresswoman about is that you don’t stand up for your principles like she does in congress. It’d be a shame to see people like you back away from an argument just because you know you got a fact wrong. But it’ll also be hard to convince anyone you’re right having already proved yourself wrong.

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            has nothing to do with the income tax debate. It just seems to be a personal burr in your saddle. You think giving monetary power over to the politicians is good idea; I think it is insanity. Clearly, you wish to regurgitate all of Ron Paul’s craziest arguments from abolishing the Fed to moving to a gold standard. I explained what the consequencies were, you went Paulistine on me. I ignore Paulistines, I don’t argue with them. Here I will state them again.

            1) We are currently in a credit crunch. The banks are prohibited by Dodd-Frank and other regs from loaning money as freely as the private sector need. This has caused a stop in the capital markets needed for small business startups, business expansions and new housing builds. These are engines of economic growth, capital is the fuel and right now the banks can not provide it. Ben Bernacke has made the capital available, the banks have the ability to drive economic growth and are prevented from doing so by idiotic regulations imposed on them by politicians. You wish to turn over all of the financial decision making from the Fed (who was right) to the politicians (who don’t know what they are doing). This is among the craziest of Ron Paul’s idiocy.

            2) Turning fiat money into hard currency is impossible, it is like turning cars into horse and buggy but if you did – it would necessarily deflate the value of the money. You have any savings or checking, how would you like that to have real value of about 25% as it does today. That’s a real depression. This is craziest of Ron Paul’s idiotic ideas (including trutherism). I did not back away because I got a fact wrong. I know very well what Friedman said. If you would look up Friedman’s ideas on hard currency, you would see he would like the idea if fiat currency had never existed but it does and the deflation would cripple the world economy. Which is he said “am entirely in favor of measures promoting its development” but considered it “neither desirable nor feasible”. By the way, if we actually did this Ron Paul’s foreign policy would make sense because we couldn’t afford to have troops around the world.

          • jayjefferson

            By being opposed to Osama Bin Bernanke manipulating the currency, you assume I’d want Tim Gutter in charge of it.

            Without a question, if the US Dept of the Treasury were once again in charge of fiscal policy, I THE TREASURY SEC COULDN’T BE TIMOTHY GEITHNER.

            Ever see Ghostbusters?

            You think “choose the form of the destructor” is the only choice Americans have.

          • bbjaylive

            So you’re not a Paulistine, you’re a Celentine, as in Gerald Celente who regularly rants on the Alex Jones show. Yep, that is so much better.

            BTW, what do you mean “IF the US Dept of the Treasury were once again in charge of fiscal policy”?

            The Treasury already IS in charge of fiscal policy. They’re the one who instructs the Fed to credit people’s bank accounts.

          • jayjefferson

            He offends me, I could’ve died on 9/11. It was not an inside job, and it wasn’t Jewish/ illuminati/rothsbilderburger/meisterbergur/alien/bankers either. It was Osama’s Al Qaeda, with varying involvement and/or prior knowledge of Pakistani intel, Saudi royal family members, Iranian Rev. Guard, Assad’s Syria, and Saddam’s Repub. Guard.

            I don’t listen to Alex Jones because he’s a moron.

            Who’s Gerald Celente? Never heard of him. You seem to know a lot about the show though, you mind filling us all in on how illuminati Israelis are gonna take over the world?

          • Dave_A

            Fiscal policy = spending/borrowing/taxation

            Monetary policy = How much USD should there be (100% Federal Reserve territory, Treasury has no direct impact unless they actually start increasing the amount of printed money)….

            Treasury just controls tax collection, pays the govt’s bills & IIRC operates the BPE…

          • jayjefferson

            chickening out would be an insult to your intelligence.

          • PowerToThePeople

            for most of mankind without cars, democracy, stoves, running water, etc, does not mean we should go stop using them.

            Competing currencies: Are you serious about this? Does not take too much brain matter to understand that a competing currency would devastate our credit, economy, ease of business, etc. This is pure stupidity and not worthy of discussion. I see you somewhat understand that so I am baffled as to why you would attempt to lend credibility to the nonsense by mentioning it here then adding a brief disclaimer. It is a pure stupid idea and has no place in common sense discussion.

            Congressional oversight: Already occurs. Not sure how you think more will do a thing.If you think they are not doing their job, fine. But they already oversee the fed, so it is redundant to state they need more oversight.

            And gold/silver backed money. See, I knew you were a RP fan even with your denial. But getting past that, you do know there is not enough gold and silver in the world to back our money, right? So it is not only an absurd idea, it is an impossible idea. Just because Forbes and Friedman buy into one type of nonsense does not make the nonsense viable.

          • jayjefferson

            A flat tax is a good step in the right direction. To be honest with you, I pushed for Herman Cain in the primaries and Fred Thompson back in ’08.

            During the roaring 20′s, as much as the left lies about it causing the depression, our economy was booming. The toaster oven, refrigerator, the radio, the Model-T, highways, vacation homes in Florida, and an average of a 4-5% unemployment rate throughout the decade nationwide. More people could live better and jobs were plentiful. Even Al Capone’s street war fought over prohibition created jobs thanks to a demand in a then illegal substance called alcohol The Federal Reserve, created in 1913, played a very limited role initially, and our dollar was still mostly backed by metals. The ecnomy did fine. HOWEVER, the problem that existed wasn’t a lack of regulation over the market, it was too much regulation by Hoover, the Fed, and later FDR that sank us deeper into the not so Great Depression.

            So yes, we can live without a Fed. I never said that we would live well without a central bank. The Fed’s a private entity, not a govt agency.

          • Dave_A

            Do the math:

            1st Bank of the US – 1791-1811 (allowed to expire due to political disagreement)

            2nd Bank of the US – 1816-1836 (Destroyed by Andrew Jackson, in complete disregard to the law/will of Congress)

            Federal Reserve – 1913 – Present.

            That leaves only 89 years without a Central Bank.

            And those 89 years were some of the most economically turbulent in US history – with wild swings between inflation & deflation, incredibly unstable & unreliable banks (‘Wildcat Banking’), and recessions/depressions that were both more frequent AND more severe…

            Combined with your INSANE notion that taxes should be VOLUNTARY, and a few other notes in your posting style, I put it 99% that you are a member of the Cult of Paul…

            And we don’t much like Paultards around here…

          • jayjefferson

            For the record, I supported Fred Thompson in ’08 and pulled for Herman Cain in the primaries this time. I happen to share many of Paul’s views on domestic issues, while I’m vehemently opposed to his foreign policy. It doesn’t mean I buy his whole package.

            And relax, I never suggested we should live without a central bank. The idea of competing currencies, Andrew Jackson’s “wildcat banks,” is complete chaos. Do you want us to look like Somalia some day? I know I don’t.

            The Federal Reserve is NOT a government agency, it’s a private one that manipulates our money with little to no oversight by anybody. Talk about elitism, each Fed chairman is selected by the president just like the Treasury Secretary is. But unlike Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke can’t be vetted or “hassled” by congress.

            I also never said that ALL taxes should be voluntary. Just had a thought that scrapping the progressive income tax for a flat income tax, and eventually a flat national sales tax, would be a good idea. A voluntary flat national sales tax, as I laid out, would actually inadvertently be involuntary.

          • Dave_A

            The independence is by design – we’ve seen how dangerous it is to let Congress play with the economy recently.

            It would be even WORSE if they could control our monetary policy.

            That’s why the FED isn’t part of the government – the government can’t be trusted to manage the money supply responsibly, without screwing it up to get a few more folks on one side or the other elected….

            There’s not supposed to be oversight – they’re supposed to ‘give the people what they want’ in money – which right now means a goal of constant ~3% inflation, and corresponding constant ~3% GDP growth.

            In order to have a case that something’s ‘wrong’ with the way the FED is managing the dollar, you have to have a viable complaint that they are somehow managing the money contrary to the desires of the people/businesses of our economy…

            ‘But our economy would be better if the FED forced people to keep cash’ doesn’t count…

            ‘But it would be nice if I could use my money BOTH as a medium of exchange AND a store of value’ well, that doesn’t count (and it’s a ‘Unicorn-hunt’ to even try – the two ‘purposes’ are at opposite ends of a continuum – things that are a good long-term store of value are a terrible medium of exchange).

