Politics

[PraetorianND]

Yes - Libs have used those to bloat federal government and infringe our liberty quite effectively over the last 200 years. Nothing can ever be undone, only piled on?

Both liberals and conservatives have voted to create federal laws that would seem to overstep the constitution if not for being justified by the commerce clause. Liberals (democrats) by themselves cannot create laws.

 

[PraetorianND]

They sure as hell can if they hold the majority in the house and senate. See = obamacare. Not one Republican voted for it.

No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[tadman95]

Let me ask you the flip side.....is it okay to bring down some to make sure we are collectively more equal?

I agree that no regulation would be needed in a perfect world, but this world is far from perfect. My personal view is that we spend more time focusing on how to bring the bottom closer to the top rather than looking at how to push the top even higher. Agree everyone needs a strong education, but the more we focus on education equality the more likely our top continue to get passed over on a worldwide scale. We need to focus on doing both.

Fair question. In principle, no. I reality, yep. Do you think someone making $8 an hour has equal access to congress to create special tax exemptions for themselves as the more influential do? Of course not. The contention that every person is responsible for themselves, while true and admirable, falls short when a certain few can influence the conditions of others. Someone has to stand up for the protection of the less fortunate and that is going to be a government. For better or worse it's what we have.

I disagree about spending more time on bringing the bottom closer to the top. It's an election time and it's good political fodder. The growing gap between the top and the bottom, and the shrinking middle class, says other wise.

Education is one of many such topics. This notion that the states and private enterprise can do the job better, more efficiently than the federal government just rings hollow to me. Sure there are plenty of examples that can be cited to support that but the simple fact is the federal government became involved because the states and private enterprise wouldn't or couldn't handle it themselves.

I'm actually a pretty conservative person believe it or not. I'm just tired of the crap that is thrown out (not yours in this case) in the name of conservatism. We focus on the 47%, entitlements and such but we ignore the enormous debt relief we give to special interests. Does anyone think GE should pay no taxes on $5 Billion on profits? Shouldn't they have to stand up by themselves also? Just sayin.

 

[PraetorianND]

Touche - Hearing Condi Rice blather on education at a conference last year made me want to puke.

These are reasons I identify myself more and more as libertarian than republican. I will never register as a republican. Right wing social engineering is no better than left wing social engineering, and both are horribly ineffective at their desired goals on top of it.

I'm completely on board with this.

 

[RDU Irish]

Vote Gary Johnson

I would if I were in TX, NY, CA or any other number of states that were not in question. Johnson is a goof, but I appreciate what he stands for. My hope is Rand Paul can take over this mantle with a more moderate approach.

Plus, I think establishment republicans hate Romney b/c he has a better head on his shoulders than the average knucklehead they prefer to carry water for. He has convinced me that I can vote FOR him, not just vote against Obama (which I would not hesitate to do either).

 

[Ndaccountant]

Fair question. In principle, no. I reality, yep. Do you think someone making $8 an hour has equal access to congress to create special tax exemptions for themselves as the more influential do? Of course not. The contention that every person is responsible for themselves, while true and admirable, falls short when a certain few can influence the conditions of others. Someone has to stand up for the protection of the less fortunate and that is going to be a government. For better or worse it's what we have.

I disagree about spending more time on bringing the bottom closer to the top. It's an election time and it's good political fodder. The growing gap between the top and the bottom, and the shrinking middle class, says other wise.

Education is one of many such topics. This notion that the states and private enterprise can do the job better, more efficiently than the federal government just rings hollow to me. Sure there are plenty of examples that can be cited to support that but the simple fact is the federal government became involved because the states and private enterprise wouldn't or couldn't handle it themselves.

I'm actually a pretty conservative person believe it or not. I'm just tired of the crap that is thrown out (not yours in this case) in the name of conservatism. We focus on the 47%, entitlements and such but we ignore the enormous debt relief we give to special interests. Does anyone think GE should pay no taxes on $5 Billion on profits? Shouldn't they have to stand up by themselves also? Just sayin.

The first line sounds like discontentment with politics, not with policy. I think as a country we need to make this distinction more clear since we often allow process to influence what we believe is the best outcome. You are correct that each voice should be heard equally. However, the more the gov't takes control, the more opportunity there is for "outside influence".

