The past several elections have shown an American people thirsting for change from decades of political establishments that wouldn’t lead our nation. We’re losing jobs, our economy has been caving in, the war against terror continues to plod along, and we have been generally doubtful about our future. So the entire nation, whether we liked his policies or not, watched in quiet respect as our nation’s first African American President was elected. We hoped that he’d be a bi-partisan, solutions oriented leader – unfortunately, that has not been the case. We hoped that he’d reach across the aisle to Republicans and find common sense solutions to the free spending, big government habits we saw in Congress for decades before. Instead, our President established spending and government habits that were exponentially worse than those of the Congress before him.
Tuesday night, conservatives and independents across the country spoke – loudly. In fact, they spoke so loudly that President Obama referred to it as a “shellacking.” And a shellacking it was, as over 60 U.S. House seats and 6 Senate seats turned Republican. As Karl Rove aptly pointed out, the last time Democrats occupied this few seats in the House was 1946. Many of the Democrats who lost were senior members with 15 plus years of experience.
One of the most critical victories of this midterm election doesn’t even come from the actual seats picked up, but in the 8 governors and over 500 state legislative seats that turned Republican. This gives Republicans across the country an overwhelming advantage with the reapportionment process that will come soon and give them a decided advantage in the 2012 elections. Last week President Obama had the audacity to say that “our enemies must be punished,” speaking of his Republican opponents. In reality, the Democratic party was punished on Tuesday night, as the mandate of the American people was shown.
Republicans would be naïve and foolish to think that the election was a statement of pro-Republican support. On the contrary, Tuesday night’s election was instead a referendum on the stubbornness and audacity of the Obama administration, as the nation lashed out against policies they know are dangerous for our future. Republicans should take heed to a startling statistic John Fund mentioned some time ago in describing the cyclical turnover of Congress. Democrats had been in control of Congress for 40 years when the Republican sweep of 1994 took place. It took 12 years for them to lose it. The Democrats have held it for 4 years. We know that history has a tendency to repeat itself, and if history is any indication, Republicans have an extremely small window into which they must demonstrate some speedy, substantial progress. In order to make that progress, they must first get their own house in order.
Right now, Republicans in Congress are split into two very distinct factions: those who embrace the sometimes hyper conservatism of the tea party and those who embrace the remnants of the Republican establishment that has been through several changes of power in Congress over the last decade. If these two factions do not seek avenues to coalesce, then they will face the dangerous status of being so divided they will not be able to deliver on the mandate of the voters. The Republican establishment must be open to listen and heed the advice of the new but powerful movement of the tea party Republicans. The tea party Republicans must take care to be reasonable and concise as they deliver to Washington their expectations for policy.
One certain factor should help motivate Republicans in Washington to get on the same page: even the most moderate of Republicans will not tolerate compromise on core principles of conservative orthodoxy such as spending and the size of government. While Republican leaders must be willing to negotiate and compromise with the Democrats on some small details, they must also hold firm to the principles of free market, smaller government, and reduced spending that they recently campaigned on. Any indication of compromise on those core principles will bring an all out war with tea party Republicans and will quickly insure Republican defeat in 2012.
The last several days before the election, CNN/Opinion Dynamics polled former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney against President Obama. Huckabee polled ahead of the President 52-44, Romney polled ahead 50-45, and Obama polled ahead of Palin 44-52. Momentum is clearly behind Republicans headed into the election of 2012. It would be wise for the Republicans in Congress to wage a war against the President’s agenda, even when there’s no resolution in sight. If Republicans are doing so on the basis of conservative principles, then such a policy war becomes not a means to an end, but an end to itself. With the Senate and White House in Democratic hands for at least two more years, there will likely be long, drawn out policy debates before any strategic objectives are met. However, such dialogue, debate, and political discourse will keep the conservative base excited headed into a 2012 election that could prove to be even more exciting than 2010.
In short, the road only rises for a Republican Congress who insists upon uniting around core conservative principles and aggressively pursuing policies based on those principles without compromise.
Steve Maley
Caleb Howe
Jeff Emanuel
Moe Lane
Dan Spencer
Long term conservative success will depend on
avgjo (Diary) Thursday, November 4th at 3:21PM EDT (link)a directed, serried and measured incrementalist approach on several fronts, including ‘entitlement’ reform (i.e., freeing people from reliance on the gov. teat), education (informing a new generation of the precious heritage of American Constitutionalism and of the dangers of ideologies opposed to it, like Marxism), judicial reform (removing an important implement from the activist liberal toolbox) as well as the all-important shrinking of government. More government = less freedom, less government = more freedom. Not to mention more prosperity.
From where I stand, the problem on our side seems to be that we’re either too apathetic about making the necessary changes (viz. the establishment types) or too impatient (certain types of conservatives). Now, anyone who knows me here or elsewhere knows I am a small-government conservative, and that I want all of the things the more impatient folks want.
It is often said that the American people are fairly conservative. I believe this is true. But let’s remember what the word ‘conservative’ means. Sure, it means the adherence to a certain body of ideas, but it also means being somewhat avers to change. I believe that one of the major mistakes Obama and the democrats have made is that they have tried to do too much too fast. They have come so far because they have been so patient and steady in their incrementalism. Like someone pointed out, if they had waited one more generation, they could have gotten every single thing they wanted. Now, because they couldn’t help themselves in the last two years, they have put it all at risk. Let us not repeat the same mistake. But let us also remember that our ideas are more in line with what the majority of Americans believe, so our incrementalism need not be quite so slowly executed as the left’s. Remember, everything the left stands for stands in opposition to the values of most Americans. And so to make their policies and ideas digestable, they had to feed to the people in small bites. In 2009, they found that half of the crap they want to feed us was left on the plate, and instead of continuing to slowly feed it to the people, they decided to shove down our throats.
If we stick to our principles, which lead to prosperity and more freedom, people will find that they like the taste of what we’re serving and they continue to partake of their own free will. And the plate will soon be empty and licked clean.
Ceterum autem censeo, Obamaecuram esse delendam.
It’s the morality, stupid.
Our freshman Republicans need to revise the pledge
johngiles Thursday, November 4th at 11:15PM EDT (link)The old guard lost their collective mind. Some of the things the freshmen should insist on include the following:
- End: Bailouts, War on Drugs, Medicare and Medicaid,
- Cease funding: Head Start, National School Lunch Program, medicine and medical research, climate change, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Planned Parenthood, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, foreign aid, farm subsidies, UN, World Bank, IMF
- Abolish: DOE, FHA, Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, Ginnie Mae, HUD, FTC, EPA, Education, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, DHS, TSA, NASA, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, EEO, HHS, DOL, NPR, FDA, Federal Reserve
- Close: Iraqi embassy, all foreign military bases,
- Repeal: Fair Housing Act, minimum wage, National Labor Relations Act, Patriot Act, gun regulations, trade restrictions, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, trade agreements, ADA, Affirmative Action, minority set-asides, public accommodations laws, Family and Medical Leave Act
Sadly, they are in all likelihood going to be quickly corrupted and not shrink the scope and scale of the federal government in any meaningful manner. In fact, they are probably going to increase it. I hope otherwise.
RonPaulRonPaulRonPaulRonPaul.
mbecker908 (Diary) Thursday, November 4th at 11:29PM EDT (link)In less than 25 words, “stuff it, you’re a loon”. With any luck at all you won’t survive to day four.
You think listing the Fed Reserve last was an attempt at stealth?
JSobieski (Diary) Friday, November 5th at 1:02AM EDT (link)nt
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
Nah, these twits are too stupid to be able to pull off stealth.
mbecker908 (Diary) Friday, November 5th at 9:45AM EDT (link)Frankly, I’m shocked he forgot the gold standard.
Not all who oppose the Fed are Ron Paul acolytes
johngiles Saturday, November 6th at 1:40PM EDT (link)You assume much. Anyone who supports ANY of the programs I listed is effectively betrayed as a big-government socialist who belongs with the Democrats. If snarkiness and support for the status quo is paramount as opposed to serious discussion of how to implement a conservative revolution that would put US finance back on track from its current bankrupt condition, you would find family at the Huffpost.
