Election Perspectives

Court activism started so long ago that most have never had to go research issues. The courts are supposed to look at the facts and make a ruling according to the laws and IF the laws need changed, that is up to the people to elect folks to write new ones. The items listed above needed new laws but NOT new Federal laws because the Constitution never extended those areas to the Feds but instead left it up to the individual states.

Don't forget that the Dred Scott v. Sandford US SUpreme Court decision has actually never been overturned, it has just been ignored so let's lot sit at the altar of the Courts saying they are the final and only arbiter of what the Constitution set out as very strict limits for the Federal governments.

BF, just go back to when Truman proposed integrating the Armed Forces and swap "gay" with "colored" or "Negro" in the arguments against it - the cadence never misses a beat. Taft-Hartley is a good example of how an existing law (the Wagner Act) was modified towards a more conservateve thrust because BOTH sides of the aisle made it happen - some Dems who voted against the law actually voted to override Truman's veto of it. You're absolutely correct about the broad brush not providing detail. A lot of politics start out as "us vs them" until a "we" can be found. It's messy but that's how it's set up and neither extreme ever gets what it wants and, hopefully, never will. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Before you get to Truman attempting to integrate the Armed Forces, why did you skip over that long period of time when they were originally integrated and government workers of both colors worked side by side until a racist Progressive administration caused racial strife by segregating by race.

At the time of our country's founding, there were some states where women voted side by side with men but again, some asshat Progressive wanted to keep women from voting and so they began to enact laws stopping them from doing what many had been doing for so long.

Funny how it took so long to over turn and get BACK to the original intent of all men and women being equal after Progressives had veered so far off the original intent of the Consitution.....

Love the politics.

TTH viewpoints are understood and predictable. Thats ok, as he backs them up with reason. I don't always agree,but so what?

Ok, so here is the deal.

Reid stands smiling after a close scrape and the Pelosi led House walks the plank and loses 60+ seats. Her leadership forces the freshman to take tough votes, much of which dies in the Senate. She should be pissed.

Yet her ego has her staying as minority leader. Unprecedented.

Term limits are the key. O Donnell and Angle cost the Repubs dearly as flawed candidates ( imho)

Will Obama pivot? Will be fun to watch....

I think bolt fan has an offensive image as an avatar. I'm personally offended by the white mans use of imagery. I understand it a footumaball logo. But I feel well... Useasy about it. Makes me think you support the degradation of native americans as a whole.

Please remove as not not offend our pc board.

Thanks and btw.. If you read the thread .. You would realize that the Rosie comment was way off. Go ahead, re read.... go on..

I can be debated. But I will admit that I am only an observer. I am less versed than some of our more astute contributors. See, I have historical REFERENCES to go by...
I wasn't actually around when Truman was in office . So since I'm less than 100 yrs old.. I wasn't able to attend the radio election results parties some of you guys were attending.

Thanks for your posts and perspectives. It serves as a history lesson and a peek into your way of thinking.

Thanks gor all of your thoughfull opinions.

The democrats really needed a strong message, especially in the house, and they got it. My worry is now focused on the (lack of) competence of their replacements. I'll try to keep an open mind because change was needed, but I'm pretty worried. Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

I'm with you on all three points. In particular, it's no surprise that the party was rebuked for larding up that phony $862 billion "stimulus" package with political payoffs and pork, and for botching the health care "reform" plan. And, like you, I'm plenty worried about where all this is likely to lead. (I'll get to that later.)

Full disclosure: I am conservative but I am neither Democrat nor Republican. I think both parties are corrupt and incompetent. I'm looking for any and all evidence that either party may begin to emerge and once again represent the people who elect them and not the lobbyists who corrupt them. Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

Same here. I might be simpatico with some Republicans if they would actually do what they say they're going to do regarding fiscal restraint, and if they would drop the obsession with a social agenda perfectly tailored for small-town 1950s Kansas. But the experience of the last decade suggests that handing all the levers of power to either of our dysfunctional parties is like giving a 500-horsepower muscle car to an overtestosteroned 17-year-old.

I don't think one should look at any of this as though it just happened in a vacuum. Look at what Republicans did between 2002 and 2007.

When George W. Bush took office in 2001, the federal budget was about $1.8 trillion. Seven years later, spending had increased by about 50% in nominal dollars. A lot of people think the main reason was the two wars. They have been very expensive, to be sure, but massive increases in spending on the 2003 prescription drug entitlement expansion, pork-laden farm bills, transportation bills, ethanol subsidies, various other things that fall under the broad category of "corporate welfare", etc. added up to even greater additions to the deficit.

