Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyThat's the quote that cost Goldwater the election,or helped anyway. I think the other half was moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue. Johnson was able to portray Goldwater as a dangerous extremist. LBJ ran as the peace candidate!
When you're in a recession, you might need some deficit spending to jump start the economy while the private sector recovers and the economy can continue to grow organically. The problem is, once the economy is going again, you need to cut back on spending and pay down debt. What both parties forget is that in good times you save for the bad times. They spend like there is no tomorrow in both good and bad times and here we are. I will bet you anything that if Mitt wins (and I hope he wins just to prove my point), the debt will continue to grow but he'll just blame Obama for it. I truly believe we're well on our way to reaching $25-$30T in national debt no matter what party is in power. Government spending the size of the US is like a freight train trying to stop in 100 feet. It's like you lose your job - you have no income, so you need to "deficit" spend or you don't get to support your household, but once employed, you have to save again and pay down any debt you incurred while unemployed. I personally don't like neither party because both parties put party before people, so I can't side with any particular party.I actually agree with much of your post. The idea of increasing government spending during a recession and decreasing in the recovery is what John Maynard Keynes advocated, as I understand it. The so called Keynesians (like Obama) forget about paying off the debt, run up in the downturn, when the economy recovers. The Libs justify increased spending in recessions to help the poor, who suffer more in a downturn. Then, when the economy recovers, the Libs say there's no excuse not to spend more on social welfare because we have plenty, and we must share. Consequently, there's never a good time to cut spending.
An independent party is very feasible, but we need to get the independents to stop voting Democrat/Republican and let those parties keep their base. Neither party can win elections with just their base, and once you have an independent party that makes sense for America you'll see that the people that are not on the extremes will leave the establishment parties. Originally Posted by icuminpeace
That's the quote that cost Goldwater the election,or helped anyway. I think the other half was moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue. Johnson was able to portray Goldwater as a dangerous extremist. LBJ ran as the peace candidate!It didn't cost him the election, he didn't have a chance. Sentiment for Kennedy guaranteed Johnson the win. Even though Johnson was not qualified to scrub shit off Kennedy's shoes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9buEI8SgwU Originally Posted by joe bloe
Some people like Ron Paul, and I do too, but what scares me about him is that he claims he can cut government spending by $1T in his first year. First, that's bullshit, the president doesn't control the budget. Second, take out $1T of government spending in a fragile economy and you'll be in a deep recession. ... Originally Posted by icuminpeaceNah, that's just two GSA training retreats and few in-office lunches.
Congress should not be allowed to pass a new tax but call it something else so that the public is fooled. That allows Congress to be deceptive which violates the public trust. Originally Posted by LazA rose by any other name....
Alright, I'll play nice. Let's start with the fact that I'm not new here. Had to cancel my old account for personal reasons, but always enjoy reading the Sandbox. I don't like Democrats or Republicans. I'm dead center, extremes are always bad regardless (extreme drinking, extreme smoking, extreme eating, extreme partying, and yes, extreme politics are bad for you too). Both sides have 10% positive, 90% negative, and can't even figure out a way to take the 10% positive and make it work for the rest of America. Originally Posted by icuminpeace
I agree with Roberts; it is a tax, but it is overreaching for the SCOTUS to change the wording of legislation. By changing the wording, I believe the SCOTUS is behaving unconstitutionally. There are two checks. One change the law or impeach and debench the justice/s.Federal judges have only been removed from the bench eight times in American history. One of the impeached and removed judges is Alcee Hastings. The House of Representatives voted to impeach him with a 413 to 3 vote in 1988; he was then removed from the bench by the Senate. He later avoided a criminal conviction by getting off on a technicality.
Exactly. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward
I agree with Roberts; it is a tax, but it is overreaching for the SCOTUS to change the wording of legislation. Originally Posted by OliviaHowardIt's overreaching for the SCOTUS to change the wording if it materially changes what the law does or doesn't do.
By changing the wording, I believe the SCOTUS is behaving unconstitutionally.You're becoming absurd.
It was a wise ruling by the Supreme Court..
Honestly, I was beginning to lose faith in the Supreme Court after the fiasco they created in deciding to rule in favor of Bush in Bush Vs Gore when Gore had won the popular vote.
This ruling was really an excruciating and very drawn out process, but in the end, the court finally got this one right even though John Roberts had to step in and cast the swing vote when everyone thought the swing vote would be Kennedy.
But damn! Does it really take 193 pages to render a decision?
. . . The entire United States Constitution was written in only about 90 pages! Originally Posted by Fast Gunn