The US cannot compete with the world because our business community has to underwrite, or carry on its back, a huge regulatory apparatus. It serves little purpose except to feed the monster and it all needs to be shut down. Those who adore “fair trade” arguments by the Huckleberry Hound and others are nuts because tariffs on foreign goods and services would merely increase consumer prices due to production shortages. Politicians should be radically eliminating taxes and shutting down crap regulatory agencies. This is the only way to stop the capital and jobs hemorrhaging.
The GOP will now, post-elections, instead doubtless start quibbling with Obama over a 5% difference in corporate tax rate with no real intention to reduce the scope and scale of government. Their “plan” will merely shift some of the burden from corporations to consumers and the Federal Reserve will simply monetize the additional debt needed to fund that shortfall in government “revenue.” This is crap. A true tax cut means a radical reduction in the government budget.
The deficits will not go away. They will get worse with demographic trends (absent a sea of brown) for the next 20 years as the population ages. So what do all of you rocket scientist posters want to do?
Our political reps should be advocating a 25% reduction across the board in all government salaries, retirement benefits and social welfare programs and then they should proceed to shut down all of these crap agencies and programs. They need to kick their employees to the curb and tell them to find some real work in the private sector. They need to get rid of TARP and they need to stop subsidizing every corporation under the sun including the energy giant welfare queens. What’s their biggest subsidy? C’mon, you rocket scientists, figure it out.
Boehner should introduce legislation to sell every bit of federal land and property worldwide and use the proceeds to reduce taxes. Sell Yellowstone. Let some business make a buck out of it. Get rid of Gettysburg and let developers build houses there. Sell the White House and the Capital building. They would make good commercial office space and our wretched parasitical politicians can be placed in some Class C office space in Salina, Kansas where they belong.
If these things are done, taxes can basically disappear. The result would be a massive expansion in job growth and economic activity in the US. The other result would be that the social and corporate welfare recipients would all have to get a real job and stop stealing from everyone else.
You can keep focusing on electing ANY Republican if you like. I will continue to vote only for Republicans who will walk the walk and there are few of them. If the GOP doesn’t experience pain again in 2012 from the Tea Party, it will trample over the grass roots clear message from 2010. I can walk to the Liberty Bell and touch what used to be a symbol of something real. If you want to read opposition to central financial planning as support for Ron Paul, fine but lay in your Marxist bed after you make it. There’s a reason why a central bank is one of the Communist Manifesto’s planks.
Even Ron Paul didn't campaign on the immediate abolishment of the Fed
JSobieski (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 2:07PM EDT (link)and I am not aware of ANY other candidate who campaigned on a platform that called for the abolishment of the Fed.
Some candidates did campaign on entitlement reform. I think Paul Ryan’s roadmap should get more attention than it does.
How much relationship does your list of tasks have to do with the reality of what candidates campaigned on? To say that what was campaigned on is only quiblling with 5% of what the Dems did is to look at the situation from 10,000 light years view, where the earth isn’t even a single pixel on the screen.
The goal is actually to achieve things here on earth. Getting the Fed to stop reckless quantitative easing needs to be on the agenda. Giving the Fed less discretion is up for debate. Contemplating alternatives to the Fed is not out of the question. However, immediate abolishment of the Fed is not contemplated by anyoe in the real world nor people who are not fully in the real world (i.e. Ron Paul).
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
RTP
johngiles Saturday, November 6th at 5:33PM EDT (link)I did not stipulate immediate dissolution of the Fed. In any event, it was merely one of many suggestions for rolling back the monolith that the federal government has become. It’s just another crap agency of incompetents that doesn’t bring anything to the taxpayer’s table.
I did not indicate that what the GOP campaigned on ‘is only quiblling (sic) with 5% of what the Dems did.’ I wrote that the GOP would commence quibbling over a 5% difference in corporate tax rate. Think bread and circus. This is a second instance of poor reading comprehension.
The Republican grass roots somehow managed to allow the GOP to essentially become a socialist club. Thank God for the Tea Party. Advocating baby steps is not for me. That gets people like Arlen Specter elected. Call a spade a spade, vote out garbage, ammo up.
Mbecker is the fool. Here are the ten planks of Marx’s Communist Manifesto:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
My home is probably about five to six times larger than yours (33 rooms, 10 fireplaces, elevator, 3 staircases…) with room for a well supplied shelter / safe room. So I have that hole taken care of already.
Don't know how the size of your house is in any way relevant, but . . .
JSobieski (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 6:12PM EDT (link)your comment was “Some of the things the freshmen should insist on include the following”
“insist on” is the minimum list, not the maximum list. When someone insists on something, they are saying that X has to happen or else.
Sounds like what you are putting forth are some goals to shoot for.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
Guess he thought we would care
PowerToThePeople (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 7:53PM EDT (link)about the claims about the size of his house. I would tend to believe that his claims are along the same lines of those who claim to be the largest in the underwear which usually turns out to be a vast overstatement.
The house
johngiles Saturday, November 6th at 11:40PM EDT (link)A four-story circa 1905 Georgian Revival in the heart of Pennsylvania’s wealthiest zip code, its footprint is 43′ x 53′. You can do the math, but its area by exterior dimensions, for insurance purposes, is 10,600 s.f. We have hosted parties of over 75 people on our main floor. How’s your Kleenex box? Did you spend your money or put it to work?
And again
PowerToThePeople (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 1:25AM EDT (link)no one gives a flying rats ass about your claims. Do you really think we are impressed with your internet claims, real or otherwise? I am content with what I have whether it be little or a lot, and the difference between you and the rest of us is that we do not come on to a website claiming things that are not relevant to the conversation and unprovable. We do not need to claim things to feel the part of a big person. If making these claims is what you need to feel important, have at it, as for the rest of us we will stick to topics that actually matter.
And by the way, you presumptuous numbnut, there are many on here who are quite wealthy and many who are not. We just have enough class to leave irrelevant conversation topic out of the site and do not need to inflate our own egos at the “expense” of others. We have all been around the web long enough that we have seen idiots like you who always have more than everyone else. We have also seen the idiots like you who make outlandish claims knowing it can never be proven or disputed. So it boils down to again, no one cares one way or the other, except you which is telling in itself!
But by all means “rich man”, carry on!
LOL Next thing you are going to brag about your high school football days
JSobieski (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 1:35AM EDT (link)or how many gorgeous sorority girls you dated in college.
Maybe make some pronouncement like “My dad can beat up your dad?”
Seriously, do you realize how pathetic you come across?
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
Very nice J
PowerToThePeople (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 2:15PM EDT (link)I figured I would come back, if he persisted in the size comparison, with things along the line of your post.
I figured I would claim to be on Forbes top 100,
My house has 12 garages, 11 butlers, 10 maitre d’s, 9 twisting staircases, 8 rolling waterfalls, 7 concubines, 6 massive levels, 5 glass elevators, 4 hot models, 3 tons of gold, 2 guard dogs, and a freaking partridge in a pear tree.
And that my dad could beat up his dad………..
No no no!! they cannot take our concubines
cactusjack Sunday, November 7th at 8:49PM EDT (link)That’s protected by law, I’m sure it’s in the Constitution somewhere* in there, and my Delaware lawyer can prove it to you all.
*right next to clause that says church and state must be separate.
OMG johngiles- Who are you trying to impress?