        • PowerToThePeople

          as re-electing Obama is a good idea.

          Not only is your suggestion pure stupidity, the actual enforcement of your nonsense would be impossible and astronomical in the attempt to enforce it.

          Are you a Ron Paul fan?

          • jayjefferson

            Let me ask you a question; did you vote Bush in the 1980 primary agaisnt Reagan? If you weren’t around then or weren’t old enough to vote, would you have supported him over the gipper? Bush called Reagan’s free market ideas that would later work “voodoo economics.”

            And am I a Ron Paul fan?
            Had domestic issues been the only factor that mattered in the primaries of ’08 and this year, I would’ve supported him. However, a return to Neville Chamberlain’s foreign policy would be a terrible course for us to pursue. It’s better for us and the world really that we have some presence overseas and to keep strategic allies. Although we shouldn’t go out and “seek out monsters to destroy” that don’t bother us, as John Adams suggested, we shouldn’t let monsters like Red China, Russia, Iran, and Islamonazis, that are threats to us, fill up the power vacuum that would result if we became isolationist. Our presence keeps them in check, withdrawing completely from Iraq was a bad idea.

          • PowerToThePeople

            with the current tax situation, but that is not the topic you started that I responded to.

            Seeing major problems and the absurdity of your proposal does not mean one agrees 100% with the current option.

            As to Bush 1 vs Reagan, always was and always will be a huge Reagan fan, if that answers your question.

            As to my Ron Paul question, seems that your line of thought and constant topic about ending the fed is a major platform with those idiots. That is why I asked.

            So I still stand on my original comment.

          • Dave_A

            ntxt….

          • jayjefferson

            If a national sales tax were implemented, the feds would collect the tax mostly at businesses, because consumers are the ones that pay the sales tax. I guess if you lived on your own plot of land, washed up in your own pond, sheared your own clothes from sheep you happened to raise yourself, hunt pigeons, eat bugs and grubs, grew some wild plants, and lived in a self sustaining mud hut like Yoda, good for you, you avoid paying a sales tax. You could sell any produce at a farm highway stand tax free, but that’d probably be your only source of income. Good luck living a comfortable life, you’d need it. The force would definately have to be with you.

            So yes, most people would still pay the tax whether they’d realize it or not, all without percieved compulsion. Don’t worry, the US wouldn’t decend into a bad Yoko Ono concert, as if there’s ever been a good one.

          • Dave_A

            All you have to do, to ‘freeload’ under a consumption tax, is buy most of your consumer goods second hand (Craigslist,etc)…

            Now even being generous & assuming that said tax would NOT exempt food (like every sales tax in the country does)…

            You pay tax on food & fuel, but ‘skate’ on the rest… You don’t end up contributing anywhere close to the same amount of time to the maintainance of your country than fellow citizens of comparable means…

            Compulsion is a GOOD THING when talking about taxes, just like compulsory payment for products/services consumed is a good thing for business

            Your model is like trying to run a ‘Pay what you can’ store – like Panera’s ‘foundation’… Fine for a charity, absolutely WRONG for a government.

            Taxation is supposed to be like the membership fee for a country club – as long as you want to use the club (live in the country) you pay. Don’t want to pay, leave & give up your membership (citizenship).

            It’s NOT supposed to be a ‘chip in if you want to’ thing, not at all…

          • jayjefferson

            So applying your insane Fed worship (“love it or leave it”), we should still be a British colony right?

            Thank God we didn’t have you at Bunker Hill, you’d've fought with the British because the militias at Lexington and Concord were too “extrem” right? Forcing a tory like you to sign the Declaration of Independence would’ve given you a heart attack.

            The government works for its citizenry, not the other way around. You don’t seem to get that logic, you sure you’re a conservative?

            I can tell you love “fiscal hawks” in congress like John Bohner, or however you say it. What a great job he’s doing leading the battle charge against the left over such crucial issues as the debt ceiling last summer. Boy are our childrens’ futures safe with him….

          • bbjaylive

            The only way an currency-issuing nation can default on its debt is if it chooses to, which is complete idiocy. There was never any danger of the government failing to pay its debt. I think they should just get rid of the debt ceiling, it’s a phony self-constraint mechanism that is completely unnecessary.

          • jayjefferson

            “There was never any danger of the government paying its debt…”

            Did you just crawl out of a rock last week? What are you doing on this site you liberal moron? Spineless RINOs, that’s Vichy Repubs, like you are a big reason Obama can rule with an iron fist. You’re no more a conservative than the Pope’s a Buddhist! You’re not a Marxist drone, I’ll give you that, you can think for yourself. But don’t you bring down the good name of the Republican party by applying it to you!

          • bbjaylive

            …and saying retarded things like “We’re bankrupt” or “We’re broke” or “We’re heading down the path of Greece”?

            I’m telling you folks, the Austrian poison of the Paulism cult that is currently inflicting conservatives is strong

            Jayjefferson, as others have said, you’re a Paulian idiot, no matter how many times you deny it.

          • commonsenseobserver

            That doesn’t make the Austrians any more correct.

          • bbjaylive

            The US CANNOT go bankrupt, because UNLIKE Greece, the US issues its OWN CURRENCY.

            As Greenspan said last year, the US can just print the money to pay off the debt.

            On top of that, most of the US debt is denominated in its OWN CURRENCY, which means that it doesn’t owe that much to foreign debtors.

            It doesn’t help the GOP when Paul Ryan says stuff like this OR when he rails against QE.

          • lineholder

            The amount of debt as calculated per person is rapidly increasing, and it is taking place at a time when median incomes are decreasing.

            Regardless of what economic theory a person prefers, this is the reality that our country is facing. In addition, given the context of what has been taking place over the past three years, every time some effort is made to “stimulate” our economy, it has required taking on greater long-term debt without having a dependable, reliable means of sustaining that debt.

            IF we were seeing enough growth and development in the private sector to substantiate a high confidence level in being able to carry that burden of debt, bbjaylive, then accumulation of that debt might be considered in a different context.

          • bbjaylive

            Every time the government spends a dollar, that by definition equals a financial asset for the private sector.

            The US cannot have people committing suicide and having wages slashed because they serve some superstate central bank that is ideologically opposed in actually doing its job and helping European nations out.

            The worst that the US can become is Japan, which is a currency issuing nation and that has debt to GDP ratio of over 200%. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the US to become like Greece and thus, bankrupt.

          • gekster

            That there is much more than “that by definition equals a financial asset for the private sector”.

            When the Government spends a dollor,
            1. Where did it come from other than the private sector.
            2. How much did it cost to collect that dollor.
            3. Depatments and beurocrats have to be paid to collect that dollor,
            and a department and beurocrats have to be paid to issue that
            dollor.
            4. Because of #3, that dollor collected does not come back as a full
            dollor.

            Where am I wrong.

          • gekster

            Isn’t that how Greece got to where it is now, and by definition where we are headed.

          • bbjaylive

            1. The government doesn’t need the private sector to spend a dollar. It just creates it out of thin air by crediting a bank account.
            2. Nothing. It’s literally typing a few strokes on a keyboard.
            3. Well apart from the workers at the Fed who are instructed to type a few keys on the keyboard, virtually nothing.
            4. It doesn’t matter, the government can always create some more. The government is only constrained by inflation, not borrowing and taxing.

          • gekster

            As it appears you don’t have a clue, especially with regards tp feely printing money and inflation.

          • bbjaylive

            …if that is how you respond to someone who just answered your questions and showed you where you were wrong. I just told you the reality of monetary operations. Deny it all you want, I’m not bothered.

          • gekster

            stay out of economics,
            and stick with something you know. ;)

          • lineholder

            You don’t understand the psychological impact that this would have on our own economy at all, do you…to take on more debt, when our own unemployment rate is extraordinarily high in some areas?

          • bbjaylive

            I’m just saying the US isn’t like Greece, as in, it actually has a central bank that issues its own currency, and isn’t a slave to one like the ECB is to Greece. In addition, the ECB is ideologically aligned with Germany, thus their unneccesarily tight monetary policy.

          • ceili_dancer

            .

          • acat

            They printed their own currency .. I saw a billion mark note in a museum last week….

