The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[imaplanner]

Perhaps also to be known as the neverending imaplanner vs. TexanOkie thread (if he bites). If you don't like political discussions then mind your own business.

I'll start by asking a question based on TexOkie's recent post in random thoughts

Well, there's something you don't see/hear everyday - Democrats (i.e. Congress) going after Toyota and other foreign carmakers operating in the US (essentially drilling home the current safety problems through open, televised hearings and bringing up lack of union representation in their US manufacturing centers), and Rush Limbaugh defending them. 20 years (and significant ownership in GM on the part of Congress) changes a lot, doesn't it?

Do you really think that the democrats are going after Toyota because of the government's stake in GM? Personally- I think that there has been some pressure from consumer groups to investigate- because the scope of the recall is substantial and the fact that brakes are faulty on millions of cars on the road is a legitimate public safety concern. As far as Rush defending Toyota- I don't really see that as anything other than Rush disagreeing with EVRYTHING that the democrats do.

I'm also curious to have somebody explain to me what the current republican party stands for. What ideas do they have for helping the country get back on track, what ideas do they have to fix the economy, and how would they go about fixing health care (assuming that they believe health care needs to be fixed).

 

[TexanOkie]

I'm afraid this is going to be a short-lived thread, at least on this particular topic, because I agree with you 100% on everything you posted about the Toyota hearings and Rush's defense. In other words, no, I don't agree with the parenthetical rationale I provided for the Toyota hearings, and I think Rush just has the oppozutics on this one.

As to your last paragraph, I've gone into GOP proposals on important current issues in other threads (especially the SOTU thread), and I'm not particularly inclined to repeat something that's already been said. Either that, or you're going to have a do a lot better job baiting me into a discussion...

However, this thread does provide a great place for general political observations, which I'm sure will lead to discussion, and as a place for the mods to transfer political topics in other non-political threads that get heated, thereby allowing them to continue without hijacking the original thread.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Yup, each annoying subject should stand on its own and be hashed over like the ground of the Somme! :a:

 

[imaplanner]

As to your last paragraph, I've gone into GOP proposals on important current issues in other threads (especially the SOTU thread), and I'm not particularly inclined to repeat something that's already been said. Either that, or you're going to have a do a lot better job baiting me into a discussion...

.

Well lets talk health care.

2. Health Care - The House GOP has offered numerous amendments, bills, and also an entire alternative bill to the Pelosi bill that the House leadership has refused to open for debate. If this bill is not "realistic", how do you manage to draw the conclusion that the sweeping policy bill offered up by the Democratic leadership is? <http://republicans.waysandmeans.hous...bility_Act.pdf>

The cbo analysis shows that the GOP alternative bill would do very little to reduce the number of uninsured, would save the federal government less money than the democratic proposal, and would actually increase premiums for some people.

I agree the dem bill sucks- but the repub bill seems even worse. Do you support the GOP alternative? I don't support the democratic health bill. But I think that it is better than the republican one and I really wish that the two parties would stop being such a$$hats and work together. I see republican obstruction as the principal reason why that is not happening.

4. Budget/Deficit - And, once again, the GOP has proposed numerous actions to reduce the deficit and debt, including reducing spending (both discretionary AND entitlement), increased tax incentives and tax cuts (much deeper than Obama's proposal, including key tax suspensions), and saved vital spending in the same categories Obama mentioned in the SOTU. They even proposed an alternate budget with these policies. <http://www.gop.gov/download?folder=b...gop-budget.pdf>

Here are some good discussions on the republican budget

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/05/AR2010020501840.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/rep_paul_ryans_daring_budget_p.html

I think its important to note that while it is great for reducing the deficit, its pretty extreme. It seems it would have some drastically negative impacts on certain segments of the population. Other republicans are backing away from this proposed budget and I think its fair to say that if the republicans were in charge they would not support this budget (it would be political suicide to do so). So its not a realistic budget- and certainly not something that I think you could point to to argue that the republicans have legitimate ideas on how to solve the economic crisis.

 

[Hink]

If you would have asked my a year maybe two ago, I would have had a much different opinion on Healthcare than I do today. I find it amazing that both parties have messed this up so badly.

I blame the R's for really doing nothing. For making sure that NOTHING gets done. And for making doing something so darn political.

I blame the D's for putting up a bill that people don't want. I still don't know if I believe in Universal Healthcare, but what I have been shown does not prove that it will work. I think that if the D's would have actually had the discussion (note that I didn't say trap...ugh) that they are going to have on the 25th with the R's in the beginning, none of this political B.S. would have happened. The R's would have no right to say that they weren't listened to.

If the D's would just pick what they wanted to reform...insurance or coverage... they would do much better. If they want to provide a better insurance system in the U.S. then they could use some of the R's ideas in terms of Tort Reform, Individual Health Savings Accounts, etc. to create a package of items that will help create better insurance policies and help people keep lower rates. If they wanted to assure that EVERY American is covered, then they need to look at ways to create incentives to make people want to be covered, like charging for Emergency Room visits, or having a list of Costs for procedures. You want to go to the Hospital for a runny nose it will cost you $25. You go to your PCP and it is free.

I think that there needs to be much more accountability for people in the system.

The D's messed up the process and the R's are just being whiny, cry-babies. R's can't even support Healthcare now, because if they did, another R would doesn't would win the primary over them. You can't even support things that traditional R's support unless it is Conservative MAXXXX.


ps. Thank you IP, as I have stated before, I want a place to vent Political junk. Nice work. :h:

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

You should read what Evan Bayh said after he announced he was going to retire. He retired eventhough he was a shoo in for reelection. The problems are multiple. As Bayh said, it's a permanent campaign now. Considering a senators term is 6 years-that means they are campaigning the whole time. Further, they are making decisions based on how it will affect their campaign, not what's good for the County.

Our system as devolved into a bread and circuses approach to governing. It's a sick form of entertainment that's constantly covered by the media. There are too many people benefitting from this media circus.

 

[TexanOkie]

Republican obstructionism and politicizing, eh?