The last sentence I found interesting. I have felt much of the anger (not you, just in general) comes from constant reminders of what others are doing. Take gas prices as an example. We hear non stop moaning on how the big bad oil companies are so rich and don't need the tax breaks, etc. Exxon's profit margin ranged from 7-9% over 2011. Apple's ranged from 24% to 28% for 2011 depending on which quarter you look at. Now, which is more absurd? IMO, the fact we have to see gas prices daily and pay it frequently generates the hate where as we buy an apple product once every so often. in 2011 its estimated exxon paid 13% tax rate on us income, while Apple paid about 11%. Should we lump Apple with Exxon? Based on the numbers, we should hate Apple more. It just that we don't see that reminder of how much an I-phone costs every day as we pass intersections.

 

[tadman95]

The first line sounds like discontentment with politics, not with policy. I think as a country we need to make this distinction more clear since we often allow process to influence what we believe is the best outcome. You are correct that each voice should be heard equally. However, the more the gov't takes control, the more opportunity there is for "outside influence".

The last sentence I found interesting. I have felt much of the anger (not you, just in general) comes from constant reminders of what others are doing. Take gas prices as an example. We hear non stop moaning on how the big bad oil companies are so rich and don't need the tax breaks, etc. Exxon's profit margin ranged from 7-9% over 2011. Apple's ranged from 24% to 28% for 2011 depending on which quarter you look at. Now, which is more absurd? IMO, the fact we have to see gas prices daily and pay it frequently generates the hate where as we buy an apple product once every so often. in 2011 its estimated exxon paid 13% tax rate on us income, while Apple paid about 11%. Should we lump Apple with Exxon? Based on the numbers, we should hate Apple more. It just that we don't see that reminder of how much an I-phone costs every day as we pass intersections.

First Bold: I agree with that but at the end of the day the process is still stacked and steps have to be taken to try and keep in some reasonable balance, large or small government.

Second Bold: It's not a function of profit to me. Using GE again, they enjoyed the protection of our government and our borders. They enjoyed participating in the world's largest economy made possible in part by the taxes paid by the $20,000/year service person. They gained less fettered access to a government they don't pay for. Don't see the fairness in that.

My objection is that focusing on the "entitlements" of the individual while ignoring those same "entitlements" to business is wrong. If a business can't compete without handouts, too bad. If a person can't compete, we, as a society can at least try to provide a level playing field.

I am not defending all of the personal entitlements, certainly there are abuses but to only address one side of the question is wrong in my opinion.

 

[ND NYC]

Let me ask you the flip side.....is it okay to bring down some to make sure we are collectively more equal?

I agree that no regulation would be needed in a perfect world, but this world is far from perfect. My personal view is that we spend more time focusing on how to bring the bottom closer to the top rather than looking at how to push the top even higher. Agree everyone needs a strong education, but the more we focus on education equality the more likely our top continue to get passed over on a worldwide scale. We need to focus on doing both.

the "top" as you put it are doing just fine.
how much is enough for these people...for you?

see: income equality gap charts since Reagan earlier in thread.

 

[Downinthebend]

I think the role of government is greater than the libertarian POV (not sure if you are or not, just saying). I believe the government does have a responsibility to ensure that those at the bottom are not left out entirely and are given opportunities. School, paved roads, energy, are all roles of the government. As i stated, any law can be taken advantage of but just because some take advantage of unemployment does not mean everyone should suffer. You also say the government has no role in welfare than say its OK for them to give tax breaks for hedge funds. That's welfare, that's a handout. Everyone, including you benefit from a government program. Scholarship money, sick leave, food stamps, school lunches, etc.

I do agree with you concerning Obama's use of drone's. Any adult male killed by drones is labeled a terrorist which is why civilian casualties are so low. The NDA Act is complete BS. No one should be held indefinitely without trial. I think that is a scary precedent and am ashamed the President did not veto it.

I actually missed this earlier, so I'll just hit on one point I want to make. I don't believe that the gov giving tax breaks is welfare, they aren't giving you money just taking less of your money.

 

[Downinthebend]

Obama schooled Romney on foreign policy by exposing, once again, his flipflopping nature on multiple issues. The "battleship" comment was priceless, and it also revealed Romney as out of his league when it comes to being commander in chief. Best line of the night was the military policies of the 1980s, social policies of the 1950s and economic policies of the 1920s. Was it just me or was Romney sweating like Nixon in the 1960 debate?

You do realize that their foreign policy views are essentially the same, their economic views are fairly close (same economic theory) and their social policies are essentially the same.