With a record like that, it's no wonder voters rebuked the Republican Party in 2006 and again in 2008.

But look what Nancy Pelosi said upon taking the Speaker's Gavel in January, 2007:

41-Second Video Clip

Oops!

Pretty hard to defend much of anything the 100th and 111th Congresses did.

Divided government worked well after the 1994 housecleaning. Bill Clinton moved to the center and cooperated with the Republican Congress to restrain the rate of spending growth to the lowest level in modern history. In fact, spending fell substantially as a percentage of GDP. It's no accident that 1995-2000 was one of our most prosperous periods.

But I'm not sure divided government will work as well this time. For one thing, we were in a much different place then. The path to meaningful deficit reduction, compared with now, was pretty easy. Now it's very difficult and the parties are very polarized. I think they will dig in for a fight.

On the spending side, Republicans have said they will take on domestic discretionary spending -- but that's only about one-sixth of the budget. The real money is in defense and entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I don't think either party has the political will to go where the real bucks are. It would be political suicide.

And it's just going to get worse, too. Baby Boomers will start turning 65 next year and an ever-larger number will do so each year for a number of years to come.

On the tax side, Republicans staunchly oppose any tax increase on anyone at any time for any reason. Democrats staunchly oppose any tax increase on anyone at any time for any reason, except for those of us in about the top 2% of the income strata. Most people have no idea how little difference there is (in terms of potential revenue collection) between those two positions. (It's about one-third of one percentage point of GDP, while our current deficit is about 9% of GDP.)

In my opinion, the cold, hard truth is that the only way you can even come close to paying for today's level of spending is with a VAT. Don't look for any of the political elite to start pushing for that, though. It wouldn't go over well with voters who are the metaphorical equivalent of a kid who is told he can have all the free ice cream he wants; the fat kid down the street will eat his broccoli for him.

Extended periods of slow growth almost always follow big, entrenched expansions of government spending. Therefore I believe that we're in for a bit of a tough time no matter what we do. We're unlikely to restore the sustained average year-over-year GDP growth rate of the period 1983-2007 any time soon. But we're fishing in very dangerous waters if we don't take steps soon to head off a fiscal calamity. Britain is making tough political choices to do just that. Of course, they've seen the ugly consequences of failing to do so.

If we continue trying to kick the can down the road we will risk simply building a bridge to the next crisis rather than to a more prosperous future.

I'm with you on all three points. In particular, it's no surprise that the party was rebuked for larding up that phony $862 billion "stimulus" package with political payoffs and pork, and for botching the health care "reform" plan. And, like you, I'm plenty worried about where all this is likely to lead. (I'll get to that later.)




Same here. I might be simpatico with some Republicans if they would actually do what they say they're going to do regarding fiscal restraint, and if they would drop the obsession with a social agenda perfectly tailored for small-town 1950s Kansas. But the experience of the last decade suggests that handing all the levers of power to either of our dysfunctional parties is like giving a 500-horsepower muscle car to an overtestosteroned 17-year-old.

I don't think one should look at any of this as though it just happened in a vacuum. Look at what Republicans did between 2002 and 2007.

When George W. Bush took office in 2001, the federal budget was about $1.8 trillion. Seven years later, spending had increased by about 50% in nominal dollars. A lot of people think the main reason was the two wars. They have been very expensive, to be sure, but massive increases in spending on the 2003 prescription drug entitlement expansion, pork-laden farm bills, transportation bills, ethanol subsidies, various other things that fall under the broad category of "corporate welfare", etc. added up to even greater additions to the deficit.

With a record like that, it's no wonder voters rebuked the Republican Party in 2006 and again in 2008.

But look what Nancy Pelosi said upon taking the Speaker's Gavel in January, 2007:

41-Second Video Clip

Oops!

Pretty hard to defend much of anything the 100th and 111th Congresses did.

Divided government worked well after the 1994 housecleaning. Bill Clinton moved to the center and cooperated with the Republican Congress to restrain the rate of spending growth to the lowest level in modern history. In fact, spending fell substantially as a percentage of GDP. It's no accident that 1995-2000 was one of our most prosperous periods.