Explain this: Senate Axes Bipartisan Jobs Bill

My favorite quote:

"Our side isn't sure that the Republicans are real interested in developing good policy and to move forward together,' said Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del. 'Instead, they are more inclined to play rope-a-dope again. My own view is, let's test them."​

Okay, so the Democrats complain that Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and aren't willing to work out a compromise, but when GOP and Democratic lawmakers actually create a compromise bill that had widespread bipartisan support, the Dems say it's not enough and want to get more of their agenda passed at the expense of bipartisanship. And then they mask their action by condescendingly saying the GOP isn't "interested in developing good policy" and moving "forward together", as if their political ideology has a monopoly on good policy, and that compromise to them actually means the GOP surrendering to their will.

 

[mgk920]

You should read what Evan Bayh said after he announced he was going to retire. He retired eventhough he was a shoo in for reelection. The problems are multiple. As Bayh said, it's a permanent campaign now. Considering a senators term is 6 years-that means they are campaigning the whole time. Further, they are making decisions based on how it will affect their campaign, not what's good for the County.

Our system as devolved into a bread and circuses approach to governing. It's a sick form of entertainment that's constantly covered by the media. There are too many people benefitting from this media circus.

On that subject, I'm growing angrier at the states that are constantly advancing the dates of their presidential primary elections and cauci, to the point of them becoming absurd. What is so sacrosanct about Iowa and New Hampshire being first out of the box that they are now almost a FULL YEAR before the general election? We now have the general election candidates set in MID WINTER - and a *LOT* can happen between then and November!

Back in 1968, LBJ dropped out of the race for re-election in LATE MARCH, about the time that he had his clock cleaned out in the Wisconsin primary. Now our state's primaries (both parties) are useless.

:-@

Mike

 

[imaplanner]

Republican obstructionism and politicizing, eh?

Explain this: Senate Axes Bipartisan Jobs Bill

My favorite quote:

"Our side isn't sure that the Republicans are real interested in developing good policy and to move forward together,' said Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del. 'Instead, they are more inclined to play rope-a-dope again. My own view is, let's test them."​

Okay, so the Democrats complain that Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and aren't willing to work out a compromise, but when GOP and Democratic lawmakers actually create a compromise bill that had widespread bipartisan support, the Dems say it's not enough and want to get more of their agenda passed at the expense of bipartisanship. And then they mask their action by condescendingly saying the GOP isn't "interested in developing good policy" and moving "forward together", as if their political ideology has a monopoly on good policy, and that compromise to them actually means the GOP surrendering to their will.

Well what I have heard is that the negotiations in comittee led to ridiculous add ons that would have had absolutely nothing to do with job creation - the article you reference even lists giveaways to catfish farmers as one provision. The add-ons were made in order to get the republicans to support the bill- but that the democrats got wind that the republicans were going to vote en mass against it - claiming that it would do little for job creation. Pretty much just what they did with the first stimulus. What Reid is talking about now is a smaller bill that focuses more on tax cuts- why would the republicans be against that?

 

[TexanOkie]

Well what I have heard is that the negotiations in comittee led to ridiculous add ons that would have had absolutely nothing to do with job creation - the article you reference even lists giveaways to catfish farmers as one provision. The add-ons were made in order to get the republicans to support the bill- but that the democrats got wind that the republicans were going to vote en mass against it - claiming that it would do little for job creation. Pretty much just what they did with the first stimulus. What Reid is talking about now is a smaller bill that focuses more on tax cuts- why would the republicans be against that?

I don't know why Republicans would be against that or even that that are, as I'm not familiar with the latest bill you referenced. I will say that questioning why the GOP would be against tax cuts is almost as bad as questing why Democrats would be against a tax hike. It plays on stereotypes that may or may not be true, as it depends on what/how the tax cut/hike is being proposed, although I will admit GOP/tax cuts bit does have a bit more bite than the converse statement I mentioned about Dems/tax hikes.

Frankly, I'm probably with Duke about this whole thread, in that I'm not big on finding arguments just to argue, even if I do enjoy argument as an academic discipline. It has to be topical and I have to be moved to either make a point or (more often) dispute a point or assumption someone else made.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

I don't know why Republicans would be against that or even that that are, as I'm not familiar with the latest bill you referenced. I will say that questioning why the GOP would be against tax cuts is almost as bad as questing why Democrats would be against a tax hike. It plays on stereotypes that may or may not be true, as it depends on what/how the tax cut/hike is being proposed, although I will admit GOP/tax cuts bit does have a bit more bite than the converse statement I mentioned about Dems/tax hikes.

Frankly, I'm probably with Duke about this whole thread, in that I'm not big on finding arguments just to argue, even if I do enjoy argument as an academic discipline. It has to be topical and I have to be moved to either make a point or (more often) dispute a point or assumption someone else made.

Not neccesarily, there is room for both generalized discussion and topics that are the issue du jour. Further, as Bayh pointed out, there can be interlocking ideas. Bayh hung 'em up for several reasons that are interlocking. The issue of the never-ending campaign, the pressure for constant fund raising, the ideolgical gridlock which is paralyzing the Senate, the need to overhaul the rules of the Senate. You can parse these ideas separately or discuss them as a whole. I voted for Bayh when I lived in Indiana and respected both him and his father. In fact, his father spoke to us when I was at Hoosier's Boy State. His absence will be keenly felt.

Paul Krugman wrote this for the New York Times on February 5th. It's an excellent piece that most people probably missed.

February 5, 2010, 10:44 am The Senate Becomes A Polish Joke
So, here’s the news from the Senate. Martha Johnson was nominated to head the General Services Administration, and was confirmed by a nearly unanimous vote — but only after having had her nomination held hostage for nine months by Senator Kit Bond, who wanted more pork for Kansas City. And now Senator Richard Shelby has placed a hold on — are you seated — all, all, Obama administration nominees, until he gets some pork for Alabama.

What’s going on? The Senate has rules based on the idea that it was a chamber of gentlemen who would find ways to work together. But now, 41 Senators belong to a party that has no interest in a working government, no desire to work with the majority in good faith.