 

[Downinthebend]

I'm hard pressed to see how 50 states having 50 different ideas of how to run and pay for school systems or 50 different energy policies is good idea. The inequities and/or differences in priorities by states would be tremendous. There simply has to a standard bearer to have some semblance of equality for the country as a whole. as imperfect as it sometimes.

Trying to use the Constitution as justification to do away with these systems/protections is short sighted at best IMO.

I'll ignore the first comment (although I disagree with it). Ok, what should I use instead of the constitution? Why use any laws? Lets all just use common sense.

 

[ND NYC]

You do realize that their foreign policy views are essentially the same, their economic views are fairly close (same economic theory) and their social policies are essentially the same.

then why are we here

 

[Downinthebend]

then why are we here

There are more than two candidates.

 

[ND NYC]

Polish Leppy:
wondering if you can clear your calendar to get down to DC and teach our president about the US Constitution.

one would think after doing his undergrad at Columbia, then attending and graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law school, being editor and president of the Harvard Law Review, followed by teaching constitutional law at Chicago Law School for 8 years he would somehow, someway understand it by now.

 

[irishpat183]

the "top" as you put it are doing just fine.
how much is enough for these people...for you?

see: income equality gap charts since Reagan earlier in thread.

That is not your decision to make, nor is it our governments. Dead wrong on that one.

This is where liberals sound like jealous children.

 

[irishpat183]

Polish Leppy:
wondering if you can clear your calendar to get down to DC and teach our president about the US Constitution.

one would think after doing his undergrad at Columbia, then attending and graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law school, being editor and president of the Harvard Law Review, followed by teaching constitutional law at Chicago Law School for 8 years he would somehow, someway understand it by now.

LOL....as if attending those universities (or any for that matter) make you a smart person or an expert on anything. And Columbia is a liberal arts college....a joke.


And I see all those education accolades....but what about his work history?


I'm not saying he's a dumb person, but flashing degrees doesn't mean you're an expert.

 

[PraetorianND]

You do realize that their foreign policy views are essentially the same, their economic views are fairly close (same economic theory) and their social policies are essentially the same.

At what point in the race? 2008 primary Romney's policies were completely different than during the 2012 primary. Now that he has is repping the GOP he is completely different than during either primary.

As Mass Gov. - Moderate/Left Leaning
2008 Primary - Moderate
2012 Primary - "Severely Conservative" - his own words
2012 Prez - Moderate

I don't really want to go into specifics on these changes because there are many and I don't really feel like arguing a million points.

The lack of consistency is a huge problem for me. He clearly swung very hard right during the primary to get the nomination and now he's swung back to the middle to try to win the presidency. The guy will say anything to win. That's scary.

Here is the transition between 2012 Primary and Presidential as an example:
It all shows: debates do matter in 2012 - CNN.com

 

[PraetorianND]

Ya, because killing american citizens without a trial is certainly in the constitution.



Everything you said (the inconsistency) can be said of Obama 2008 to now.

When was Obama "Severely Conservative?"

How did Obama's views change from the primary to now???

Romney went from hard right to dead middle in a few weeks. Seriously? It's outrageous. I'm amazed that ANYONE is going to vote for him. He is clearly saying exactly what his campaign advisers want him too. He doesn't stand for anything at all. A guy who will change his positions from hard right to middle three months before the election should not be taken seriously as a candidate.

Do you even know what deductions he is going to close? Do you have a mortgage? Do you have health care costs that you're getting a deduction for? Are you factoring those things into your budget? Because who knows if you'll have them if Romney takes office.

 

[Ndaccountant]

the "top" as you put it are doing just fine.
how much is enough for these people...for you?

see: income equality gap charts since Reagan earlier in thread.

Not sure if you knew the context behind that post, but it was related to education and I could not disagree more. We need to push targets higher. The top end of our education system is no longer producing the best and the brightest. I agree we need to help those that are not as smart and make sure they get an education that they deserve, but I fundementally disagree with the fact that we have level the playing field by pushing the top downward.

 

[tadman95]

I'll ignore the first comment (although I disagree with it). Ok, what should I use instead of the constitution? Why use any laws? Lets all just use common sense.

Of course we use the Constitution but a lot has happened since it's inception and a lot of additional laws and rulings have broadened it's scope. Do we go back to the original constitution? Where do we stop?

Have you ever thought about the impact of what you proposing? I mean really thought through it long term?

I appreciate your convictions, would even say that yours is a needed voice. I just think it's unrealistic and will further divide the republic.

 

[ND NYC]

That is not your decision to make, nor is it our governments. Dead wrong on that one.