Scope (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 6:51PM EDT (link)I live “on” the James Madison Montpelier estate, no lie. The house I live in is probably about 1200 sq. ft., what I’m sure you would consider a “tissue box.” The estate is comprised of approximately 18,000 acres. I don’t have to have a curtain or blind on any window if I don’t want to. I’m not worried about the horses, in the fields surrounding 3 sides of my house, peeking into my windows. I can open every window in my house, and know that there is not the first person hearing my telephone conversations. I don’t have to worry about robberies and home invasions, because most people don’t even know my house is here. I can grow acres of fresh vegetables, on the property where I live, and, I usually have enough of an abundance to share with many, that is after my freezer is full. I can, and do, attend many events here at the original James Madison estate, which promote the Constitution of the United States. Yup, there are reenactment events that are authentic, and exciting. In other words, I don’t live on a postage stamp property, 43 by 53 is a postage stamp property by any stretch., which can only have square footage by going up rather than out. I bet you don’t have but feet separating your property from the next. I bet you can’t walk outside of your house, and find the first private area, on your property, where you can pee without being arrested for exposing yourself in public. You think you are rich because you have tall square footage. That’s a joke. You are a joke. You can take your property boundary lines and shove them. You cry about freedom, yet you live in the heart of the worst social experiments, and then rail against the Republicans in Government, because they won’t free you to live in your utopian society. Shouldn’t you be railing against Rendell, and the overwhelming Democratic rules that have brought Pennsylvania into the Government of Tyranny? For you, in Pennsylvania, to be arguing that the Republicans won’t do anything, before some have any chance to do anything, is ludicrous and telling. You are a nutjob that doesn’t have a clue. I’ll bet that you didn’t vote in this election, because no one met your sick standards.
Scope, I can pee off my porch too.
RoguePolitics (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 7:29PM EDT (link)Feels great don’t it?
“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell
“Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what’s going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?” Will Rogers
When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object. Patrick Henry
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com
Because the Republican Party is NOT going to fix the Republican Party.
http://americanamendment.com/
Because Washington is NOT going to fix Washington.
RoguePolitics- Let me tell you
Scope (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 9:08PM EDT (link)my husband would agree with you 1000%. He’s peed in more than one spot or two, and no one even has a clue. He hasn’t yet made yellow snow that I am aware of.
Still my 100 to you 18,000
RoguePolitics (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 9:27PM EDT (link)I’ve got acreage envy.
“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell
“Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what’s going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?” Will Rogers
When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object. Patrick Henry
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com
Because the Republican Party is NOT going to fix the Republican Party.
http://americanamendment.com/
Because Washington is NOT going to fix Washington.
No no RoguePolitics
Scope (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 9:39PM EDT (link)We don’t own the 18,000 acres, we just get to enjoy every inch of it. Guess what, we don’t have to cut the grass, expect for the few acres that surround us. Montpelier is responsible for the rest.
I understand. Still an awesome opportunity. nt
RoguePolitics (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 1:07AM EDT (link)“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell
“Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what’s going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?” Will Rogers
When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object. Patrick Henry
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com
Because the Republican Party is NOT going to fix the Republican Party.
http://americanamendment.com/
Because Washington is NOT going to fix Washington.
Would love to see your property
PowerToThePeople (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 8:05PM EDT (link)the acres that I have are more than I can handle. I bought my home many years ago, was able to pay it off a few years ago, and was then able to purchase an additional 15 acres from the neighbor two years ago. I love it till it is time to fire up that tractor and mow. During mowing season, I know a full day is shot taking care of the grass. But like I said earlier, what I have,whether it be little or be a lot, I am content and my needs are met. I am not impressed by his claims nor am I jealous. My wife and kids are my greatest richness and nothing he has or lies about having even compares. Not too mention my home is paid for which means I can not lose it.
But back to the above guy, he has issues. We have all seen the jokers on blogs who state they have more than everyone. If one person says they have 3 guns, the next says he has 10. Halfway through someone has a tank, 2 atomic bombs, and a gun manufacturing company. The idiot above just stated some random comment about the size of his house all while telling MBecker his house was 5-6 times as small. The most likely reality is that he lives much more modest, but has some personal issues that need filled by hoping people on a website are impressed with his claims. What he does not know is there are some on here who are actually quite wealthy, I know one of them. And knowing how much they actually do have, it is a safe bet his bank account, house, and ego would be shot to hell in comparison.
I have learned long ago that when people make a point on the internet to tell others about “how much they have,” the truth is they actually have very little. I use to have a friend who acted like that. He worked as an assistant manager of a Burger King, grew up with some money, and for whatever reason felt the need to always BS everyone about how much he owned or how much his parents had. He made claims such as having a private plane, bragged about the “size” of his parents home and his his home, talked about how much money he and his parents had until the day he was caught in his lies. His parents came into the joint to see him and the co-workers asked them about his claims.Needless to say he was outed as a liar.
Whether or not this joker has a house or even the house he describes is beside the point. There was no reason to raise the issue of the house. he is stating something that can not be disputed or disproved and he knows it, and most importantly, no one cares. Had we cared what he lived in, we would have asked. But his arrogant comments prove a few things and they are:
He needs his ego stroked which shows he needs help or needs companionship very badly.
If he does have what he says, he would make one crappy neighbor as he is an elitist. He, imaginary or not, looks down on others who do not have “what he has.” But the problem with this, is he does not know what people have since most of us do not share that info. Even if he has what he claims, there are richer people on here. Going on his attitude, he is trash compared to them.
He is a looser, period. A person who needs to trump themselves up on the secret internet has some real mental issues.
So it boils down to this old saying: “He who constantly claims the biggest member, usually comes up quite lacking in bed!” His claims are nothing more than that……
powertothepeople- Just protect your concubines
Scope (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 8:41PM EDT (link)LOL. Those 75 people that he has for parties, just on the first floor, are probably his concubines. When you really have nothing in the package, I’ll stop there.
powertothepeople, you couldn’t believe how free, and undiluted I live. Then again, yes you do. Ain’t acreage around you the most beautiful thing.
exactly, and conservatives should make clear that
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 5:55PM EDT (link)our vision of smaller government will allow for transition time.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
GC That's what really went wrong up here
AKSteveB (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 10:05PM EDT (link)There is just such a huge fear of change. I hope sometime in the next year or two, a serious plan for that transition is developed. Someone like Mike Pence oughta lead that effort.
Hell is other people – Sartre
Tell ya what johngiles...
mbecker908 (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 2:19PM EDT (link)You can rail on about “Marxism” – a concept which from this post you pretty obviously know nothing about – and I’ll be comfy in my bed.
You, on the other hand, will be sleeping in a hole in the ground quaking in fear from terrorist attacks after implementing your version of a foreign policy, which incidentally, we tried in 1932.
You are an ignorant fool, on your best days.
Supporting the *Food & Drug Administration* makes you a Commie?
Moe Lane (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 6:59PM EDT (link)Shoo.
The Kim Kardashian of blogging.
Check out my blog at http://moelane.com/.
http://moelane.com/filthy-lucre-filthy-lucre/
http://twitter.com/moelane
My (combined) wish list.
I never thought it was possible to find anyone worse than Ron Paul
Scope (Diary) Friday, November 5th at 7:42AM EDT (link)but he just showed up here at RS. This guy needs to be on the terrorist watch list.
With four or five exceptions
tcgeol (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 6:12PM EDT (link)his list wasn’t too bad. The wars and military spending were the worst suggestions. I’m not a fan of the fed and never have been, although its true that we can’t get rid of it in one fell swoop.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
tcgeol- Are you serious?
Scope (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 7:36PM EDT (link)with the exception of 4-5 items, his list wasn’t bad? Really? Unicorns don’t really exist, except in fantasy tcgeol.
Point out what you disagree with and can be substantiated Constitutionally
tcgeol (Diary) Saturday, November 6th at 11:27PM EDT (link)There are some problems with his list. The wars in the Middle East, closing foreign bases, and a couple other things we can’t do at this point.
I would like to know your disagreements with most of the domestic policy here, though. Most of the items listed – again, not all – are expressly unconstitutional.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
Ah, the magic word
johngiles Saturday, November 6th at 11:47PM EDT (link)Somebody mentions the Constitution at last. How extraordinary. Most Republicans really don’t give a whit about rule of law. Tcgeol, some guns and His grace will be just fine for me too.
Come on tcgeol
PowerToThePeople (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 4:23PM EDT (link)common sense is a good thing.