There’s a precedent for all this. In effect, we’ve now become 17th-century Poland:

… with the rise of power held by Polish magnates, the unanimity principle was reinforced with the institution of the nobility’s right of liberum veto (Latin for “I freely forbid”). If the envoys were unable to reach a unanimous decision within six weeks (the time limit of a single session), deliberations were declared null and void. From the mid-17th century onward, any objection to a Sejm resolution — by either an envoy or a senator — automatically caused the rejection of other, previously approved resolutions. This was because all resolutions passed by a given session of the Sejm formed a whole resolution, and, as such, was published as the annual constitution of the Sejm, e.g., Anno Domini 1667. In the 16th century, no single person or small group dared to hold up proceedings, but, from the second half of the 17th century, the liberum veto was used to virtually paralyze the Sejm, and brought the Commonwealth to the brink of collapse.

“Brink of collapse”: get used to that concept.

 

[imaplanner]

I don't know why Republicans would be against that or even that that are, as I'm not familiar with the latest bill you referenced. I will say that questioning why the GOP would be against tax cuts is almost as bad as questing why Democrats would be against a tax hike. It plays on stereotypes that may or may not be true, as it depends on what/how the tax cut/hike is being proposed, although I will admit GOP/tax cuts bit does have a bit more bite than the converse statement I mentioned about Dems/tax hikes.

Frankly, I'm probably with Duke about this whole thread, in that I'm not big on finding arguments just to argue, even if I do enjoy argument as an academic discipline. It has to be topical and I have to be moved to either make a point or (more often) dispute a point or assumption someone else made.

I agree with everything you said here.

I don't know that I want to argue just to argue, and perhaps I need to tone down some of my rhetoric about the republican party in general (if I can). I guess what interests me the most at the moment is trying to find some realistic policy positions/proposals that the republican party actually has at the moment (not necessarily congressional republicans- because like I said before I DO believe they are just being obstructionists). The reason this interests me is that the democrats are proving once again that they can not do anything right - and even when they do they do it badly. I'm honesty inclined as of late to vote against the democrats in future elections, but I just can't bring myself to vote for any republicans because I can't find anything they say as of late that I agree with.

Further- the principal reason why I created the thread was to have a place to talk general on and off-topic politcs without getting threads closed or getting negative remarks from other cyburbians. Perhaps general discussions aren't what this thread needs and maybe once more "political news" that is worth discussion comes up it can be posted in here for discussion.

 

[TexanOkie]

I guess what interests me the most at the moment is trying to find some realistic policy positions/proposals that the republican party actually has at the moment (not necessarily congressional republicans- because like I said before I DO believe they are just being obstructionists).

I don't understand how the GOP can offer policy positions or proposals at the current time other than through it's Congressional members - they're the only ones in a position where they can do so. And it has been through members of Congress that most of the policy proposals I've mentioned have come about. Now, I'll admit there's a lack of strong leadership within the Republican party right now, but also - I think the way the GOP, as an organization in and of itself (chairman, committees, etc), functions might also be different than the way the DNC operates. The RNC is not a think tank (no jokes, please, you all know what I mean here). It is instead an campaign machine. Only once leadership has been established does it craft an official platform. In periods where there is not strong leadership (i.e. no election and no GOP president), policy proposals fall to it's Congressional delegation. This only exaggerates the current leadership issues, since the GOP has no control over Congress except to say "no".

In other words, if you want to hear policy proposals from the GOP, but do not want to hear policy proposals from the GOP Congressional delegation, that's just not the way it works. You should be looking to the Congressional delegation, because it most likely will be from those ranks and from those proposals from those ranks that the next leadership, presidential candidates, and platform positions will come.

On one more thing, you noted that you don't deem the proposals I listed as "realistic". Well, that may be, politically. But you're missing the main point - getting some debate started. It's examined well in this Feb. 3 Ross Douthat blog post from the New York Times: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/paul-ryans-moment/.

 

[imaplanner]

Not neccesarily, there is room for both generalized discussion and topics that are the issue du jour. Further, as Bayh pointed out, there can be interlocking ideas. Bayh hung 'em up for several reasons that are interlocking. The issue of the never-ending campaign, the pressure for constant fund raising, the ideolgical gridlock which is paralyzing the Senate, the need to overhaul the rules of the Senate. You can parse these ideas separately or discuss them as a whole. I voted for Bayh when I lived in Indiana and respected both him and his father. In fact, his father spoke to us when I was at Hoosier's Boy State. His absence will be keenly felt.

Paul Krugman wrote this for the New York Times on February 5th. It's an excellent piece that most people probably missed.

February 5, 2010, 10:44 am The Senate Becomes A Polish Joke
So, here&#8217;s the news from the Senate. Martha Johnson was nominated to head the General Services Administration, and was confirmed by a nearly unanimous vote &#8212; but only after having had her nomination held hostage for nine months by Senator Kit Bond, who wanted more pork for Kansas City. And now Senator Richard Shelby has placed a hold on &#8212; are you seated &#8212; all, all, Obama administration nominees, until he gets some pork for Alabama.

What&#8217;s going on? The Senate has rules based on the idea that it was a chamber of gentlemen who would find ways to work together. But now, 41 Senators belong to a party that has no interest in a working government, no desire to work with the majority in good faith.

.

Shelby placed the hold because he wanted the military contract to be given to a foreign company (EADS) over an American Company (Boeing). What a wonderful American :not:

I don't understand how the GOP can offer policy positions or proposals at the current time other than through it's Congressional members - they're the only ones in a position where they can do so. And it has been through members of Congress that most of the policy proposals I've mentioned have come about. Now, I'll admit there's a lack of strong leadership within the Republican party right now, but also - I think the way the GOP, as an organization in and of itself (chairman, committees, etc), functions might also be different than the way the DNC operates. The RNC is not a think tank (no jokes, please, you all know what I mean here). It is instead an campaign machine. Only once leadership has been established does it craft an official platform. In periods where there is not strong leadership (i.e. no election and no GOP president), policy proposals fall to it's Congressional delegation. This only exaggerates the current leadership issues, since the GOP has no control over Congress except to say "no".