This is where liberals sound like jealous children.

i may well not be mine, i dont disagree there...but it sure as hell IS the governments.
our governmet has decided to lower tax rates on "the top" for a long long time now.

when reagan took office:

the top federal income tax bracket paid 69% on income over $220,000.
the lowest bracket paid federal income tax of 13.8% on all income up to $2,100.

look where we are today:

in 2011 the top federal income tax bracket pays 35% on income over $379,150
the lowest federal income tax bracket pays 10% on income up to $10,000.


so that a 34% reduction in tax rates paid by "the top" since 1980.
and a 3.8% reduction for "the bottom"

note: capital gains when reagan took office 28%. 2011: 15%

and so i will ask my question again:

how much more of a reduction do these folks need?

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

I'm wondering how you Libertarian leaning fellas feel about...say drugs?

 

[PraetorianND]

That is not your decision to make, nor is it our governments. Dead wrong on that one.

This is where liberals sound like jealous children.

Conservatives that don't want to share sound like immature children to me.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Polish Leppy:
wondering if you can clear your calendar to get down to DC and teach our president about the US Constitution.

one would think after doing his undergrad at Columbia, then attending and graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law school, being editor and president of the Harvard Law Review, followed by teaching constitutional law at Chicago Law School for 8 years he would somehow, someway understand it by now.

If he paid me, sure I would. Your attempts at sarcasm and humor are about as productive as Obama's comments on bayonets last night.

Like Irish Pat said, degrees from those universities don't impress me. What people do with their degrees and what they produce impresses me. "Community organizing" doesn't qualify a man to be president. Lawyers are a dime a dozen.

1) What kind of grades did Obama get in school? We have no clue. They're sealed.

2) He studied the Constitution and knows exactly what he can do to it so that it doesn't get in his way of his "fundamental transformation" of America. It's going perfectly, isn't it?

As I noted earlier, no president (D or R) has the authority to pass laws (or choose NOT to enforce current laws, hello immigration) without the approval of Congress. This president has made it clear that if Congress gets in his way or doesn't do what he wants, he'll act on his own. We've seen it.

This is a radical, power hungry leftist hell bent on redistributing wealth and downgrading America and remake it in his image. Good thing he's got the public endorsement of all of America's enemies too...Putin, Chavez, Castro, etc.

 

[tadman95]

If he paid me, sure I would. Your attempts at sarcasm and humor are about as productive as Obama's comments on bayonets last night.

Like Irish Pat said, degrees from those universities don't impress me. What people do with their degrees and what they produce impresses me. "Community organizing" doesn't qualify a man to be president. Lawyers are a dime a dozen.

1) What kind of grades did Obama get in school? We have no clue. They're sealed.

2) He studied the Constitution and knows exactly what he can do to it so that it doesn't get in his way of his "fundamental transformation" of America. It's going perfectly, isn't it?

As I noted earlier, no president (D or R) has the authority to pass laws (or choose NOT to enforce current laws, hello immigration) without the approval of Congress. This president has made it clear that if Congress gets in his way or doesn't do what he wants, he'll act on his own. We've seen it.

This is a radical, power hungry leftist hell bent on redistributing wealth and downgrading America and remake it in his image. Good thing he's got the public endorsement of all of America's enemies too...Putin, Chavez, Castro, etc.

You apparently took these convictions up in the last four years because Bush/Cheney would have driven you nuts?!

 

[PraetorianND]

You apparently took these convictions up in the last four year because Bush/Cheney would have driven you nuts?!

We were only in Iraq for like 90 days.. It's all good.

 

[Downinthebend]

Of course we use the Constitution but a lot has happened since it's inception and a lot of additional laws and rulings have broadened it's scope. Do we go back to the original constitution? Where do we stop?

Have you ever thought about the impact of what you proposing? I mean really thought through it long term?

I appreciate your convictions, would even say that yours is a needed voice. I just think it's unrealistic and will further divide the republic.

If you want to change the constitution, there is a clear cut method for doing that.

I'm wondering how you Libertarian leaning fellas feel about...say drugs?

Why should people be protected from themselves?

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

I thought Libertarian minded folk would think first of the dealer. I mean he runs a business like any other businessman.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I'm wondering how you Libertarian leaning fellas feel about...say drugs?

legalize and tax the ever living hell out of it, like booze, smokes and gas.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

legalize and tax the ever living hell out of it, like booze, smokes and gas.

Prostitutes?