            Your assertion is academically correct but the impact in the real world will be remarkably similar to a bankruptcy in everything but name.

            One consistent point in your writing, bbjaylive, is the assertion that “the government can do X”, while ignoring the impact of “X” on the general population.

            I conclude, from this, that you’re either young – perhaps college-age – or that you’ve discovered the dismal science later in life and are trying to put the pieces together.

            In either case, what you’re consistently *missing* is that actions have consequences. Yes, the treasury could re-issue thousand dollar bills, or even create ten thousand dollar bills … but what is the downstream effect?

            Think it through before you write, bbjaylive.

            Mew

          • Viet71

            Isn’t that why the mark became worthless?

          • acat

            among other things, intellectual property, coal, and grain, although gold was the first medium of exchange used.

            The German hyperinflation was not directly due to the payouts, but instead due to a combination of factors including the mirror of the mass hysteria that drove the tulip bulb (and dot-com) bubble. (i.e. a general belief that the money is going to devalue leads to a rush to convert it into goods .. leads to the next group making the same choice, and around it goes)

            The significant proof of this is that, when the German government retired the old marks and introduced new ones, the economy stabilized… and Weimar teetered on for almost another decade.

            Thank you, Viet71 – I’ve learned a new thing today. Your question and the answer appear to reinforce my point to bbjaylive – inflating or hyperinflating a currency (which is what bbjaylive asserts the U.S. could do to avoid bankruptcy) has its’ own risks and negative effects that, while not an actual bankruptcy, are equally painful for We The People.

            Mew

          • Dave_A

            NOT by ‘money printing’ as many inflation hawks contend.

            When your political leaders make a decision so economically destructive (such as starting WWI (and subsequently losing, and being forced to sign Versailles) or siezing the property of your only profitable industry (Zimbabwe’s commercial farming industry)) that it shuts down the entire economy, the end-result will always be hyperinflation.

            The reason for this, is that the alternative to hyperinflation, is a sudden & sharp deflationary spiral in which your citizens sell everything of value in the country to foreigners in exchange for basic necessities – and all your money and money-equivalents leave the country.

            Faced with that ‘peril’, hyperinflation seems quite pleasant, and that’s why it’s the outcome of the ’2 options, you die & you die’ choice presented by such a situation.

            In modern monetary history (Since the universal adoption of central-banking) we have NEVER seen an example of hyperinflation due to ‘printing money’ or ‘excessively loose monetary policy’. I will state that as a fact.

            I cannot state it as a fact that no nation has ever experienced hyperinflation due to excessive government spending, however I would state that I believe this to be true.

            With the situation in Europe, if any of the countries leave the Euro, a claim might be able to be made that the resulting monetary chaos and likely near-hyper-inflation was due to spending, however I would put forth that it was due to the purely political choice to join the Euro in the first place – without which there would be no exit & no resulting monetary consequences….

          • acat

            Please quit pissing on my leg and claiming the central bank is raining.

            Mew

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            The fact is the US is not headed for a Greece like event in the short term. The reason isn’t because of printing presses but because we are bigger and richer and not as bloated (believe it or not). However, if we don’t see a near term increase in growth and serious reform in entitlement programs, we could conceivably be headed there in the long term. It would take a combination of entitlement programs exploded, economic stagnation, and bad fiscal policy, but we could get there in 25-50 years. Paul Ryan is right we need to start phasing in reduction of entitlements that ramp up over time combined with tax reform and cutting government programs that are essentially bridges to nowhere (green energy I am looking at you). I would rather not go with the “print our way out option”. My fear is that leads to a path where the dollar holds no value. No thanks.

            However, I think I would be remiss if I didn’t at least mention that the 8th largest economy in the world might be headed for a short term, Greece like meltdown, it rhymes with California. That situation scares the beejesus out of me (and it is very underreported in the MSM).

          • acat

            the accent will be the only way to tell the politicians apart.

            That there are several U.S. States teetering should scare you even more.

            (that I live in one has me nervously glancing at the exits…)

            Mew

          • westcoastpatriette

            Illifornia — take your pick.

          • Viet71

            Unlike Greece.

            California will come around, acat; as will Illinois. They have no choice.

          • acat

            How often has Obama let a law stand in his way?

            Especially for something that would simultaneously enrich the “right people” (erm, “left people”) at the expense of Texans etc. ?

            Mew

          • lineholder

            as much as people such as bbjaylive might belittle or bemoan that supposed lack of comprehension that exists among the general public as it pertains to various economic theories…more often than not, in an unstable economic environment like the one we’ve been facing lately…people are simply more inclined to stay within the context of what they know of from experience and what they personally have confidence in.

            What most people know of from experience is “income versus expenditures” type of economic formatting. When it comes to the choices they make on a day to day basis, they don’t generally follow the same sort of rules that might exist on a macro-economic level.

            I’ve yet to see any statements coming from bbjaylive that indicates he/she understands the psychological cause-and-effect scenario that becomes a reality due primarily to the perception that the general public has of accumulating debt or how it contributes to a contraction in demand for goods and services.

          • acat

            is the comparison of most people to sheep.

            “Herd mentality” has a lot more to do with the economy – consumer confidence, savings rates, housing starts – than is *intellectually* understood ..

            No offense intended.

            Mew

          • lineholder

            It’s one of the crux points of individualism versus collectivism….that situations vary from person to person, whether it pertains to a religious context (i.e. that one person could find something more tempting than another person might and therefore chooses to respond differently than another person might) or any other context, such as economics.

            And yes, Christianity heightens the emphasis on responsibility and accountability at the individual level, because the relationship between the individual and God is personal, not collective.

            But time after time, even in the example, that you’ve stated above about Germany, there is a psychological response that is generally seen in how people respond to increased debt. I don’t know that it applies to the “herd mentality” as much as it does to simple common sense, i.e. that the person as an individual has economic limitations as to how much debt can be accumulated without suffering severe consequences.

            That’s the reality that people live in, and their reality influences not only their perception of public debt but also their response to situations where they see a massive increase in public debt taking place.

            They pull back…become more cautious in how they spend money, like making a choice between buying a new car or stretching out the life of an old one for another year or two so that the differences in costs can be contributed to paying down other debts.

            On an individual level, people don’t operate within the framework of a mentality of increasing their spending in response to accumulating debt. It makes no sense to individuals to respond that way because of the consequences they’ve learned from personal experience in situations where they’ve exceeded their economic limitations.

          • acat

            (and whoever coined “go-go ’80s” needs to go-go-away!)

            In both cases, leverage and increased personal debt brought later consequences at the individual level, but both were also seen as valid options, not as exceptions or aberrations by the majority.

            More recently, see the rapid spike in home equity borrowing in the late ’90s that’s left many folk upside down.

            The point is, the herd mentality can drive us both ways .. which is why I don’t see the economy improving at the moment – the herd is still convinced times are bad.

            Mew

          • PowerToThePeople

            about people you do not know, I am sure you are very glad you have the internet between you and the people you insult, and considering the stupidity you have posted time after time maybe just maybe you should fix your own nonsense before you throw out such stupid insults.

            If anyone here needs to have the conservative creds questioned, it is you, not everyone else.

          • jayjefferson

            My best friend in high school served in Reagan’s honor guard, my cousin served as a special ambassador for him, and my aunt helped him get elected through the establishment Ford/Bush morons…. I can go on all day. Oh believe me, my conservative credentials would make people like you look like libtards any day of the week!

            “Power to the people,” you got a red hammer & sickle banner behind you when you type on this blog?

          • gekster

            I can claim all day long how my parents and thier friends were lifelong Dems, but that doesn’t make me a Dem, as your claims give no proof of you being conservative.

            And since this is the inter netty webby thingy, I perform rocket sugery.
            What claim do you have to beat that.

          • JSobieski

            Pounding one’s chest while pursuing activities with no chance of success does not fall within the definition of “effective”.

            We need EFFECTIVE conservatives.

            Your response to Dave_A’s critique of the consumption tax above with a bunch of name calling speaks for itself.

            The question of whether it is better to tax transactions than income is something that reasonable people can differ on. Pointing out how people will try to avoid paying either is hardly a matter of cowardice.

            Winning a war takes toughness, but it takes far more than toughness.