In other words, if you want to hear policy proposals from the GOP, but do not want to hear policy proposals from the GOP Congressional delegation, that's just not the way it works. You should be looking to the Congressional delegation, because it most likely will be from those ranks and from those proposals from those ranks that the next leadership, presidential candidates, and platform positions will come.

Ok. I tried. Forget it. Perhaps when the republican leadership comes up with something actually worth discussing we can discuss it.

 

[mgk920]

Ok. I tried. Forget it. Perhaps when the republican leadership comes up with something actually worth discussing we can discuss it.

Alright, what is something that they could come up with that will be worth discussing?

^o)

Mike

 

[wahday]

The RNC is not a think tank (no jokes, please, you all know what I mean here). It is instead an campaign machine. Only once leadership has been established does it craft an official platform.

And I think that is it in a nutshell. This is a huge problem not just for the party, but for the entire nation. Too much focus is being put on jockeying for being "not-Obama" and the next election than on actually finding a stance or set of proposals/ideas/strategies to move us toward some corrective path. These are dire times that require concrete responses- responses that can be measured and adjusted, scrapped or built on to get us back on track.

The result of this short-sided behavior, in my mind, is that the opposition to the Democrats and the administration remains vague, ever-shifting and ill-defined. And I think this is somewhat deliberate because those who are conservative and feel upset by all the crap that is falling around us (and I won't dwell on how I think we got here to begin with) generally tend to "fill in the gaps" on what direction things should go in. I think this vaguery is also what fuels things like the Tea Partiers. If these folks had to get down to brass tacks, I suspect they might find less agreement than when they speak in general terms - smaller government, lower or no taxes, etc. Once one has to consider the implications of such things (what proposals would actually look like) the devil crops up in the details. It should not be about the next election right now - it should be about doing what needs to be done. But I fear that is asking too much.

Again, I feel we are in very very serious times, but the children up on the hill can't seem to stop squabbling long enough to respond responsibly to it. And while I feel there is obstructionist posturing on both sides of the isle, it is my opinion that the Republicans are the worse culprits right now. And this is precisely because they are not putting forth substantial proposals from the conservative side. They just care about the next election and the scoreboard.

And so, the reason I say the nation suffers is because, in an ideal situation, we should be able to lay out all the best ideas (that is, approaches, concepts and strategies that have some kind of proven track record), look at the problems at hand, and develop a way forward. And again, the way forward should be devoid of partisanship - various approaches should have some sort of quantifiable measurement tool attached to them to see if they are actually providing the results that are desired and, if so, they are kept. If not, try something else.

But we seem so far from achieving anything like this. It really pains me, but I feel more and more like our governmental structure is broken.

 

[Hink]

I have and will continue to voice my displeasure in the Tea Party people. Other than the fact that most of them don't know what they are talking about (Tea Party because of the Boston Tea Party... really?), how to have civil political discourse, or ability to compromise their values for the greater good, I am worried about what it is doing to our political system.

I think many people have this belief that it is Obama. That his policies are really going to end this nation. All we need is Sarah Palin or some other UBER Conservative and all will be right again, we will be safe, and good will prevail. The problem is that no matter if we get a R or a D in the White House we are killing the ability of our legislature to get things done. Remember the girl who thought that once Obama got in office she wasn't going to have to pay for gas anymore? The same will be for these Tea people. Things aren't going to just get better because some of their policies will get a more favorable light.

The problem that we have now is the ability of misinformation or fear mongering by both sides to muddy the waters. They can do it in seconds now. We can kill a debate in seconds by throwing out lies, big or small, to try and scare the other side. The Dems do it by saying how the R's don't care about the poor. The R's do it by saying the Dems are un-American or looking to socialize our country. To me, this type of rhetoric and disingenuous "news" is what is killing our country.

I can guarantee that in 2012 if a R or D runs on fiscal conservative principles, with socially moderate or liberal leaning they will win. Stay on the topics of fiscal responsibility, lowering of the debt, and restructuring social security and medi-care/caid. This will get you moderate conservatives and blue dog dems. Work to help create equity in the Gay community in terms of marriage rights and spousal rights under the law. This will get you the gay community and moderate social liberals. Look at our baseline standards of living and work to create streamlined programs to keep it moving up. You will get the poor and under-utilized. The independents will be the key to 2012... moderation is key.

 

[TexanOkie]

I can guarantee that in 2012 if a R or D runs on fiscal conservative principles, with socially moderate or liberal leaning they will win.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. The question is: will either party produce such a candidate? You think it'd be a no-brainer, but apparently both parties can't seem to act on a no-brainer. They don't understand the no-brainer. They can only echo no-brainer rhetoric.

 

[Hink]

Not often do I think that America is so right, but boy did I get a vote of confidence today...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137

Now the question is, what do we do about the Supreme Court messing this up so badly? Constitutional Amendment? If we go there, shouldn't we just clear up all the campaign issues? Individual Funding, PACs, Corporations, Lobbying groups, etc.

 

[imaplanner]

Not often do I think that America is so right, but boy did I get a vote of confidence today...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137

Now the question is, what do we do about the Supreme Court messing this up so badly? Constitutional Amendment? If we go there, shouldn't we just clear up all the campaign issues? Individual Funding, PACs, Corporations, Lobbying groups, etc.

But where do all the electeds fall on this? I think alot of them do not support changing the constitution to deal with this. God knows they don't seem to be too concerned with public opinion lately

 

[mgk920]

It would be dangerous *to the extreme* to go messing with the First Amendment in a knee-jerk reaction to that USSupreme Court decision - if that is done and the precedent is set, what then will there be to protect *YOU* if the political speech police winds would start blowing your way?

:-c

Mike

 

[imaplanner]

It would be dangerous *to the extreme* to go messing with the First Amendment in a knee-jerk reaction to that USSupreme Court decision - if that is done and the precedent is set, what then will there be to protect *YOU* if the political speech police winds would start blowing your way?

:-c

Mike

I don't think it necessarily needs to be a first amendment issue. Perhaps just something clarifying that corporations are not people and therefore not entitled to the same rights. I mean - corporations are instruments that the government allows to be created and given certain rights that people do not have. The government sets conditions by which LLC's can be created and specifically limits their liability.