If you want to abate your argument with the constitution call, have at it. The reality is not whether or not it is stated in the constitution as being OK, but does it break the law of the constitution. For example:
His call for the closing of foreign bases. I am pretty sure there is nothing in the constitution that calls for foreign bases, but the reality is that they are needed and do not give the federal government more power than the constitution calls for. While I would agree there may be more than needed, the fact is having bases around the world strengthen us. They allow us to have a presence close to about every country which would and does allow us to mount a force quickly if needed and it gives us friends we need. So closing them is ludicrous and dangerous and would have nothing to do with the constitutional right of the feds. In fact I would go as far as saying it is well within the rights of the feds as their job constitutionally is to keep this country safe and keep a strong military.
Then he lists viable things that need to be shut down in the same line of things that do not need to be closed down. For example:
He states that bailouts, war on drugs, medicare and medicaid need to be shut down. Most on here would agree with bailouts which in fact was one of our big calls in the last election. But the war on drugs is something that should and will stay in affect. Lets get real, outside of Ron Paul nuts, does any real person with a lick of common sense want our borders opened up to free drug trade. Do we want out kids to be constantly influenced by all drugs which would be legal under his plan? Everyone could state honestly that the drug war has had elements of corruption and mismanagement, but no one with any honesty would call for it to be ended. Nor would anyone claim it is not the job of the feds to engage in stopping drug trade. It would fall under the constitutional requirement of the feds to keep this country safe. All of a sudden ending the drug war would not stop drug use, would not stop the crimes associated with drugs and the drug trade, and in fact, would cause most of your drug kingpins to invade as no one would be there to stop them or attempt to stop them. As far the medicaid and medicare part, most would agree it needs to be fixed or ended.
Not going to go through the whole list, but it does not take a scientist to see much of it is common sense and just as much is a dumb as it gets. The FDA may have its issues, but it also gives a major amount of protection to consumers. If it is ended, what do we substitute in place of it in order to keep dangerous elements out of our homes via food and drugs.
The guy is a nut modeled in the image of Ron Paul. He is not asking for the end to abusive or illegal/unconstitutional departments only, he wants a complete shut down of most of the fed government. He is an idiot who posts outlandish ideas and outlandish claims. And he should be ignored as he is a wacko, period.
No, the real question is - does the Constitution specifically allow the federal government to do something?
tcgeol (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 5:22PM EDT (link)Otherwise, it doesn’t matter whether that “something” is a good idea or not. Read the 10th Amendment.
If you read my post, you’ll notice that I agree with you on closing military bases. Otherwise, your arguments just say that if a program is good, we have to support it. Common sense it great, but it has to go along with the Constitution, otherwise we aren’t different in pragmatism than the left.
A number of conservatives do agree with the WoD, but if they do, it must be from a pragmatic viewpoint, not from the Constitution. There is no Constitutional justification whatsoever for the war on drugs. If nothing else, the 9th and 10th Amendments would prevent it from being constitutional. There is no Constitutional justification for the FDA either, although they actually serve a legitimate purpose. Most of the federal government should be shut down and, if you value the Constitution, you should agree as well.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
The Constitution says that a super-majority that exists over a relatively short period of time can amend the Constitution
JSobieski (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 5:47PM EDT (link)Even Coburn and DeMint would be in favor of formal amendment to the Constitution to ratify what has been to date a de factor amendment to the Constitution.
I also believe that both the FDA and SS have been formally held as constitutional by the US Supreme Court.
There is a reason why no actual politician in DC (besides maybe Ron Paul) is going to approach these issues in this way.
If you force the people of the US to formalize certain policies as being constitutional, they will do so. Then, what you have accomplished?
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
I'm not clear on your overall point
tcgeol (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 5:55PM EDT (link)Are you saying that we have to accept unconstitutional items just because they are here? That doesn’t make sense to me at all. I don’t believe that you mean that, so can you explain what our actions and attitudes toward unconstitutional items should be?
I believe that you are correct in that the SC has held the FDA, SS, and a number of other things constitutional. That means exactly nothing to us, except that we may have to fight it differently.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
I'm saying that SS is de facto Constitutional
JSobieski (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 5:59PM EDT (link)and if you want to spend your time fighting that, go ahead, I am going to spend my time actually trying to do things that are capable of being accomplished, like repealing Obamacare and preventing tax increases.
Unicorn hunting may be fun, but it doesn’t put food on the table.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
Ok, thanks, but that doesn't really answer my question
tcgeol (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 6:17PM EDT (link)If it doesn’t really matter that certain programs, departments, etc are unconstitutional (I know that isn’t really what you mean, but it is what you said), then what do we do and how do we go about dealing with constitutional matters? Seriously, I trust your conservative instincts, but refusing to fight unconstitutional issues seems like a bad idea to me.
The situation isn’t an either/or in relation to fighting obamacare and tax increases, it is a both/and over time. We fight obamacare first, and then go after something else.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
You are missing the point
PowerToThePeople (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 6:33PM EDT (link)so let me switch topics for a sec.
No where in the bible is the word Abortion used. It was an unknown procedure during that time. So why are Christians so up in arms about it? Easy! The Bible was written in a way that defined many things that were yet to exist such as abortion. Not going to list verses as this is not church, but there are verses in the Bible that clearly state God gives life, he knows the child in the womb even before they were born or created, how precious life is to God, etc etc etc. The Bible does not mention abortion itself, but gives more than enough to say safely God finds abortion to be murder.
Same goes with the constitution. The FDA was not even a thought in anyone’s mind back then, but the safety of the people was. If you want to get legalistic and state the powers that be can not do anything that is not directly mentioned in the constitution, then we are in real trouble. Lets remove all concrete from the roads as putting concrete on the roads in never mentioned.But what is mentioned is that maintaining roads is a fed job.
The two of us agree with some of what was on the original list. Where we disagree is that many are not constitutional. I would also disagree with agreeing with the idiot who started this post as it is very obvious that he cares little about what is constitutional, only that the whole fed government is toppled. From your posts, does not seem you would agree with that. But for the sake of our cause, we need to be careful we do not agree, or act in a complacent manner with idiots like the guy above justifying our agreement with a weak argument such as the agencies are not listed in the constitution. We need to be able to see where the agency is an extension of the fed mandate defined in the constitution or if it is actually an unconstitutional over reach by the same. There is a difference.
Bad argument
aesthete (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 8:04PM EDT (link)Read the Federalist Papers: the Constitution entrusted a set of specific, enumerated powers to the federal government, and no more. If the people want to add a power, they can amend the Constitution. There are some programs and acts which are obvious extensions of these powers (establishing the Air Force as an independent service, for example, was an obvious extension of The safety of the people, however, was and is not an explicit or implied power of the federal government, and is a right reserved by the people or the states, respectively (the general welfare clause doesn’t count; see The Federalist no. 41). “Common sense” is ever the refuge of the statist scoundrel, as those insisting on it are simply saying that the Founders were too stupid or parochial to see the wisdom of some utopian scheme or another. Moreover, they are saying that their ideas are not sufficiently popular to be implemented through amendment. Were the Constitution truly meant to allow for “common sense”, the power of the federal government would be unlimited, and the only relevant portions of the Constitution would be those which outline the government’s structure. In the case of the War on Drugs, FDA, etc, there’s a reason that Prohibition supporters had to get the 18th Amendment passed to get traction on their issue federally. History and the debate surrounding the Constitution make it clear that it was meant to establish a limited federal government, while states and the people reserved all other powers. Arguing otherwise concedes the argument to the progressives vsv virtually all of their thought concerning the Constitution.
JSob is right about the practicality of our pols insisting on Constitutionality. However, saying that it is not pragmatic is not the same as saying that it is Constitutional, and we should maintain a separation between the two.
“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke
When school prayer in public schools was challenged and overturned
JSobieski (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 8:12PM EDT (link)one strong argument against finding such a practice unconstitutional was that the practice had existed for almost 200 years.
Same this is true with regards to the death penalty.
Well Social Security has been been implemented since FDR was alive. Its more than 60 years old and people have been paying into it ever since.
The chance that SS will go from what it is now to nothing is absolutely ZERO. The chance that SS could be reformed to more resemble what they have down in Chile is 10-15%, and it would make subsequent reforms easier.