But I'm not sure divided government will work as well this time. For one thing, we were in a much different place then. The path to meaningful deficit reduction, compared with now, was pretty easy. Now it's very difficult and the parties are very polarized. I think they will dig in for a fight.

On the spending side, Republicans have said they will take on domestic discretionary spending -- but that's only about one-sixth of the budget. The real money is in defense and entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I don't think either party has the political will to go where the real bucks are. It would be political suicide.

And it's just going to get worse, too. Baby Boomers will start turning 65 next year, and an ever-larger number will do so each year for a number of years to come.

On the tax side, Republicans staunchly oppose any tax increase on anyone at any time for any reason. Democrats staunchly oppose any tax increase on anyone at any time for any reason, except for those of us in about the top 2% of the income strata. Most people have no idea how little difference there is (in terms of potential revenue collection) between those two positions. (It's about one-third of one percetage point of GDP, while our current deficit is about 9% of GDP.)

In my opinion, the cold, hard truth is that the only way you can even come close to paying for this level of spending is with a VAT. Don't look for any of the political elite to start pushing for that, though. It wouldn't go over well with voters who are the metaphorical equivalent of the kid who is told he can have all the free ice cream he wants; the fat kid down the street will eat his broccoli for him.

Extended periods of slow growth almost always follow big, entrenched expansions in government spending. Therefore I believe that we're in for a bit of a tough time no matter what we do. We're unlikely to restore the sustained average year-over-year GDP growth rate of the period 1983-2007 any time soon. But we're fishing in very dangerous waters if we don't take steps soon to head off a fiscal calamity. Britain is making tough political choices to do just that. Of course, they've seen the consequences of failing to do so.

If we continue trying to kick the can down the road, we will risk simply building a bridge to the next crisis rather than to a more prosperous future. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Great post! Lots I could say but it would just be reinforcement so I'll pass except to say that I will be very upset if Pelosi is selected to lead the Democrats in Congress. That would be a strong signal of "we didn't hear you" to all the voters who spanked the Democrats.

Well Lust, based on Pelosi running, I guess the message missed. Oh wait, she just didn't go far enough or explain it!

Some good high level thoughts in these posts. We shall see if the Repubs will screw it all up again.

Before you get to Truman attempting to integrate the Armed Forces, why did you skip over that long period of time when they were originally integrated and government workers of both colors worked side by side until a racist Progressive administration caused racial strife by segregating by race.

At the time of our country's founding, there were some states where women voted side by side with men but again, some asshat Progressive wanted to keep women from voting and so they began to enact laws stopping them from doing what many had been doing for so long.

Funny how it took so long to over turn and get BACK to the original intent of all men and women being equal after Progressives had veered so far off the original intent of the Consitution..... Originally Posted by LazurusLong

Hmmm, like having to own property (land, slaves, etc.) in order to vote? The rules of suffrage (voting eligibility) were initially set up in the Constitution along with the indirect election of the Senate (i.e. by State Legislatures). Just goes to show that good ideas in certain times of history give way to different ideas in other times. But, we live in the present and the "good old days" seldom were when taken on the whole. One reason for that is selective memory of conditions as well as events. The Constitution was written to be amended and interpreted by those actually living under it at whatever time was/is the "present." While there have always been blacks in the military, they were usually under the command of white officers and in separate units and their combat roles were somewhat limited off and on. Which "asshat Progressives" are you referring to? Seems like you're a little long on names, but short on actual names.

But, please clue me in on any financial panic, recession or depression in which trusts or large financial corporations (including private banks - they were once all the rage in the early to mid-19th century) DID NOT play a significant part.

Once again, let me ask anyone this simple question, "who's best interests do large, for profit corporations or insurance companies have in mind and what is their sole motive for existence?"

BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer to my original question (and Day-um, there's even a kudo in the list for the Repubs...gmafb). LOL

Before we even begin to talk about spending cuts or tax increases, one thing *must* happen....

Get Social Security and Medicare *OFF* budget.

Even with a 100% balanced budget today, they are using defined benefit funds for current spending. If any CEO did this, they'd be hauled off to prison.

Next step going forward, remove baseline budgeting. Obama has up'd the ante on this, all the spending over the past 2 years will now be used as a "base". Even the deficit panel is suggestion that spending be capped at 22% of GDP. Normal spending is about 17-18% of GDP.

Unless you take those 2 steps, we are doomed and our paper money will be worthless.

Before we even begin to talk about spending cuts or tax increases, one thing *must* happen....

Get Social Security and Medicare *OFF* budget. Originally Posted by TallGuy6

Nope, that move is only reserved for war costs.

So it's ok for them to be spending money that was to be invested for the future?

It would be similar to you saving 10% of your income into a 401k, but instead of putting the money it, you just wrote an IOU and you spent all the money that year, hoping that one day you'd make enough in the year before you retired to pay off all the IOUs.

BTW, SS and Medicare used to be off budget, brought in during the early 70's. And they've raided all the money since then.

So it's ok for them to be spending money that was to be invested for the future?

It would be similar to you saving 10% of your income into a 401k, but instead of putting the money it, you just wrote an IOU and you spent all the money that year, hoping that one day you'd make enough in the year before you retired to pay off all the IOUs.

BTW, SS and Medicare used to be off budget, brought in during the early 70's. And they've raided all the money since then. Originally Posted by TallGuy6

I couldn't agree with you more, but that makes us who might think that way some of them thar "commie-pinko-liburrals." I was just being facetious with the earlier remark.....

I've been away from the board for a while -- work is a nasty, but necessary diversion from the hobby -- so I haven't had much chance to catch up. Palin will run and make some noise, but Huckabee is the one to watch now, in my opinion. And he is a loon. Far to the right of the average voter, IMHO. And a religious right wing nut, which is the worst kind. The TeaNuts are semi-harmless. To the extent that they're semi-intelligent, like Rand Paul, once they find out the actual facts, their bark will be a lot worse than their bite. They'll just become very conservative, but opportunistic, regular republicans like Jim DeMint or James Inhofe. Dangerous enough, mind you, but not really unprecedented. But religious nuts, right wing or left wing, have no limits to the risk they pose.

And the most interesting thing to happen since the election is release of the Chairmens' propsal of the deficit reduction panel. It's an honest effort that makes a lot of sense, if, and only if, you accept the goals that were laid down by the commission. A very good example of what it will take if the Republicans are serious about what they say they want to do. The fact that they're squealing like pigs stuck under a gate with it's release is more instructive than what's contained in the proposal and proof that their resolve to balance the budget is about as real as the notion that my dick is 14 inches long. But we all knew that from day one anyway, didn't we. They've never been serious about that and their behavior has shown that for decades. Since Nixon's Presidency, if not before. The only people fooled were those who listen to what they say instead of watching what they do. The real game that's afoot is to see how much of the costs of running government they can put on the working class and how much of the benefits of government they can take away from the same people. (I wish them luck on one part of it. Upping the exclusion on the inheritance tax. Other than that, I hope they fail miserably.)

TTh, I agree the prelim recs of the Deficit Reduction panel make a lot of sense. Alas, I hear pigs squealing on both sides already. You think AFSCME is loving the recs for federal workers?

If you look at each of the Deficit panel recs alone, we go nowhere. If you look at them as a package, we may have a chance.

Google raises all salaries 10% and provides an instant 10% bonus. At least a little proof that a well executed business model does grow and create jobs.

TTh, I agree the prelim recs of the Deficit Reduction panel make a lot of sense. Alas, I hear pigs squealing on both sides already. You think AFSCME is loving the recs for federal workers?

If you look at each of the Deficit panel recs alone, we go nowhere. If you look at them as a package, we may have a chance.

Google raises all salaries 10% and provides an instant 10% bonus. At least a little proof that a well executed business model does grow and create jobs. Originally Posted by Judge Smails

My opinion of Google has turned 180 degrees. I think they are a douche-bag of an American company, right up there with the oil companies. Here's why:

1. Google is one of the most profitable American companies, yet they used an offshore tax scheme to pay a tax rate of less than 2% last year. Google is ducking a responsibility to contribute at a fair rate to the country that made its existence possible. Google can afford to pay and our country is hurting economically, which makes it all the more despicable to me.

2. Google squashes entrepreneurial companies. If an area of technology looks interesting, Google will dabble in it and release a 'free' version of whatever the technology is. The Google version is usually lousy, but it's free so it devalues the market for everyone else, putting many companies out of business. Google doesn't need to make money on anything but search ads, so they don't care. It would be like Exxon giving away free shitty oil filters, killing off companies who could make our oil last longer.

Google has outgrown their 'do no evil' mantra. Even Microsoft always paid their taxes.