Do you really believe that corporations should get to have their cake and eat it to? In otehr words, should they be allowed to have every right that a person has while having none of the responsibilities of a person?

 

[TexanOkie]

I don't think it necessarily needs to be a first amendment issue. Perhaps just something clarifying that corporations are not people and therefore not entitled to the same rights. I mean - corporations are instruments that the government allows to be created and given certain rights that people do not have. The government sets conditions by which LLC's can be created and specifically limits their liability.

Do you really believe that corporations should get to have their cake and eat it to? In otehr words, should they be allowed to have every right that a person has while having none of the responsibilities of a person?

How do they have none of the responsibilities of a person? Because the corporate legal structure differentiates a corporate entity's assets and liabilities from those of the people working for/owning said corporation? The corporation is still on the line for all of it's assets/liabilities, just like individual people are for their own. Are you ultimately suggesting a new legal business structure based solely on partnerships and private ownership? I'm not quite sure I understand.

 

[imaplanner]

How do they have none of the responsibilities of a person? Because the corporate legal structure differentiates a corporate entity's assets and liabilities from those of the people working for/owning said corporation? The corporation is still on the line for all of it's assets/liabilities, just like individual people are for their own. Are you ultimately suggesting a new legal business structure based solely on partnerships and private ownership? I'm not quite sure I understand.

Its not all about money. Limited liability means more they are limited in their liability for more than just financial assets. Perhaps the most obvious discrepancy in responsibilities is when it comes to harrassment and murder. How come if something that I do causes another human being to die I get charged with murder but the same doesn't happen when corporations do something that results in people dying?

 

[wahday]

I don't think it necessarily needs to be a first amendment issue. Perhaps just something clarifying that corporations are not people and therefore not entitled to the same rights. I mean - corporations are instruments that the government allows to be created and given certain rights that people do not have. The government sets conditions by which LLC's can be created and specifically limits their liability.

Do you really believe that corporations should get to have their cake and eat it to? In otehr words, should they be allowed to have every right that a person has while having none of the responsibilities of a person?

I think you are headed in the right direction, here, but I agree with others saying that the implications of changing this definition are far ranging and extend not just to curtailing the impact of corporations, but also in how they can be held accountable for misconduct. Its a big fat mess, legally speaking, but I think this status and how corporate law is applied is at the core of the Supreme Court decision.

Remember, for example, that non-profits are also corporations.

This is from the Wikipedia page on corporations:

Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state, and they may be responsible for human rights violations. Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter.

 

[kjel]

To add some levity...or maybe not...

http://wonkette.com/413753/black-man-puts-his-feet-on-desk

 

[TexanOkie]

There's a series of articles on the National Review's website today about whether or not our country is ungovernable due to government structural problems (http://article.nationalreview.com/425416/ungovernable-nonsense/charles-krauthammer?page=1, http://article.nationalreview.com/425445/pick-an-excuse-any-excuse/jonah-goldberg?page=1, and http://article.nationalreview.com/425485/blame-obama-not-the-system/rich-lowry). I think they were written to respond to recent columns by Paul Krugman in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/opinion/08krugman.html), Jonathan Chait in The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/america-ungovernable), and Michael Cohen in Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/232451). This whole topic plays in well with the majority consensus of the posts in this thread and others by left-leaning Cyburbians about "Republican obstructionism".

 

[wahday]

Here is another story about "broken government" form the Atlantic Monthly. Its long, but rather good. The initial question is whether American society is on the brink of collapse and the author's conclusion is that, not only is this a question/feeling people have always had, but that we are really ok. There is a problem afoot though, he says, and its government dysfunction. I'm not sure the conclusion absolves the Republicans from their current role in it all, but it implicated the Democrats as well.

From the conclusion:

I started out this process uncertain; I ended up convinced. America the society is in fine shape! America the polity most certainly is not. Over the past half century, both parties have helped cause this predicament—Democrats by unintentionally giving governmental efforts a bad name in the 1960s and ’70s, Republicans by deliberately doing so from the Reagan era onward. At the moment, Republicans are objectively the more nihilistic, equating public anger with the sentiment that “their” America has been taken away and defining both political and substantive success as stopping the administration’s plans. As a partisan tactic, this could make sense; for the country, it’s one more sign of dysfunction, and of the near-impossibility of addressing problems that require truly public efforts to solve.

 

[Planit]

Local politics suck big time!

 

[imaplanner]

Here is a good read (IMO) about the extreme hypocrisy of the right as of late. It examines the 2003 medicare part D entitlement expansion and statement/actions of current republican leaders then and now.

 

[Bear Up North]

John Mellencamp is being touted as a candidate for what will be an open Senate seat from the state of Indiana. Interesting. Small town guy. Loves farmers. Popular entertainer. Might be a tough opponent for any "Tea Party" candidate.

Think about the number of celebrity-types that have been elected to office. Here are a few.....

Ronald Ray-Gunz
Jesse Ventura
That dude from Love Boat
Sonny Bono
Al Franken

As always, complimentary vid.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOfkpu6749w

Bear

 

[Hink]

I think it is funny that drudgereport and other conservative blogs are going crazy that Scott Brown voted for the Jobs Bill. If you think for a minute, he is voting for his constituency and not for his party. Why would you get mad at him for that? Isn't that his job? Those who felt that his election was a win for the R's are the one's who are trying to widen the crater between parties. He was elected because he was the better candidate. I am glad to see that he isn't bending like other newly elected officials.

I think I could like this guy. Good for you Scott Brown.

 

[Maister]

If you think for a minute, he is voting for his constituency and not for his party. Why would you get mad at him for that?

A legislator can either vote in accord with his conscience, his party, or his constituency. All of these are a correct basis....and an incorrect basis. A Democratic politician in Berkeley, CA or a Republican politician in Bismark, ND have it easy as all three are probably synonymous. Folks holding public office in less politically homogenous places have a tougher job.

 

[fringe]

"...Think about the number of celebrity-types that have been elected to office. Here are a few....."

Don't forget St. Ronald of Reagan.