Immediate repeal of SS is simply nonsense if this is what people are asking the upcoming Congress to do. Nobody in the upcoming Congress agrees with the conclusion that SS is unconstitutional, so this is just a college dorm room discussion with some skunked beer.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
Pragmatics are, again, the problem here
aesthete (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 8:34PM EDT (link)I agree with you that Paul Ryan’s plan, and others going along the privatization route, are much more relevant in a practical sense, and what we should be pursuing. I do, however, shy away from calling SS, Medicare, and the rest of the New Deal/Great Society Constitutional: for one thing, they are not. For another, it undermines our case on other issues: even if we cannot restore the ideal Constitutional government, it helps to understand what the values undergirding our republic are, and to have an ideal to work towards. In addition, it concedes the Constitutional argument to progressives, which is never a good idea. We simply cannot consistently argue that ObamaCare and Roe v Wade are un-Constitutional without also noting that the War on Drugs and SS/Medicaid/Medicare are also un-Constitutional, whatever one’s views on those programs are.
“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke
Not sure you are right about that Aesthete
JSobieski (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 9:22PM EDT (link)If making the statement that SS is unconstitutional essentially guts our ability to do anything about it, I would prefer taking the same actions that you and I would both agree with and leave that characterization out of it.
Angle said something about this topic once, backtracked thereafter, and lost.
Until at least 5 people in Congress are willing to say something to the effect that SS is unconstitutional, I don’t think our policy plans for the next 4 years should really be based on such a message.
Is DeMint now to soft for our side?
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
I don't need our pols to make this distinction
aesthete (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 9:29PM EDT (link)It is difficult enough to win elections without having ads about Republicans who want to starve grandma and have orphans begging in the streets. I absolutely need our pundits, activists and political philosophers to make this distinction, though. It repulsed me to hear supposedly “conservative” pundits like Hannity defending Medicare/Medicaid/SS, and that is something that we shouldn’t tolerate from them.
“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke
I think we are now in the realm of semantics
JSobieski (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 9:41PM EDT (link)Hannity would say that he wants to save those programs by reforming them. I think that is plenty fine language to use. Outside of think tanks, thats as far as it will go. Otherwise, our pundits and talking heads will become just as discredited as our politicians will be.
As much as you or I would love to have the world operate in more of a think tank like manner, it doesn’t. “SS is unconstitutional” is a death sentence unless the US government does actually default—-and by that point, we will essentially start over.
What I find tragic is that we are spending all of this time arguing about SS, and I would bet good money that as of 2014 there will not be any fewer cabinet positions, and that the NEA and NPR will still receive public funding,
Look, I do not want to dissuade people from chasing a dream. I share the dream myself, but I prioritize things that are possible (build successfull business, maybe write a screen play for a movie that gets made) vs. impossible (beat Michael Jordan 1 on 1).
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
Practically speaking, I agree
tcgeol (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 9:50PM EDT (link)The difference is that nothing prevents us from doing what we can in this congress and culture in 2010-2011 and still discussing constitutionality and philosophy for years down the road.
You are correct on the prioritization, but we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
Angle spent of time walking back the social security comment
JSobieski (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 9:54PM EDT (link)There are some things that will be used against R candidates in 2012. Saying SS is unconstitutional is one of them.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
But again
aesthete (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 10:07PM EDT (link)there is a difference between political candidates and the rightosphere in general. The latter is what I am targeting, and should be educating people on the issues of Roe v Wade, the lack of separation of church and state, the Constitutional framework etc. For crying out loud, right wing talk radio and TV is constantly called for inflammatory statements and the like: it’s their job to produce such statements. Would it be too much to ask for them to at least get dinged for saying something accurate, rather than having them go to the mattresses for something silly like “Barack the Magic Negro”?
“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke
Sure. I'm not against free speech .
JSobieski (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 10:22PM EDT (link)I do think that it would actually hurt the movement if Rush talked like this. With the new House composition, I guess i am focused more on what short term fights to pick.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
I said "we" should talk about it and come up with ideas
tcgeol (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 10:13PM EDT (link)not necessarily our elected officials at the moment. If we can’t even mention something about it at Redstate, we may as well give up.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
Well given the choice between focusing on what Congress should do in 2011
JSobieski (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 10:24PM EDT (link)and some desirous end goal for far into the distant future, I would vote for specific action steps in 2011.
Thats my vote, but obviously there has been vibrant discussion of this topic. Carry on!
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
If that is our only choice, I'll agree
tcgeol (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 10:58PM EDT (link)I’m a geologist, not a lawyer or politician. My involvement basically entails trying to keep up with politics and reading Redstate.
I can’t imagine that what I say has any effect whatsoever on current congressional action; but if there is some chance that I could hurt the cause of conservatism by considering the constitutionality of issues on Redstate, then by all means I’ll avoid it. That is the last thing that I want to do.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
Is the mission of RS to be some kind of academic debate society
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 2:00AM EDT (link)or is it to mobilize activists for political combat? No doubt, some of both. Its just that this topic is so far outside the political mainstream, that to me it just seems like bravado.
I mean, does someone want to make a bet that SS is touched in any way by 2012? I think the prospects are low, and I am merely talking about means testing and retirement age.
Bush wanted 5% option for private accounts, and a bill never made it to the floor of either house. Now we have all of the chest thumping about how its unconstitutional.
I hope you succeed, but I think the conversation is pure fanstasy for the foreesable future.
Seems to me that reforming SS, voucherising Medicare, and cutting some spending are pretty ambitious goals–at some point it just becomes fantasy.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
Difference is that prayer was happening in public schools BEFORE the constitution was conceived
RoguePolitics (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 8:43PM EDT (link)And the founders of the constitution like Jefferson used federal money to buy bibles. (Yes the wall of separation Jefferson)
In other words, at the time the constitution was ratified there was no wall like we have now. In fact, since states had state sponsored religion for some time after ratification, it is clear they never intended for the constitution to restrict this.
Social Security on the other hand was implemented by a president who deliberately acted in a threatening manner toward SC (Court Packing) so as to extort favorable decisions out of them.
Stare decisis is supposed to create a stable legal framework and thereby facilitate a more stable society.
When legal precedent is clearly and even boldly wrong, as in Dred Scott or Wickard or Kelo or Roe, no SC justice should feel bound by them.
“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell
“Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what’s going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?” Will Rogers
When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object. Patrick Henry
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com
Because the Republican Party is NOT going to fix the Republican Party.
http://americanamendment.com/
Because Washington is NOT going to fix Washington.
And the declaration that SS is unconstitutional would be happening AFTER the program was in effect for 60 years
JSobieski (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 9:27PM EDT (link)There was no societal reliance in those other cases that you site.
Specific individuals have paid taxes over decades in exchange for certain promises. This is different than Kelo, Roe, Wickard, or Dred Scott. None of the cases you cite involve the almost contractual nature of the relationship between social security and the US population.
When DeMint starts saying SS is unconstitutional, I will revisit this issue. However, NOBODY in elected office is willing to say anything close to this, so all of this talk on SS is just a bunch of college kids talking in a dorm about some theoretical world.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
I will give you that it cannot be "ended" instantly.
RoguePolitics (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 9:35PM EDT (link)Because of the contractual nature you cite. But that is not the same as saying it needs go on forever in it’s current form. First we honor the commitment made and then end it.
We need to figure out how to end it properly. It is unconstitutional.
Even given the contractual nature you speak of in no way justifies requiring me to participate and thereby perpetuate the “contractual” nature into the next generation.
“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell
“Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what’s going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?” Will Rogers
When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object. Patrick Henry
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com
Because the Republican Party is NOT going to fix the Republican Party.
http://americanamendment.com/
Because Washington is NOT going to fix Washington.
Never said the "current form" was something I supported or didn't want changed
JSobieski (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 9:45PM EDT (link)16 year olds are already paying in to the system.
Many people live into their 80s and 90s.
SS would need to be unravelled over decades.