          • jayjefferson

            people like you would’ve gladly sided with the British in 1776, maybe even 1812.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Behave.

          • gekster

            you prove yourself the fool.
            Ain’t had no one that stupid since DeathoftheDonkey.
            Hey, wait…..
            Is the you.
            An internet Economy Major.

          • JSobieski

            mindless chest bounding is embarassing . . . particularly if you are old enough to have voted for Reagan.

            How is being critical of consumption taxes an act of cowardice?

            If you can’t articulate actual arguments, you should probably leave discussions for people better situated to do so.

            There are many reasons why a conservative could oppose transaction-based taxes, and one of those reasons is the intrusiveness that would be required to enforce compliance.

            States by and large collect sales taxes (they exclude services), and those taxes are typically under 10%. Start including services and raise the rate the 20% of higher, and you have a massive compliance problem.

            This is where you accuse me of being Benedict Arnold and in love with Fed. You might even want to accuse of sleeping with a picture of Bernanke under my bed.

            I could then respond with pointing out that there is no great way to have a common currency. Gold standard has its weaknesses, as does a Fed. Even a more limited Fed (similar to the EU Central Bank) can have substantial problems.

            Then you could respond how your family members helped Reagan get elected, and that I am a closet Marxist.

            I could respond with a proposal to voucherize Medicare and Medicaid as way to reform entitlements.

            You could then respond with calling me a wimp, and suggesting that due to your aunt’s former roommate, I must the Breznev’s grandson.

            I just saved us both lots of time.

          • gekster

            Hence the analogy, albeit wrong.

          • jayjefferson

            put more words in my mouth I didn’t say in that context. Again, I’d expect that from the left.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            And you have the same lack of social skills.

          • jayjefferson

            As I’ve already explained, I voted for Fred Thompson in ’08 and Herman Cain this time around. How does that make me a Paultard?

            Agreeing with the Doc on most domestic issues but outright rejecting his foreign policy automatically means I buy his whole package deal?

            I’ve already said, I can’t support the guy because Neville Chamberlain already showed us what isolationism does.

          • bbjaylive

            His economic policy is EVEN WORSE. It is the means to which he can achieve the end of America’s long-standing foreign policy.

            It is also worse, because virtually everyone in the GOP rejected his isolationism but EMBRACED his 18th Century Austrian economic policies and started quoting him word for word, and all of a sudden thought that the Fed needed to be abolished and that QE was the Boogieman.

          • JSobieski

            By chance did you do anything?

            Ronald Reagan Jr. had a relative who was pretty conservative, but Ron Jr. is liberal as they come. Using your framework for arguing, the former MSNBC host was a conservative because his father was?

            If my former roommates father had an automechanic who was a precinct captain, does that make me conservative?

            Seriously—-logic does matter.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            .

          • jayjefferson

            No, I’m obviuosly not a college punk. I’d expect this kind of smear campaign of changing subjects and talk of “compromising” from liberals, unless that’s what you are.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            And post sensibly, and respectfully.

          • PowerToThePeople

            the only thing you have proved on this board is that you are a moron who has a serious case of Napoleon disease.

            When you grow up a bit and get out of mommy’s basement, maybe your approach will improve. Until then, you shall remain the site idiot.

            But then again, now that you have garnered the attention of Neil, your days here are limited so we may never see you reach maturity.

          • jayjefferson

            You’re the one who had to cry to Neil cuz you were afraid I might actually prove you wrong on something.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Your misbehavior attracted attention on its own.

            Hint: You’re the only one in this thread at risk of having his account disabled.

          • Dave_A

            I’ve fought for this country – literally been shot at & shot back… And I’d have done the same in any era, any conflict in our history…

            How many rounds have you put downrange in the defense of America (note: Downrange meaning aimed at real, live enemy troops who are actively trying to kill you)?

            The difference between today’s ‘country club’ (the Republic) and the Colonies, is that prior to 1776 we had no representation – the government was more like a forced-membership labor union than a country-club.

            The reason I use ‘country club’ as an analogy for a Republic, is because:

            1) Both are associations of people for their own mutual benefit

            2) Both are voluntary in the sense that if you do not like the rules of the club or think the dues (taxes) are too much, you can leave – but in both cases leaving means you forefeet the membership benefits & access to the premises.

            3) Both afford certain benefits only to members (citizens)

            4) Both have rules of conduct that must be observed.

            5) Both require that the members pay in, to support the operation and maintenance of the club.

            6) Both are generally governed by the election of representatives from among the membership.

            The key point to your question, is that ‘Love it or Leave It’ applies to a Republic because the ‘government’ is doing the will of your fellow members (citizens) according to an established voting process, not ruling over you from a foreign country & not allowing you to vote on the composition of the government.

            P.S. Try composing a cogent argument, instead of just slinging insults…

            It’s also wise to check someone’s profile before questioning their patriotism…

        • Dave_A

          Do you understand what a ‘sharp price decrease’ would do to businesses and consumers?

          Do you have ANY CONCEPT AT ALL of what DEFLATION is, and how it DESTROYS economies?

          Stop thinking in CASH terms – Nobodey has any of that stuff, anyway… It’s spent within 30 days of hitting our bank accounts… So we don’t really care what happens to the value of it 11 months after we’ve spent it… Got it?

          What we DO CARE ABOUT, is the value of all the STUFF we own – houses, cars, land… Business inventories… Our job skills…

          Because you know what happens when if your end-the-FED insanity actually came to pass?

          The value of all that stuff takes a giant swan-dive into an empty pool…

          Instant bankruptcy for 98%+ of Americans AND American businesses…

          Companies go out of business because they can’t charge enough money to pay their suppliers for the inventory they bought (Net-30 recievables cycle, have you heard of it?)…

          Along the way pretty much everyone gets fired, because before you go out of business, you stretch it out as long as you can by firing your staff & cutting payroll costs…

          But in the end, we’re what, ‘better off’ because the few oddballs who hoard cash can watch their cigar-box pile theoretically gain value…

          Genius, I say…

          NOT!

          To contrast, in an economy with constant ~3% inflation:

          Your house gains 3% value each year… Your car depreciates 3% slower…

          Your employer can actually PAY their suppliers for their products/inventory, because the market will generally bear a slightly HIGHER price when the product is sold, then when it entered inventory…. Along the way, because your labor becomes more valuable in cash-terms, you can actually get… a raise…

          The price you pay? Well, if you’re dumb enough to keep large amounts of money in cash or cash-equivalents, you get hosed… If you can’t understand that a bank account loaded to the gills with ‘free’ bank services for spending money is NOT designed for you to keep money in longer than a month… You get hosed…

          But most of us don’t get hosed… And as a bonus, there’s an incentive to put your money in the system, rather than under your mattress…

          Thus LOW-RATE inflation is GOOD.

          Long Live the FED!

          • jayjefferson

            Reagan was very concerned about a dollar not backed by gold in the 70′s. Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley, and other prominent conservatives have also favored gradually ending the Fed at one time or another. No one’s gotta be Ron Paul to think like that.

          • Dave_A

            A simple analysis of the US economy, completely ignoring the government-sector & government debt (because that’s not what drives our monetary policy), shows that we absolutely have to have perpetual low-rate inflation or our economy will implode.

            The reason? Nobody keeps cash & everyone’s in debt.

            That means that any attempt to cause the value of the dollar to increase over an extended period of time WILL absolutely, unavoidably destroy the economy.

            There’s no way around it. Increasing the value of the dollar HURTS the financial situation of almost every American and almost every American business, by devaluing their PROPERTY, which is where NORMAL Americans store their wealth…

            Therefore, inflationary policy is a sign the FED is ‘giving the people what they want’…

            Good for them.

            As for your list of names…

            Plenty of folks flirted with gold-buggery – including Greenspan (who had Austrian leanings, but goverened the FED as a proper Monetarist)… So long as they wise up before they get power, we’re fine (And they all invariably do)…

          • jayjefferson

            “They all wise up.”
            Alan Greenspan wasn’t too bad, I’ll give you that. Paul Volcker wasn’t clueless either, although Reagan and David Stockman had more than their fair share of clashes with him over his role in the Carter recession. I don’t know where you get this “Bernanke’s the second coming of Christ” crap. If he’s had objections to Geithner, Obama, and even back to Bush, he should’ve spoken up a long time ago.