 

[TexanOkie]

[OT]

"...Think about the number of celebrity-types that have been elected to office. Here are a few....."

Don't forget St. Ronald of Reagan.

We (conservatives) prefer the title "Ronaldus Magnus"... [/OT]

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

For all the state's rights people......

Gov. Mitch Daniels: States must tighten their belts even more
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who ran the US government’s budget office for George W. Bush, says all 50 states will need to permanently tighten their belts – and, thus, do less for citizens.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels expects that the 50 states will need to permanently tighten their belts.


By Dave Cook Staff writer / February 23, 2010

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who ran the US government’s budget office for George W. Bush, expects that the 50 states will need to permanently tighten their belts and do less for their citizens.

Because of the economic contraction, the Republican governor foresees “a long-term contraction in the scope of what states are doing,” he said at a Monitor-sponsored breakfast for reporters on Tuesday.

New report on state revenues
The recession without doubt has left states in financial trouble, as tax collections have fallen. (The Monitor writes about states facing the severest problems here.) State tax revenues declined 4.1 percent nationwide during the final three months of 2009, according to a new report by the Rockefeller Institute of Government.

Five straight quarters of year-over-year decline set a record, the Institute said, with both income-tax and sales-tax revenue falling during the entire five-quarter period.

When a recovery comes, Governor Daniels says, “states cannot expect the sort of rapid snap back in revenues that had been the case in the past.” The reason, he argues, is that in the past Americans “spent more than they took in. They borrowed on their credit card, against the paper value of their house – things they won’t be able to do or won’t do going forward.” As a result, he says, “consumption is going to be at permanently lower levels.”

States to feel consumers' caution
Greater consumer caution on spending will mean less tax revenue for states. “States get most of their most of their money, the largest piece I should say, from sales taxes,” Daniels says.

As a result, the expected economic recovery will not solve states’ budgetary woes. “Yes, revenues will start to rise again, let's hope, but they will not get back on the trend line as they had in previous recessions,” he says.

“For states," Daniels wrote in a recent op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, “the real world is about to arrive.”

The Feds get involved because of this sort of thing.

 

[Hink]

The Feds get involved because of this sort of thing.

I foresee this being the entry point to discussion about our tax code. If they are not bringing in enough taxes from people and we have actually changed the way we operate with money, the fed is going to have to reevaluate how we are taxed.

I am all for lower taxes, etc., etc. but in the end the government will get their taxes. Live in Florida and pay NO INCOME taxes... but get taxed out the a$$ for property taxes... the same can be said for many places. If the government isn't getting the taxes they need, they will find a way to get it done.

I think in this time of people hating government, raising taxes is going to be a tough pill to swallow for a lot of people. Maybe it will be a starting point to relook at how we tax, what we tax, and the system that facilitates this. Fair Tax anyone?

 

[imaplanner]

I foresee this being the entry point to discussion about our tax code. If they are not bringing in enough taxes from people and we have actually changed the way we operate with money, the fed is going to have to reevaluate how we are taxed.

I am all for lower taxes, etc., etc. but in the end the government will get their taxes. Live in Florida and pay NO INCOME taxes... but get taxed out the a$$ for property taxes... the same can be said for many places. If the government isn't getting the taxes they need, they will find a way to get it done.

I think in this time of people hating government, raising taxes is going to be a tough pill to swallow for a lot of people. Maybe it will be a starting point to relook at how we tax, what we tax, and the system that facilitates this. Fair Tax anyone?

A fair tax would be horribly regressive. The problem is not so much with our tax system- but primarily with the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Here is a nice pretty graph that clearly shows where the problem really started.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/federal-spending-growing-faster-than-federal-revenue.aspx

 

[mgk920]

A fair tax would be horribly regressive. The problem is not so much with our tax system- but primarily with the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Here is a nice pretty graph that clearly shows where the problem really started.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/federal-spending-growing-faster-than-federal-revenue.aspx

I *HATE* the terms 'progressive' and 'regressive' in regards to taxation - they do nothing but play into the class-envy line of politics. (BTW, for you religious types, 'envy' is one of the cardinal sins of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ox nor (donkey) nor any other thing".)

One of the biggest problems with highly 'progressive' tax schemes (besides their very real disincentives for people to succeed) is that they are unreliable sources of revenue to the extreme - if the 'filthy rich' are not earning anything (or are - gasp :-c - losing money), they are *NOT* paying any high-rate income taxes - and this current recession has been HAMMERING the upper classes. If you will note, most states and the feds are now seeing fairly steep drops in tax revenues with the steepest percentage drops being in the jurisdictions with the most 'progressive' rate charts.

I also *HATE* the complexity and intrusiveness of the Internal Revenue Code - I can't make heads or tails out of most of it, to the point that my eyes simply start to glass over whenever I start pondering it and when I start getting ready to fill out the forms.

BTW, as I have read it, the 'Fairtax' proposal totally ignores income and does not tax spending up to the poverty level (flat rate on spending above the poverty level) - so it *does* have a level of that 'progressivity' that many desire. And the BIG reason why many pols don't like it is because the income tax gives them near total control over average peoples' lives by rewarding and punishing their pet causes, while the Fairtax would eliminate all of that.

Mike

 

[hilldweller]

I foresee this being the entry point to discussion about our tax code. If they are not bringing in enough taxes from people and we have actually changed the way we operate with money, the fed is going to have to reevaluate how we are taxed.

I am all for lower taxes, etc., etc. but in the end the government will get their taxes. Live in Florida and pay NO INCOME taxes... but get taxed out the a$$ for property taxes... the same can be said for many places. If the government isn't getting the taxes they need, they will find a way to get it done.

I think in this time of people hating government, raising taxes is going to be a tough pill to swallow for a lot of people. Maybe it will be a starting point to relook at how we tax, what we tax, and the system that facilitates this. Fair Tax anyone?

Agree that governments will get what they needs in terms of taxes, and then some. The problem is that they'll never stop taxing because of the need to support all the inefficient/wasteful programs and services that are politically impossible to cut. Look at NY and CA, pretty much two states that are on the brink of failure because of the inability to cut spending, largely due to a lack of political will but also due to structural problems like labor agreements and in CA's case the stupid referendum system.