I am for reforming SS, big time. I am merely concerned that all of this “unconstitutional” and “end it” talk will cripple any ability to actually do something about it.
I have extreme free market goals, but I acknowledge that improvements are accomplished in an incremental manner.
Its one of the reasons why I am focused on passing certain things in 2011 regarding health care.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
How we deal with this self-imposed constitutional justification rule for bills could have far-reaching effects on many things and not just
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 10:04PM EDT (link)the legitimate risk of alienating seniors if not done well. There are great dangers from taking your least resistant path as well. It reminds me of the paths the GOP has too often taken with such things as “compassionate” conservatism. of late and how the GOP in the 50s went along with expansions of Soc Sec.
Words matter, and a main tenet of conservatism is following the rule of law, ie the Constitution. Once one waives the constitutional argument for over half the budget, once may as well just be a liberal and argue over whether a particular thing is a good or bad idea, forever giving up the constitutional barriers to big liberty-killing government.
I think your response to the soon-to-be-new rule would be ill advised for the House to take. It takes a tea party inspired rule and emasculates it immediately. It would simply be the latest establishment sell-out with a tea taste.
I think that such obfuscation and double-speak is anathema to the tea partier movement that is tired of dismissive DC talk to get us to shut up.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
You're right GC tough as hell question
RoguePolitics (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 1:05AM EDT (link)I wish I had a great line for it.
If it were me I would probably hit it head-on and take my electoral beating.
That doesn’t accomplish anything either.
We often think of tact or diplomacy in foreign policy terms because they avert war or facilitate trade. It is something statesmen use to accomplish good ends presumably.
The reality today is most diplomacy probably does us more harm than good. It has become a way to lie to your counterpart’s face about your intentions. Statemens don’t do that.
I only throw that in to the mix because if ever there were a time for a statesmen to tactfully and diplomatically explain something, that time is now and it is not on the external front. It is right here, explaining to Americans that the party is over. The borrowing is over. It is time to get back to the business, back to work.
And he has to make them like it.
“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell
“Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what’s going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?” Will Rogers
When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object. Patrick Henry
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com
Because the Republican Party is NOT going to fix the Republican Party.
http://americanamendment.com/
Because Washington is NOT going to fix Washington.
Who in the tea party movement was pushing for an end to social security on the basis of an unconstitutionality determination?
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 1:52AM EDT (link)People want to see this stuff fixed. If they see reform, and reform says “commerce clause” I don’t think the tea party is going to care. Many people say phrases like “constitutionally limited government” while meaning “limited government” and looking for any rationale in support of that outcome.
I don’t think anyone will say you can’t fix SS because SS is unconstitututional. That logic locks in the constitutional violation at its worst and prohibits walking it back in any way.
Bottom Line is that some times legislative action (not talking about Supreme Court Justices making up stuff out of thin air) is de facto an amendment to the Constitution if people acquiesce to it for decades.
If pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to permit SS is a good way to publicize the issue, avoid hypocrisy, and push reform I am all for it. However, I suspect it isn’t and that addressing the issue this way is just political suicide.
Reagan was a big part of a SS reform in his term. The idea that SS was unconstitutional at the time was never anything that he ever expressed in public or private.
Bottom Line: Distinguish stare decisis in a Supreme Court ruling vs. stare decisis in American citizens acquiescing to a program that has been implemented for over 6 decades.
It is contary to the principle of self government that men in black robes would declare SS to be unconstitutional at this point. So why would it be ok for legislators to find it unconstitutional?
Stare decisis when a legislative act signed into law by the President and is supported by a super majority over a time period of decades is not something that I would tinker with.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
They all wish to reform except one or two (incl Joe Miller who did state it and UC are unconstitutional), as I recall - But one can
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 12:07PM EDT (link)be for BOTH, as I have outlined in several places in this thread.
It may be that we will have to agree to disagree on the proper execution of the new House Rule.
But I’m still thinking…smile
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Big difference between "reform" and "its unconstitutional"
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 12:58PM EDT (link)I want to reform SS, but as of now, the number of elected officials in suypport of the proposition that SS is onconstitutional is 0.
Angle lost, and she walked it back.
You say Miller said “UC” but he hasn’t won yet either and we don’t currently have a link on that (maybe your recollection is what some MSM smear of Miller’s position and not actually Miller’s position?).
Reagan spoke more about the constitution than any other modern president. He never challenged the Constitutionality of SS either, even after 1984 or 1988.
We will have to agree to disagree, which is fine. Disagreements just sharpen the mine and make the search for agreement for interesting.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
links re tea partier views on constitutionality of Soc Sec etc
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 12:17PM EDT (link)http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/top-six-established-laws-that.php
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/joe-miller-social-security-and-medicare-are-
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/joe-miller-social-security-and-medicare-are-
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Again not instantly but definitely
RoguePolitics (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 12:55AM EDT (link)The conversation needs to be opened. Forget about teenagers paid in; it will not be there for them whether we responsibly end it or let it crash down of its own weight.
We can now dicker over how to approach it but in the end the argument is specious. Social Security is deadman walking. I am 41 and know that I will never collect a penny.
Our debt dictates Social Security will be ended. The only question left addresses how it ends. With a gradual cut in benefits accomplished by means testing and a rise in the retirement age or in an apocalyptic crash that literally leaves grandma starving or freezing to death.
The numbers don’t add up, there is no trust fund, and there is no money beyond current federal revenue. Revenue is slightly over $2 Trillion, the interest on the debt will hit in excess of $1 Trillion with the first major interest rate increase.
The current FED plan to inflate our way out of this mess, while it does hold rates low now, will cause them to skyrocket as the inflation takes hold.
As interest eats up a larger amount of actual revenue, greater borrowing, or printing as the FED has now implemented, feeds the cycle. A devalued dollar soon means corresponding increases in spending just to maintain status quo. (Reagan once said “status quo” is Latin for “the mess we are in.”)
Mainstream economists are now saying the current FED print run will cause a 20% devaluation of the dollar. I think it will be more. If 20% is the number, our $4 Trillion budget becomes $5 Trillion.
The economy isn’t going to be affected by this spending in a positive way according to Volcker on Drudge a day or two ago I think. I agree. This means at best marginal increases in revenue. Maybe we collect $2.5 Trillion but will then be spending $4.5 to $5 Trillion. Now borrow $2 Trillion instead of $1 Trillion per year. And so on, until Visa cuts you off.
Think of it like you are a loan officer at a bank. One guy comes in wanting a debt consolidation but has no plan to stop spending well beyond his means and another comes in sobered by his circumstances and with a realistic plan on how he will pay you back. Who do you loan to? Who gets the best interest rates?
Right now, we have no plan that brings our budget back into balance, ever.
But we can become the guy with a plan. It starts with talking about how we end entitlement spending and making heavy cuts in everything else. We have to start the conversation. Maybe we can’t sell it. Not trying is just giving up.
Social Security is still dead. Medicare is still dead. Welfare by whatever name is still dead.
We don’t have the wealth to pay for it and FED money printing doesn’t magically create wealth. It just redistributes wealth from the creators to the favored until the creators find a better way to hide it.
“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell
“Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what’s going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?” Will Rogers
When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object. Patrick Henry
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com
Because the Republican Party is NOT going to fix the Republican Party.
http://americanamendment.com/
Because Washington is NOT going to fix Washington.
Your arguments support fixing it, not stopping it in its tracks
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 2:05AM EDT (link)If SS is unconstitutional, it has to be stopped immediately. Otherwise, you are allowing an ongoing violation of the Constitution.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
It may seem I would suggest fixing it.
RoguePolitics (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 10:21AM EDT (link)I don’t, except as part of ending it.
It isn’t that I wouldn’t support something of a safety net; never at the federal level.
It obviously cannot be ended abruptly because that would leave grandma and grandpa to starve; it is going to end abruptly if we don’t provide for a smooth transition and a graceful end.
I think SS creates dependency the same as welfare. Either program could be done locally, mostly successfully and generally were done that way before FDR. With DC doing it will fail. Not just fiscally, as it currently is, but also by creating an attitude of dependency and worse entitlement.