            “Nobody keeps cash.” You’re telling me with a straight face that you never carry cash for anything whatsoever? I’m calling bull.

          • bbjaylive

            Economics isn’t math and it isn’t a hard science. A low to moderate rate of inflation is vital as an expansionary monetary policy to promote economic growth. Inflation may come from the market (sometimes manipulated as was the case with rising oil prices which caused inflation in the 70s/80s).

            For you to demand that the government should control inflation, is basically a call from you to completely eliminate the federal government. It’s a ridiculous proposition that will never happen and should happen. Sorry, but your utopian “free-market” is an impossibility, where no one would pay taxes and thus the government in taking those taxes wouldn’t be able to regulate aggregate demand (which is all federal taxes are for anyway.

            Yes, Dave’s right, “nobody keeps cash”. Cash isn’t wealth so stuffing it under your mattress and hoarding it is an exercise in stupidity.

          • jayjefferson

            Funny, most people I see at fast food joints these days even usually pay with cash, myself included most of the time.

            And that’s when you put words in my mouth again. I never said there should be no taxes, no federal govt, or a “free market utopia,” as you put it. You seem to say it “should happen” at one point though, making you sound like an anarchist here.

          • bbjaylive

            nt

          • Dave_A

            First off, the market DOES determine inflation regardless of what the FED does… The FED can try to influence the market by changing interest rates, but that only goes so far…

            Easiest example of this? Right now. The FED has been trying everything they have, to get inflation back to healthy levels… However, we remain stuck at/below 2%…

            Why? Because even though the FED is offering money at ‘fire sale prices’, no one’s buying it… Thus, it doesn’t enter the market, the money-supply doesn’t grow, and we see this as insufficient inflation…

            So while all the doomers have claimed that QE would turn us into Zimbabwe, the end result has been a big-fat-fizzle, because the market isn’t doing anything with the additional money.

            As for Bernake, he’s done what he’s supposed to do… He correctly recognized the deflationary-spiral risk in 2008, had the FED take the proper actions (slash interest rates/QE) to make sure the mistakes of 1929 weren’t repeated in 08.

            I don’t want the FED getting involved in politics on either side – they’re supposed to be the impartial producers & maintainers of the nation’s money supply, not a part of the political game…

          • bbjaylive

            It’s a good thing that dollar isn’t backed by gold anymore. Now it’s a free-floating currency that gives the government much more fiscal flexibility and enable the living standards to increase far quicker. So what if conservatives and libertarians have called for gradually ending the Fed? Have they really put out detailed proposals as to what is it going to be replaced with? Friedman said he wanted the Fed replaced by a computer, so there would still be something managing the economy.

            Have you not learned from the Great Depression? Bernanke studied that extensively (as did Friedman of course), and if there was no Fed in 2008, what happened in the GD would have happened in 2008, on a probably much larger scale.

          • commonsenseobserver

            I actually think QE3 would provide much needed stimulus to the economy.

          • jayjefferson

            There’s a reason conservative Repub economists sent a letter to Bernanke back in ’010 questioning the efficacy of QE3, and there’s a reason it’s not working now either.

            Put 2 and 2 together again, maybe this time you won’t get 5.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            I still have some gold to unload, last time It shot up to 1900$ an ounce.

          • Dave_A

            Gold is the most absurd of valuation-bubbles right now, due to a whole lot of misinformation, really bad radio ads, and the completely unfounded belief that it’s a ‘safe’ place to put your wealth…

            Happens to some degree every time we have a recession, but the last time it was ‘this bad’ was 79-80…

            Once Carter left, gold dropped like a rock & didn’t recover to it’s bubble-valuated ‘high’ in nominal dollars (ignoring inflation) for over 20 years…

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            Bernacke did the right thing with QE1 and QE2. He is making money available in a recession. Friedman wrote several times that the Fed contracting the money supply in a recession caused the massive deflation in 1929. That is what a Depression is, it is where the value of every kind of good and service deflates until it has no value because no one has money. Bernacke spent almost his entire academic career studying the depression and came to the same conclusion. His first speech as a member of the Feds Board of Governors was “Deflation making sure it doesn’t happen here”.

            Unfortunately, at the same time Bernacke was trying to get us out of a recession and prevent a depression, we elected a load of idiots to Congress and the Presidency who decided to kowtow to the worse ideas OWS could come up with. Dodd-Frank, Volcker Rule, wide sweeping powers to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the end result of the new rules, regs, and oversight was that the banks couldn’t at a profit loan out the money, Bernacke was giving them. They have hoarded the capital or become for all purposes investment banks. Honestly, Geitner knows better but he works for The King and has to carry that The King’s water. Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama and their cronies could not have done more damage to this country’s finances if they had been in Vladimir Putin’s payroll.

            Bernacke admitted he doesn’t have a lot of bullets left in the barrel. The representatives of the people now have to do their jobs to release the credit crunch. The long term affects of crunching credit is that new small businesses don’t get started, established businesses don’t expand (or worse have to contract because they can’t meet day to day obligations) and new buildings don’t get built. In additon, to all that consumption reduces because consumer credit reduces and this causes further contraction.

          • jayjefferson

            I have studied the Great Depression. If Bernanke really had studied the time period, he would’ve known not to follow in the same big govt foot steps as Hoover, the Fed, and FDR in causing and prolonging the crisis.

            The problem in 1930 and ’08 was too much regulation, not too little.

            Milton wanted a computer huh? Sounds pretty cool to me.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            As Francis Cianfrocca has repeatedly pointed out, a key problem in 1929 was that the New York Fed was leaderless in 1929.

            It’d have been like going *without* someone in Bernanke’s slot during the meltdown.

          • Dave_A

            and refused to open the window to cash-strapped banks out of a belief it would make the economy stronger by ‘weeding out the weak’, Darwin-style…

            Instead, it helped push us into the Great Depression, via ushering in severe deflation…

            Yep, that’s right, the worst economic downturn since the FED was created was a DEFLATIONARY event, not inflationary.

            Essentially, 1929 is an EXACT example of what would have happened if the ‘No TARP, No QE, Hard Money’ folks had had their way in 08.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            Those who want to abolish the Fed, and your cheerleading for a very flawed program.

          • Dave_A

            There’s absolutely nothing wrong with our monetary policy.

            It (a) serves the interest of the American People as expressed by their freely chosen financial lifestyles, and (B) it encourages people to keep their money in the economy, rather than keeping it hoarded away as cash…

            The notion that you can’t store wealth in an economy with constant and steady low-rate inflation is absolutely false…

            All it means, is you can’t store wealth *as cash* – which is a good thing…

            And since the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t store their wealth as cash, that’s not a downside.

      • larenzo

        You stated what I have tried to get those that want to do away with any form of tax in favor of tariffs to understand that is not possible in todays world. Good work.

      • trimulchio

        states prior to 1912.

        However, having state-appointed US Senators gave the states-qua- the-states a voice in Washington.

        With the lower House elected directly by the people, and the upper House appointed by state legislatures (who were themselves directly elected by the people) both the people as individuals and the states as polities were represented, which seems the preferable option given the intent of our Federal Republic.

    • http://www.rpersing.com rwp4liberty

      ?The way out of this mess for our country is to restore the balance the founders intended.?

      Our problem is not direct taxation or the Sixteenth amendment. The Founder?s had intended for congress to have the ?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? (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). The section then goes on to enumerate what congress can do with the Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises collected. Even though a progressive tax code is unfair, its still uniform, and that?s all the constitution requires.

      The last clause in the enumerated powers states that congress shall have the power ?to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.?

      We have two problems:
      1) The federal government has violated the constitution by enacting laws far beyond the scope of what the Founder?s intended, which was a small government of limited powers as enumerated in Article I Section 8.
      2) Congress has violated the constitution by legislatively ceding powers to the executive branch that were reserved for the legislative branch.

      Those of us on the right end of the political spectrum believe we?re either tax too much or taxed enough already (TEA), and rightly agree that government has grown far beyond what the Founder?s intended. We know that if the size and scope of the federal government was limited to what the Founder?s intended, there would be no deficits, and no reason for our current level of taxation. Thus, there would likely be no need for the Sixteenth Amendment.