 

[arcplans]

One of the biggest problems with highly 'progressive' tax schemes (besides their very real disincentives for people to succeed) is that they are unreliable sources of revenue to the extreme - if the 'filthy rich' are not earning anything (or are - gasp :-c - losing money), they are *NOT* paying any high-rate income taxes

Mike, I completely agree:-c. California, the wackiest of tax states, is getting hammered to the bone because a) our property tax system is broken b) local munis have to rely on sales tax for revenue, and with little consumer spending, especially on big ticket items, means less revenue and c) our state budget relies heavily on the progressive income tax system and capital gains that this state goes through massive booms and busts.

Should we review our tax system at the federal level: absolutely. While i like the idea of the flat tax or even a federal sales tax or additional taxes on "sin" items for targeted expenditures (i.e. increase in fuel/cigs to pay for roads or help pay for healthcare), something still needs to get done to revamp our tax system to make it less complicated.

I do foresee an income tax increase within the next two to three years (besides the expiration of GW's tax cuts) to help close the deficit. Spending alone will not close our existing gap and I wish more americans would actually take a look at entitlement spending and realize we are in load of trouble soon without an increase in revenue.

 

[imaplanner]

One of the biggest problems with highly 'progressive' tax schemes (besides their very real disincentives for people to succeed) is that they are unreliable sources of revenue to the extreme - if the 'filthy rich' are not earning anything (or are - gasp :-c - losing money), they are *NOT* paying any high-rate income taxes - and this current recession has been HAMMERING the upper classes. If you will note, most states and the feds are now seeing fairly steep drops in tax revenues with the steepest percentage drops being in the jurisdictions with the most 'progressive' rate charts.

Here is a good little article about the difference in how the upper and lower classes have been hit by the recession (see the linked study in the article for more data). I'm not so sure that the data supports your contention that the recession is hammering the upper classes.

Mike, I completely agree. California, the wackiest of tax states, is getting hammered to the bone because a) our property tax system is broken b) local munis have to rely on sales tax for revenue, and with little consumer spending, especially on big ticket items, means less revenue and c) our state budget relies heavily on the progressive income tax system and capital gains that this state goes through massive booms and busts.

Should we review our tax system at the federal level: absolutely. While i like the idea of the flat tax or even a federal sales tax or additional taxes on "sin" items for targeted expenditures (i.e. increase in fuel/cigs to pay for roads or help pay for healthcare), something still needs to get done to revamp our tax system to make it less complicated.
.

Interesting take on California- has the income revenue gone dramatically down in Cali or is it more of a spending problem (hasn't Cali seriously outspent their revenues for years and its final;ly come home to roost?). You mention the property tax system being broken- but isn't the primary reason for the broken prop tax the fact that many wealthy property owners pay extremely low property tax due to prop (19 is it?). So in a sense the property tax system in California is extremely regressive?

 

[arcplans]

Interesting take on California- has the income revenue gone dramatically down in Cali or is it more of a spending problem (hasn't Cali seriously outspent their revenues for years and its final;ly come home to roost?). You mention the property tax system being broken- but isn't the primary reason for the broken prop tax the fact that many wealthy property owners pay extremely low property tax due to prop (19 is it?). So in a sense the property tax system in California is extremely regressive?

It's a combination of everything imo.

[OT]sorry to discuss one state here, but it's like we are a mini science experiment over here[/OT]

Since the beginning of the recession, state income tax revenues are in the toilet and are dramatically down.

State spending is up, however that is due in large part to ridiculous voter referendums such as requiring 40% of General Revenue Fund dedicated to schools, Three strike laws incarcerating millions of prisoners now and the $$ to house, feed, etc, bond spending on everything from parks, schools, infrastructure. So yes, it is up, but only thanks to the people of this state, a point many republicans, demos, and tea baggers seems to miss. Our state ranks at the bottom of per pupil spending (when you spend more on prisons than schools something is amiss imo), and medicare and other federal sponsored programs where states contribute to the costs are now at the minimum that any further cuts in the next budget will jeopardize federal funding to many programs.

Property taxes are another thorny issue. Prop 13 kept property taxes in check, however when you can no longer increase them without a 2/3 majority vote of residents, nothing ever happens at the local level (where property taxes previously funded such things as parks, schools, infrastructure, etc.). I say it is broken because it mainly benefits the elderly or those the remain the same address with little to no increases each year (max 2% per year). Property taxes only increase upon sale of a home. Property taxes can decrease yearly (as they have the last 2 years) when each county assessor must asses property values and pass the rate decrease to homeowners. Case in point:

My parents have lived in their house since 1985. Their property taxes are a little under $600 a year. His next door neighbor has the same exact house, uses all services by the county (wsg/local schools) and is taxed about $2000 a year due to him buying the house in 2001. When my parents pass on, the house goes into a trust between my brother and I. Since it is willed to us, our tax liability remains the same at $600 a year. So this proposition doesn't benefit neither rich nor poor, just those that stick around a long time. Does this make any sense?

Cities/Counties then to make up the shortfall relied on sales tax. So, our sales tax is heavy (as much as 9.5% in cities like San Francisco). When people don't buy stuff, then local municipalities suffer and so does the state because they take a percentage as well (hence the muni layoffs/hiring freezes)

Then we have the whole state worker union thing to which is in the news, but to me doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot of beans simply because the real issue is pension pay and benefits which many states face anyways and how to deal with rising costs of worker retirements.

All in all (like the federal government) we can't just cut the state budget to close a deficit nor can we tax everybody. It has to be a combination of everything to get this state back on track and good ol' fashioned constitutional convention to dump the referendum process.. ...


I'm CPSURaf and I approved this message

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

There is always the VAT system that would be comparable to Europes on a 1:1 level. Then we could REALLY get at their subsidies in the world court.

All taxes suck, get over it.

Even more importantly, we could really cut our military spending in half. 59% of the total US budget in 2008? (not including the actual cost of 2 wars simultaneously). That is 10 times any other singular expenditure in our budget. That is where our cost savings needs to come from.