I am sure in every Ponzi scheme in history there have been those who refused to believe it was just a scam. Madoff probably had defenders well after his scam was exposed. So does Social Security. That’s you. Like ObamaCare merely needing “tweaks” you don’t like the current “form” of SS.
I said when ObamaCare passed it wouldn’t be more than 10 or 20 years before some “conservatives” considered it as sacrosanct as SS. At that time we won’t be able to end it because so many will have come to rely on it. It will be grandfathered in as you say.
SS is a scam. It was meant to do just what it does, create a class of insecure voters who can be scared into supporting the party that created it. Same with ObamaCare.
You keep playing the leftist game of “If its unconstitutional, it has to end today.” Or else we have to leave it in place. No in between. Sorry, there is an in between.
And the in between is the only viable option.
First we call it like it is; then we figure out how to end it as rapidly as possible without throwing grandma in the street. At the least that means allowing anybody, of any age, to opt out.
Second get the federal government out of it. They screw up virtually everything they touch. Monopolies are like that. Let the states take it over and manage it.
Third, eliminate the distinction between payroll tax and income tax so that in the future there is no sense of entitlement. There is no trust fund and pretending that FICA has gone anywhere other than straight to the general fund is a case of self-deceit. Keep IRA contributions deductible until we are able to eliminate the income tax altogether.
The money Madoff had left, when he was caught, was distributed to the victims according to some formula based on how much you had lost, how much you had taken out, perhaps according to need and other factors. The primary overarching determinate being how much was left to distribute. This is how you unwind a fraudulent scheme.
SS is a fraudulent scheme. First prevent new victims and then do your best to take care of the existing victims. You are advocating robbing new victims to service the old victims.
Whether you like it or not I win this argument in the end. Social Security is broke, Medicare is broke, the US Government is broke, half the states are broke. I win because it is all coming to an end whatever we argue or decide here.
I win because even if we had the money, no matter what tweaks you make to the system; corruption and vote buying will always bring it right back here.
“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell
“Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what’s going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?” Will Rogers
When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object. Patrick Henry
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com
Because the Republican Party is NOT going to fix the Republican Party.
http://americanamendment.com/
Because Washington is NOT going to fix Washington.
SS can be ended with all deliberate speed and grandfathering in those that are significantly vested
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 12:01PM EDT (link)It could even be part of the new amendment, and btw ‘ski, it isn;t just courts that can fashion remedies that deal with the reality of constitutional reinterpretations. All branches take the Oath.
Obviously, if two branches agree, we can do whatever we like. You wish to ignore the obvious unconstitutionality and accept the bad precedents rather than deal with the new rule in an honest tea partier way with a caveat that you feel compelled to do so because of a metaphysical (?) unwritten rule that all unconstitutional violations must end instantaneously with such a declaration. No such rule exists. We simply must explain ourselves.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
5555 nt
RoguePolitics (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 12:25PM EDT (link)“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell
“Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what’s going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?” Will Rogers
When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object. Patrick Henry
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com
Because the Republican Party is NOT going to fix the Republican Party.
http://americanamendment.com/
Because Washington is NOT going to fix Washington.
If its unconstitutional, it has to end today
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 2:02AM EDT (link)Just as there is no exception for fixing unconstitutional statutes, there is no exception for winding down unconstitutional statutes.
Once something crosses that line—its dead in its tracks.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
I don't agree with that draconian response. Even with Brown v Board, the enforcement was with "all deliberate speed" and not "end today" - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 11:53AM EDT (link)Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Fair enough, but all deliberate speed can't mean a century either
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 9:56PM EDT (link)If it means a year, its the same as cutting it off now.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
People did rely on Plessey for nearly 60 years but in different ways but the reason this is more than college dorm talk is that the House
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 9:58PM EDT (link)is adopting this rule for the first time, and to simply endorse a flippant commerce clause justification without fanfare is to risk a major loss in our conservative arsenal. We need for the House to seriously address the issue, which would include the detrimental reliance argument for not ending it.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Reliance on Plessey is indistiguishable from relying on something be legal, and then no longer being legal
JSobieski (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 10:19PM EDT (link)A drug dealer has no reliance argument to make when the drug that they sell becomes illegal. Lots of businesses get banned or de factor banned through going-forward legal/regulator changes. Those changes are really going forward changes–they didn’t undue anything in the past. That kind of reliance is not actionable with respect to government action.
Contract rules change all the time.
Patent rules at the USPTO change.
Reliance doesn’t apply to simply legal changes on a going forward basis.
Declaring SS as unconstitutional is undoing billions of dollars in taxation and past money transfers.
The House is unlikely to even have the cuts to touch SS in the next two years, but if they do, the phrase will be “commerce clause” and nobody will say anything about it.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
Yes, unless one admits SS is obviously unconstitutional and at once agrees and assures seniors that
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 11:51AM EDT (link)we will not end the program until a new, constitutional substitute is in place and that we will honor the commitment for those over a certain age based upon Common Law detrimental reliance and/or stare decisis principles that are arguably consistent with the Constitution.
I just think its important to get this new Rule right so as not to waive Art 1 sec 8 forever, as your proposed response seems to do, in my opinion.
But I certainly understand your stance. Too bad the House invited this debate with the new rule.
I think the tea partiers and the 2010 aftermath invites total honesty and the eschewing of the old DC=speak that talks down to voters.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
You are talking about adding a power
PowerToThePeople (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 8:33PM EDT (link)and in that we would agree. If the federal government or a group of people want them to, lets say, be a caretaker of people’s investments, they would have to follow protocol as you described. But that is a far cry from the extensions the fed use to secure our borders and protect us.
For example, the FDA. While much of what it does has exceeded its original intent, their basic use it secure safe drugs and food. Under Article One Section Eight, they are given the power to
*Regulate interstate and foreign commerce.
The FDA would be an extension of this. They regulate drugs(legal) and food stuff. When Article One Section Eight was written, no one knew the FDA would ever be in power. Now you could make arguments that some of what the FDA does or is trying to do exceeds this job, but that is for another discussion.
I understand what you are saying but I am nowhere near the writer you are hence I have trouble getting what I am trying to say across. I understand that there is a difference between adding power which would require certain procedure to happen prior to adding it. I also understand that the fed have been adding powers over the years without following proper protocol or law. What I am saying is that there are branches of the fed government that are simply extensions of the powers the fed government already has. They may and usually do abuse their power, but that is besides the point.
The main issue with the original post was his desire to not reign in the fed government, but end it. One of the issues I raised was foreign military bases. Having foreign bases is not, I believe, in the constitution, but it is still well within the rights of the fed government to have them. I am fully aware that many groups try to stretch the power of the feds by calling it their right to do it, but that is different from common sense in that we should be able to recognize that certain branches of the government are simply extensions of rights they already have. A good example of this would be the IRS. The IRS is not, again I believe, listed as an agency approved by the constitution. But common sense says you need a group to oversee tax collection which is a right of the fed government. Do they abuse us at times, yes. Is there a way to better the tax collection process, yes. But the IRS is not an unconstitutional branch as some claim. Another would be the mint. The feds have a constitutional right to print money again under Article 8 Section 1. The mint came after in its current form. But it is still a constitutional branch of the government again even though some say it is not and should be ended.
In that case, we agree
aesthete (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 8:41PM EDT (link)BTW, IRS was the direct result of the 16th Amendment.
Concerning foreign bases, I would agree that they are both Constitutional and shouldn’t be a priority. That said, conservatives should be concerned about the US’ status as pro bono global policeman (what possible strategic reason do we have for sending our Marines to sub-Saharan Africa?), and the mission creep that has occurred within the military (nation-building out of whole cloth, for instance). Again, not a priority relative to the pressing problems that are our entitlements, but something that should definitely be a concern for conservatives.
“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke
Agreed
PowerToThePeople (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 1:13AM EDT (link)I have grown quite weary of our policeman mentality. I have dislike it since Korea. But what gets me more irritated is our fight with kid gloves attitude. The last war we fought to win was WW2. After that we have fought PC wars that end up costing us a ton. But guess that is another discussion all together.