      Those on the left believe that government must grow as large as necessary to meet the demands of the least that society has to offer, and that the productive must pay any level of tax necessary to finance those demands.

      Our problems are not the laws passed that levy taxes on the country?s citizens ? congress has always been empowered to create forms of taxation. Our problem is a federal government that has run away from the constitution as a whole, growing far beyond what the founders intended, and created a need to tax more for things they?re not empowered to do. All we need to do is get rid of the unconstitutional, big-government programs and departments, and the need for constitutional tax levies will evaporate.

      • tcgeol

        it certainly plays a very large part. Prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment, an income tax had been used at times, but was ruled unconstitutional. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the 16th Amendment. Certainly, Congress was originally given the power to tax, but not to tax except in proportion to census or enumeration. Once the unlimited power to tax was granted by amendment, there was no limit on the size of government.

        • Dave_A

          The reason for this, is that 1780′s America did not have the structure & development required to implement an income tax…

          So when the Founders considered the issue of direct taxation, it never crossed their mind (can you immagine trying to get an illiterate corn farmer to figure out how much the corn he grew & bartered away was worth in dollars – let alone to fill out a form and get it delivered properly? – let alone enforcing/verifying that in the 1780s)….

          What the Founders DID consider, when they essentially prohibited direct-taxation (by forbidding the federal government from actually collecting any revenue in that manner, since any direct tax revenue had to be distributed equally to the states) was a CAPITATION (per-person flat-amount tax)….

          I would contend that if the US had been founded in an era of 1910-1920-esque development, the Founders probably would have preferred funding our government with income tax, as opposed to tariffs…

          The economics of it just makes more sense…. The problem with it back then, is it’s an unimaginably complex system to administer without a full-time bureaucracy…

          • http://www.rpersing.com rwp4liberty

            …so we are faced with a reality that could not be contemplated 225 years ago. But the Founder?s created a constitution that could be amended. There are amendments that were hastily passed and ratified in the post Civil War era that should be repealed, and I’m not necessarily excluding the 16th. I, as an individual educated in advanced federal taxes, am merely pointing out that the income tax, progressive as it is, is generally “uniform” in its application, which is the only requirement listed in the enumerated powers clause that empowers congress to tax. That’s not to say every aspect of the tax code is uniform. There are many aspects of the tax code that are not uniform, so the question arises; do we throw out the entire code because there are unconstitutional carve-outs to preferred groups or individuals, or just the unconstitutional carve-outs?

            Personally, I’d like to see the whole damn thing go away, but I don’t think congress will ever abolish this tax code in it’s entirety in favor of something “fairer,” such as a consumption tax or flat tax.

      • bbjaylive

        At the time the Founders wrote the Constitution, the US was still on a Gold standard. If the government never ran deficits, there WOULDN’T BE AN ECONOMY IN EXISTENCE.

  • hart65

    “If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
    GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

    • http://www.rpersing.com rwp4liberty

      ?Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.? ? Declaration of Independence

      There is an old saying that history repeats itself, and an analysis of the ?repeated injuries and usurpations? perpetrated on the New World colonies by the King of Great Britain reveal similar current injuries and usurpations against the US citizens by our own government. Are we now in one of those transient times? It?s a good question to ponder?

  • http://www.RayJuniorShow.com/ rayjuniorshow

    excuse me mrs. bachman…

    You asked this question “Where will the madness end? When will the President stop blatantly disregarding the Constitution?”

    the solution is for spineless wimps like you in congress to impeach this clown, not to depend on the american people to change the chairs on the titanic’s deck through elections.

    Do not come to us, asking us to do our job, until you get your butt back to washington and do yours by having the guts to ignite the impeachment process.

    • PowerToThePeople

      the moron who wrote this BS. Let me try to be somewhat civil in my reply to your pathetic nonsense.

      A) Please let us know what reason there is to impeach the president.
      I will give you a hint, there are none.

      B) Even if there was a valid reason, please tell me how we get the votes to get a conviction and not just end up in an embarrassing debacle as we did with Clinton. Another hint for someone as stupid as you, we do not even have close to enough votes in Senate to get a conviction.

      C) Bachmann has been a true conservative during her terms in office and has done more for our country in her first week than most of done in their life, you included. The difference between Bachmann and idiots such as yourself, she actually knows the law and the constitution and does not work for an illegal and BS impeachment just for the sake of doing it.

      Now slink back off to whatever crap hole basement you came from. The only people that seem to call for the impeachment nonsense are birther and truther losers. Let us know which moronic conspiracy group(s) you buy into so we can mock you further.

    • larenzo

      Your comment is unfair and to be honest not very well thought out. I would assure you if there was a vote to impeach Obama Rep. Bachman would vote for that if merited. Now looking at the facts impeaching Obama would be a waste of time and money yes the congress would most likely have the votes for the impeachment however the senate which is controled by democrats would not vote to remove him and nothing positive would happen only the opposite it would serve as a distraction for other issues that will defeat him in the election and the impeachment would provide cover for him and his cronies just as it aided Bill Clinton in his efforts.

      • renl57

        Impeach Obama *without sufficient evidence* (first find out *if* Obama can justify executive privilege in this case)–and you make him into a martyr and victim.

        The Left loves that. It’s their natural stance: “Police brutality!” “Civilian casualties!” They apply in politics what the Communist guerrillas applied in war: Provoke an extreme crackdown to alienate the public from the heavy-handed tactics of those ordering the crackdown.

        • renl57

          Instead of impeachment, Republican officials should just wonder out loud whether executive privilege is justified in this case.

          Executive privilege is one of those phrases that Nixon managed to make into a bad thing in the mind of the public: As even liberals admit, when Obama invoked executive privilege, most of the public who heard about it immediately wondered about a coverup. That way the GOP can raise suspicion in the public’s mind without making Obama into a martyr.

          Good. That will reduce Obama’s vote total in November.

          • acat

            (especially, in this case, a fact-based one….) and it doesn’t fire up the Dem base.

            Just vote this sad little man out of the oval office in November, and let’s move on.

            Mew

    • funwithknives

      Guess I should-a known better, and I forgot my eternal self-taught lesson: “Expect nothing, let ‘em surprise you”.

      No surprises there, just a lot of empty space and someone else’s writings.

      How many audience members at your *shows*, anyway? The heckling must be thunderous…….

    • Christine

      that you probably call yourself a Republican and a Conservative.

    • Bill S

      some of the stupid crap people post around here.

      Go play in traffic, Ray.

      UPDATE: After checking your posting history, the board has decided that you should no longer have the opportunity to post garbage like this. Bye.

    • trimulchio

      proof of wrong-doing in our system.

      Further, while impeachment in the House may be possible under the present political dispensation, removal in the Senate would not be and the issue would be politized as with Clinton and the 1998 Mid-term election. (This could change if GEN Wilkinson-Aaron Burr levels of misconduct exist, even in a close election year.)

    • cestmoi312

      Finally, someone else besides me demands these spineless jelly fish in Congress stop the whining and hand wringing and,”Do Their Job”
      I have been riding around with an “Impeach OBAMA” bumper sticker on my car the day after he disregarded the Constitution and signed “Obamacare,(the mandate), into law.
      I have yet to see another bumper sticker like mine on any other car on the road.
      I don’t care who they are, once elected, they want in for life and will do or say anything to achieve that goal.
      Not too long ago, Marco Rubio swore he had no desire or intention to run as Vice President.
      Haven’t heard him affirm that lately.
      Wanna bet he’ll jump in with both feet if asked?
      They all, say one thing and do another.

      In conclusion, for those who’ve never known there’s an end around run on the books to defeat any edict imposed by any branch of the government, visit the link below.

      http://takebackthepower.us/Nullification.html

      • gekster

        before you spewed.
        Just a suggestion.

      • streiff

        gee, that was a stroke of genius digging up that solution and managing to ignore everything that has taken place, including a big freakin civil war, that has happened since 1798.

        • PowerToThePeople

          even my wife laughed.

          Vexatious Twatwaffle, so good……………

      • rightlane1111

        Know what ticks me off…and it started yesterday….endless calls for money. Why do I have to give them money to have Issa take him to court? Why? Why, with the salaries and perks am I being hit up for still more? Some of these group I have not even heard of.

        So…my answer…DO YOUR JOB…hold Holder in Contempt…and do it the way Levin says or you will be kicked out of court.

        Do you believe it has gotten so bad that I am on a “no call list”…and some of these websites…like WaPo…I suspect have sold me e-mail and the rest of the information. For all I know..Obama has drones in the area…because we are so heavily CONSERVATIVE.

        Thanks for listening…the phone has not stopped.

    • Dave_A

      And it would be a huge drag on the Romney campaign…

      The solution, is for us citizens to vote his ass OUT in November….

  • http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php kralizec

    I am glad to have Michele as my representative and I had the pleasure of meeting her at our district convention last April. I appreciate the effort Michele makes on our behalf fighting for conservative principles and trying hold this Administration accountable and in urging her colleagues to act decisively in the face of unrelenting attacks upon our nation?s foundations. I have and will continue to support Rep. Bachmann and I pray we can add more like her to the Congress this election. Unless we can change the composition of Congress any efforts to unravel the nightmare of Obamunism will be inherently difficult. Let us resolve to restore constitutional republicanism to our nation and give some support to principled leaders like Michele Bachmann to make our resolve a reality.

  • dad1011

    By Obama’s own words “the constitution is a set of negative liberties”.
    I’m shocked to find gambling going on here.

    • trimulchio

      it keeps the government from doing something like restricting the freedom of speech, rather than making them take steps to allow for universal health care or something. It isn’t “negative” in the sense of “bad.”

  • kerry1020

    Lets just start a revolution and get on with it!!! Our constitution doesn’t mean anything anymore and WE THE PEOPLE need to do something about it. The government is not supposed to be able to to anything for themselves that doesn’t apply to us, as in the unbelievable raises they got with our money but yet most of us got nothing. And they are not allowed to do anything to us that doesn’t apply to them, as in cut ss and Medicare to the elderly and disabled yet all of them get all of their benifits. Come on people stop being sheep and let’s take up arms to make thing right. At the very least we need to band together and evict all politician and start over with honest hard working people that care about our country. Not these people that have been bread and groomed to become politicians just for the money, power, and benifits. They don’t care about this country they don’t even care about their own states most of the time. This is a government of the people for the people BY the people. LETS DO WHAT’S RIGHT WHILE WE STILL HAVE THE RIGHTS TO DO IT!!!!!

    • Christine

      for the liberals to get us where we are. A revolt is exactly what the liberals would LOVE to see. Obama becomes a victim, or he gets to be a hero by declaring martial law, or something far worse than my poor brain can imagine.

      We can’t fix this in one day. There’s more to it than you’re seeing. There are a ton of Americans in this country who are wholly indoctrinated. We have to fix that as well as Congress. That can’t be done in a day, unless you’re suggesting something far more hideous than throwing out a few politicians.

      The battle ahead is long and hard. Stop wishing for a microwave solution.

      • funwithknives

        twice as long as you state.

        It got rolling with Woodrow Wilson in the Mid-Teens. Progressives in various forms have been using The Dialectic , and the examples of where we are presently, is proof it does work.
        Not on everyone, but enough to move along Progressive Narratives, quite nicely.
        Other than my anal-retentive aside, reading your post suggests me , shouting into a mirror. …at really regular intervals………

        Think we’ll see the tide turn in our lifetimes? It never used to be, but now I wish for it with All my itty-bitty heart………along with flying cars and cold running whiskey from a faucet, in the kitchen.

        • siquijorisland

          you keep dreaming in liberal fantasy land there Alice. Do not fall down that rabbit hole

          KEEPS ASKING OBAMA

          “WHY DO YOU FAVOR FOREIGNERS OVER AMERICAN WORKERS?”
          KEEP ASKING THIS QUESTION UNTIL YOU HAVE AN ANSWER

          “THOSE WHO CAN MAKE YOU BELIEVE ABSURDITIES CAN MAKE YOU COMMIT ATROCITIES.” VOLTAIRE

          • funwithknives

            Define as well as you are able how The Dialectic has not been used as a weapon against America. Please tell me without all ‘the caps’ how I ‘…live in a liberal Fantasy land….’, once more with feeling.

            Progressivism has been well-documented to work it’s magic, in the fashion I describe.
            Go howl at those {numerous} guys, too.

            You, hitting on your ‘one-note’ talking point and All-Caps howling at me gets you nothing in The Marketplace of Ideas.
            But simple minds have simple wants……….

            Oh, and my name ain’t Alice. Just call me Jonathon Tobias Pissoff.
            {Not really, but it’ll do……}

      • siquijorisland

        “THOSE WHO CAN MAKE YOU BELIEVE ABSURDITIES CAN MAKE YOU COMMIT ATROCITIES.” VOLTAIRE

    • acat
    • streiff

      and advocating armed insurrection is not one of the core missions of RedState. If you think you’ve been unfairly maligned, hit the contact button and tell someone who could conceivably care. Otherwise, find another place to post this crap.

    • funwithknives

      a revolution, already?

      Tell me where to meet and let’s both see how many ‘real patriots’ show up.
      Let’s see, you need 4 stretcher bearers for each wounded/dead follower….

      You honestly think you have ‘the right’ to commit armed insurrection?

      I might be late for our meeting……..Who’s playing The Tigers tonight?

    • 10ab

      With your nonsense. You might need more help than can be given here and I suggest you seek it immediately.

  • wbedding

    remember, he was a so-called professor of Constitutional law at UC. so, he is fully aware of what is in the document. that is what makes him so dangerous. he knows it like the back of his hand and is assaulting it where he sees implied weakness so he can push his agenda. he knows that there are broad interpretations in critical areas – areas he obviously has used to push his Socialist agenda.

    so, for those who think he has not read it, he has. and that makes him even more dangerous to the Republic for which it stands.

    he must go in November. otherwise, we will be faced with a true Constitutional crisis – unlike the one Mr. Holder subscribes to.

  • spolson

    I keep hearing that Obama does things he has no authority to do, but he does them and we obey. If he has no authority why isn’t just ignored, or better still prosecuted. What is he going to do when he is a lame duck? Declare himself king?

    • siquijorisland

      hope not

  • amarshall

    Congresswoman Bachmann and Congressman Issa, you are much appreciated by conservatives that care about the constitution and the rule of law. Please stand strong and hopefully other elected representatives will follow. They need to remember that we hired them and WE can fire them.

  • trimulchio

    “prosecutorial discretion,” that begins with those charged to directly enforce laws, like police on the street. Ideally, that should be making decisons to let someone off with a warning or to make a plea deal or enter into a settlement. The INS/ICE system runs like this and hasrun like this for a very long time.

    Sometimes, especially where a law is about to be overturned or appealed, it might make sense to make a corporate decison to wait and see, not focus on enforcement, in the inteests of presecutorial and judicial economy. DOMA enforcement might be one of those things.

    What we have with the Immigration Rule announcedlast week and, to a lesser extent the PPACA waivers, is an attempt to legislate, rather than enforce.

    While the Executive does have quasi-legislative powers in creating enabling regulations for statutes under the Federal Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), this seems to be more an Executive veto, rather than gap-filling and standard setting.

    Rep. Bachmann has a good point.

  • chuckie

    ….they have that thing locked up in a hermetically sealed glass frame thing just like the Decalration in National Treasure….with 24/7/365.25 secret service protection…..NOBODY is gonna mess with that precious document!!!

  • ihateliberals

    The subjects that so many people strayed from on this post was supposed to be about Obama and his disregard for the constitution. I?m not sure how that got off track but the fact is that Obama has a high disregard for the constitution and actually regards it as a hindrance to his Progressive Liberal agenda. Several of our Progressives over the years had the same disregard but eventually through the concept of the separation of powers and the fact that the people were still in control through the election progress they were defeated in their objectives for the most part. The problem is that the Progressives will gt their agenda by us eventually if we continue to elect the likes of Obama.

    It seems that after every liberal president they leave a little something of their agenda behind. Woodrow Wilson gave us the United Natins although not directly but his league of nations was the beginning of the UN idea that eventually took hold. Then there was FDR he left many Progressive agenda pieces and one in particular was social Security. Next we had Kennedy and he never had a chance to do much but Lyndon Johnson tried to give us the Great Society to end poverty. So far we have spent a Trillion dollars and the poverty rate is higher than before he was president.

    Now we come to Obama. Obama has admitted that he thinks the constitution is an outdated restrictive document that needs to be replaced. He disregards the constitution and lets the courts decide whether he is right or wrong. First he stacks the courts in his favor. Obamacare is the most evil piece of socialist legislation to ever be put on the books of this country. If it is upheld by the Supreme Court it will give the government access and control to almost every aspect of our lives. Under Obamacare the type of car you drive can be dictated. Now that might seem extreme but what people don?t seem to realize is that Obamacare gives the government to power to determine anything it wants to in the name of the Public Health and welfare.

    Obama right from the start has been using the Hugo Chavez government model. So far he is right on target and if he should win the 2012 election and have a Democratic controlled congress he would have the ability to take over the government. Hugo Chavez did this very thing in
    Venezuela. He threw out the constitution and had it re-written to suit his needs. If the 2010 elections hadn?t turned the House over to the Republicans this would have most likely already happened.

    The worse thing with Obama is not just his disregard for the constitution but the people that voted for him in 2008 and the support he still has. A writer in a Czech Republic newspaper summed it up pretty good: “The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.”

    This is why Obama has the disregard for the constitution and has the support he does. There isn?t anyone willing to challenge him. I fear that we have too many Progressives that have infiltrated all branches of the government. If this is true then he has the power to accomplish what he wants. The problem is th tpeople assume because someone is a Republican that they are conservative and this isn?t true. Right now the Speaker of the house is a Progressive. John McCain is a Progressive. Granted they have different approaches to the government but the end result they want to achieve is a Socialist style government.

    ? ?Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction? — Ronald Reagan
    ? “Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don’t need it and hell where they already have it.” — Ronald Reagan

    • gekster

      well thought out post. ;)

  • spook

    Your outrage should be ditrected at the Congress both Republican and Democrats who allow this President to get away wi trashing the Constitution.

  • fishgod3

    NT

    • PowerToThePeople

      by comparing it to the anarchist who opened fire on Guilford?

      I hope not………….

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      Now.

      • PowerToThePeople

        and your quick move to repudiate that type of BS is commendable. I despise the man and just about every democrat, but death or murder is not cool or an OK option.

  • poorwilber

    Can’t we just simply end this misery?

    • Christine

      what you mean by that.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Just stop it. The FED is not going anywhere, Nor should it. Yes congress should review the double mandate and maybe an independent audit. But The Fed is not our problem and in fact has done a fairly good job in the current crises.

    The real problem is debt. Government debt state debt, real estate debt, corporate debt. consumer debt. Euro debt, Chinese debt, Every where you turn everyone is in debt and the debts are growing.

    This is what is killing us, and we must focus like a laser beam on the real problem.

    • gekster

      (threadjack) because some are more interested in thier own pet peeves than adressing the substance of the article.
      jmho

      • tnfriendofcoal101368

        I should have left the field….sometimes that is difficult for me.

        • gekster

          Just an observation. ;)

    • checkmate2012

      We should show Rep Bachmann more respect as she deserves it!

  • siquijorisland

    KEEPS ASKING OBAMA

    “WHY DO YOU FAVOR FOREIGNERS OVER AMERICAN WORKERS?”
    KEEP ASKING THIS QUESTION UNTIL YOU HAVE AN ANSWER

    “THOSE WHO CAN MAKE YOU BELIEVE ABSURDITIES CAN MAKE YOU COMMIT ATROCITIES.” VOLTAIRE

  • Pingback: gsdfghsdkflhgksdfl

  • Pingback: Isaac Fegurgur

  • Pingback: Halley Oines

  • Pingback: Everett Heuangvilay

  • Pingback: Lucas Canney

  • Pingback: getwhgdrthfyjfygujfuyg

  • Pingback: Joesph Breidel

  • Pingback: Logan Eidem

  • Pingback: Larry Cration

  • Pingback: Booker Fero

  • Pingback: Prince Hayner

  • Pingback: Paul Cozzy

  • Pingback: Keli Simonetty

  • Pingback: Samantha Walland

  • Pingback: Nannette Reho

  • Pingback: Yuonne Zuazo

  • Pingback: Lilia Dudas

  • Pingback: edu link building

  • Pingback: Desire Even

  • Pingback: Morris Nocon

  • Pingback: Wai Youngren

  • Pingback: Mining Technology

  • Pingback: Automobile Forum

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Reverse Number Lookup

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: distill definition

  • Pingback: Scott Goubeaux

  • Pingback: darmowa strona randki

  • Pingback: καθαρισμοί κτιρίων

  • Pingback: whisky

  • Pingback: super randka

  • Pingback: Florencio Melchin

  • Pingback: Norbert Kratt

  • Pingback: แทงบอลออนไลน์

  • Pingback: super randka

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: randki

  • Pingback: Jacquelynn Winterberg

  • Pingback: Prince Hayner

  • Pingback: Nathan Eitzen

  • Pingback: doccia bagno

  • Pingback: Rocky Capriccioso

  • Pingback: Tune Up

  • Pingback: listen to this podcast

  • Pingback: Try This Out

  • Pingback: weblink

  • Pingback: Try This Website

  • Pingback: check this out

  • Pingback: Visit These Guys

  • Pingback: Click Here For More Info

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: Young Harroun

  • Pingback: Arron Sunderlin

  • Pingback: Suzette Krawczyk

  • Pingback: karos registraciya

  • Pingback: madamlux

  • Pingback: Erick Kopps

  • Pingback: Danille Shover

  • Pingback: jobs working from home uk

  • Pingback: Julietta Hershelman

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Delois Raheem

  • Pingback: Rayna Milosevic

  • Pingback: Markita Pardee

  • Pingback: Union Flooring Installations

  • Pingback: Brenton Kowing

  • Pingback: Sam Lukasik

  • Pingback: haccp zachodniopomorskie

  • Pingback: Remote Control

  • Pingback: Sid Mellinger

  • Pingback: loans and bad credit

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Heide Lenoue

  • Pingback: business

  • Pingback: look up phone numbers for free

  • Pingback: Automotive Forum

  • Pingback: lecteur carte vitale

  • Pingback: Mauro Pajak

  • Pingback: Augusta Nabers

  • Pingback: aloe vera side effects

  • Pingback: "????? ????? ????"

  • Pingback: Delivermydumpster

  • Pingback: discover here

  • Pingback: Cucciolo Rottweiler

  • Pingback: active instagram followers

  • Pingback: curriculum vitae

  • Pingback: Tyree Pascal

  • Pingback: cv

  • Pingback: Annett Blowe

  • Pingback: weight loss diet

  • Pingback: free annual credit report

  • Pingback: Shae Roddick

  • Pingback: babies r us gift registry

  • Pingback: samsung s3

  • Pingback: Organo Gold Scam

  • Pingback: corki guide

  • Pingback: make money online

  • Pingback: raspberry ketone

  • Pingback: bear grylls messer

  • Pingback: Jimmy Venzon

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: super cheap car insurance

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: loans and bad credit

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: Chiropractor boardman

  • Pingback: Derek Iozzi

  • Pingback: http://ldlhdlcholesterollevels.org/

  • Pingback: executive jacket

  • Pingback: Eugenia Hasgill

  • Pingback: Melody Nikolic

  • Pingback: หอพักโชคชัย 4

  • Pingback: Anisha Jarreau

  • Pingback: hair loss vitamins

  • Pingback: zynga poker chips for sale

  • Pingback: Auto Forum

  • Pingback: Marketing a Medical Practice

  • Pingback: Tyrell Gear

  • Pingback: craft ideas

  • Pingback: payday loan store locations

  • Pingback: Eleonore Rhodd

  • Pingback: 60 minute payday loan reviews

  • Pingback: this hyperlink

  • Pingback: Scooters

  • Pingback: Lamar Robes

  • Pingback: logo website

  • Pingback: Cliff Deoliveira

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: banana diet

  • Pingback: super randka

  • Pingback: spray on tans

  • Pingback: Looking to the Jewish Passover to Understand American Dependency, Gun Control and Senator Rand Paul’s Filibuster | The BOPAC Report & Larry Sinclair's Allegations