Our military budget was 2.5 times the spending as the EU in 2008 or 48% of the worlds military spending (not including the actual cost of 2 wars simultaneously). 6 times that of China. REALLY?

Want to blame our spending issues on domestic spending? Stupid and idiotic for starters. Yeah, you know who you are.

 

[Hink]

There is always the VAT system that would be comparable to Europes on a 1:1 level. Then we could REALLY get at their subsidies in the world court.

All taxes suck, get over it.

Even more importantly, we could really cut our military spending in half. 59% of the total US budget in 2008? (not including the actual cost of 2 wars simultaneously). That is 10 times any other singular expenditure in our budget. That is where our cost savings needs to come from.

Our military budget was 2.5 times the spending as the EU in 2008 or 48% of the worlds military spending (not including the actual cost of 2 wars simultaneously). 6 times that of China. REALLY?

Want to blame our spending issues on domestic spending? Stupid and idiotic for starters. Yeah, you know who you are.

Clinton balanced the budget by doing exactly that. Do I agree that it is the best method, no. But I don't think that it should be off the table as many have stated. Entitlements and military spending are the real reason for our debt, not the many smaller programs that they are looking at cutting.

I am hoping that they will focus on how taxes are generated instead of just cutting everything. A flat tax doesn't make sense, but the Fair Tax or some similar progressive use tax to me is the best way to deal with this. Simplify the process, keep money in peoples pockets, and make it more of a balanced deal for everyone.

I think the Military spending and Entitlement spending, which are now scared lambs, will be put on the table soon enough. Either we have the money to start wars, support millions of baby boomers retirements and healthcare, or we don't. At some point we have to deal with the real problems and it will probably make a lot of people mad. But I can't imagine it would make them anymore mad than they are about issues that don't even exist (Obama's birth certificate? Taxation without Representation? Huh?).

 

[TexanOkie]

TEven more importantly, we could really cut our military spending in half. 59% of the total US budget in 2008? (not including the actual cost of 2 wars simultaneously). That is 10 times any other singular expenditure in our budget. That is where our cost savings needs to come from.

Our military budget was 2.5 times the spending as the EU in 2008 or 48% of the worlds military spending (not including the actual cost of 2 wars simultaneously). 6 times that of China. REALLY?

Hey, if it's possible to cut military spending while maintaining the same level of service, I'm sure people would be all for it. If you ask them to cut military expenses by cutting defensive capabilities, then good luck on that one. Even without the defense industry lobby, I doubt you'd be able to sell that one.

 

[Gedunker]

Hey, if it's possible to cut military spending while maintaining the same level of service, I'm sure people would be all for it. If you ask them to cut military expenses by cutting defensive capabilities, then good luck on that one. Even without the defense industry lobby, I doubt you'd be able to sell that one.

Ending budget-busting defense spending such as the F-22 Raptor is one example of getting the defense budget back in line without hurting defense capabilities. I'm sure other examples exist.

[OT]The Raptor was at last year's Thunder Over Louisville airshow. It is the most incredible aircraft! Relic of the Cold War, true enough, but oh man, what a jet!:h:[/OT]

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Hey, if it's possible to cut military spending while maintaining the same level of service, I'm sure people would be all for it. If you ask them to cut military expenses by cutting defensive capabilities, then good luck on that one. Even without the defense industry lobby, I doubt you'd be able to sell that one.

Define "Level of Service" Does that include starting wars of choice?

It would seem that China does fine protecting its trade routes with 1/8 of the budget (much less actually, as most of their force is a land force.) Which is what the primary requirement of our military is.

When constitutionalists start to suggest that the government should do what normal people do, ask yourselves. Do you really expect the average person in the country really understands they are supposed to be spending 58% of their income on guns and bullets? Really?

We spend enough on the military to beat up on everyone else combined. That's not enough? We had to gut NASA (Easily the next generation of weapons will need to militarize space to make the shiny toys worth something). Constantly under invest in our education system (the military complains all the time it is short of competently educated troops). All you can say is "Good luck with that".

Conservatives need to start asking yourselves weather you want a competent defense now that the bills are coming do, or you won't be able to defend yourselves at all. Notice that our national bond rating is about to get cut in status. The military is the ONLY place short of raising taxes where the biggest dent can be made. We do a little now or a lot later.

 

[imaplanner]

As if we needed any more evidence of the fact congressional republicans would rather score cheap political points regardless of what it does to the country.

A $15 billion jobs bill was overwhelmingly approved in the U.S. Senate today, thanks to the votes of 13 Republicans. But as Mike Memoli notes, just five of those senators supported a cloture motion earlier this week which allowed the bill to come to the floor for a final up-or-down vote.

The senators who voted to filibuster but then supported the bill: Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Thad Cochran (R-MS), James Inhofe (R-OK), George LeMieux (R-FL), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) hadn't voted at all on the cloture motion but supported it today

 

[CJC]

Interesting take on California- has the income revenue gone dramatically down in Cali or is it more of a spending problem (hasn't Cali seriously outspent their revenues for years and its final;ly come home to roost?). You mention the property tax system being broken- but isn't the primary reason for the broken prop tax the fact that many wealthy property owners pay extremely low property tax due to prop (19 is it?). So in a sense the property tax system in California is extremely regressive?

There are a lot of different issues at play (horrible labor agreements, ridiculous gerrymandering, etc), but the by FAR the largest issue with everything that is wrong with California today is the poor incentive structure put into place by prop 13 and subsequent related props (like prop 58 that CPSURaf alluded to).

In spite of it originally coming from a supposed "conservative" group, it's had the effect of concentrating more and more power at the state-level and away from cities/counties, it discourages any and all residential construction except in complete greenfield areas (and even then, there's not much incentive), it encourages commercial construction EVERYWHERE, at the expense of everything else (which is why you see Bay Area and LA area cities scrambling over each other to zone more and more commercial land without ever approving a single additional residential unit), and it discourages properties from being used for their highest use.

The other problems are all minor (with most having their root cause in prop 13 in some way - usually as a way to game the system after prop 13 was put into place, or as a way to try and minimize the problems inherent in prop 13) in comparison.