Agree also with the biggest thing on our platter should be entitlements. They are breaking the countries back, but it will be one hell of a fight to even scale them back. Hope our new members are up to the task.
If you were John Boehner how would you comply with the new Rule
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 6:44PM EDT (link)when justifying Soc Sec funding bill? Don’t you think it matters how we answer that question, not only with respect to our own wishes to reform, but also with respect to future needs to oppose liberal legislation that also violates Art 1 sec 8.
I think it matters a lot how the House complies with the rule they are to enact. Much of conservatism relies on adherence to the document essential to no less that the rule of law itself, rather than the rile of men like Obama.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
btw 'ski, I love your characterization of the amendment process! good one - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 6:35PM EDT (link)Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Actually forcing a constitutional amendment is a good thing.
RoguePolitics (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 6:36PM EDT (link)If we look at SS, as an example, we know it is illegal as designed. Currently everybody knows this and the left is able to boogeyman every election with the canard that Republicans are a threat to SS.
The scare tactic works because, again, everybody knows it is illegal and most assume if anyone were to obey the law it will be Republicans.
Do I think SS is a good idea? No, it was and remains a stupid idea. But we have it. We are doing it and as long as it remains outside the constitution, and in force, it is pointless to speak of anything else being unconstitutional because as we have seen the left will answer every question the same; “ObamaCare is unconstitutional? You must want to end Social Security.” Which of course belies the fact that they also know it is illegal.
We are either going to be a nation of laws ruled by a constitution or we will subject to a “living” constitution. There are lots of amendments I think were a bad idea, 16, 17, 18, 23, and 24 at the least. I would however much rather have direct election of senators by amendment than by congressional decree followed by the ratification of the usurpation in the Supreme Court. Same with income tax.
In addition, an amendment regarding Social Security might well be shaped in a way to make it viable or voluntary or just fight until it is defeated. Push for states to run it. There are many options but all of them remove Republicans as the perennial boogeymen trying to starve grandma.
If House Republicans were smart they would introduce an amendment that made Social Security stable, feasible and allow voluntary participation.
For example:
Permanent Social Security Reform
ARTICLE—
SECTION 1. Each state shall be entitled to appoint one member to a Social Security Board of Trustees. Unless the state legislature shall choose a different method, the appointment shall be made by the governor with the advice and consent of the least numerous chamber of the legislature. This new Board of Trustees shall assume all control over and responsibility for the proper management of the Social Security Administration and the Social Security Trust Fund.
SECTION 2. The federal government shall identify all federal liabilities to the current Social Security Administration or the Social Security Trust Fund. The federal government hereby recognizes this debt to the Social Security System and shall set aside not less than 20% of federal revenue collection to provide for servicing and repayment of this debt until the debt is fully satisfied. The interest rate applied to this debt shall be annually adjusted and shall not be less than the rate of inflation.
SECTION 3. The Board of Trustees shall have the power to levy a tax of not more than 10% of net profit on business entities employing more than 500 people. The total number of employees shall include contractors, and their employees, that receive more than 2/3rds of their revenue from the business entity.
SECTION 4. The federal government shall transfer title of all federal lands in excess of 2% of the territory of any state. The transfer shall also include any natural resources, subsurface and/or surface rights including all offshore rights to the Social Security Administration. The Board of Trustees shall manage these lands and resources for the purposes of enhancing revenue and providing for efficient use and enjoyment of the natural resources.
SECTION 5. Individual states may opt out of the Social Security System 25 years after this Amendment is ratified. States choosing to do so shall be entitled to a per capita share of the then existing trust fund and a per capita share of revenue derived from SECTION 4 revenue shall be paid to the state. A state terminating its relationship with the Social Security System shall also have all SECTION 3 taxing authority transferred to the state for business resident to that state.
From http://AmericanAmendment.com
“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell
“Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what’s going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?” Will Rogers
When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object. Patrick Henry
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com
Because the Republican Party is NOT going to fix the Republican Party.
http://americanamendment.com/
Because Washington is NOT going to fix Washington.
great points and love the way you illustrate my point that our credibility
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 6:40PM EDT (link)is shot in our cases against Roe, New haven, and ObamaCare etc if we just accept the bogus Sup Ct precedents, at least unless we agree to grandfather in seniors based on some stare decisis/common law reliance argument/stability of the law argument which would also require a promise of an amendment like you propose.
great comment brother and thx
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
That's it
RoguePolitics (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 7:08PM EDT (link)We are either honest and forthright or we’re stingy Democrats.
I agree with you take on the Drug War comment below.
International borders and interstate trade are the limits of federal authority on this issue.
Somebody growing a plant in their backyard is either a state issue or no issue unless it crosses a border.
For my own self I would restrict trade at the international border and ignore interstate trade except to reinforcing state law like the 21st does for alcohol.
“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell
“Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what’s going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?” Will Rogers
When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object. Patrick Henry
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com
Because the Republican Party is NOT going to fix the Republican Party.
http://americanamendment.com/
Because Washington is NOT going to fix Washington.
totally agree but on another issue I would go further and employ
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 7:19PM EDT (link)the power under the interstate commerce clause to prohibit states from regulating interstate commerce in health insurance. The Constitution replaced the Art of federation for just such an issue where states were acting like nations in restraint of trade. Daniel Webster won major court victories re ferries and steamboat travel in that regard.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Dead on GC
RoguePolitics (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 8:28PM EDT (link)To many forget the purpose of the Commerce Clause was to prevent artificial barriers to trade amongst the states.
Not to set a national minimum wage, not to set workplace standards, not to force people to buy healthcare or encourage unionization or even tell people what they can or cannot smoke.
Fulton v. I forget, right?
“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell
“Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what’s going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?” Will Rogers
When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object. Patrick Henry
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com
Because the Republican Party is NOT going to fix the Republican Party.
http://americanamendment.com/
Because Washington is NOT going to fix Washington.
tcgeol, can you send your post to me - I am going to do a column on this and btw, I think the War on Drugs
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 5:53PM EDT (link)in some ways of its waging, can be justified under the Constitution on several grounds especially as to the importation from foreign sources and interstate transportation. I will get into more detail on this in a column due next week.
In the meantime, can you send that post you refer to and any other links to
mikedevinelaw@yahoo.co,m
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
opps, obviously I meant
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 5:53PM EDT (link)mikedevinelaw@yahoo.com
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Which post is that, Mike?
tcgeol (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 5:58PM EDT (link)I’ll be glad to send you anything that I can, but I’m not sure which post you are referring to, here.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
In this post (link within) you refer to an earlier post
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 6:37PM EDT (link)http://www.redstate.com/smillican/2010/11/04/the-recipe-for-long-term-conservative-success/#comment-22
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Thanks for that powertothepeople
Scope (Diary) Sunday, November 7th at 7:14PM EDT (link)There are a few more items that I would add, such as medical and medicine research. If the government didn’t subsidize research into cancer cures and etc., can you imagine what the innovative drugs, that save lives would cost initially? I consider that to be in line with protecting the people, as some diseases are as deadly as wars. I am not against funding innovative medical research, as long as it is valid. Tom Perriello, Marxist just voted out, provided earmarks for UVA to do research as to why African Americans don’t get total knee replacement surgery, as often as Whites do.
Another post above by this guy, he suggests that Boehner put all federal land up for sale, so the federal government can reap revenues. How about just giving the declared federal lands back to the states. How about allowing the states to drill for oil and gas if they so chose. I guess he must think that China or Iran can get in on the bidding for those lands, or, that we should pay off our debt with real estate.
This guy, johngiles, has few few screws loose.
If you actually reduced government to the enumerated powers, taxes would be lower, and research money would be more plentiful
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 2:08AM EDT (link)If you compare private money on research to public money, you will see that the private money is far more successful (i.e. efficient).
Government spending on medical research is often utilized by the JV team. Private industry is where the varsity players play.
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
555 - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, November 8th at 11:47AM EDT (link)Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson